From mstainsby at tao.ca Thu May 1 00:56:01 2003 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] Saddam's letter References: <000501c30f99$7dafec00$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <008701c30fae$a31d5300$20fa5718@comintern> Bob: Can you supply us with an url? Macdonald From bobenoch at shaw.ca Thu May 1 01:25:02 2003 From: bobenoch at shaw.ca (Bob Enoch) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] Saddam's letter References: <000501c30f99$7dafec00$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> <008701c30fae$a31d5300$20fa5718@comintern> Message-ID: <000d01c30fb1$a95d5500$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> http://www.freearabvoice.org/Iraq/Report/report09.html From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Thu May 1 02:02:02 2003 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (James Daly) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] welcome to Sabri Message-ID: <003b01c30fb7$f5584360$bd106351@D2RH1H0J> From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Thu May 1 02:09:01 2003 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (James Daly) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] welcome to Sabri Message-ID: <004b01c30fb8$dab1a460$bd106351@D2RH1H0J> Dear Sabri May Day greetings in the spirit of Yunus Emre, and welcome as co-moderator of A-list. James PS slip of the finger! From hliu at mindspring.com Thu May 1 11:35:02 2003 From: hliu at mindspring.com (Henry C.K. Liu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] Speed is King Message-ID: <3EB15AB7.6080409@mindspring.com> There is a war brewing for sometime now between established exchanges, such as NYSE, and elctronic trading networks. Despite modernization, the NYSE still requires 21 seconds to execute an order, while the latest electronic system can do it in one tenth of a second. This is of great significant for program trading and arbitrageurs. Fortune can be won and lost in a couple of seconds. In the War on Iraq, it took some 15 minutes from the time a target was identified to its being hit by cruise missiles, and it missed the target twice. The day will come when interest will be calculated and compounded in intervals of seconds rather than days. Already electronic bill-paying is taking away the advantage of floats. Henry C.K. Liu From annewilliamson at msn.com Thu May 1 17:53:02 2003 From: annewilliamson at msn.com (annewilliamson) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] Argentina: Presidential Elections Run-Off References: <004b01c30e50$2a4f04a0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> <01b301c30e60$a7688500$c9b7fea9@anne> <004401c30f7a$d2f368a0$6d0f38d2@k6n2c2> Message-ID: <012901c30fe3$30c7d020$c9b7fea9@anne> ================================================================= STRATFOR'S GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT http://www.stratfor.com 30 April 2003 ================================================================= .................................................................. Today's Featured Analysis Two Peronist Candidates Go Head-to-Head in Argentine Runoff Summary Former President Carlos Menem may be the political underdog in Argentina's May 18 presidential elections, although he won the first-round election with 24.6 percent of the vote. His biggest problem is that 70 percent of Argentine voters dislike him intensely, equating his previous governments with widespread corruption and what is commonly perceived as the destruction of the country's economy with free-market policies that did not help most Argentines. Analysis Former President Carlos Menem won the most votes in Argentina's first-round presidential elections on April 27, but he may be the political underdog in the May 18 runoff election against Nestor Kirchner. Although Menem won 24.6 percent of the vote compared with Kirchner's 22 percent, the former president's negative ratings among voters top 70 percent while Kirchner's are in single digits, according to some recent surveys. This lopsidedness between two Justicialist Party (PJ) members -- who call themselves "peronists" -- suggest that Menem may have to campaign very hard in the next two weeks to win more votes. Menem already has shaken up his campaign team, announced a proposed Cabinet that would include many "new faces" in Argentine politics, and has said he will focus on foreign policy, the economy and security issues to define sharp differences between himself and Kirchner, according to Stratfor sources in Buenos Aires. However, Kirchner's low negative ratings among voters suggest that he has considerable room to raise his share of the runoff vote by leveraging widespread dislike for Menem to his advantage and persuading independent voters that his economic policies would be sound. Kirchner also is counting on the strong support of current President Eduardo Duhalde's government to put him over the top on May 18. This support gives Kirchner a strong base in the wealthy province of Buenos Aires, which is Duhalde's political stronghold. Menem and Kirchner also are reaching out to peronist provincial governors in an effort to build political alliances in regions where they fared poorly in the first round vote. Both are courting former San Luis provincial governor Adolfo Rodriguez Saa, and each has offered jobs in their respective future governments to leading peronist governors like Carlos Reutemann of Santa Fe and Eduardo Fellner of Jujuy province, who would be interior minister in Kirchner's government. Menem, who is 72, has pledged to structure a Cabinet that would include many political newcomers; he likely will announce the nominations this week. So far, he has confirmed the appointment of Carlos Melconian, an economist who has written a best-selling book on how to rebuild Argentina, as his pick for economy minister. Menem also named pro-U.S. veteran journalist Jorge Castro as foreign minister. Menem's proposals also unabashedly seek greater economic and political engagement with the United States. Kirchner has promised a Cabinet that would mix honesty, experience and fresh blood in the government. However, his core officials would include current Economy Minister Roberto Lavagna, who would continue in that role, and several other officials currently serving in Duhalde's government. In fact, Duhalde appears to have considerable political influence over Kirchner's proposed ministers, judging by the many officials that would be carried over into the new administration if Kirchner is elected. Kirchner describes his association with Duhalde as a political alliance, but many peronists in Duhalde's faction claim privately that their support for Kirchner is "strongly conditional" to his maintaining good relations with Duhalde. This suggests that Duhalde expects to continue playing a powerful role behind the scenes in Kirchner's government, which likely would lead quickly to political disagreements between the two men. Such tensions could weaken the Argentine government -- which would confront a fragmented Congress in any event. If Kirchner wins the May runoff, Argentina's core economic policies under Duhalde would not undergo significant change. With Lavagna still at the helm of the Economy Ministry, Buenos Aires likely would continue to work with the International Monetary Fund, but progress in restructuring the country's external debt and domestic banking system would plod forward slowly. Menem's economic and security proposals are bolder than Kirchner's and openly pro-market. In effect, Menem represents the most reformist wing of the Peronist Party on economic and trade policy issues. For instance, he has proposed adopting the U.S. dollar as Argentina's national currency, securing a free trade agreement with the United States as quickly as possible and rebuilding close political linkages between the two countries that largely were dissolved under Duhalde. In practical terms, this means that Argentina under Menem would align itself with Washington on every major foreign policy issue of concern to the United States. Menem's closest political allies realize their candidate is at a disadvantage in terms of popularity: He is perceived as having presided over two successive corrupt governments that stole and wasted billions of dollars. However, they are gambling that many voters -- especially in the middle class, which was nearly destroyed by the country's economic collapse in the past several years -- may be persuaded to set aside their personal dislike for Menem and buy into his optimistic vision that Argentina will recapture its lost prosperity if voters elect him president a third time. .................................................................. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6856 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030501/6c044cbf/attachment.txt From bar at idirect.com Thu May 1 17:53:17 2003 From: bar at idirect.com (Christopher Black) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: Fw: [A-List] Saddam's letter Message-ID: <001001c3101a$f062b260$d1029ad8@computer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Enoch" To: Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 12:23 AM Subject: [A-List] Saddam's letter > > Iraqi Resistance Report IX - April 30, 2003 > =========================================== > The following letter, declared to be written by Saddam > Hussein, was published in today's Al Quds Al Arabi: > > -------------------------------------------------- > Al-Quds al-Arabi, London, Wednesday, 30 April 2003 > > Text of a hand written letter from Saddam Hussein. > > > > In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Mercy-giving. > > "They had sworn to God previously that they would not > turn their backs, and an oath to God must be answered > for." [al-Quran, 33:15] > > Iraq, 28 April 2003. > > To the people of great Iraq, to the sons and daughters > of the Arab Nation and Islamic World Community, and to > honorable people everywhere, > > Peace be upon you and the mercy of God and His > blessings! > > As Hulagu entered Baghdad, the criminal Bush has > entered her, causing me great bitter torment, nay more > than my bitter torment. > > They were not victorious over you, you who reject > occupation and humiliation, who hold Arabism and Islam > in your hearts and minds, they were not victorious > over you except by treachery. > > And by God it is not a victory so long as the > resistance remains in your hearts. > > Now what we used to talk about has come to pass. We > do not live in peace and security so long as that > monstrosity the Zionist entity is on our Arab land. > For this reason, there can be no dissociating the > parts of the one united Arab struggle. > > Sons and daughters of our great people! > > Rise in intifada against the occupier! Do not believe > those who talk about Sunni and Shii. The only thing > that the homeland, your great Iraq, lives through now > is the occupation. > > There are no priorities other than expelling the > cowardly, murdering, criminal infidel occupier, to > whom no honorable person has extended a hand to shake. > No, only the hands of the traitors and lackeys have > been extended. > > I say to you that all the states surrounding you are > against your resistance. But God is with you, because > you are fighting unbelief and defending your rights. > > The traitors have permitted themselves to voice their > treason out loud, although it is a disgrace. So voice > your rejection of the occupier out loud, for the sake > of great Iraq, the Arab Nation, Islam, and humanity! > > Iraq will win, and with it the sons and daughters of > the Arab Nation, and all honorable people. We shall > get back the antiquities that they have stolen. We > will rebuild the Iraq that they want to cut up into > little pieces, may God humiliate them! > > Saddam did not have property in his own name, and I > challenge any person to prove that the palaces were in > any name other than that of the Iraqi State. I had > left them a long time ago to go to live in a small > house. > > Forget everything and resist the occupation, for it is > the beginning of a crime if there are priorities other > than the occupier and his expulsion. Remember that > they are bent on bringing out rival sides to fight > each other so that your Iraq will remain weak, so they > can plunder it as they used to. > > It is a sufficient honor for your party, the Arab > Baath Socialist Party, that it did not extend its hand > to the Zionist enemy, and did not make concessions to > a cowardly American or British aggressor. > > Those who stood against Iraq and plotted against it, > will never be treated to peace at the hand of America. > > Greetings to everyone who resists, to every honorable > Iraqi citizen, to every woman, child, and elderly > person in our great Iraq. > > Unite, and the enemy and the traitors who came in > along with them will flee. > > And know that he who brought invasion forces with him, > whose airplanes took off to kill you, will never be > sending you anything but poison. > > By the grace of God, the day will come of liberation > and victory for ourselves, for the Arab Nation, and > for Islam before everything. And this time, as with > every time in which right triumphs, the coming days > will be more beautiful. > > Preserve your property, your offices, your schools. > Boycott the occupier. Boycott him! This is the > obligation of Islam, of religion, and the homeland. > > Long live great Iraq and its people! > > Long live Palestine, free and Arab, from the Jordan > River to the Sea! > > God is greatest! > > And may the despicable be despised! > > [signed] Saddam Hussein > > 26 Safar 1424 H. > 28 April 2003. > > > > From jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt Thu May 1 17:53:19 2003 From: jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt (Jorge Figueiredo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] letter to Lula, Brazilian President Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502002647.029ead48@mail.telepac.pt> Letter to President LULA Dear Mr. President This letter is addressed to you by persons who hold you in esteem, admire your political trajectory and wish to give you total support so that you can live up to the enormous hopes that your victory has awakened in the Brazilian people, Aware of the economic-financial situation of the country, we have a clear perception of the internal and external difficulties that have led the government to take measures restricting spending and raising taxes. We know also that globalization has provoked substantial changes in the world economy and that it will be very difficult to develop the country without participating in some way in the international financial community. Nevertheless, these constraints cannot mean the renunciation of our sovereignty. Two measures are particularly worrisome in relationship to this matter: the negotiations on the FTAA and the intended autonomy of the Central Bank. The first, as some of us have already argued in extensive and repeated pleadings, will expose our industrial, agricultural, and service producers to absolutely unequal competition, whose primary consequence will be an even greater de-nationalizing of our productive space. And by its reach that surpasses commercial agreements, but involves agriculture, investments, state purchases, currency, and services, leaves clear the intention of the U.S. Government to re-colonize the continent in accord with its interests. The second involves handing over control of our currency to external capital and therefore the renunciation of the national project. It cannot be hidden that with the most dynamic sectors of our economy in the hands of foreign corporations, the autonomy of the Central Bank means transferring to them the power to set the value of our currency. For these reasons, we made the decision to send you this letter. In our understanding, the FTAA as well as the autonomy of the Central Bank are non-negotiable matters, given that they involve the untouchability of the nation?s sovereignty. A decision of such magnitude must made by the owner of this sovereignty--the Brazilian people. Thus, each Brazilian man and woman must be called on to have their say about both questions in a plebiscite convoked for this express goal. The plebiscite would be the occasion for a great national debate about the two topics, thus laying the groundwork for a truly democratic decision. We are convinced that a firm attitude of Brazil will change the posture of the forces that are pressuring us and will open up a path so that we can build, in an autonomous way, the paths that are most appropriate for our development. However, if this does not happen, and the government finds itself placed in the situation of breaking with the forces that are pressuring it, please believe, Mr. President, that the retaliation will not be insupportable. Our economy is already sufficiently strong to resist them and our people sufficiently politicized to give you the necessary support for this confrontation. Brazil, March 2003 Alfredo Bosi. Literary critic and member of the Brazilian Academy of Letters Ana Maria Freire, educator, widow of Paulo Freire Ana Maria Castro, educator, daughter of Josue de Castro Ariovaldo Umbelino de Oliveira, geographer from University of S?o Paulo Augusto Boal, theater director Benedito Mariano, researcher Bernardete de Oliveira, anthropologist from State University of S?o Paulo Carlos Nelson Coutinho, political scientist and philosopher Chico Buarque, composer and writer Dom Demetrio Valentini, bishop Dom Paulo Arns, cardinal Dom Pedro Casaldaliga, bishop Dom Tomas Balduino, bishop Emir Sader, political scientist Fabio Konder Comparato, jurist Fernando Morais, writer Francisco de Oliveira, social scientist Haroldo Campos, poet and translator Joanna Fomm, actress Leonardo Boff, theologian, philosopher, and writer Luis Fernando Verissimo, writer Margarida Genovois, human rights activist Maria Adelia de Souza, geographer, researcher with Miltom Santos Manuel Correia de Andrade, geographer, specialist in Northeast Brazil Marilena Chau?, philosopher Nilo Batista, jurist Pastor Ervino Schmidt, pastor of the Lutheran Church and director of National Council of Christian Churches Pl?nio Arruda Sampaio, consultant to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization on agrarian questions, periodical director Oscar Niemeyer, architect Ricardo Antunes, political scientist Sergio Haddad, educator and president of the Brazilian Association of NGOs Sergio Ferolla, brigadier-general Tatau Godinho, feminist Valton Miranda, psychiatrist -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6101 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030501/2a3d0292/attachment.txt From soncu at pacbell.net Thu May 1 18:22:02 2003 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] welcome to Sabri Message-ID: > Dear Sabri > > May Day greetings in the spirit of Yunus Emre, and welcome as > co-moderator of A-list. > > James Thanks and likewise. Happy May Day to all! Sabri From william at palfreman.com Thu May 1 18:31:01 2003 From: william at palfreman.com (William Palfreman) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK Labour Party: Propaganda Matrix article In-Reply-To: <20030501235558.H309@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> References: <20030501235558.H309@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> Message-ID: <20030501235746.R309@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> I saw this trawling through Google recently. I'd like to correct a few issues. ------ Original Message ------ > * From: "Michael Keaney" > * Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:38:56 +0200 > _________________________________________________________________ > > According to Mike James: > > The rumours and allegations concerning Lord Robertson's ties to > Hamilton, and the possibility that the American intelligence services > may be blackmailing Tony Blair into continued support for a U.S. > invasion of Iraq, have been given fire by internet investigator and > intelligence expert Michael Keaney: Well they shouldn't have. They are rubbish, even if I did naively start one of them in 1999. > Aside from making no claims to intelligence expertise, I have not in > any way touched the story concerning the Dunblane massacre, as a quick > trawl through the archives would confirm. Therefore it is not accurate > to say that I have "given fire" to specifically those rumours and > allegations. In fact the connection between the two stories was one I > had not made, and one that I would be extremely sceptical of. That > does not mean that there does not exist some kind of organised effort > to smear Robertson, whose tenure at NATO has hardly been successful > and who has managed to ruffle the feathers of those at the Pentagon he > thought he was obediently serving. The blackmail possibility I have > raised, specifically in connection with the Sunday Herald article of > 19 January. But the more that "emerges" on this subject leaves an even > stronger bad taste, and serious analysts would be better basing their > analyses on more solid ground than unattributable sources cited in > newspaper reports. With four years extra maturity on an issue I hoped had been forgotten about, I can't find a single thing that any of them are supposed to have done wrong. > Meanwhile: > > "I have come to the considered conclusion," says a correspondent of > Keaney, William Palfreman, "that the events surrounding the Dunblane > massacre, and > the subsequent submissions to the Cullen enquiry that have been put under to > 100 years of secrecy, far out weigh in political significance issues such as > our opposition to the EU [and] what it entails. ... > > ----- > > Firstly, I have no idea who "William Palfreman" is, or that we were > corresponding. This is what I picked up on using Google. I have certainly never had correspondence with Michael Keaney. It's just made up. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Mike James, I'd appreciate it if he'd take it down, especially as the whole thing is teenage bullshit from me. > Secondly, based on what he is quoted as saying above, I would > be highly unlikely to have anything to do with him. Aside from stating the > obvious -- that his and others' opposition to the EU is outweighed in terms > of its significance by something else (most everything else, probably) -- Might have been true then. Isn't today. > the fact that this position is regarded as a defining feature of his > politics means that already I am convinced I share little, if anything, in > common with him. In fact, as a quick trawl of the internet reveals, > Palfreman is involved with organised euroscepticism, having participated in > rabid anti-EU online discussion for some years and being involved in an > outfit called Youth for a Free Europe, whose homepage can be found at > > http://www.free-europe.org.uk/ Yup, was run by a friend of mine called John Courouble then, and by Stuart Coster today. I haven't been involved in anything to do with them since 2000. I'm quite annoyed to see myself on the contacts list for them. > While attracting some unreconstructed national Keynesians within the Labour > Party and elsewhere on the left, the most enthusiastic participants are the > usual punk Thatcherite suspects. Maybe then. I don't think people like that even exist today. > This sort of sensationalist and inaccurate reportage does not help us to > understand better what is going on. I agree. What I wrote in 1999 is shocking to see today. What a pathetic pile of teenage conspiracy-theorising! The problem was that I was a student, with not a lot to do, and I was on this mailinglist with whole lot of like minded people, many who I'm still in touch with as friends. Even then, the guy who gave the erroneous talk, Greg LW, was pretty well beyond the pale, spamming thousands of people with semi-literate junk, and pushing this conspiracy or that. But the trouble is, in person he is a very convincing guy - proper magnetic personality, very plausible and a superb salesman. Today I'm much more cautious about taking things at face value, but then I was completely convinced, basically on zero evidence. Pretty soon it became clear to me that there wasn't a shred of evidence behind _any_ of these conspiracy theories. Ultimately they all rely on some very unpleasant premises. People who put about conspiracy theories ultimately do not believe in free association, or the right of privacy for anyone other than themselves. Also, I have to say, most conspiracy theories boil down to anti-semitism. Not within the one I was conned into putting about, obviously; but in general, conspiracy theories always like to blame a certain groups of people, supposedly operating in "secret", who are supposedly "pulling the strings" and plotting in a huge choreographed conspiracy, to do down "simple, common man". It's exactly the same stuff they were putting about in the 1930s, and very weak, brainwise. Such theories fail every logical test out there. They assume people are not self interested, they assume that cartels work, when every one of them breaks down in the long run - something proved by John Nash's game theory discoveries. They're rubbish, and every time you see one you see some scumbag using exactly the same conspiracy theory as a vehicle for anti-semitism. Underlying it all is the principle that someone can make an assertion, and it is up to the victim to prove him wrong. That's very wrong. > It is better understood as the manifestation of a right wing political > tendency that will stop at nothing to unseat Blair the europhile > "socialist" and to replace him with some unreconstructed empire > loyalist relic. Again, I don't believe such people are around anymore - not within my lifetime. I'd say the last time that represented a significant point of view was 1975. > It is easily manipulated by intelligence officers planting stories in > the media (including internet discussion forums hosted by newspapers) > calculated to excite such sensationalism. US libertarians who swallow > this stuff beware. Yeah, well I never saw any reason to think this particular rubbish story (one long dead until recently) ever had any origin other than Greg LW's fevered imagination, and lapped up by gullible people present. I'm certainly a lot less easily convinced today. Regards, William Palfreman. From soncu at pacbell.net Thu May 1 23:14:01 2003 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Iraq: The aftermath Message-ID: http://www.atimes.com Middle East Crunch time for Kurds By Jean-Christophe Peuch PRAGUE - As the United States works toward restoring a semblance of central authority in Iraq, various ethnic, tribal, social, and religious groups are jockeying for representation in a future Iraqi government. Shi'ite clerics from the south, Sunni Arabs from the central regions, Kurds from the northern mountains, tribal leaders and exiled politicians gathered in Baghdad on Monday to attend a US-sponsored meeting aimed at discussing possible post-Saddam Hussein strategies. As in Nasiriyah two weeks ago, Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Mas'ud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) were represented in Baghdad, but not at the level of party leaders. The two Kurdish groups have in effect been running northern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War. Barzani and Talabani reportedly viewed both meetings as low-profile forums not authoritative enough to justify their presence. It is a crucial time for the Kurds, who have been struggling for their cultural and political rights for most of the past century and represent the largest armed force in Iraq. David McDowall, a British historian of Kurdish nationalism, believes Iraq's 4 million to 6 million Kurds - who supported the US-led war - are in the best position since the demise of the Ottoman Empire to achieve their decades-long dream of self-determination. "The most important thing to bear in mind [when assessing the current situation] is that this is the biggest opportunity the Kurds of Iraq have had since 1918 to actually configure their position in relation to Mesopotamia in the way that they want," McDowall said. "There is no regime at the moment in Baghdad, and when there is one, it will be very weak, and their principal concern will be Turkey." The Kurds make no secret that they would like to see a federal state emerge from the rubble of Saddam's regime - a scenario that is likely to gain some support among Iraq's Shi'ite Muslim majority. The Shi'ites complain that they have lived under the thumb of Sunni Arabs since the end of Ottoman rule. Although US President George W Bush has reportedly said he envisages a federation made up of Iraq's major ethnic groups, Washington has apparently not committed to any layout for a future government. Talking to reporters in Baghdad on April 22 on his return from the north, the US civil administrator for Iraq, retired General Jay Garner, even denied that Kurdish leaders were considering federalism as an option. "I spent the last two days with Mr Talabani and Mr Barzani, and they never used that term one time," Garner said. "They both talked about a democratic process and that they were going to have a democracy, which was a mosaic of all of Iraq, [which] would include all the ethnic groups, [which] would include the tribes, [which] would include the cultures, [which] would include the religions, [which] would include the professions. [But] they never mentioned federalism one time." Some commentators have interpreted that statement as an attempt to allay the concerns of northern Iraq's minority groups. While apparently pouring cold water on the Kurds' demands for recognition of their de facto autonomy, Garner last week praised their 12-year-old rule in the north as a possible model for Iraq. He also reportedly described the northern city of Kirkuk as "Kurdish". This remark triggered a swift reaction from Ankara, which reminded the United States of an alleged earlier promise that Kirkuk would not fall into Kurdish hands. Turkey fears that northern Iraq's vast hydrocarbon reserves might sustain Kurdish autonomy and insists that Kirkuk and other regional oil-rich cities remain under Baghdad's jurisdiction. Martin van Bruinessen is an expert on Kurdish affairs who teaches at Utrecht University's Institute of Oriental Languages and Cultures in the Netherlands. He says Garner's contradicting remarks reflect the Bush administration's lack of clear vision about Iraq's future and US uneasiness before North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member Turkey. Ankara fears that an economically self-sufficient Kurdish entity in northern Iraq might impact its own Kurdish minority. Van Bruinessen said, "I think the US, in a sense, is walking on a tightrope. I think it is not so much the other ethnic groups they are worried about as Turkey. Turkey is strongly opposed to any federal settlement in Iraq. [The Turks] have repeatedly threatened with [military] intervention because they feel that their vital interests [would be] threatened if Iraq becomes a federal state. So I guess the Americans are telling Turkey not to worry and, at the same time, they are trying to keep the Kurds happy by - like Garner did the other day - telling them that Kirkuk is Kurdish." Kirkuk surrendered to Kurdish Peshmergas (fighters) almost without a fight shortly after Baghdad fell to coalition forces. The Kurds then started expelling settlers brought into the city in the 1970s under Saddam's forced "Arabization" policy. Inter-community clashes erupted, leaving at least 20 dead and 200 wounded. Unrest was also reported in Mosul to the northeast and in Khanaqin near the Iranian border. Like Kirkuk, both oil-rich cities are claimed by Iraqi Kurds. In a bid to ease inter-ethnic tensions, thousands of American soldiers last week moved into Kirkuk and Mosul to disarm Kurdish militiamen. Ankara is suspected of seeking to foster ethnic unrest in the area in an effort to trigger a peacekeeping intervention under the pretext that northern Iraq's sizable Turkoman minority needs protection from the Kurds. Last week, US soldiers reportedly arrested Turkish soldiers clad in civilian clothes who were escorting a cargo of weapons hidden in an aid convoy meant for Kirkuk. Ankara denied sending any troops to the area. The incident is symptomatic of tensions that exists in the north and bodes ill, especially if a federal settlement is reached for Iraq. Like Turkey, both Iran and Syria are concerned at the prospect of northern Iraq officially achieving autonomy for fear that this would set an example for their own Kurdish minorities. Regional experts believe that all three countries may be tempted to return to a longtime policy of interference in Iraqi Kurdish affairs. McDowall believes this is especially true of Iran and Syria, which view a US military presence in the region as a threat. "Before Saddam was removed, the Iraqi regime was viewed by Iran as an unpleasant one that, although it had fought a bloody war [with Tehran in 1980-88], was not viewed as dangerous simply because at the end it was perfectly clear by the ceasefire signed in July 1988 that Iraq would not dream of attacking Iran again. But now you have a situation where the Americans would like to set up military bases in Iraq and the only conceivable purpose for those bases is to act against Iran or Syria. And so, suddenly, Iran has been given a compelling reason to seek to undermine any pro-Western government that is formed in Baghdad, and I am sure they will do everything they can to sabotage [such a government]." Turkey, Iran and Syria have considered the troubled region of Kurdistan as a major lever to protect their own strategic interests in the region. As they have done in the past, all three countries could now be tempted to exploit the mosaic of Iraq's ethnic, religious, and tribal communities to achieve their goals. Utrecht University's van Bruinessen said, "The Turks have their proxies, the Iranians have their proxies, and the Syrians have their proxies among Iraqis. The Iranians have the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution [in Iraq], which consists of Iraqi Shi'ites. Turkey has its proxies among one of the Turkoman parties, [the Iraqi Turkoman Front], and [it] may try to use also certain Kurdish tribal chieftains as its representatives. Syria has had for a long time dissident factions of [Iraq's former ruling] Ba'ath Party that listened to it, and it has also had a strong influence on the PUK, the Kurdish party." But foreign interference is not the only risk facing Iraqi Kurdistan. The disappearance of the Ba'ath regime - the greatest threat to the Kurds - may further weaken already loose intertribal ties and reignite the traditional rivalry between Barzani and Talabani as each of the two leaders tries to pose as the most influential regional leader. McDowall believes this rivalry may play into the hands of any government in Baghdad, which could be tempted to exploit it to reassert its control over Kurdistan. "Since the KDP and the PUK are basically rivals, the prospect, I think, is that their rivalry will become - now that the danger to them from Saddam has ceased to be - a major feature of Iraqi Kurdistan and, maybe, a major feature over the way a Kurdish federal state relates to Baghdad," McDowall said. "Just imagine, if you are in Baghdad and you are not very strong, you would do everything you can to play off Barzani against Talabani, knowing that they loathe each other." Since the emergence of the PUK as a splinter group of the KDP in the mid-1970s, both parties have fought intermittent wars that claimed thousands of lives. In their struggle for influence, Barzani and Talabani have relied on political or military support offered alternately by Baghdad, Tehran, Ankara and Damascus. In the late 1990s, a US-brokered agreement led to local elections that ended in a dead heat for both parties, which each garnered some 45 percent of the seats in a regional parliament. Experts believe new elections including Kirkuk - in case the city is included in a federal Kurdistan - would not affect the political balance of forces and might therefore lead to military confrontation between the two groups. As van Bruinessen puts it, "The military aspect of the [US-led] war was relatively simple, but the aftermath is where the biggest risks are. There are so many conflicting interests in Iraq - especially in the Kirkuk, Mosul and Khanaqin areas - that I find it hard to imagine a stable situation any time soon." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE02Ak02.html From cburford at gn.apc.org Fri May 2 01:06:02 2003 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] some punishment for Labour Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.1.20030502075805.03bc0e40@pop3.norton.antivirus> It looks as if Labour has lost control of Birmingham and Bolton because of a backlash, and under the proportional representation system in the Scottish Parliament the Scottish Socialist Party looks as if it is doing well. Chris Burford London From jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt Fri May 2 02:18:01 2003 From: jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt (Jorge Figueiredo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] 1st May, Fidel Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502092905.029d7d68@mail.telepac.pt> Speech given by the Dr. Fidel Castro Ruz, President of the Republic of Cuba, at the May Day rally held in Revolution Square. Havana, May 1, 2003 Distinguished guests; Dear fellow Cubans: CUBA AND THE NAZI-FASCISM Our heroic people have struggled for 44 years from this small Caribbean island just a few miles away from the most formidable imperial power ever known by mankind. In so doing, they have written an unprecedented chapter in history. Never has the world witnessed such an unequal fight. Some may have believed that the rise of the empire to the status of the sole superpower, with a military and technological might with no balancing pole anywhere in the world, would frighten or dishearten the Cuban people. Yet, today they have no choice but to watch in amazement the enhanced courage of this valiant people. On a day like today, this glorious international workers? day, which commemorates the death of the five martyrs of Chicago, I declare, on behalf of the one million Cubans gathered here, that we will face up to any threats, we will not yield to any pressures, and that we are prepared to defend our homeland and our Revolution with ideas and with weapons to our last drop of blood. What is Cuba?s sin? What honest person has any reason to attack her? With their own blood and the weapons seized from the enemy, the Cuban people overthrew a cruel tyranny with 80,000 men under arms, imposed by the U.S. government. Cuba was the first territory free from imperialist domination in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the only country in the hemisphere, throughout post-colonial history, where the torturers, murderers and war criminals that took the lives of tens of thousands of people were exemplarily punished. All of the country?s land was recovered and turned over to the peasants and agricultural workers. The natural resources, industries and basic services were placed in the hands of their only true owner: the Cuban nation. In less than 72 hours, fighting ceaselessly, day and night, Cuba crushed the Bay of Pigs mercenary invasion organized by a U.S. administration, thereby preventing a direct military intervention by this country and a war of incalculable consequences. The Revolution already had the Rebel Army, over 400,000 weapons and hundreds of thousands of militia members. In 1962, Cuba confronted with honor, and without a single concession, the risk of being attacked with dozens of nuclear weapons. It defeated the dirty war that spread throughout the entire country, at a cost in human lives even greater than that of the war of liberation. It stoically endured thousands of acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks organized by the U.S. government. It thwarted hundreds of assassination plots against the leaders of the Revolution. While under a rigorous blockade and economic warfare that have lasted for almost half a century, Cuba was able to eradicate in just one year the illiteracy that has still not been overcome in the course of more than four decades by the rest of the countries of Latin America, or the United States itself. It has brought free education to 100% of the country?s children. It has the highest school retention rate ?over 99% between kindergarten and ninth grade? of all of the nations in the hemisphere. Its elementary school students rank first worldwide in the knowledge of their mother language and mathematics. The country also ranks first worldwide with the highest number of teachers per capita and the lowest number of students per classroom. All children with physical or mental challenges are enrolled in special schools. Computer education and the use of audiovisual methods now extend to all of the country?s children, adolescents and youth, in both the cities and the countryside. For the first time in the world, all young people between the ages of 17 and 30, who were previously neither in school nor employed, have been given the opportunity to resume their studies while receiving an allowance. All citizens have the possibility of undertaking studies that will take them from kindergarten to a doctoral degree without spending a penny. Today, the country has 30 university graduates, intellectuals and professional artists for every one there was before the Revolution. The average Cuban citizen today has at the very least a ninth-grade level of education. Not even functional illiteracy exists in Cuba. There are schools for the training of artists and art instructors throughout all of the country?s provinces, where over 20,000 young people are currently studying and developing their talent and vocation. Tens of thousands more are doing the same at vocational schools, and many of these then go on to undertake professional studies. University campuses are progressively spreading to all of the country?s municipalities. Never in any other part of the world has such a colossal educational and cultural revolution taken place as this that will turn Cuba, by far, into the country with the highest degree of knowledge and culture in the world, faithful to Mart??s profound conviction that "no freedom is possible without culture." Infant mortality has been reduced from 60 per 1000 live births to a rate that fluctuates between 6 and 6.5, which is the lowest in the hemisphere, from the United States to Patagonia. Life expectancy has increased by 15 years. Infectious and contagious diseases like polio, malaria, neonatal tetanus, diphtheria, measles, rubella, mumps, whooping cough and dengue have been eradicated; others like tetanus, meningococcal meningitis, hepatitis B, leprosy, hemophilus meningitis and tuberculosis are fully controlled. Today, in our country, people die of the same causes as in the most highly developed countries: cardiovascular diseases, cancer, accidents, and others, but with a much lower incidence. A profound revolution is underway to bring medical services closer to the population, in order to facilitate access to health care centers, save lives and alleviate suffering. In-depth research is being carried out to break the chain, mitigate or reduce to a minimum the problems that result from genetic, prenatal or childbirth-related causes. Cuba is today the country with the highest number of doctors per capita in the world, with almost twice as many as those that follow closer. Our scientific centers are working relentlessly to find preventive or therapeutic solutions for the most serious diseases. Cubans will have the best healthcare system in the world, and will continue to receive all services absolutely free of charge. Social security covers 100% of the country?s citizens. In Cuba, 85% of the people own their homes and they pay no property taxes on them whatsoever. The remaining 15% pay a wholly symbolic rent, which is only 10% of their salary. Illegal drug use involves a negligible percentage of the population, and is being resolutely combated. Lottery and other forms of gambling have been banned since the first years of the Revolution to ensure that no one pins their hopes of progress on luck. There is no commercial advertising on Cuban television and radio or in our printed publications. Instead, these feature public service announcements concerning health, education, culture, physical education, sports, recreation, environmental protection, and the fight against drugs, accidents and other social problems. Our media educate, they do not poison or alienate. They do not worship or exalt the values of decadent consumer societies. There is no cult of personality around any living revolutionary, in the form of statues, official photographs, or the names of streets or institutions. The leaders of this country are human beings, not gods. In our country there are no paramilitary forces or death squads, nor has violence ever been used against the people; there are no extrajudicial executions or torture. The people have always massively supported the activities of the Revolution. This rally today is proof of that. Light years separate our society from what has prevailed until today in the rest of the world. We cultivate brotherhood and solidarity among individuals and peoples both in the country and abroad. The new generations and the entire people are being educated about the need to protect the environment. The media are used to build environmental awareness. Our country steadfastly defends its cultural identity, assimilating the best of other cultures while resolutely combating everything that distorts, alienates and degrades. The development of wholesome, non-professional sports has raised our people to the highest ranks worldwide in medals and honors. Scientific research, at the service of our people and all humanity, has increased several-hundredfold. As a result of these efforts, important medications are saving lives in Cuba and other countries. Cuba has never undertaken research or development of a single biological weapon, because this would be in total contradiction with the principles and philosophy underlying the education of our scientific personnel, past and present. In no other people has the spirit of international solidarity become so deeply rooted. Our country supported the Algerian patriots in their struggle against French colonialism, at the cost of damaging political and economic relations with such an important European country as France. We sent weapons and troops to defend Algeria from Moroccan expansionism, when the king of this country sought to take control of the iron mines of Gara Djebilet, near the city of Tindouf, in southwest Algeria. At the request of the Arab nation of Syria, a full tank brigade stood guard between 1973 and 1975 alongside the Golan Heights, when this territory was unjustly seized from that country. The leader of the Republic of Congo when it first achieved independence, Patrice Lumumba, who was harassed from abroad, received our political support. When he was assassinated by the colonial powers in January of 1961, we lent assistance to his followers. Four years later, in 1965, Cuban blood was shed in the western region of Lake Tanganyika, where Che Guevara and more than 100 Cuban instructors supported the Congolese rebels who were fighting against white mercenaries in the service of the man supported by the West, that is, Mobutu whose 40 billion dollars, the same that he stole, nobody knows what European banks they are kept in, or in whose power. The blood of Cuban instructors was shed while training and supporting the combatants of the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde, who fought under the command of Amilcar Cabral for the liberation of these former Portuguese colonies. The same was true during the ten years that Cuba supported Agostinho Neto?s MPLA in the struggle for the independence of Angola. After independence was achieved, and over the course of 15 years, hundreds of thousands of Cuban volunteers participated in defending Angola from the attacks of racist South African troops that in complicity with the United States, and using dirty war tactics, planted millions of mines, wiped out entire villages, and murdered more than half a million Angolan men, women and children. In Cuito Cuanavale and on the Namibian border, to the southwest of Angola, Angolan and Namibian forces together with 40,000 Cuban troops dealt the final blow to the South African troops. This resulted in the immediate liberation of Namibia and speeded up the end of apartheid by perhaps 20 to 25 years. At the time, the South Africans had seven nuclear warheads that Israel had supplied to them or helped them to produce, with the full knowledge and complicity of the U.S. government. Throughout the course of almost 15 years, Cuba had a place of honor in its solidarity with the heroic people of Viet Nam, caught up in a barbaric and brutal war with the United States. That war killed four million Vietnamese, in addition to all those left wounded and mutilated, not to mention the fact that the country was inundated with chemical compounds that continue to cause incalculable damage. The pretext: Viet Nam, a poor and underdeveloped country located 20,000 kilometers away, constituted a threat to the national security of the United States. Cuban blood was shed together with that of citizens of numerous Latin American countries, and together with the Cuban and Latin American blood of Che Guevara, murdered on instructions from U.S. agents in Bolivia, when he was wounded and being held prisoner after his weapon had been rendered useless by a shot received in battle. The blood of Cuban construction workers, that were nearing completion of an international airport vital for the economy of a tiny island fully dependent on tourism, was shed fighting in defense of Grenada, invaded by the United States under cynical pretexts. Cuban blood was shed in Nicaragua, when instructors from our Armed Forces were training the brave Nicaraguan soldiers confronting the dirty war organized and armed by the United States against the Sandinista revolution. And there are even more examples. Over 2000 heroic Cuban internationalist combatants gave their lives fulfilling the sacred duty of supporting the liberation struggles for the independence of other sister nations. However, there is not one single Cuban property in any of those countries. No other country in our era has exhibited such sincere and selfless solidarity. Cuba has always preached by example. It has never given in. It has never sold out the cause of another people. It has never made concessions. It has never betrayed its principles. There must be some reason why, just 48 hours ago, it was reelected by acclamation in the United Nations Economic and Social Council to another three years in the Commission on Human Rights, of which it has now been a member for 15 straight years. More than half a million Cubans have carried out internationalist missions as combatants, as teachers, as technicians or as doctors and health care workers. Tens of thousands of the latter have provided their services and saved millions of lives over the course of more than 40 years. There are currently 3000 specialists in Comprehensive General Medicine and other healthcare personnel working in the most isolated regions of 18 Third World countries. Through preventive and therapeutic methods they save hundreds of thousands of lives every year, and maintain or restore the health of millions of people, without charging a penny for their services. Without the Cuban doctors offered to the United Nations in the event that the necessary funds are obtained ?without which entire nations and even whole regions of sub-Saharan Africa face the risk of perishing? the crucial programs urgently needed to fight AIDS would be impossible to carry out. The developed capitalist world has created abundant financial capital, but it has not in any way created the human capital that the Third World desperately needs. Cuba has developed techniques to teach reading and writing by radio, with accompanying texts now available in five languages ?Haitian Creole, Portuguese, French, English and Spanish? that are already being used in numerous countries. It is nearing completion of a similar program in Spanish, of exceptionally high quality, to teach literacy by television. These are programs that were developed in Cuba and are genuinely Cuban. We are not interested in patents and exclusive copyrights. We are willing to offer them to all of the countries of the Third World, where most of the world?s illiterates are concentrated, without charging a penny. In five years, the 800 million illiterate people in the world could be reduced by 80%, at a minimal cost. After the demise of the USSR and the socialist bloc, nobody would have bet a dime on the survival of the Cuban Revolution. The United States tightened the blockade. The Torricelli and Helms-Burton Acts were adopted, the latter extraterritorial in nature. We abruptly lost our main markets and supplies sources. The population?s average calorie and protein consumption was reduced by almost half. But our country withstood the pressures and even advanced considerably in the social field. Today, it has largely recovered with regard to nutritional requirements and is rapidly progressing in other fields. Even in these conditions, the work undertaken and the consciousness built throughout the years succeeded in working miracles. Why have we endured? Because the Revolution has always had, as it still does and always will to an ever-greater degree, the support of the people, an intelligent people, increasingly united, educated and combative. Cuba was the first country to extend its solidarity to the people of the United States on September 11, 2001. It was also the first to warn of the neo-fascist nature of the policy that the extreme right in the United States, which fraudulently came to power in November of 2000, was planning to impose on the rest of the world. This policy did not emerge as a response to the atrocious terrorist attack perpetrated against the people of the United States by members of a fanatical organization that had served other U.S. administrations in the past. It was coldly and carefully conceived and developed, which explains the country?s military build-up and enormous spending on weapons at a time when the Cold War was already over, and long before September 11, 2001. The fateful events of that day served as an ideal pretext for the implementation of such policy. On September 20 of that year, President Bush openly expressed this before a Congress shaken by the tragic events of nine days earlier. Using bizarre terminology, he spoke of "infinite justice" as the goal of a war that would apparently be infinite as well. "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen." "We will use every necessary weapon of war." "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." "I've called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act." "This is civilization's fight." " the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time --now depends on us." "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain and we know that God is not neutral." Did a statesman or an unbridled fanatic speak these words? Two days later, on September 22, Cuba denounced this speech as the blueprint for the idea of a global military dictatorship imposed through brute force, without international laws or institutions of any kind. "The United Nations Organization, simply ignored in the present crisis, would fail to have any authority or prerogative whatsoever. There would be only one boss, only one judge, and only one law." Several months later, on the 200th anniversary of West Point Military Academy, at the graduation exercise for 958 cadets on June 3, 2002, President Bush further elaborated on this line of thinking in a fiery harangue to the young soldiers graduating that day, in which he put forward his fundamental fixed ideas: "Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." "We must uncover terror cells in 60 or more countries " " we will send you, our soldiers, where you're needed." "We will not leave the safety of America and the peace of the planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants. We will lift this dark threat from our country and from the world." "Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name. By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem. And we will lead the world in opposing it." In the speech I delivered at a rally held in General Antonio Maceo Square in Santiago de Cuba, on June 8, 2002, before half a million people of Santiago, I said: "As you can see, he doesn?t mention once in his speech (at West Point) the United Nations Organization. Nor is there a phrase about every people?s right to safety and peace, or about the need for a world ruled by principles and norms." "Hardly two thirds of a century has passed since humanity went through the bitter experience of Nazism. Fear was Hitler?s inseparable ally against his adversaries Later, his fearful military force [led to] the outbreak of a war that would inflame the whole world. The lack of vision and the cowardice of the statesmen in the strongest European powers of the time opened the way to a great tragedy. "I don?t think that a fascist regime can be established in the United States. Serious mistakes have been made and injustices committed in the framework of its political system --many of them still persist-- but the American people still have a number of institutions and traditions, as well as educational, cultural and ethical values that would hardly allow that to happen. The risk exists in the international arena. The power and prerogatives of that country?s president are so extensive, and the economic, technological and military power network in that nation is so pervasive that due to circumstances that fully escape the will of the American people, the world is coming under the rule of Nazi concepts and methods." "The miserable insects that live in 60 or more countries of the world chosen by him and his closest assistants --and in the case of Cuba by his Miami friends-- are completely irrelevant. They are the ?dark corners of the world? that may become the targets of their unannounced and ?preemptive? attacks. Not only is Cuba one of those countries, but it has also been included among those that sponsor terror." I mentioned the idea of a world tyranny for the first time exactly one year, three months and 19 days before the attack on Iraq. In the days prior to the beginning of the war, President Bush repeated once again that the United States would use, if necessary, any means within its arsenal, in other words, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. The attack on and occupation of Afghanistan had already taken place. Today the so-called "dissidents", actually mercenaries on the payroll of the Bush?s Hitler-like government, are betraying not only their homeland, but all of humanity as well. In the face of the sinister plans against our country on the part of the neo-fascist extreme right and its allies in the Miami terrorist mob that ensured its victory through electoral fraud, I wonder how many of those individuals with supposedly leftist and humanistic stances who have attacked our people over the legal measures we were forced to adopt as a legitimate defense against the aggressive plans of the superpower, located just a few miles off our coasts and with a military base on our own territory, have been able to read these words. We wonder how many have recognized, denounced and condemned the policy announced in the speeches by Mr. Bush that I have quoted, which reveal a sinister Nazi-fascist international policy on the part of the leader of the country with the most powerful military force ever imagined, whose weapons could destroy the defenseless humanity ten times over. The entire world has been mobilized by the terrifying images of cities destroyed and burned by brutal bombing, images of maimed children and the shattered corpses of innocent people. Leaving aside the blatantly opportunistic, demagogic and petty political groups we know all too well, I am now going to refer fundamentally to those who were friends of Cuba and respected fighters in the struggle. We would not want those who have, in our opinion, attacked Cuba unjustly, due to disinformation or a lack of careful and profound analysis, to have to suffer the infinite sorrow they will feel if one day our cities are destroyed and our children and mothers, women and men, young and old, are torn apart by the bombs of Nazi-fascism, and they realize that their declarations were shamelessly manipulated by the aggressors to justify a military attack on Cuba. Solely the numbers of children murdered and mutilated cannot be the measure of the human damage but also the millions of children and mothers, women and men, young and old, who remain traumatized for the rest of their lives. We fully respect the opinions of those who oppose capital punishment for religious, philosophical and humanitarian reasons. We Cuban revolutionaries also abhor capital punishment, for much more profound reasons than those addressed by the social sciences with regard to crime, currently under study in our country. The day will come when we can accede to the wishes for the abolition of such penalty so nobly expressed here by Reverend Lucius Walker in his brilliant speech. The special concern over this issue is easily understood when you know that the majority of the people executed in the United States are African American and Hispanic, and not infrequently they are innocent, especially in Texas, the champion of death sentences, where President Bush was formerly the governor, and not a single life has ever been pardoned. The Cuban Revolution was placed in the dilemma of either protecting the lives of millions of Cubans by using the legally established death penalty to punish the three main hijackers of a passenger ferry or sitting back and doing nothing. The U.S. government, which incites common criminals to assault boats or airplanes with passengers on board, encourages these people gravely endangering the lives of innocents and creating the ideal conditions for an attack on Cuba. A wave of hijackings had been unleashed and was already in full development; it had to be stopped. We cannot ever hesitate when it is a question of protecting the lives of the sons and daughters of a people determined to fight until the end, arresting the mercenaries who serve the aggressors and applying the most severe sanctions against terrorists who hijack passenger boats or planes or commit similarly serious acts, who will be punished by the courts in accordance with the laws in force. Not even Jesus Christ, who drove the traders out of the temple with a whip, would fail to opt for the defense of the people. I feel sincere and profound respect for His Holiness Pope John Paul II. I understand and admire his noble struggle for life and peace. Nobody opposed the war in Iraq as much and as tenaciously as he did. I am absolutely certain that he would have never counseled the Shiites and Sunni Muslims to let them be killed without defending themselves. He would not counsel the Cubans to do such a thing, either. He knows perfectly well that this is not a problem between Cubans. This is a problem between the people of Cuba and the government of the United States. The policy of the U.S. government is so brazenly provocative that on April 25, Mr. Kevin Whitaker, chief of the Cuban Bureau at the State Department, informed the head of our Interests Section in Washington that the National Security Council?s Department of Homeland Security considered the continued hijackings from Cuba a serious threat to the national security of the United States, and requested that the Cuban government adopt all of the necessary measures to prevent such acts. He said this as if they were not the ones who provoke and encourage these hijackings, and as if we were not the ones who adopt drastic measures to prevent them, in order to protect the lives and safety of passengers, and being fully aware for some time now of the criminal plans of the fascist extreme right against Cuba. When news of this contact on the 25 was leaked, it stirred up the Miami terrorist mob. They still do not understand that their direct or indirect threats against Cuba do not frighten anyone in this country. The hypocrisy of Western politicians and a large group of mediocre leaders is so huge that it would not fit in the Atlantic Ocean. Any measure that Cuba adopts for the purposes of its legitimate defense is reported among the top stories in almost all of the media. On the other hand, when we pointed out that during the term in office of a Spanish head of government, dozens of ETA members were executed without trial, without anyone protesting or denouncing it before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, or that another Spanish head of government, at a difficult moment in the war in Kosovo, advised the U.S. president to step up the war, increase the bombing and attack civilian targets, thus causing the deaths of hundreds of innocent people and tremendous suffering for millions of people, the headlines merely stated, "Castro attacks Felipe and Aznar". Not a word was said about the real content. In Miami and Washington they are now discussing where, how and when Cuba will be attacked or the problem of the Revolution will be solved. For the moment, there is talk of economic measures that will further intensify the brutal blockade, but they still do not know which to choose, who they will resign themselves to alienating, and how effective these measures may be. There are very few left for them to choose from. They have already used up almost all of them. A shameless scoundrel with the poorly chosen first name Lincoln, and the last name D?az-Balart, an intimate friend and advisor of President Bush, has made this enigmatic statement to a Miami TV station: "I can?t go into details, but we?re trying to break this vicious cycle." What methods are they considering to deal with this vicious cycle? Physically eliminating me with the sophisticated modern means they have developed, as Mr. Bush promised them in Texas before the elections? Or attacking Cuba the way they attacked Iraq? If it were the former, it does not worry me in the least. The ideas for which I have fought all my life will not die, and they will live on for a long time. If the solution were to attack Cuba like Iraq, I would suffer greatly because of the cost in lives and the enormous destruction it would bring on Cuba. But, it might turn out to be the last of this Administration?s fascist attacks, because the struggle would last a very long time. The aggressors would not merely be facing an army, but rather thousands of armies that would constantly reproduce themselves and make the enemy pay such a high cost in casualties that it would far exceed the cost in lives of its sons and daughters that the American people would be willing to pay for the adventures and ideas of President Bush. Today, he enjoys majority support, but it is dropping, and tomorrow it could be reduced to zero. The American people, the millions of highly cultivated individuals who reason and think, their basic ethical principles, the tens of millions of computers with which to communicate, hundreds of times more than at the end of the Viet Nam war, will show that you cannot fool all of the people, and perhaps not even part of the people, all of the time. One day they will put a straightjacket on those who need it before they manage to annihilate life on the planet. On behalf of the one million people gathered here this May Day, I want to convey a message to the world and the American people: We do not want the blood of Cubans and Americans to be shed in a war. We do not want a countless number of lives of people who could be friends to be lost in an armed conflict. But never has a people had such sacred things to defend, or such profound convictions to fight for, to such a degree that they would rather be obliterated from the face of the Earth than abandon the noble and generous work for which so many generations of Cubans have paid the high cost of the lives of many of their finest sons and daughters. We are sustained by the deepest conviction that ideas are worth more than weapons, no matter how sophisticated and powerful those weapons may be. Let us say like Che Guevara when he bid us farewell: Ever onward to victory! From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 02:22:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Scotland: SSP gains Message-ID: <000901c31084$07037360$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> This is terrific news. It really should act as a wake-up call to the left in England -- put aside your differences and work together. Nevertheless Sheridan and co. should be prepared for an intensified assault on the party. Wendy Alexander is not worth losing sleep over, but there is little question that the emergence of a clearly Marxist party as a serious political contender will exercise minds in Whitehall, Westminster, Edinburgh and various news media outlets. Blair's friends in Washington will also have something to say about this. ----- Sheridan's Socialists now a countrywide force CATHERINE MACLEOD, Political Editor The Herald, 2 May 2003 THE Scottish Socialists returned two Glasgow MSPs to parliament last night with an electoral success establishing the youthful party firmly on the Scottish political landscape. Although Tommy Sheridan, the flamboyant leader of the SSP, failed to win outright in the Glasgow Pollok constituency, he was returned along with Rosie Kane on the Glasgow regional list. Mr Sheridan, who was beaten by over 3000 votes by Labour's Johann Lamont, hailed the SSP's performance as "the best result in Scotland". In an impassioned speech at the Pollok count, Mr Sheridan looked forward to extending the appeal of the SSP. He said: "A new political force has been established in Scotland. That new force believes the wealth of Scotland belongs to the people of Scotland. Tonight I think we can confidently predict we will have the best result in Scotland. "We will have attracted more new voters than any other parties in Scotland and we will have attracted voters in every part of Scotland. We started with a target of four seats and we were ridiculed, rubbished and ignored by the tabloid press. I am confident that we will meet that target and if we get any more than four seats, it will be a spectacular result." Ms Kane, who stood for election in the Glasgow Shettleston constituency, came third after Labour and the SNP with 2403 votes (14.52%). She pushed the Tories and Liberal Democrats into fourth and fifth places respectively while increasing her 1999 vote by 763 votes. Mr Sheridan attributes the success of the SSP to their grassroots allegiance. Earlier this week, Mr Sheridan told The Herald's Alf Young: "We started off at a conference in February 1999 and we had no members. We had big ideas, we had big visions of how we wanted to improve Scotland. We had a lot of honesty and lot of integrity but we had few positions." On both the east and west of Scotland, the SSP won between 4% and 10% of the vote, even in seats where they had never before fielded a candidate. In Cunninghame South, for example, Rosemary Byrne, the SSP's new candidate polled 2677 (11.76%). The first-past-the-post results showed the SSP, which for the first time had candidates standing in every seat in Scotland, causing the SNP most electoral damage while also denting the Labour vote in almost every Scottish constituency. Mr Sheridan, who hoped the SSP would return four MSPs to Holyrood, could barely contain his excitement at the prospect of having five MSPs, which would give the SSP group status in the Scottish Parliament, and a say in the running of the Scottish parliament. In the Glasgow Pollok constituency Mr Sheridan polled 6016 votes (27.9%), representing a poll increase of 6.42%. In Jack McConnell's Motherwell and Wishaw constituency, the SSP polled 1961 votes, mostly taken from the SNP, whose vote dropped by 12% in the first-past-the-post poll vote. Mr McConnell, the first minister, increased Labour's vote by 8%, hailed by the Labour hierarchy as "a great personal victory for Mr McConnell". In Hamilton South, the first constituency to declare its result, the SSP polled 1893 votes (9.23%). In Greenock and Inverclyde, Tricia McCafferty polled 2338 votes (an increase of 6.84%) In another remarkable SSP result, Malcolm Wilson, in Glasgow Cathcart, polled 2819 votes (12.64%) in a seat held by Labour's Mike Watson, the minister for culture and sport. The result demonstrated a 1.5% SNP swing to Labour, but David Ritchie saw the SNP's share of the vote reduced by 11.87% while Mr Watson's vote was reduced by 8.88%.In Dunfermline East, the SSP took 1537 votes, or 6.64%. In Rutherglen, Bill Bonnar, the SSP candidate, polled 2259 (9.5%) of the vote, an increase of 1427 votes from last year. The SSP won 1301 votes (4.37%) in Angus where Andrew Welsh was returned as the first SNP success of the night. In Kirkcaldy, the SSP's Rudi Vogels took 1544 votes (7.04%). In Cunninghame South, the SSP took 2677 votes (11.76%), again squeezing the SNP to a greater extent than Labour. In Fife North East, a LibDem hold, the SSP won 1366 votes (4.66%). In East Lothian, Hugh Kerr, the SSP's press officer, and former Labour MEP, took 1380 votes (4.42%). In Fife Central, the seat formerly held by Henry McLeish, the former first minister, the SSP took 1391 votes (5.43%). Christine May, the former convener of Fife council comfortably held the seat for Labour. In Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Steve Arnott, the SSP candidate, gained 1661 votes in a seat comfortably held by the SNP's Fergus Ewing. Wendy Alexander, who retained her Paisley North seat, immediately condemned the SSP's success. Claiming Mr Sheridan was guilty of misleading the electorate, she said: "I've known Tommy Sheridan for a long time and one of the worst things that you can do to working people is promise that which you can't deliver, and that's something which his whole political life has been about." ----- Socialists set for gains Friday, 2 May, 2003, 03:45 GMT 04:45 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2994421.stm The Scottish Socialist Party believes it will be a "new political force" in the second Holyrood parliament. The left-wingers, led by Tommy Sheridan, have been tipped to take up to 10 regional list seats. If the BBC Scotland prediction is correct then that represents a massive assault on establishment politics north of the border. Mr Sheridan was the party's lone representative following the election four years ago when he became an MSP for the region of Glasgow. The 39-year-old political firebrand is the national convener of the party which was formed only a matter of months before the 1999 poll. As the story of Scotland's 2003 election unfolded, Mr Sheridan declared: "What's happened tonight in Scotland is that a new political force has been formed - and that force believes that the wealth of Scotland belongs to the people of Scotland. SSP SEATS SO FAR Tommy Sheridan - Glasgow list Rosie Kane - Glasgow list Frances Curran - West of Scotland "The people of Scotland are demanding this democratically. "We have got lots of money, the top 100 richest people in Scotland have £10,000m between them. We already have massive wealth in this country and we should be able to redistribute that wealth." He added: "We were ridiculed and scoffed at by the media at the beginning of this campaign for saying we would make gains. "I said we would get four and if we get that, that will be great, if we get more, then that will be a spectacular advance." Changing establishment One party with a relatively small number of MSPs in 1999 played its part during the first parliament. When the Liberal Democrats won 12 seats in 1999 they became the coalition partners of the Labour Party, which had the largest number of MSPs but failed to have enough to take overall control. Mr Sheridan, who retained his list seat this time, said after winning four years ago "sometimes you have to join the establishment in order to change it". The former Labour Party member caused a stir from the start, when he swore the oath of allegiance to the Queen, required of all MSPs, with a clenched fist raised in order to signal his protest. And he did that only after declaring that "supreme sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland rather than an unelected monarchy". At the end of 2000 his campaign to have warrant sales and poindings abolished paid off when his members' bill made it through parliament. But other parliamentary efforts failed. In June last year, Mr Sheridan - who has been jailed three times in the name of various campaigns - was "furious" after MSPs on the all-party education committee rejected his plans for free school meals for every pupil in Scotland. The SSP will not find out its total number of representatives until later on Friday when the all of the regional list votes are declared. From mstainsby at tao.ca Fri May 2 02:30:01 2003 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Taking Stock on Mayday Message-ID: <00ea01c31084$edb07d80$20fa5718@comintern> ProletarianNews http://www.utopia2000.org Macdonald Stainsby. 30 April 2003. Taking Stock on Mayday. May Day is always the best time for a revolutionary to take stock of what has happened over the last year, and to determine what can be done better for the next. I personally have been rather distraught politically for the last while. The conquering of Iraq fast and with a betrayal by the Republican Guard, "short and humanitarian" though many say that might be, is the worst case scenario that could have come out of that theatre of the Christian-Zionist "war on Terror." Further, the state terror assault continues on Palestine, complete with more "facts on the ground" trying to eliminate the possibility of sovereignty over huge new swaths of the 1967 territorial boundaries (see image of the "new map": http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/images/map1_eng.gif). The Israeli Occupation Forces are also using direct murder to attempt to scare off the international presence brought about by the International Solidarity Movement. Even a non-violent-declared movement of primarily first world youth is now coming under military assault on the front lines of this war. This, as the conquest of Iraq is declared over. I suppose that is the key to it, to notice the word 'declare.' What else is going on, undeclared? Well, the movement begun with the DC demonstration April 20, 2002 against the attacks on Palestine escalated sharply during the sabre-rattling against Iraq. It has not gone anywhere. There have been multiple peoples and groups who are looking for the shortest way to the biggest speed bump. Some have blocked the economic corridors of Canada and the United States, blocking the border crossing or the consulate doors to raise the economic costs and demonstrate rejection. But perhaps the most heartening thing has been the response to the killing of the Internationals inside of Palestinian territory. Brian Avery has had his face blasted open while both Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie have passed on into North American martyrs against the 'New American Century' of the Christian Zionists like Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle. What has become of this? The truth is that the history of the First World left has been over-all one of stagnancy for decades, despite the remarkable tirelessness of individuals and certain groups. It should say a lot for the health of our resistance to the war on one end at least, when the ISM in Palestine can report that the murders of anti-occupation activists has spurned more activists and volunteers to the call. This flies in the face of the usual pattern of retreats and surrender by "solidarity" activists, and not a moment too soon. The movement, as per usual, splits along two basic lines at a political juncture of great confusion (such as "official" bombing being ended in Iraq): Many propose to scale things back in terms of action, re-address the basics and try to win over more converts, to create a large mass movement for the usual social democratic approach. Simplifying the message is a key to this. It remains loyal-oppositional in essence, to whatever the headlines of the day are and not much more. It posits that more than this will alienate, and that other forms of resistance are "adventurous" and an irresponsible attack on the credibility of all who are currently "anti-war." This attitude, which has utter contempt for notions of solidarity, must be resisted. It appears that Cuba might be the next target, so the "other" tendency of the anti-war camp appropriately can be explained by quoting out of Abbie Hoffman's "Revolution for the Hell Of It" when he quoted Fidel: There are those who believe that it is necessary for ideas to triumph among the greatest part of the masses before initiating action, and there are others who understand that action is one of the most efficient instruments for bringing about the triumph of ideas among the masses. Whoever hesitates while waiting for ideas to triumph among the masses before initiating revolutionary action will never be a revolutionary. Stemming from this, today's resistance movement need not look at things as desperate, but stagnant. It needs a good, swift kick-start. Remember, to put something into the realm of possibility it needs to have been done. Let's redouble our efforts around this strategy, but never lose sight of taking a proper thought-out target first. Who makes the weapons of war, and why are we letting them stay open in our communities? How will we shut them down? The truth of consciousness is viewable by talking to people you don't already know. The war is known to be irredeemable; it's the pointlessness of the current charade that gets to a lot of erstwhile anti-war folk. So, rather than fall into the trap of attacking the social democratic "movement builders"-- the point isn't that they are wrong, but only wrong when they exercise monopoly on tactics-- affinity groups of flashlights need to be dispersed in your city. Some people, at a point of great darkness, need to see a light coming on. Or, if you like, the spark has to be lit. I see a time soon where people will get inspiration from one-another's actions. There will not be an isolating of those who resist, but an embrace of the need. We'll hear real discussion among friends and comrades taking place in the basements and coffee shops. Action leading to analysis, and back again. Praxis, and more than all else: solidarity and trust. Sparks start flying and the whole planet is brittle and dry. Imperialism will end and this is only the beginning of history. We shall not go gently into that good night. Mayday has, for far too long, been a small event inside North American cities. Mayday was started as a holiday in solidarity with the killing of American revolutionaries. It's therefore been doubly a statement to our weakness that only here, in Canada and the USA, is Mayday not a holiday that we have defended. We can start to take it back and do so with our compatriots in the Occupied Territories: The territories of the Guantanamo Bay naval base, Palestine, Iraq and indeed North America itself: all occupied indigenous lands to be liberated. Or as simply as the slogan plainly states it: "Globalize the Intifada!" ------------------------------------------- Macdonald Stainsby http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international -- In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 03:54:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: punk Thatcherism References: <20030501235558.H309@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> <20030501235746.R309@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> Message-ID: <004101c31090$c54563e0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> William Palfreman writes: > While attracting some unreconstructed national Keynesians within the Labour > Party and elsewhere on the left, the most enthusiastic participants are the > usual punk Thatcherite suspects. Maybe then. I don't think people like that even exist today. Again, I don't believe such people are around anymore - not within my lifetime. I'd say the last time that represented a significant point of view was 1975. ----- Firstly, thanks to William for climbing aboard the list to clarify certain points. We are both agreed that the article in question is a farrago of supposition, misquotation and conspiratorialism. With respect to the presumed death of punk Thatcherism, I would preach caution here. The issue of Northern Ireland is something that we follow here, and recent events show just how difficult it is for certain elements within the British state and their allies/mouthpieces in "civil society" to let go. That MI5 and Special Branch are implicated in the leaking of telephone conversations involving Mo Mowlam and Martin McGuinness, aimed ultimately at preventing the enactment of the GFA, tells us a lot about the resilience of these elements. That they are in decline is true -- that they are effectively dead is not. Ever since the mid-1970s there has been a growing current, incorporating parts of MI6, that has promoted a policy of gradual disengagement by the British state from Northern Ireland. The vast majority of MI5 was against this from the get-go. Not surprising, given MI5's history as the security service for the colonies. Having lost most of these, all they had left to worry over (apart from Harold Wilson, the "KGB agent") was Northern Ireland, which they proceeded to turn into an organised bloodbath once they had been given the authority to take over security operations there. One of the best sources on this is "Who Framed Colin Wallace?" by Paul Foot, published in 1990. Also worth checking is "The Wilson Plot" by David Leigh (Heinemann, 1988) and "Smear! Wilson and the Secret State" by Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsay (Grafton, 1991). Also, if you can find a copy, try out Robert Fisk, "The Point of No Return", published in 1975 about the Ulster Workers' Council strike. Meanwhile, the recent work of BBC journalist Peter Taylor, particularly "Brits", makes it clear that MI6 took various peace initiatives throughout the times of the Troubles. While Taylor himself is not the most spotless source (see his treatment of the Stalker affair), there is little doubting this particular aspect of his narrative. The people involved in this promotion of state terrorism (the McWhirter brothers, George Kennedy Young, Airey Neave, Michael Hanley, "Lord" Ralph Harris of High Cross, William Rees Mogg etc.) were also responsible for the rise of Thatcher in the first place, and while certain empire loyalists were unhappy about what they considered to be an overly diluted approach to "correcting" the problems of Britain (e.g. Gerald James, whose "In the National Interest", published in 1995, contains a good account of this), the vast majority were happy to be aligned with Thatcher as she set about attacking organised labour via orchestrated state violence and economic vandalism. In so doing she created a new more powerful stratum of petty bourgeois types, encompassing entrepreneurs and office workers, all supported by an increasingly sophisticated ideological apparatus (hence the high profile war of attrition against the BBC, involving Rees-Mogg, Norman Tebbit, "Sir" James Goldsmith, Neil Hamilton and Gerald Howarth, among others). This altered the political complexion of Britain irrevocably. The irony of all this is that Thatcher herself outlived her usefulness, as in her rampant europhobia, which alienated key constituents of her support base, hence the in-house putsch that toppled her in 1990. The Major governments of 1990-97 are the story of a messy transition, as one state party declined to be overtaken by a completely new one, New Labour, whose time had well and truly come. Major began many of the things which Blair et al. are now implementing with even greater speed. Not only intensified privatisation, but also with respect to the European re-orientation that key sections of British capital demanded, but which Major was unable to accomplish because his political base would simply not allow it. Blair's did, hence his usefulness to the hegemonic bloc now in the ascendant. The implosion of the Conservative Party is as a result of a lingering attachment to punk Thatcherism -- despite his best efforts, William Hague was forced to turn right because, in "democratising" his party, he had made himself more vulnerable to the demands of the partisan bigots that form the hard core of that party. Thus the succession of IDS, and the continuing hero-worship of Thatcher. But they remain important because of their command of parts of the ideological apparatus, not least the Telegraph newspapers and the Murdoch media empire. And linked to this is the support that they get from those in the US with strong links to the Bush administration. A check of the archives here will highlight some of these links, including Thatcher arranging for IDS to meet Donald Rumsfeld before the actual defence secretary, Geoff Hoon. One way to understand Blair's frenzied approach to foreign policy is to accept the blackmail hypothesis but to steer it away from the lurid to the more straightforward -- he knows that the current administration could cause a lot of trouble for New Labour if he does not play ball, so, within certain limits, he can afford to advocate alternative policies and stake out a "British" position, but the price of that is unwavering support of the main elements of US imperialism. The alternative is a manufactured balance of payments crisis of the kind precipitated in 1974 and resulting in the intervention of the IMF in 1976, sealing Britain's Thatcherite fate. The euro tendency within the British state, of which Blair is the figurehead, is merely the continuation of one of the two main strands of Thatcherism, whose main accomplishments were the destruction of the British working class, the restoration of British state authority (contrary to "rolling back" its frontiers) and the further incorporation into the anti-Soviet bulwark that was the European Economic Community. With the end of the Cold War, Europe's political functionality has ceased to exist from a US strategic perspective, whilst its potential as a strategic rival has grown. The other strand of Thatcherism ("punk") sees its future as part of an Anglified white world bloc, led by the US but with a special place for John Bull British nationalism and devoted to a miserably misunderstood conception of "free trade". Thus the irony of Blair -- the most euro-enthusiast PM since Edward Heath, poised to seal Britain's future by leading it into the eurozone, now forced to manage as best he can the difficulties of a hostile Bush administration and a bizarre domestic coalition of petty bourgeois nationalist bigots and labour aristocracy relics, reinforced by powerful media interests controlled by Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch, whose links to the Bush administration are very close indeed. Most of this is a rehashing of stuff written earlier, and which can be found in the archives. What is new is that this history, it is becoming clearer day by day, is far from past, and that there remains an intense struggle within the British state over its future trajectory. That punk Thatcherism cannot be regarded as a serious political alternative to New Labour is less important than the recognition that it can be used to cause severe domestic difficulty for Blair should he step out of line. Michael Keaney From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:02:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Scotland: election downside Message-ID: <005a01c3109a$5b395d80$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> The loss of John McAllion is a blow to left politics in Scotland. I'm pleased that this journalist is making public the very likely true rumours that the Labour Party was involved in efforts to sabotage its own. Given McAllion's staunch opposition to the Iraq war and consistent campaigning for left goals, it is not surprising that the should have been loathed by many within his party. It was a miracle that he made it past the selection panel way back in 1998, when another left stalwart, Dennis Canavan, was deselected by the thought police installed by Gordon Brown and Donald Dewar. Now McAllion will have to consider the alternatives. Since the only other likely options for him politically both embrace Scottish independence, he will presumably have to rethink his attitude towards "Britain". But his political demise (however temporary) is yet another reminder (as if it were needed) that there is no place in New Labour for old socialists. Interestingly McAllion was closely involved with George Galloway in establishing "Scotland United" in 1987, a radical campaigning outfit within the Labour Party geared towards securing autonomy for Scotland within the UK state. What made them different was that they were, at the time, prepared to contemplate outright independence should the British state prove unbending. ----- Rebel McAllion is finally out in the cold ROBBIE DINWOODIE, Scottish Political Correspondent The Herald, 2 May 2003 THE fiery left winger, John McAllion, lost his Dundee East seat to the SNP after two recounts. Shona Robison took the constituency by just 70 votes. There were dark rumours during the final days of the election campaign that the Labour party nationally was not doing all that it might to help Mr McAllion hang on to his constituency. He made some of the finest speeches in the last term of the parliament, particularly in his passionate criticism of the war in Iraq. However, it did not require a conspiracy theorist to suspect that the man who was so often a critic of Tony Blair's leadership might not get the full backing of the party machine. Mr McAllion was seen as popular in his constituency and the Scottish Socialists stood aside to give him a clear run. It is not clear, however, whether this did him any favours. He took the seat from the SNP in 1987 at a time when many in Labour did not consider it to be winnable. His reputation within the party was of a staunch socialist with nationalist tendencies. When he won his way into the Scottish parliament, Donald Dewar could have decided to make use of his experience and bring the maverick inside the tent. Instead he was overlooked and became convener of the petitions committee. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:10:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Iraq: weapons of mass instruction Message-ID: <006301c3109b$6faa1a60$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Weapons of mass distortion The concept of WMD is dishonest. When they are in friendly hands we call them defence forces Geoffrey Wheatcroft Friday May 2, 2003 The Guardian If the first casualty of war is truth, then language itself sustains the heaviest collateral damage, as Orwell used to point out (before "collateral damage" proved his point by entering the vocabulary of poisonous euphemism). The Iraq war has produced its own rich crop of Newspeak, but the choicest of all is the phrase "weapons of mass destruction". Even the most credulous supporters of Tony Blair's war are beginning to see they were sold a pup. MPs angrily demand evidence of the WMDs, which they, in their innocence, believed were the reason for the war, rather than its flimsy pretext, while the prime minister insists that WMDs will be found. But what are they anyway? The very phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is of recent coinage, and a specious one. It replaced "ABC weapons", for atomic, biological and chemical, which was neater, although already misleading as it conflated types of weaponry quite different in kind and in destructive capacity. WMD is even more empty and dishonest as a concept. By definition atomic and hydrogen bombs cause mass destruction. Ever since they were first built and used in war (by the US, in case anyone has forgotten), they have cast a peculiar thrall of horror, although this is not entirely logical. The quarter-million dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been preceded by nearly a million German and Japanese civilians killed by "conventional" bombing, whose conventionality was small consolation for the victims. Even supposing that nuclear weapons are uniquely horrible, the Iraq war and its aftermath have only served to confirm what Hans Blix learned, and what the International Institute for Strategic Studies said last summer: that Saddam had no fissile material to build atomic warheads. Nor did he have (for all the shockingly mendacious propaganda) the wherewithal for acquiring such material. Had he possessed warheads, he never had the means of striking London, let alone New York. And if he had ever been tempted to lob one at Israel, he would have been constrained by the certain knowledge that Baghdad would have been nuked minutes later. Certainly he possessed the biological and chemical material in ABC, although here again the "W" in WMD is notably misleading: "weaponised" was just what this material was not, a fact which makes the pretext for war even more phoney. And certainly Saddam had used biological and chemical weapons against Iran as well as the Kurds. Very nasty they are, but that does not make them mass-destructive in the same sense as nuclear warheads. A height of absurdity was reached with the claim that one of Saddam's WMDs was mustard gas - a weapon we were using in 1917, and which British politicians at the time defended as comparatively humane beside high-explosive artillery and machine-gun fire. Even terrorism isn't always more dangerous because of access to toxic substances, and doesn't need a dictator like Saddam to provide them anyway. Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman have written about biological and chemical weapons in their book, A Higher Form of Killing. Harris has pointed out that "a reasonably competent chemist could produce nerve agent on a kitchen table". In 1995, a terrorist religious cult in Japan did just that, thereby providing an illuminating comparison. Those cultists released sarin nerve gas - another of Saddam's alleged WMDs - into the Tokyo metro during rush hour. Last February in the South Korean city of Daegu, an underground train was attacked, with a milk carton containing inflammable liquid. Twelve people died in the "WMD" attack; old-fashioned arson killed 120. Soon after September 11, a number of letters containing anthrax spores were posted in America. In the overwrought climate of the moment, it was claimed that this batch of "WMD" could kill the American population many times over, and that may have been true according to some abstract calculation. In the event, five people died. While terrorism is murderous, it mostly remains technologically primitive. Three people were killed in Tel Aviv on Tuesday by a suicide bomber's belt of explosive and metal scraps, and the IRA have shown how bloodthirsty "spectaculars" can be mounted with nothing more than fertiliser, sugar, and condoms for the timers. As for the greatest spectacular of all, Blair has repeatedly linked September 11 with the threat of WMDs. But the 3,000 victims in New York weren't killed by WMDs of any kind, they were murdered by a dozen fanatics armed with box cutters. Although it has been irritating subsequently to have the contents of one's sponge bag confiscated at the airport in the name of security, that scarcely makes a pair of nail scissors a WMD. The truth is that "weapons of mass destruction" is a concept defined by the person using it. "I like a drink, you are a drunk, he is an alcoholic," runs the old conjugation. Now there's another: "We have defence forces, you have dangerous arms, he has weapons of mass destruction." As usual, it depends who you are. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:12:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: Northern Ireland Message-ID: <006b01c3109b$baed6040$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Two held over Ulster phone tap leak Rosie Cowan, Ireland correspondent Friday May 2, 2003 The Guardian Detectives investigating the leaking of transcripts of telephone calls between Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein and Jonathan Powell, the prime minister's chief of staff, arrested a Sunday Times journalist and his wife yesterday. Officers also seized documents at the home of the journalist, Liam Clarke, the Sunday Times Northern Ireland editor, who co-wrote a biography of Mr McGuinness with his wife, Kathryn Johnston. The updated version of the book, entitled Martin McGuinness: From Guns to Government, included transcripts of phone calls allegedly bugged by M15. They were made by Mr McGuinness to Mr Powell and to the former Northern Ireland secretary Mo Mowlam and the Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams. Police arrested a 48-year-old retired special branch officer and seized a computer and disks during a house search on Wednesday, when the Times published extracts from the transcripts, which featured calls made in 1999 and 2001. The bugging was allegedly part of an operation known as Narcotic1, which started in 1997 and was still running. In one call, in August 1999, Mr Powell described Willie Thompson, then an Ulster Unionist MP who opposed the Good Friday agreement, as an "ass". In another, Ms Mowlam apparently told Mr McGuinness that she was going to see Tony Blair and was "fighting like fuck" to keep her post in Northern Ireland. Asked in the Commons about the bugging, Mr Blair refused to comment on "any matters related to security". Mr McGuinness is the Mid-Ulster MP at Westminster, and the education minister in the Stormont government, which was put on ice last October amid allegations of an IRA spy ring. He described the phone taps as "disgraceful". "The war is not over for securocrats," he said. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:14:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Zimbabwe: Mugabe support crumbling? Message-ID: <007301c3109c$09458740$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Knives out for Mugabe as party loyalty fades Power struggle brews within Zanu-PF amid growing dismay over Zimbabwe's collapse Andrew Meldrum in Harare Friday May 2, 2003 The Guardian Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe, is battling against a whispering campaign within his Zanu-PF party begun by some of his deputies and lieutenants vying to succeed him. The Guardian revealed yesterday that Mr Mugabe faced unprecedented pressure from fellow African leaders to retire, and the presidents of South Africa and Nigeria, Thabo Mbeki and Olusegun Obasanjo, were due in Harare on Monday to urge him to end his 23-year rule. But even as the 79-year-old leader struggles with Zimbabwe's severe famine, fuel and power shortages, economic collapse and international criticism, he is also confronted by growing pressure from ambitious officials in his own party. Interviews with senior members of Zanu-PF show that substantial elements of the party think it is time for Mr Mugabe to go. But it is bitterly divided over who should succeed him and remains at a loss for a strategy for pulling the country out of its most severe economic freefall and famine ever. "The party is fully aware they have lost the population," a former Zanu-PF member of parliament said. "Cabinet ministers and party officials sit over beers and admit the party has failed the country. But when Mugabe comes into the room they all sit up and tell the president what he wants to hear. They are all afraid." They fear that Mr Mugabe will cut them out of the party's inner circle of wealth and power. They are also afraid of Mr Mugabe's revenge. Some cabinet ministers privately say they are unhappy with the situation but are frightened of violent retribution if they resign. "Zanu-PF is not just a political party, it is a liberation movement that fought a bitter and bloody war to gain power," said Wilfred Mhanda, a prominent war veteran, now director of the Zimbabwe Liberators Platform, a group critical of Mr Mugabe. "That violent struggle 30 years ago shaped Robert Mugabe and many others in the party. They are committed to keeping power, not to democracy. They are not afraid to spill blood now to keep power." Mr Mugabe's use of the army, police, war veterans and youth militia frightens many people, but he cannot intimidate an economy back to prosperity or win back popularity. "There are several in Zanu-PF who have been waiting for years to succeed Mugabe and now they fear they are losing their chance," said a former ambassador. "They fear Mugabe will drag the party down with him and they won't have a chance of power. That is why they want Mugabe to step down now." The most prominent faction became public in January when the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, revealed that he had been approached by the parliamentary speaker, Emmerson Mnangagwa, and the chief of staff of the armed forces, General Vitalis Zvinavashe, who asked him if he would join a "transitional government" if they got Mr Mugabe to retire. Mr Mnangagwa, a former defence minister, is widely considered to be Mr Mugabe's likely successor. "They are powerful men, but their weakness is that they are not popular," said a Zanu-PF MP. "Mnangagwa cannot even win an election within the party, not to mention a parliamentary seat. How could he lead the nation?" Party leaders can rattle off other factions vying to succeed Mr Mugabe, but virtually all of the various challengers are devoid of any new economic policies to reverse Zimbabwe's decline. The one Zanu-PF contender who is an exception is Simba Makoni, a former finance minister. He has spoken out for rational economic policies and avoided associating with the more lawless side of the party. He told the Guardian that Zimbabwe's daunting problems demanded a national effort in which all Zimbabwean parties and civic organisations worked together. "We are faced with a crisis, both economic and social, that calls for a national effort that cuts across party lines," Mr Makoni said. "The governing party and the opposition party must work together, with civil society and professional bodies. Only that way can we mobilise all our resources to find a way out of this crisis. We need to get Zimbabweans to work together again." Mr Makoni's statements are earth-shaking, particularly coming from within Mr Mugabe's often belligerent ruling party. "It is a hallmark of democracy that the different political parties can work together. Anyone who suggests that our problems can be solved by an exclusively partisan approach from any one party is suggesting a path that will be longer and more painful," said Mr Makoni. "And to work with our regional and international partners would also be beneficial." A Zanu-PF member of parliament said: "Moderates within Zanu-PF are comfortable with Makoni and even the general public likes him. He is not tainted by corruption. But he does not have a proven constituency, he does not have an elected seat." Another party member said: "Makoni is outside the inner circle but he could well come to power with a bit of support from South Africa." South Africa's economic pressure and President Mbeki are the most decisive factors influencing Mr Mugabe. "South Africa's key strategy in dealing with Zimbabwe is to try to get Zanu-PF to make an internal change in leadership. If they finish up the land redistribution, that could allow Mugabe to retire as a hero and get a successor," said Ivor Jenkins, director of the International Democratic Alternative for South Africa. He said Mr Makoni appeared to have "the least baggage in terms of allegations of corruption and human rights abuses". There is also growing speculation that Mr Mbeki is looking to Mr Makoni. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:18:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Zimbabwe: US-British interference Message-ID: <007b01c3109c$9940a8c0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> US plots to oust Mugabe with African nations' help By Basildon Peta in Johannesburg and Andrew Grice The Independent 02 May 2003 The United States - backed by Britain - is pushing for "regime change" in Zimbabwe that would see President Robert Mugabe replaced by a member of the ruling Zanu-PF party. The new president would then call a constitutional conference and organise elections to be monitored by the international community. President George Bush is sending Walter Kansteiner, his special adviser on Africa, to the region next week. The US is persuading African leaders to back its strategy to use regional pressure to bring about the regime change. Rather than demand an immediate re-run of the March 2002 presidential election, which international observers accused Mr Mugabe of rigging, the US is pushing a so-called "Palestinian strategy". This refers to the sidelining of Yasser Arafat in favour of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. America, Britain and South Africa have indicated that the country's former finance minister Simba Makoni is a suitable interim figure to take over from Mr Mugabe. Mr Makoni is untainted by the worst excesses of the Mugabe regime and has publicly denounced the chaotic land seizures that have driven the country to the edge of disaster. Tony Blair and Mr Bush have not discussed the Zimbabwe situation in their many conversations over the recent months. But Mr Blair wants the issue raised at next month's G8 summit in Evian, France. "I would like to see a bigger focus by the international community on Zimbabwe," he told the Financial Times this week. "Now there's a limit to what you can do but I have never had a difficulty with the concept of intervention. It doesn't necessarily mean ... armed intervention, it can be diplomatic." British ministers denied that the US plan was a payback for Mr Blair's support over Iraq. One Government source said: "If there was a quid pro quo, it was on the Middle East peace process and the publication of the road-map." African leaders, including South Africa's President, Thabo Mbeki, have openly supported Mr Mugabe despite widespread international condemnation. They have also succeeded in undermining British attempts to isolate his regime internationally, most recently insisting that he be invited to the Franco-Africa summit organised by President Jacques Chirac. Over the past three months Mr Mbeki's views on regime change have changed, according to Mr Kansteiner. South Africa now acceptsMr Mugabe should be edged aside, he said. Other influential African countries including Botswana, Mozambique, Senegal, Ghana agree that Mr Mugabe's removal from power is the only realistic step towards resolving the deepening crisis in Zimbabwe, which threatens to plunge the region into humanitarian and economic chaos. Mr Mbeki believes it would be easier to lobby international support for Zimbabwe with a new leader. Mr Mbeki, Nigerian leader, Olusegun Obasanjo, and Malawi's President, Bakili Muluzi, arrive in Zimbabwe on Monday for talks with Mr Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:19:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: New Europe Message-ID: <008301c3109c$b44b9260$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> More US forces will be based in eastern Europe By Stephen Castle in Brussels The Independent 02 May 2003 A dramatic shift of American military forces from bases in Germany to locations in "new" Europe, including Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and Hungary, is being brought forward after the war in Iraq. According to reports in the US, the 17,000-strong 1st Armoured Division, most of which was sent to Iraq from Germany, will not return there. Meanwhile, Romania's Defence Minister, Ioan Mircea Pascu, has announced that talks will begin shortly with Washington on the deployment of more American forces to bases in his country. The decision to scale down American forces in Germany, as well as Pentagon plans to remove troops from Saudi Arabia, underlines the extent to which the Iraq war has changed Washington's military priorities. The aftermath of the conflict is being used to help reshape the international security framework and mount the biggest US military reshuffle since the Second World War. Europe is used to playing host to more than 112,000 American troops, 80 per cent of whom have been based in Germany. But with the German and French governments singled out for criticism by Washington for their opposition to the war in Iraq, the Pentagon seems intent on shifting many of its forces eastwards. Former communist countries which have been accepted into Nato's ranks not only offered political support for Washington's war effort but can provide strategic bases. The pattern likely to emerge is of a dispersal of limited numbers of American troops to several, smaller-scale centres in Eastern Europe, with some soldiers returning home. That would fit with the objective of Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, of creating leaner, more mobile and faster forces. The senior US commander in Europe, General James Jones, has called for the creation of a "family of bases" that can go "from being cold to warm to hot if you need them". This blueprint would permit the periodic expansion of forces when necessary while averting a political problem with Moscow. As part of its deal with Russia over the expansion of Nato, Washington agreed not to set up new military bases in the former communist countries. At a meeting this week at Nato headquarters in Brussels the Americans said they will honour this commitment and that any deployments to the former Soviet bloc would require only minimal improvements to existing infrastructure. The purpose would be to allow joint training exercises, a senior American official said. Diplomats say some of the bases which are likely to play host to US troops have already been upgraded as a condition of entry into Nato, and could accommodate more troops. European diplomats do not expect the US entirely to abandon its German bases, keeping a presence, for example, at Ramstein near Frankfurt. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:22:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Italy: Berlusconi loses battle Message-ID: <008b01c3109d$0dc48a40$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Berlusconi's lawyer convicted of bribery By Peter Popham in Rome The Independent 01 May 2003 Silvio Berlusconi's carefully laid plans to escape the judgment of Milan were in ruins yesterday after the Italian Prime Minister's friend, lawyer and political colleague Cesare Previti was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment for bribing judges. The culmination of a trial that lasted nearly three years, dogged at every step by the frantic attempts of Mr Berlusconi and Previti to derail it, came at 11.10pm on Tuesday. After deliberating for more than seven hours, the judges convicted all but one of the six accused, all formerly high-flying judges and lawyers, to jail terms ranging from four years to 13. The defendants were accused of giving and receiving bribes amounting to 67bn lira (£24m) to encourage judges in Rome's appeal courts to award ownership of two business conglomerates, including Italy's biggest publisher, Mondadori, to Mr Berlusconi's company, Fininvest. The Prime Minister was originally one of the accused, but dropped off the list under the statute of limitations because the charges against him were less serious. His office responded to the sentencing of Previti, a senator in Mr Berlusconi's Forza Italia party, harshly. "This is an ugly day for Italian justice," his spokesman said. Mr Berlusconi added: "The politicisation of certain magistrates, which has come to condition our political life, is a problem that must be resolved for the good of the country, of the institutions and of Italian citizens." Mr Berlusconi had devoted his political energy to preventing yesterday's embarrassment. Against angry opposition protests, he rammed through a law allowing cases to be transformed to a different judiciary if "legitimate suspicion" that the judges are biased could be proved. But when Previti used the new law to try to get his case switched from Milan, Italy's highest court of appeal turned him down. The sentencing of Previti was seen as a humiliation for Mr Berlusconi, "at least embarrassing", said Giuseppe D'Avanzo of La Repubblica newspaper, "for a man who, as proprietor of Mondadori, was the direct benefactor of this corrupt act". But it was not expected to weaken his grip on power. Francesco Perfetti, professor of politics at Rome's University of Luiss, said: "I rule out the possibility that the conviction will have an immediate impact on the stability of the government." A corruption scandal that broke during Mr Berlusconi's previous term as Prime Minister, in 1994, hastened the downfall of that government. But this time his coalition appears more robust, while the centre-left opposition is in disarray. Previti, who like the other defendants was not present in court for the judgment, declared angrily: "[The judges] have brought to a conclusion what they had decided to do in advance ... I have been persecuted by the 'red togas'. It's a political sentence. I will appeal." The verdicts and the sentences vindicated the painstaking prosecution of Ilda Boccassini, who tracked for the court what one commentator called the "whirling circuits of money". Huge sums vanished from accounts held by the lawyers and popped up in accounts owned by the judges. This is a dark culmination for Mr Berlusconi, but it is also just the beginning - the verdict in a case in which he stands accused of bribing judges to gain control of a food company, is expected in the summer. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:48:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Japan: touting for inward investment Message-ID: <00af01c310a0$c545bec0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> The following statement was released today by JETRO NY. Please let us know if you have any questions, if you do not wish to receive similar releases in the future or if we can be of help in any way. Thank you for your interest and cooperation. ================================================== Japan Seeks to Double Foreign Direct Investment in Japan within Five Years NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 30, 2003--The Japan External Trade Organization New York (JETRO NY) released a newsletter today highlighting new measures to increase foreign direct investment (FDI) in Japan. It can be viewed at: http://www.jetro.org/newyork/focusnewsletter/focus24.html . As part of an ongoing initiative to accelerate FDI, the Expert Committee of the Japan Investment Council (JIC) recently released a number of important recommendations. In a related development, Prime Minister Koizumi announced in a major January 31st policy speech Japan's determination to double the cumulative amount of FDI in Japan within five years. Over the past decade, Japan has come to understand FDI is essential to introducing new capital, resources, know-how and technologies. Nevertheless, FDI inflows remain low. According to UNCTAD, Japan's Inward FDI Potential Index is 14th among 140 countries although its Performance Index is 131st. To address this severe undervaluation, measures must be initiated to enhance Japan's investment attractiveness. This includes: * Welcoming FDI into Japan: Disseminating Information in Japan and Abroad New investment should be welcomed regardless of capital origin and the importance of FDI shown to the Japanese people. Information also must be disseminated internationally to showcase Japan's economic potential. * Smoother Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A): Preparing the Business Environment Today, cross-border investment often takes the form of M&A, rather than new business development. Therefore, it is essential to facilitate the M&A process. * Clear, Simple and Fast Administrative Procedures: Facilitating Regulatory Approvals and Constraints To make administrative procedures better than other countries, user-oriented ways of thinking need to be adopted. * Securing Necessary Human Resources: Improve Employment and Living Environment Human resources help to drive industrial growth and are essential to develop dynamic businesses. * Local Government Creativity and Ideas: Enlarging the Role of Local Governments Competition of ideas among local governments will help enhance, and demonstrate, the potential of their particular regions. The Expert Committee of the JIC believes the following five points are vital to increase FDI into Japan: * Promoting Public Knowledge of Japan's Attractiveness and Desire for FDI Actively inform international audiences of Japan's desire to welcome FDI; and Seek the understanding of the Japanese people on the importance of FDI. * Improving Japan's Business Environment Improve rules and regulations to facilitate M&A; Enhance transparency and reliability of corporate information; Facilitate new business development; Maximize use of resources of foreign companies; and Improve access to services that support FDI in Japan. * Reviewing Administrative and Regulatory Processes and Procedures Make information available in one-stop form, Simplify and accelerate administrative procedures; and Promote no-action-letter and public comment systems. * Creating a Favorable Employment System and Living Environments Step up reform of Japanese labor market; Improve visa and immigration systems; Improve environment for international education; and Increase ability of foreign doctors to practice in Japan. * Improving Local and National Government Structures and Systems Help local governments to attract foreign investment; Develop designated special zones for structural reform; and Improve national structure for FDI promotion. CONTACT: JETRO New York Satoshi Miyamoto Tel: 212/997-0416 Fax: 212/997-0464 E-mail: Satoshi_Miyamoto@jetro.go.jp Focus is published and disseminated by JETRO New York, in coordination with KWR International, Inc., New York, NY 10023, Tel: 212-532-3005, Fax: 212-799-0517, E-mail: kwrintl@kwrintl.com . JETRO New York is registered as an agent of the Japan External Trade Organization, Tokyo, Japan and KWR International, Inc. is registered on behalf of JETRO New York. This material is filed with the Department of Justice where the required registration statement is available for public viewing. From kaliyuga at humboldt1.com Fri May 2 07:02:02 2003 From: kaliyuga at humboldt1.com (viveka) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Patriot Act II - JUST SAY NO! Message-ID: <004f01c310aa$b90fa1c0$202664d8@com.humboldt1.com> A small town in Northern California proves we CAN say no! For those of us frustrated or uncertain about what to do next, here's an act of resistance that has garnered national attention. My dear friend, David Meserve, drafted and helped pass the ordinance below in little old Arcata, California and has received non-stop invitations to be on nationally televised talk shows. His appearances have run the spectrum from Pat Buchanan to Pacifica's WBAI - from Al Jazeera to Sam Donaldson! He is happy to talk to anyone about this, if you're interested in passing such legislation in your city (the list is growing) or if you have a connection for him on a radio or TV spot. Give him my hame if you call. 707-822-1469. Here's a brief summary of the ordinance, the full text follows: "The ordinance instructs management employees of the city not to engage in or permit any unconstitutional detentions or profiling, not to voluntarily cooperate with investigations or arrests in violation of individuals' civil rights or liberties, and to report to the city manager and city council any requests for information or assistance that may be in violation of the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment." Maggie AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCATA AMENDING THE ARCATA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFEND THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES The City Council of the City of Arcata does ordain as follows: Section 1: Title II: Administration, Chapter 2: Officers and Employees, Article 5: Defending Civil rights and liberties, Sections 2190 - 2194 are hereby added to the Municipal Code as follows: SEC. 2190: Purposes. The purposes of this ordinance are as follows: A. To protect the civil rights and civil liberties for all and to affirm the City's commitment to embody democracy, and to embrace, defend and uphold the inalienable rights and fundamental liberties granted under the United States and the California Constitutions, as set forth in Resolution 023-32, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcata to Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties, adopted by the Council on January 15, 2003; and B. To ensure that local law enforcement continues to preserve and uphold residents' freedom of speech, assembly, association, and privacy, the right to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, even if requested or authorized to infringe upon such rights by federal or state law enforcement agencies acting under new powers created by the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), Homeland Security Act (Public Law 107-296), or related Executive Orders, or by future enacted laws, executive orders or regulations. SEC. 2191: No Unconstitutional Detentions or Profiling. No management employee of the City shall officially engage in or permit unlawful detentions or profiling based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or political or religious association that are in violation of individuals' civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. SEC. 2192: No Unconstitutional Voluntary Cooperation. No management employee of the City shall officially assist or voluntarily cooperate with investigations, interrogations, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, that are in violation of individuals' civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. SEC. 2193: Notification. Management employees of the City shall promptly notify the City Manager when, in the course of City employment, the following occurs: A management employee of the City is contacted by another law enforcement agency and asked to cooperate or assist with an investigation, interrogation, or arrest procedure under provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), Homeland Security Act (Public Law 107-296), or related Executive Orders, or future enacted law, executive order or regulation, where such procedure is in violation of an individual's civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Upon such notification from a management employee, the City Manager shall promptly report to the City Council, specifying the law enforcement agency seeking cooperation or assistance and the actions requested of the management employee. SEC. 2194: Defense. The City shall provide legal defense to any management employee who is criminally charged by another entity for his or her actions in compliance with this Ordinance. SEC. 2195: Severability. If any section or sections of the ordinance is or are held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other sections shall nevertheless continue in full force and remain in effect. Section 2: This ordinance will take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. Dated: April 2, 2003. ATTESTED: APPROVED: City Clerk, City of Arcata Mayor, City of Arcata Clerk's Certification I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of ordinance No. 1339, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City council of the City of Arcata, Humboldt County, California, on the second day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: 4 NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 City Clerk, City of Arcata From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 07:15:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] US state: Council on Foreign Relations leftists Message-ID: <011a01c310ac$db736ce0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Forwarded from Louis Proyect: In my Swans article, I mentioned that Joanne Landy, author of Cuba petition #2, had been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations 10 years ago on the prompting of Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation Magazine, a liberal publication with over 100,000 subscribers which also yielded a number of signatories for petition number one, including Marc Cooper, Kathe Pollitt (in an ecumenical spirit, she also signed Landy's petition) and Eric Alterman. I neglected to mention that Vanden Heuvel *remains* on the Council of Foreign Relations for reasons that are all too depressingly obvious. If your goal is to apply cosmetic improvements to American capitalism rather than eliminating it and replacing it with something more rational, naturally you would want to seek out positions of power and influence close to the heart of the system. One wonders if Vanden Heuvel was in attendance at Niall Ferguson's talk at the CFR recently that received these biting comments from Maureen Dowd, who has lately--along with Paul Krugman--the only voice of reason at the newspaper of record. >>"America is the empire that dare not speak its name," Niall Ferguson, the Oxford professor who wrote "Empire," told a crowd at the Council on Foreign Relations here on Monday. He believes that America is so invested in its "creation myth," breaking away from a wicked empire, that Americans will always be self-deceiving — and even self-defeating — imperialists. "The great thing about the American empire is that so many Americans disbelieve in its existence," he said. "Ever since the annexation of Texas and invasion of the Philippines, the U.S. has systematically pursued an imperial policy. "It's simply a suspension of disbelief by Americans. They think they're so different that when they have bases in foreign territories, it's not an empire. When they invade sovereign territory, it's not an empire." Asked in an interview about Viceroy Jay Garner's promise that U.S. military overlords would "leave fairly rapidly," Mr. Ferguson replied: "I'm hoping he's lying. Successful empires must be based on hypocrisy. The Americans can say they're doing things in the name of freedom, liberty and apple pie. But they must build a civil society and revive the economy before they have elections. "From 1882 until 1922, the British promised the international community 66 times that they would leave Egypt, but they never did. If they leave Iraq to its own devices, the whole thing will blow up." Afghanistan offers cautionary lessons. It was the abandonment by the U.S. after Afghanistan's war in 1989 with the Soviet Union that stoked the fury of Al Qaeda. The regime of the American puppet Hamid Karzai is still perilously fragile.<< full: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/30/opinion/30DOWD.html That's what the CFR is about, advising the US ruling class how to administer an empire effectively. We on the left, who have our own agenda, have to figure out in the coming years as the US ruling class becomes ever more bellicose, to make clear lines of distinction between those who want to destroy empire and those who want to tame it. From soncu at pacbell.net Fri May 2 10:16:03 2003 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] (Forward from Nestor) Stratfor on Argentina Message-ID: My dear friend Anne Williamson forwarded (in the hope, I guess, that I could provide some details) what follows, by Stratfor. These are my comments: Stratfor: Two Peronist Candidates Go Head-to-Head in Argentine Runoff Me: Misleading and old-fashioned. Not Peronists, but at most, of "Peronist origin". The core of the situation is that the traditional anti-Peronist mass party, Radicalism, has disappeared (probably for ever, since its social constituency -the relatively well to do middle classes of Buenos Aires and the Pampa region- has largely disappeared first). And, as a logic consequence (because social forces need to find some expression), what used to be called Peronism has split, most probably without return, into three distinct formations. Menemism is the clearest representation of the fractions of the ruling classes who gave up the decades old attempt by peronism to build up a self-centered capitalism in our country, and threw the whole lot of Argentina with the new global hegemon; they also cater for some vote from the lowest ranks of our society, among others due to long entrenched hatred from the dispossessed regions in the Inland country against the most prosperous Pampa region. Engineer Alvaro Alsogaray, an "olive oil" pure oligarch, has very aptly explained that Menemism was not Peronism any more, as early as 1990. Duhaldism (the branch of Peronism behind Kirchner) is the representation of a kneeling down bourgeoisie and its teams of technocrats, a fraction of the civilian State bureaucracy, etc. Many workers support them, but they have given up the kernel of "Per?n?s Peronism" as it is known here. Kirchner, Duhalde?s candidate, was elected mostly due to a strong campaign of fear which involved media attacks on the population so as to brainwash us with the "fear from Menem + L?pez Murphy" tenet. Nothing of "Peronism" here, either. The third party of the split, Adolfo Rodr?guez Sa?, is the only one that more clearly raises the historic banners of Peronism. But he lost the elections. Stratfor: Summary Former President Carlos Menem may be the political underdog in Argentina's May 18 presidential elections, although he won the first-round election with 24.6 percent of the vote. His biggest problem is that 70 percent of Argentine voters dislike him intensely, equating his previous governments with widespread corruption and what is commonly perceived as the destruction of the country's economy with free-market policies that did not help most Argentines. Me: a good summary, indeed. Stratfor: Analysis [...] Menem [...] announced a proposed Cabinet that would include many "new faces" in Argentine politics, and has said he will focus on foreign policy, the economy and security issues to define sharp differences between himself and Kirchner, according to Stratfor sources in Buenos Aires. Me: Bad sources. Maybe Stratfor could pay some money for good info, instead. No new faces at all. All of them are a bunch of roguish children of a bitch. Menem?s tactics has been very clear: "I am the devil, vote me!". In fact, they expected to get enough votes in the first round not to go to a second one. And they had printed Victory Advertisements which ran, literally, "Los hijos de puta hemos vuelto!" (We, the motherf*rs, are back!). Stratfor: However, Kirchner's low negative ratings among voters suggest that he has considerable room to raise his share of the runoff vote by leveraging widespread dislike for Menem to his advantage and persuading independent voters that his economic policies would be sound. Kirchner also is counting on the strong support of current President Eduardo Duhalde's government to put him over the top on May 18. This support gives Kirchner a strong base in the wealthy province of Buenos Aires, which is Duhalde's political stronghold. Me: Of course Kirchner will leverage widespread dislike for Menem. At least, these elections must serve to have him out of politics for ever. Most probably, he will end his life in Torremolinos, just another retired tropical tyrant (albeit with "democratic" credentials) who sold out his own country. As to the soundness of Kirchner?s economic policies: this is a misinterpretation. What counts here is that the great power of Duhalde has helped to convince Argentineans that the only thing we can do is to kneel down for the time being. The Iraqi defeat may have had a greater impact than many imagine. As to the "wealthy" province of Buenos Aires, this is outrageous. Though it is "wealthier" than most provinces, its landscape is that of an industrial graveyard slowly recovering under the protection of Duhalde?s hyper-high exchange rate. Stratfor: Menem and Kirchner also are reaching out to peronist provincial governors in an effort to build political alliances in regions where they fared poorly in the first round vote. Both are courting former San Luis provincial governor Adolfo Rodriguez Saa, and each has offered jobs in their respective future governments to leading peronist governors like Carlos Reutemann of Santa Fe and Eduardo Fellner of Jujuy province, who would be interior minister in Kirchner's government. Me: Rodr?guez Sa?, at best (from Menem?s point of view), will give suport to none. He is courted because although he lost the election he collected a sizable 14% of the vote. But he does not own that vote. He has convened a national meeting of the Higher Command of his Movement tomorrow. The decission will be made by the Command, who will most probably split over the issue since many want to call for a vote to Kirchner, while there is a minority who would vote Menem. He represents something different from Menem or Kirchner. Most probably, he will give freedom to his voters to make their choice, which will probably mean that 8 out of 10 will vote Kirchner, 1 will vote Menem, and 1 in 10 will vote blank / not vote. Reutemann is a political dead, and at any rate he will not support Menem because he smells other people?s cadaverine very well. Province governors depend strongly on Central Government funds, thus they are not very independent un less they adopt a policy such as that by Rodr?guez Sa?, which is excluded by definition in the case of Reutemann. So, they take their bearings very carefully and try to smell the air and to see who is going to be the winner. In this case, Kirchner. Stratfor: Menem, who is 72, has pledged to structure a Cabinet that would include many political newcomers; he likely will announce the nominations this week. So far, he has confirmed the appointment of Carlos Melconian, an economist who has written a best-selling book on how to rebuild Argentina, as his pick for economy minister. Menem also named pro-U.S. veteran journalist Jorge Castro as foreign minister. Menem's proposals also unabashedly seek greater economic and political engagement with the United States. Me: Melconian is as new as stale wine, same with Castro. His "best-selling" book is simply a rehash of neoliberal crap. Castro is a former ultra-leftist who derived towards Peronism and then to Menemism, and a swindler, by the way. If Stratfor believes that these are "new faces" then they are quite misled. If by "new" you mean "people unknown to the mass of the population", then you may well say that most "candidates" are "new". Stratfor: Kirchner has promised a Cabinet that would mix honesty, experience and fresh blood in the government. However, his core officials would include current Economy Minister Roberto Lavagna, who would continue in that role, and several other officials currently serving in Duhalde's government. In fact, Duhalde appears to have considerable political influence over Kirchner's proposed ministers, judging by the many officials that would be carried over into the new administration if Kirchner is elected. Me: There is a joke here on future newspaper headlines ("Kirchner declares himself completely independent from the Ministers that Duhalde has imposed on him"). But the scenario will be an interesting one, with Kirchner trying to impose himself on Duhalde from Presidency. Kirchner is the representation of the State bureaucrats who are not neoliberals, such as Lavagna. Duhalde is the representation of the social layer that the Lavagnas express, the petty factory and workshop owners in the outskirts of the large cities, mediated through a heavy and hard-fisted scheme of local bosses. There will, of necessity, be secondary contradictions between both wings of Duhaldism, which most probably will render the country out of control. Stratfor is insightful here: [...] Duhalde expects to continue playing a powerful role behind the scenes in Kirchner's government, which likely would lead quickly to political disagreements between the two men. Such tensions could weaken the Argentine government -- which would confront a fragmented Congress in any event. If Kirchner wins the May runoff, Argentina's core economic policies under Duhalde would not undergo significant change. With Lavagna still at the helm of the Economy Ministry, Buenos Aires likely would continue to work with the International Monetary Fund, but progress in restructuring the country's external debt and domestic banking system would plod forward slowly. Me: This is the largest difference with Rodr?guez Sa?, and with Peronism at large. Per?n would NOT have worked with the IMF while Argentinean children die from hunger (physicians in Tucum?n were horrified when they discovered that there were cases of Kwashiorkor in food-plenty Argentina!). The problem lies in that until the Argentinean foreign debt is not denounced as the swindle it is, no reasonable (that is, people-feeding, not more than that) policy can be launched. This will be Kirchner?s main problem in the House of Government. Lavagna has "stabilized" the situation, but now he must show good results FOR THE PEOPLE. This he will most probably fail to achieve. Stratfor: Menem's economic and security proposals are bolder than Kirchner's and openly pro-market. In effect, Menem represents the most reformist wing of the Peronist Party on economic and trade policy issues. Me: Please translate "bolder" as "criminal": Menem proposes to bring the Armed Forces to protect "security" on the streets. His economic proposals are straightforward subjection to the US (this is what should be understood by "pro-market", since no Peronist is against the market. "Reformist wing" should be read as "Quisling") Stratfor: For instance, he has proposed adopting the U.S. dollar as Argentina's national currency, securing a free trade agreement with the United States as quickly as possible and rebuilding close political linkages between the two countries that largely were dissolved under Duhalde. In practical terms, this means that Argentina under Menem would align itself with Washington on every major foreign policy issue of concern to the United States. Me: Stratfor seems to believe that this has meant nothing to Argentinean voters, and explains away Menem?s low popularity by the battered drum of "corruption" (see following paragraph). This is a serious mistake. Argentineans would have accepted corruption if Menem?s policies had been of national defense and not of subjection to imperialism. Stratfor: Menem's closest political allies realize their candidate is at a disadvantage in terms of popularity: He is perceived as having presided over two successive corrupt governments that stole and wasted billions of dollars. However, they are gambling that many voters -- especially in the middle class, which was nearly destroyed by the country's economic collapse in the past several years -- may be persuaded to set aside their personal dislike for Menem and buy into his optimistic vision that Argentina will recapture its lost prosperity if voters elect him president a third time. Me: Survivors of the Titanic, clinging to a straw while their limbs freeze painfully. December 19 / 20 put an end to all that. From bar at idirect.com Fri May 2 10:17:02 2003 From: bar at idirect.com (Christopher Black) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] Fw: New ME Order--order bodybags, order coffins, order more ammo Message-ID: <017c01c310c1$a1621c80$2a099ad8@computer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mick Collins" To: "John Steppling" ; "Yana Collins" ; "Gilles Troude" ; "Alexis Troude" ; "Bogdan Manojlovic" ; "Anton Jarvis" ; "Louis Dalmas" ; "Lou Olker" ; "Antoine Colonna" ; "Danise Delgado" ; "Kathi Montgomery" ; "Bob Locke" ; "John O'Connell" ; "joseph goodrich" ; "Alan Mandell" ; "Christopher Black" ; "Paul Davidson" ; "Rana Bose" ; "Jon Volkmer" Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 4:56 AM Subject: New ME Order--order bodybags, order coffins, order more ammo Is this what Kerry was talking about when he praised the Commander and Chump for his handling of the war in Iraq? Shades of the Ariel & The Intifadas! This is exactly what the junta had in mind as the New ME Order. Mick ______________________________________________ Two Killed In New Iraq Demo Shooting From hliu at mindspring.com Fri May 2 10:29:01 2003 From: hliu at mindspring.com (Henry C.K. Liu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] Inflation Targeting Message-ID: <3EB29C97.80101@mindspring.com> Lucas formed what came to be called a theory of "rational expectations". In essence, the "rational expectations" theory shows how expectations about the future influence the economic decisions made by individuals, households and companies. Using complex mathematical models, Lucas showed statistically that the average individual would anticipate - and thus could easily undermine - the impact of a government's economic policy. Rational expectation theory was embraced by the Reagan White House during its first term, but the doctrine worked against the Reagan voodoo economic plan instead of with it. It is interesting to note that Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" can actually be a validation of the Lucas' "rational expectation". One can rationally expect to benefit from irrational expectation and hope to exit before the burst of the bubble. Thus rational expectation can actually prolong, if not produce, irrational exuberance. Now Pimco, the nations largest bond fund, having recently prononced a negative view on GE bonds, is rooting for inflation targeting. In an earlier post : Fed vs White House, I drew the lists' attention to Fed economist Thomas Laubach who is a recognized inflation targeter, part of the Princton gang that includes Taylor of the Taylor Rule, Bernanke, the money printer of late. (Inflation Targeting: Lessons from the International Experience by Ben S. Bernanke, Thomas Laubach, Frederic S. Mishkin, Adam S. Posen). This is all part of the Taylor rule movement that we discussed a long while back on PKT (John B. Taylor. Currently on leave from Stanford University, serving as Under Secretary for International Affairs) There is another issue pushing for inflation targeting. The NY Times reports on May 1, 2003: Peter R. Fisher, the Treasury's under secretary for domestic finance, (who put together the LTCM rescue) suggested a new approach that would more closely match the dates each company's employees would retire with the maturities of the assets in that company's pension portfolio. "Making pensions more secure requires a more precise measurement of pension liabilities," he said. A drastic weakening of the pension system, which is forcing many companies to make big contributions, was also outlined in testimony before a Congressional panel yesterday. While there is general agreement among various groups that some steps need to be taken, the business community has advocated change of a different sort in recent months. Apparently to ease the transition for businesses, Mr. Fisher suggested keeping the current rules in place for two more years. But the business community responded with hostility. "It's unacceptable," said Mark J. Ugoretz, president of the Erisa Industry Committee, a Washington advocacy group that represents large companies that sponsor traditional pension plans. Even with the two-year lag, he said the proposal would be akin to a bank announcing all 30-year mortgages would have to be paid off in 5 years. At issue in these discussions is the discount rate that companies use to measure the value, in today's dollars, of their future obligations to retirees. This discount rate is supposed to reflect the rate at which a pension fund's assets can be expected to grow before its beneficiaries retire. In general, companies prefer to use a higher discount rate because it supposes that their pension assets will grow quickly, making their obligations look smaller. Since 1987, companies have used a discount rate tied to the 30-year Treasury bond. But that rate has been challenged since November 2001, when the government stopped issuing the 30-year bond. As 30-year bonds have grown scarcer, their price has gone up, which in turn has driven their yield down. This chain of events has caused the discount rate to magnify the size of corporate pension obligations ? artificially, some business groups say. To get their pension numbers back under control, business groups like the Erisa Industry Committee have been urging Congress to adopt an increase in the discount rate. A bill recently introduced in the House would do that, changing from the 30-year Treasury rate to a rate based on high-quality corporate bonds. The business organizations responded to yesterday's testimony by reiterating their support for the House bill, which is sponsored by Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, and Benjamin L. Cardin, a Maryland Democrat. Mr. Fisher agreed in part with the business community's assessment, telling the select revenue measures subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee that using a corporate bond rate "could improve the accuracy of measuring pension liabilities. But instead of using a single discount rate, as companies now do, he wants each company to use a blend of corporate bond rates of various durations, which would be matched to the maturity of each company's workers. In addition, Mr. Fisher said he questioned the validity of the "smoothing" techniques now used to reduce the volatility in calculations. He said this smoothing appeared to blur the condition of pension funds to an unacceptable degree. He said that for some companies, these changes would create new funding obligations, and said that he favored some form of "transition relief" in addition to the two-year extension of the current rules." Corporate profit now comes not only from waged reduction and layoffs, but from shrinking from pension obligations and liabilities. The pension problem worldwide is a real time bomb. PIMCO Fed Focus Paul McCulley | May 2003 I Have Become An Inflation Targeter In my twenty years in this business, I have never favored the Fed adopting an explicit inflation target. I do now, as discussed last week in an essay co-authored with Goldman?s Bill Dudley, and published in the Financial Times.1 As Bill and I wrote: ?The Fed should commit to keeping its federal funds rate at or below the current 1? per cent until core inflation climbs back to, say, 2? percent or higher on a year-on-year basis. The current reading of about 1 per cent (on Mr. Greenspan?s preferred measure, the core PCE deflator) is right in the middle of the 1-2 percent range that Ben Bernanke, Fed governor, recently suggested as the working definition of price stability.? What made me change my mind, after a career of just saying no to explicit inflation targeting? The simple answer is the Fed?s secular war against inflation, commenced by Paul Volcker in 1979, has been won. We are now living in the promised land of price stability, and this neighborhood requires that the Fed build some anti-deflation credibility. An explicit inflation target, higher than the prevailing inflation rate, would be a very useful means towards that end. The Fed Needs Both Anti-Inflation & Anti-Deflation Credibility Me and Inflation Targeting During the Fed?s anti-inflation campaign, I never favored an explicit inflation target, because I knew that if one were to be established, it would be set below the prevailing inflation rate. I thought that configuration would have been inconsistent with the Fed?s strategy of ?opportunistic disflation,? in which it didn?t induce recessions to lower inflation, but welcomed them for their disinflationary dividends?kind of like losing 10 pounds opportunistically when hit with food poisoning. To my way of thinking, setting an explicit inflation target below the prevailing inflation would have implied a commitment to hit the target on some definable horizon, not just ?opportunistically.? Consequently, while the war against inflation was being fought, and in the context of the Fed?s legislated dual objectives of fostering price stability and full employment, I thought that an inflation target could/would cause more harm than good: it would beg questions about timing that could not be ?opportunistically? answered, and would also imply that the goal of price stability dominated the goal of full employment. Thus, I thought that it would be wrong for the Fed to adopt an explicit inflation targeting regime. Don?t commit unless you are willing to deliver! Anti-inflation credibility must be earned through deeds. And the Fed earned it during the 1980s and 1990s: opportunistically ?taking? recessions when fate begot them, welcoming their disinflationary dividends, and then ?locking in? those dividends via preemptive tightening in ensuing recoveries. The Fed delivered, and it did it Greenspan?s way, without an explicit inflation target, avoiding the negative externalities that are presently bedeviling the inflation-targeting European Central Bank. I was especially critical of explicit inflation targeting as victory neared in the war against inflation, because success in that campaign was fostering bubbles in equity valuation, business investment and corporate leverage (irrational exuberance running on infectious greed, if you will). A bursting of those bubbles, just as the war against inflation was concluding, would open deflationary risk, I feared, and an explicit inflation target could/would be a straitjacket preventing aggressive, purposeful Fed reflation. The Bernanke Put: The Wind Beneath Corporate Bond Wings Enter Ben Bernanke Thus, I was a naysayer in 1999 when Fed Governor Ben Bernanke ? then Professor Bernanke of Princeton University, and one of the world?s leading academic advocates of explicit inflation targeting ? presented a widely-touted paper (co-written with Mark Gertler of New York University) at the Fed?s celebrated Jackson Hole confab.2 Ben argued that an explicit (but flexible!) inflation-targeting regime was not only the right approach for the Fed in controlling inflation, but also that such a regime would obviate any need/reason to address directly the potential for asset bubbles: do nothing explicitly about them, he preached, because an inflation-targeting regime would automatically lead the Fed to lean against both the inflationary wind of inflating bubbles and the disinflationary whirlwind of deflating bubbles. I thought this ?let them be? approach to bubbles was particularly dangerous, turbo-charging my resistance to the notion of the Fed adopting an explicit inflation target. I believed then, and believe to this day, that bubbles and their bursting reflect not just human nature, which is given to fits of both irrational exuberance and irrational gloom, but also to policy mistakes. Ironically, however, I did agree with Professor Bernanke back in 1999 that the Fed should not explicitly hike its main macroeconomic policy tool, the Fed funds rate, in an explicit attempt to prick the self-feeding bubbles of equity valuation, business investment and corporate leverage. I advocated that the Fed use its regulatory tools, notably its power to limit/prohibit buying stocks on margin. So, there was indeed a common thread in Bernanke?s view and mine: don?t use a macro tool to address a micro problem. A wise bartender doesn?t raise prices for the whole saloon to discipline a few rowdy drunks; he cuts them off! As it turned out, of course, there were more than a few rambunctious souls intoxicated with New Age Economy hooch, mindlessly investing with mind-boggling leverage. While all that investing was going on, it was stimulating aggregate demand relative to aggregate supply, notably of labor, pushing down the unemployment rate ? to and through the Fed?s presumption as to the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment). So, the Fed tightened in 1999 and early 2000; the tightening was not, however, explicitly aimed at bursting the bubbles. Rather, it was consistent with what Professor Bernanke had advocated in August 99 at Jackson Hole: target inflation, and tighten if aggregate demand pushes unemployment below NAIRU (driving the ?output gap? negative, in Taylor Rule formulation), without regard to whether a bubble is, or is not, propelling the ?excess? aggregate demand. Excess Demand Morphs Into Excess Supply In the fullness of time, it did matter what was propelling ?excess? aggregate demand, which was generating the ?excess? demand for labor that had the Fed wrapped ?round the inflation-risk axle. An investment boom is a source of aggregate demand while it is unfolding, but becomes a source of aggregate supply when it busts. In the end, an investment bubble is a deflationary shock, even though it appears, through a ?conventional? Phillips Curve lens, to be the opposite while it is bubbling. To Mr. Greenspan?s credit, indeed to the whole FOMC?s credit, the Fed recognized that the bursting investment bubble was a deflationary shock, and turned on a dime in late 2000 from a bias to tighten to a bias to ease, and then eased massively in 2001. It was the right thing to do. Whether or not the FOMC would have hesitated within an explicit inflation-targeting regime, we will never know. I suspect not, but I?m glad that the FOMC never even had to consider where the actual inflation rate was relative to some ?billboard? inflation target. The Fed?s anti-inflation credibility was golden; it was time to start building some anti-deflation credibility! Massive easing in 2001 spoke very loudly in this regard. But not loudly enough in 2002, as the full scope of the deflationary shock became visible, spooking both banks and the corporate bond market into freezing credit access to companies in the lower rungs of the investment grade universe. The Fed?s anti-deflation credibility was being called into question, and the Fed responded, in both deed and word: a 50-basis point cut in the Fed funds rate to a stunningly low 1%, and a full-blown rhetorical campaign as to the availability of ?unconventional? weapons to attack the deflationary beast ? and the Fed?s willingness to use them! In a wonderful twist of fate, it was Ben Bernanke, newly confirmed as a Fed governor, who fired the rhetorical cannon heard ?round the world ? his November 21 speech, ?Deflation: Making Sure ?It? Doesn?t Happen Here?.3 The speech followed on the heels of the Fed?s November 6 easing action, and Chairman Greenspan?s testimony before Congress on November 13 that the Fed had made the move in the context of wider ?risk spreads on both investment-grade and non-investment-grade securities.? Governor Bernanke?s ?It? speech was the coup de gr?ce: ??the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.? If a central banker wants to establish/re-establish anti-deflation credibility, bragging about his printing press is a very nice place to start! It was a masterful speech, and gave birth to what I dubbed the Bernanke Put:4 ?If lowering yields on longer-dated Treasury securities proved insufficient to restart spending, however, the Fed might next consider attempting to influence directly the yields on privately issued securities. Unlike some central banks, and barring changes to current law, the Fed is relatively restricted in its ability to buy private securities directly. However, the Fed does have broad powers to lend to the private sector indirectly via banks, through the discount window. Therefore a second policy option, complementary to operating in the markets for Treasury and agency debt, would be for the Fed to offer fixed-term loans to banks at low or zero interest, with a wide range of private assets (including, among others, corporate bonds, commercial paper, bank loans, and mortgages) deemed eligible as collateral. For example, the Fed might make 90-day or 180-day zero-interest loans to banks, taking corporate commercial paper of the same maturity as collateral. Pursued aggressively, such a program could significantly reduce liquidity and term premiums on the assets used as collateral. Reductions in these premiums would lower the cost of capital both to banks and the nonbank private sector, over and above the beneficial effect already conferred by lower interest rates on government securities. It was a delicious moment: Ben, who had pounded the table against targeting asset prices at Jackson Hole in August 1999, preaching the doctrine of inflation-targeting as both necessary and sufficient to lean the right way against both bubbles and bursting bubbles, openly embraced targeting private sector debt prices, if necessary, to arrest deflationary pressures. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, Emerson told us a long time ago, and Ben Bernanke has got a big brain. If/when the Fed?s problem is a lack of anti-deflation credibility, threatening/promising to use the printing press to ?influence directly the yields on privately issued securities? is the right thing to do. Indeed, if the threat/promise is ?credible,? then the Fed never has to ever actually use the printing press for that purpose! Bottom Line So far, the Bernanke Put has worked: it was a clarion call to buy corporate bonds, which haven?t looked back since, as shown in Figure 2 (not that Ben deserves all the credit!). The Fed?s anti-deflation credibility is now in a bull market. The Fed would be wise to solidify and strengthen that anti-deflation credibility by ? you guessed it! ? adopting an explicit inflation target that is higher than today?s inflation rate. In our Financial Times essay, Bill Dudley and I suggested ?2% or higher? for the core PCE deflator, up from the current 1?% annual running rate. (Letting the cat out of the bag, Bill wrote ?2%?; I wrote ?or higher.?) I don?t look for the Fed to adopt an explicit inflation target anytime soon, even though I believe firmly that the FOMC stealthily plans to ?let? the inflation rate rise to 2% or higher, before it considers tightening policy. My hope is that Chairman Greenspan uses his last few years to come ?round to Governor Bernanke?s advocacy of quantifying just what ?price stability? means, leaving behind a Fed rich in both anti-inflation and anti-deflation credibility. If so, I?ll be pounding the table for putting Mr. Greenspan?s name on the building! Paul A. McCulley Managing Director April 29, 2003 mcculley@pimco.com 1 http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFTFullStoryFT&cid=1048313970428&p=1012571727088 2 http://www.kc.frb.org/PUBLICAT/SYMPOS/1994/4q99bern.pdf 3 http://www.federalreserve.gov./boarddocs/speeches/2003/20021121default.htm 4 "Necking In The Mezzanine", December 2002. http://www.pimco.com/ca/bonds_commentary_fed_focus_1202.htm From hliu at mindspring.com Fri May 2 11:15:01 2003 From: hliu at mindspring.com (Henry C.K. Liu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] Illegal Income Tax Message-ID: <3EB2A784.8040603@mindspring.com> My Jewish friend told me abouth the notion of hutspah (spelling?) which describe tha gall of a defending found guilty of murdering his parents pleading mercy on the ground os his orphan status. Now, companies like Enron, WorldCom, which have been found guilty of inflating earnings by fraudulent accounting, is demanding a tax refund from the IRS, a demmand that indirectly puts the IRS in a position of beiing an unwitting partner in crime, notwithstanding the fact that much of the offshore deals were tax avoidance schemes. Now, Al Capone was convicted on tax evasion, after the prosecution failed to charge him with other crimes. He went to jail for not paying taxes on income from criminal activities which the government was unable to prove he received or even commmitted the alleged crimes. Capone hired the wrong lawyers. If he had hire a Wall Street firm, he could have argued that since the government forfeited all his assets, he could not have been guilty of tax evasion since he then would owe no tax. The IRS taxes gambling wins, but does not allow deduction from gamling losses. There is also the issue of self incrimination. Since Capone did not want the feds to know he was committing crimes, would paying taxes violate his 5th Amendment right of self incrimination. What goes around, comes around. Henry C.K. Liu From soncu at pacbell.net Fri May 2 12:44:01 2003 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] Turkey: Political Economy of an Earthquake Message-ID: As many of you might have heard, an earthquake hit the city of Bingol in Eastern Turkey about two days ago. The death tool is 118 and rising. Below are two articles from NTVMSNBC on the aftermath of the earthquake. For your information, Bingol is a mostly Kurdish city, whose mayor is from the Kurdish dominated party DEHAP, whereas the Governor is appointed by Ankara. Other reports indicate a "non-cooperative" game between the two, among other things. Sabri ************ http://ntvmsnbc.com/news/213716.asp Upheaval in Bingol Demonstrators in Bingol, earthquake-hit town of Eastern Turkey, criticize the lack of government aid at the diseaster site. May 2- After 34 hours of the deadly earthquake, emergency relief materials from Kizilay (Red Crescent) has yet to meet the needy victims. Citing delays in emergency aid, furious crowds rushed to the Governer?s Office, demanding the resignation of the government, threw stones at the police baricade. Policemen fired at air in response with automatic guns. No wounded recorded as yet. One police panzer sped straight into the crowd, causing further anger. Minor clashes in the streets are being kept under control as several demonstrators are arrested. Bingol police chief has been removed from duty, in his stead, Diyarbakir police chief resumes duty today. ********** http://ntvmsnbc.com/news/213737.asp Bingol police chief suspended after riot The demonstration was fuelled by anger by Bingol residents who felt the state had not done enough to ease the suffering of quake survivors. May 2? The chief of police in the earthquake ravaged eastern Turkish city of Bing?l has been suspended after local police fired shots over the heads of protestors demanding a stepping up of relief efforts. Osman Nuri ?zdemir, the head of Bingol?s police force, was removed from office mid-Friday after demonstrations outside a mosque and the office of the Bingol governor got out of hand and then was broken up by armed forces. Police officers fired bursts of gunfire over the heads of the crowd for up to two minutes, after having stones thrown at them by demonstrators. Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdo?an confirmed that Ozdemir had been suspended at a news conference early Friday afternoon. Erdoan blamed the protests and resulting violence on a small group of provocateurs and called on the people of Bingol to remain patient. "According to intelligence reports, there were serious activities directed at provocation," the Prime Minister said. "I call on the people of Bingol to be more calm and sensitive." From hliu at mindspring.com Sat May 3 08:15:05 2003 From: hliu at mindspring.com (Henry C.K. Liu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] Bush's Left Right-Hand Men Message-ID: <3EB3CEDC.8080909@mindspring.com> Copyright 2001 The National Journal, Inc. The National Journal May 5, 2001 HEADLINE: Bush's Left Right-Hand Men BYLINE: Julie Kosterlitz HIGHLIGHT: George W. Bush never cared much for the ferment of the 1960s and '70s, but he has surrounded himself with former radicals and Lefties from that era who are now the truest-blue conservatives. BODY: Black Panther patron. Communist Party member. McGovern organizer. Lifelong Democrat. Scion of a prominent liberal family. Those aren't the sort of entries one expects to find on the resumes of advisers and appointees to a conservative Administration. But each describes a facet of the lives of the team members assembled to help craft and carry out President Bush's governing philosophy. "Compassionate conservatism" just wouldn't be the same without them. Indeed, it might not exist at all. Marvin Olasky, 50, the one-time Communist and now Bush adviser, is an evangelical Christian scholar who largely conceived the idea and yywho all but coined the term. But Olasky is joined by at least five other top Bush lieutenants who have marched across the political battlefields from Left to Right: * David Horowitz, 62, is the former 1960s editor of the New Left journal, Ramparts, and one-time acolyte of Black Panther leader Huey Newton. Horowitz counseled candidate Bush on campaign strategy and garnered a glowing cover blurb, for his recent political playbook, from top Bush aide Karl Rove. * Larry Lindsey, 46, Bush's top economic adviser and the chief architect of the Administration's mega-tax-cut plan, was a campus organizer for anti-war presidential candidate George McGovern. * John DiIulio, 42, the maverick Princeton University don whom Bush chose to lead the controversial White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives-remembers his grandmother lighting a daily candle in memory of "Mr. Roosevelt," and says he'll leave this world the way he entered it-as a Democrat. * White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 40, was steeped in the liberal politics of his family of "dedicated, principled Democrats." * David Frum, 40, Bush's economic speechwriter, is the son of one of Canada's most famous broadcast journalists, and grew up imbibing the "trendy," liberal views of his parents. This isn't the first time in the nation's recent history that a flotilla of leftward-listing intellectuals has Righted itself. It was the midcentury journey of the New York Intellectuals-Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Bell, et al.-from Trotskyite communism to liberal anti-communism, and finally, to conservatism, that gave rise to the term "neoconservative." (Originally a derisive epithet, it was later adopted by the principals themselves as a brand of distinction.) Nor is this the first time in recent history that a conservative Administration has offered safe harbor to one-time Lefties. The intellectual heirs of Kristol and Podhoretz permeated the Reagan Administration's foreign policy apparatus: Cold Warriors such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, and a few Culture Warriors, such as William J. Bennett, Reagan's Education Secretary and later drug czar for the first Bush Administration. The refugees from the New Left who have turned up on George W. Bush's doorstep aren't officially neoconservatives. That earlier group "was as much a club as an ideology," says Abrams, now chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. "Everybody knew each other. There is a network. It still exists, and (these newcomers) are not a part of it." Besides, Abrams notes, with the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives themselves have all but abandoned the term in favor of plain old "conservatism." "Neoconservatism happened at particular time and place; it lived, and it died. It's like saying, 'I'm an abolitionist,' or 'I'm a Whig.' It doesn't have meaning, because the historical situation is different." The new crop of converts is also, for the most part, younger than the original neoconservatives. Most of the younger group came of political age during the waxing-or, in some cases, the waning-of the anti-war movement, the New Left, and the counterculture. And, unlike the Reagan Administration's Cold Warriors, they have, by and large, pursued careers in domestic, rather than foreign, policy. Yet some interesting echoes of the earlier movement reverberate in this later one. In many instances, foreign policy and national security concerns provided the impetus for the political conversion of the Bush aides. And like the original neoconservatives, they tend to show a flare for the intellectual and the iconoclastic. So, call them "neo-compassionates," or "neo-neo-cons." Whatever the label, these political pilgrims are clearly having a critical impact on the conservatism of the new Bush Administration-not in spite of their lefty histories, but because of them. They are helping to construct a new, more inclusive addition to the House of Reagan and Gingrich. But are they adding a new floor, or just a new facade? Horowitz and the Panthers How did these neo-neo-cons get from their lefty points of departure-whether Moscow or McGovern-to Bush's front door? The short answer is, they turned right during the mid-to- late 1970s. For the older members of this crowd, Horowitz and Olasky, the disenchantment with the doctrinaire politics they had embraced as youths came swiftly and brutally. Horowitz inherited the radicalism of his parents, 1930s Communists of the card-carrying, cell member variety. In 1959, he went to the University of California (Berkeley) as a graduate student in search of a political utopia. Later, after several years in England, studying, writing, and absorbing a genteel socialism, he returned in 1968 to a Berkeley that was becoming the mecca and breeding ground for a proliferation of more- strident and suddenly fashionable radical movements. At Ramparts, the glossy muckraking monthly that published groundbreaking exposes on CIA outrages and other scandals of the Vietnam War era, Horowitz helped chronicle and promote various causes of the emerging New Left-including the Black Panthers. Horowitz would later say that he was increasingly unnerved by the violent, anarchic turn taken by a younger generation of Lefties. But, unlike most refugees from the Left, he can pinpoint the single event that triggered a cascading series of disillusionments. It was the 1975 death of the magazine's bookkeeper, whom Horowitz had recommended for the job and who, he and other reporters later came to believe, was murdered by the Panthers after she began turning up irregularities in their finances. Shocked and remorseful, Horowitz says the event shattered his rose-colored vision of the world and his romance with radicalism. He began re-examining the basic assumptions of his worldview-and finding nothing but contradictions, smugness, and hypocrisy. At the same time, his personal life was in turmoil and his marriage was unraveling. So profound was his disillusionment and disorientation that he retreated from politics altogether for nearly a decade, before announcing his support for the re- election of Ronald Reagan in 1984-when he became an instant pariah in his former social circle. But once the pain of conversion subsided, the role of pariah turned out to be one that Horowitz relished. He became a professional provocateur and polemicist in the service of a new cause: conservatism. Over time, he has created a network of organizations and publications-often with generous support from private foundations-and put out a series of books to spread his message: The Left is not merely misguided but dangerous, and conservatives must take its members seriously and fight them mercilessly. A Higher Whisper Like Horowitz, Marvin Olasky is an all-or-nothing kind of guy. Raised Jewish, he became an atheist at 14. As a Yale undergraduate, he didn't merely protest various injustices, he engaged in a five-day hunger strike on behalf of striking campus cafeteria workers. After college, Olasky spurned a job offer at The Boston Globe and biked cross-country to Oregon-drawn by the brooding beauty described in a Ken Kesey novel. He then took a reporting job at the rural Bend Bulletin in central Oregon and, as he would later write, "I would proceed to educate the residents of Deschutes County on the way things ought to be." Unlike Horowitz, Olasky preferred his socialism unadorned-without the fringed leather and all the other counterculture trappings-so he joined the passe Communist Party in the early 1970s. "Instead of listening to the Grateful Dead, we listened to Paul Robeson," he recalls. He even hopped a Soviet freighter across the Pacific to make a pilgrimage to the socialist motherland and ride the rails. Olasky, too, can date the unraveling of his worldview to a specific time and place: on a November day in 1973 as he began graduate school in film studies at the University of Michigan. "I was reading Lenin's famous essay, 'Socialism and Religion,' in which he wrote, 'We must combat religion-this is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently Marxism,' " Olasky explains in a treatise on his Web site, olasky.com. "At that point, God changed my worldview, not through thunder or a whirlwind, but by means of a small whisper that became a repeated, resounding question in my brain: 'What if Lenin is wrong? What if there is a God?' " For both Horowitz and Olasky, revelation was followed by profound soul-searching and progressive disillusionment with their past lives and beliefs. And, for both men, political upheaval was intertwined with personal upheaval: Disillusion followed hard on the heels of the dissolution of their first marriages. And, for Olasky and Horowitz, the shedding of one extreme seemed only to invite another. By 1976, Olasky, the Jewish-boy-turned-atheist-adolescent, had become an evangelical Christian and a devout conservative. And, as it had for Horowitz, the Left that Olasky left behind began to figure in his thinking and writing as the cause of America's political and social ills. In 1992, he wrote The Tragedy of American Compassion, which argued essentially that an impersonal and indiscriminate welfare state of the 20th century had supplanted the more intimate and value-laden charity of the late 19th century-to the detriment of the poor. The book drew the attention of leading conservatives, including William J. Bennett, future House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Karl Rove, who added it to the syllabus of candidate- in-the-making George W. Bush. Lindsey's Way For those who came later, the conversions were less dramatic but no less real. Having journeyed less far to the left, they did not have as far back to travel, once their philosophical bags were packed. Larry Lindsey didn't have to work too hard to shed the fairly apolitical Republicanism of his Westchester County, N.Y., upbringing for the idealism of the civil rights and anti-war movements at Bowdoin College in Maine. His politics, then, as now, he says, followed a common inclination. "Abuse of power really bothers me," Lindsey said in an interview. "One couldn't help but look at Bull Connor"-the rabid police commissioner of Birmingham, Ala., who turned fire hoses and unleashed dogs on civil rights demonstrators-"and not see abuse of power. And probably the same was true of how the United States was conducting the war as well. It was easy to perceive Richard Nixon as abusing power... That's probably why" he moved to the left, he says. At Bowdoin, Lindsey participated in marches-"peaceful," he is careful to add. And, after his first-choice candidate, Maine's Sen. Edmund Muskie, dropped out of the 1972 Democratic presidential primaries, he became a campus organizer for then- Sen. George McGovern, polling and cajoling the residents of his dorm to support the South Dakotan. But Lindsey's views began shifting as the decade progressed-not in an epiphany, but with the accumulation of nagging events. There was the time the local restaurateur in Bath, Maine, tried to use the cumbersome state licensing system to keep Lindsey and a friend from opening a competing hotdog stand (they persisted and stayed in business). There were his studies in economics, "which said you should make a decision based on a cost-benefit analysis ... that there's a rational way to make a public choice and not just, 'I feel this way,' which is kind of what politics is based on," he said. What proved perhaps most unforgettable and, eventually, unforgivable, for Lindsey-as it would for other younger neo-neo- cons-was the specter of human misery offered by the "boat people," who fled South Vietnam after the fall of Saigon. "You could still maintain that the United States was well intended, but that we shouldn't have (been fighting the war)," Lindsey said. "But any illusions you had about the niceness of the people on the other side certainly had to disappear, for anyone who was paying attention." Lindsey remained a reflexive Democrat for a little longer-even contributing money to Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign. But by 1980, he was voting for maverick-Republican- turned-independent John Anderson-"kind of an in-between," Lindsey says-before being won over decisively by Ronald Reagan. In 1981, as an all-but-dissertation Ph.D. candidate in economics fresh out of Harvard, Lindsey headed to Washington to join the staff of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. But he fretted over it. "I hadn't voted for him, and I was a little bit nervous about the whole thing... I'd never met a conservative-a real conservative," he said. "I had such a funny view of them that turned out to be false." He remembers that he began to see the high marginal tax rates of the day as government abuse of power. And he remembers how, at one dinner, even as a liberal economist dismissed Lindsey's argument that lower tax rates needn't reduce government revenues (since taxpayers would have less incentive to cheat), the economist's wife was telling him about all the creative schemes they used to avoid paying such high taxes. "I began to be exposed to conservative thinking for the first time, and so, having been shown quite clearly that the Left was: a) wrong, and b) somewhat hypocritical, I haven't looked back since." Philadelphia Freedom Born to a Catholic working-class family of FDR Democrats in urban Philadelphia, John DiIulio says that it was the Democratic Party that left him, rather than the other way around. From the late 1960s to the mid-1980s, "the Democratic Party went off on this hiccupping jag, and made pretend it was the Young Socialists' convention. And it got away from the spoken word and the lived philosophies of the Franklin Roosevelts, and the Hubert Humphreys, and the Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jacksons-and the Bobby Kennedys, for that matter." He blames the party's shift on the changes in the presidential nominating rules after the 1968 convention, which he says "radically disempowered traditional leaders and radically empowered amateur Democrats, if you will, who were driven purely by ideology-ideology often bereft of any real understanding or real experience in the low-income communities which they claimed to represent." Son of a sheriff's deputy and a department store clerk, DiIulio entered the realm of the intellectual elite by a fluke: A recruiter from the prestigious Haverford School, in search of new football fodder, thought DiIulio could be trained in the ways of the gridiron. His football career did not last more than a year, but Haverford led him to the equally prestigious University of Pennsylvania, and ultimately to graduate study in political science at Harvard. There he sought out eminent neoconservative social scientist James Q. Wilson, whose writings on police practices DiIulio admired. Wilson, famous for his insistence on rigorously empirical social science and a belief in the importance of morality in the discussion of public policy, became DiIulio's mentor. Armed with a Ph.D. by age 27 and a full professorship at Princeton by age 32, DiIulio has made a reputation for being an intellectual brawler as much as a scholar. His hard-line positions on crime-and-punishment issues, and his pithy, if provocative, turns of phrase (as when he wrote about young "superpredators") drew the attention and plaudits of conservatives, including Bennett, with whom DiIulio co-authored a book in 1996. But he is also an inveterate iconoclast (opposing the 1996 welfare reform bill as too draconian, for example), and his willingness to change some of his positions (on the wisdom of tough mandatory sentences for drug offenders, for example) has earned him a reputation as a fearless empiricist in some circles, and as a political opportunist in others. In the late 1990s, he became impressed with the work that he saw religious groups performing on the front lines of urban war zones, and with statistics showing a correlation between religious observance and positive social behaviors. He turned his academic attention to investigating the possibilities of religion as a force for social good. And in 1996, he renewed a commitment to Catholicism in his personal life. Though DiIulio's law-and-order positions and his frank embrace of religion are at odds with the prevailing currents in the Democratic Party, he remains committed. "For me, it's just a story of constancy," he said. "Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a very simple philosophy-that government ought to help average men, women, and children lead peaceful and productive, if not uniformly prosperous, lives." The party of FDR, embodied perhaps most recently by Hubert Humphrey, was for equality of opportunity, not equality of results, DiIulio says. Such Democrats "were not opposed to a free-market system. They did not believe society was responsible for every individual's problem. They believed in both individual and collective responsibility." He calls himself a "New Democrat," but he says he does not mind being called a compassionate conservative either, in part because he believes strongly in the view Bush put forth in one of his earliest campaign speeches: "While government cannot be replaced by charities, it should welcome them as partners, not view them as rivals." 970s Malaise By the time the tail end of the baby boom reached college, political conversions were part of a broader political realignment in America. For David Frum and Ari Fleischer, who entered college just a few years after Lindsey left, shedding liberalism was a quicker and less complicated affair. Their liberalism, after all, was a matter of family and upbringing, rather than something found, like Lindsey's, in the first blossoming of independence. Frum's mother, Barbara, one of Canada's most popular broadcast journalists before her death in 1992, and his father, a wealthy developer, were "politically liberal and quite (trendy) in their views," during his childhood, Frum said. Ari Fleischer remembers the anti-Nixon fervor of his liberal parents-a father in the textile industry and a mother who would go on to work for IBM-in the affluent New York City suburb of Pound Ridge. The political state of affairs in 1978 and 1979 made the college experience for incoming freshmen, such as Frum and Fleischer, vastly different from what it had been even for those newly graduated, such as Lindsey. "There was inflation, unemployment, disaster abroad ... family breakdown was very important. When I was in college, it was like the Angel of Death was passing through the corridors, as one student after another, their parents' marriages would split up as soon as the kids were gone," said Frum, who started at Yale in 1978. "If you were of an impressionable age ... there was a sense that everything was going wrong. Everything that people took for granted was producing disastrous results. We needed something new." Unlike intellectuals of the 1950s, who "had to think their way through a lot of prejudices in order to reach conservatism," Frum said, "in the 1970s, all you had to do was keep your eyes open. It was hard to miss." For Frum, as for Lindsey, the image of the Vietnamese boat people was indelible: Frum calls it the "first and most important" element in his disillusionment. Whereas Lindsey had experienced the national and personal misgivings over America's role in Vietnam firsthand, however, Frum remembers mainly the sorry denouement. Of his youth in Canada, he says, "I have no memory of the war, until it was lost, and then I was angry." Most of his parents' friends, he says, had been against the war, "often in quite extreme ways." But Frum, who spent the summer of his freshman year in college volunteering with a group to try to find sponsors for would-be Canadian immigrants among the Vietnamese refugees, said he "was never willing after that experience to be convinced that there was anything moral" about the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. For Fleischer, ensconced at Middlebury College, a small liberal arts school in Vermont, political awakening was spurred by his new awareness of current events. Soviet domination of Eastern Europe had special resonance for him, because he had relatives in Hungary, whom he had visited as a child. "It wasn't very complicated... I just thought that the Soviet Union was wrong and that freedom was right. The people in Hungary weren't free, and I blamed the Soviet Union. People were blaming America, and I thought, we shouldn't be blaming America ... we should blame the Soviets." The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 not only reinforced Fleischer's views, it inspired him to register for the draft and even to write a letter to The New York Times (never published) saying "how proud I was to be able to register." He remembers the pall cast over the 1980 Olympics by the Soviet invasion, the U.S. decision to boycott the Summer Games in the USSR, and then the thrilling upset victory of the U.S. hockey team over the Soviet team at the Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, N.Y. "I was 19, and I remember people chanting 'USA! USA!' That felt so good. That felt so right. It was really an explosion of patriotism." Then there was Ronald Reagan's upbeat candidacy, putting the lie to Carter's lament over national malaise. "Ronald Reagan's view was that we weren't in malaise," according to Fleischer, "but we were a fantastically optimistic country. We just needed a leader to express it." After college, Fleischer embarked on a career as a spokesman for a series of increasingly prominent Republican political candidates. They included the senior Bush, in 1992, as well as members of Congress-culminating with then-Rep. Bill Archer, R-Texas, when he was House Ways and Means Committee chairman. Fleischer was spokesman for the short-lived presidential campaign of Elizabeth Dole last year, when he caught the eye of Karen P. Hughes, then-candidate George W. Bush's praetorian communications director. After Fleischer had resigned and Dole had dropped out of the race, Fleischer joined Bush's campaign. The rest is history-in-the-making. Bush's Brain Trust At first blush, there is a certain irony to the alliance between George W. Bush and these former Lefties. Bush, after all, is a baby boomer (born on July 6, 1946) who, in the standard retelling, rather famously sat out the defining political and cultural movements of his generation in the 1960s and 1970s. But, in fact, Bush didn't so much "sit out" those two decades as react against them. "Clinton was identified by the Right with all the excesses of the '60s. Now he's being followed by another baby boom President, whose intellectual moment was rebellion against the '60s," says Marshall Wittmann, of the conservative Hudson Institute. As The Washington Post's Hanna Rosin put it in a profile during the 2000 campaign, Bush actually defines "himself and much of his agenda as the Republican presidential nominee by what he saw then and didn't much like." She wrote that Bush, and campaign strategist Karl Rove-now senior adviser to the President-began a dialogue stretching over the seven years leading up to the campaign that "systematically refined those resentments into a political philosophy." If so, Bush's affinity for the new neoconservatives may have a lot to do with vindication. These intellectuals can confirm and articulate the wisdom of the instincts that Bush felt some 30 years ago, and frame them in light of their own disillusionment. But Olasky says that Bush may also personally identify with these prodigal sons of the 1960s and 1970s. "All of us have 'holes in our souls,' " Olasky says, paraphrasing a saying of a Christian anti-drug program for teens that he admires. "People fill those holes with different things. Some used alcohol and drugs, while other people, like myself, filled that hole with leftist ideology... I was drunk on Marxism." Bush "went through a personal change, a sharp break," with his past, just as Olasky himself had. "He was, by his own admission, drinking too heavily at times. And he changed," Olasky says. "He understands-this may be a bit of a stretch-the way people can become inebriated (with an idea)." Either way, Bush has had a tendency to soft-pedal his critiques of the 1960s. Unlike earlier conservatives, who have used the excesses of the '60s as a wedge to divide people, Bush uses his critique as a "healing device," to reach out to a generation who only grew up when they began having children of their own, says Wittmann, who himself turned away from the left- wing and labor politics of his earlier years. "Bush's explicit message to boomers: 'It's all right to be faithful. You can forget the crazy things you did. I did some, too.' " "Compassionate conservatism," likewise, is a phrase and philosophy that emphasizes fusion, not fission: Taking classic conservative themes-less government, more self-reliance, and strong social norms-and linking them with some of the passions and the language of the '60s and '70s, such as combating poverty and championing civil rights. Instead of demonizing government, Bush emphasizes that there is a federal role for helping the poor. He promotes religious charity, not as an alternative to government, but as a partner. He makes overt gestures to the black community-which did not give much support to his election-in part through a promise to funnel money through black churches to inner cities. And he has made a social issue-education-his calling card. Bush is, in short, doing his utmost to recast the Republican Party as the party of caring. To this end, he is benefiting from the views, skills, and experience of the neo-neo- cons. In effect, they serve as cultural interpreters in his bid to end America's internal, societal Cold War peacefully, civilly- but still decisively for Republicans. Horowitz, for example, has made reshaping the Republican Party practically his raison d'etre in recent years-and he brings to it the crusading zeal and guerrilla tactics he once used in service of the Left. "We are in the midst of a huge political transition," he says, summarizing the message he gives Republican candidates in his political handbooks and lectures. "The parties really have the wrong names and identifying labels. The conservative party-the party who has been trying to conserve for 20 years the welfare state and the whole apparatus-is the Democratic Party; (and) Democrats are becoming the party for the wealthy. The Republican Party is the party of innovations in every area, the one that fought for and got welfare reform, that fought for and got deregulation and restructuring of the economy, the one with the innovative ideas in education." Rove and Bush met a few times with Horowitz as they prepared for the presidential race. And other GOP leaders consult with him, too. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, arranged to have Horowitz's book, The Art of Political War, sent to Republican candidates in the 2000 election, and DeLay features Horowitz's political advice column on one of his Web sites. "It doesn't matter what Republicans call their strategy to (win over independent voters)-'compassionate conservatism,' or something else," Horowitz writes in his latest pamphlet. "For Republicans to win, it is necessary to compete with Democrats on the caring issues." Although Horowitz is interested in capturing the "caring" label for the GOP, other neo-neo-cons say they are more interested in making policy that synthesizes the best of their old liberal ideals and their newer conservative views. Even a free-marketeer such as Lindsey, while on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, worked to promote the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to make loans to credit-worthy low-income people in poor neighborhoods-a law that other conservatives and libertarians, such as Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm, R-Texas, have sought to limit. It is, Lindsey says, a corollary to his antipathy to abuses of power: "a need to be more enlightened about things." DiIulio, who had a grandmother who relied on federal relief during the Great Depression, family members educated by the G.I. Bill, and his own federally subsidized student loans as a college student, has never doubted a role for government. And today, he preaches the social philosophy of some Catholic thinkers known as "subsidiarity." He says: "It is always best, both in prudential-practical-terms, as well as in moral terms, to deliver such help and such hope as you can up close and personal"-from family, friends, neighbors, and fellow church members. "Make the local call first," he advises, "but if the local call is not answered, don't be afraid to make a long- distance call. If there is a problem or set of problems that cannot be effectively addressed at the individual, personal, spiritual, common-community level, there is no shame-and in fact there is obligation-to seek help from larger entities, and broader communities," including the federal government. Subsidiarity, as embodied in Bush's "compassionate conservatism," transcends party labels, DiIulio says. "Pointing fingers isn't important... What matters is 'How do we get there from here?' and 'How do we get there together?' " This conciliatory tone also comes naturally to Bush spokesman Fleischer. "You know, Bush talks about changing the tone" of politics in Washington, he says. "It's easy for me. I think that one of my secret weapons in this business is that I grew up in such a Democratic family, and I have such respect for my family. We're so close that it teaches me not to take this business personally. It's not a personal business. These are good people who have different ideas." Lefties Respond So what do liberals, or left-leaning intellectuals, make of their departed brethren and the "compassionate conservatism" they are bringing to the nation? The question itself is fraught with squabbling over political labels: Scarcely anyone wanting a serious hearing in the marketplace of ideas claims to be a liberal or a leftist these days. But even a small sampling of views from somewhat left-of-center thinkers reveals a few common reactions. The neo-neo-cons, in some ways, are battling chimeras from the 1960s of their own invention, say their critics. Stephanie Coontz is a history professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and was prominent in the anti-war movement as a graduate student at the University of Washington (Seattle). She said that some of the 1960s activists were genuinely excessive. They later turned that excessiveness into intense self-criticism during their transformational phase, and then finally turned that criticism against their ideological beginnings. "The vast majority of us were involved in peaceful, legal protest, had a strong work ethic, and never got the news coverage of those who committed excesses," she said. "Most of us grew without abandoning our values. Those who were most extreme and naive about how social change occurs discovered what most of us have been telling them: 'Life is more complicated.' " The Left is no longer allergic to the idea of value- driven or faith-based programs to tackle poverty and social problems-but still believes the underlying hurdles are mainly economic. "As someone who works with families, I am extremely open to experimenting with many different ways of helping people at the community, personal, and economic level," says Coontz, sounding something like DiIulio. Coontz has written several books on the evolution of families in the United States. "But you can't make bricks without straw. If there are not jobs to go to," she says, or no way to get to them, and no one to watch the kids, "you can preach to (the poor) as much as you like, but they will eventually get demoralized," she said. Moreover, the large-scale effects of national economic policies pushed by conservatives, argue those on the left, are bound to swamp any good that comes from the small-scale efforts that exemplify "compassionate conservatism." "It's right to point to some of the pathologies (of welfare p rograms), but wrong to think they can be replaced with a combination of an unfettered market economy and local charity," said Theda Skocpol, a professor of political science and sociology at Harvard University. "(Conservatives) have given us a society of increasing inequality ... that most of them seem blind to," she added. Or, put another way, compassionate conservatism is "all hat and no cattle," said writer Michael Lind, recycling the popular saying of his native Texas. "There's no money. There will be lectures on single motherhood and keeping your virginity until marriage, but at the end of day, there will still be working poor, people working 40 hours a week, with incomes below the poverty line. It's a fraud. It's half of a program. What's missing is the economic half. "The Republicans use these emigres (from the Left) to teach them how to speak this language, using words like 'empowerment'-a left-wing word, which Jack Kemp then steals-or 'community,' " Lind said. "But when you read the fine print, they're cutting the money." Indeed, Lind, who once edited The Public Interest, the house organ of the original neoconservative movement, and was an acolyte of its co-founder, Irving Kristol, says he split with the neoconservatives over what he considers their abandonment of economic justice. "The price that successful neo-cons paid was to give up their economic views, at least in public. They were welcome when they were denouncing single parenthood, or racial preferences, but they couldn't speak about the declining value of the minimum wage, or the shrinking of health insurance as benefits are cut back by business." If they had, "then they would have been cut out." Now, at the ripe old age of 39, Lind says he finds himself at home on neither the right nor the left. As a senior fellow at the heterodox New America Foundation, which seeks to promote "policy ideas that transcend the conventional political spectrum," he hopes to give thinkers of his generation a place to seek the truth, unconstrained by the dictates of either ideology. His fledgling effort is a challenge, he says, adding with understatement: "The intellectual world tends to be very polarized." David Horowitz Age: 62 Past life: Son of Communist Party members, editor of New Left monthly Ramparts, patron and adviser to Black Panther leader Huey Newton Right turn: 1975, when Black Panthers may have killed an associate Current life: President, Center for the Study of Popular Culture, umbrella group for a variety of conservative causes, best-selling author, Republican political strategist, agent provocateur In his own words: "My agenda is to change the culture of the Republican Party-they have to be much more aggressive, and identify with the cause of the underdog ... the Republican Party has liberated millions of people (from welfare), given them a chance to get jobs and have power over their own lives." Marvin Olasky Age: 51 Past life: Atheist, campus activist at Yale University. Joined Communist Party USA Right turn: 1973, as a graduate student, when he renounced atheism Current life: Senior fellow Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, evangelical Christian scholar, author, and journalism professor In his own words: "All of us have 'holes in our souls'. ... People fill those holes with different things. Some used alcohol and drugs, while other people, like myself, filled that hole with leftist ideology... I was drunk on Marxism." John DiIulio Age: 42 Past life: From a family of FDR Democrats Right turn: None, he says: The Democratic Party turned left after 1968 Current life: Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, previously Princeton University professor, criminologist, author In his own words: "The Democratic Party went off on this hiccupping jag, and made pretend it was the Young Socialists' convention. And it got away from the spoken word and the lived philosophies of the Franklin Roosevelts and the Hubert Humphreys, and the Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jacksons-and the Bobby Kennedys, for that matter." Lawrence B. Lindsey Age: 46 Past life: Campus organizer for Democrat George McGovern's 1972 presidential bid Right turn: Mid-to-late 1970s, struck by plight of South Vietnamese boat people, his experience as a small businessman, and his study of economics Current life: Director of the National Economic Council, top economic adviser to President Bush In his own words: "It's easy for us to forget that the crowd that thought America was wrong ... were dominating the Left, the Democrats' point of view. I think I came around to my father's reasoning that America really was the last best hope of mankind, which was also Ronald Reagan's saying." David Frum Age: 40 Past life: Son of prominent liberal parents from Canada: developer Murray Frum and the late Barbara Frum, a popular broadcast journalist Right turn: Late 1970s, at Yale University, witnessing plight of South Vietnamese boat people, stagflation, and impact of divorce on the families of classmates Current life: White House speechwriter, conservative commentator In his own words: "We've done two big experiments: One with liberal ideas in the '60s and '70s, and one with conservative ideas in the '80s and '90s. And Tide beat Brand X." Ari Fleischer Age: 40 Past life: Raised in family of politically active Democrats Right turn: Late 1970s, at Middlebury College, with a growing awareness of Communist repression abroad Current life: White House spokesman In his own words: "I thought the whole notion of a nuclear freeze was dangerous... The Soviets had missiles in Europe. I felt that we should respond. You look weak if you don't. My party was saying, 'If we respond, we'll engage in a dangerous arms race.' And I remember thinking, 'So your answer is just to let the Soviets do it?' And I thought, 'No, the Soviets need to know, if they do it, we'll do it. End of subject.'" From bar at idirect.com Sat May 3 11:02:02 2003 From: bar at idirect.com (Christopher Black) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] Diana Johnstone About Cuba Message-ID: <009701c31194$34c40740$7a0e9ad8@computer> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 10566 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030503/f7d817cf/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6747 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030503/f7d817cf/attachment.jpe From nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar Sat May 3 11:20:25 2003 From: nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] En Chile, los "socialistas" son menemistas Message-ID: <3EB3CF5E.19198.667CA5@localhost> Una declaraci?n del CEDECH. COMIT? DE DEFENSA DEL PATRIMONIO Y CULTURA NACIONAL . Bases Fundamentales para la Defensa del Patrimonio y la Cultura Nacionales "Tenemos que servir a los valores en los que realmente creemos, aunque solo lo podamos hacer en un ?mbito peque??simo". Hermann Hesse. 1. Toda Instituci?n P?blica ha sido creada con una concepci?n humanista y con un esp?ritu solidario. Su prop?sito ha sido responder a determinadas necesidades de los habitantes de nuestro pa?s, para mejorar sus condiciones de vida, especialmente para quienes tienen menos recursos econ?micos. Su prop?sito esencial es servir. A pesar de ello, en la actualidad, la mayor parte se autofinancian y aportan sus utilidades al Estado. Es falso que todo lo p?blico es ineficiente y que todo lo privado es eficiente. 2. Las Instituciones P?blicas son el producto del conocimiento y el esfuerzo de muchas generaciones de ciudadanos, que desde hace m?s de un siglo, las han gestado y mantenido. Todos, de una u otra manera, hemos contribuido a su desarrollo y nos pertenecen a todos. 3. Desde hace 29 a?os, en nuestro pa?s, el n?mero de instituciones y empresas del Estado ha disminuido, se han vendido o han desaparecido. Eran cerca de 600 , en la actualidad son alrededor de 81 . No se les han dado medios para invertir, ni siquiera para reinvertir sus propias utilidades. No se les ha permitido extender sus actividades o sus servicios. 4. Todos los funcionarios de las Empresas e Instituciones del Estado y del Gobierno son servidores p?blicos. Deben estar muy bien capacitados, con amplio conocimiento en el rubro de la entidad correspondiente. Las funciones deben ser realizadas con probidad. Esto implica el empleo eficaz e id?neo de los recursos y un recto ejercicio de su autoridad. No deben vender las empresas p?blicas sin la autorizaci?n de sus propietarios. Tienen el deber de informar completamente de las remuneraciones, gesti?n y administraci?n de la instituci?n p?blica que les corresponde. Todo ello sobre la base del privilegio del bien com?n. 5. El Estado cuenta con un sector de empresas rentables que no son excesivas y no constituyen carga para el erario fiscal. La producci?n en nuestro pa?s es generada en el 80 % por el sector privado y s?lo el 20 % por el sector p?blico. Chile es uno de los pa?ses que tiene un Estado m?s peque?o. 6. La incidencia e influencia del sector p?blico en los pa?ses desarrollados es fundamental. Se les protege y perfecciona. Se protege y se promueven las actividades art?sticas y cient?ficas en forma descentralizada, en todo el territorio de cada pa?s. El Estado se reserva numerosas empresas para desarrollar una pol?tica social o por ser vitales, monop?licas y estrat?gicas para su progreso. Ello es causa y efecto del mayor desarrollo y mejores condiciones de vida. 7. No es posible la venta o privatizaci?n de Instituciones como la Universidad de Chile, Banco del Estado, Institutos T?cnicos , Liceos, Escuelas, Entidades que proporcionan los Servicios de Salud, Empresa Nacional de Miner?a, CODELCO, ENAP, C?rceles, Empresas de Abastecimiento de Zonas Aisladas, Empresas Portuarias, Televisi?n Nacional, Diario La Naci?n, el Metro, Ferrocarriles, Correos, Empresas de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado, Parques Nacionales... Todas ellas son parte de la Cultura y el Patrimonio Nacional. 8. Es necesario proteger el Medio Ambiente, la Naturaleza, nuestros r?os, el mar , la tierra, el aire, la fauna, el bosque nativo... Con una visi?n de futuro. Debemos proteger y promover el arte y el trabajo de nuestros artistas, investigadores, cient?ficos... Por ejemplo, no se protege nuestro arte ni nuestra identidad cuando se privilegia, en los medios de comunicaci?n, lo extranjero. Debe suprimirse el IVA al libro... 9. No solamente al vender o privatizar se da?a el patrimonio nacional. Tambi?n se afecta al disminuir sus inversiones, su importancia y sus actividades. Otro procedimiento es favorecer el desarrollo de iniciativas privadas paralelas que compiten con el Estado en condiciones m?s favorables que las empresas p?blicas. Es el caso del Cobre, de acuerdo a datos de Cochilco, en 1990 la producci?n estatal de este metal era el 84,3 % del total y la privada el 15,7 %. En el a?o 2.000, habiendo aumentado en t?rminos absolutos, la producci?n estatal cambia al 30 % del total y 70 % la privada. A pesar de ello CODELCO aporta al Estado mucho m?s que las empresas privadas del Cobre. 10. En Chile cada vez m?s se concentra el poder econ?mico y monop?lico. En tal magnitud que en muchas ocasiones se independiza o influye sobre las pol?ticas de gobierno. En ocasiones tienen m?s poder que las estructuras del Estado. Ejemplos: Cinco cadenas de Farmacias controlan el 85 % del mercado de F?rmacos. Las Empresas del Agua Potable privatizadas (europeas) controlan el 83 % de todos los usuarios de Chile. Dos empresas de generaci?n el?ctricas, el 80% del mercado. Cuatro Holding de Salud Privada controlan el 75 % . Cinco A.F.P. m?s del 90 % de los Fondos de Pensiones. Similar situaci?n se produce con los Supermercados, Seguros, Tel?fonos, Empresas de Auditor?as, Mercado Lechero, Empresas Forestales, de Celulosas y Papel, los Medios de Comunicaci?n, etc. 11. Manteniendo el Estado el control mayoritario de sus empresas, y por tanto su influencia en las decisiones determinantes, existe la posibilidad de incorporar capitales privados a trav?s de otros procedimientos. Debe ser una iniciativa fundamental del Estado y sus Gobiernos apoyar y promover a las Micro, Peque?as y Medianas Empresas Privadas, tanto rurales como urbanas, MIPYME, que proporcionan mas del 80 % de los puestos de trabajo de Chile. En la actualidad los chilenos gastan cerca del 60% de su ingreso en bienes importados. Debe ser una pol?tica permanente del Estado, sus gobiernos y de todos los ciudadanos proteger y promover la industria y los productos chilenos tanto de la ciudad como del campo. 12. Debe ser iniciativa fundamental del Estado apoyar y promover una Cultura Solidaria, la Investigaci?n, la Ciencia y las Artes de nuestra naci?n. No solo en Santiago, tambi?n debe realizarse a lo largo de todo el pa?s, considerando la diversidad de las etnias y de todos sus habitantes. Asimismo, los gobiernos deben promover la participaci?n ciudadana en la formulaci?n de las pol?ticas p?blicas, su ejecuci?n y fiscalizaci?n. 13. El prop?sito de este Comit? Nacional es defender nuestras instituciones p?blicas, nuestras riquezas naturales y todas las expresiones de la cultura, de manera democr?tica , respetuosa y tolerante. Defenderlas con la participaci?n activa de los ciudadanos. Un ejemplo lo constituye el Plebiscito o Consulta Ciudadana sobre el intento de privatizar el Agua Potable, realizado en la Regi?n del B?o- B?o donde participaron 136.783 personas. Creemos que con ello se interpretar? el sentir de las grandes mayor?as del pa?s, que se informan una vez consumadas las ventas y privatizaciones y que carecen de toda participaci?n en estas decisiones. TODOS LOS CIUDADANOS SOMOS DUE?OS DE LA RIQUEZA NATURAL Y DE LAS INSTITUCIONES QUE CONSTITUYEN EL PATRIMONIO Y CULTURA NACIONALES. TODOS LOS CIUDADANOS DEBEN DECIDIR QUE SE HACE CON SU PROPIEDAD. NO SE TRATA SOLO DE UN DESARROLLO ECONOMICO SINO ESENCIALMENTE DE UN DESARROLLO HUMANO COMITE DE DEFENSA DEL PATRIMONIO Y CULTURA NACIONALES ? Enrique Accorsi Opazo Presidente Asociaci?n M?dica Mundial ? Jos? Aldunate Lyon S.J. Profesor de Moral ? Rub?n Andino Maldonado Periodista ? Eduardo Aquevedo Soto Pdte. Asociaci?n Latinoamericana de Sociolog?a ? Fernando Arizt?a Ruiz Obispo ? Neftal? Aravena Bravo Obispo Iglesia Metodista ? Andr?s Aylwin Az?car Abogado ? Jos? Balmes Parramon Premio Nacional de Arte ? Gracia Barrios Rivadeneira Pintora ? Roser Bru Llop Pintora ? Patricio Bunster Brice?o Core?grafo ? Carlos Camus Larenas Obispo de Linares ? Mar?a C?nepa Pesce Premio Nacional de Arte ? Juan Pablo C?rdenas Director Radio Universidad de Chile ? Fernando Castillo Velasco Premio Nacional de Arquitectura ? Jaime Castillo Velasco Abogado ? Pedro Castillo Y?nez Profesor Universitario ? Silvio Caiozzi Garc?a Director de Cine ? HildaCid Araneda Premio Municipal de Ciencia, Concepci?n ? Ciudadanos por Valpara?so Premio Nacional de Conservaci?n Monumentos Nacionales ? Francisco Coloane C?rdenas Premio Nacional de Literatura Q. E. P. D ? Edgardo Condeza Vaccaro Profesor Universitario ? Ren? Cort?zar Sagarminaga Premio Nacional de Ciencias ? Jacques Chonchol Chait Profesor Em?rito Universidad de la Sorbonne, Paris ? Ariel Dorfman Escritor ? Humberto Duvauchelle Concha Actor ? Mar?a Elena Duvauchelle Concha Actriz ? Antonio Elizalde Hevia Rector Universidad Bolivariana ? Orietta Esc?mez Carrasco Actriz ? Hugo Fazio Rigazzi Economista ? Emilio Filippi Muratto Periodista ? Hernol Flores Dirigente Sindical. ? Jaime Godoy Jorquera Rector Universidad de Antofagasta ? Alejandro Goic Karmelic Obispo de Osorno ? Mario G?mez Ram?rez Periodista ? Mario G?mez L?pez ? Sergio Gonz?lez Espinoza Secretario General del Colegio de Arquitectos ? Tom?s Gonz?lez Morales Obispo de Punta Arenas ? Victor Gubbins Browne Premio Nacional de Arquitectura ? Isa?as Gutierrez Vallejos Obispo (E) Metodista, Presidente A. Latina/Caribe ? Alejandro Hales Jamarne Abogado. Q.E.P.D. ? Carmen Hertz Cadiz Abogado ? Jorge Hourton Poisson Obispo Auxiliar de Temuco ? Ram?n Huidobro Dom?nguez Abogado ? Inti Illimani Grupo Musical. ? Jorge Kaplan Meyer M?dico ? Ricardo Larra?n Pinedo Director de Cine ? Beatriz Levi Premio Nacional de Geolog?a ? Miguel Littin Cucumides Director de Cine ? Pablo Lorenzini Buzzo Diputado ? Humberto Maturana Romecin Premio Nacional de Ciencias ? Manfred Max Neff Premio N?bel Alternativo ? Carlos Merino Pinochet Rector Universidad Arturo Prat de Iquique ? Sara Nieto Mosto Bailarina ? Juan Pablo Orrego Silva Premio Nobel Alternativo ? Jorge Pavez Presidente Nacional del Colegio de Profesores ? Benito Rodr?guez PHD en Qu?mica ? Ervaldo Rodr?guez Theodor General (R ) de Ej?rcito ? Gonzalo Rojas Pizarro Premio Nacional de Literatura ? Igor Saavedra Premio Nacional de Ciencias ? Nelson Saavedra Guzm?n Profesor Em?rito Universidad de Concepci?n ? Danilo Salcedo Vodnizza Soci?logo ? Jos? Manuel Santos Ascarza Arzobispo Em?rito de la Sant?sima Concepci?n ? Jacobo Schatan Weitzman Economista ? Ram?n Silva Ulloa Abogado ? Miguel Angel Solar Silva M?dico ? Yolanda Soto Gonz?lez Presidenta Regional MEMCH (V Regi?n) ? Roberto Vega Fern?ndez Pdte. ASEXMA Regi?n del Bio Bio ? Carlos Villaroel Machuca Dirigente Nacional del Colegio M?dico ? Luis Vitale Historiador ? Hern?n Vodanovic Schnacke Abogado ? Eduardo Yentzen Director Peri?dico El Utopista Pragm?tico ? Juan Luis Ysern Obispo de Ancud Si a usted le interpreta este documento, atentamente, le pedimos su colaboraci?n para difundirlo. Si desea suscribirlo puede comunicarse con cualquiera de las personas arriba mencionadas o con: Dr.Edgardo Condeza Vaccaro Presidente 41-913664 Tele/Fax 41-913663 econdeza@entelchile.net O?Higgins 1210. Concepci?n. Chile. COMIT? DE DEFENSA DEL PATRIMONIO Y LA CULTURA NACIONAL ?Vivir es Participar? Antoine de Saint-Exupery ------- End of forwarded message ------- N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky nestorgoro@fibertel.com.ar _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "S?, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos". Sim?n Bol?var al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de Buenos Aires, 1822 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ From mstainsby at tao.ca Sat May 3 15:31:01 2003 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] George Galloway (The UK MP) and Sadam Hussain - The truth! Message-ID: <002501c311bb$3466ba50$20fa5718@comintern> George Galloway (The UK MP) and Sadam Hussain - The truth! George Galloway enjoyed three-in-a-bed orgies with devil worshipping pimp from the Special Republican Guard Documents unearthed in Baghdad brothel prove depths of MP's carnal depravity by Lester Haines Rogue MP George Galloway is set for further disgrace today, as we can exclusively reveal that the bum-chum of former Iraqi dicatator Saddam Hussein enjoyed special "favours" from the Iraqi regime in return for selling out his country to that murderous tyrant. Indeed, papers have come into our possession which show beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only did "Baghdad George" receive more than 86 BILLION DOLLARS from his Iraqi paymasters, but that a laughing Galloway EXECUTED Kurdish women and children in a Basra torture room, KICKED old ladies into the road during "fact-finding" tours of Tikrit and ENJOYED nights of depraved lust with Uday Hussein during which the two men PLEASURED each other and members of the Special Republican Guard while drinking the blood of Iranian virgins supplied by the North Korean secret police. Readers may find these allegations incredible, shocking even, but we are prepared to put our journalistic careers on the line to defend our assertion that the dossier of filth we have assembled is nothing less than the whole, fantastic truth about George Galloway and his international network of money-laundering paedophiles. As Galloway tonight cowers in his luxury 100-bedroom Portuguese mansion, financed and built by Libyan "contractors" on the payroll of Colonel Gaddaffi's feared "Ministry of Public Works", he continues to protest his innocence. Indeed, we at The Rockall Times this morning received notice from Galloway's lawyers that publication of any material regarding their client's so-called "charitable activities" would be actionable. Well, Mr Galloway, while you're sitting by your solid-gold pool this morning tucking into champagne and caviar at the tax payers' expense while naked Yemeni serving girls pleasure themselves for your amusement, let's see if this improves your appetite: From: Saddam Hussein Baghdad Dear George, Please find enclosed the cheque for $100 million as promised for your "Iraqi leukaemia kiddie appeal". Nice one, me and the lads had a good laugh about that. Uday sends his regards and says thanks very much for the gold-plated AK-47 you sent him on your last trip to Havana. I hope Fidel is well. He does seem a bit frail these days, and it's going to be a bit difficult getting a suitable base for a nuclear strike against the American infidels once he's popped his clogs. Anyway, the weather here is fine. The North Korean ambassador nipped round yesterday for a chat. The old dog's 74-years-old and still managed to deflower 16 Kurdish virgins before battering to death a butler with his walking stick. Poor bloke had apparently put the fish knife on the wrong side of the plate. I said to him afterwards: "I really wish you wouldn't murder my staff - that's Uday's job." We nearly pissed ourselves laughing. Later, we went over to the Ba'ath party headquarters and tortured my cousin Mohammed for half an hour or so. You remember, the one who forgot my wife's birthday. He won't do that again in a hurry. Nearly forgot: I'll need a receipt for that money, preferably on House of Commons headed notepaper. It's for the tax people, you understand. And please make sure you itemise the stuff we discussed, otherwise I can't claim back the VAT. Look forward to speaking soon. Tell Osama I send my regards when you see him next week. Yours, Saddam Here is Galloway's damning reply, printed here in full: George Galloway MP Houses of Parliament London My dearest most excellent Saddam, Lord of the Tigris and Rising Sun over the Euphrates, Your majesty must accept my humble thanks for the donation which will be wisely spent in furthering the cause of the "Iraqi leukaemia kiddie appeal". Your Imperial Highness honours me with his attention, and it is with humility and respect that I attach the following itemised receipt, as requested: To: Saddam Hussein al-Tikrit PLC The Palace Baghdad Received from the above the sum of $100 million for the following services: To further the cause of Iraq and its government around the world To travel first-class to any state sympathetic to our common cause of the overthrow of western democracy To sell out the British forces in any military action against Iraq by supplying valuable intelligence about British capabilities, logistics and troop movements To maintain a luxury 100-room mansion in Portugal for use of the donor in the event of any such military action taking a turn for the worse To forward a Fortnum and Mason's picnic hamper each month to a Royal Palace to be specified by coded advertisement in the Times. I reckon that just about covers it. I've left out the stuff about buying mustard gas and nuclear bombs to use against Israel, just in case this letter ever falls into the hands of the British press. Sounds silly, but stranger things have happened. Keep your chin up, George Given this damning correspondence, it seems incredible that Galloway still maintains that he is nothing more than a rebel Member of Parliament with strongly-held anti-war beliefs. We concede that many among the British electorate may share his revulsion at armed conflict, but what will they say after they have read this incredible written confession, supplied by Tariq Aziz to the CIA as part of his surrender deal?: George Galloway The 100-bedroom luxury mansion Portugal Dear Tariq, I can't tell you how's it's been since I left my beloved Uday. I've never known a night like it: the jasmine-scented air wafting over the Tigris, the stars blazing like anti-aircraft fire over the enchanted city of Baghdad. You know, our eyes first met over that war cabinet table. It ws an instant, animal attraction. We called a cab to go to his palace but we didn't even make it down the ceremonial entrance corridor. We ripped our clothes off in a frenzy of animal lust. We explored each others' bodies for what seemed an age. Uday has a fantastic physique by the way. It's clear that he works out a lot - probably beating political prisoners to death. He satisfied me completely as a man. After a 10-minute break for tea, we were joined by one on Uday's favourites from the Special Republican Guard. Let me just say, as soon as I pulled down his boxers I could see why they call them special! When it was all over we just cuddled and kissed and watched the dawn together. Oh God! The pain of separation is unbearable! George PS. Did you get the plans for the top-secret rocket project I sent you? I reckon you'll be able to hit Tel-Aviv with that, no problem. I didn't mention it on the phone the other day because you never know when the British press are listening in. Better to be safe than sorry, eh? If this ever got out I'd be in a right royal pickle, wouldn't I? Yes you would, Mr Galloway, yes you would. Next week: How Galloway financed purchase of Bangkok paedophile short-stay hotel by selling the organs of murdered kiddies on a Russian Lolitas website ----------------- http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2003/04/28/george-galloway.html ----------------- ------------------------------------------- Macdonald Stainsby http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international -- In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht From Waistline2 at aol.com Sun May 4 12:01:02 2003 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] About Cuba: social-imperialist thuggery Message-ID: <177.19fbb900.2be624b5@aol.com> Comment The imperial - not simply bourgeois, and largely chauvinistic culture of American society is very much expressed in a certain attitude of our national body politic, regardless of political persuasion. "We" have the "right" and must respond to and adopt an "official position" concerning events in Cuba in respect to the execution of high jackers and the imprisonment of political opponents of the regime. The need to discuss Cuba is brought to the fore in International politics at this time, not simply because of its revolution and socialist construction. Our imperialist bourgeoisie has made the "Cuban Question" a priority or at any rate placed it high on its agenda of urgent tasks in the international arena. Very little is said and petitions are not circulated concerning the four and a half year war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has taken more lives than any other since World War II. Since August 1998, when the war erupted, through November 2002 at least 3.3 million people died in excess of what would normally be expected during this time, according to a survey undertaken by the International Rescue Committee. The point is not to question anyone's sincerity but rather to point out that the various individuals and political groupings to step forward in condemning how the government of Cuba defends itself in the 40 year war our government has waged against the people of Cuba, do so on behalf of our imperialist bourgeoisie. Even the discussion here on Marxline (not the A-list) - a couple of weeks ago on Cuba, and the attempts to unravel the specific content of its economic programs and policies in the world wide web of the value producing system, contained a line of thought that is no more than imperial banditry, extreme national chauvinism and white chauvinism, hiding under the cloak of socialist sounding phrases. But screams our bourgeois imperial scoundrels "one can take a principled position on the logic of Cuban economic development, political forms and whether or not this is a healthy workers democracy - from the bottom up, and be critical of their government and specific policies and remain true to the cause of social revolution." Well, our bourgeois imperial scoundrels like to pretend to be detached objective observers of the historical process, champions of democratic rights in all countries regardless of economic and political systems, and by doing so reveal their contempt for the world masses and outright genuflecting to the murderous schemes of our own bourgeoisie. These social-imperialists align themselves in real time with the practical program of our bourgeoisie in its attempt to overthrow the government of Cuba. Further, these imperial scoundrels fail to understand the law-dialectic of revolution that states that the vision of one revolution becomes the cause of the next and have no framework to assess revolutionary Cuba. It is one thing to disagree with a theoretical formulation and I have on occasion published disagreement with various statements from the Cuban government describing this current state in the development of imperial capital as "Neo-liberal." I have reframed from entering a realm of partial criticism of partial policies of the people of Cuba, as their will is expressed through their government - the executor of the political authority of a class, because such practice aligns one with the imperialist in the world of real politics and in real time. Democracy in its essential feature is a class phenomenon. There is no such thing as a democratic form or democratic institutions that are not embodiments of class authority and wealth formation, because the bottom line definition of democracy is "the will of the people." The "people" are divided into classes as the fundamental social division in society. The Cuban revolution is an objective, historically evolved social process that has traveled from one point or set of circumstances to another. The Cuban revolution expressed and continues to express the will of its people to be free of American imperialism. Historically, Cuba was a brutal slave society and the color question was and is a real social and political problem, confronting the life of that society and any leaders, no matter what their particular body of ideas and politics. Before the revolution Cuban society was roughly 30% black and today 70% of the population is black. This means that an estimate of the state of democracy in Cuba can be determined and compared with - in relationship to, the state of democracy in America. In my opinion any other approach aligns one with the imperial bourgeoisie, no matter how one dresses up their "democratic arguments." "Well, I do not believe that Cuba is a socialist society," say the wiseacres. In my neighborhood, what one is told who does not know is, "you better ask somebody." Ask the imperial bourgeoisie if Cuba is a socialist country! Ask leaders of the banking community if Cuba is socialist on the basis of how capital is controlled and invested. "You better ask somebody." Socialism and democracy, is a social process of class authority that evolves on the basis of the preexisting economic, cultural, social and political forms and institutions in a given society. Any other approach to socialism and democracy is outright metaphysics and idealism, and reduces understanding to frameworks within the interior of the mind. Who in America can take the high ground of moral authority? Based on what - formal democracy and the interior of ones mind? Formal democracy - and the language that articulates this concept as an idea, expresses bourgeois property relations as they evolved in a given area. Formal democracy and real democracy as it impact the individual in real time, cannot be separated from property relations and class factors. The American Constitution proclaims the rights of men as being created equal and endowed with certain characteristics that are universal and demand a standardized set of laws, regulations and ethics as the basis of interactivity with individuals. What is called laws and democracy in America is not in fact "laws" or an independent law system of motion governing the movement of society but "rights." "Rights" are the abstract expression of the individual assertion without regard to community standing, sex, race or color. This "abstract expression of the individual assertion," takes place within a real material environment and oscillates within the framework of the dominant property relations of a given society and the sum total of its cultural history and legacy. One can properly speak of "bourgeois right" or bourgeois rights and bourgeois democratic rights, as they evolved from the political shell of landed property relations. In America one can speak of bourgeois democratic rights as they evolved since the colonization of our country, the War of Independence and the destruction of the system of slavery. Rights or bourgeois rights or bourgeois democratic rights - American style, are not "laws" as such or a law system of political motion that bestows an inherently superior code of conduct on the individual. The most visible or widely articulated law system governing the societal motion was formulated by Marx and Engels and simply state that humanity is organized around how it reproduces itself on the basis of a given state of development of the productive forces. To state this is to be accused of reducing economic logic to individual acts. The rub is that nothing abstract exists, by definition. "Rights" are more than less an abstraction, until one examines all the material factors of life that allows the individual or social group to exercise and utilize "rights" as a social force. My argument is that the existence of a one party state system is not sufficient grounds to declare that a country is not democratic and the citizen's lack "rights," as compared with American bourgeois democracy. Further, the idea that American bourgeoisie democracy is a higher form of democracy and worth replicating is being challenged. Anyone that analysis the data concerning the actual lived experience of the peoples of America will conclude that Cuban society is more democratic and has traveled further down the road of democracy than American society. Everyone in American society knows that corporations have more rights than the individual. Everyone in American society knows that wealthier people and the ruling class have more rights than the individual. Everyone in American society knows that the Anglo-American people have more rights than the African American people, the people of historic Mexican ancestry and everybody know about Mississippi - or rather the Native Bands of people, goddamn. Everyone "deals with the reality" of "the law," - the class content of America bourgeois democracy, on one level or another as an aspect of living in America. What individuals, social strata, and social classes (no matter how one defines "class") are confronted with is the authenticity of actuality. Thomas Jefferson - a slaveholder, is credited with writing lengthy proclamations concerning the rights of man and the individual, but he was a slaveholder. The authenticity of Mr. Jefferson's actuality - the materiality of his real life social interactions as an individual and member of a privilege class, has to the arbiter in deciphering the meaning of his "meaning" - the "democratic tradition." This standpoint applies not simply to the US Constitution but all political structures that evolve more than less on the basis of a complex of interactivity, made sensible when discussed from the vantage point of the economic underpinning of an entire historical epoch. There is an unnoticed dialectic of social development and democratic assertion - political revolution, which seems to operate on the principle that the democratic striving and revolutionary vision of a revolution - embodied in its proclamations, becomes the practical program of the next political revolution. One of the features of revolution in the US and elsewhere is that each revolution creates the conditions for the next one. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution - July 28, 1868, in part states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; not shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." One does not have the "right" to remain silent if you are getting the crap beat out of you by the police or live under in an environment of police violence. One is entitled to a jury of their peers as an aspect of our bourgeois democracy. For the overwhelming majority of American history this right has never been accessible to the majority of African American convicted and judged because the judicial system is not - in the main, composed of their peers. This does not apply to just African Americans. At various stages in the evolution of American bourgeois democracy the Irish, Italian and Slavic communities have faced this lack of "rights." This is to say that American bourgeois democracy as is Cuban socialist democracy a social process involving from "some where to some where else." Let's attack this dialect of one revolution laying the basis for the next from another side. The cause of the Revolutionary War was independence. The vision was stated in the Declaration of Independence. Since that vision was not fulfilled, another revolution was inevitable. The cause in the Civil War was to preserve the Union. Implicitly that meant union under the Northern industrialist with a free labor system. By definition the free labor system meant overthrowing the system of slavery, which could not be done without militarily defeating the slave oligarchy. This in turn could not be done without emancipating the slaves. The vision as stated by Lincoln was a Nation (not a union) conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. The changing economic base that created the revolution, or rather the changing economic base on which arose Lincoln's stated vision had not yet been sufficiently developed for the revolution to realize its vision. The slave was politically emancipated but remained in the same social position of the economic structure of Southern society. Freed but not free, as freedom existed in the period between 1865 and roughly 1945. The battle must then be waged again to achieve the vision. One hundred years later - the 1965 Voting Rights Act is a good point of reference, the descendants of slaves more than less achieved the "right" to vote and had been liberated from their social position in the old agricultural society. We know what happened in Florida and across many Southern States, which of course proves that the vote was more than less won! The vision of one revolution becomes the cause of the next. The distance that the people of Cuba have traveled in the past 40 years is greater than the distance traveled by the black population of America in the same time frame. The vision of the Cuban revolution cannot be fully implemented without another revolution and this is a law of social development. The distance traveled by Cuban in virtually every sphere of social life is greater than virtually every country in the Western hemisphere. Cuba is certainly more democratic than all the countries of "Latin America." In as much as the social imperialist have petitioned on the basis of opposing the death penalty, the execution of high jackers and long sentences given to persons convicted of crime, these categories are the framework of measurement. Legal, illegal and extra-legal executions of citizens in our country have long ago become distinguishing features of our bourgeois democracy. Compare every category of social life in America. Infant mortality rates, health care, literacy, home ownership, access to government officials, incarceration rates, judgment by peers, crime rates, respect for the environment as practical policy, voting rights, individual rights, the right to marry outside ones peer group, police violence and police murder, executions of those convicted of crime, etc. Democracy as an expression of the will of the people also means creating the social institutions to alleviate social problems like drug use, teenage pregnancy, random violence, violence directed towards women as a class of citizens and this expresses the will of government as the executor of a class. Democracy in the real world means one's ability to manifest their rights to housing, medical care, fresh water supply, transportation, education, an environment increasingly free of random violence, higher education, literature, music and the pursuit of culture and not simply the specific state of development of the judicial system. Cuba's one party system has traveled down the road of democracy further than America in all matters of grave concern to the majority of people in our country. Why is the execution of 3 criminals important - theirs was not a political crime, to a country whose internal and international policies condemn millions to death for no other reason than being "broke" - lacking money. The petition against the government of Cuba on the basis of judicial ruling against 3 people is imperial thuggery and political hooliganism. Melvin P. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 15955 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030504/b7fdbf23/attachment.txt From soncu at pacbell.net Sun May 4 12:10:02 2003 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] The Economist: A place for capital controls Message-ID: May I invite you to a round of applause for our great friends at the Economist! This survey article also may be of interest and definitely deserves its own round of applause: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1730317 Sabri +++++++++++ Global finance A place for capital controls May 1st 2003 From The Economist print edition For many developing countries, unrestricted inflows of capital are an avoidable danger IF ANY cause commands the unswerving support of The Economist, it is that of liberal trade. For as long as it has existed, this newspaper has championed freedom of commerce across borders. Liberal trade, we have always argued, advances prosperity, encourages peace among nations and is an indispensable part of individual liberty. It seems natural to suppose that what goes for trade in goods must go for trade in capital, in which case capital controls would offend us as violently as, say, an import quota on bananas. The issues have much in common, but they are not the same. Untidy as it may be, economic liberals should acknowledge that capital controls?of a certain restricted sort, and in certain cases?have a role. Why is trade in capital different from trade in goods? For two main reasons. First, international markets in capital are prone to error, whereas international markets in goods are not. Second, the punishment for big financial mistakes can be draconian, and tends to hurt innocent bystanders as much as borrowers and lenders. Recent decades, and the 1990s most of all, drove these points home with terrible clarity. Great tides of foreign capital surged into East Asia and Latin America, and then abruptly reversed. At a moment's notice, hitherto-successful economies were plunged deep into recession. These experiences served only to underline the lesson of previous financial debacles. Yet it is a lesson that governments remain decidedly reluctant to learn. Big inflows of foreign capital present developing countries with a nearly irresistible opportunity to accelerate their economic development. Where those flows are of foreign direct investment, they are all to the good. But in other cases, disaster beckons unless a series of demanding preconditions are met first (see our survey). A flood of capital into an economy with immature and poorly regulated financial institutions can do more harm than good. Unquestionably, developing countries should strive to improve their financial systems so that foreign capital can be successfully absorbed. Good government, sophisticated financial firms, and regulators who are honest and competent cannot eliminate the risk of financial calamity altogether, but they can reduce it to bearable proportions. At that point a liberal regime for international capital makes sense. The trouble is, many developing countries are nowhere near that point. Rich-country governments and, until recently, the International Monetary Fund have often seemed reluctant to endorse this notion. One might say the same of The Economist. This reluctance is defensible. Often, indeed typically, governments have abused capital controls in ways that oppress their citizens and do grave economic harm. It seems safer to frown on any and all controls?and, in those cases where they have been used intelligently and successfully, to acknowledge any success very grudgingly. But this is dishonest. It is better to face up to the case for such rules in some circumstances, and think hard about how to use them sensibly, with restraint. In from the cold Experience suggests some rules. Refrain from blocking capital outflows (tempting as this might be at times of crisis). Such measures are usually oppressive, and deter future inflows of all kinds. Poor countries need all the foreign direct investment they can get: let inflows of FDI be unconfined. Other long-term inflows also pose little threat to stability. The chief danger lies with heavy inflows of short-term capital, bank lending above all. These can be difficult to stem, but many developing countries would do well to emulate the successful experience of Chile, which has imposed taxes on such inflows, with the rate of tax varying according to the holding period. In negotiating new free-trade arrangements with Chile (and with Singapore), the United States has recently sought assurances of complete capital-account liberalisation. Bitter experience suggests that such demands are a mistake. It is past time to revise economic orthodoxy on this subject. Article at: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=1748890 From bar at idirect.com Sun May 4 13:33:01 2003 From: bar at idirect.com (Christopher Black) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:01 2006 Subject: [A-List] About Cuba: social-imperialist thuggery References: <177.19fbb900.2be624b5@aol.com> Message-ID: <00c301c31270$9c5ec700$f7049ad8@computer> Melvin Thanks for this. It is very good. I am having a debate here in Canada within the Communist Party about the death peanlty and Cuba. I support the Cuban position as do others. But some take the position that even in these circumstances the death penalty is a breach of socialist morality in some way ad is unforgiveable. I think your analysis hits the nail on ther head. If you dont mind I want to post your analysis on our Party discussion site. Thanks, Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: Waistline2@aol.com To: a-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] About Cuba: social-imperialist thuggery Comment The imperial - not simply bourgeois, and largely chauvinistic culture of American society is very much expressed in a certain attitude of our national body politic, regardless of political persuasion. "We" have the "right" and must respond to and adopt an "official position" concerning events in Cuba in respect to the execution of high jackers and the imprisonment of political opponents of the regime. The need to discuss Cuba is brought to the fore in International politics at this time, not simply because of its revolution and socialist construction. Our imperialist bourgeoisie has made the "Cuban Question" a priority or at any rate placed it high on its agenda of urgent tasks in the international arena. Very little is said and petitions are not circulated concerning the four and a half year war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has taken more lives than any other since World War II. Since August 1998, when the war erupted, through November 2002 at least 3.3 million people died in excess of what would normally be expected during this time, according to a survey undertaken by the International Rescue Committee. The point is not to question anyone's sincerity but rather to point out that the various individuals and political groupings to step forward in condemning how the government of Cuba defends itself in the 40 year war our government has waged against the people of Cuba, do so on behalf of our imperialist bourgeoisie. Even the discussion here on Marxline (not the A-list) - a couple of weeks ago on Cuba, and the attempts to unravel the specific content of its economic programs and policies in the world wide web of the value producing system, contained a line of thought that is no more than imperial banditry, extreme national chauvinism and white chauvinism, hiding under the cloak of socialist sounding phrases. But screams our bourgeois imperial scoundrels "one can take a principled position on the logic of Cuban economic development, political forms and whether or not this is a healthy workers democracy - from the bottom up, and be critical of their government and specific policies and remain true to the cause of social revolution." Well, our bourgeois imperial scoundrels like to pretend to be detached objective observers of the historical process, champions of democratic rights in all countries regardless of economic and political systems, and by doing so reveal their contempt for the world masses and outright genuflecting to the murderous schemes of our own bourgeoisie. These social-imperialists align themselves in real time with the practical program of our bourgeoisie in its attempt to overthrow the government of Cuba. Further, these imperial scoundrels fail to understand the law-dialectic of revolution that states that the vision of one revolution becomes the cause of the next and have no framework to assess revolutionary Cuba. It is one thing to disagree with a theoretical formulation and I have on occasion published disagreement with various statements from the Cuban government describing this current state in the development of imperial capital as "Neo-liberal." I have reframed from entering a realm of partial criticism of partial policies of the people of Cuba, as their will is expressed through their government - the executor of the political authority of a class, because such practice aligns one with the imperialist in the world of real politics and in real time. Democracy in its essential feature is a class phenomenon. There is no such thing as a democratic form or democratic institutions that are not embodiments of class authority and wealth formation, because the bottom line definition of democracy is "the will of the people." The "people" are divided into classes as the fundamental social division in society. The Cuban revolution is an objective, historically evolved social process that has traveled from one point or set of circumstances to another. The Cuban revolution expressed and continues to express the will of its people to be free of American imperialism. Historically, Cuba was a brutal slave society and the color question was and is a real social and political problem, confronting the life of that society and any leaders, no matter what their particular body of ideas and politics. Before the revolution Cuban society was roughly 30% black and today 70% of the population is black. This means that an estimate of the state of democracy in Cuba can be determined and compared with - in relationship to, the state of democracy in America. In my opinion any other approach aligns one with the imperial bourgeoisie, no matter how one dresses up their "democratic arguments." "Well, I do not believe that Cuba is a socialist society," say the wiseacres. In my neighborhood, what one is told who does not know is, "you better ask somebody." Ask the imperial bourgeoisie if Cuba is a socialist country! Ask leaders of the banking community if Cuba is socialist on the basis of how capital is controlled and invested. "You better ask somebody." Socialism and democracy, is a social process of class authority that evolves on the basis of the preexisting economic, cultural, social and political forms and institutions in a given society. Any other approach to socialism and democracy is outright metaphysics and idealism, and reduces understanding to frameworks within the interior of the mind. Who in America can take the high ground of moral authority? Based on what - formal democracy and the interior of ones mind? Formal democracy - and the language that articulates this concept as an idea, expresses bourgeois property relations as they evolved in a given area. Formal democracy and real democracy as it impact the individual in real time, cannot be separated from property relations and class factors. The American Constitution proclaims the rights of men as being created equal and endowed with certain characteristics that are universal and demand a standardized set of laws, regulations and ethics as the basis of interactivity with individuals. What is called laws and democracy in America is not in fact "laws" or an independent law system of motion governing the movement of society but "rights." "Rights" are the abstract expression of the individual assertion without regard to community standing, sex, race or color. This "abstract expression of the individual assertion," takes place within a real material environment and oscillates within the framework of the dominant property relations of a given society and the sum total of its cultural history and legacy. One can properly speak of "bourgeois right" or bourgeois rights and bourgeois democratic rights, as they evolved from the political shell of landed property relations. In America one can speak of bourgeois democratic rights as they evolved since the colonization of our country, the War of Independence and the destruction of the system of slavery. Rights or bourgeois rights or bourgeois democratic rights - American style, are not "laws" as such or a law system of political motion that bestows an inherently superior code of conduct on the individual. The most visible or widely articulated law system governing the societal motion was formulated by Marx and Engels and simply state that humanity is organized around how it reproduces itself on the basis of a given state of development of the productive forces. To state this is to be accused of reducing economic logic to individual acts. The rub is that nothing abstract exists, by definition. "Rights" are more than less an abstraction, until one examines all the material factors of life that allows the individual or social group to exercise and utilize "rights" as a social force. My argument is that the existence of a one party state system is not sufficient grounds to declare that a country is not democratic and the citizen's lack "rights," as compared with American bourgeois democracy. Further, the idea that American bourgeoisie democracy is a higher form of democracy and worth replicating is being challenged. Anyone that analysis the data concerning the actual lived experience of the peoples of America will conclude that Cuban society is more democratic and has traveled further down the road of democracy than American society. Everyone in American society knows that corporations have more rights than the individual. Everyone in American society knows that wealthier people and the ruling class have more rights than the individual. Everyone in American society knows that the Anglo-American people have more rights than the African American people, the people of historic Mexican ancestry and everybody know about Mississippi - or rather the Native Bands of people, goddamn. Everyone "deals with the reality" of "the law," - the class content of America bourgeois democracy, on one level or another as an aspect of living in America. What individuals, social strata, and social classes (no matter how one defines "class") are confronted with is the authenticity of actuality. Thomas Jefferson - a slaveholder, is credited with writing lengthy proclamations concerning the rights of man and the individual, but he was a slaveholder. The authenticity of Mr. Jefferson's actuality - the materiality of his real life social interactions as an individual and member of a privilege class, has to the arbiter in deciphering the meaning of his "meaning" - the "democratic tradition." This standpoint applies not simply to the US Constitution but all political structures that evolve more than less on the basis of a complex of interactivity, made sensible when discussed from the vantage point of the economic underpinning of an entire historical epoch. There is an unnoticed dialectic of social development and democratic assertion - political revolution, which seems to operate on the principle that the democratic striving and revolutionary vision of a revolution - embodied in its proclamations, becomes the practical program of the next political revolution. One of the features of revolution in the US and elsewhere is that each revolution creates the conditions for the next one. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution - July 28, 1868, in part states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; not shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." One does not have the "right" to remain silent if you are getting the crap beat out of you by the police or live under in an environment of police violence. One is entitled to a jury of their peers as an aspect of our bourgeois democracy. For the overwhelming majority of American history this right has never been accessible to the majority of African American convicted and judged because the judicial system is not - in the main, composed of their peers. This does not apply to just African Americans. At various stages in the evolution of American bourgeois democracy the Irish, Italian and Slavic communities have faced this lack of "rights." This is to say that American bourgeois democracy as is Cuban socialist democracy a social process involving from "some where to some where else." Let's attack this dialect of one revolution laying the basis for the next from another side. The cause of the Revolutionary War was independence. The vision was stated in the Declaration of Independence. Since that vision was not fulfilled, another revolution was inevitable. The cause in the Civil War was to preserve the Union. Implicitly that meant union under the Northern industrialist with a free labor system. By definition the free labor system meant overthrowing the system of slavery, which could not be done without militarily defeating the slave oligarchy. This in turn could not be done without emancipating the slaves. The vision as stated by Lincoln was a Nation (not a union) conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. The changing economic base that created the revolution, or rather the changing economic base on which arose Lincoln's stated vision had not yet been sufficiently developed for the revolution to realize its vision. The slave was politically emancipated but remained in the same social position of the economic structure of Southern society. Freed but not free, as freedom existed in the period between 1865 and roughly 1945. The battle must then be waged again to achieve the vision. One hundred years later - the 1965 Voting Rights Act is a good point of reference, the descendants of slaves more than less achieved the "right" to vote and had been liberated from their social position in the old agricultural society. We know what happened in Florida and across many Southern States, which of course proves that the vote was more than less won! The vision of one revolution becomes the cause of the next. The distance that the people of Cuba have traveled in the past 40 years is greater than the distance traveled by the black population of America in the same time frame. The vision of the Cuban revolution cannot be fully implemented without another revolution and this is a law of social development. The distance traveled by Cuban in virtually every sphere of social life is greater than virtually every country in the Western hemisphere. Cuba is certainly more democratic than all the countries of "Latin America." In as much as the social imperialist have petitioned on the basis of opposing the death penalty, the execution of high jackers and long sentences given to persons convicted of crime, these categories are the framework of measurement. Legal, illegal and extra-legal executions of citizens in our country have long ago become distinguishing features of our bourgeois democracy. Compare every category of social life in America. Infant mortality rates, health care, literacy, home ownership, access to government officials, incarceration rates, judgment by peers, crime rates, respect for the environment as practical policy, voting rights, individual rights, the right to marry outside ones peer group, police violence and police murder, executions of those convicted of crime, etc. Democracy as an expression of the will of the people also means creating the social institutions to alleviate social problems like drug use, teenage pregnancy, random violence, violence directed towards women as a class of citizens and this expresses the will of government as the executor of a class. Democracy in the real world means one's ability to manifest their rights to housing, medical care, fresh water supply, transportation, education, an environment increasingly free of random violence, higher education, literature, music and the pursuit of culture and not simply the specific state of development of the judicial system. Cuba's one party system has traveled down the road of democracy further than America in all matters of grave concern to the majority of people in our country. Why is the execution of 3 criminals important - theirs was not a political crime, to a country whose internal and international policies condemn millions to death for no other reason than being "broke" - lacking money. The petition against the government of Cuba on the basis of judicial ruling against 3 people is imperial thuggery and political hooliganism. Melvin P. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 18326 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030504/ecfaca39/attachment.txt From bar at idirect.com Sun May 4 13:33:10 2003 From: bar at idirect.com (Christopher Black) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] Fw: COMPARTY: death penalty Message-ID: <00c501c31270$aace74c0$f7049ad8@computer> Melvin, Thought this might add something to the discussion. ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: COMPARTY: death penalty Lenin submited the following draft clause to the Russian Penal Code on May 17, 1922: "Propaganda or agitation, or membership of, or assistance given to organizations the object of which (propaganda and agitation) is to assist that section of the international bourgeoisie which refuses to recognise the rights of the communist system of ownership that is superseding capitalism, and is striving to overthrow that system by violence, either by means of foreign intervention or blockade, or by espionage, financing the press, and similar means, is an offence punishable by death, which, if mitigating circumstances are proved, may be commuted to deprivation of liberty, or deportation." - V.I. Lenin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1506 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030504/eee2b7aa/attachment.txt From annewilliamson at msn.com Sun May 4 13:38:06 2003 From: annewilliamson at msn.com (annewilliamson) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] (Forward from Nestor) Stratfor on Argentina References: Message-ID: <041801c31274$8ac6da60$c9b7fea9@anne> Dear Nestor, Thanks so much for your illuminating response to the Stratfor report - the detail is most helpful. I was quite alarmed by the potential for any Menem victory in the runoff. Fully aware of the alternative, Kirchner now seems a mixed blessing, at best, though earlier I confess - after reading he advocated a gold-backed peso - I was guilty of thinking that as a consequence he must surely have a full program of useful economic policies. By your report I gather that - even if he did - his situation vis a vis Duhalde will leave him dependent, and therefore cripple any truly fresh initiatives he may have up his sleeve. (Hope dies slowly, Nestor, very slowly, especially for us gold standard folk.) Of course, I can only agree that Menem must lose, and drummed out of Argentinean politics forever. But a bit of intelligence I picked up the other night indicates that no matter who wins the runoff, enormous US pressure is soon to be applied for Argentina to get on board the USS Imperialism and start swabbing the decks: Thursday evening I attended the Spring Dinner of the Committee on Monetary Education and Reform (CMRE), a "sound money" organization of considerable standing and prestige here in the States (I append below an email report written by another attendee, David Lifschultz, for those interested in issues the evening's speakers addressed.) Due to a scheduling glitch, a speaker based in London had to withdraw. Larry Kudlow of CNBC's "Kudlow and Cramer" was the last minute replacement. Most probably A-Listers not residing in the US have no idea who this gentleman is. Briefly, he is a many times "fallen" former bright young thing (cocaine scandals, lost jobs, divorce, conversion to Catholicism, at least two "miraculous" come-backs, etc.) who was, and is, one of the most prominent "easy money" bubble economy enthusiasts. IOWs, a Bubblevision "star." Earlier, standing as a supply sider economist fresh out of Princeton at a time when that particular economic cult was fashionable assisted him in snagging a medium-level job in the Reagan administration, which Larry has milked so thoroughly through the ensuing years that today an innocent individual listening to him would think he was among Reagan's closest advisers and confidants. In short, he is an ever-eager snake oil salesman and all-around regime apologist, who is now working only nominally for CNBC. In reality, he's Dubya's man all the way, and without question is privy to the thinking of White House staff and the neo-con cabal. Now, as to his "bomblet." In long, rambling remarks amounting to economic nonsense (see below), he turned to the future direction of US geopolitical initiatives. After assuring the audience that "Donald Rumsfeld is a wonderful human being, just wonderful," and saluting the US's "victory for freedom" in Iraq, Kudlow allowed, "Unfortunately, we are probably going to have to go into Syria, Iran, North Korea, and eventually," here he paused for effect, "Latin America." (This is okay in Larry's view, since the US is "spreading freedom.") The idea of intervening in Latin America stunned the audience, yet follow-up questions focused on Colombia, where we have already massively intervened militarily. I think the focus on Colombia was a consequence of the audience's unconscious denial of what they'd just heard. More intervention? Another continent? Our own? No, no, couldn't be.....unless it's one of those spots where we are already.......... Argentina's attitude towards the IMF has been entirely too casual from the administration's POV; after all, the IMF is a key institution of US imperialism. No nation can be allowed such relaxed negilgence, much less default - even if billions more are needed in loans. So, now that Mr. Bush thinks he's got enough fresh collateral under the dollar thanks to getting control over our oil (which was mistakenly trapped under the sands of Iraq by - can you comprehend the magnitude of the error? - the Lord Almighty's own hand), it's time to re-model the multinational institutions to suit American needs clearly and entirely. The Bushies have suffered enough of foreigners' confusion on exactly how the world is to work, thank you. Alas, Mr. Kirchner, should he prevail, will soon come under assault, once the Bushies can get around to dealing with it. They've got an election to win, after all, and one can expect only so much at a time. How much better it would be for the Bushies if the Argentineans would simply elect the correct man - Menem - in the first place! Pre-runoff Argentina must be as peppered with CIA agents as an old dog's hide is with fleas. It's enough to make a girl cry. Thanks for the expert guidance, Nestor. Anne ***************************************************************** David Lifschultz: External shocks to bring down the United States economy? The Committee for Monetary Research and Education run by that angel from the right, Mrs. Elizabeth Currier, held court on Thursday night in Manhattan with a group of illustrious speakers, and the group is recommended for membership which can be obtained by calling them at 704-598-3717. Ambassador William Middendorf was the host to part of the program, and following his teacher of many decades ago at Harvard, Joseph Schumpeter, sought to find for the audience in his brief and wise presentation those external shocks that might demolish the economy. First, the Ambassador raised the disturbing observation that 20% of the consumer demand was being created by the refinancing of homes at lower rates of interest, and that additional loans were being taken out on the same homes as the housing prices rose to increase consumer purchasing. While one of the speakers rebutted this point by saying that every debt has a corresponding loan in the society, as though to say that this had no significance, the fact that this is true does not take away from the observation as the new credit created by the banking system supported by the housing market's rise in value is a major reason for the continued strength of consumer spending. For example, the base for new credit is the creation of new credit by the Federal Reserve. As it creates credit in the banking system, the entire aggregate of credit cannot rise significantly unless there are borrowers who will make it rise, thereby creating the multiplier effect of the fractional reserve banking system. Otherwise, the Federal Reserve is pushing on a string. The fact that the housing market is rising, and home owners are borrowing more money, enables the Federal Reserve to achieve credit growth in the economy. Larry Kudlow, of Kudlow and Cramer fame, understood this clearly in his remarks when he said let the Federal Reserve rip. He meant by this that he wanted the Federal Reserve to drive gold to 388.00 an ounce, and the economy to five percent growth, by the Federal Reserve buying Treasury bonds through new credit creation until that happened. I pointed out that this new credit could leak into the foreign exchange market causing the dollar to fall, and increasing the current account deficit by increasing demand for foreign goods. Those foreign goods were cheap as the central banks in Asia were buying dollar credits in their corrupt dirty float operations to implement their predatory pricing activities against our domestic industries, which our treasonous officials will do nothing about, and converting them to Treasuries and other securities which have risen from 463 billion for Asia alone in 1999 to 706 billion in Dec. 2002, though Mr. Kudlow denied that this was factually so. For evidence of this fact, see page A 46 of the April, 2003 Federal Reserve Bulletin. Mr. Kudlow did acknowledge that there was a severe problem in lack of savings and said the Bush Administration had a number of tax incentives to create savings to offset this problem, though any increase in savings would decrease consumer spending, which would be offset by the expansionary monetary of Mr. Kudlow. Mr. Kudlow sought to deny the reality of the trade deficit saying that the exports of small companies were not calculated in the export statistics, nor the activity of American manufacturing companies whose manufacturing facilities are abroad who are really part of the domestic economy by extension whose "exports" would put us in current account surplus, and that these 1750 accounting practices should be ignored. But I countered that this "theory" conflicts with the "international accounts" reality, that they were in deficit, and that each central bank of the Asian countries was showing increased dollar credit holdings showing in reality there was a current account problem. Mr. Kudlow replied that was an error of confusing composition of dollar credits which remain relatively constant with a false sense of real growth and thus an illusion, as best as I can understand him. What he was saying here was that the actual dollar credits in the United States system grow very slowly, and thus are relatively constant, and therefore I was referring to a mirage. But that confuses aggregates of dollar credits with composition or ownership of those assets. For example, the credit system of the United States is a closed system. If there is a current account defict, none of this credit for the most part leaves the United States but is merely a credit at a bank in the banking system of the United States for a foreign bank. That credit grow a certain percentage per year on average. Therefore, if the credit system shows 8.5 trillion dollars in M-3 that Mr. Kudlow could not remember, and treating that as the bank credit figure which it is not as it includes non-bank amounts such as money funds, Mr. Kudlow is saying that that amount does not change much per year, and that is true, but the ownership of that credit can change. This can be most clearly seen in the net deficit position of the United States international accounts which used to be significantly in the black in 1973, when we were the world's largest creditor nation, but which is now in the red to the tune of around three trillion dollars making us the world's greatest creditor nation. The ownership of American is moving from domestic American ownership to foreign ownership, which was my point. Mr. Kudlow is dealing in fallacies which work well on television. A distinguished former banker, H. David Willey, presented the view that there was not enough gold to fund the short-term liabilities of the United States, and therefore the return to the gold standard was impossible. He also maintained that the Central Banks were not coordinating the gold price. If I heard him correctly, he said that if gold were massively devalued against the dollar to make it work, that it would be destabilizing. There is much that is of interest here in these comments, and a major self-contradiction in stated Keynesian logic that gold is a barbaric logic. For example, it is of course impossible to underpin a banking system whose credit grows far in excess of gold production as any run on the banks would find them with insufficient gold to pay the depositors. That is why the gold standard went bankrupt. At the rate of dollar credit expansion in the past century, it would take a gold price of over $20,000.00 an ounce to cover all credit in creation in the United States system. Mr. Wiley is correct, though, in saying that the rise of gold to 4,000.00 an ounce or $20,000.00 an ounce would be destabilizing, as it would create a run on the dollar, and potentially destroy the United States economic system. That is if I heard him correctly. The self-contradiction is that Keynes and contemporary central bankers are saying they are selling their gold as it is a useless asset that earns nothing, and yet if it were to rise excessively they recognize that it is not so useless as it could destroy their international financial system. This should lead us to suspect that these contemporary gold sales are being made to stabilize the gold price as these central banks in reality are there to maintain the value of their currencies as best they can, and not allow a crash, and construe such "coordination" at their monthly meetings at the BIS as being fully responsible. Yes, they supervise the gold price, and they have to, and this has been admitted to me by central bankers. Ambassador Middendorf then went on to discuss more potential external shocks to the system. One would be the launch against Manhattan of a weapon of mass destruction by a terrorist group which he thought was very possible. There are 10,000 containers that come into New York City each day from abroad, and the police have the ability to inspect only 100. It is, therefore, very easy to sneak such weapons into the United States. If it were a bacteriological weapon, and it killed hundreds of thousands of people, we can see, he said, the horrendous national panic that would ensue just by looking at the SARS outbreak. He discussed North Korea as a potential shock, but said that their missiles cannot reach the United States, and if some could, the anti-missile systems that he created when Secretary of the Navy should protect the United States from these missiles. Therefore, this shakedown for aid from of the United States was really more a problem for Japan and China. There was more, but this should cover most of the important topics. From jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt Sun May 4 17:22:02 2003 From: jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt (Jorge Figueiredo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030504235101.028abb98@mail.telepac.pt> "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" http://www.chavezthefilm.com/index_ex.htm Documentary - U.S. Premiere Director/Photographers - Kim Bartley & Donnacha O'Briain Possibly the most important documentary of 2003, though the only place you'll see it in this country is most likely to be film festivals, as there isn't a studio in the United States with the balls to release it, or the willingness to draw the steam and fire they'd get from the Bush Administration and his supporters for marketing or distributing it. Nor is there a major television network that'll broadcast it. It isn't artistic censorship, but it is political & more importantly a result of economic censorship. What is The Revolution Will Not Be Televised? It is perhaps the best and most remarkable at the time of history documentary I have ever seen. Capturing every side of a remarkable coup that occurred in Venezuela where the democratically elected President Hugo Chavez, a true man of the people of Venezuela, was captured and came very close to disappearing from the face of the planet, due to his attacks on the Bush Administration's collateral damage in Afghanistan in his War On Terrorism. And two, his position on the oil supply of Venezuela (3rd Largest Producer of Oil in the World!), so that the wealth of Venezuela would help to bring education, medicine and enlightenment to the peoples of his country. You see, Chavez is hugely popular in Venezuela where he has a weekly television program and radio program where the citizens of his country can call in and talk with their President. He listens to their problems, tries to explain the government to them and takes notes. He teaches the people of Venezuela to learn about their constitution, that it is 'the people's book' and rights given in there are guaranteed to all men and women no matter of their place in society. He believes in the system of government that elected him and is a full supporter of it. Now I'll admit quite pointedly that I am a liberal by nature with some conservative streaks through me. I look for 'the rest of the story' that isn't coming from the 'one time liberal media' of this country, which is now mainly owned by arch-conservative corporate powers today. Finding out who is getting the contracts to 'rebuild' Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries that we are going after. Noticing headlines that are deliberately created to provoke instant reactions and being disgusted with it all. Much of my disgust comes from me trying to piece together stories that are related, though never connected, or rarely connected, in the newspapers. Something I learned from reading Woodward & Bernstein's ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. However, this documentary isn't about theories, isn't about going back after something has happened and trying to piece it together. Oh no. Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were making a huge documentary on President Hugo Chavez and the current state of Venezuela in the first half of 2002. They were given total access to his presidency, him and his people. They also had free reign to interview folks on the street, the opposition. Essentially to take a snap shot of what Venezuela was at that time. The first part of the documentary shows that Chavez is very much being considered the Washington of Venezuela, the man that is returning power and giving hope and education to the people of his country. The poor believe in him and the rich seemingly loathe him. In the middle of their 4th month of coverage. When suddenly the powers that be rose against him and took him away. This documentary captures live on tape everything that happened, all the information as it was coming in. It shows how Chavez knowing about the capabilities of the oil and media powers in Venezuela and their tactics, uses his one channel to the people- Channel 8 - State Television, to give his side of what is happening. Meanwhile the conservatives controlled 5 'private stations' in the country that were constantly calling him a communist, the next Castro, essentially demonizing him. The leader of the opposition flew to Washington to meet with President Bush and his advisors. Upon returning from that meeting a renewed vehemence against Chavez began. Calling for a march on the State Oil area in Caracas, Venezuela. The people of Venezuela in response to this gathering decided to gather in front of the Presidential Palace to voice their support of the President and his policies. Meanwhile at the other meeting, they began to FIRE UP the gathers to 'Go Get Chavez Out Of The Palace.' Chavez's people on State Television begin pleading with the opposition party not to do this, because of the 10s of thousands of supporters in front of his palace and how this action was irresponsible and liable to provoke a tragedy. Chavez had a small number of Army types that were attempting to keep the two sides from actual clashing. All of this being captured by the 'Private' media as well as the 'State' media and of course there was also the cameras of Kim Bartley and Donnacio O'Briain. Snipers from over a half mile away begin firing upon the heads of the opposition demonstrators. Killing 10 and the panic caused over a hundred injuries. The 'Private' media edits the footage to show Chavez's supporters firing handguns over a bridge wall off camera, then edit that together with the carnage of the slain, claiming that Chavez's supporters were gunning down the Opposition's 'Peaceful' demonstration. Using this footage and lining a few pockets, the Opposition gains the support of a few army generals and the head of Venezuela's Navy. The Coup is set in motion. First, the State Television was taken over. Suddenly on Private Television they begin announcing that the murderous Chavez has been ousted. We're in the palace watching this footage with the Heads of State as they see the Coup taking shape. To save the lives of the people in the Palace- Department heads, secretaries, the vice-president, the camera crew shooting this- He is taken away by the generals, and nobody knows what happened to him. Suddenly, just a run of the mill documentary on the life of a South American President was becoming a floor plan and blueprint for how the United States uses and manipulates foreign powers into overthrowing any leader- be it Democratically elected or not. Solely to protect its own interest instead of those of the indigenous peoples from whom the materials we desire are to be taken. I won't spoil the rest of the documentary, but it simply must be seen. It plays this Saturday night here in Austin, Texas at the Paramount Theater. I'll be watching it again. It is simply the most amazing and infuriating documentary I've ever seen. This isn't like Michael Moore's BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, which while being a documentary in presentation, actually comes across as more of a persuasive speech by Michael Moore, and violates some of the rules of the documentary form, but was an excellent film despite that. This Documentary covers all sides. Presents evidence captured, but never shown by our media, never discussed in our newspapers, and wholly ignored by Colin Powell and the State Department. Do they tell us that the man that assumed power of Venezuela, the man that had met with President Bush and was involved at the top of the Oil industry in Venezuela, that his first act as the 'democratic' self- appointed leader of Venezuela was to announce on television that he was disbanding the Grand Assembly (Congress), the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and all the other bastions of a Democracy, replacing it with a Dictatorship? This was the man that just days before was in the White House of our country, discussing the future of Venezuela with OUR current President. This same man is now living in Florida. If you ever saw WACO: RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, this- this is far more clear, because imagine if one of the documentary people or two, had been inside the Branch Davidian Compound. Imagine it was all being laid bare- and everything we were led to believe was false for a fact, not supposition, but actual real tangible evidence. And once you see this Documentary, which has been shown in other countries- ahem- Looking at Colin Powell and trusting him, well, it just kind of becomes impossible. Believing anyone from this administration, it's just too much to ask. What they attempted to do in Venezuela is a shame. And any true American that watches this documentary and watches the case as both sides live it- you just. You can not imagine how disgusting it makes one feel. We're not about colonialism, that's why we founded the United States of America, was to fight that, right? To get free of powers that tax and control our country without elected representation, yet here- here clearly we are defying EVERYTHING on which this country was founded. Colin Powell has the audacity in this documentary to say that he does not believe President Chavez has the best interests of the United States as his most important Priority. God forbid he care for his own country first! All of this was for the sake of oil. Back in the days of the original King George, it had to do with spices, hemp, cotton and foods. If you get a chance to see this film, do not miss it. Not one person in the 200 or so I've talked to today that have seen it have called it anything less than brilliant. Even the conservative silver-haired lady I talked to today, who was Republican felt disgusted by what she saw. Unfortunately, THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED isn't bloody likely of being televised in this country anytime soon, so watch your local film festivals and pray that one day we'll be in a country that will put a documentary like this in theaters everywhere. Filmmaking rarely does the three magic things that film can do. Inform, Persuade and ENTERTAIN. This movie does! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 12288 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030504/c8e8488d/attachment.txt From bobenoch at shaw.ca Mon May 5 00:37:01 2003 From: bobenoch at shaw.ca (Bob Enoch) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] Fw: [R-G] Re: elections Message-ID: <001d01c312d0$ee8384c0$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 7:51 PM Subject: [R-G] Re: elections : << Peter Coyote Senator Barbara Boxer 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Barbara, I'm writing to you about a situation of the greatest urgency. Last year, I narrated a film called "Unprecedented" by American journalist Greg Palast (currently writing for the London Guardian). This film documents the illegal expunging of 54,000 black and overwhelmingly Democratic voters from the Florida rolls just before the presidential election. We interviewed the computer company that did the work, filmed their explanations of the instructions they received and their admissions that they knew that their instructions would produce massive error. That figure has now been revised to 91,000. Jeb Bush was sued, and was supposed to have returned these voters to the rolls, and did not, which explains his last re-election. The Republicans have something far worse in mind for the next presidential election and Democrats need to be prepared. The recent elections of Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel, the loss in Georgia of Max Cleland, wildly popular Vietnam vet, and the victory of Alabama Governor Bob Riley, along with a handful of other Republican victories, (all predicted to have been losers by straw polls which our nation has refined to a high-art) points to an ominous source corporate-programmed, computer-controlled, modem-capable voting machine, recording and tabulating ballots. You'd think in an open democracy that the government - answerable to all its citizens, rather than a handful of corporate officers and stockholders - would program, repair, and control the voting machines. You'd think the computers that handle our cherished ballots would be open and their software and programming available for public scrutiny. You'd think there would be a paper trail of the vote, which could be followed and audited if a there was evidence of voting fraud or if exit polls disagreed with computerized vote counts. You'd be wrong. The Washington, DC publication The Hill (www.thehill.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx) has confirmed that former conservative radio talk-show host and now Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel was the head of, and continues to own part interest in, the company that owns the company that installed, programmed, and largely ran the voting machines that were used by most of the citizens of Nebraska. When Democrat,Charlie Matulka requested a hand count of the vote in the election he lost to Hagel, his request was denied because Nebraska had a just-passed law that prohibits government-employee election workers from looking at the ballots, even in a recount. The only machines permitted to count votes in Nebraska, he said, are those made and programmed by the corporation formerly run by Hagel. When Bev Harris and The Hill's Alexander Bolton pressed the Chief Counsel and Director of the Senate Ethics Committee,( the man responsible for ensuring that FEC disclosures are complete), asking him why he'd not questioned Hagel's 1995, 1996, and 2001 failures to disclose the details of his ownership in the company that owned the voting machine company when he ran for the Senate, the Director reportedly met with Hagel's office on Friday, January 25, 2003 and Monday, January 27, 2003. After the second meeting, on the afternoon of January 27th, the Director of the Senate Ethics Committee resigned his job. Hagel's surprise victory is a trial-run for the presidential election. Election 'reform' laws are now prohibiting paper ballots (no trail) and exit polls, effectively removing all trace and record of votes, making prosecution of voter fraud virtually impossible. For whatever reasons, the Democrats decided not to pursue the issue of fraudulence in the last Presidential election. The three Supreme Court Justices who should have recused themselves (Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor) were allowed to stand unchallenged and pass a bizarre one-time only ruling. That they were in place long before the election demonstrates how clearly the end-game of such moves was thought out. Unless the issue of voter fraud is elevated to an issue of national importance, not only is it highly probably that Democrats will lose again and again, but eventually voters will "sense" even if they cannot prove, that elections are rigged, and the current 50% of those boycotting elections will swell to the majority. Privatization of the vote is tantamount to turning over the control of democracy to the corporate sector. I urge you to use your considerable powers and influence to address this issue. >> _______________________________________________ Rad-Green mailing list Rad-Green@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green From bobenoch at shaw.ca Mon May 5 00:38:02 2003 From: bobenoch at shaw.ca (Bob Enoch) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030504235101.028abb98@mail.telepac.pt> Message-ID: <001501c312d0$53db89e0$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> I saw this on CBC Newsworld, here in Canada. CBC is , as perhaps you know, a publicly owned network, although its' funding has been progressively slashed over the last generation or so. For the most part, it provides solid bourgeois coverage, but it still provides a few moments which remind one of its' history as an alternative to US broadcasting. During the 24/7 coverage in Iraq, they ran a doc on the Patriot missile during GW1, showing not only its total ineffectiveness, but also the campaign by which the US Media created the myth of its' omnipotence. They also screened a quite good doc on the oil industry's "investment" in the future of Iraqs' oilfields. I was very pleased to see the Chavez film make it to air here, it is gripping, and excellent "TV" as well as being truthful. I guess it is nearly time for more budget cuts at CBC. Bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2120 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030505/a0a22349/attachment.txt From mstainsby at tao.ca Mon May 5 04:26:01 2003 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] An anarchist march through Montreal's most affluent neighborhood Message-ID: <030d01c312f0$c10531e0$20fa5718@comintern> > From: CLAC logement @ TOUR OF WESTMOUNT: THEY ARE RICH BECAUSE WE ARE POOR! An anarchist march through Montreal's most affluent neighborhood ===> Time: 6:30 PM ===> Date: Saturday, May 17th, 2003 ===> Meet: The green-space by Lionel Groulx Metro Just up the hill from the traditionally-working-class-but-rapidly-gentrifying neighborhoods of St-Henri and Little Burgundy -- the location of this years' Montreal Anarchist Bookfair -- lies Westmount, renown as one of Montreal's most affluent enclaves. The verdant hills of Westmount are home to some of the most distinctive figures of the Canadian bourgeoisie, including Brian Mulroney, Jean Charest and the Bronfman family. On Saturday, May 17th, CLAC Logement invites you to join us for "@ Tour of Westmount: They are rich because we are poor." This anarchist march through Westmount will allow the presence of anarchists and anti-authoritarians to be experienced not only by Bookfair attendees but also by Montreal's political and economic elite as they relax at home. Bring your flags and your banners of resistance! And bring your running boots and your water bottles too, cause it's going to be a long walk uphill! For more info: claclogement@yahoo.ca or 514.409.2049. And don't miss the following events, also on Saturday, May 17th... ===> The Fourth Annual Montreal Anarchist Bookfair The Fourth Annual Montreal Anarchist Bookfair will take place earlier on Saturday, May 17th at CEDA, 2515, rue Delisle (Metro Lionel-Groulx), from 10AM-6PM. The Bookfair will bring together more than 50 booksellers, collectives and distributors from all over North America as well as the Federation Anarchiste from France. Workshops, films and more! Open to anarchists and non-anarchists alike! Free! ===> CLAC Logement Workshop: "Resisting Gentrifying Forces: Past and Present Anarchist Struggles for the Right to Decent Housing". During the day, members of CLAC Logement will be facilitating a workshop entitled "Resisting Gentrifying Forces: Past and Present Anarchist Struggles for the Right to Decent Housing". It will include a walking tour of the neighborhood of St-Henri, a traditionally poor and working class neighborhood in the throes of gentrification, situated below Westmount. All are welcome to participate! Meet at CEDA, 2515, rue Delisle at 2 PM. For information about the Festival of Anarchy and the Anarchist Bookfair: http://www.tao.ca/~lombrenoire bookfair2003@ziplip.com * 514-844-3207. ------------------------------------------- Macdonald Stainsby http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international -- In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 5 07:08:03 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] Iraq: coalition carve-up Message-ID: <006501c31307$73e397a0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Allies carve up Iraq but sideline UN By James Cusick, Westminster Editor The Sunday Herald, 4 May 2003 Progress on giving the United Nations the 'vital' role in Iraq promised by the United States and Britain was described last night by a source close to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as proceeding at a 'glacial pace'. Instead, the US announced this weekend that post-war Iraq will be divided into three parts that will come under British, Polish and US command, with six European countries among the 10 nations contributing troops for the 'international stability force'. The first troops in the new force could be on the ground later this month, according to the Polish foreign ministry. The prospect that the UN may play no role inside Iraq 'for months' as the Foreign Office source suggested, will dismay aid agencies who believe that, unless the UN is brought in quickly, the humanitarian crisis inside Iraq will deteriorate. Oxfam, along with eight other aid organisations, have signed a joint demand for the UN to be given a central role in overseeing and managing Iraq's transition to a new government. Unesco officials in Iraq say that basic services such as sewage and waste disposal are not being provided, resulting in outbreaks of disease. Tony Blair is understood to be pressing the US into recognising that, without highly visible UN involvement , the coalition's peace-keeping efforts will be regarded as a failure. One government source suggested Blair was facing 'a struggle without reward' and added: 'The Prime Minister, along with other cabinet ministers, is pushing for the UN. But progress has been minimal.' Although Britain and the US are said to be in the early stages of preparing a resolution that would give the UN a humanitarian role in Iraq, the source close to Straw was not optimistic. He said: 'It will be weeks before anything is written down and months before anything is on the ground.' Despite schools in Iraq opening yesterday for the first time since Saddam Hussein's fall from power three weeks ago, any appearance of normality is tempered by the power vacuum the US-led military authority under Jay Garner failed to fill. There is also growing concern over Shia-led political groups attempting to deliver their own form of civil stability -- especially in Baghdad. It is feared that the longer the UN stays out, the more confident the until-now oppressed fundamentalist Shia majority will become of gaining overall control of Iraq when legitimate elections finally arrive. That prospect is something Garner's replacement, Paul Bremner, will need to address when he takes the Iraqi helm and presides over both the occupied country's reconstruction authority and directs the selection of the post-Saddam transitional Iraqi government. The tough message on terrorism delivered yesterday at the end of his Middle East tour by US Secretary of State Colin Powell will have chimed perfectly with Bremner's view of the risks the US still faces from the region. Powell made it clear to states such as Syria and the Lebanon that it should take measures to halt the activities of groups such as Hezbollah. He said the 'new strategic situation' following the fall of Saddam in Iraq, and the publication of the 'road map' for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, offered new opportunities to resolve long-standing issues which had encouraged terrorism and prevented stability in the region. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 5 07:09:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: no Iraqi WMDs after all Message-ID: <006d01c31307$9ccec040$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> US: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction' By Neil Mackay The Sunday Herald, 4 May 2003 The Bush administration has admitted that Saddam Hussein probably had no weapons of mass destruction. Senior officials in the Bush administration have admitted that they would be 'amazed' if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq. According to administration sources, Saddam shut down and destroyed large parts of his WMD programmes before the invasion of Iraq. Ironically, the claims came as US President George Bush yesterday repeatedly justified the war as necessary to remove Iraq's chemical and biological arms which posed a direct threat to America. Bush claimed: 'Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We will find them.' The comments from within the administration will add further weight to attacks on the Blair government by Labour backbenchers that there is no 'smoking gun' and that the war against Iraq -- which centred on claims that Saddam was a risk to Britain, America and the Middle East because of unconventional weapons -- was unjustified. The senior US official added that America never expected to find a huge arsenal, arguing that the administration was more concerned about the ability of Saddam's scientists -- which he labelled the 'nuclear mujahidin' -- to develop WMDs when the crisis passed. This represents a clearly dramatic shift in the definition of the Bush doctrine's central tenet -- the pre-emptive strike. Previously, according to Washington, a pre-emptive war could be waged against a hostile country with WMDs in order to protect American security. Now, however, according to the US official, pre-emptive action is justified against a nation which simply has the ability to develop unconventional weapons. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 5 07:11:03 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: Northern Ireland Message-ID: <007501c31307$f32cbc80$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Agent to hit out by naming top IRA mole Former soldier makes threat after MoD backtracks on pay-off deal By Neil Mackay, Home Affairs Editor The Sunday Herald, 4 May 2003 THE IRA and the UK's intelligence services are in crisis this morning following threats by a rogue British agent to expose the identity of the army's most highly placed mole inside the ranks of the Provos. The British government and the intelligence services have been warned that the true identity of Stakeknife, the codename for Britain's key double-agent at the heart of the IRA and Sinn Fein, will be blown in one week. The threats have been made by Kevin Fulton, a cover name for a former British soldier who worked as an agent inside the IRA for the army's Force Research Unit (FRU), an ultra-secret intelligence wing. Fulton is threatening to expose the identity of Stakeknife because he claims the Ministry of Defence have not honoured a promise to provide him with a relocation package after his cover was blown in Ulster. Fulton posed as an IRA volunteer for a number of years, passing information on republican military plans to his handlers in British intelligence. However, when his cover was blown the army failed to provide him with a new home, a new identity, a new job and a sizeable pay-off. Fulton has been demanding a full relocation package for a number of years. Cut adrift , his life is in clear danger from IRA gunmen who may wish to settle scores for Fulton's years working as an informer. The security forces have told Fulton that they believe his life is not in danger and he doesn't need a full relocation package. Intelligence sources unofficially say this analysis is 'utter rubbish'. One added: 'The Provos would be delighted to take out Fulton. If he doesn't have protection then he's a dead man walking.' He has already made himself a huge thorn in the side of British intelligence. Fulton played a key role in revealing the true events behind the Omagh bombing, which killed 29 people in 1998. Without Fulton, it would never have been established that the RUC had prior warning that the bomb plot was in the offing. It has been claimed that the RUC allowed the bomb to be placed in Omagh in order to protect an agent in the Real IRA. The RUC, it is said, did not want to cause loss of life, but mixed-up telephone warnings resulted in Saturday shoppers being shepherded into the path of the explosion rather than away from the blast site. Given the havoc that Fulton has previously wrought within the intelligence community, the British establishment is taking his threat to name Stakeknife very seriously. Friends of Fulton say the relocation package had been agreed by the British government earlier this year but was withdrawn in the past few weeks. 'It infuriated him when they welched on the deal,' one said. 'That may account for his current tactics.' Stakeknife is described as one of the IRA's biggest hitters. As an agent for British intelligence he provided top-grade information on both IRA military operations and political manoeuvrings by Sinn Fein in return for huge payments into an offshore bank account. He is known to have been close to Gerry Adams and was one of the leading military figures in the Provos. As an agent for the British, Stakeknife was allowed to carry out terrorist operations with impunity to preserve his cover. One intelligence source said: 'If he hadn't been murdering people, then he would have been rumbled as an agent in no time.' Stakeknife has killed soldiers, police officers, civilians and fellow republicans. The number of his murder victims is believed to run into double figures. One British intelligence source described Fulton's threat as 'the biggest security headache I can remember'. Fulton, who is not speaking to the press, is said to have named his plan 'Operation Dinner-Out'. Fulton has written affidavits which he has given to his lawyer outlining the life and crimes of Stakeknife. He has also given a sealed letter containing the name of Stakeknife to his lawyer, who has been ordered to open it and make the name public in the event of Fulton's death. A British intelligence source said: 'Fulton has made clear that he knows Stakeknife's identity and he is threatening to name him unless his life is safeguarded and he gets what he wants from the MoD. There are now grave consequences facing British intelligence operations in Ulster.' Another added: 'Fulton has upped the ante considerably by threatening to make these revelations. Everything is up in the air . The government could either think that he's bluffing or they could cave in and give him what he wants. If he isn't bluffing then we have a dreadful situation on our hands. 'Either way, I predict we will see agents in Northern Ireland moving around pretty quickly in the coming days. This is putting people's lives at risk.' Stakeknife would be immediately executed by the IRA's internal security unit -- the so-called 'Nutting Squad' -- if his identity was revealed. The information he has passed to the British has compromised countless IRA operations and led to the deaths and imprisonment of leading Provos. A friend of Fulton's said: 'Kevin believes his life is in imminent danger. He doesn't want to do this, but if he doesn't get what he wants from the British then he will be left with no alternative but to expose Stakeknife.' Fulton is known to have telephoned senior intelligence officials last week and told them Stakeknife's real name to prove he was serious about his threats. An intelligence source said: 'This man appears not to be kidding. If Stakeknife's name gets out it will be devastating. Stakeknife's handlers knew that he was killing security force personnel and civilians in order to keep his cover inside the IRA so he could continue passing us information. It would be a public relations nuclear meltdown.' The British government has previously threatened to interdict any newspaper which identifies Stakeknife, claiming that exposure would lead to his death and massively compromise national security. The Republicans are now frantically trying to work out who Stakeknife is before the mounting pressure leads to the double-agent fleeing Northern Ireland . One republican source said: 'At first, Stakeknife was thought to be a myth -- a piece of black propaganda designed by the British to keep us on our toes. Then we thought he might be an amalgam of a number of high-up touts. Now it appears, it really is just one man. If he's named, he will be killed.' The revelations about Stakeknife follow a month of serious knocks to the British intelligence community in Ulster. In mid-April, Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir John Stevens, released his report on alleged collusion between British security forces and terrorists in Northern Ireland. As a result of Stevens's work nine members of the FRU, including Brigadier Gordon Kerr, the Aberdonian army officer who led the unit, could now face prosecution. Up to 14 civilians may have been killed because of state collusion with paramilitaries, including Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane. Fulton was also handled by the FRU at one point during his career as a spy in Ulster. Stakeknife is still in the province and is still handled by members of the shadowy Force Research Unit. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 5 07:13:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK economy: social inclusion miracle Message-ID: <007d01c31308$1ddd14c0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> One in five doesn't know how they will afford to live after retirement By James Hamilton The Sunday Herald, 4 May 2003 One in seven Britons have made no pension provision, while 21% do not know how they will survive financially when they retire, according to research by Help the Aged. The charity found that a further 40% of people thought they would have to cut back on a lot of things when they stopped working, although a third still expect to be better off than pensioners are today. Among those who have started paying into a pension, 24% are not confident the measures they have taken will be sufficient, while half of those who have not started saving do not know how they will get by when they stop work. More alarmingly, a third of people with no retirement savings expect to be better off than ever when they stop work, while 52% do not plan to start a pension in the future. While 45% said they did not understand the state pension system, just 11% think the government will provide them with a decent pension when they retire. The research also found that 70% of people do not trust the government to provide unbiased information on pensions, while 39% do not trust financial firms and 37% do not trust their employers. Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs at Help the Aged, said: 'The government is losing the trust of the public when it comes to pension provision . We urge the government to take on board the urgent task of delivering adequate and sustainable pension policies, and its particular responsibility to educate and inform people of the very real crisis facing them as they get older.' Help the Aged is calling on the government to set the state pension at a'decent and acceptable' level -- one that lifts most pensioners out of means testing. The group also wants pensions to be simplified, with more information provided to help people understand their options and make adequate provisions. And, as part of their anti-age-discrimination campaign, Help the Aged is calling on the public to send a 50th birthday e-card to Tony Blair, welcoming him to 'the scrapheap' of society. The charity aims to remind the Prime Minister in time for his birthday on May 6 that people over 50 suffer discrimination in work and healthcare. The e-card can be sent from the Help the Aged website. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 5 07:30:05 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] Scotland: election analysis Message-ID: <008501c3130a$9800dd20$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Here's a very mainstream but nonetheless objective take on the parliamentary elections. Swinney's rightward turn is coming under a lot of fire, and the suggestion here is that the SNP could, maybe should, consider adopting a Catalan approach to nationalism -- not "Independence in Europe", but "Freedom within the Union". My comment: there can be no such thing as "freedom within the Union" -- the Union exists to prevent its very possibility. Which is not to say that Curtice's serious suggestion will not have some takers within the party, whose left flank is being gobbled up by the SSP. A more detailed analysis of the media's role in the defeat of the SNP is required, and will hopefully be forthcoming in the not-too-distant future. Weakening a pro-independence party from the left in order to weaken it from the right by gradually co-opting it seems to be emerging as the UK state strategy of choice, in which the SNP finally settles down to becoming HM Loyal Opposition of Scotland to New Labour's state party, with a little light Liberal legitimation thrown in. This makes the high profile party resignations of the likes of Margo Macdonald even more indefensible as a means of furthering the Scottish independence that she supposedly stands for. Instead it allows a few ramshackle narcissists "of independent mind" to posture in full view of the media and earn the affection of news editors and their target markets while the cause of independence gets politically sidelined, to be identified increasingly with the "extremism" of the SSP. Clever stuff, if it works out. Swinney, meanwhile, is the sacrificial lamb, who must either "do a Kinnock" and "transform" his party, or make way for someone even less well-known. Assuming, of course, that Alex Salmond does not return, which would upset a few applecarts. It's hard not to feel sorry for Swinney, who must surely be an awful performer if he is truly perceived to be less than the ideal First Minister that Jack McConnell supposedly represents. Shades of Kinnock once again, as his personal failings were exploited ruthlessly by the Murdoch media in the run-up to the 1992 UK general election. As mentioned above, the role of the news media in this requires a closer examination. ------ Voters didn't reject nationalism ... just the SNP The biggest loser: John Swinney faces some hard questions after appalling election results ... not least his own leadership. By John Curtice The Sunday Herald, 4 May 2003 It is hardly possible to imagine a worse set of results for the SNP. Its share of the vote fell by five points on the first vote and by seven points on the second. Just one in five of those who voted supported the Nationalists on the second vote. This was no more than did so at the last UK general election, even though people are more inclined to vote nationalist in a devolved election than in a Commons contest. Gains from Labour in Aberdeen North, Dundee East and Ochil may have lightened the gloom, but given the way the electoral system works, they did nothing to stop the party paying the full price for the drop in its share of the party list vote -- a net loss of eight seats. So where now for the SNP? This, after all, was a very different SNP campaign from its predecessors -- nationalist lite, designed not to give you bad dreams at night. No longer were voters invited to vote for independence but only for a referendum on independence, an idea which a Mori poll suggested is backed by seven in 10 Scots. No longer were Scots being invited to dream of an oil-rich, high-spending independent Scotland with a Scandinavian-style welfare state, but rather a low-tax, business-friendly Scotland that would emulate the Irish Celtic tiger. And no longer were voters being asked to vote for a bunch of idealistic dreamers, but a group of practical politicians whose first priority was to put more police on the streets and who could fight a slick professional election campaign. Yet none of this did the Nationalists one jot of good. The prospect that the party might one day lead Scotland to independence appears to be as remote as ever. Devolution may, after all, be putting the nationalist genie back in the bottle as some of its more unionist advocates intended. Of course, it can be argued that support for independence has not declined, just support for the SNP. Both the SSP and the Greens favour independence and between them they won another 13% of the second vote. So, in practice, a third of those who voted backed parties supporting independence, much the same proportion that did so four years ago. Trouble is, the SNP are a political party, not a pressure group, and the aim of parties is to win votes for themselves. That the SNP did not do on Thursday. There are two alternatives that now face the SNP. The first is to revert to a more fundamentalist message. A vote for the SNP is a vote for independence. This, it can be argued, will open up some clear tartan water between the SNP and their opponents and inject the kind of passion into Scottish politics that was so badly lacking during much of the election campaign. However, this strategy faces one important barrier. Scots still have to be convinced of the economic case for independence. As this newspaper revealed during the campaign, just 18% of Scots believe they would be better off in an independent Scotland, while 33% believe that they would be worse off. Moreover, those figures have changed little in recent years. The SNP's business-friendly, low-tax, high-growth message either failed to persuade or did not get across to voters. Yet until independence is thought to be economically neutral in its consequences, it seems unlikely that Scots can be persuaded to back it. So any fundamentalist strategy must be one that can convince voters that there is an economically coherent case for independence. If this seems difficult, there is an alternative. This election underlined, if nothing else, the indifference -- if not disillusion -- with which Scots now greet their devolved parliament. Yet if the survey evidence is correct, this is not so much disenchantment with devolution in principle as with devolution in practice, a feeling that the parliament is not powerful enough to make a difference, and thus not important enough to be worth voting for. This creates an opportunity for a party that is willing to renegotiate the devolution settlement to provide for a more powerful Scottish Parliament but not necessarily to make Scotland another member of the United Nations. Freedom within the Union, rather than Independence in Europe, would be its slogan, while fiscal autonomy for the Scottish parliament would be its key policy proposal. It is a message that Labour in particular shows no inclination at all to take up, and one that the Conservatives have considered but so far ducked. Adopting such a message would of course be a considerable wrench for the SNP. It implies adopting the Catalan path of nationalism, looking to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament gradually and focusing the party's appeal on their ability to stand up for Scotland rather than change Scotland's constitutional status. Whether the party can possibly bear to depart so far from their original raison d'être remains to be seen. The success or otherwise of political parties rests, however, not just on the strategies they adopt but the people who attempt to implement them. The SNP lost two skilled lieutenants on Thursday in Michael Russell and Andrew Wilson. They will not be easy to replace. But the party will also have to think about who should be at their helm for the next four years. John Swinney has now led his party through two election campaigns, giving him plenty of opportunity to sell himself to the public and for the public to form a judgment about him. Alas for Mr Swinney, all of the campaign polls -- including one conducted for this paper -- indicated that he has so far failed to persuade the public that he has the qualities they are looking for in a First Minister. And whatever strategy the SNP adopts, it needs to be sold by someone of whom voters will take notice. John Curtice is professor of politics, Strathclyde University From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 5 07:43:07 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] Scotland: election analysis Message-ID: <009f01c3130c$4fffb800$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Another objective analysis from the consistently reliable Iain MacWhirter. Again the SNP is coming under fire, and Swinney in particular looks bad. However MacWhirter points out a number of facts that would make even a Salmond resurrection problematic. But he also highlights just how singularly pointless is "Big Margo's" "independence", since it is now the stick most likely to be used against the party that, up to now, was likely to be the main vehicle towards that goal -- one that Margo supposedly supports. Instead, Margo is going to be concentrating on highlighting the spiralling costs of the Scottish parliament building, undoubtedly a fiasco but one which dangerously serves to further undermine the entire legitimacy of the Scottish parliament itself. In other words, she is a gift to Unionism. Scottish A-listers, and maybe English and Welsh ones too, can look forward to many hours of television coverage and acres of newspaper coverage of Margo's "exploits" in the parliamentary term to come. There's a lot to be said for expatriate status. ----- Swinney's Judgement Day Has Arrived Powerplay: Iain MacWhirter says even Alex Salmond may be unable to rescue the nationalists The Sunday Herald, 4 May 2003 IS this the end of the line for the SNP? Has Scottish nationalism finally been 'killed stone dead' by devolution, as George Robertson famously predicted? Not quite. But after this disastrous election, serious questions must be asked about whether the SNP, as it is today, is capable of winning an election in the foreseeable future. It is judgement day for John Swinney. His long-term tenure at the head of the SNP is now in serious doubt. Losing a quarter of your seats is bad enough. Losing some of your ablest figures, like the education and culture spokesman Mike Russell and finance spokesman Andrew Wilson, added insult to injury. But the worst condemnation of Swinney's leadership is that the SNP failed to benefit from a massive protest vote against establishment politics. If the SNP can't attract the votes of the disaffected and the alienated, you wonder what it is in politics for. The SNP is an inspirational party or it is nothing. A nationalist party has to fire the imagination of the people, express and legitimise their grievances, promise a new dawn. The SNP offered, well, a little of what everyone else was offering. Not so much a brighter tomorrow as a duller yesterday. Their headline policy was a promise not to introduce independence without the Scottish people supporting it in a referendum. This is not something likely to ignite the heather. Without independence, the nationalists have no coherent world view, and they are now being challenged by parties that do have them. Indeed, the irony is that the SNP is now outflanked by two new independence parties -- the Scottish Socialists and the Greens -- and by Margo MacDonald, who is still probably the best-known face of Scottish nationalism. The SNP's monopoly has been broken. The Greens have successfully tapped into a strand of environmental consciousness that has long existed in Scotland but has never before found proper political expression. Tommy Sheridan's Scottish Socialists have revived a dormant socialist egalitarianism, an evangelical passion for social justice, which was silenced by New Labour but is on the march again. The SNP's timing has been doubly unfortunate. It sought to emulate New Labour and create a tartan version of synthetic media politics just at the moment when the voters had had enough of it. They staged a good campaign -- everyone said so. Professional, slick, media-savvy. But unfortunately the people are now somewhere else. They've already got one Jack McConnell, and they don't see the need for another one. The SNP has modernised just as modernism became old-fashioned. The SNP campaign had no theme and precious little content. Their policy agenda was reduced to a few police here and a few nurses there, with some smaller class sizes in between. It may seem blindingly obvious, but a party wishing to replace a sitting government has to offer something radically different, or at any rate appear to. The SNP were saying basically what both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were saying. So why should anyone vote for them? The SNP face so many political problems now that you hardly know where to begin. They have to find leadership for a start. John Swinney is a capable political organiser, and a tough politician. But he lacks the charisma and wit to be an inspirational leader. He would never have been installed as leader in the first place, had it not been for the precipitate departure of Alex Salmond in 2000. One of the best politicians of his generation, Salmond was driven out of Holyrood by weariness, not at the constant attacks from Labour, but at the petty niggling and back-biting within his own party. There is, frankly, a mean streak in the SNP. A petty-minded suspicion of politicians who have wit, intelligence and charisma. Politicians, in short, who get above themselves. Mike Russell, another first-class politician, was resented apparently because he doesn't sound Scottish enough and has a big personality. He was dumped down the candidates' list by the wee Nats. Andrew Wilson's main offence was being too clever, too young and too energetic. Really, any party which voluntarily dispenses with the services of people of the calibre of Russell and Wilson, deserves everything it gets. The party will now have to look itself in the face and deal with its own narrow-minded parochialism. But in the end, it probably wasn't the leadership or the petty-minded tendency in the party that did for the SNP at this watershed election, but the policy of independence itself. This election confirms there is, currently, no demand for further constitutional change in Scotland. The anger and frustration at devolution is palpable enough. People expected great things of Holyrood and have rightly been angered at its failure to deliver. But the voters have not drawn the conclusion that Scotland needs to undertake some further constitutional adventure. They don't want a Scottish army, consular apparatus, a Scottish treasury, currency and all the paraphernalia of formal independence. They have enough on their plates right now with the stagnant economy. More powers for Holyrood, certainly, fiscal freedom possibly, but not separation. It was intriguing that the SNP chose to downplay the Independence In Europe slogan during this campaign. Could this be because they realise that actual independence in Europe is becoming increasingly difficult to define, in the age of European monetary and economic convergence and a common European defence and foreign policy? It is difficult to explain to ordinary voters what independence means in the age of ever-closer European union. But hiding the policy won't help. So the SNP's problems are serious: 2003 marks its greatest political and organisational crisis in nearly 25 years, since the days of the '79 group and the expulsion of the socialists. Of course, the SNP isn't going to fade away overnight. It is a big organisation, with a long history and a dedicated activist base. But it is going to have to do some radical thinking in future if it is to get back into the race for power. Already there is speculation that Alex Salmond, the king over the water, will return to revive the SNP in its hour of need. That the local MSP Stewart Stevenson might resign and force a by-election portal through which Salmond could return . Certainly, the former leader is on record as saying he would like to return before 2007 -- the anniversary of the Treaty of Union. Salmond would be young enough and able enough to do the job. However, he is liable to find that you cannot step in the same river twice. Were he to return, he would find the political environment would be very different. The people he used to have around him -- Mike Russell, Andrew Wilson, Kevin Pringle -- will be elsewhere. Many of the new intake of SNP MSPs will regard him as a carpetbagger. Jack McConnell, his mandate renewed, is going to be a much tougher target than in the past. And Salmond will be outflanked by Tommy Sheridan, Margo and the Greens. Scotland, as Salmond himself remarked on election night TV, is now a six-party system. And on top of all that, Salmond redux would have to refashion nationalism for the 21st century. A tall order. But the real crisis for the SNP, the real measure of the party's failure over the last four years, is that there is probably nobody else in the party, other than Alex Salmond, who could come anywhere near meeting the challenge. We could be entering the twilight of Scottish nationalism. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 5 07:56:06 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: Israel lobby Message-ID: <00a701c3130e$229eacc0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> It's a rare event when I take exception to Tam Dalyell's criticisms of the British government, but on this occasion he has taken us one step forward, two steps backward. One forward, because he has helped to highlight a very real and influential component of New Labour -- the Israel lobby. We've covered that here recently, when discussing George Galloway's plight. See http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2003w16/msg00052.htm I forgot to mention there that, on becoming an MP in 1983, one of Tony Blair's first acts was to join "Labour Friends of Israel". And it is this organisation, and the paid-for trips to Israel by a succession of Labour MPs that ought to be the subject of closer investigation, at the very least to highlight the hypocrisy of those accusers of Galloway who decry his supposed personal enrichment courtesy of Saddam Hussein's regime. Nevertheless, Dalyell's choice of words is most unfortunate, and allows him to be painted as a typical, old-fashioned establishmentarian anti-semite. He may be, for all I know, but by allowing, so carelessly, Blair et al off the hook in such a way, he denies credibility to an issue that deserves a much deeper analysis than that normally provided in the mainstream and even left media. Instead it will be the far right that jumps all over this with glee. ----- Labour gives warning to Dalyell CATHERINE MacLEOD The Herald, 5 May 2003 LABOUR may have to deal with Tam Dalyell in the same way as it plans to tackle George Galloway after Mr Dalyell's claims about "a cabal of Jewish advisers" influencing Tony Blair, according to a senior party source. Complaints about the veteran MP's comments could prompt disciplinary proceedings, but Mr Dalyell, the father of the Commons, was unapologetic last night, vehemently denying he was anti-Semitic. However, a senior Labour party figure said: "Normally Tam is regarded simply as a bit of a maverick. Colleagues have a soft spot for him, and there's been no interest or talk about disciplining him. "His latest remarks are quite different. They are anti-Semitic and are quite unacceptable for a Labour MP. . . . Even people who agree with Tam's anti-war position will find his attack on people's ethnic and religious background offensive." Speaking from his home yesterday, Mr Dalyell, said: "The idea of me being anti-Semitic is total rubbish. I have Jewish friends, I have been on holiday in Israel, and I have written endless affectionate obituaries for Jewish people. The idea I'm anti-Semitic is preposterous. "The trouble is that anyone who dares criticise the Zionist operation is immediately labelled anti-Semitic." Mr Dalyell, the MP for Linlithgow, is convinced the US wants to attack Syria in spite of assurances by the prime minister and President Bush. In an article in Vanity Fair, Mr Dalyell cited a number of senior Labour figures: Lord Levy, the prime minister's personal envoy on the Middle East, Peter Mandelson, whose father was Jewish, and Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, who has Jewish ancestry. Mr Dalyell, who adopted a robust anti-war stance, believes the prime minister was unduly influenced by Jewish sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic, including Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser, Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy defence secretary, and Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary. He said: "They have very much captured the ear of the US president. I said to (Vanity Fair) I thought that Blair was very sympathetic to them. I cannot understand why." Brian Fairley, Mr Dalyell's constituency agent, was unaware of Mr Dalyell's remarks yesterday but predicted that officials in the constituency would not be "having a go at Tam" since that was the nature of their relationship. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 5 08:00:08 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: now out for Dalyell Message-ID: <00b701c3130e$c0726c20$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Dalyell may face race hatred inquiry Nicholas Watt, political correspondent Monday May 5, 2003 The Guardian Tam Dalyell, the veteran Labour MP and opponent of countless wars, faces an investigation for inciting racial hatred after he accused Tony Blair of being unduly influenced by Jewish ministers and officials. As leading British Jews criticised Mr Dalyell for his "misguided" remarks, a former Labour MP said he would refer the father of the Commons to the commission for racial equality. Professor Eric Moonman, president of the Zionist Federation, who was a Labour MP from 1966 to 1979, said he was seeking advice on whether there was a case for referral. "I believe there is," he said. "I will be distressed to do it because of a relationship with a man I admire enormously," Prof Moonman said. "But he made the statements and he knew what he was doing." The row started when Mr Dalyell, who for 20 years has opposed every war involving British soldiers, told Vanity Fair magazine that Mr Blair relied too much on Jewish figures in Britain and the US. Mr Dalyell named the former cabinet minister Peter Mandelson, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and the prime minister's Middle East envoy, Lord Levy. Only Lord Levy is Jewish. Mr Mandelson's father was Jewish and Mr Straw had a Jewish grandfather. Mr Dalyell said: "I am worried about my country being led up the garden path on a Likudnik, [Ariel] Sharon agenda", adding that "Straw, Mandelson and co" were leading "a tremendous drive to sort out the Middle East". Mr Dalyell's critics took exception after it was claimed that he felt Mr Blair was influenced by a "cabal" of Jewish advisers. But Mr Dalyell said he used the word cabal only in reference to the Bush administration, not Downing Street. "The cabal that I referred to was in the US," he said. "That is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. I was thinking of [Paul] Wolfowitz, [deputy defence secretary], [Richard] Perle, [John] Bolton, assistant secretary of state, [Douglas] Feith, [Ken] Adelman, [Elliott] Abrams and [Ari] Fleischer, [Mr Bush's press secretary.] Those people drive this policy." But Jewish figures were furious. David Garfinkel, the editor in chief of the London Jewish News, said: "Coming a few days after the BNP won council seats in the north of England this is the kind of menacing candour which the country certainly does not need." Ministers were also aghast. One said: "Quite apart from how offensive his remarks are, Tam is wrong. Tony and Jack have faced strong criticism in Israel because of their pressure for the road map to be published." Mr Dalyell denied he was anti-semitic. "If I were anti-semitic I would not have spent a holiday in Israel, I would not have gone as a young man to stay on a kibbutz. To say I am anti-semitic is preposterous." He also said he had been parliamentary private secretary to former cabinet minister Dick Crossman, who was something of a hero in Israel. Crossman became close to Chaim Weizman, who was Israel's first president. "Would Dick Crossman have had an anti-semitic gentile as his PPS? I identify with the Weizman tradition. This is not about being anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli." From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 5 08:02:03 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK corporate state: unhealthy accumulation Message-ID: <00bf01c3130e$fcfb3fa0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> NHS is being railroaded Larry Elliott Monday May 5, 2003 The Guardian In 1995, there were plenty of Cassandras warning that privatisation of the railways would be a disaster. Reluctant to accept the Conservative argument that the problem was one of structure rather than financial starvation, the left said that breaking up British Rail would lead to fragmentation, a poorer service and financial trouble. Those concerns proved to be well founded. Privatisation of the railways was an act of sabotage that the government is now seeking to remedy by renationalisation (in all but name) plus the promise (as yet unfulfilled) of extra resources to fund improvements to services. The experience of Railtrack helps to explain why so many Labour backbenchers are concerned about foundation hospitals. Many are unconvinced by the government's assertions that they are just a sprucing up of Bevan's 1948 edifice for a world of consumer choice. They do not want to look back in five years' time and see that giving reluctant support to this policy led down a long and slippery slope to the same sort of fragmentation that crippled the railways. The fact that the right's objection to the government's plans is that they do not go far enough has only served to stoke these anxieties. Many mainstream Labour MPs are worried when they hear that there is a thirst for more radical policies at the heart of government because they see this as shorthand for moving policy to the right. In the new lexicon of politics, to be conservative means spending more money on public services, to be radical involves off-balance sheet borrowing, co-payments, top-up fees and vouchers. Labour's entire focus is now on delivery, inviting voters to judge whether the money being spent on public services has made a difference. Politically, this is dangerous, as last week's local elections showed, because it invites all the other parties to run against the government on the basis that it is not delivering. Liberal Democrats can say it is because not enough is being spent, Conservatives can say extra money is pointless without changes to structures, and so on. This is particularly true of the health service, where there is ill-disguised - and premature - panic that the extra billions being pumped in have not yet transformed the NHS. A more sensible approach would be to invite the public to choose which sort of NHS it wants, a Labour one or a Tory one. Devolved locally Alan Milburn says all the fears are groundless. The NHS will remain a service funded by the taxpayer and free at the point of delivery. All that will happen is that foundation hospitals will be given greater freedom to offer the sort of service patients want. It is ridiculous, he adds, to have a command and control system run from the Department of Health for an organisation that has 1.3m staff. The NHS needs to see power devolved locally in order to do its job better, and the idea that this will create a two-tier health service ignores the fact that we already have a two-tier health service, to the detriment of the poorest groups. Few would disagree with any of that, provided that there is no hidden agenda and no risk of the law of unintended consequences delivering outcomes that would horrify Labour supporters. The unions certainly think there might be. Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary said last week that unions were not convinced that foundation hospitals would "deliver the improvements we all want to see. Instead these proposals have provoked powerful fears that a coherent NHS will be undermined by the injection of more market processes that will exacerbate rather than diminish inequalities in health provision." One area of special interest to those with misgivings about the bill due to be debated on Wednesday is the role of the regulator for foundation hospitals. The idea of a watchdog arose early on, when there was pressure for foundation hospitals to be allowed to borrow off-balance sheet, with the money repaid by an expansion in private work. This debate ended with victory for the Treasury, with off-balance sheet borrowing prevented and a cap put on private work. This should have removed the need for the regulator, but the post is still crucial to the bill. This is no sinecure but a job with considerable and largely unaccountable powers. What does the regulator do? Put simply, he or she will have powers to set services, sanction borrowing and allow sale of assets in every foundation hospital. Between them, a foundation hospital and the regulator would agree a licence setting out which core services must be provided and the amounts the hospital would be allowed to borrow from the private sector. The regulator will also decide how big a slice of the NHS's capital budget each foundation hospital receives. All this may be innocuous. The regulator's role may be limited to policing the licence to ensure the foundation hospital is doing what was agreed, to prevent poaching of staff, to give the go-ahead to sell off car parks and other bits of unwanted land, and to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the investment spewing out of the Treasury. If so, fine. Another possibility, however, is that the health regulator will be "captured" by the foundation hospitals in the way that the rail regulator will be captured by Railtrack. The concern is that the role will be seen as lobbying the Treasury for extra cash for foundation hospitals at the expense of non-foundation hospitals. In addition, the regulator has the scope to change the boundaries between monopoly and non-monopoly NHS services, opening the door to greater competition with the private sector. Nor is the power to distinguish which assets can be sold off quite as straightforward as it seems. If hip replacements are open to competition, should the hip unit be a regulated asset (which could not be sold off to the private sector) or a non-regulated asset (which could)? Foundation hospitals have an incentive to classify their assets as non-regulated, because they are able to borrow against these. Staging post It is unclear how this will work in practice. There are enough grey areas to suggest that the role of the regulator, to put it mildly, needs to be scrutinised carefully if and when the bill gets to committee stage. There is all the difference in the world, the health secretary says, between the limited autonomy he is offering and the sort of vision put forward by Liam Fox for the Conservatives. It is not difficult, however, to see this as an early staging post on the road to a system where every hospital is a foundation hospital, every patient has a voucher and top-up fees are allowed for those who want something other than basic public provision. Something like this system is already in place for dentistry, and there are plenty in Labour's ranks who fear that the whole NHS is heading down the same route. It is premature to call foundation hospitals Railtrack on the wards, but as one said last week: "Once you take the first step down the road, where do you go next?" From mnyp at ciudad.com.ar Mon May 5 13:45:01 2003 From: mnyp at ciudad.com.ar (MNyP) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] EL PROYECTO LIBERTADOR DEL MNyP/ Un articulo de Walter Moore Message-ID: <4132-22003515191649840@n2b4c1> win98Normalwin98122003-05-05T18:47:00Z2003-05-05T18:49:00Z7328818743win15637230179.3821 21 EL PROYECTO LIBERTADOR DEL MNyP ( Nota recomendada para progresistas, comunistas y socialistas a la violeta que creen que los muertos de la represión, los desaparecidos y el exilio los pusieron ellos y no los peronistas, como fue en realidad, empezando por los dirigentes sindicales que cosecharon la mayor de las bajas durante el Proceso de Videla, Massera y Agosti). EL LIDERAZGO POLITICO DE ADOLFO RODRIGUEZ SAÁ PROPONE UNA DEFENSA EFECTIVA DE LA ARGENTINA ANTE LAS AMENAZAS DE LA GLOBALIZACIÓN Por Walter A. Moore (*) LA ESTRUCTURA DE DOMINACIÓN GLOBAL EN MARCHA El Proyecto Imperial de Gobierno Mundial impulsado por la coalición anglonorteamericana es más amplio que la invasión directa, que es sólo un recurso de última instancia, pues conocen   perfectamente el costo en desprestigio internacional que conlleva esta forma de dominación. Las apremiantes necesidades que llevaron a esta acción en Irak son aclaradas por el profesor norteamericano de la Universidad de Columbia, Jeffery D. Sachs, publicado antes de la invasión a Irak en la página 15 de La Nación del 2 de febrero de 2003, luego comprobadas por los hechos, donde, entre otros datos, menciona: “Algunos documentos clave, escritos por y para el gobierno de Bush antes del 11 de setiembre de 2001, cuando el análisis del Medio Oriente estaba mucho menos inficionado de los temores actuales, abren una buena ventana hacia la política norteamericana de posguerra en Irak. El más interesante es, quizás, un estudio titulado “Desafíos del siglo XXI a la política estratégico en materia de Energía”, elaborado en forma conjunta por el Instituto James Baker III de Política Pública de la Universidad Rice, en Texas, y el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores (CFR). “El estudio deja claro dos puntos. Primero: Irak es vital para el flujo de petróleo desde el Medio Oriente, porque se asienta sobre la segunda reserva en el mundo (en volumen). Los autores del estudio se angustian porque, de hecho, Estado Unidos necesita el petróleo iraquí por razones de seguridad económica, pero no puede permitir que Saddam Hussein lo explote por razones de seguridad militar. La inferencia parece obvia: Estados Unidos necesita un cambio de régimen en Irak por motivos de seguridad energética. En todo el estudio no figura ni una sola vez la palabra “democracia”. El Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores es, nada más y nada menos, que la organización que designa a   los principales dirigentes que ocupan los niveles decisorios de la política de Estados Unidos, tanto en el gobierno como en las grandes corporaciones. El CFR es uno de los círculos más exclusivo que tiene aparición pública, (de los que detentan el Poder Global), desde el cual se dan a conocer las instrucciones estratégicas del Imperio destinadas a instalar un Gobierno Mundial elegido por las elites dominantes anglonorteamericanas. Este proyecto se basa principalmente en cinco estrategias sinérgicas:   1.) El control mundial de las monedas y los activos financieros, 2.) La subordinación de toda la producción a las necesidades del capital concentrado mundial, en especial la producción de commodities y la de alta tecnología, 3.) El manejo de los medios de difusión y los sistemas de comunicación, 4.) La diminución de las capacidades de la población de los países a controlar (inclusive la población de sus propios países) y 5.) El control territorial, tanto por medios económicos como bélicos, variante que se ha aplicado ahora en Irak, y de la cual prometen una expansión a todo el planeta. Veamos cada una de estas estrategias globales con un poco de mayor detalle: Estrategia 1.) EL CONTROL MONETARIO Y FINANCIERO: El Fondo Monetario Internacional es el organismo responsable de subordinar todas las monedas locales al dólar y generar el endeudamiento permanente con el sistema bancario mundial. La primera variante de esta estrategia fue un motivo principal de la reciente invasión, para imponer definitivamente a los petrodólares sobre los petroeuros que usaba Irak en su programa “Petróleo por alimentos”. Batalla que recién comienza, y produce una alineación en dos modelos diferentes del modelo de Gobierno Mundial: el modelo “republicano” que busca la participación de las Naciones Unidas, impulsada por Europa continental y el modelo “imperial” impulsado por la coalición angloparlante. La segunda variante la padecemos en la Argentina y en toda Sudamérica, implementada por el control de la emisión, la circulación monetaria y la tasa de cambio de nuestras monedas con respecto al dólar, actividad que está a cargo de los Bancos Centrales locales, cuyos funcionarios son designados indefectiblemente entre empleados de empresas de Wall Street. Estos se ocupan de limitar la cantidad de moneda nacional en circulación para convertir al dinero en un bien escaso que paga tasas de interés del 40% anual, o más, mientras los países industrializados pagan tasas de referencia del 1,5% anual, y que establecen las continuas devaluaciones de nuestras monedas para revalorizar un dólar que no tiene respaldo real   . Estrategia 2.) APROPIACIÓN PRODUCTIVA: Jeffrey Sachs explicó lo que sucede con el petróleo, este mismo razonamiento puede aplicarse a todas las principales actividades productivas, comenzando por los commodities (cereales, gas, carne, acero, algodón, etc.) y siguiendo por cualquier tipo de producción industrial. Esto se logra mediante el control de las exportaciones e importaciones que tienen los grupos externos de capital concentrado, la corrupción aduanera y legislativa. Cuando no se abren las aduanas al dumping internacional, se elimina el crédito a la producción y se hacen quebrar a las empresas mediante un costo del financiamiento que devora cualquier utilidad y capacidad de inversión empresaria. En los países sometidos, además, se procura que los recursos se vuelquen a actividades improductivas, como el pago de intereses, la asignación presupuestaria a la corrupción estructural, el incremento de la burocracia, las actividades de beneficencia (subsidios al desempleo, a las actividades improductivas, etc.) entre otras medidas destinadas a generar desempleo, pobreza y marginalidad. Estrategia 3.) CONTROL PSICOLÓGICO: El manejo de los medios de difusión contra nuestros propios intereses es cada vez más desembozado. Hoy vemos como la prensa argentina impulsa un candidato a presidente perfeccionado en la Universidad de Chicago, a pesar de que fue expulsado como ministro de economía del gobierno fracasado de De la Rua por la reacción de la población argentina ante sus medidas destructoras de la economía nacional. El control de estos medios por el Gobierno Global permite que los medios de difusión (televisión, medios gráficos, radios, etc.) propagandicen un sistema social degradado por la falta de valores y el nihilismo (o sea de la falta de una conciencia del bien común), donde los ciudadanos son progresivamente incapacitados para pensar en cuales son sus propios intereses, al mismo tiempo que se propicia una creciente degradación de las costumbres, estableciendo como un ideal la decadencia general. Esta política alcanza también a todos los sistemas de comunicaciones bidireccionales (telefonía, Internet, etc.), los cuales mediante una política de “privatizaciones” (léase extranjerización) se ponen en manos de sociedades anónimas extranjeras, y si esto no es posible, se controlan mediante la dosificación de la tecnología, en especial de las disponibilidades satelitales. Estrategia 4.) DEBILITAR LAS POBLACIONES: Este manejo de los medios de difusión es esencial para disminuir tanto el crecimiento de las poblaciones (mediante medidas de control de natalidad, incremento de la mortalidad, imposibilidad de constituir familias estables, etc.) y la disminución progresiva de sus capacidades físicas, mentales y espirituales, empezando por la población de sus propios países, a las que tienen que convencer para que vayan a matar y morir en las guerras, pues esta no es una tarea que hagan, precisamente, los miembros del CFR. Para esto es necesario convencerlos sobre los peligros que corren, como el Mal los acecha porque los pobres del mundo están envidiosos de sus riquezas y por eso les atacan las Torres Gemelas y otras estupideces por el estilo. Otra forma de debilitamiento espiritual es una educación mecanicista, que no forma sino que informa. También se ocupan de instalar una inestabilidad económica que impide concentrarse cualquier actividad creativa, sobre todo si esta puede cambiar alguna estructura funcional para la dominación. Utilizan formas de ataque constante a nuestra autoestima, por ejemplo, haciéndonos los responsables de nuestros propios males, entre otras muchas formas destinadas a disminuir las capacidades de nuestros pueblos. El “pensamiento único” o postmoderno impulsado por el neoliberalismo nos “Alerta sobre los desastres que trae consigo el “populismo” y se lleva al extremo de presentar casi como ventajas que la gente pase hambre, que no se trabaje en un continente donde todo está por hacerse, que los chicos estén desnutridos en un país que produce alimentos para nutrir a 10 veces su población, a los que se agrega un estruendoso silencio sobre un conjunto de temas vitales de los que “no se habla”, acallando las conciencias cómplices por omisión mediante un modesto espacio para la “protesta”, ya sea en forma de denuncias, de expresiones de deseo o de declaraciones que no generan acción. Estrategia 5.) CONTROL TERRITORIAL: El proyecto de separar la Patagonia de la Argentina (y tal vez de Chile), de crear “nuevas banderas” dividiendo a nuestros países, es una medida que  requiere una estrategia de largo plazo, y que comienza con el proceso de instalar la idea. Un par de años después los medios inventarán algo que hace aparecer a esta idea como algo “razonable y conveniente”, y luego pondrán en marcha el ejército de cipayos (comprados por un plato de lentejas) que apoyarán el proyecto. Esta es una estrategia extrema, como la ocupación militar de Malvinas, existen otras más sigilosas, como la compra de millones de hectáreas por “inversionistas extranjeros” y la apropiación, por los bancos que forman la trama central del Imperio Global, de otros bancos nacionales que poseen carteras con enormes cantidades de inmuebles hipotecados, generalmente con intereses impagables. Para asegurarse que no existirá una resistencia importante en “el momento de la verdad”, es decir cuando el virrey imperial se haga cargo, es necesario que se desprestigien primero y se destruyan después, nuestras fuerzas armadas, para lo cual se llevan a cabo intensas actividades de guerra psicológica a nivel mundial, que hagan “razonable” imponer un bloqueo, seguido de un desarme y un desmantelamiento de la capacidad productiva física, tal como hicieron Irak, país en el cual, Naciones Unidas mediante, lograron desarmarlos y debilitarlos durante 10 años, para después  exterminarlos con pérdidas aceptables para el mercado interno norteamericano. EL PROYECTO LIBERADOR Con el Plan de 125 medidas para los 100 primeros días (o sea antes de que las fuerzas imperiales organicen a sus aliados locales como para impedir todo cambio), Rodríguez Saá se opone en forma sistemática estos cinco vectores estratégicos imperiales mediante cinco formas de contramedidas, a saber: Contramedida 1.) Instalar una moneda nacional fuerte y una moneda continental más fuerte aún. Reducir el peso económico de la Deuda Externa, separando la deuda real de la mentira contable, suprimir las aduanas interiores en toda Sudamérica, con lo cual la necesidad de divisas para el intercambio internacional es mínima. Y la única manera de tener una moneda fuerte es que los intereses sean muy bajos y la moneda abundante de manera que todo el circuito productor de riqueza (demanda – producción – empleo – ingresos – demanda) funcione, reactivando el 90% de la economía que, tradicionalmente, pertenece al mercado interno, ampliado así a 350 millones de sudamericanos. Contramedida 2.) Impulsar un fuerte desarrollo del sistema productivo, empezando por la obra pública y la creación de puestos de trabajo en lugar de “Planes descansar” que generan una miseria creciente. Dar prioridad al desarrollo de grandes proyectos con la aplicación de los recursos nacionales disponibles al eliminar la corrupción estructural, concentrar el apoyo crediticio en el sector productivo y limitar las cargas hipotecarias que este soporta. Un enorme mercado interno demandante es un imán para empresas productoras con grandes capacidades ociosas, lo cual permite impulsar un fuerte desarrollo industrial que puede prescindir casi completamente del la famosa “invarsión extranjera”, que sólo generó desfalcos “privatizados”, concesiones a cambio de nada, etc. Contramedida 3.) Revisar las privatizaciones y extranjerizaciones, como una primera medida para recuperar la capacidad de decisión nacional en temas centrales como los medios de difusión, las telecomunicaciones, la energía y los transportes. A esto debemos agregar la puesta en marcha de las abandonadas y prestigiosas industrias culturales argentinas, poniendo en marcha un Plan que tiene previsto la asignación de los recursos para los trabajadores de la cultura y no a la actual burocracia de los “agentes culturales”. La previsible explosión creativa de estas medidas permite prever un cambio sustancial en todos nuestros medios de expresión, en el cual no quedará lugar para las actividades de promoción de las estrategias de nuestros enemigos. Contramedida 4.) Trabajo y más trabajo. Un pueblo que trabaja es un pueblo que necesita educarse permanentemente para seguir el ritmo de los vertiginosos cambios   que ocurren en todo el planeta, tanto en el campo tecnológico como cultural. Un pueblo que trabaja es un pueblo que se alimenta bien, que tiene sus viviendas donde puede crecer su familia, que se integra a una comunidad dejando atrás la marginación. La única forma de crear riqueza es el trabajo productivo en el campo de la economía física, creando bienes, servicios y conocimientos, y esta idea atraviesa a todas las medidas del proyecto de Rodríguez Saá. Contramedida 5.) La garantía de integridad territorial de la Argentina. En la actual situación mundial de avance imperial, esta integridad sólo puede lograrse mediante la integración regional. La propuesta de constituir una Nación Sudamericana, con su propia Constitución, moneda, Banco Central, Aduana externa común y con grandes proyectos de integración, tanto de nuestros pueblos como de los recursos físicos y productivos son la mejor garantía para preservar la integridad territorial de nuestro país. La propuesta para construir un promedio de 150.000 viviendas cada seis meses, equivale a crear mensualmente en la Argentina una ciudad de 100.000 habitantes. No se trata solo de una propuesta para suplir el horroroso déficit de viviendas que ha crecido durante un cuarto de siglo, sino de  refundar un país con un equilibrio poblacional completamente distinto al actual modelo de concentración urbana, un interminable suburbio que crece mientras genera una creciente degradación de la calidad de la vida de sus habitantes. (*). Walter Moore es escritor, autor de los siguientes libros: La Ecodemocracia,. La Cuarta Guerra Mundial y El Proyecto Sudamérica. Si Ud. quiere que sus contactos reciban el material de prensa y difusión del MNyP, deben suscribirse en :< altasmnyp@argentina.com > y altasmnyp@mnyp.org . Las mujeres están participando activamente en los barrios. La mesa de mujeres Adolfo Presidente nuclea mujeres independientes, militantes sociales y políticas, universitarias, profesionales, etc. Pueden contactarnos < mujeresbsas@argentina.com y mujeresbsas@mnyp.org En cambio, si Ud. prefiere no recibir nuestros mensajes, por favor, haganoslo saber a < bajasmnyp@argentina.com y bajasmnyp@mnyp.org en el termino de 96 horas lo borramos de nuestra lista, con las debidas disculpas. PARA UN ARGENTINO, NO DEBE HABER NADA MEJOR QUE OTRO ARGENTINO. Mayo de 2003, Año 1 de la Refundacion Argentina. Este correo se envia desde el Movimiento Nacional y Popular que lidera Adolfo Rodriguez Saá . Nuestras paginas web son: www.institutofederal.org http://www.mnyp.org/ www.fisal.org.ar // www.rodriguezsaapresidente.cjb.net // www.adolfopresidente.com www.adolfo2003.com // www.conadolfo.com // www.juventudmnp.com.ar/ / Las posiciones acerca de la realidad actual estan expresadas en los 15 puntos de las BASES PARA LA REFUNDACION DE LA ARGENTINA , y que es lo que propone el MNyP esta contenido en las 125 primeras medidas para los primeros 100 dias de gobierno que Adolfo Rodríguez Saa presento el 7 de marzo de 2003, en la Sociedad Rural de Buenos Aires, que Ud. puede pedir por mail al MNyP < mnyp@ciudad.com.ar > , personalmente en Av. Corrientes 3149 y Sanchez de Bustamante (a media cuadra del ex Mercado de Abasto) 1er piso, Capital Federal, Republica Argentina o por TE a 011-4866-4300 (lineas rotativas) 4866-1486 Por decision del Dr. Adolfo Rodriguez Saa manifestada en la reunion del Comando Superior del MNyP en Buenos Aires el martes 10 de septiembre de 2002, no se recibe ni se permiten recibir aportes economicos empresarios a los gastos de campaña de manera encubierta o desmedida salvo de las pymes que acuden a nuestras cenas organizadas por el Comite Recaudador de Fondos para recaudar aportes genuinos del esfuerzo que hacen nuestros amigos que ganan bien y han estado pagando una cuota mensual para sumar al esfuerzo. Esto es asi porque se desea llegar al gobierno nacional con las manos libres para poder hacer efectiva la revolucion nacional y popular sin ningun compromiso con los factores de poder. El MNyP esta organizado en dos instituciones equivalentes. Una es la organizacion territorial de los Comandos Superiores que comienzan en el Comando Superior Nacional del MNyP y continuan en los Comandos Superiores de cada Provincia y el de la Ciudad de Bs. As. y alcanzan a los Comandos Superiores de cada territorio electoral. Los Comandos Superiores son conducciones colectivas y horizontales. Dentro de los comandos cada voto de un integrante vale uno al igual que el de otro compañero de Comando, es decir que ninguno tiene el voto calificado aunque alguien sea un senador y el compañero de al lado sea un carpintero o un desocupado, como sucede en la realidad. Los Comandos se constituyen con una indicacion precisa: debe haber una determinada cantidad de jovenes de formacion politica como apolitica, tanto de unos como de otros. Debe estar representada la sociedad actual con sus nuevos liderazgos, mujeres que manejan comedores, militantes de base, dirigentes sociales que actuan en la emergencia de la exclusion social, representantes de oeneges, piqueteros, viejos dirigentes sindicales o politicos que habian sido olvidados por la dirigencia; jovenes profesionales universitarios, la juventud de los gremios, una cantidad importante de mujeres ya sean dirigentes o no, que encabecen demandas sociales, politicas o de genero, activistas del trueque, representantes de personas con discapacidades, etc. El Comando Superior Nacional esta compuesto por: Adolfo Rodriguez Saá, Adrian Morales, Alberto Hensel, Alberto Rodriguez Saá, Alberto Turcato, Aldo Rico, Alfredo Allende, Alfredo Reto, Amparo Cueto, Ana Savignano, Andres Poggi, Andres Castillo, Arturo Negri, Oscar Bénica, Boldú, Carlos Sergnese, Catalina Pantuso, Coqui Catalán, Cristina Guzmán, Daniel Barberis, Daniel Carbonetto, Domingo Moreira, Dorita Lucero, Eduardo Avila, Eduardo Berchot, Enrique Basualdo Enrique Rodriguez, Enrique Vignolo, Eugenia Trigo, Federico Godio, Gerardo Alzamora, Gerardo Vallejo, Gilda Caro, Gisela Vartalitis, Giuliano, Gustavo Casas, Gustavo Valenzuela, Hector Martín, Horacio Ghilini, Horacio Obregon Cano, Hugo Moyano, Jeronimo Martoccia, Jesús María Tito Plaza, Jorge Benalcazar, Jorge Cravero, Jorge Garcia, Jorge Huidobro, Jorge Enea Spilimbergo, Jorge Rachid, Jorge Varela, Jose Rodríguez, Juan Garcia, Juan Manuel Palacios, Julian Licastro, Julio Casavelos, Juanchi Moreyra, Julio Diaz Lozano, Julio Piumato, Liliana Finocciaro, Leon Guinzburg, Luis Luco, Luis Lusquiños, Marcos Garcia, Maria Alejandra Ungaro, Maria Alicia Lemme, Maria Angelica Torrontegui, Maria Berganini, Maria Goniel, Marino Fredes, Mario Alvarez, Martin Garcia, Melchor Posse, Miriam Benedetto, Mirta Videla, Nélida Beatriz Morales, Nestor Zapata, Norberto Hubeli, Pablo Challu, Pablo Moyano, Pascual Rampi, Patricia Pérez, Pedro Raitieri, Ricardo Basualdo, Ricardo Jorge, Roberto Basualdo, Roberto Roitman, Rosa Carrasco, Santiago Julio, Sofia Gonzalez, Soledad Sampaolesi, Victor Novillo, Walter Gomez. Para comunicarse con el Comando Superior Nacional puede escribirnos a MNyP< mnyp@ciudad.com.ar , < mnypnacional@argentina.com La otra institucion importante del MNyP es el Instituto Federal para la Refundacion de la Argentina que reune a tecnicos y profesionales de cada una de las ciudades de la Argentina que se ocupan de discutir y organizar los planes de gobierno, desde lo estrictamente local, del municipio, a la provincial y aun de los planes para el gobierno nacional. El Instituto Federal Nacional esta conducido por Jorge Benalcazar quien facilita la organizacion de los Institutos, por ciudad, en todo el pais. La sede fisica del Instituto Federal Nacional esta sita en Av. Corrientes 3149 y Sanchez de Bustamante (a media cuadra del ex Mercado de Abasto), Capital Federal, Republica Argentina. Su correo electronico es o . El Area de Participación Nacional del Instituto Federal para la Refundación Argentina invita a todos los amigos a visitar la Página web del IFRA que es http://www.institutofederal.org /y la del IFRA Chubut. cuya dirección es : http://www.geocities.com/ifrachubut En la actualidad son 200 los Institutos Federales para la Refundacion Nacional conformados en todo el pais. El MNyP no se hace responsable por el contenido de los articulos de opinion que se difundan por esta red ya que deben ser considerados realizados por los compañeros a titulo personal. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 51179 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030505/b8c44990/attachment.txt From mstainsby at tao.ca Mon May 5 13:54:02 2003 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] Fw: [R-G] Re: elections References: <001d01c312d0$ee8384c0$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <00a901c3133f$e6d65760$20fa5718@comintern> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Enoch" . > You'd think the computers that handle our cherished ballots would be open > and > their software and programming available for public scrutiny. You'd think > there would be a paper trail of the vote, which could be followed and > audited > if a there was evidence of voting fraud or if exit polls disagreed with > computerized vote counts. > > You'd be wrong. I would like to ask A-Listers what they think the information contained in this email means to our analysis of A) "2004" B) what we need to do about this. If this is true, does it not mean everything else is at least *partially* subordinate? Can we please engage this elephant in the living room? Macdonald From soncu at pacbell.net Mon May 5 15:23:02 2003 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] Netherlands: Attempted coup to topple CNN Message-ID: Attempted coup to topple CNN unsuccessful in the Netherlands 05/05/2003, europemedia.net Editor: David Minto Programming Councils in two of the Netherlands northern most provinces ? Groningen and Drenthe ? attempted to launch a broadcasting coup at the end of last week by advising cable company Essent to drop CNN from its standard TV package. The councils maintained that CNN, Essent's international news broadcaster of choice, was too 'pro-American' and had failed to report objectively during the recent conflict in Iraq. They suggested the cable operator instead switch to EuroNews, the pan-European and multilingual news channel that, free of territorial dependence, claims also to be without political or religious bias. According to Expatica.com, Essent issued an immediate response to the councils' assertion saying that its current broadcast package with CNN is sufficiently balanced. "Earlier studies have not shown that EuroNews and BBC World are more highly valued than CNN," Essent said. Many European and international commentators, however, have been vociferous in their criticism of American network coverage of the Iraq conflict, with CNN's employment of retired Generals as commentators and its minimal representation anti-war voices drawing much of the wrath. Though CNN Europe has different, and many would say more balanced, editorial content than its American counterpart, resistance in Europe to acknowledging it as a primary international news source is still strong in many quarters. Amsterdam viewers, for instance, also have access to BBC World and EuroNews through their cable services, networks currently denied to their Essent subscribing northern countrymen. Article at: http://www.europemedia.net/shownews.asp?ArticleID=16169 From annewilliamson at msn.com Mon May 5 15:33:01 2003 From: annewilliamson at msn.com (annewilliamson) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] Fw: [R-G] Re: elections References: <001d01c312d0$ee8384c0$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> <00a901c3133f$e6d65760$20fa5718@comintern> Message-ID: <003c01c3134b$39837fa0$c9b7fea9@anne> This doesn't directly address Macdonald's query of "what do we do about it [the elephant]," i.e. rigged electronic voting in the next election. But I found this piece quite interesting, and there's some information that might be useful in thinking about opposition candidates and strategy. -A. The Non-Clinton by Christopher Manion As W strutted across the carrier deck in the Mayday twilight, it occurred to me that he had broken more campaign promises more profoundly than any American president since FDR in 1932. No one cares. The reason why should not be forgotten. W was not elected for his promises. He was elected as the non-Clinton. Cast your memory back, if you can stand it, to 1998, and the painful, endless saga of Monica, of impeachment, of Hillary pretty in pink. In my favorite phrase coined by Pat Buchanan, it made you want to throw up your hands - or just throw up. In the midst of all this national indigestion, heavyweight Republicans resolved to find an antidote. Already in 1998, major money was looking for a winner. By 1999 it had decided on W. Unity was absolutely indispensable to victory. Alan Keyes and Orrin Hatch and Gary whatshisname were just window-dressing, there to help W rehearse. The fact that W didn't emerge head and shoulders above the rest in their frequent and dispiriting encounters did bring some pause, even cringes, but the die was cast. There was no turning back. All during 1999, planeloads of potential potentates flew to Austin. W met with foreign policy experts, economic experts, profamily experts, lobbyists for every possible cause, and, of course, donors, donors, and more donors. The key role of donors cannot be ignored. Huge money was looking for a winning alternative to our long national nightmare. The money men had their own purposes, as revealed in W's subsequent explosion of the federal budget with so many of his supporters and their favorite causes receiving millions, even billions. But W's flacks knew they could win only if their man could find resonance with the national mood. So the idea men and the issue men and the money men descended on Austin. W held endless meetings, where everyone got his turn, W asked questions. Karl and Karen kept score. Several of those graced with such an audience came back to Washington and called everybody they knew. I assume this because several of them even called me. "Chris, I think W's going to be the guy, and, if you decide to support him, I'd appreciate your giving your donation through me." Such "bundling" the nation had never seen before. Like the voice of Gatsby's Daisy, W's campaign was full of money. Real conservatives stood on the sidelines, trembling at the prospects. W had no anchor, no lodestar, no sure grasp of principle. He sat in Austin like a thimble inundated by waterfalls - special interests, ideas and policies pouring in and spilling out. No one knew, when the "real" W emerged, whose agendas those few drops he managed to retain would reflect. Big money watched and cringed at "fuzzy math" and "Christ." Silently they wondered, would their issues survive? They didn't know. But the die was cast. Why? W was the non-Clinton. Clinton was pompous. W was humble. Gauleiter Gore was a policy geek who couldn't shut up; W would stumble into silence between glib blurted phrases. A cavalier Clinton had sent troops and rockets worldwide. W. pledged a "humble," not an "arrogant," America. W, the non-Clinton, could win. Not all of this pleased the money men. They knew their agendas required a forceful, even arrogant president when it came to their private agendas. They feared that W, like the last Texan president, had a huge inferiority complex. As LBJ's fellow Democrat Senator, Eugene McCarthy, told me, "Lyndon was afraid Jack's brain trust would desert him after Dallas. He begged me, and everybody else in the Senate, to persuade them to stay on." Cheney, officially the staff man in charge of VP candidates, perceived W's inferiority problem, and eventually came to realize he had to rescue him. He quietly played to W's fears, at the same time oozing assurance and affability. By that fateful weekend in July 2000, the deadline for picking a veep, Cheney suddenly became the only candidate. W could relax. By the way, this weakness wrought plenty of "collateral damage." The Cheney do-se-do explains the Waco whitewash issued by the "independent" commission the same weekend. Jack Danforth, all along insisting he did not want to be veep, nonetheless hastily issued his Waco whitewash on Friday afternoon so he could use the weekend to finish putting together the exhaustive financial reports that Cheney required from all the potentials. Danforth knew that a tough report would put him out of the running. So Cheney, who had no stomach for the Waco wackos, had deftly killed two birds with one stone (i.e., Danforth and the rest of us). Until that point in the campaign, W was an empty suit. There is a reason, after all, why Bill Kristol supported McCain, and not W, in the primaries. Like virtually everyone else, he had no idea where W would finally come on the key issues (in Kristol's case, Israel). W was a big, cash-laden question mark. Cheney quickly began running things - as he has ever since. Now W is riding high. Liberals like David Broder praise him for leadership and neocons like Krauthammer applaud his "deep understanding" - but only because he has systematically expanded government power to pursue their favorite goals, and has broken his campaign promises big-time - something else liberals always like in a Republican. So W smirked at the world, with the setting sun and the sea-weary sailors behind him on the carrier deck. He had beaten Clinton as a humble man who knew his limitations and who distrusted the way things work in Washington. Now he has cast aside his humility, forgotten his limitations (even as we have come to know them all too well), and succumbed to the way things work in Washington. He sent the message of endless war to the world, flexing his fighter-bomber muscles on prime-time TV. The American government's power has no peer, and no limits. "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings." If W's luck holds up, he'll be running against Hillary in 2004. If he does, the "non-Clinton" will win again. If the Democrats do not serve up that gift horse (so to speak), the country might be faced with a race between W and a "non-Bush." At that point, if W stumbles, he might see all those fawning supporters suddenly disappear, as they flit off to settle on a fresh horse. Karl Rove will have to take a quiet moment and explain that W's "supporters of convenience " were only summer soldiers and sunshine patriots, who do not believe in permanent alliances, political or otherwise. They have their own agendas, after all. In other words, one misstep, and they will turn on him at the drop of a dime. I'm told that W is a prayerful man. Perhaps he believes in miracles. May 5, 2003 Christopher Manion writes from the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. Copyright ? 2003 LewRockwell.com From bar at idirect.com Mon May 5 16:07:01 2003 From: bar at idirect.com (Christopher Black) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:02 2006 Subject: [A-List] Fw: Film exposing Pentagon war crimes premieres in US Message-ID: <012c01c31350$8f0cd480$c70a9ad8@computer> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kamal@Sympatico To: gilak@sympatico.ca Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 8:19 PM Subject: Film exposing Pentagon war crimes premieres in US http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/afgh-f12_prn.shtml Afghan Massacre?Convoy of Death available on video Film exposing Pentagon war crimes premieres in US By Bill Vann 12 February 2003 A powerful film exposing the US role in the massacre of thousands of unarmed prisoners of war in Afghanistan was shown for the first time in the United States February 6. The US premiere of Afghan Massacre?Convoy of Death was held at American University before a largely student audience. Made by Irish documentary filmmaker Jamie Doran, who was present for the premiere, Afghan Massacre has already been broadcast on national television in Britain, Germany, Australia and Italy, and rights to broadcast it have been sold to networks in a total of 24 countries. Afghan Massacre is now available on video and can be purchased at the web site of Doran?s film company, Atlantic Celtic Film Corporation at www.acftv.net . Brief video excerpts from the film are posted on Oneworld TV at After a rough cut of the film was screened before the European Parliament last year, it became the subject of articles and commentaries in virtually every major newspaper in Europe, prompting demands by human rights organizations and lawyers for an official investigation. In the US, however, the film has been subjected to a near-total blackout by the media and unremitting hostility from the Bush administration, which unsuccessfully pressured the German government to stop its broadcast in that country. Official Washington?s hostility is well founded. Doran?s film provides irrefutable evidence that US forces in Afghanistan carried out a massive war crime. Working as a reporter for Japanese television, Doran covered the US-led siege of the Qala-i-Janghi fortress, where hundreds of captured Taliban prisoners were killed. Footage from the fortress included in the film presents the images sanitized out of US coverage of the event: the broken corpses of young Afghans killed by US air strikes and automatic weapons fire littering the grounds of the fortress?many of them with their arms still tied behind their backs. The film reveals what took place after this assault. As Doran notes, while the US and most of the world media was focused on the death of a CIA agent and the capture of the so-called "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, who barely survived the Qala-i-Janghi massacre, little attention was paid to the fate of the other prisoners. Some 8,000 Taliban fighters had given themselves up to General Abdul Rashid Dostum?s Northern Alliance, which functioned as a proxy army for the US during the Afghan invasion. Some 3,000 of them were crammed into private container trucks commandeered by Doshtum?s forces. During a 20-hour drive to the Sheberghan prison, most of these prisoners died from suffocation in the airless containers. Witnesses interviewed in the film described how soldiers fired into the containers when the prisoners screamed for air and water. Others reported seeing blood dripping from the trucks. Witnesses: US forces present at massacre Several witnesses recounted that US soldiers were present as the prisoners were loaded into the trucks and also when the container doors were opened at Sheberghan and hundreds of dead bodies spilled out. One soldier said that US troops in charge of the operation told their Afghan allies to "get rid of them [the bodies] before satellite pictures could be taken." The final stage of this grisly operation was the transport of the dead and wounded prisoners to a barren stretch of desert 10 minutes up the road, called Dasht-i-Leili, where the bodies were unloaded and several hundred prisoners who were still alive were shot to death. Again, witnesses said US Special Forces troops were present during these executions and when bulldozers pushed the corpses into a mass grave. The film begins and ends with the hideous scenes of this burial site, as well as a second one nearby, where the ground is littered with human bones, bits of clothing and shell casings. Doran has repeatedly demanded a speedy investigation into the massacre and action by the United Nations to protect the gravesites against an attempt to destroy the evidence. Human rights experts have given great weight to the diversity of the witnesses interviewed in the film, including soldiers, truck drivers and other civilians representing a wide range of Afghanistan?s disparate ethnic communities. Dostum?s forces, however, have already murdered two of these witnesses, while others have been imprisoned and tortured. The Word Socialist Web Site interviewed the film?s director, who came to the premiere in Washington direct from Afghanistan, where he had attempted to gain critical new material for a sequel to Afghan Massacre that he is preparing. Doran was to meet a courier across Afghanistan?s northeast border to purchase a videotape that includes footage of US troops at the scene of the mass killings. Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi, who collaborated with Doran on Afghan Massacre, was abducted and nearly beaten to death in an earlier attempt to obtain the tape. The filmmaker speculates that General Dostum is intent on keeping the tape as an "insurance policy," threatening to use it to expose the US role in the killings if Washington and the regime it backs in Kabul should attempt to deprive him of his power. Doran said that the courier was detained by Uzbek militiamen who had told people in the area that they were searching for a man with a videotape. He has reportedly been tortured. "How many more people will have to die before the government in this country admits what happened?" asked Doran. He stressed that it is a priority to protect the mass grave sites and establish a witness protection program for those who have testified as eyewitnesses to the war crimes. "If this country can propose to fly 500 Iraqi scientists and their families to Cyprus, then presumably they could bring 25 truck drivers out of Afghanistan," he said. "As high as Rumsfeld?s office" Doran said that the evidence he has gathered, and which he will use in his upcoming sequel to Afghan Massacre, indicates that the responsibility for the war crimes in Afghanistan goes "as high as [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld?s office." Within the US media, government efforts to suppress Afghan Massacre have thus far produced the desired results. Doran described the role of the American media as "pretty tragic." He added that one American journalist who was following up the story recounted a conversation with a senior State Department spokesman. Asked why the story had yet to run in any major national daily, the spokesman replied, "You have to understand, we are in touch with the nationals on a daily basis. It just won?t run, even if it?s true." Doran said he was hopeful the film would soon be broadcast on US television and that in the meantime he was working on a deal that would bring it to at least 25 movie theaters around the country. Up to now, however, he has been repeatedly rebuffed by US broadcast media representatives, who told him that "the timing was not right" for the film. "First it was post-September 11, and then it was pre-Iraq," he said. The 46-year-old filmmaker, who has produced previous documentaries on subjects ranging from the disappeared in Chile to a retrospective on Stanley Kubrick?s film 2001, stressed that he was not driven by political motives when he made Afghan Massacre. "I?m really not political, but they?ve tried to say I?m a communist and used McCarthyite tactics to try to make the story go away," he said of the official reaction in the US. "But it won?t," he added. He said he was well aware of the significance of the film getting a wide audience in the US on the eve of another war. "I didn?t do the film because of what is happening in Iraq," he said. "But the fact that it is now breaking into the American market may play a role in making American forces think twice before they are involved in anything similar in Iraq." Newsweek?s whitewash Also present at the film premiere was Roy Gutman, Newsweek?s diplomatic correspondent and co-author of a story published last August covering the same incidents detailed in Doran?s film. This piece put the number of Afghan prisoners killed at less than a third the number reported by witnesses in the film and essentially whitewashed the role played by US forces in the massacre. "Nothing that Newsweek learned suggests that American forces had advance knowledge of the killings, witnessed the prisoners being stuffed into the unventilated trucks or were in a position to prevent that," the magazine reported. It followed up this statement with a series of hypothetical alibis for the Special Forces elements present at the scene, claiming that they must have heard "stories" about the killings, but "may have thought them exaggerated," and that they "may have believed that the dead were war casualties." [See "Newsweek expos? of war crimes in Afghanistan whitewashes US role <../../2002/sep2002/news-s04.shtml>"] In a discussion period after the film showing, Gutman defended the Newsweek story, claiming that reports of American involvement in the massacre were "in a gray zone, extremely difficult to prove ... and when you?re not sure of the facts you have to put them in a special category." He insisted that Newsweek?s policy was to make sure "every factoid" was completely verified before publishing. After facing challenges from both Doran and the audience, he fell back on the defense that his editors were ultimately responsible, adding that writing a magazine article was much like "making sausage." He went on to criticize Doran?s film as overly "polemical." It is worth noting that Gutman rose to prominence in journalistic and government circles by applying a markedly different standard when, as a reporter for Newsday, he helped initiate the story about Serb-run "death camps" in Bosnia. For that coverage, Gutman relied heavily on second-hand witnesses and handouts from the Croatian and Bosnian Muslim regimes. As he told the magazine Foreign Affairs in 1993, he "consciously tried to move policy" with his stories, promoting a US intervention in the former Yugoslavia. For Gutman and Newsweek, journalistic standards are highly elastic, depending upon whether it is the US that is accused of a war crime, or whether Washington is making use of war crime allegations to prepare military intervention against another country. In the course of the discussion, Doran said that Newsweek had spent an entire day interviewing him and had called back to check facts the week before Gutman?s story ran, but in the end made no mention of him or his film. He also revealed that, after agreeing to give a copy of his film?s script to Newsweek?s correspondent in Afghanistan for "research purposes," he discovered that the document had been copied and handed over to General Dostum shortly before he and his crew had returned to Afghanistan, placing their lives in danger. Gutman acknowledged that he had been given a copy of the script, saying it had raised "a number of red flags" for him. Despite the attempts of the government and the media in the US to suppress his film, Doran expressed confidence that it will find an American audience. "They want this story to go away," he said. "But it won?t until those American commanders responsible stand trial." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 13184 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030505/9fe56fd2/attachment.txt From bar at idirect.com Mon May 5 16:07:15 2003 From: bar at idirect.com (Christopher Black) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] Fw: COMPARTY: Communists not invited to Iraqi leadership meeting Message-ID: <012d01c31350$aed7de40$c70a9ad8@computer> ----- Original Message ----- From: CPC To: COMPARTY Mailing List Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 7:59 PM Subject: COMPARTY: Communists not invited to Iraqi leadership meeting Dear comrades, Some interesting stories on the ICP. What is especially noteworthy is the fact that the international (bourgeois) press feel compelled to report the ICP's exclusion from the U.S.-sponsored 'leadership meeting'. If the ICP was small, weak and of no political consequence, they would not even 'waste ink' on the story. Comradely, miguel/ *************** Communists not invited to Iraqi leadership meeting http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/30/iraq_communists030430 BAGHDAD - Iraq's Communist party, one of the oldest in the country, wasn't invited to a meeting involving U.S. administrators and Iraqi political, religious and ethnic leaders. A leading member of the party, banned under Saddam Hussein's regime, says the U.S. has already failed the first test of its promise to bring real democracy to the country. Jasem al-Helfi says the Americans have ignored one of Iraq's most respected parties and instead brought in their own group of political imports. "They brought their own parties, external parties. No one knows them. No one know what they're doing," al- Helfi said. Al-Helfi says he's not interested in the U.S. interim administration or the consultation process. He says the Communist party is looking ahead to the first free elections, about two years away. His confidence could be warranted if activity around the party's headquarters is any indication. People are stopping by to pick up information, posters and the party newspaper. The more spacious headquarters of the Iraqi National Accord, made up of U.S.-backed returned exiles, is virtually deserted. ___________ Financial Times May 1, 2003 Communists seek to join the Iraqi revival By James Drummond in Baghdad The US-led administration in Iraq is realising that bringing political freedom to the country may produce unexpected results. First, Shia religious leaders called for a theocracy; now the Communist party is staging one of the first organised party political demonstrations of the post-Saddam era. The Iraqi Communist party will take to the streets of Baghdad for its first May Day demonstration in years. The march is likely to be modest, but a sign that well- worn ideologies can flourish amid the country's new freedoms. The communists are one of Iraq's oldest political opposition movements, but the party was mercilessly repressed by Mr Hussein's regime. Among the marchers will be Jassim al-Hilfi, who was sentenced to death at the age of 18 for political activity. Now 43, he returned to Baghdad three weeks ago after a life of exile in Kurdistan and Sweden. "We reviewed the fall of communism in eastern Europe and we learned lessons from that," he says. In acountry where many favour an Islamic republic, the Communist party represents a secular alternative. But it has not been embraced by the US. In an effort to ease communication in Iraq, the US administration has been handing out Thuraya satellite telephones to those Iraqis whom it deems worthy of attending its get-togethers. The communists have not benefited from this largesse, nor been invited to the meetings. The party has set up headquarters in a former Iraqi military building in central Baghdad. On the wall is a banner showing a clenched fist bearing an olive branch and the slogan: "The Iraqi Communist party: 1934-2003. 69 years of struggle." Under the new dispensation, the struggle is likely to continue. ******** Communist Party of Canada 290A Danforth Ave., Toronto, Ontario M4K 1N6 tel: 416-469-2446 fax: 416-469-4063 www.communist-party.ca -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 41893 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030505/d37b41d2/attachment.txt From bar at idirect.com Mon May 5 16:07:21 2003 From: bar at idirect.com (Christopher Black) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] Fw: COMPARTY: [Fwd: Fw: The Role of Intellectuals --James Petras] Message-ID: <012e01c31350$d2c149e0$c70a9ad8@computer> Must be read! James Petras Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Lorch" To: "COMPARTY Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:11 PM Subject: COMPARTY: [Fwd: Fw: The Role of Intellectuals --James Petras] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fw: The Role of Intellectuals --James Petras Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 18:27:40 -0500 From: Jos? Altshuler Reply-To: Jos? Altshuler To: ----- Original Message ----- From: Karen Wald Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 11:42 AMSubject: The Role of Intellectuals --James Petras THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INTELLECTUALS: CUBA, THE U.S. AND HUMAN RIGHTS by James Petras - May 1, 2003 Once again the intellectuals have entered into the center of a debate - this time over the issues of U.S. imperialism and human rights in Cuba. "How important is the role of the intellectuals?", I asked myself as we walked past the Puerta del Sol in Madrid on a sunny Saturday afternoon ( April 26, 2003 ) and heard the anti-Castro slogans of a few hundred protestors echoing through the near empty plaza. Despite a dozen articles and opinion columns by well known intellectuals in the leading Madrid newspapers, and hours of television and radio propaganda and endorsements by the major trade union bureaucrats and party bosses, only 700-800, mostly Cuban exiles turned up to attack Cuba. "Clearly," I thought, "the anti-'Cuban intellectuals have little or no power of convocation, at least in Spain." But the political impotence of the anti-Castro writers does not mean that intellectuals in general do not play an important role; nor does the lack of a popular audience mean that they are without resources, especially if they do have the backing of the U.S. war and propaganda machine, amplifying and disseminating their word throughout the world. In order to come to reason about the debate raging between intellectuals on the issues of human rights in Cuba and U.S. imperialism it is important to step back and consider the role of the intellectuals, the context and major issues that frame the U.S.-Cuba conflict. THE ROLE OF THE INTELLECTUALS The role of the intellectuals is to clarify the major issues and define the major threats to peace, social justice, national independence and freedom in each historical period as well as to identify and support the principal defenders of the same principles. Intellectuals have a responsibility to distinguish between the defensive measures taken by countries and peoples under imperial attack and the offensive methods of imperial powers bent on conquest. It is the height of cant and hypocrisy to engage in moral equivalences between the violence and repression of imperial countries bent on conquest with that of Third World countries under military and terrorist attacks. Responsible intellectuals critically examine the political context and analyze the relationships between imperial power and their paid local functionaries who they describe as "dissidents" - they do not issue moral fiats according to their dim lights and their political imperatives. Committed intellectuals who claim to speak with moral authority, especially those who lay claim to being critics of imperialism, have a political responsibility to demystify power and state and media manipulation particularly in relation to imperial rhetoric of human rights violations by independent Third World states. We have in recent times seen too many self-styled "progressive" Western intellectuals supporting or silent on the U.S. destruction of Yugoslavia, the ethnic cleansing of over 250,000 Serbs, gypsies and others in Kosovo, buying into the U.S. propaganda of a "humanitarian intervention". All the U.S. intellectuals (Chomsky, Zinn, Wallerstein etc.) supported the U.S.-financed violent fundamentalist uprising in Afghanistan against the Soviet-backed secular government in Afghanistan - under the pretext that the Soviet Union "invaded" Afghanistan and the fundamentalist fanatics entering the country from all over the world were the "dissidents" defending "self-determination" - an admitted propaganda ploy successfully executed by the boastful former National Security Adviser, Zbig Bryzinski. Then and now prestigious intellectuals brandish their past credentials as "critics" of U.S. foreign policy to give credibility to their uninformed denunciation of alleged Cuban moral transgressions, equating Cuba's arrest of paid functionaries of the U.S. State Department and the execution of three terrorist kidnapers with the genocidal war crimes of U.S. imperialism. The practitioners of moral equivalents apply a microscope to Cuba and a telescope to U.S. crimes - which gives them a certain acceptability among the liberal sectors of the empire. MORAL IMPERATIVES AND CUBAN REALITIES: MORALITY AS DISHONESTY Intellectuals are divided on the U.S.-Cuba conflict: Benedetti, Sastre, Petras, Sanchez-Vazquez and Pablo Gonzalez Casanova and scores of others defend Cuba; right-wing intellectuals including Vargas Llosa, Savater, and Carlos Fuentes have predictably issued their usual diatribes against Cuba; and a small army of otherwise progressive intellectuals - Chomsky, Saramago, Sontag, Zinn and Wallerstein - have joined the chorus condemning Cuba, waving their past critical postures in an effort to distinguish themselves from the right-wing/State Department Cuban opponents. It is the latter "progressive" group which has caused the greatest harm among the burgeoning anti-imperialist movement and it is to them that these critical remarks are directed. Morality based on propaganda is a deadly mix - particularly when the moral judgements come from prestigious leftist intellectuals and the propaganda emanates from the far-right Bush administration. Many of the "progressive" critics of Cuba acknowledge, in passing and in a general way, that the U.S. has been a hostile aggressor against Cuba, and they "generously" grant Cuba the right to self-determination - and then launch into a series of unsubstantiated charges and misrepresentations devoid of any special context that might serve to clarify the issues and provide a reasoned basis for ."moral imperatives". It is best to begin with the most fundamental facts. The left critics, based on U.S. State Department labeling, denounce the Cuban government's repression of individuals, dissidents, including journalists, owners of private libraries and members of political parties engaged in non-violent political activity trying to exercise their democratic rights. What the "progressives" fail to recognize or are unwilling to acknowledge is that those arrested were paid functionaries of the U.S. government. According to the Agency of International Development (AID), the principal U.S. federal agency implementing U.S. grants and loans in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy, under USAID's Cuba Program ( resulting from the Helms-Burton Act of 1996) AID has channeled over $8.5 million dollars to Cuban opponents of the Castro regime since 1997 to publish, meet, propagandize in favor of the overthrow of the Cuban government in co-ordination with a variety of U.S. NGO's, universities, foundations and other front groups. (Profile of the USAID Cuba Program - on the AID web site ). The U.S.AID program, unlike its usual practice, does not channel payments to the Cuban government but directly to its Cuban "dissident" clients. The criteria for funding are clearly stated - the recipients of payments and grants must have demonstrated a clear commitment to U.S. directed "regime change" toward "free markets" and "democracy" - no doubt similar to the U.S. colonial dictatorship in Iraq. The Helms-Burton legislation, the U.S.AID Cuba Program and their paid Cuban functionaries, like the U.S. progressive manifesto, " condemn Cuba's lack of freedom, jailing of innocent dissidents, and call for a democratic change of regime in Cuba". Strange coincidences that require some analyses. Cuban journalists who have received $280,000 from a Cuba Free Press -AID front- are not dissidents they are paid functionaries. Cuban "Human Rights" groups who receive $775,000 from CIA front "Freedom House" are not dissidents - particularly when their mission is to promote a "transition" (overthrow) of the Cuban regime. The list of grants and funding to Cuban "dissidents" (functionaries) by the U.S. government in pursuit of the U.S. policy is long and detailed and accessible to all the progressive moral critics. The point is that the jailed opponents of the Cuban government were paid functionaries of the U.S. government, paid to implement the goals of the Helms-Burton Act in accordance with the criteria of the U.S.AID and under the guidance and direction of the head of the U.S. Interest Section in Havana. Between September 2, 2002 and March 2003 James Cason, head of the US Interest Section, held dozens of meetings with his Cuban "dissidents" at his home and office, providing them with instructions and guidelines on what to write, how to recruit, while publicly haranging against the Cuban government in the most undiplomatic manner. Washington's Cuban functionaries were supplied with electronic and other communication equipment by USAID, books and other propaganda and money to fund pro-U.S. "trade unions" via the U.S. front, the "American Center for International Labor Solidarity". These are not well-meaning "dissidents" unaware of their paymaster and their role as U.S. agents, since the USAID report states ( under the section entitled "The US Institutional Context"), "The Cuba Program is funded through Economic Support Fund, which is designed to support the economic and political foreign policy interests of the US by providing financial assistance to allies (sic) and countries in transition to democracy". No country in the world tolerates or labels domestic citizens paid by and working for a foreign power to act for its imperial interests as "dissidents". This is especially true of the U.S. where under Title 18 ,Section 951 of the U.S. Code , "anyone who agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official would be subjected to criminal prosecution and a 10 year prison sentence". Unless , of course, they register as a paid foreign agent or are working for the Israeli government. The U.S. "progressive" intellectuals abdicate their responsibilities as analysts and critics and accept at face value the State Department characterization of the U.S. paid functionaries as dissidents striving for "freedom". Some defenders of the U.S. agent-dissidents claim that the functionaries received "scandalously long sentences". Once again empirical myopia compounds mendacious moralizing. Cuba is on a war footing. The Bush government has declared that Cuba is on the list of military targets subject to mass destruction and war. And in case our moralistic intellectuals don't know it : What Bush, Rumsfeld and the war-mongering Zionists in the Administration say -- they do. The total lack of seriousness in Chomsky, Zinn, Sontag, Wallerstein's moral dictates is that they fail to acknowledge the imminent and massive threat of a U.S. war with weapons of mass destruction, announced in advance. This is particularly onerous given the fact that many of Cuba's detractors live in the U.S., read the U.S. press and are aware of how quickly militaristic pronouncements are followed by genocidal actions. But our moralists are not bothered by context, by U.S. threats to Cuba immediate or proximate, they are eager to ignore it all to demonstrate to the State Department that they not only oppose U.S. foreign policy but also condemn every independent country, system and leader who opposes the U.S. In other words, Mr. Ashcroft, when you crack down on the "apologists" for Cuban "terror", remember that we are different, we too condemned Cuba, we too called for a change of regime. The critics of Cuba ignore the fact that the U.S. has a two-pronged military-political strategy to take over Cuba that is already operative. Washington provides asylum for terrorist air pirates, encouraging efforts to destabilize Cuba's tourist-based economy; it works closely with the terrorist Cuban American Foundation engaging in attempts to assassinate Cuban leaders. New U.S. military bases have been established in the Dominican Republic, Colombia, El Salvador and there is an expanding concentration camp in Guantanomo - all to facilitate an invasion. The U.S. embargo is in the process of being tightened with the support of the right-wing Berlusconi and Aznar regimes in Italy and Spain. The aggressive and openly political activity of James Cason of the Interest Section in line with his Cuban followers among the paid functionaries/ "dissidents" is part of the inside strategy designed to undermine Cuban loyalties to the regime and the revolution. The inter-connection between the two tactics and their strategic convergence is ignored by our prestigious intellectual critics who prefer the luxury of issuing moral imperatives about freedom everywhere for everyone, even when a psychotic Washington puts the knife to Cuba's throat. No thanks, Chomsky, Sontag, Wallerstein - Cuba is justified in giving its attackers a kick in the balls and sending them to cut sugar cane to earn an honest living. The death penalty for three ferry boat terrorists is harsh treatment - but so was the threat to the lives of forty Cuban passengers who faced death at the hands of the hijackers. Again our moralists forgot to discuss the rash acts of air piracy and the plots of others uncovered in time. The moralists failed to understand why these terrorists desperadoes are seeking illegal means to leave Cuba. Bush's Administration has practically eliminated the visa program for Cuban emigrants wishing to leave. Visa grants have declined from 9000 for the first four months of 2002 to 700 in 2003. This is a clever tactic to encourage terrorist acts in Cuba and then denounce the harsh sentences, evoking the chorus of 'yea' sayers in the 'Amen' corner of the progressive U.S. and European intellectual establishment. Is it simply ignorance which informs these moral pronouncements against Cuba or is it something else besides - moral blackmail? , to force their Cuban counterparts to turn against their regime, their people or face the opprobrium of the prestigious intellectuals - to become further isolated and stigmatized as "apologists of Castro". Explicit threats by Saramago to abandon his Cuban friends and embrace the cause of U.S. paid functionaries. Implicit threats of no longer visiting Cuba and to boycott conferences. Is it moral cowardice to pick up the cudgels for the empire and pick on Cuba when it faces the threat of mass destruction over the freedom of paid agents, subject to prosecution by any country in the world? What is eminently dishonest is to totally ignore the vast accomplishments of the revolution in employment, education, health, equality, and Cuba's heroic and principled opposition to imperial wars - the only country to so declare - and its capacity to resist almost 50 years of invasions. That counts for nothing for the U.S. intellectuals - that is scandalous!! That is a disgrace, a retreat in search of respectability after "daring" to oppose the U.S. war along with 30 million other people in the world. It is not time to "balance" things out - by condemning Cuba, by calling for a regime change, by supporting the cause of the "market oriented" Cuban functionary-dissidents. Let us remember the same progressive intellectuals supported "dissidents" in Eastern Europe and Russia who were bankrolled by Soros and the U.S. State Department. The "dissidents" turned the country over to the Russian mafia, life expectancy declined five years ( over 10 million Russians died prematurely with the sacking of the national health system), while in Eastern Europe "dissidents" closed the shipyards of Gdansk , enrolled in NATO and provided mercenaries for the U.S. conquest of Iraq. And never among these current supporters of Cuban "dissidents" is there any critical reflection on the catastrophic outcomes resulting from their anti-communist diatribes and their manifestos in favor of the 'dissidents' who have become the soldiers of the U.S. Middle Eastern and Central European empire. Our U.S. moralists never, I repeat, never, ever reflected critically on their moral failures, past or present because, you see, they are for "freedom everywhere", even when the "wrong" people get into power and the "other" empire takes over, and the millions die from curable diseases and white slavery rings expand. The reply is always the same: "That's not what we wanted - we were for an independent, free and just society - it just happened that in calling for regime change, support for dissidents, we never suspected that the Empire would 'take it all', would become the only superpower, and engage in colonizing the world." The moral intellectuals must accept political responsibility for the consequences and not hide behind abstract moral platitudes, neither for their past complicity with empire building nor their present scandalous pronouncements against Cuba. They cannot claim they don't know the repercussions of what they are saying and doing. They cannot pretend innocence after all they we have seen and read and heard about U.S. war plans against Cuba. The principal author and promoter of the anti-Cuban declaration in the United States (signed by Chomsky, Zinn and Wallerstein) was Joanne Landy, a self-declared "democratic socialist", and lifelong advocate of the violent overthrow of the Cuban government - for the past 40 years. She is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), one of the major institutions advising the U.S. government on imperial policies for over a half century. Landy supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and the Albanian terrorist group, the KLA - calling publicly for overt military support - responsible for the murder of 2000 Serbs and the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Serbs and others in Kosova. It is no surprise that the statement authored by this chameleon right-wing extremist contained no mention of Cuba's social accomplishments and opposition to imperialism. For the record, it should be noted, that Landy was a visceral opponent of the Chinese, Vietnamese and other social revolutions in her climb to positions of influence in the CFR. For all their vaunted critical intellect, the "progressive" intellectuals overlooked the unsavory politics of the author who promoted the anti-Cuba diatribe. THE ROLE OF THE INTELLECTUAL TODAY Many critics of Cuba speak of "principles" as if there were only one set of principles applicable to all situations independent of who is involved and what are the consequences. Asserting "principles" like "freedom" for those involved in plotting the overthrow of the Cuban government in complicity with the State Department would turn Cuba into another Chile - where Allende was overthrown by Pinochet - and lead to a reversal of the popular gains of the revolution. There are principles that are more basic than freedom for U.S. Cuban functionaries , that is , national security and popular sovereignty. There is, particularly among the U.S. progressive left, a certain attraction to Third World victims, those who suffer defeats ,and an aversion for successful revolutionaries. It seems that the U.S. progressive intellectuals always find an alibi to avoid a commitment to a revolution. For some it is the old refrain "Stalinism" - if the state plays a major role in the economy; or it can be mass mobilizations - that they dub "plebicitary dictatorships", or it can be security agencies which successfully prevent terrorist activity which they call a "repressive police state". Living in the least politicized nation in the world with one of the most servile and corrupt trade union apparatus in the West, with virtually no practical political influence outside a few university towns, the practical intellectuals in the U.S. have no practical knowledge or experience of the everyday threats and violence which hangs over revolutionary governments and activists in Latin America. Their political conceptions, the yardsticks they pull out to condemn or approve of any political activity, exists nowhere except in their heads, in their congenial, progressive, university settings where they enjoy all the privileges of capitalist freedom and none of the risks which Third World revolutionaries have to defend themselves against. A little modesty, dear prestigious, critical, freedom preaching intellectuals. Look deep inside and ask yourself if you would like to be pirated by a Miami-based terrorist organization. Ask yourself if you would enjoy sitting in a caf? in a major tourist hotel in Havana when a deadly bomb goes off - greetings from the terrorists taking a beer with the President's brother, Jeb. Think about living in a country which is on the top of the hit list of the most violent imperial regime since Nazi Germany - and then perhaps your moral sensibilities might awaken to the need to temper your condemnations of Cuban security policies and contextualize your moral fiats. I want to conclude by establishing my own "moral imperatives" - for the critical intellectuals. 1. The first duty of Euro-U.S. intellectuals is to oppose their own imperial rulers set on conquering the world. 2. The second duty is to clarify the moral issues involved in the struggle between imperial militarists and popular/national resistance and reject the hypocritical posture that equates the mass terror of one with the justified if at times excessive security constraints of the other. 3. To establish standards of political and personal integrity with regards to the facts and issues before making moral judgements. 4. Resist the temptation to become a "moral hero of the empire" by refusing to support victorious popular struggles and revolutionary regimes which are not perfect which lack all the freedoms available to impotent intellectuals unable to threaten power and therefore tolerated to meet, discuss and criticize. 5. Refuse to set themselves as Judge, Prosecutor and Jury condemning progressives who have the courage to defend revolutionaries. The most appalling instance is Susan Sontag'sscurrilous attack on Colombian Nobel Prize winning novelist, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who she accused of lacking integrity and being an apologist of Cuban terror (sic). Sontag made her blood libelous accusations in Bogota, Colombia. The Colombian death squads working with the regime and the military kill more trade unionists and journalists than any place in the world, and do so, for far less than being an "apologist" of the Castro regime. This is the same Sontag who was an enthusiastic supporter of the U.S. imperial invasion and bombing of Yugoslavia, apologist for the fundamentalist Bosnian regime and who was a silent witness to the killing and ethnic cleansing of Serbs and others in Kosovo. Moral integrity indeed! The precious sense of moral superiority found among New York intellectuals allow Sontag to finger Marquez for the death squads and feel that she has made a great moral statement. U.S.-European intellectuals should not confuse their own political futility and inconsequential position with that of their counterparts among committed Latin American intellectuals. There is a place for constructive dialogue and debate but never personal assaults that demean individuals facing daily threats to their lives. It is easy for critical intellectuals to be a "friend of Cuba" in good times at celebrations and invited conferences in times of lesser threats. It is much harder to be a "friend of Cuba" when a totalitarian empire threatens the heroic island and puts heavy hands on its defenders. It is in times like this - of permanent wars, genocide and military aggression, when Cuba needs the solidarity of critical intellectuals, which they are receiving from all over Europe and particularly Latin America. Isn't it time that we, in the United States, with our illustrious and prestigious progressive intellectuals with all our majestic moral sensibilities recognize that there is a vital, heroic revolution struggling to defend itself against the U.S. juggernaut and that we modestly set aside our self-important declarations, support that revolution and join the one million Cubans celebrating May Day with their leader Fidel Castro? --- COMPARTY From blackmore at balcab.ch Mon May 5 16:17:02 2003 From: blackmore at balcab.ch (Salaam Blackmore) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] Fw: [R-G] Re: elections References: <001d01c312d0$ee8384c0$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> <00a901c3133f$e6d65760$20fa5718@comintern> Message-ID: <006201c31354$06c2b4b0$d50fc8d5@salaamo1rw4n2e> There have been queries over the probity of the electoral system in the UK long before electronic voting When I last lived in London - I am a third-generation Londoner - I did a little campaigning and was also chair of the mediation centre of the borough in which I lived. As a result, I had occasion to study the register of electors. There were curious anomalies. For example, two people I knew personally appeared on the register of a marginal ward about six months before they actually moved to the address given. Equally curious was the fact that I could not find anyone, apart from myself, who considered this anomaly interesting enough to pursue... I was assured that there was no need for concern, since the electoral process was conducted by local authority staff. "So you have nothing to worry about," I was told, although my interlocutor did allow himself half a wink - and if you know London boroughs, you will know why... Three-monkey country Salaam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Macdonald Stainsby" To: Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [A-List] Fw: [R-G] Re: elections > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bob Enoch" > . > > You'd think the computers that handle our cherished ballots would be open > > and > > their software and programming available for public scrutiny. You'd think > > there would be a paper trail of the vote, which could be followed and > > audited > > if a there was evidence of voting fraud or if exit polls disagreed with > > computerized vote counts. > > > > You'd be wrong. > > I would like to ask A-Listers what they think the information contained in > this email means to our analysis of > A) "2004" > B) what we need to do about this. If this is true, does it not mean > everything else is at least *partially* subordinate? Can we please engage > this elephant in the living room? > > Macdonald > > > > From michele at maui.net Mon May 5 17:25:01 2003 From: michele at maui.net (Ralph Johansen) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] Air Force laser target testing to begin 6000' over Kihei, Maui Message-ID: <001201c3135b$81cc2fe0$119d4b40@defaultMicheleDriscoll> There are now 20,000 residents in Kihei, and growing. Joined: 23 Feb 2003 Posts: 50 Location: Maui, Hawai`i Posted: Thu May 01, 2003 3:36 pm Post subject: Air Force Surveillance Testing on Maui ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Air Force contractor Textron Systems, long associated with Maui through military facilities on Haleakala, is developing a laser/infrared system for day/night imaging surveillance called the Standoff Intelligence Detector (SID.) Notice of an Environmental Assessment (EA) was recently published in the Maui News. The SID EA project pertains to 50 flights of a Twin Otter aircraft equipped with the developing system. The flights will take place at around 6,000 feet altitude -- the plane will circle an area in Kihei testing the system by looking at targets about 12 lateral miles away. The illuminating laser is described as eye safe and invisible, with a small visible targeting laser also being used. The illuminating laser is visible to the infrared spectrum, and the scheme is to illuminate a target from a distance without being noticed. A copy of the draft EA can be seen by clicking here. Comments on the EA should be sent soon to: AFRL/DEOS 3550 Aberdeen Dr. SE Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776 Maui has been spared the militarization that is so prevalent on Oahu. Personally, I like that. A military presence may be a necessity in some instances, but I like the fact that it has not been actively necessary on Maui for many, many years. Assuming the laser is indeed safe, there probably is not a very strong substantive basis for objecting to the EA. If the laser is not safe, it is unlikely that anyone injured by it would (a) immediately realize they had suffered harm or (b) be able to identify the cause of any harm they realized. Therefore, it may never be known whether the laser is truly safe. However, there is this interesting admission on EA page 1 (after the roman numeral introduction pages), it says, "Performing the flight tests at White Sands Missile Range instead of Maui presents logistics and cost problems for the contractor who has developed the imaging system in Maui. In addition, the contractor has no significant presence in New Mexico, and the climate at White Sands Missile Range would be too ideal (dry summer conditions) instead of the challenging and more scientifically important marine environment that Maui offers. Performing tests in Massachusetts where atmospheric conditions provide a marine environment and the contractor has a greater presence was considered. However, this location would be difficult to accomplish due to lack of facilities and aircraft support." Thus, the choice of flying over Maui is made for the somewhat contrived convenience of the contractor -- I say somewhat contrived because it is difficult to imagine that Textron's home state of Massachusetts really lacks facilities and aircraft support. For that reason -- being the mere convenience of the contractor -- this further step in the use of Maui for militarized purposes is objectionable. The testing is plainly intended to develop battlefield equipment that will help military forces wipe out opponents. Had the recent demonstration of wiping out large numbers of the conscripts and oppressed subjects of a political opponent in Iraq not been initiated so objectionably (objectionable to me, for example, by being in unilateral defiance of such principles of international conduct as the inhibition of pre-emptive attacks, as expressed in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, or the advancement of international diplomacy through the UN), the sense that developing battlefield equipment on Maui is objectionable might not be so strong. Changing Maui from a generally non-militarized place to a place for developing battlefield equipment is especially objectionable when there are recognized alternative locations -- such as White Sands Missile Range where developing battlefield equipment is a well-established activity -- and the alternative locations are rejected simply for the convenience of the contractor. Back to top From nacypop at ciudad.com.ar Tue May 6 00:39:02 2003 From: nacypop at ciudad.com.ar (NAC&POP) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] SE QUIEREN ROBAR UNA MINA DE ORO EN ESQUEL Message-ID: <4132-2200351521384120@n2b4c1> win98Normalwin982332003-05-05T21:12:00Z2003-05-05T21:12:00Z317459949win8219122189.3821 21 Queridos Nac&Pop Por favor les pido que lean éste mail que me envía mi amigo Rafael desde Chubut.....Es muy importante. S.O.S. Argentina se roban Esquel......Patrimonio de la Humanidad. Alberto Surra Gentileza de Rafael Malerba Martes 29Abril, 2003 9:42 AM Naguales Existe una mina de oro y plata en Esquel ( se la quieren robar) Existe una mina de oro y plata en Esquel que debe ser trabajada a cielo abierto. Existe una multinacional con sede en USA que está interesada en explotarla, prometiendo trabajo para 300 obreros. Un grupo de vecinos concientes y preocupados por la ecología, ya que el oro debe ser separado mediante cianuro y la plata mediante arsénico  (venenos potentes si los hay) y temiendo por la infiltración de residuos a rios y napas de agua decidió agruparse en una Asamblea para impedir la instalación de tal mina Mediante protestas pacíficas lograron que el Intendente y el Consejo Deliberante llamaran a un plebiscito Mina sí... Mina no La citada multinacional ofreció asados, zapatillas y montones de regalos para convencer a la gente que votaran por el sí... al mejor estilo duhaldista-menemista Los habitantes se comieron los asados, aceptaron las zapatillas y otros regalos y fueron a votar Votó el 75% del padrón municipal (cifra de presentismo no alcanzada en ninguna otra elección). No a la mina obtuvo 81% de los sufragios Con lo cual no debió haberse hablado más del tema -Un pueblo que no se vende no puede ser comprado, dijo ayer en el programa un habitante de Esquel, pero siempre hay un pero los dólares pesan y más cuando son muchos... y hay para repartir entre políticos y sindicalistas corruptos  (siempre la misma mierda antipatria) Resulta que ahora los dirigentes de la Asamblea Vecinal han empezado a recibir amenazas de muerte, de parte de patoteros de la UOCRA recién llegados de Buenos Aires que portan armas... Entonces, los habitantes de Esquel se han comenzado a hacer preguntas acerca de qué intereses han tocado... Y de la investigación resulta que: 1) La empresa ha presentado un plan de trabajos que pretende extraer de la mina el equivalente en oro a 2.500.000.000 de dólares en 10 años (sí, dos mil quinientos millones de dólares) sin contar lo extraído en plata.- 2) Sucede también que una ley sancionada por Carlos y su corrupto Congreso Nacional dice que el Estado Nacional no puede explotar las riquezas del subsuelo sino por intermedio de empresas privadas a las que les cobrará un único cánon equivalente a un máximo del 3% del valor del metal extraído en boca de mina (el cual es más bajo que el precio internacional del metal) 3) Eso, tál como está , y haciendo números redondos, suponiendo que el valor del oro extraido en boca de mina fuera de 2000 millones en 10 años, le dejaría al Estado o sea a nosotros, 60 millones de dólares; pero, como la Ley nacional dice que se cobrará un cánon del 3% como máximo, la Ley del Chubut estableció un máximo del 2% o sea que en vez de 60 millones esto se reduce a 40 millones. 4) Pero hay otra ley nacional establecida por nuestros plecaros y patrióticos representantes del pueblo... Esta ley dice que para favorecer las exportaciones realizadas desde puertos de la Patagonia, el Estado Nacional, o sea nosotros, retribuirá con un 5% del valor de tales exportaciones a las empresas que las realicen... O sea, que la susodicha multinacional yankee exportará en diez años desde puertos patagónicos 2.500 millones de dólares (estos sí a precio internacional) con lo cual el estado Nacional o sea nosotros deberemos retribuirles con 125 millones de dólares... 5) 125 millones que pagaremos de impuestos los maestros, los carpinteros, los comerciantes, los plomeros, los electricistas, los lustrabotas etc, argentinos, menos 40 millones que recibirá la Provincia de Chubut.. Significa que vamos a pagarles 85 millones de dólares para que ellos se lleven 2.500 millones de dólares en oro y nos dejen el cianuro y el arsénico residual envenenando nuestras tierras ¿Alguien tiene un poquito de cianuro o arsénico para hacérselos tragar a los que votan las leyes? me tengo que sacar el sombrero ante los piratas yankees ! ¡ Realmente son lo más grande que hay ! Antes, al menos Colón les cambiaba a los indios el oro por espejitos y cuentas de colores pero ahora es como si Colón les pidiera a los indios que le pagaran para llevarse el oro al menos los ingleses se llevaban nuestro trigo, nuestras vacas, nuestros quebrachos y nuestra lana... Pero nos pagaban con libras y cuando no pudieron nos pagaron con nuestros bienamados ferrocarriles argentinos pero ahora es como si los ingleses nos pidieran plata para llevarse nuestro trigo, vacas, quebracho y lanas...yankees maestros !!! Teachers !!! ¡¡Y NOSOTROS QUE NOS CREÍAMOS VIVOS !!! ¡¡ LES VAMOS A PAGAR PARA QUE SE LLEVEN EL ORO Y LA PLATA QUE NOS QUEDA !!! ¡¡ QUE CAPOS QUE SOMOS !!! Ayer, un artículo en un diario norteamericano Titulaba: La resistencia de un pueblo impide el desarrollo minero de Argentina...por favor de verdad, por favor les pido si todavía quieren colgarse una cinta celeste y blanca en la solapa un par de veces al año..., entonces hagan circular esta carta ( o algunos argentinos seguirán choreandosé los tohallones de los hoteles de europa y creyéndose "vivos" mientras que los yankees nos harán pagar 85 millones de dólares para poder dejarnos sin dos mil quinientos millones de dólares en oro)... SEÑORES DIPUTADOS Y SENADORES Representantes del coimero Carlos Por favor, si tienen un mínimo de vergüenza, en honor a Belgrano y a Brown, a todos los que se jugaron la vida por este país...péguense un tiro en los huevos o háganselos cortar... Mas vale que se los corten ustedes antes que se los cortemos nosotros EL VIEJO LUIS Luis Victor Kahn Mendoza, Argentina MOVIMIENTO PUMAS POR UNA MAGNÍFICA AMÉRICA SOLIDARIA pumas-alta@eListas.net Esta recibiendo este mensaje de la NAC&POP (Red Nacional y Popular de Noticias) porque es uno de nuestros amigos, o porque su dirección de correo electrónico pertenece a un medio de comunicación social o porque es una personalidad que nos ha sido recomendada por alguno de nuestros amigos comunes y por eso está incluida en la lista de los que llamamos "AMIGOS DE LOS AMIGOS". Amigos de los Amigos es ya una comunidad real de comunicación virtual donde se comparten solidariamente las noticias, las reflexiones, los conocimientos y la experiencia producida por las luchas de los distintos sectores del pueblo criollo en la defensa de su justas causas. En la NAC&POP se discuten ideas, visiones, filosofía, experiencias, practicas e información sobre los diversos temas relacionados con la Cultura y la Comunicación; la Política y el Desarrollo Social, Económico e Institucional de la Argentina como parte indivisible de la gran familia de la Patria Grande de Iberoamérica en lucha por su destino y en unidad con todos los pueblos del mundo, con el genero humano, como hermanos. En la NAC & POP la circulación de noticias, artículos, discusiones y eventos está relacionada con la defensa de la independencia económica, la soberanía política y la justicia social de los criollos en la majestad de su propia cultura y en armonia con el ecosistema natural de su territorio. La NAC & POP está impulsada por La Mesa de los Sueños de los Compañeros de Utopías de la Agrupación Oesterheld en su permanente homenaje a los grandes patriotas y como un humilde aporte de amor activo al Pueblo criollo, de pie, en la conformación y consolidación del Movimiento Nacional y Popular que lo lleve a la victoria. La NAC & POP se envia y se recibe gracias a la actitud valiente, activa y decisiva de los suscriptores que la defiendieron cuando fue necesario y determinante ya que, frente a todo tipo de filtro, bloqueo o censura actuo firmemente cuando debio hacerlo en defensa de sus derechos, el derecho a la libertad de expresion, el derecho a la informacion y el derecho a la comunicacion ante quien correspondiera, actuando como si fuera uno solo en una epopeya de miles de correos electronicos , llamados telefonicos y organizacion de futuros actos callejeros de protesta que, si bien, algunos no llegaron a concretarse -porque no hizo falta- mostraron la calidad de sus integrantes y la fuerza de el estar unidos en la defensa de su comun dignidad. Si quiere dar de BAJA su dirección o tramitar un ALTA envíe un mensaje a: nakypop@sinectis.com.ar Si quiere realizar una CONTRIBUCION a la distribución de noticias, datos, mensajes, artículos o reuniones, congresos actos y espectáculos, envíe un mensaje a: nakypop@sinectis.com.ar La Nac.& Pop. no se hace responsable por el contenido de los articulos de opinion que se difundan por esta red ya que deben ser considerados realizados por los compañeros a titulo personal. Director Editorial: Martín García / Coordinadora General: Rosana Salas ----------------------------------------- - EN OCTUBRE 2001 LA CAMARA DE DIPUTADOS DE ARGENTINA VOTO UNA LEY PARA CERRAR LAS FM Y LOS CANALES LIBRES Y COMUNITARIOS Y ENVIAR A LA CARCEL A LOS RADIODIFUSORES DE LA DEMOCRACIA MANTENIENDO COMO LEGALES LAS RADIOS Y CANALES DE TV DE LA DICTADURA DEL PROCESO. LO HIZO APROVECHANDO LA IMAGEN DE LOS AVIONES ESTRELLANDOSE CONTRA LAS TORRES GEMELAS, UN MES DESPUES DEL ATENTADO ALEGANDO UN PELIGRO PARA LOS AEROPUERTOS QUE LUEGO SE DEMOSTRO QUE ERA PRODUCIDO POR LAS RADIOS LEGALES. EN OCTUBRE 2002 LO APROBO EL SENADO GRACIAS A LA ENORME PRESION DE LOS LOBBYS DE ATA Y ARPA - LAS MULTINACIONALES ENQUISTADAS DETRAS DE LOS MEDIOS EN ARGENTINA COMO LA JP MORGAN-LA CALIFICADORA DE RIESGO-PAIS, LAS EMPRESAS MULTIMEDIOS COMO CLARIN, LA AQUIESCENCIA DE SENADORES DE DUDOSA HONORABILIDAD COMO JENEFES Y GIOJA Y ANTES, CON LA REPUGNANTE ACTITUD DE LOS DIPUTADOS FONDEVILA, DUMON, LARRABURU Y BRANDONI, SERVILES, ESTOS DIPUTADOS Y SENADORES, HAN DESCUBIERTO LA NUEVA FORMULA DE LOS POLITICOS FRACASADOS: DUROS CON EL PUEBLO, ALFOMBRA CON LOS PODEROSOS...ASI LES VA. AHORA EN EL 2003, VUELVE A DIPUTADOS POR ALGUNOS CAMBIOS INTRODUCIDOS POR LOS COMPAÑEROS Y COMIENZA LA BATALLA DEFINITIVA : PUEBLO O ESTABLISHMENT, PATRIA O COLONIA, LIBERTAD O MONOPOLIOS, COMUNIDAD ORGANIZADA O COMUNIDAD SOJUZGADA. LOS LEGISLADORES DEBEN OPTAR. ----------------------------------------- VISITE www.abuelas.org.ar www.agua-mansa.com> www.antiescualidos.com/indexnew.html www.ar.geocities.com/publicidadpolitica www.asamblea.arg.net.ar www.asovic.org> www.ate.org.ar www.caracas.jotaceve.org> www.cels.org.ar/ www.clasemediaenpositivozulia.org> www.cnanoticias.com/  www.ctabsas.org.ar / www.documentalistas.org.ar/ www.eldescamisado.org www.espacioautogestionario.com www.excluidos.org/ www.farco.org.ar www.florestaporjusticia.8m.com/ www.forointergeneracional.freeservers.com/ www.foronacional.gov.ve www.frenteparaelcambio.org www.galeon.hispavista.com/anarcoperonismo1111/ www.geocities.com/bsasnegro/index.html / www.geocities.com/cipayoscom www.geocities.com/fub_usb> www.geocities.com/pmavl/> www.geocities.com/proyectoemancipacion www.geocities.com/revistatizon/arg.html www.geocities.com/walshrodolfo www.hijoslucha.netfirms.com www.hijos-rosario.org.ar / www.inquilinos.org.ar/ www.jdperon.gov.ar / www.ladeudaexterna.com www.lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/reconquista-popular www.losocial.com.ar www.lucheyvuelve.com.ar www.madres.org www.madres-lineafundadora.org www.mnyp.org www.movimientomontonero.org www.mr-jsm.com.ar www.mundoamateur.com.ar www.nodo50.org/venezuela-unida/> www.parlamentoperonista.cjb.net / www.patrialibre.org.ar www.pjn.gov.ar/ www.pochormiga.com.ar> www.polemicadigital.com.ar www.porlavida.abuelas.org.ar www.procesobolivariano.8k.com> www.radioataque.org> www.rebelion.org> www.redbolivariana.com/> www.red-vertice.com/anv/index.html www.revistalinea.com  www.rt-a.com www.sinolvido.org/ www.soberania.info> www.sutebalamatanza.org.ar/ www.todosjuntos.foros.org www.unasolapatria.org/inicio.html  www.villacrespomibarrio.com.ar -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 24289 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030506/4e0b98c0/attachment.txt From nacypop at ciudad.com.ar Tue May 6 00:39:27 2003 From: nacypop at ciudad.com.ar (NAC&POP) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] VUELVEN LOS PERIODISTAS CAIDOS EN IRAK Message-ID: <4135-2200352601740550@n2b4c1> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: image001.gif Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030506/3715b976/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: image002.gif Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030506/3715b976/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: image003.gif Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030506/3715b976/attachment-0002.gif From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 6 00:46:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] George Galloway Message-ID: <000701c3139b$3e8b96e0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Galloway pelted with eggs at May Day rally MP appeals for donations to fight press 'smear campaign' MICHAEL SETTLE The Herald, 6 May 2003 GEORGE Galloway dodged a volley of eggs yesterday as he spoke at a workers' May Day rally, condemning the war on Iraq and the "smear campaign" being waged against him by sections of the press. Last night, the MP for Glasgow Kelvin hinted that his libel action against the Daily Telegraph and the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor might only be the beginning of his legal battle against the media. Stressing that he would seek the advice of his lawyers, he said of other newspapers that had published allegations against him: "I hope to deal with them one day also." After his speech at the rally, he revealed he intended to sue the Sunday Telegraph, which last weekend ran an interview with his former chauffeur. "That is the subject of legal action. I will be adding the Sunday Telegraph's name to the writ," he said. In Wallasey on Merseyside, Mr Galloway was addressing an audience of about 200 people when two eggs were thrown by a man who shouted: "That's for being up Saddam's a***." Nimbly, the back bench MP ducked and the eggs missed their target. "I'm a Scotsman. You have to get up pretty early to hit me with an egg," quipped the politician, who claimed the culprit was a member of the far right British National party. The egg-thrower was arrested by police to prevent a breach of the peace. He gave his name as David Anson, 41, a local unemployed builder. "I don't agree with him going to Saddam. I have got friends who have been out there and a few who have died," he added. Merseyside Police said a 16-year-old youth was also arrested in connection with the incident. After the egg attack, Mr Galloway continued with his 15-minute speech, in which he repeatedly condemned the war on Iraq. "This war," he argued, "slaughtered thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi people who had committed no crime against anyone and those deaths came on top of one of the greatest crimes in all international history - the crime of sanctions against Iraq which killed more than one million Iraqi children over 10 years." He added: "Those crimes will be judged at the bar of history, and I believe that the blood on the hands of the British and American governments will never be extinguished and will follow them to the grave and beyond." Mr Galloway also used his speech to repeat his denial of allegations that he was on Saddam Hussein's payroll. He described the allegations as "smears" and compared them to previous accusations made against left-wing figures such as Ramsay MacDonald, Harold Wilson, and Arthur Scargill. After the speech, the MP appealed for donations to his legal fighting fund. He said that, according to his lawyer, the "cheques are flowing in". He told The Herald: "The indications are it's going very well." Mr Galloway explained that, if his libel action did go to court, the whole process could take a year to complete. As regards the prospect of several parallel inquiries by the Labour party, the Charities Commission, and the parliamentary commissioner for standards, the back bencher was adamant that any investigation had to be put on hold while his court battle was on-going. "It would be absolutely unjust to seek to try a matter that's going to be tried in court. I don't expect that will happen," he said. He suggested that he was in big demand for public appearances, speaking this week alone in Lewisham, Manchester, and Blackburn, Jack Straw's constituency. Claiming he had growing support for his battle against an orchestrated press smear campaign - including that of Michael Foot, the former Labour leader - Mr Galloway insisted it would all be material for a book he is writing on his experiences in the Middle East. "It will be a blockbuster," said the MP. Its title? George In The Wars." From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 6 00:52:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] Iraq: Saddam preparing resistance campaign Message-ID: <001f01c3139c$14638c00$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> This forwarded from Jay Moore via Marxmail: Iraqi Resistance Report X - May 5, 2003 ========================================= 1 May 2003 American Report: Saddam prepares for guerrilla warfare with 40,000 fighters. Paris  Muhit An intelligence report received by the American Central Intelligence Agency has disclosed on the authority of their secret sources that the deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is still alive and has formed a new secret leadership in preparation for waging a Vietnam-style guerrilla war against American forces to be launched next 17 July with 40,000 fighters. The force is to be led by his cousin 'Ali Hasan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali", Taha Yasin Ramadan, and the Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad. The magazine al-Watan al-'Arabi in its issue coming out tomorrow said that the date for the beginning of the guerrilla war coincides with the anniversary of the Baathist revolution and seizure of power, and the anniversary of Saddam Hussein's ascension to the Iraqi presidency in 1979 as the successor of Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr. Until now, no one has conclusive proof as to the fate of Saddam Hussein and his two sons. It is said that he was killed during an air raid on a place where he was meeting with his commanders in the Baghdad district of al-Mansour. But there were sightings of him after that, in the A'zamiyyah district of the Iraqi capital on the same day that American forces entered Baghdad airport. Rumors have circulated that he attended Friday congregational prayer in the Mosque of Abu Hanifa an-Nu'man, and that he promised the worshippers there a surprise. There are also rumors that he had appeared elsewhere too, but there is no proof of the truth of any of these rumors. Intelligence sources confirm information that Saddam Hussein and his two sons are still alive, still in Iraq, and that the forces that are still loyal to Saddam Hussein number 40,000 fighters. They are deployed throughout various regions of the country. The President, who is still in hiding, still has power and specific means at his command, and he has kept secret hiding places where he can disappear in a number of provinces. In addition he controls secret hiding places that contain weapons and ammunition, military supplies, foodstuffs, and other necessities. The contents of these secret storehouses is sufficient for waging a long and bitter war. The great surprise that the message disclosed is that Saddam Hussein and his group of supporters who represent a secret leadership not composed of the familiar military and Baath Party personalities, are busily engaged in putting the finishing touches on a plan for a great confrontation with the Anglo-American forces deployed on Iraqi territory. The UAE newspaper "al-Bayan" reported on the authority of information that has reached "al-Watan al-'Arabi" that Saddam Hussein has designated 17 July of this year as the date on which the great jihad will begin. In addition to the symbolic significance of this date, preparations should be completed by that time. In addition, Iraqi citizens will have come to understand the what the presence of foreign forces on their soil means. They will have come to understand the extent of changes that will take place in their way of life, contrary to their social, cultural, and religious heritage. Some of the considerations that justify putting off the date by about three months until July are likelihood that ethnic and sectarian fighting might erupt in the country by then, and the struggles of the different aspirants for power should have risen to the surface. This is likely to create an unbalanced situation in Iraq, keeping the occupation forces busy, and giving the forces loyal to Saddam Hussein an opportunity to score major breakthroughs in enemy security by waging Vietnam-style guerrilla warfare with "hit-and-run" tactics. The leaked information also discloses the make-up of the group that has gathered around Saddam Hussein and his two sons. It is composed of 'Abd Hammoud and 'Ali Hasan al-Majid who succeeded in escaping from Basra and disappearing, of Taha Yasin Ramadan, of the Defence Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad, and Latif Nasif Jasem. Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri, who headed the northern sector, has disappeared, as has the commander of the Middle Euphrates sector Mazban Khidr Hadi. The group surrounding Saddam now comprises elements from Tikrit, Samarra, and Mosul. The intelligence report does not exclude the possibility that the new group around Saddam Hussein was the source of the leaked information that led to the arrest or surrender of certain former officials, because their roles had come to an end and there was no place for them in the new plan, and in order to keep the Americans occupied with interrogating them about events in the past, diverting the Americans' attention from planning for what is to happen in the near future. The information suggests that Saddam Hussein still has bases located in the cities, towns, and villages of Iraq, where the fighters look like ordinary citizens, but are waiting to carry out the orders that they will be given, and are meanwhile carrying out reconnaissance and observation of the enemy and bringing information and intelligence from the leadership to the base. The intelligence information also confirms that the locations where Saddam and his new aides are located are very well protected and surrounded in total secrecy which no spying or detection devices, however advanced, can penetrate. Also noteworthy is the presence of retired Russian experts in some of these locations, men practiced in guerrilla warfare with great expertise in this field. Strangely, the intelligence report discloses the precise details, known to the American intelligence agencies in Baghdad, of a meeting ostensibly held by Saddam Hussein with his aides on 7 April, the day that American forces entered the environs of Baghdad. The details of the meeting include the fact that Saddam Hussein confirmed at the opening of the meeting, which was held in a secret and protected location, that a great betrayal had taken place in the Republican Guard and Special Forces. He spoke of a high-ranking military personality with deep hatred, and said that this person had known all the secrets, the methods of issuing orders, and their secret codes. This person was the one who led the act of treachery and issued the orders for the forces to withdraw, as if they had come from Saddam Hussein personally. It was in this way that immediate and sudden withdrawals took place from all positions at one stroke, their weapons being taken away. The withdrawal covered the Republican Guard, the Special Forces, and all the regular and semi-regular forces, leaving no one to defend Baghdad except a few hundred Arab volunteers who were not included in those orders and who were not integrated into the leadership's chain of command. The intelligence report indicated that Saddam said that those persons think that they will occupy important positions under the American administration of Iraq. The message that they used said that Saddam Hussein had been killed with his commanders and that there was no longer any hope of resistance. The person who stands at the head of the betrayal knew the secret password and was thus able to issue the orders to retire from the battle. The sources reported Saddam as saying during the meeting that the date 9 April is the day of treachery and treason in Baghdad, (which confirms that the meeting took place after that date), the date of shame and humiliation for those traitors who sold out Arabism, and sold out Baghdad for some derisory sum. It was a great betrayal in which high-ranking officers of an Arab army were involved, an army that we had thought had regained its senses and returned to its Arab Nationalist position, that we had considered a loyal friend that had opened the door to jihad together with us. But it stabbed us in the back. Saddam added: "we have done our sums, and we still have great potential. We are accustomed to the most difficult conditions. We have experience in secret resistance from before the revolutions of 1963 and 1968, and we have the ability to wage battle and we are prepared for the confrontation and have the wherewithal to carry on for years." After that, according to the intelligence information, Saddam Hussein returned to the topic of the betrayal and treachery and spoke with bitterness of the husband of his youngest daughter Halla, Jamal Mustafa al-'Umar, who surrendered to American forces, a fact indicating his involvement in the treason. Saddam added, "We had prepared for a great battle against the Americans in Baghdad. Our planning was excellent. We had prepared a pincer attack. What sadness I have for those youth. What sadness I have for those traitorous scoundrels who forsook Iraq, and Arabism, and Islam. They did not forsake Saddam Hussein. And now we have become the survivors. We are the elite of the Iraqi people, and the historical responsibility for liberating our people has fallen on us. You will discover that the way is open before us, We will make America pay the price, God willing, albeit belatedly. We have grown used to struggle. We have lived it, and will continue to do so. The reports you have heard about chaos in the streets of Iraq today will mark the important beginning of the revolution." He continued saying: "Our date is in July. That is a historic date that has its own aims, significance, and associations that we will use in the fight. You need to be aware that the members of the Bedouin tribes and federations have not been treacherous. They have not turned traitor. When I determined what those contemptible officers had done, I wrote to the tribes to tell them to be calm and await the appointed day. And I asked some of them to go along with the American invader for the sake of our noble goal." Saddam Hussein said, "And to those who talk about the Shi'a, I say that the Shi'a will prove to everyone in our coming battle that they are the noble vanguard, and the battles of liberation will be waged in an-Najaf, and Karbala and the queen of cities Umm Qasr." Saddam Hussein, had called on the Iraqi people to rise up in intifada against the American occupation forces, saying that it is the foreign occupation and not Sunni or Shi'i that is the "only issue that your great Iraq is living through," as he put it. This call came in a hand-written letter from Saddam to the Iraqi people and the sons and daughters of the Arab Nation and the Islamic world community, and to honorable people everywhere. Dated 28 April, his birthday, the message was obtained by the London-based al-Quds al-'Arabi newspaper. Sources close to Saddam confirmed the authenticity of the handwriting and the signature, pointing out that the conditions of his underground existence do not currently permit anything more than sending hand-written letters, due to security considerations. The Leadership of the Resistance and Liberation of Iraq had stressed the day before yesterday in an exclusive letter sent to al-Quds al-'Arabi that Saddam Hussein had survived the bombing and that he would deliver an address to Iraqis and the Arab Nation within 72 hours. In the letter, Saddam accused the countries surrounding Iraq of working against the resistance and said that the traitors had allowed themselves to speak out loud about their treachery, despite its being a disgrace, in a reference taken to refer to Kuwait. Saddam said that treason lay behind the fall of Baghdad, saying "the enemy was not victorious over you, you who reject occupation and humiliation, you who have Arabism and Islam in your hearts and minds, it was not victorious over you except by means of treason." See http://www.freearabvoice.org/Iraq/Report/report10.htm From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 6 00:53:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: Dalyell vs. Israel lobby Message-ID: <002701c3139c$52a86760$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Dalyell steps up attack on Levy Michael White, political editor Tuesday May 6, 2003 The Guardian The Labour MP Tam Dalyell yesterday scornfully brushed aside accusations of anti-semitism but stood by the allegation that has landed him in political trouble, that "there is far too much Jewish influence in the United States" and one over-influential Jew in Tony Blair's entourage. Faced with threats to take "inflammatory remarks" to the commission for racial equality, the MP for Linlithgow raised the stakes significantly by criticising Lord Levy, the music mogul turned Blair fundraiser and tennis partner, whose intimate contacts across the region have made him No 10's envoy to the Middle East. "I believe his influence has been very important on the prime minister and has led to what I see as this awful war and the sack of Baghdad," said Mr Dalyell, who has long been a critic of Israeli expansionism and insists that many Jews are also "desperately unhappy about it'.' The father of the Commons, an MP for 41 years and a pillar of the "awkward squad" for most of them, Mr Dalyell qualified his criticisms only to the extent of saying he was not attacking Jewish influence as such, but what he called the "Sharon-Likudnik agenda" of the hardliners - led by Ariel Sharon's Likud party - who dominate Israeli politics. After Mr Dalyell was indirectly reported by Vanity Fair magazine as criticising "a cabal of Jewish advisers" driving US-UK policy towards Iraq - and now Syria - there were protests, and Professor Eric Moonman, a Labour MP 20 years ago, started legal consultations over a complaint to the CRE. But Mr Dalyell may be the MP least likely to buckle to pressure. Questioned on Radio 4's World at One, he said: "The cabal I referred to was American," and named seven hawkish advisers to President George Bush - six of them Jewish - as urging a strike against Syria. "It's the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs combined with neo-Christian fundamentalists. I think a lot of it is Likudnik, Mr Sharon's agenda, and when it comes to an attack on Syria this is a very serious matter." Pressed further, the MP conceded he had "picked out one person [in Britain] about whom I am extremely concerned and I have to be blunt about it. That is Lord Levy, Mr Blair's official representative in the Middle East. This has two questions: first, should not this be done by the Foreign Office; second, are special representatives to be accountable or not?" Downing Street has often been forced to defend Lord Levy, both over aggressive fundraising and as an envoy - welcome in Arab capitals, including Damascus, as well as Tel Aviv - who cannot be questioned by MPs. Mr Dalyell's career includes a close alliance with the late Richard Crossman, a passionate Zionist who, with characteristic perversity, believed that all gentiles - including himself - are anti-semitic at some level. The claim won him the friendship of Chaim Weizman, a president of Israel. Prof Moonman, president of the Zionist Federation, said: "I do not believe Tam is anti-semitic," but said his "old friend" had used inflammatory language which could support that view. Whatever the precise extent of Lord Levy's influence, Mr Dalyell and his detractors yesterday appeared to make no acknowledgement of the defence lodged by Mr Blair's allies. They constantly point out that No 10 has helped persuade the White House to promote the latest "road map" version of the Middle East peace plan in the teeth of Israeli opposition. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 6 00:54:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK eurozone membership: dilemmas all round Message-ID: <002f01c3139c$721dfe20$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> What's it to be - the euro, or yet more wasted years? Blair and Brown must take a great leap forward on the single currency Hugo Young Tuesday May 6, 2003 The Guardian Deciding to go for the euro presents the British government with a perilous choice. As an advocate of entry, I understand that perfectly. Though I argued last week that failing to hold a referendum soon would begin the reversion of Britain into a country distancing itself from the whole EU project, I do see that the price of ducking out of a decision is matched by a risk entailed in ducking into one. The people, after all, could go the wrong way. Britain's uniqueness arises not just from the offshore history, but from the timing. The founder members saw the euro as the fulfilment of a vision. It was unthinkable that any of them should fail to join the construct Mitterrand, Kohl and Delors had shaped. And they didn't have to consult their people in a referendum. For Britain and other non-joiners, any visionary impulse is now superseded by hard evidence, not all of it helpful. Empirical data provide an endless supply of food for scepticism, especially when so many Brits seem that way inclined already. A further difficulty is that so little of the ground has been prepared. People say there has been a great debate here. There hasn't. Far from the steady drip of pro-euro propaganda, as eurosceptics claim, government has created an arid wasteland of non-argument. It set up a campaign group, Britain in Europe, but for several years forbade it to mention the euro. The chancellor has spread his glowering scepticism across the entire scene, issuing diktats against any colleague who dared to contradict him, which most of them pitifully failed to do. So the propaganda has been exclusively from one side. Not a single government minister has ever given a speech, let alone been part of a campaign, making an unambiguous case for the euro. The sceptics have had a free ride to parade their distortions as well as their uncomfortable questions, backed by a relentless press determined to score an anti-Europe victory going far beyond the currency. The most amazing product of this lopsided environment is that 30-35% of voters still want to join the euro if the economic tests are passed. But most observers agree on a different consequence: that a referendum any time soon is out of the question. Now we await the verdict on the tests. The economic case, as I've argued for years, will never satisfy everyone. There are some risks both ways. Today the best case for entry, meticulously addressing the costs of non-entry, is published by a group of distinguished international economists. On jobs, on investment, on trade, on national prosperity over the long term, I find it far more persuasive than debating points about the present state of the eurozone economy. But for the purpose of the political decision that's about to be made, the two most relevant truths about the tests have become blindingly clear. First, they are indeed subjective. The thousands of pages and zillions of economists' man hours we hear the Treasury has devoted to their scrutiny are either a case of Brown becoming unhinged in some delusion about the existence of objective truth, or an elaborate con, supporting a departmental scepticism about Europe that the Treasury has favoured ever since the EEC was invented. Whatever the truth about that, no one with any savvy believes the verdict will merit the awed submission the chancellor seems to be expecting. Second, most economists now agree that few, if any, of the tests are likely to spring from ambiguity to clarity in the foreseeable future. If the case about investment, financial services, convergence or stability is uncertain now, it will be no more certain in four years' time. The chimera of future economic certainty is being used as cover for present political retreat, by a group of politicians who want to persuade both us and themselves that, while running away from a referendum, they continue to embrace the EU with deathless passion. Meanwhile, however, other things will have become clearer. The British economic agonising could continue inconclusively for years, but the EU will not stand still. Both the union and the euro-zone will develop, in the hands of the members most fully committed to them. While we sit here demanding that the central bank and finance ministers change their rules before we deign to join them - and some changes are essential - they will ask themselves who we think we are. When the EU develops its own new constitution to cope with the new entrants, it is sure to ask itself how intently it should listen to a major member that has chosen to remain outside its most cementing project. Their scepticism will go further. We seem to imagine that the choice of entry will remain ours alone for ever. But whenever the moment comes, there has to be a negotiation. Germany and France could make things hard for us. This will not be 1972, when they both implored Ted Heath to come in, and negotiated accordingly. Yet another phase of self-exclusion, with sterling manipulated to secure trade benefits against the euro, and UK diplomacy continuing to be locked into a preference for American options, will not have made the eurozone any easier to enter than it is today. It will in my judgment be much more difficult. A fair number of important people would welcome this. The articulation of the "never" point of view is becoming more open, along with more brazen questioning of the very concept of an extended and therefore more federalistic EU. Nobody in the government wants any such hostilities to start to prevail in the public mood. My case is that they should recognise the imminent danger of them becoming more potent. Ministers should stop pretending that retreat from a referendum is an easy option, to be painlessly reviewed any time we feel like it. My better case is that the coming statement from Brown and Blair needs to take a great leap forward. As a minimum, it should make a formal commitment to entry, and declare for a referendum within the next 12 months, other things being equal. This would decisively alter expectations, send a message to business and Europe, and compel the government to abandon the fence on which it sits with such sour self-destruction. It is the only way to prepare, and the only prelude to a victory that lies, among an indifferent and persuadable electorate, entirely within its grasp. The alternative is more ambiguity. No pledge to a referendum. A paper-thin promise to look at things again next year, which nobody would believe. A statement, in effect, that the strongest government in Europe was backing away. A tragic misdirection of this country back into the Thatcherite vortex. All in the name of a pretence that, with just a little bit more time passing, all obstacles will miraculously recede. They won't. If we don't do it now, another decade will pass before another government pleads to bring sterling in, crawling on its knees. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 6 00:59:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: New Labour damage limitation Message-ID: <003701c3139d$091b8ea0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> With the very prickly issue of "foundation hospitals" threatening to give Blair more rebellion troubles, here's a carefully set aside bombshell ready to be brought out at just such a moment. This news has been well known for years -- to imagine that Legg's role in the administration of "Dame" Shirley Porter is somehow "news" is rubbish, but it does highlight the incompetence of Iain Duncan Smith as Conservative Party leader. Once again the Guardian to the rescue. ----- Tory chief's role in housing scandal revealed David Hencke and Rob Evans Tuesday May 6, 2003 The Guardian The new chief executive of the Conservative Party, Barry Legg, allegedly played a key part in a scandal that saw homeless families placed in asbestos-riddled London tower blocks. His role was revealed during an investigation by the Guardian and BBC Radio 4's Today programme on his conduct in public life and business. The allegations, which centre on his role as a senior member of Westminster council in the 1980s at a time when he was also involved in the so-called "homes for votes scandal" at the council, have prompted Conservative MP Derek Conway to call for his possible resignation. Mr Legg, a former MP, was appointed to his post running Conservative central office in February by Iain Duncan Smith. His arrival as chief executive and chief of staff sparked controversy among the 17-member Conservative board and with party chairman Theresa May, neither of whom were consulted over the new role. The board is likely to ask Mr Duncan Smith to strip him of his role of party chief executive. An official investigation into the Westminster "homes-for votes scandal found that, as chief whip in the 1980s, Mr Legg was part of a trio, including Dame Shirley Porter, which was behind an "unlawful, disgraceful and improper" scheme to gerrymander the local elections. He was later cleared of having to pay the surcharge for the unlawful scam, now at £40 million. Not so well known is that Mr Legg also bears direct responsibility for another Westminster council scandal putting more than 200 tenants in two high rise blocks, Hermes and Chantry Point, which were known to be full of asbestos, for seven years. This decision was criticised as "very disturbing" by John Barratt, a local government expert, in an official inquiry. Documents seen by the Guardian show that Mr Legg chaired the secret meeting of Tory councillors which took the decision in 1989. Mr Barratt discovered that it was "abundantly clear" that senior councillors knew that the tower blocks were in bad condition, with asbestos problems. Derek Conway, the Conservative MP for Old Bexley, said that if Mr Legg has not told the Conservative party board about his past, he should go. "If he does not offer his resignation then they should take action themselves". The investigation also revealed Mr Legg's role in a £18 million raid on a company pension fund which was condemned by the pensions ombudsman, Julian Farrand, for "maladministration and a breach of trust". The episode followed the take-over of a meat company, FMC, by Hillsdown Holdings, a food conglomerate of which Mr Legg was a director and company secretary. Mr Legg was also a trustee of the FMC pension fund. This fund had a substantial surplus, but also had specific provisions stipulating that the money in the fund had to stay there and not be used for other purposes. Nevertheless the £18 million surplus was transferred in 1989 to Hillsdown Holdings, without the knowledge of the pensioners. When they found out, more than 50 pensioners took Hillsdown to the ombudsman who ruled in 1995 that the money had to be paid back by the company with interest, bringing the total to £30 million. Hillsdown appealed to the high court, but lost. Mr Legg told the Guardian: "As both the ombudsman and the judge make clear, the trustees were right to be seeking to secure a greater proportion of the surplus for scheme members than the company was willing to offer." From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 6 01:48:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: trade policy References: Message-ID: <005b01c313a3$e6222420$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Sabri wrote: Subject: [A-List] The Economist: A place for capital controls May I invite you to a round of applause for our great friends at the Economist! ----- The Economist has long prided itself on its advocacy of free trade, so this qualified support for capital controls looks out of character. However it chimes with recent alarm bells being rung by free trade par excellence Jagdhish Bhagwati, who berates the US for its overly ideological approach (to use his phrase) to trade policy in the article below. Clearly even free trade's most vociferous advocates recognise the severe damage being done to the legitimacy of their neoliberal cause by the unilaterialism of the Bush administration. A point worth remembering with respect to Stiglitz also. A ban on capital controls is a bad trade-off By Jagdish Bhagwati and Daniel Tarullo Financial Times, March 17 2003 The US Congress will next month hold hearings on the free trade agreements recently negotiated by the US with Chile and Singapore. There is little overall political opposition to these bilateral agreements. The hearings, though, will focus on a matter of great importance: the inclusion of restrictions on the use of capital controls. Chile and Singapore, both models of sound economic policy management by emerging market countries, resisted an obligation not to use capital controls under any circumstances. But in the end, they compromised. We believe their objections were sound; the compromises are not. The restrictions are bad financial policy, bad trade policy, and bad foreign policy. There are parallels between the unrestricted flow of capital and free trade: interference with either leads to the loss of economic efficiency and constraints on economic freedom. And capital controls, like trade restrictions, can be a crutch that substitutes for necessary policy changes. But there are important differences. Although liberalised trade can create adjustment problems for import-competing industries, the likelihood of these being serious is low, and they can be remedied through relatively modest programmes of assistance. In any case, increased trade itself boosts economic growth, helping a country to adjust to new competition. Free flows of capital, however, can bring panic and crashing markets and currencies, particularly in developing countries. Because developing countries have relatively small financial markets and do much of their borrowing in dollars or euros, they are vulnerable to rapid financial outflows if creditors suspect difficulties in repayment. As money is withdrawn, the country's currency depreciates rapidly, which can lead to more investors pulling out in an effort to avoid losses. Meanwhile, import prices soar, spurring inflation. This vicious circle spells calamity for the country's economy: capital flows can be, and have often been, perilous. This difference between free trade and free capital flows has long been known to economists. But persistent lobbying by some financial interests and the swing away from interventionism to greater use of markets combined to induce amnesia at the International Monetary Fund about the need for emerging markets to exercise prudence in freeing capital flows. The Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, involving massive panic-driven outflows of capital, was a painful medicine for this memory loss. The IMF has since changed its thinking and acknowledged the need for careful policies that monitor and, in some cases, regulate capital flows. Yet now, just as the world has become saner in these matters, the Bush administration has insisted that the free trade areas for Chile and Singapore include provisions penalising them for the use of any controls on capital. This short-sighted view marks a discouraging triumph of ideology over experience and good sense. The inclusion of a rigid rule against capital controls in a trade agreement makes things even worse. If controls were imposed, even in the midst of a financial crisis and with the approval of the IMF, American investors would have to be compensated. A decision on damages would be made by trade arbitrators, whose macroeconomic expertise is not exactly compelling. Experience under the North American Free Trade Agreement has revealed the limitations of "trade" arbitrators in issues requiring a broader economic perspective. The intention of the Bush adminstration to use these two agreements as "templates" for other trade agreements, possibly including the Doha round, means that acceptance of the capital control provisions could engender a trade policy that causes far-reaching damage. The prohibition on capital controls has the makings of a US foreign policy debacle. Imagine that a government imposes short-term capital controls in order to manage financial problems. Compensation will ensue, but only for American investors. The citizens of the developing country will then see a rich US corporation or individual being indemnified while everyone else in the country suffers from the crisis. One would be hard-pressed to think of a better prescription for anti-American outrage. American unilateralism has become a pressing global concern even when the White House purports to act in pursuit of universal values. So the use of US muscle to advance the administration's narrow, ideologically driven aims is hardly in the interests of America, let alone the rest of the world. The writers are respectively professor of economics at Columbia University and professor of law at Georgetown University. From Waistline2 at aol.com Tue May 6 03:06:01 2003 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2@aol.com) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] Cuba/imperial thuggery/blacks and socialism Message-ID: <14c.1ef6cf22.2be8d4be@aol.com> >The repression by the Castro regime virtually erased a small but growing civic opposition. Following an island-wide dragnet, which led to summary trials and jail terms of six to 28 years for the activists, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice solicited memos from several senior Bush administration officials for options on U.S. action. The internal debate has been spirited, according to several officials. < Comment Here is the squabble with the social imperialist sector and intellectual thugs of the bourgeois intelligencia. The core of the "civic opposition" was not political activist with great debating skills but people accepting money and means to organize revolt against the Cuban government and the way it has organized ownership rights in Cuba. Agents of the US government have acknowledged that they have given and the "civic opposition" accepted money and means from agencies of the US government. I do not advocate or pretend to know what period of incarceration is "reasonable" for such an offense, but do believe that the "civic opposition" should have been convicted of being stupid minimally. I am personally a part of a "growing civic opposition" in my own country - America, and subscribe to the theory of communism as outlined by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in many of their major writings. I do not under any circumstances seek, ask for or will accept any money or means from foreign governments, individuals working on behalf of foreign governments or any agency of a foreign government seeking the overthrow of this government, to alter its constitutional authority, to lobby businesses in America, to cut deals with various corporations or to get the best seats at a Prince concert. Nothing . . . . Nada! I have my own beefs with the American political system and can get angry on my own without the help of any foreign government. Given the state of affairs with city government and civic society where I live, what the Cuban government has accomplished in the past 40 years is nothing short of a miracle. It's not like the capitalist want to establish a national health plan in Cuba, build low cost housing, improve and expand their welfare system, fix the potholes in the street, ensure the working people have a good pension plan or superb school system. Nor does there exist any historical evidence that our government is willing to extend to other what they will not extend to our own working class. Regime change begins at home. Further, Cuba is about 70% black and basically white capitalist types run our government, who do not have a good track record with treating blacks fairly, Why on earth would the average Cuban want the US government running anything in Cuban. Plus I have noticed - but wasn't going to say anything about it because people are sensitive, that most of these anti-Cuban type Cubans in Florida and boat people look like Ricky Ricardo and are not mostly black? At least the people the media giants put on television. What? You think we did not notice that in Detroit? Hey, I am as crazy about "I Love Lucy" as the next person, but come on. Now the only masses of black people I know trying to swim to America is the Haitians and I be wanting to pay for a boat to help out. Plus, I believe the campaign against Cuban socialism is to destroy their system so that my own ignorant capitalist can sell gyms shoes, Pepsi and Coke - both kinds ;), and set up Casino's and make money and put all them black people in Cuba into little tiny Liberty cities like in Florida. Why is it that places with names like "Liberty" is the areas where they kick African American ass the hardest and these anti-Castro types in Florida are the ones kicking ass the hardest. It's that Mr. O "1984" thing with the double reverse inside out - fooled you, thing. The two places I swore I would never visit 25 years ago were South Africa and Florida. And Stalin's Soviet union? Hey I would have joined the party and been a "yes man." Comrade Stalin . . . My man . . . what's up." Nothing you join in Florida can save that black ass from the Cuban/Bush mob and you are going to have a problem trying to vote for their candidate. All Fidel has to do is dig up the history of Liberty City Florida, pass the information out to everyone in Cuba and then tell the Cuban people Bush and the anti-Castor crew want to turn Cuba in to another Liberty City or Detroit and expose the "civic opposition" for what they really represent - stool pigeons for chauvinistic imperial thugs. Now, it is my understanding that if one accepts money and means - communications equipment and publishing equipment, from a foreign government or any agency of a foreign government seeking the overthrow of your government, and in meetings with agents of the said foreign government you discuss plans for "growing civic opposition," that is also called spying because you are giving reports to the agents of the foreign government. I am personally a part of a "growing civic opposition" in my own country - America, and write articles about my interpretation of events in America and forward none of them to agents or agencies of foreign governments. I cannot be convicted of spying - only "telling." What I tell is things like, "Bush wants to turn Cuba into another Liberty City where they beat black people down." "Bush plans on taking away your health care plans and system and setting things up for very rich white peoples - not the poor white peoples." "The government whiskey you get . . . forget about it, Bush will take that away." "The poor houses you live in . . . forget it . . . Bush will take that away put your ass into the streets as homeless and then say it is your own fault, after he tears the houses down and build mansion for rich white people and the eight rich blacks they keep around to say they are integrated ." Now, when I decide to join some new organizations it will be done on the basis of submitting to the leading bodies a short statement signed by myself that says I join with the understanding that this organization is in not way affiliated with any foreign government because I do not support spying - only "telling." Melvin P From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 6 05:34:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: Iran jet deal Message-ID: <007f01c313c3$71a69980$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> That the Observer (nowadays the "Sunday Guardian") is running with this is interesting, given the Guardian's role as New Labour supporter-in-chief. However legitimacy is enhanced by the inclusion of critical voices, such as Paul Foot and John Pilger. Barnett is a longstanding Charter 88 campaigner -- constitutional reform for Britain being his main preoccupation. He is a close friend of Tom Nairn, who shares a strong interest in constitutional reform, albeit from a Scottish separatist perspective. Thus Barnett is a good vehicle for broadcasting this sort of stuff, guaranteed to fan the flames of fair-playing-liberals' outrage. But Mills has been a soft target for some time, having already attracted the attention of Private Eye for his links to Berlusconi. And were Jowell to resign, it would hardly be fatal to the government. Like Estelle Morris and Harriet Harman, she is a lightweight whose loyalty to Blair can be counted upon and whose public recognition factor is zilch in any case -- perfect material for the cabinet of "President" Blair. ----- Favours row hits Minister over Iran jet deal · Minister's husband used 'privileged access' in Iran deal · Opposition MPs demand disclosure of UK embassy link Antony Barnett, public affairs editor Sunday May 4, 2003 The Observer The husband of a senior Cabinet Minister used his 'privileged access' to another member of Labour's inner circle to try to strike a multi-million pound deal with Iran, The Observer can reveal. The affair, which was dubbed a 'favours-for-friends' scandal by opposition MPs last night, involved the husband of Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, asking her colleague Baroness Symons for advice on the sale of aircraft to Iran, one of three countries described by America as part of President George W. Bush's 'axis of evil'. Symons agreed to assist Jowell's husband, David Mills, after they sat next to each other at a dinner party in Oxford last summer. Mills, who now runs the British arm of a private Iranian trading firm, had been trying to buy British planes for an Iranian airline. He was having problems because the transaction risked falling foul of America, which has a strict embargo on such deals, claiming that Iran finances Islamic terror groups in the Middle East and is acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The Iranians wanted to buy BAe Systems' RJ146 passenger jets, but, because they are fitted with US engines, the deal would not have been allowed under US laws. Any British party that sold the aircraft would face stiff penalties in the US. Mills, who was trying to work a way round the problem, spoke to Symons, a Foreign Office Minister, at the dinner party about his difficulties. Symons, a long-term friend of both Jowell and Mills, agreed to help. Following the party, Mills wrote to Symons, who contacted the British embassy in Washington to see if there was any way in which the deal could go ahead. The advice was that the US would not approve it. While there is no suggestion that either Mills, Symons or the Iranians intended to breach sanctions, the fact that a Minister's husband was able to obtain such high-level help has led to charges of 'favours for friends'. It has also prompted calls for a register of Ministers' spouses' interests. Under the ministerial code, Jowell should have told her department's permanent secretary of Mills's business dealings if they 'might be thought to give rise to a conflict'. Jowell has never done this. Amid calls from opposition MPs for a full disclosure of the correspondence between Mills and Symons, it also emerged last night that Jowell decided to decline an invitation to Iran because of her husband's business interests there. Mills told The Observer : 'I can't help the fact that I know her [Symons]. It is perfectly true that I have a privileged access ... I am married to a member of the Cabinet and I therefore know a lot of these people. If I write to them, they will open the letter. That is absolutely true.' However, Mills stressed that he never had abused that privilege: 'She kindly agreed to find out from our embassy in Washington what they thought the attitude of the American government was on the embargo ... There was no way round it, because they regard an export as being determined by simply the physical presence of the aeroplane, so it doesn't matter how you dress it up contractually.' But opposition MPs claimed last night that the affair reignites their claims of New Labour cronyism and 'favours for friends'. Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram demanded that the Foreign Office release all the correspondence between Symons and Mills, saying: 'This has all the whiff of cronyism operating at the highest levels of the Labour Government. If these allegations are true, then it is a very serious matter and the Government must come clean.' Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said: 'Once again, we have Labour Ministers going the extra mile for friends, as they have done in the past for party donors. How many other businessmen would get such access or help? This is favours for friends at the highest level. I want to know whether he has received other help from the Foreign Office or other Ministers because of his connections.' In a statement to The Observer, Jowell said: 'My husband has acted for Iranian clients since early 2002 and is now working with them full time. On my appointment as Secretary of State, my husband disclosed to my permanent secretary all relevant business interests and provided an update in March of this year. 'In this and all my previous ministerial posts, I have sought advice on the general application of the ministerial code, and I have always acted within its letter and spirit. In my judgment, my husband's business dealings with Iranian clients do not pose an actual or potential conflict of interest with my position as Culture Secretary. 'My husband told me after the event that he had mentioned to Baroness Symons a possible British export order he was dealing with. As she suggested, he wrote to her and it was dealt with in the usual way. He has received no spe cial consideration from any Minister or civil servant acting on their behalf.' Symons declined to be interviewed, but a spokeswoman said: 'David Mills wrote in, the letter was processed in the normal way. Her response was based on the response she received from officials and it was handled through the usual channels.' After the BAe deal fell through, Mills went on to help arrange a another deal for Mahan Air to buy three second-hand Airbuses from Turkish Airlines, which, being built before 1995, escaped US sanctions. But some MPs are concerned by any trade with a Middle East state still linked to terror groups. Labour MP Louise Ellman said : 'I have grave concerns about encouraging trade with a country that is actively supporting terror groups committed to destroying the Middle East peace process.' This is not the first time Mills's business affairs have caused controversy for Jowell. In 1997, when she was Public Health Minister involved in the Ecclestone scandal it emerged Mills had worked for a Formula One racing team. Mills is also being investigated by the Italian authorities over his work for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 6 05:35:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: Iran jet deal Message-ID: <008701c313c3$9ecb9b40$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> The lawyer, the Minister and the £125m Iran deal Tehran's efforts to buy a fleet of BAe jets has raised fresh questions about New Labour's links to business. Antony Barnett and Thomas Reilly Sunday May 4, 2003 The Observer The celebrations had just died down after Labour's historic second election victory in June 2001. Tessa Jowell had been made Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. No sooner had she taken up her new job than one of the first invitations dropped on her desk. It was from the Iranian government, inviting the new Cabinet Minister on a cultural visit. With Britain's emerging policy of engagement with Iran, such an offer might have been tempting. But Jowell declined the invitation. The full reasons for her refusal were not known at the time. But an investigation by The Observer can reveal links between Jowell's husband, David Mills, and a private Iranian trading company with headquarters in Tehran. Mills used his position at the heart of New Labour to push for a controversial trade deal with Iran. It has emerged that Foreign Office Minister Baroness Symons helped Mills in his attempts to clinch a $200 million aircraft deal with the Middle East state. The sale was in danger of falling foul of US sanctions, and Mills asked her to check if there was a way of getting the deal through. So why did Jowell not go to Iran? According to Mills, he told his wife it would be best for her not to go in case it was 'construed as promoting my interests'. The story of how two Ministers and one of their husbands became entangled in this Iranian affair is one that critics have seized on as showing how they think favours are done for those in New Labour's inner circle. Just across the road from the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square sit the plush offices of Mayfair solicitors Gordon Dadds, where Mills is a partner. His profile on the law firm's website says his area of expertise includes aviation and trade finance. It also lists his hobbies as playing golf and mentions the fact he is married to an MP. But, like much of Mills's colourful history, this is only a fraction of the story. His wife is a loyal Blairite, a member of the Prime Minister's inner circle. Mills,who plays the clarinet and is an art lover, is also a golfing partner of Alastair Campbell, the Number 10 communications supremo. By his own account, at the time of the deal Mills had been having a difficult time and had lost his appetite for the law. This was largely due to his controversial dealings with the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, whom he had helped to set up a network of offshore companies. In 1995 the Italian authorities finally caught up with Berlusconi and Mills had become a key figure into investigations concerning alleged fraud and corruption. But Mills was about to be offered an opportunity that he believed would allow him to leave the Italian scandals behind. He had been working as the principal adviser to a secretive Iranian trading group, ILTC. The Iranian directors wanted somebody to head a British arm in London and they turned to Mills, who set it up with a registered business address of the Mayfair headquarters of Gordon Dadds. ILTC is believed to be a private company with interests in oil, construction and aviation. But last summer it was the aircraft business that was the directors' prime concern. ILTC has a major shareholding in an Iranian airline called Mahan Air, which was desperate to purchase new aircraft. But the Iranians had a problem. Since 1995 the US has enforced a strict sanctions regime on Iran, a country the US claims is acquiring weapons of mass destruction and is a major sponsor of Islamic terror groups in the Middle East. The main aim of the sanctions was to starve Iran of funds to prevent it acquiring weapons and financing groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah. It is for these reasons that President George W. Bush included the country in his axis of evil, saying: 'Iran aggressively pursues these weapons [of mass destruction] and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.' The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, introduced in 1995 by President Bill Clinton, not only outlawed trading between US firms and Iran, but also made clear that non-US firms dealing with Iran would face penalties in America. The sanctions regime was particularly rigorous when it came to aircraft. Not only could US-manufactured planes such as Boeings not be exported to Iran, but neither could any aircraft that had more than 10 per cent of its components from US companies. This in effect banned Iran from buying any European-made aircraft such as Airbus, which relies on US parts. European firms such as aero-engine maker Rolls-Royce, which fear being put on a US blacklist if they sell aviation equipment to Iran, have steered clear of this market. The problem for companies such as Mills's clients is that its aircraft fleet is very old, with many planes predating the 1979 Islamic revolution. The country has suffered a number of fatal air crashes as a result of the age of its planes and is desperately trying to get the US embargo lifted or find legal ways around the sanctions. Mills believed he might have the answer. He helped arrange a $200m deal with British Aerospace for Mahan Air to buy a fleet of RJ146 passenger jets, worth about $10m a piece. These are 100-seater aircraft and can fly up to 1,500 miles. Yet the deal hit the buffers when it emerged that the planes had Honeywell engines that were manufactured in America and so fell foul of US regulations. For most other lawyers, this would perhaps be the end of it. But Mills, as we reveal, is not like most normal lawyers. During the late summer, Mills attended a dinner party in Oxford and was seated next to Baroness Symons of Vernon Dean - the Foreign Office Minister in charge of trade and investment. Symons has known both Mills and Jowell for a long time. Her husband, Philip Bassett, is also a member of the Blair inner circle, as one of the Prime Minister's top policy advisers in Downing Street. At one stage during the meal, Mills began discussing Iran with Symons and explained the difficulties he was having. Here was a $200m export deal that would be good for a British firm and safeguard jobs, but the US's attitude to Iran was blocking this lucrative transaction. Mills, however, is unlikely to have told Symons that the deal would also have been good for his and Jowell's bank account. Mills stood to gain considerably if the deal went ahead. As a partner in a London law firm, he could charge his Iranian clients around £200 an hour and, as the future managing director of the Iranian company, there would no doubt have been other benefits. One expert in the aviation industry said that commission and consultancy fees on a $200m deal would have been more than £500,000. There is no suggestion that Mills would get commission on the deal, but his legal fees would certainly amount to thousands of pounds. Although there was no intention of breaching the sanctions, Mills asked Symons if there was any way she could help. Following the Oxford dinner, Mills wrote to Symons at the Foreign Office asking for her help. After receiving the letter, Symons contacted the British Embassy in Washington on behalf of Mills. She then wrote to Mills telling him that the US would not allow the deal. Mills said: 'She kindly agreed to find out from our embassy in Washington what they thought the attitude of the American government was on the embargo and whether it was something they took seriously or not ... It was quite clear the Americans took the embargo seriously ... there was no way round it because they regard an export as being determined by simply the physical presence of the aeroplane, so it doesn't matter how you dress it up contractually.' While on the surface it might appear that this was simply a case of a Minister offering legitimate help in the normal way to a British exporter seeking a substantial order, the disclosure of such an exchange raises a number of awkward questions. Did Baroness Symons go out of her way to help Mills because she was dealing with a friend and the husband of a Cabinet Minister? What contacts did the British Embassy in Washington make with its US counterparts over this deal? Has Symons since lobbied for US sanctions on air craft deals to be eased? Neither Mills nor the Foreign Office would release correspondence between the parties after being contacted by The Observer. But what is clear is that Mills was able to use his New Labour connections in an effort to get Symons to intervene. For Opposition MPs, this could rank as a 'favours-for-friends' scandal of the worst kind. Norman Baker, frontbench spokesman of the Liberal Democrats, said last night: 'Once again we have Labour Ministers going the extra mile for friends like they have done in the past for party donors. How many other businessmen would get such access or help? This is favours for friends at the highest level. I want to know whether he has received other help from the Foreign Office or other Ministers because of his connections.' Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, demanded release of all correspondence between the Minister and Mills, saying the revelations had 'all the smell of a culture of cronyism'. A spokeswoman for Baroness Symons said: 'David Mills wrote in, the letter was processed in the normal way. Her response was based on the response she received from officials and it was handled through the usual channels.' But this does not quite gel with Mills's view. He cheerfully admits to obtaining privileged access. He said: 'I can't help the fact that I know her. It is perfectly true that I have a privileged access ... I am married to a member of the Cabinet and I therefore know a lot of these people . If I write to them, they will open the letter. That is absolutely true.' Mills has since gone on to help Mahan buy three secondhand Airbuses from Turkish Airlines, but because these were manufactured before 1995 they escaped the US sanctions. While this deal does not raise any legal issues, for critics of Iran's foreign policy and its support of terror groups it raises ethical issues. Labour MP Louise Ellman said: 'I have grave concern about a policy that encourages sales to Iran. This is a country that is known to fund terrorist organisations that are out to destroy the Middle East peace process.' Such criticism does not perturb Mills. He said: 'Britain has diplomatic relations with Iran and its policy is to trade and engage. Jack Straw has been out there.We have a completely different attitude to Iran than the Americans. We don't have any embargoes against them and we are encouraging trade. So everything that I am doing is entirely in line with government policy.' Ellman would not comment on the involvement of Jowell's husband with Iran, but said : 'In such a sensitive area, I hope that the ministerial code is being strictly observed.' Ellman's question raises an interesting issue. According to the ministerial code, Ministers have to provide their department's permanent secretary 'with a full list in writing of all interests that might be thought to give rise to conflict. The list should cover not only the Minister's personal interests, but also those of a spouse or a partner.' Mills confirmed that he has discussed his Iranian job with Jowell, so she was aware of his work. So has she told her permanent secretary that her husband is managing director of an Iranian company? When contacted by The Observer, Mills claimed this had been done, but he later admitted that this was not the case. He said: 'I have checked... I have not disclosed the fact that I work for an Iranian group... because it doesn't infringe on her department at all. If anything ever came along that did, then obviously I would declare it.' The revelation that Jowell did not visit Iran because of her husband's financial dealings with the country shows that such an issue did come up. But the question is, were the Minister's officials aware of her reasons for not going? Mills said: 'The subject came up of her going to Iran on a cultural visit and I said I don't think she could, as it might be construed as promoting my interests. She and I are highly sensitive to these issues.' From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 6 05:40:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] Iraq: the blowback accumulates Message-ID: <008f01c313c4$581fc260$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Operation Support Garner The Pentagon's one-size-fits-all 'liberation' is a disaster in Iraq Jonathan Steele in Baghdad Tuesday May 6, 2003 The Guardian American efforts to foist new rulers on the people of Iraq are becoming increasingly grotesque. In some cities US troops have sparked demonstrations by imposing officials from the old Saddam Hussein regime. In others they have evicted new anti-Saddam administrators who have local backing. They have mishandled religious leaders as well as politicians. In the Shia suburbs of Baghdad, they arrested a powerful cleric, Mohammed Fartousi al-Sadr, who had criticised the US presence. In Falluja, an overwhelmingly Sunni town, they detained two popular imams. All three men were released within days, but local people saw the detentions as a warning that Iraqis should submit to the US will. The Pentagon's General Jay Garner has taken an equally biased line in his plans for Iraq's government. He held a conference of 300 Iraqis in Baghdad last week and excluded almost every group which has an organised following. In a Freudian slip at a recent press conference, Donald Rumsfeld smugly explained democracy as a competition in which rival politicians try to "garner support". His message in Iraq looks like the opposite - Operation Support Garner. Otherwise, you are cut out. Washington's failure to hold broad-based consultations at central and local levels is provoking resistance, sometimes armed. In response, US troops have used excessive force, further raising tensions. Ten people died in Mosul when soldiers fired at crowds of protesters on successive days in mid-April. In Falluja the death toll from American shootings over two days last week was at least 16. The massacre in Falluja was symptomatic. The town was quiet for two weeks after Iraqi troops and local Ba'ath party leaders fled. The imams halted the looting and got much of the stolen property returned. A new mayor arranged for schools to re-open and persuaded police to return to work. Then the Americans arrived, arrested imams, put up roadblocks and occupied a school - all without prior discussion with local leaders. They seemed to be working from a one-size-fits-all Pentagon textbook. First "liberate", then move in and provide policing whether people want it or not. In Baghdad there were indeed security problems after Saddam's forces vanished, and many residents asked why US forces did so little to halt the looting of key buildings. Having failed initially there, the US over-compensated elsewhere. It came down too hard in Falluja and other cities where people did not want a US hand. The contrast with Afghanistan is sharp. For months Afghans pleaded for the US to deploy international peacekeepers beyond Kabul to cities where warlords held sway or were fighting for power. The US refused, either for fear of taking casualties or because of lack of interest in a poor country once its anti-western regime was toppled. In Iraq, where there are no warlords and people feel they have the expertise to run the country themselves, the US insists on moving in and staying. It has excluded Iraq's best-known forces from consultations on forming a central government. The Islamic Da'wa party, which was founded in 1957 and suffered repression under Saddam in the early 1980s, was not invited. Nor was the Iraqi Communist party, which also lost thousands of its activists in the old regime's prisons. Both opposed the US attack. The communists are weaker than they once were, as a result of decades of propaganda that they reject Islam. But they are part of the Iraqi spectrum which needs to be recognised. Washington's biggest omission is its refusal to make overtures to Iraq's clergy. The Shia Muslims in particular are enjoying a strong revival and cannot be pushed aside. There are family and other rivalries between the main groups. The al-Hakim family, which founded the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq after escaping to Iran 20 years ago, now faces criticism for going into exile. It has a volatile policy towards the US, sometimes meeting officials, sometimes denouncing them. The al-Sadr family, which stayed in the sacred city of Najaf, is gaining ground. Both groups must be brought into discussions on the future. It is not too late for the UN to play a role. There is no need for foreign troops. Iraqis have shown a high degree of post-war unity and can provide their own security. The much-predicted clashes of Sunnis v Shi'ites, or Kurds v Arabs have not happened. But the UN should come in, with a short-term mandate, to convene a genuinely representative conference of Iraqis which would choose an interim government and an assembly to draft a constitution. Only the UN can give legitimacy and impartiality to this process. Instead of supporting Washington as Mike O'Brien, the Foreign Office minister, did when he joined Gen Garner in co-chairing last week's highly selective meeting of Iraqi politicians, Britain should work with the security council to give the UN the same kind of government-brokering role as it had in post-war Afghanistan. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 6 05:44:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:03 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK eurozone membership: pressure builds Message-ID: <009701c313c4$ed25c8a0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> With both Mandelson and Cook leading the charge for euro membership within New Labour, pressure is building on Brown as never before. As with Thatcher and Major, this will be the defining issue of Blair's government, not Iraq (unfortunately). ------ Robin Cook: The Government should set a date to join the euro A decision to postpone membership indefinitely would compound the penalties of being out of the single currency The Independent 06 May 2003 Pro-Europeanism was one of the defining issues of the project to modernise the Labour Party. It was a key policy change that symbolised the shift to a New Labour Party, younger, forward looking and in touch with the modern world. Gordon Brown will be aware of the wider totemic significance of the decision he is about to take on the euro. He was part of the leadership of modernisation at all its stages. He knows his decision will be seen not just as a matter of processing technical criteria but as a demonstration of whether New Labour is still the pro-European party. In the six years since Gordon Brown set out the Government's position on the euro, the economic arguments have tilted further in favour of joining. If he needs convincing, he need only read the authoritative analysis published today by Professor David Begg and 10 other European and US economists. Since the creation of the euro, foreign direct investment in the UK has dropped so dramatically that our share within the EU has more than halved. Companies that collectively invest billions of dollars in fixed plant do not see why they should saddle themselves with the penalties of exchange rate uncertainty and transaction costs that come with investing outside the eurozone. Moreover, the single currency has stimulated a faster growth in trade between the members of the euro- zone than in trade between the UK and the eurozone. To the extent that the currency barrier limits growth in UK trade, it also limits investment, competition and productivity. And while the case for joining the euro has strengthened, the obstacles to membership have weakened. UK inflation and long-term interest rates have substantially converged with those of the eurozone; and the pound has depreciated by over 10 per cent against the euro over the past year, bringing it close to a reasonable parity at which to join. It is touching that some Tories still cling to a separate currency as a symbol of independence. But it is a hopelessly confused attitude from politicians who like to proclaim the supremacy of market economics. It is the financial markets not the national politicians who now settle currency rates. A trillion dollars a day are traded over foreign exchange markets. No single government has the resources to take on speculation on the contemporary scale. The only hope of guaranteeing price stability to our exporters is by a single currency with the European markets that purchase the clear majority of our exports. The economic case for joining the euro is now compelling. Perversely, over the same period in which the economic advantages have strengthened, the political barrier has got higher. A year ago, I warned Tony Blair that he could not follow George Bush into Iraq and at the same time ask the British people to follow him into the euro. The opinion polls confirm that the predictable public rift with France and Germany has made it more challenging to ask Britain to vote for greater integration with