From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Aug 1 06:32:10 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:32:10 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] US faces global funding crisis, warns Merrill Lynch Message-ID: <4893024A.401@attglobal.net> The US Treasury is running out of time before foreign patience snaps by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard www.telegraph.co.uk (July 17 2008) Merrill Lynch has warned that the United States could face a foreign "financing crisis" within months as the full consequences of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage debacle spread through the world. The country depends on Asian, Russian and Middle Eastern investors to fund much of its $700 billion (GBP 350 billion) current account deficit, leaving it far more vulnerable to a collapse of confidence than Japan in the early 1990s after the Nikkei bubble burst. Britain and other Anglo-Saxon deficit states could face a similar retreat by foreign investors. "Japan was able to cut its interest rates to zero", said Alex Patelis, Merrill's head of international economics. "It would be very difficult for the US to do this. Foreigners will not be willing to supply the capital. Nobody knows where the limit lies." Brian Bethune, chief financial economist at Global Insight, said the US Treasury had two or three days to put real money behind its rescue plan for Fannie and Freddie or face a dangerous crisis that could spiral out of control. "This is not the time for policy-makers to underestimate, once again, the systemic risks to the financial system and the huge damage this would impose on the economy. Bold, aggressive action is needed, and needed now", he said. Mr Bethune said the Treasury would have to inject up $20 billion in fresh capital. This in turn might draw in a further $20 billion in private money. Funds on this scale would be enough to see the two agencies through any scenario short of a meltdown in the US prime property market. He said concerns about "moral hazard" - stoked by hard-line free-marketeers at the White House and vocal parts of the US media - were holding up a solution. "We can't dither. The markets can be brutal. We have to break the chain of contagion before confidence is destroyed." Fannie and Freddie - the world's two biggest financial institutions - make up almost half the $12 trillion US mortgage industry. But that understates their vital importance at this juncture. They are now serving as lender of last resort to the housing market, providing eighty percent of all new home loans. Roughly $1.5 trillion of Fannie and Freddie AAA-rated debt - as well as other US "government-sponsored enterprises" - is now in foreign hands. The great unknown is whether foreign patience will snap as losses mount and the dollar slides. Hiroshi Watanabe, Japan's chief regulator, rattled the markets yesterday when he urged Japanese banks and life insurance companies to treat US agency debt with caution. The two sets of institutions hold an estimated $56 billion of these bonds. Mitsubishi UFJ holds $3 billion. Nippon Life has $2.5 billion. But the lion's share is held by the central banks of China, Russia and petro-powers. These countries could all too easily precipitate a run on the dollar in the current climate and bring the United States to its knees, should they decide that it is in their strategic interest to do so. Mr Patelis said it was unlikely that any would want to trigger a fire-sale by dumping their holdings on the market. Instead, they will probably accumulate US and Anglo-Saxon debt at a slower rate. That alone will be enough to leave deficit countries struggling to plug the capital gap. "I don't see how the current situation can continue beyond six months", he said. Merrill Lynch said foreign governments had added $241 billion of US agency debt over the past year alone as their foreign reserves exploded, accounting for a third of total financing for the US current account deficit. (They now own $985 billion in all.) By most estimates, China holds around $400 billion, Russia $150 billion and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states at least $200 billion. Global inflation is now intruding with a vengeance as well. Much of Asia is having to raise rates aggressively, drawing capital away from North America. This may push up yields on US Treasuries and bonds, tightening the credit screw at a time when the US is already mired in slump. Russia's deputy finance minister, Dmitry Pankin, said the collapse in the share prices of Fannie and Freddie over the past week was irrelevant because their debt has been effectively guaranteed by the US government under the rescue package. "We don't see a reason to change anything because the rating of the debt of those agencies hasn't changed", he said. Foreign policy experts doubt that the picture is so simple. Russia is likely to use its $530 billion reserves as an implicit bargaining chip in high-stakes diplomacy, perhaps to discourage the US from extending Nato membership to the Ukraine and Georgia. Vladimir Putin, now Russia's premier, has stated repeatedly that his country is engaged in a new Cold War with the United States. It is clear that Moscow would relish any chance to humiliate the United States, provided the costs of doing so were not too high for Russia itself. China is regarded as a more reliable partner, with a greater desire for global stability. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has intimate relations with the Chinese elite, dating from his days at Goldman Sachs when he visited the country over seventy times. Brad Setser, from the US Council on Foreign Relations, said the Chinese have a stake in upholding Fannie and Freddie, not least to ensure that their loans are "honoured on time and in full". David Bloom, currency chief at HSBC, said fears that regional banks could start toppling after the Fed takeover of IndyMac last week were now the biggest threat to the dollar. "We have a pure dollar sell-off", he said. "It's a hating competition: at the moment the markets hate the dollar more than they hate the euro, even though German's ZEW confidence indicator was absolutely atrocious". _____ (c) Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/16/ccusdebt116.xml TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 07:33:55 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:33:55 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Moscow to Seize Grain Export Controls Message-ID: On the front page of the Financial Times! Moscow to seize grain export controls By Javier Blas in London Published: July 31 2008 23:31 | Last updated: July 31 2008 23:31 Russia plans to form a state grain trading company to control up to half of the country's cereal exports, intensifying fears that Moscow wants to use food exports as a diplomatic weapon in the same way as Gazprom has manipulated natural gas sales. The move by Moscow, the world's fifth-biggest exporter of cereals, has been sharply criticised by US agriculture diplomats as a "giant step back" to the Soviet era. The decision to control food exports is the latest sign of how soaring food prices are reshaping the agriculture industry. The recreation of Soviet-style state trading will aggravate anxieties of food-importing countries about their dependence on the international market, which has been severely disrupted this year after exporters, including Russia, imposed prohibitive foreign sales duties or export bans. Western diplomats and agriculture industry officials said Russia intended to transform its Agency for the Regulation of Food Markets into a state trader, controlling between 40 and 50 per cent of Russia's cereal exports within the next three years. The company would take over government interests in 28 important storage depots and export terminals, including the country's biggest at the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. The plan, pending governmental approval, could be implemented before the year's end, diplomats said. An internal report of the US agriculture department said that if the new entity had a dominant hold over the export market, it would jeopardise "a vibrant private grain trading sector". "Essentially, [it will be] the latest in a series of industry renationalisations, and a reversal of what till now has been one of Russia's privatisation success stories," the report said. Dmitry Medvedev, Russian president, emphasised at the last G8 summit the need for government involvement in foodstuffs trading, calling for a "grain summit" next year in Moscow to discuss "pricing policies and stabilisation measures". Russia's former state-owned grain trading system was dismantled after the Soviet Union fell in the 1990s. Roskhleboprodukt, successor to the Soviet-era Ministry of Grain Products, has declined in importance. Exportkhleb, the foreign grain trading arm, was privatised. The plans resemble action by Russia to form national champions in energy, aircraft, weapons and metals. It is unclear what role will remain for the commercial traders that dominate the grain export market. "This is not a second Yukos," said Andrei Sizov, a managing director at Sovecon, a leading Russian consultancy analysing agriculture. "I believe the shares [of the state company] will be managed jointly with private owners or they will be bought on market-based conditions." Another expert, on condition of anonymity, said to form the company ? combined with its ownership of the export terminals ? "would be bad for the entire development of the market". The value of Russia's grain exports last season hit $3.5bn, and analysts forecast it would double in the next five years as Moscow aims to increase its grain exports to at least 25m tonnes from last season's 13m tonnes. Moscow's move to create a state grain trading comes as Australia deregulates its grain export market, which has been controlled by the 70-year-old wheat export monopoly operated by AWB. Additional reporting by Catherine Belton in Moscow From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 07:52:51 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:52:51 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Pakistan Not Eligible for Similar N-deal: Burns Message-ID: The Bush administration has failed to achieve many of its foreign policy objectives, but it has enjoyed some successes as well, and the most significant success may be to trade Pakistan up for India. -- Yoshie Pakistan not eligible for similar n-deal: Burns Washington: The former Under Secretary of State of Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, one of the architects of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, feels Pakistan cannot expect a similar pact, a day after its Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani demanded such a deal from the U.S. Mr. Burns also pressed for the speedy approval of the deal ahead of the IAEA taking up the India-specific safeguards pact for approval, saying it was "good" for both the countries besides helping strengthen the non-proliferation regime. "India's trust, its credibility, the fact that it has promised to create a state-of-the-art facility, monitored by the IAEA, to begin a new export control regime in place, because it has not proliferated the nuclear technology, we can't say that about Pakistan." said Mr. Burns when asked whether the U.S. would offer a nuclear deal with Pakistan on the lines of the Indo-U.S. deal during a debate on the nuclear agreement at the Brookings Institution. After meeting U.S. President George W. Bush, Mr. Gilani demanded a nuclear deal similar to the one Washington has forged with New Delhi, assuring the nuclear proliferation network of its scientist, A. Q. Khan, was broken and would not be repeated. "There should be no preferential [treatment], there should be no discrimination. And if they want to give civilian nuclear status to India, we would also expect the same for Pakistan too," said Mr. Gilani at a gathering under the aegis of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Middle East Institute. On the Indo-U.S. pact, Mr. Burns, who was the U.S. pointsman for the deal, said: "My conviction is that this deal strengthens the non-proliferation regime... it makes India a stakeholder. I am for this agreement because it is good for both countries.... The civilian nuclear deal is a symbolic centre piece of the bilateral relations." He also gave a Teheran link to the nuclear deal when he said a swift approval by the IAEA, NSG and the U.S. Congress would send a strong message to countries like Iran "to play by the rules" and for strengthening the non-proliferation regime. "If you play by the rules.... there will be benefits," he reminded Tehran. Mr. Burns, who stepped down in March and was appointed as a special envoy to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the deal, also stressed the U.S. has in place "the right measures to protect" its interests by retaining the right to terminate the agreement. He asserted the 123 Agreement is "absolutely' consistent with the Hyde Act. ? PTI From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 10:52:10 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:52:10 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Why the Energy-rich Gulf Faces a Gas Shortage (and What Russia Can Do with It) Message-ID: Russia -- which has the eighth largest oil reserves and is the second largest oil producer and exporter in the world () -- will be more powerful in the future: it has the largest gas reserves in the world ("nearly twice the reserves in the next largest country, Iran," ) and is the largest gas producer and exporter, to which the Gulf states, short on gas, will want to turn; and it has nuclear weapons and a still powerful military (cf. ) and can thus guarantee not only its own security but also regional security of the Middle East (i.e., protecting Arabs and Iranians from Israel and vice versa). Russia also has ideological resources: it has succeeded where America has failed, winning the "war on terror" (in Chechnya, essentially coopting its adversary) and winning the good will of the Islamic world at the same time. Russia's relation with China is better than ever: . A strategic alliance of Russia, China, and Iran -- the only nation in the Middle East that is really rich in not only oil but also gas (and has more water resources than most MENA countries: "Three-quarters of MENA's available fresh water is located in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey" ) -- makes sense. A United States of Latin America in the making has rolled out the red carpet for Russian arms and investments. Key African states, from North to South, look to Russia for support. If France and Germany manage to prioritize the interests of European capitalists over the American geopolitical wishful thinking, the resulting new political geography of energy, combined with the US debt burden, really makes for a new world order, a post-American world. -- Yoshie Overlooked resource: why the energy-rich Gulf faces a gas shortage By Andrew England Published: May 25 2008 19:27 | Last updated: May 25 2008 19:27 To one senior oil industry official, "it's a fascinating and somewhat bizarre phenomenon". To another it simply "looks a bit weird". But for Middle East states, the dynamic the two are describing is deadly serious ? the globe's most hydrocarbon-rich region is facing the prospect of critical shortages of gas. Some analysts estimate that the cumulative supply shortfall for the six countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council up to 2015 will reach at least 7,000bn cubic feet. To put the number into perspective, according to BP the UK's entire remaining proven gas reserves total just under 17,000bn cu ft. "There is a Middle East regional gas crisis brewing," says Rajnish Goswami at Wood Mackenzie, the Edinburgh-based energy consultancy. Gas shortages in the Middle East could also have big implications globally, impacting future regional projects aiming to meet demand elsewhere. Countries increasing the amount of oil fuels they use for power generation could also affect future exports. Of the GCC states ? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates ? only Qatar, which has the world's third largest gas reserves, can avoid a problem that will hamper the development of their economies and their ability to create jobs, experts say. Gas is the main feedstock for petrochemicals and energy-intensive industries such as aluminium and fertilisers as well as its use in power generation ? not least for the desalination plants that provide water in the desert. The GCC countries have some of the world's fastest growth rates for electricity demand, estimated at 6-12 per cent annually, compared with demand increases in developed countries of only around 2-4 per cent a year. With the region's focus historically centred on oil production, gas has been seen there as financially less attractive. But today ? driven by record oil prices ? their economies are expanding rapidly and governments are seeking to use their petrodollars to upgrade infrastructure and boost industry. With gas a key ingredient in achieving those aims, countries are faced with trying to reverse decades of underinvestment in the sector. Difficulties they have to overcome include extracting the various types of gas found in the region ? some of it "sour" gas, which is both lethal and corrosive ? and deciding which downstream industries get priority in how it is used. Gulf gas chart Saudi Arabia, home to the world's largest proven oil reserves, is estimated to have about $30bn (?15bn, ?19bn) of investment planned to develop energy- and gas-intensive industries over the next five years. But the Saudi petroleum ministry is adopting a policy of approving gas supplies to new petrochemical projects aimed at ensuring they either produce a product not already being manufactured in Saudi Arabia or increase added value by going further downstream than others. It is examining planned energy-intensive projects "within the context of national and international economies taking into account the value-added they bring for Saudi Arabia," says a Gulf official. "The reason is, of course, they want to take advantage. Everybody wants to come ? and we told them, 'no gas unless you give Saudi Arabia a really good product'." "There is enough gas but the problem is it's cheap and everybody wants to use it. The petrochemicals people, the desalination people, everybody ? and Saudi Arabia has to expand." Experts say Saudi Arabia already has a queue of projects that have been unable to secure gas resources, including aluminium and petrochemicals developments. This is in spite of what one Saudi economist estimates has been a doubling in volume production of Saudi gas since 1990. The government has been encouraged by discoveries in the Karan field ? its first offshore gas discovery ? but the size of the reserves is not yet known. In an effort to get more gas on tap, the kingdom awarded international companies exploration blocs to explore for gas not associated with oil in the Empty Quarter in 2003 and 2004, outside the area reserved for Saudi Aramco, the national oil company. But, so far, no discoveries have been made and this year Total of France pulled out of the project, selling its stake to Royal Dutch Shell and Aramco. Total had drilled three exploration wells but the results were disappointing, causing it to conclude the potential for commercial discoveries was low. The Saudi economist says the kingdom may even have to think the unthinkable and consider importing gas in the future, even though it has the world's fourth largest proven gas reserves. "In the long run we have to find more gas," the economist says. "Unless the gas ventures in the Empty Quarter get some gas, then maybe supply might not come to satisfy growth in demand." The issue worries Mohamed al-Mady, chief executive officer of Sabic, the Saudi group that is one of the world's largest petrochemicals companies. He says Sabic has gas for its current projects but "our concern is really the future". When asked how far away that future is, he says: "Well, it's now." "The Middle East has been relying too much on oil, and gas discovery has been ignored for a long time", Mr Mady adds. "In my opinion, there is no balanced utilisation of gas. The gas can go either to smelting, to iron ore, to power, to water, to petrochemicals ? and how do you allocate the gas to these various things? It can be very, very important down the road." Elsewhere in the region, Oman is "talking very seriously about building a coal-fired power plant", one analyst says in illustrating the acute nature of the problem. The UAE already uses liquids for power generation at peak load times. Kuwait, meanwhile, is burning about 160,000 barrels of liquids ? crude or diesel ? a day for power generation, according to an international oil executive, and is looking to import from Qatar. The impact of using fuel oils ranges from environmental consequences to an additional financial burden, largely due to the opportunity cost of not exporting oil products. Significant sources of gas could be available in both Qatar and Iran. But Qatar has put a moratorium on future projects for its North Field, the world's largest reservoir of pure gas, until 2010 and observers expect any new projects to be delayed until at least 2012. Sanctions-bound Iran is an unlikely supplier in the immediate future because of global and regional politics. "That's why the situation in the rest of the region is pretty dire ? ensuring adequate energy supplies for domestic growth is a top priority," says Mr Goswami at Wood Mackenzie. "However, country-level challenges differ. For Kuwait, a near-term shortfall in power generation capacity could be likely. In Oman, proposed gas-based industrial expansion is likely to suffer. In the UAE, the gas supply situation is very serious; rapid growth in power demand means nuclear power is being looked at as an option." UAE authorities have concluded that national peak electricity demand will rise to more than 40,000MW by 2020. But they estimate that known volumes of natural gas that could be made available for electricity would provide adequate fuel for only 20,000-25,000MW by 2020. The government announced this year that it would embark on a civilian nuclear programme. Gulf countries are exploring for more gas ? particularly non-associated gas ? but that is no easy process given current worldwide shortages of exploration equipment and engineers. They have the money to overcome this but, even so, the lead time from discovering a deposit to gas coming on line is at least five years, experts say. Much of the region's gas is also regarded as difficult to extract ? either sour or "tight" gas with geological complications. This increases costs and ties up equipment. It is a factor that Abu Dhabi, which produces nearly all the UAE's hydrocarbons, discovered as it sought to develop two sour gas fields in a project the federation hoped would allow large-scale investment in energy-intensive industries. Officials had put the development of the Bab and Shah fields out to a joint tender but the technical challenges meant the authorities later decided to re-tender just for Shah, which is less complex and has higher liquid yields, analysts say. Abu Dhabi's reserves include some of the sourest gas in the world, which requires the latest technology to handle. In spite of having the world's fifth largest proven gas reserves, the UAE is already importing from Qatar through the so-called Dolphin project, which went online last year. But the emirates' government has still to reach an agreement with Qatar to boost supply by 60 per cent to reach the pipeline's capacity. With the moratorium in place on its North Field, it is uncertain whether Qatar will agree to the increase. In Kuwait, after the state oil company made its first discovery of non-associated gas, production will begin, says Jamal Alnouri, managing director of planning at Kuwait Petroleum Corporation. KPC intends output to reach 1bn cu ft a day by 2015. But as gas production is new to Kuwait, officials acknowledge that it will be difficult for KPC to reach its targets without help from international companies. Kuwait's parliament has consistently opposed awarding foreign groups anything other than service contracts. Initial output is to be barely one-sixth of the 2015 target. "For the scale that so far we are considering, we are not disturbing the reserves too much," says Mr Alnouri. "It will help us plan our way forward ? our current knowledge takes us this far." He adds: "When you really get to large exploitation of the reserve, you have to be careful ... and of course if you do it alone you will take a longer time." KPC is hoping to bring international groups into the gas projects even though the political environment will restrict their level of involvement. Steve Peacock, president of BP Middle East and South Asia, says the entire region will require technical support of international oil companies if nations are to take advantage of potential resources. "There's plenty of resources ? that's not the issue. The issue is technology challenges, cost challenges and geopolitical challenges," Mr Peacock says. BP looked at the Empty Quarter venture in Saudi Arabia and decided there was too much geological risk attached to that project. But it won a bid last year to develop tight gas in Oman and Mr Peacock says BP would be interested in opportunities in Saudi Arabia. But governments in the region would have to offer decent terms to convince majors to invest. The key to a successful partnership between the government, its national oil company and international energy groups "is making sure that the relationship is tuned correctly", Mr Peacock says. If the foreign partner is to "bring large amounts of capital, proprietary technology and expertise from other parts of world to address something like extremely sour gas, with long-lasting mutual benefits, then the reward should recognise the role [it] plays." Can Iran-GCC Economic Ties Survive U.S. Pressures? NADER HABIBI Published: July 23, 2008 While growing economic and financial sanctions have led to a reduction of trade between Iran and Europe in recent years, the volume of trade between Iran and GCC countries has steadily increased. Bilateral Iran-GCC trade has increased by five-fold from $1.71 billion in 2000 to $8.71 billion in 2007. The GCC enjoys a considerable trade surplus in its trade relation with Iran. The GCC goods exports to Iran have increased from $1.26 billion in 2000 to a record $7.33 billion in 2007 which amounted to 12 percent of Iran's total imports. As a result the GCC registered a $5.7 billion trade surplus with Iran in 2007. Two factors have encouraged Iran to expand its trade relations with GCC countries. First, the growing economic and financial sanctions by European governments and European banks in the past two years have forced Iran to shift its trade away from Europe and look to other regions for its import needs. This has lead to an increase in trade with Asia and GCC, which have so far been more reluctant to go along with these sanctions. Iran's second motive for expanding its trade with GCC countries is political. Iran is actively trying to discourage the GCC countries from joining the U.S. sponsored economic and financial sanctions or cooperating with any potential U.S. military operation against Iran. In pursuit of this goal Iran has tried hard to expand its diplomatic and economic ties with GCC countries in recent years. Iran's largest trade partner in the GCC is the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which accounted for 72 percent of GCC's exports to Iran in 2007. Aside from this large volume of exports, the UAE receives a large flow of private investment capital from Iran which has contributed to the strength of the real estate prices in Dubai in recent years. However, this rapid increase in Iran-GCC economic relations has recently caught the attention of the United States. Realizing that trade with the GCC has enabled Iran to partially neutralize the impact of European financial sanctions, the United States has tried to persuade GCC banking institutions to sever their ties with Iranian banks and deny service to Iranian firms and businessmen. While so far the GCC governments have refused to impose formal economic sanctions on Iran, some financial institutions in Bahrain and the UAE have voluntarily complied with the U.S. demands. Recent interviews with a number of Iranian businessmen have revealed that these steps have made it more difficult for them to trade with GCC countries. If the new round of negotiations between Iran and Western nations in Geneva proves fruitless, it is likely that the U.S. pressure on GCC-based banks will intensify in the coming months and can result in a reduction in Iran-GCC trade. This development will have an adverse impact on the Iranian economy, which imports a variety of electronic equipment and spare parts for heavy machinery from the UAE. It will also reduce Iran's growing exports of agricultural and handcraft products to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In order to further strengthen its economic ties with the GCC, Iran is also trying to export natural gas to these countries. Iran has recently announced a natural gas export agreement with Oman. After several years of negotiations and delays, it is also expected to start natural gas exports to the UAE in 2008. Negotiations are also underway for a Kuwait-Iran natural gas export deal. If these planned exports materialize they will make it more difficult for GCC countries to cooperate with the U.S. sanctions. In recent years demand for natural gas has outpaced its supply in several GCC countries. Qatar, which is the largest natural gas exporter in the region, has been unable to fill this gap completely. Consequently they have turned their attention to Iran. These Iran-GCC natural gas agreements, however, remain vulnerable to U.S. pressure on Gulf countries which also maintain close economic and security ties with the United States. At the same time, Iran's ability to export natural gas to GCC countries has also been adversely affected by American sanctions. U.S. pressure on international oil firms that operate in Iran has limited Iran's ability to attract investment to its energy sector and boost natural gas output in the past three decades. -- Nader Habibi is Henry J. Leir professor of Middle East economies at Brandeis University. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 12:52:02 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:52:02 -0400 Subject: [R-G] BAE Linked to Zimbabwean Arms Dealer + Harare Tycoon Rides Political Upheaval Message-ID: BAE linked to Zimbabwean arms dealer By Christopher Thompson and Michael Peel in London Published: July 31 2008 23:31 | Last updated: July 31 2008 23:31 BAE Systems, the British arms manufacturer under investigation in several countries for alleged bribery, paid at least ?20m to a company linked to a Zimbabwean arms trader allied to President Robert Mugabe, documents seen by the Financial Times show. John Bredenkamp, who has indefinite leave to remain in Britain, has had a controversial career ranging from supplying military equipment to the Zimbabwean military to mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo. British properties owned by Mr Bredenkamp were raided by the Serious Fraud Office more than 18 months ago as part of a long-running investigation into BAE aircraft sales to South Africa. The payment of at least ?20m is the first detailed evidence of a financial relationship between Mr Bredenkamp and the group. The payments raise fresh questions about BAE's dealings with outside agents, intermediaries who sometimes act as brokers in arms deals. Agents have featured in investigations into whether BAE channelled bribes to foreign officials to win contracts. BAE refuses to provide details of its relationships with agents, although it has pledged to introduce reforms as part of an effort to improve its image after the corruption investigation into its multibillion-pound al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The payments linked to Mr Bredenkamp were made between 2003 and 2005 by Red Diamond Trading, a BAE subsidiary registered in the British Virgin Islands, from a London-based Lloyds TSB account, according to documents seen by the FT. The money was transferred to Kayswell Services, also registered in the British Virgin Islands, a company in which the documents list Mr Bredenkamp as a beneficiary. British Virgin Island company records show Red Diamond was liquidated on May 30 last year, just two weeks before BAE announced that Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice, would investigate its ethical conduct and compliance with anti-corruption rules. BAE, Mr Bredenkamp and Kayswell all declined to confirm the payments or comment on what the money was for. Less than two weeks ago, BAE unveiled a plan to achieve "benchmark standards of governance" as part of its response to Lord Woolf's recommendations. Mr Bredenkamp has been involved in tobacco trading, oil procurement and ? according to the United Nations ? the supply of equipment to the Zimbabwe air force. Mr Bredenkamp says he has always complied with European Union arms sanctions, in force against Zimbabwe since 2002, which ban "the provision of financing related to military activities". Mr Bredenkamp, who prospered under Ian Smith's white Rhodesian regime, is now a close associate of Zimbabwe's rural housing minister, Emmerson Mnangagwa, head of the Mugabe government's Joint Operational Command, a body widely identified as leading the campaign of violence against the government's political opponents. The Serious Fraud Office raids on Mr Bredenkamp's UK properties were part of an ongoing investigation into BAE's 1999 ?1.6bn jet fighter sale to South Africa, when several ruling African National Congress officials allegedly received bribes. A spokesman for Mr Bredenkamp denied he had any involvement in the South African sale and said it was "wholly inappropriate" for him to make any comment while the SFO inquiry continued. BAE said: "It is our policy not to comment on payments to individual parties or organisations, or on the individuals, parties or organisations themselves." Harare tycoon rides political upheaval By FT reporters Published: July 31 2008 23:31 | Last updated: July 31 2008 23:31 John Bredenkamp, the Zimbabwean tycoon linked to ?20m of payments made by BAE Systems, has ridden political upheaval to become one of his country's richest international businessmen. Over a four-decade career that has taken him from Harare's tobacco auction floors to Downing Street, he has shown himself an opportunist whose business dealings have come under attack from the United Nations and non-governmental groups. After flourishing under the white minority regime of Ian Smith, he later allied himself to President Robert Mugabe's post-independence government and built up substantial British assets, including residences in Berkshire and London's Mayfair. Patrick Smith, editor of Africa Confidential, the London-based newsletter, said: "On a continent where businessmen progress through a combination of hard-nosed pragmatism and personal networks, Bredenkamp is in the premier league." Mr Bredenkamp's history has come under the spotlight again following the emergence of documents showing he is a beneficiary of Kayswell Services, an offshore company paid at least ?20m ($40m, ?25m) by BAE between 2003 and 2005. Mr Bredenkamp, who was born in 1940, began his career when he took a tobacco auction house job found for him by one of his teachers at Prince Edward, a top Harare state school. By the late 1960s, he was captaining the Rhodesian rugby team and busting tobacco export sanctions imposed by the United Nations after the Smith government's unilateral declaration of independence from Britain in 1965. Mr Bredenkamp later expanded into oil procurement and dabbled in sports management. His spokesman said his clients included Nick Price, the Zimbabwean golfer, and Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion. Mr Bredenkamp's new line of business took him to a Downing Street reception in the mid-1990s with John Major, the cricket-loving UK prime minister at the time. One of Mr Bredenkamp's most controversial business ventures was mining in the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo. UN investigators concluded in 2002 that some of his business interests had illegally exploited mineral resources, although he denied the allegation. Mr Bredenkamp's main business venture today is Breco, an international private equity group set up after he sold his Casalee tobacco company for $100m in 1993. He also has longstanding ? if opaque ? links with the arms industry in southern Africa, although he says he has always complied with arms sanctions imposed against Zimbabwe by the European Union in 2002. He was a business partner of Billy Rautenbach, a fellow white Zimbabwean wanted by South African police, before the two fell out over a mining deal in the DRC. Mr Bredenkamp was detained for several days last year in Harare's notorious central prison over alleged passport irregularities, a case his spokesperson said was later dismissed. It was another exotic twist in a career governed by a pragmatism exemplified by the aphorism on the Breco website that "in Africa, it is essential to work with change, not against it". It is a mantra that has helped Mr Bredenkamp make money, at the expense of inviting criticism about the ever-shifting business and political relationships he has exploited to do so. Reporting by Michael Peel, William Wallis and Christopher Thompson in London Payments form part of opaque dealings By Michael Peeland Christopher Thompson Published: July 31 2008 23:31 | Last updated: July 31 2008 23:31 BAE Systems' ?20m of payments to a company linked to John Bredenkamp, a Zimbabwean arms dealer, are part of a web of opaque international dealings that the company has proved reluctant to explain despite launching a high-profile inquiry into its business ethics. The latest payments highlight the contentious role of Red Diamond Trading, a secretive BAE offshore subsidiary that was dissolved last year at a time when the company was making a big effort to improve its damaged reputation. Red Diamond was part of a worldwide network of BAE companies and agents that have helped win the company tens of billions of dollars of business but have attracted high-profile attention from corruption investigators at the Serious Fraud Office and elsewhere. The latest disclosures relate to payments made by Red Diamond to Kayswell Services, a British Virgin Islands company in which Mr Bredenkamp was a beneficiary, according to documents seen by the Financial Times. Mr Bredenkamp and BAE decline to comment on the payments. The payments cast fresh light on BAE's use of Red Diamond, whose name has cropped up in the SFO investigation into a giant 1999 South African arms deal in which BAE sold ?1.6bn of fighter aircraft. According to reports last year in South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper, a 2006 letter from the SFO to the South African government said that between 2000 and 2005, South African agents "received over ?70m through Red Diamond". Like many other companies based in the British Virgin Islands, Red Diamond is a secretive venture that carries no details of the company's directors, shareholders or ultimate owners on its public file. Although BAE told the Financial Times that Red Diamond's status as a subsidiary was a "matter of public record", it declined to identify any company documents where this fact was ever revealed. Annual reports did not refer to Red Diamond because the company was not a "principal subsidiary", BAE said. The one substantive piece of information available from Red Diamond's public file is that it was liquidated in May last year by a Mr S.C. Wood, whose address is given as BAE's Warwick House office at Farnborough Aerospace Centre, in the UK. Two weeks after the liquidation was completed, BAE held a much-publicised press conference in London to announce the appointment of Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice, to investigate the company's ethical conduct and compliance with anti-corruption rules. The British Virgin Islands' notice of liquidation says Red Diamond was dissolved because it was "considered to serve no useful purpose". BAE declines to comment on what the company's purpose was, or on why it was wound up. Less than three weeks after the liquidation was completed, Mike Turner, BAE's chief executive, said the company would more than halve the 240 agents it used worldwide, in part because it did not want to take any risks with its reputation in the key US arms market. BAE ? which has denied wrongdoing ? is under investigation for alleged bribery by the US Department of Justice, as well as in Switzerland and Britain. BAE's latest initiative to build confidence is a three-year programme announced earlier this month to implement Lord Woolf's 23 recommendations for reform, including developing a uniform contract for the appointment and oversight of external advisers, such as agents. Mr Turner said BAE wanted to be a "leader in standards of ethical business conduct among global companies". Those words are as good an indicator as any of the company's desire to escape ? if not account for ? a past that is still throwing up big unanswered questions such as those surrounding Red Diamond. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 13:01:20 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:01:20 -0400 Subject: [R-G] China to Extend Africa Acquisitions Message-ID: China to extend Africa acquisitions By Tom Burgis in Lubumbashi Published: July 30 2008 19:17 | Last updated: July 30 2008 19:17 China is readying to move into Africa on a scale that far outstrips its acquisitions on the continent to date, according to the South African bank that is laying the groundwork. High-level groups of bankers from Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Standard Bank, respectively China and Africa's biggest banks, are examining potential targets in Africa's oil and gas, telecoms, base metals and power sectors, executives at the Johannesburg-based lender have told the Financial Times. Clive Tasker, chief executive of Standard Bank's business in Africa excluding South Africa, said the resultant deals were likely to be at least as large as ICBC's $5.5bn (?2.7bn, ?3.5bn) purchase last year of a 20 per cent stake in Standard ? itself the largest foreign direct investment in post-apartheid South Africa. But Standard bankers admitted that building a relationship with their Chinese colleagues is proving more difficult than they had anticipated. Billed as a "combination of giants" by ICBC chairman Jiang Jianqing, the union was finalised on February 14, months after the initial overtures. Beijing expects trade with Africa to hit $100bn by 2010, which makes the rationale for ICBC to gain access to Africa's biggest pan-African banking network clear. For Standard, apart from the capital injection to bolster its reserves, reward shareholders and fund expansion, the most tempting fruits of the deal depend on using the connection with ICBC to open doors to Chinese investors and guiding them into Africa. "The honeymoon is over," said Tim Thackwray, Standard Bank's head of investment banking for Africa. "Now the hard work starts." Beyond the tribulations of marrying Chinese and South African corporate cultures, negotiating the upper echelons of ICBC ? including establishing links with their counterparts ? is taking time, Standard executives said. ICBC is majority-owned by the communist-run state. All the same, Mr Thackwray added: "I would be disappointed if I couldn't point to a big juicy deal by Christmas." Standard is establishing a 20-strong team in Beijing. Standard and ICBC "can build a superhighway that connects China and Africa," said David Munro, Standard's chief executive for corporate and investment banking across Africa. The first child of the banks' "strategic partnership" is a global resources fund they are finalising and which they hope will grow to $1bn once third-party investors come on board. Standard has 1,000 branches in 18 sub-Saharan African countries and a presence in a further 21 nations worldwide. In the past year it has made acquisitions in Nigeria, Kenya, Turkey and Argentina. This week it expanded its operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where Beijing last year signed an infrastructure-for-commodities deal worth up to $8bn. It expects to finalise a licence next month to operate in Angola, one of the world's fastest growing economies whose burgeoning oil wealth has already attracted significant Chinese interest. Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, and Ghana, a bastion of political stability, were also ripe for Chinese deals, Mr Thackwray said, with Mozambique and Congo close behind as they emerge from conflict. Several executives said that corporate China was looking at targets beyond the mining sector, which has dominated the Asian giant's African investments as it seeks to satiate its thirst for commodities. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 14:54:18 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:54:18 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Shame and Sexual Harassment in Egypt Message-ID: Lonely Planet's guide to the Middle East claims: "Although women travellers have the hassle of staying covered up -- see the boxed text 'The Big Cover Up' -- most women find that the sexual harassment and constant come-ons from the local males that are common in other Middle Eastern countries are largely absent in Iran. By comparison, women enjoy considerably more independence in Iran than elsewhere in the Middle East. One welcome consequence of this is that female visitors will find it quite easy to meet and chat with Iranian women, particularly in large cities such as Esfahan, Shiraz and Tehran where educational standards are higher" (Lonely Planet Publications, 4th ed., 2003 [first published in 1994], p. 216). I suppose that, in Iran, if men didn't behave, the authorities would put the fear of God into them. -- Yoshie Shame and Sexual Harassment in Egypt by Mona Eltahawy Released: 29 Jul 2008 NEW YORK ? When I was only 4 years-old, and still living in Cairo, a man exposed himself to me as I stood on a balcony at my family's home, and gestured for me to come down. At 15, I was groped as I was performing the rites of the Haj pilgrimage at Mecca, the holiest site for Muslims. Every part of my body was covered except for my face and hands. I'd never been groped before and burst into tears, but I was too ashamed to explain to my family what had happened. During my 20s, when I had returned to Cairo and wore the hijab, a way of dressing which again covers everything but the face and the hands, I was groped so many times that whenever I passed a group of men I'd place my bag between me and them. Headphones helped block out the disgusting things men -- and even boys barely in their teens -- hissed at me. I learned to push and punch those whose hands thought my body was fair game, but I never found anything to soothe the burning violation. So imagine how much sharper that violation stung when I tried to complain to the police only to be shooed away -- or when it was their hands which groped me. Once, a riot policeman fondled my breast while he was pushing back a group of us journalists at the trial of an opposition politician. I yelled at him, and I complained to his supervising officer, who moved him to the back row of riot police and told me "Nevermind." So it was no surprise to learn that 98 percent of foreign women visiting Egypt and 83 percent of native Egyptian women who were recently surveyed said that they, too, had been sexually harassed, and they have recounted a catalog of horrors similar to mine. What an awful time to be woman in Egypt. When the Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights reported that 62 percent of Egyptian men admitted to harassing women, I could only shudder at what sexist bullies so many of my countrymen are. Even worse, when I read that the majority of the more than 2,000 Egyptian men and women that ECWR surveyed blamed women for bringing on the harassment because of the way they dressed, I honestly thought my countrymen and women had lost their minds. In Egypt today, up to 80 percent of women wear one form of veil or another -- be it a headscarf or a full-body veil that covers the face too -- so you would think it was obvious that sexual harassment had nothing to do with the way a woman dresses. So what is it that drives such a stubborn wish to fault women? The answer lies in perhaps the saddest of all the Centre's findings. Unlike foreign women, most Egyptian women said women should keep their harassment to themselves because they were ashamed or feared it could ruin their reputation. That's when I was taken back full circle to the time I was groped on the Haj. Shame. This shame is fueled by religious and political messages that bombard Egyptian public life, turning women into sexual objects and giving men free reign to their bodies. In 2006, It was the well-publicized episode of the mufti of Australia comparing women who didn't wear the hijab to uncovered meat left out for wild cats. He was educated at al-Azhar, the religious institution in Egypt that trains clerics from all over the Sunni Muslim world. He was suspended, but his reprehensible views are very much at work among many other clerics. Today, as two bloggers in Egypt reported recently, there are email and poster campaigns with a message that uses candy to tell women that if they cover they will be safe from harassment, as covered candy is safe from flies. When did Egyptian women become candy and when did Egyptian men turn into flies? There is no law criminalizing sexual harassment in Egypt, and police often refuse to report women's complaints. And when it is the police themselves who are harassing women, then clearly women's safety is far from a priority in Egypt. The State itself taught Egyptians a most spectacular lesson in institutionalized patriarchy when security forces and government-hired thugs sexually assaulted demonstrators, especially women, during an anti-regime protest in 2005, giving a green light to harassers. So there was little surprise that during a religious festival in 2006, a mob of men went on a rampage in downtown Cairo, sexually assaulting any woman they came across as police watched and did nothing. It was only when bloggers broke the news that the media reported the assaults. Still, the Egyptian regime has never acknowledged it happened. At a demonstration against sexual harassment that I attended in Cairo a few days later, there were nearly more riot police than protestors. My sister Nora was 20 at the time, and she, with several of her friends, joined the protest. She had never been to a demonstration before but was incensed when she heard the State was denying something that had happened to her many times. We swapped our sexual harassment stories like veterans comparing war wounds, and we unraveled a taboo which shelters the real criminals of sexual harassment and has kept us hiding in shame. And that is why I began here with my own stories -- to free myself of the tentacles of that shame. Mona Eltahawy is an award-winning New York-based journalist and commentator, and an international lecturer on Arab and Muslim issues. Copyright (c)2008 Mona Eltahawy ? distributed by Agence Global ---------------- Released: 29 July 2008 Word Count: 906 ---------------- For rights and permissions, contact: rights at agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757 From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 15:01:49 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:01:49 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Demand from Conflicts Lifts BAE's Earnings Message-ID: Demand from conflicts lifts BAE's earnings Reuters Friday, August 1, 2008 LONDON: BAE Systems, the largest European defense contractor, said Friday that its first-half profit rose 14 percent, chiefly because of demand for armored vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Net profit for the six months ending in June rose to ?586 million, or $1.16 billion, from ?515 million a year ago. Revenue rose to ?7.09 billion from ?6.35 billion. "The group is benefiting from customers prioritizing the provision of equipment and capability to their armed forces engaged in overseas operations," the company's chairman, Dick Olver, said. Profit exceeded forecasts, but the rise in sales was below some analysts' estimates, held back by a 19 percent drop in sales at the programs and support unit. Olver said Saudi Arabia remained a crucial market, and predicted that BAE would add to its 4,600 employees there. The company is focused on modernizing the Saudi armed forces, including the replacement of Tornado fighter jets with new Typhoon aircraft next year. But the company's dealings with Saudi Arabia have been under intense scrutiny and are being investigated by regulators in the United States and Switzerland. A controversial decision by the British anti-fraud agency to halt an inquiry in 2006 into whether BAE offered bribes in exchange for lucrative contracts in Saudi Arabia was upheld Wednesday by Britain's highest court. The House of Lords decided that the Serious Fraud Office had acted lawfully when it decided to end the inquiry. The Serious Fraud Office is investigating possible BAE bribes to Tanzania, Romania, Chile and the Czech Republic in other arms contracts. Olver said the company's outlook for 2008 was positive, with more orders for armored and mine protected vehicles likely - particularly to protect North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan. "Notwithstanding budget pressures in many defense markets, BAE Systems' large order book, together with realistic planning assumptions, provide confidence in the outlook for the group," he said. BAE said its order book stood at a record ?41.1 billion, up from ?31.7 billion a year earlier. BAE's finance director, George Rose, said he expected analysts to lift their 2008 profit forecasts. The company's chief executive, Mike Turner, who will be succeeded by the chief operating officer, Ian King, next month, said demand was driven by a 29.5 percent rise in sales, excluding acquisitions, of armored cars - particularly mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. BAE shares closed up 2.2 percent at ?4.60 in London. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 1 14:56:57 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:56:57 -0700 Subject: [R-G] No Human Being Is Illegal Message-ID: <200808012056.m71KuvmX005254@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080801/16bfa442/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 1 14:57:32 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:57:32 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Neocon Flap Highlights Jewish Divide Message-ID: <200808012057.m71KvWmm006665@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080801/b2bbd8c7/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 1 14:58:28 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:58:28 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Haaretz Editor Refuses to Retract Israel Apartheid Statements Message-ID: <200808012058.m71KwSra008175@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080801/9e482f66/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 1 14:58:59 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:58:59 -0700 Subject: [R-G] An Israeli strike at Iran is very much on the table Message-ID: <200808012059.m71KwxnP008851@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080801/20cd4ac2/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 1 15:39:14 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:39:14 -0700 Subject: [R-G] My Questions for Langevin About Iran Message-ID: <200808012139.m71LdEO7015840@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080801/012acde4/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Aug 1 19:53:49 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:53:49 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] How Good Was the Good War? Message-ID: <4893BE2D.1030805@attglobal.net> by Andrew J Bacevich The American Conservative (July 14 2008 Issue) For historians, World War II revisionism is likely to remain a tough sell. The process of enshrining the conflict of 1939-45 as the "Good War" has now advanced to the point of being all but irreversible. The war's canonical lessons, especially those relating to the perils of appeasement, have permanently etched themselves in our collective consciousness. The problem with this orthodox interpretation is not that it's wrong but that it is inadequate. The reflexive tendency to see every antagonist as another Hitler (or Stalin) and every sensitive diplomatic encounter as a potential Munich (or Yalta) has produced an approach to statecraft that is excessively militarized, needlessly inflexible, and insufficiently imaginative. The remedy is not to engage in a vain effort to change the way Americans remember World War II, however, but to restore that conflict to its proper context. Ripped out of context, the war, especially the struggle against Nazi Germany, has become a parable. Whatever their value as a source of moral instruction, parables offer less help when it comes to understanding international politics. Parables simplify - and to simplify the past is necessarily to distort it. The neoconservative writer Norman Podhoretz illustrates how this penchant for treating World War II as a parable yields distorted and even mischievous results. Since 9/11, he has insistently argued that the correct name for the conflict commonly known as the global war on terror is actually "World War IV". Podhoretz's logic runs like this: the Cold War was really "World War III", essentially a replay of World War II, the threat posed by communism serving as a variant of the old threat posed by fascism. For Podhoretz, the horrific events of September 2001 thrust the West back to the days of September 1939. The imperative of the moment was to launch yet another crusade on behalf of freedom and democracy, this time against a third totalitarian ideology that Podhoretz labeled "Islamofascism". All that was needed was a new Winston Churchill to lead this crusade, and Podhoretz found his man, however improbably, in George W Bush. Strangely absent from Podhoretz's narrative is the event that actually touched off this sequence of global conflicts and without which World Wars II and III - not to mention IV - would never have occurred. I refer here, of course, to the epic bloodletting of 1914-18, for a time known as "the Great War". Podhoretz gets away with ignoring World War I because the vast majority of his fellow citizens are similarly predisposed. For present-day Americans, the enterprise once fervently, then derisively, referred to as "the war to end all wars" possesses about as much political and cultural salience as Shays' Rebellion. This marginalization of World War I is unfortunate. In fact, that conflagration and the peacemaking process that followed offer a mother lode of instruction for American policymakers today. World War I does not easily reduce to a parable. Even a polemicist as talented as Podhoretz would be hard pressed to render it as a story pitting good against evil or freedom against totalitarianism. It was instead a vast, complex, and utterly avoidable tragedy, a war of empires on behalf of empire. A handful of na?ve and stupid statesmen, who fancied that in war lay the solution to all manner of problems, inflicted incalculable moral and material damage upon Western civilization, while accelerating the decline of European power and leaving a poisonous legacy. Doing his part to spread those poisons was none other than Winston Churchill, celebrated by Norman Podhoretz as the central figure in the reduction of World War II to a parable. As a member of the war cabinet, Churchill made contributions to British policy in World War I that are at least as worthy of study today as his contributions to World War II. For example, as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1915, Churchill conceived of the Gallipoli campaign. To appropriate a term from our own day, this amphibious invasion of Turkey was expected to be a "cakewalk" opening up any number of additional opportunities. It turned out to be a disaster that consumed the lives of tens of thousands of British, French, and Anzac soldiers while accomplishing nothing. Gallipoli still stands as a warning to those who fancy that military power offers the means to transform the Islamic world. After the armistice of 1918, as secretary of state for the colonies, Churchill played an important role in redrawing the map of the Middle East. The purpose of this exercise was not to advance the cause of freedom and democracy but to extend British hegemony and control of Persian Gulf oil. One result of this effort was to invent the nation-state of Iraq, which soon became and remains a source of instability and disorder, although these days the United States rather than Great Britain foots most of the bills. So let us by all means venerate the Winston Churchill who warned of the threat posed by Hitler and who inspired Britons to make their lonely stand against Nazi Germany in 1940, thereby stirring so many American hearts as well. Yet let us also remember the Churchill who did so much to bollix up the Middle East and to create the conditions that gave rise to the utterly avoidable tragedy that is Podhoretz's World War IV. We can learn much not only from the Good Winston but from the Bad Winston as well. _____ Andrew J Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book is The Limits of Power, published by Metropolitan Books. Copyright (c) 2008 The American Conservative http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_07_14/cover3.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Aug 1 23:41:44 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:41:44 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Karadzic-Holbrooke deal confirmed Message-ID: <4AC691F7-91A9-42FE-BD9E-E76EA53D2661@shaw.ca> Karadzic-Holbrooke deal confirmed Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:18:24 Mohammad Sacirbey,Radovan Karadzic http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=65316§ionid=351020606 Mohammad Sacirbey, former Bosnian foreign minster says that US diplomat, Richard Holbrooke made an unambiguous political deal with Serb leader Radavan Karadzic. Sacirbey pointing out that he has been telling this story for more than a decade now, said the Holbrooke-Karadzic pact called for Karadzic to give up leadership of his political party and to drop out of public life in return for his already existing war crimes indictment being scrapped. In an exclusive interview with a Press TV correspondent, Sacirbey confirmed that a top US diplomat, Robert Frowick, head of the OSCE mission in Bosnia in 1996 was his source for the information of the Holbrooke-Karadzic deal. Sacirbey described Frowick as an unimpeachable point of reference. Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic made his first appearance at the UN's Yugoslav war crimes tribunal on Thursday charged with genocide. Karadzic alleged in his remarks to the court that he had made a deal in 1996 with then top US negotiator Richard Holbrooke to drop out of public life in return for his war crimes indictment being dropped. The US has always denied the Karadzic family's claims that a deal was made. Now the straightforward statements of former foreign minister Sacirbey raises an obvious contradiction to American claims and heightens the tensions around the Karadzic trial, as no one knows what other potential bombshells he might drop next or whether the court will allow him to speak. In a July 26 interview with Germany's Spiegel Online International, Holbrooke was asked about rumors that he had told Karadzic that if he retired from politics, he wouldn't be sent to the war crimes tribunal. "Those are lies I do not comment on any longer," Holbrooke said at the time. Elsewhere, Holbrooke, who was the architect of the Dayton peace agreement that belatedly ended the Bosnian conflict and the ethnic cleansing and genocide against Europe's only indigenous Muslim population, said in an interview aired on CNN on Thursday, that he won a commitment from Karadzic in July 1996 to step down from his political positions. "I negotiated a very tough deal. He had to step down immediately from both his posts as president of the Serb part of Bosnia and as head of his party. And he did so," Holbrooke said in a recorded interview. Apparently Karadzic provided the quid pro quo of the agreement in his statements on Thursday. SG/HAR From suzannedk at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 02:53:53 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:53:53 +0200 Subject: [R-G] My Questions for Langevin About Iran In-Reply-To: <200808012139.m71LdEO7015840@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> References: <200808012139.m71LdEO7015840@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> Message-ID: What were the answers to your questions? Or, were your questions rhetorical? Suzanne de Kuyper Amsterdam On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > > [1]iStockAnalyst Thursday, July 31, 2008 > > > My Questions for Langevin About Iran > > > Apparently under orders from AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs > Committee), Rhode Island's U.S. Representatives Patrick Kennedy and > James Langevin co-sponsored HCR 362 -- a mysterious and dangerous > resolution calling for a blockade of Iran > ([2]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:). > > > Unable to understand the resolution, I called the office of Mr. > Langevin -- a congressman who seems to represent AIPAC more than Rhode > Island. The gentleman who answered knew little or nothing about it, > but he promised to relay my questions to him. I sent him the following > questions about HCR 362 in writing: > > > How did you learn of "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons"? > > > Why is your source more reliable than the NIE (National Intelligence > Estimate) and the reports of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy > Agency)? > > > Where in the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) is development of > nuclear energy prohibited? > > > How did Hamas "illegally seize control of Gaza"? I thought Hamas was > elected in what international observers found to be a fair election. > (And isn't it Israel that illegally controls Gaza, bombing and > starving its residents?) > > > How do you know "Iran seeks to establish regional hegemony"? I thought > that the U.S. and Israel were the nations seeking to dominate the > region with massive military force. (In fact, your resolution ends > with a reference to "America's vital national security interests in > the Middle East.") > > > Why is it okay for Israel, India and Pakistan to have nuclear > capabilities, but not Iran? > > > Why are U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iran more important than > the far more numerous and longstanding U.N. resolutions on Israel? > > > Most important: What do you expect the consequences will be if you > succeed in getting George Bush to pressure on Iran by "prohibiting the > export to Iran of all refined petroleum products;" imposing inspection > requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and > cargo entering or departing Iran; and "prohibiting the international > movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the > suspension of Iran's nuclear program"? > > > How would we respond if some power tried to do these things to the > U.S.? > > > Do you expect the war you propose will go better than the wars we are > already fighting against countries much smaller than Iran? > > > Rod Driver > > Richmond > > > (c) 2008 Providence Journal > > References > > 1. http://www.istockanalyst.com/ > 2. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362 > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Aug 2 05:27:07 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:27:07 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] When war goes corporate Message-ID: <4894448B.6080504@attglobal.net> Grave threats to our national security may now include the mass privatization of US intelligence and military operations. by Chalmers Johnson www.salon.com (July 31 2008) Most Americans have a rough idea what the term "military-industrial complex" means when they come across it in a newspaper or hear a politician mention it. President Dwight D Eisenhower introduced the idea to the public in his farewell address of January 17 1961. "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime", he said, "or indeed by the fighting men of World War II and Korea ... We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions ... We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications ... We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex". Although Eisenhower's reference to the military- industrial complex is, by now, well-known, his warning against its "unwarranted influence" has, I believe, largely been ignored. Since 1961, there has been too little serious study of, or discussion of, the origins of the military- industrial complex, how it has changed over time, how governmental secrecy has hidden it from oversight by members of Congress or attentive citizens, and how it degrades our constitutional structure of checks and balances. From its origins in the early 1940s, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was building up his "arsenal of democracy", down to the present moment, public opinion has usually assumed that it involved more or less equitable relations - often termed a "partnership" - between the high command and civilian overlords of the United States military and privately owned, for-profit manufacturing and service enterprises. Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that, from the time they first emerged, these relations were never equitable. In the formative years of the military-industrial complex, the public still deeply distrusted privately owned industrial firms because of the way they had contributed to the Great Depression. Thus, the leading role in the newly emerging relationship was played by the official governmental sector. A deeply popular, charismatic president, FDR sponsored these public-private relationships. They gained further legitimacy because their purpose was to rearm the country, as well as allied nations around the world, against the gathering forces of fascism. The private sector was eager to go along with this largely as a way to regain public trust and disguise its wartime profit-making. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Roosevelt's use of public-private "partnerships" to build up the munitions industry, and thereby finally overcome the Great Depression, did not go entirely unchallenged. Although he was himself an implacable enemy of fascism, a few people thought that the president nonetheless was coming close to copying some of its key institutions. The leading Italian philosopher of fascism, the neo- Hegelian Giovanni Gentile, once argued that it should more appropriately be called "corporatism" because it was a merger of state and corporate power. Some critics were alarmed early on by the growing symbiotic relationship between government and corporate officials because each simultaneously sheltered and empowered the other, while greatly confusing the separation of powers. Since the activities of a corporation are less amenable to public or congressional scrutiny than those of a public institution, public-private collaborative relationships afford the private sector an added measure of security from such scrutiny. These concerns were ultimately swamped by enthusiasm for the war effort and the postwar era of prosperity that the war produced. Beneath the surface, however, was a less well recognized movement by big business to replace democratic institutions with those representing the interests of capital. This movement is today ascendant. (See Thomas Frank's book "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" [2008], for a superb analysis of Ronald Reagan's slogan "government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem".) Its objectives have long been to discredit what it called "big government", while capturing for private interests the tremendous sums invested by the public sector in national defense. It may be understood as a slow-burning reaction to what American conservatives believed to be the socialism of the New Deal. Perhaps the country's leading theorist of democracy, Sheldon S Wolin, has written a book, "Democracy Incorporated" (2008), on what he calls "inverted totalitarianism" - the rise in the US of totalitarian institutions of conformity and regimentation shorn of the police repression of the earlier German, Italian, and Soviet forms. He warns of "the expansion of private (that is, mainly corporate) power and the selective abdication of governmental responsibility for the well-being of the citizenry". He also decries the degree to which the so-called privatization of governmental activities has insidiously undercut our democracy, leaving us with the widespread belief that government is no longer needed and that, in any case, it is not capable of performing the functions we have entrusted to it. Wolin writes: "The privatization of public services and functions manifests the steady evolution of corporate power into a political form, into an integral, even dominant partner with the state. It marks the transformation of American politics and its political culture, from a system in which democratic practices and values were, if not defining, at least major contributory elements, to one where the remaining democratic elements of the state and its populist programs are being systematically dismantled." Mercenaries at work The military-industrial complex has changed radically since World War II or even the height of the Cold War. The private sector is now fully ascendant. The uniformed air, land and naval forces of the country as well as its intelligence agencies, including the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), the NSA (National Security Agency), the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), and even clandestine networks entrusted with the dangerous work of penetrating and spying on terrorist organizations are all dependent on hordes of "private contractors". In the context of governmental national security functions, a better term for these might be "mercenaries" working in private for profit-making companies. Tim Shorrock, an investigative journalist and the leading authority on this subject, sums up this situation devastatingly in his new book, "Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing" (2008). The following quotes are a pr?cis of some of his key findings: "In 2006 ... the cost of America's spying and surveillance activities outsourced to contractors reached $42 billion, or about seventy percent of the estimated $60 billion the government spends each year on foreign and domestic intelligence ... [The] number of contract employees now exceeds [the CIA's] full-time workforce of 17,500 ... Contractors make up more than half the workforce of the CIA's National Clandestine Service (formerly the Directorate of Operations), which conducts covert operations and recruits spies abroad ... "To feed the NSA's insatiable demand for data and information technology, the industrial base of contractors seeking to do business with the agency grew from 144 companies in 2001 to more than 5,400 in 2006 ... At the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the agency in charge of launching and maintaining the nation's photoreconnaissance and eavesdropping satellites, almost the entire workforce is composed of contract employees working for [private] companies ... With an estimated $8 billion annual budget, the largest in the IC [intelligence community], contractors control about $7 billion worth of business at the NRO, giving the spy satellite industry the distinction of being the most privatized part of the intelligence community ... "If there's one generalization to be made about the NSA's outsourced IT [information technology] programs, it is this: they haven't worked very well, and some have been spectacular failures ... In 2006, the NSA was unable to analyze much of the information it was collecting ... As a result, more than ninety percent of the information it was gathering was being discarded without being translated into a coherent and understandable format; only about five percent was translated from its digital form into text and then routed to the right division for analysis. "The key phrase in the new counterterrorism lexicon is 'public-private partnerships' ... In reality, 'partnerships' are a convenient cover for the perpetuation of corporate interests". Several inferences can be drawn from Shorrock's shocking expos?. One is that if a foreign espionage service wanted to penetrate American military and governmental secrets, its easiest path would not be to gain access to any official US agencies, but simply to get its agents jobs at any of the large intelligence-oriented private companies on which the government has become remarkably dependent. These include Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), with headquarters in San Diego, California, which typically pays its 42,000 employees higher salaries than if they worked at similar jobs in the government; Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the nation's oldest intelligence and clandestine-operations contractors, which, until January 2007, was the employer of Mike McConnell, the current director of national intelligence and the first private contractor to be named to lead the entire intelligence community; and CACI International, which, under two contracts for "information technology services", ended up supplying some two dozen interrogators to the Army at Iraq's already infamous Abu Ghraib prison in 2003. According to Major General Anthony Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse scandal, four of CACI's interrogators were "either directly or indirectly responsible" for torturing prisoners. Remarkably enough, SAIC has virtually replaced the National Security Agency as the primary collector of signals intelligence for the government. It is the NSA's largest contractor, and that agency is today the company's single largest customer. There are literally thousands of other profit-making enterprises that work to supply the government with so-called intelligence needs, sometimes even bribing congressmen to fund projects that no one in the executive branch actually wants. This was the case with Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Republican of California's 50th District, who, in 2006, was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in federal prison for soliciting bribes from defense contractors. One of the bribers, Brent Wilkes, snagged a $9.7 million contract for his company, ADCS ("Automated Document Conversion Systems"), to computerize the century-old records of the Panama Canal dig! A country drowning in euphemisms The United States has long had a sorry record when it comes to protecting its intelligence from foreign infiltration, but the situation today seems particularly perilous. One is reminded of the case described in the book by Robert Lindsey, "The Falcon and the Snowman" (1979), made into a 1985 film of the same name. It tells the true story of two young Southern Californians, one with a high security clearance working for the defense contractor TRW (dubbed "RTX" in the film), and the other a drug addict and minor smuggler. The TRW employee is motivated to act by his discovery of a misrouted CIA document describing plans to overthrow the prime minister of Australia, and the other by a need for money to pay for his addiction. They decide to get even with the government by selling secrets to the Soviet Union and are exposed by their own bungling. Both are sentenced to prison for espionage. The message of the book (and film) lies in the ease with which they betrayed their country - and how long it took before they were exposed and apprehended. Today, thanks to the staggering over-privatization of the collection and analysis of foreign intelligence, the opportunities for such breaches of security are widespread. I applaud Shorrock for his extraordinary research into an almost impenetrable subject using only openly available sources. There is, however, one aspect of his analysis with which I differ. This is his contention that the wholesale takeover of official intelligence collection and analysis by private companies is a form of "outsourcing". This term is usually restricted to a business enterprise buying goods and services that it does not want to manufacture or supply in-house. When it is applied to a governmental agency that turns over many, if not all, of its key functions to a risk-averse company trying to make a return on its investment, "outsourcing" simply becomes a euphemism for mercenary activities. As David Bromwich, a political critic and Yale professor of literature, observed in the New York Review of Books: "The separate bookkeeping and accountability devised for Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy, and similar outfits was part of a careful displacement of oversight from Congress to the vice-president and the stewards of his policies in various departments and agencies. To have much of the work parceled out to private companies who are unaccountable to army rules or military justice, meant, among its other advantages, that the cost of the war could be concealed beyond all detection." Euphemisms are words intended to deceive. The United States is already close to drowning in them, particularly new words and terms devised, or brought to bear, to justify the American invasion of Iraq - coinages Bromwich highlights like "regime change", "enhanced interrogation techniques", "the global war on terrorism", "the birth pangs of a new Middle East", a "slight uptick in violence", "bringing torture within the law", "simulated drowning", and, of course, "collateral damage", meaning the slaughter of unarmed civilians by American troops and aircraft followed - rarely - by perfunctory apologies. It is important that the intrusion of unelected corporate officials with hidden profit motives into what are ostensibly public political activities not be confused with private businesses buying Scotch tape, paper clips, or hubcaps. The wholesale transfer of military and intelligence functions to private, often anonymous, operatives took off under Ronald Reagan's presidency, and accelerated greatly after 9/11 under George W Bush and Dick Cheney. Often not well understood, however, is this: The biggest private expansion into intelligence and other areas of government occurred under the presidency of Bill Clinton. He seems not to have had the same anti-governmental and neoconservative motives as the privatizers of both the Reagan and Bush II eras. His policies typically involved an indifference to - perhaps even an ignorance of - what was actually being done to democratic, accountable government in the name of cost-cutting and allegedly greater efficiency. It is one of the strengths of Shorrock's study that he goes into detail on Clinton's contributions to the wholesale privatization of our government, and of the intelligence agencies in particular. Reagan launched his campaign to shrink the size of government and offer a large share of public expenditures to the private sector with the creation in 1982 of the "Private Sector Survey on Cost Control". In charge of the survey, which became known as the "Grace Commission", he named the conservative businessman J Peter Grace Jr, chairman of the W R Grace Corporation, one of the world's largest chemical companies - notorious for its production of asbestos and its involvement in numerous anti-pollution suits. The Grace Company also had a long history of investment in Latin America, and Peter Grace was deeply committed to undercutting what he saw as leftist unions, particularly because they often favored state-led economic development. The Grace Commission's actual achievements were modest. Its biggest was undoubtedly the 1987 privatization of Conrail, the freight railroad for the Northeastern states. Nothing much else happened on this front during the first Bush's administration, but Bill Clinton returned to privatization with a vengeance. According to Shorrock: "Bill Clinton ... picked up the cudgel where the conservative Ronald Reagan left off and ... took it deep into services once considered inherently governmental, including high-risk military operations and intelligence functions once reserved only for government agencies. By the end of [Clinton's first] term, more than 100,000 Pentagon jobs had been transferred to companies in the private sector - among them thousands of jobs in intelligence ... By the end of [his second] term in 2001, the administration had cut 360,000 jobs from the federal payroll and the government was spending 44 percent more on contractors than it had in 1993." These activities were greatly abetted by the fact that the Republicans had gained control of the House of Representatives in 1994 for the first time in 43 years. One liberal journalist described "outsourcing as a virtual joint venture between [House Majority Leader Newt] Gingrich and Clinton". The right-wing Heritage Foundation aptly labeled Clinton's 1996 budget as the "boldest privatization agenda put forth by any president to date". After 2001, Bush and Cheney added an ideological rationale to the process Clinton had already launched so efficiently. They were enthusiastic supporters of "a neoconservative drive to siphon US spending on defense, national security, and social programs to large corporations friendly to the Bush administration". The privatization - and loss - of institutional memory The end result is what we see today: a government hollowed out in terms of military and intelligence functions. The KBR Corporation, for example, supplies food, laundry and other personal services to our troops in Iraq based on extremely lucrative no-bid contracts, while Blackwater Worldwide supplies security and analytical services to the CIA and the state department in Baghdad. (Among other things, its armed mercenaries opened fire on, and killed, seventeen unarmed civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad, on September 16 2007, without any provocation, according to US military reports.) The costs - both financial and personal - of privatization in the armed services and the intelligence community far exceed any alleged savings, and some of the consequences for democratic governance may prove irreparable. These consequences include the sacrifice of professionalism within our intelligence services; the readiness of private contractors to engage in illegal activities without compunction and with impunity; the inability of Congress or citizens to carry out effective oversight of privately managed intelligence activities because of the wall of secrecy that surrounds them; and, perhaps most serious of all, the loss of the most valuable asset any intelligence organization possesses - its institutional memory. Most of these consequences are obvious, even if almost never commented on by our politicians or paid much attention in the mainstream media. After all, the standards of a career CIA officer are very different from those of a corporate executive who must keep his eye on the contract he is fulfilling and future contracts that will determine the viability of his firm. The essence of professionalism for a career intelligence analyst is his integrity in laying out what the US government should know about a foreign policy issue, regardless of the political interests of, or the costs to, the major players. The loss of such professionalism within the CIA was starkly revealed in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. It still seems astonishing that no senior official, beginning with Secretary of State Colin Powell, saw fit to resign when the true dimensions of our intelligence failure became clear, least of all Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. A willingness to engage in activities ranging from the dubious to the outright felonious seems even more prevalent among our intelligence contractors than among the agencies themselves, and much harder for an outsider to detect. For example, following 9/11, Rear Admiral John Poindexter, then working for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the Department of Defense, got the bright idea that DARPA should start compiling dossiers on as many American citizens as possible in order to see whether "data-mining" procedures might reveal patterns of behavior associated with terrorist activities. On November 14 2002, the New York Times published a column by William Safire entitled "You Are a Suspect" in which he revealed that DARPA had been given a $200 million budget to compile dossiers on 300 million Americans. He wrote, "Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every web site you visit and every e-mail you send or receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book, and every event you attend - all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as a 'virtual centralized grand database'". This struck many members of Congress as too close to the practices of the Gestapo and the Stasi under German totalitarianism, and so, the following year, they voted to defund the project. However, Congress's action did not end the "total information awareness" program. The National Security Agency secretly decided to continue it through its private contractors. The NSA easily persuaded SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton to carry on with what Congress had declared to be a violation of the privacy rights of the American public - for a price. As far as we know, Admiral Poindexter's "Total Information Awareness Program" is still going strong today. The most serious immediate consequence of the privatization of official governmental activities is the loss of institutional memory by our government's most sensitive organizations and agencies. Shorrock concludes, "So many former intelligence officers joined the private sector [during the 1990s] that, by the turn of the century, the institutional memory of the United States intelligence community now resides in the private sector. That's pretty much where things stood on September 11 2001." This means that the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, and the other thirteen agencies in the US intelligence community cannot easily be reformed because their staffs have largely forgotten what they are supposed to do or how to go about it. They have not been drilled and disciplined in the techniques, unexpected outcomes, and know-how of previous projects, successful and failed. As numerous studies have, by now, made clear, the abject failure of the American occupation of Iraq came about in significant measure because the Department of Defense sent a remarkably privatized military filled with incompetent amateurs to Baghdad to administer the running of a defeated country. Defense Secretary Robert M Gates (a former director of the CIA) has repeatedly warned that the United States is turning over far too many functions to the military because of its hollowing out of the Department of State and the Agency for International Development since the end of the Cold War. Gates believes that we are witnessing a "creeping militarization" of foreign policy - and, though this generally goes unsaid, both the military and the intelligence services have turned over far too many of their tasks to private companies and mercenaries. When even Robert Gates begins to sound like President Eisenhower, it is time for ordinary citizens to pay attention. In my book "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic" (2006), with an eye to bringing the imperial presidency under some modest control, I advocated that we Americans abolish the CIA altogether, along with other dangerous and redundant agencies in our alphabet soup of sixteen secret intelligence agencies, and replace them with the State Department's professional staff devoted to collecting and analyzing foreign intelligence. I still hold that position. Nonetheless, the current situation represents the worst of all possible worlds. Successive administrations and Congresses have made no effort to alter the CIA's role as the president's private army, even as we have increased its incompetence by turning over many of its functions to the private sector. We have thereby heightened the risks of war by accident, or by presidential whim, as well as of surprise attack because our government is no longer capable of accurately assessing what is going on in the world and because its intelligence agencies are so open to pressure, penetration and manipulation of every kind. Copyright (c) 2008 Salon Media Group, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. SALON? is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Salon Media Group Inc. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/military_complex/print.html/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 08:47:47 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:47:47 -0400 Subject: [R-G] In Major Change, Obama Says He'll Support Offshore Drilling Message-ID: If there is one word that defines Barack Obama's campaign, it's not the noun "change" but the adjective "careful," which he adds to essentially the same policy as John McCain's: "As I've said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in"; and "we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage." -- Yoshie Posted on Friday, August 1, 2008 In major change, Obama says he'll support offshore drilling By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON ? Barack Obama Friday dropped his opposition to offshore oil drilling, saying he could go along with the idea if it was part of a broader energy package. Obama made his comments in St. Petersburg during an interview with the Palm Beach Post. "My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," he said. "If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," the paper quoted Obama as saying. The change is dramatic because Obama often pointed to his opposition to drilling as a key difference between himself and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. "I will keep the moratorium in place and prevent oil companies from drilling off Florida's coasts," Obama said in Florida in June. Friday, he said he was still not a fan of drilling, telling the Palm Beach paper, "I think it's important for the American people to understand we're not going to drill our way out of this problem." Obama also said, in a separate statement issued by his campaign, that he supported the bipartisan energy plan offered by 10 senators Friday. "Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," he said. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact." The proposal would end most of the ban on drilling. It would allow a 50-mile buffer on the east coast, as well as Florida's west coast. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and South Carolina would be permitted to start oil and natural gas exploration outside the buffer. Any oil, the senators said, would have to stay in this country. McCain reacted quickly to Obama's switch in positions, telling the Associated Press, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." Experts estimate that even if drilling proves to sharply increase oil supplies, its effects will not be felt for at least seven and probably 10 years. But the concept has proven popular, and McCain has made it a centerpiece of his stump speeches and some of his television ads. Political momentum has been moving in favor of opening up U.S. coastlines. There were two bars to offshore drilling, one first imposed by Congress in 1981 and another signed by President Bush's father in 1990 and renewed in 1998 by President Clinton. Bush lifted the executive ban last month; Congress, which left Friday for a five-week recess, has not acted. The government bans exploration and drilling on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, to protect U.S. beaches and fisheries from pollution. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 2 08:54:51 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:54:51 -0700 Subject: [R-G] My Questions for Langevin About Iran Message-ID: <200808021454.m72EspIm014493@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080802/d41dcc1a/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 2 09:30:37 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:30:37 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Group fighting against quiet ethnic cleansing' Message-ID: <200808021530.m72FUbSM009309@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080802/55f4116f/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 2 09:32:55 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:32:55 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Canadian MP, Bnai Brith Canada lawyer preparing application to UN for severe sanctions against Iran Message-ID: <200808021532.m72FWtW5011091@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080802/c8ccddb2/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 2 09:30:07 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:30:07 -0700 Subject: [R-G] 'All citizens must be equal' Message-ID: <200808021530.m72FU7XE009031@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080802/4411059f/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 2 09:29:09 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:29:09 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Russia takes control of Turkmen (world?) gas Message-ID: <200808021529.m72FT9C4008235@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080802/e6e17404/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Aug 2 09:29:26 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:29:26 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Coming to a theatre near you Message-ID: <200808021529.m72FTQE8008400@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080802/0e64e3dd/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 09:47:49 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 11:47:49 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Biggest Dive for Commodity Prices in 28 Years Message-ID: Biggest dive for commodity prices in 28 years By Javier Blas, Commodities Correspondent Published: August 1 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 1 2008 03:00 Commodities prices suffered their largest monthly drop in 28 years in July as crude prices nose-dived more than $20 from an all-time high of $147.27 a barrel. The Jefferies-Reuters CRB index, a global commodities benchmark, lost 10 per cent, its largest monthly decline since it fell 10.5 per cent in March 1980, amid worries about lower economic growth damping demand for raw materials. Natural gas, corn, wheat and freight costs plunged last month between 10 and 30 per cent, although from record levels. However, lead, used in car batteries, surged almost 25 per cent on tight supplies. The fall in energy and agriculture prices will be welcomed, if persisted, by central banks facing rising inflation. But commodities have provided false price signals this year, with the CRB index falling 6.3 per cent in March only to rebound strongly. In spite of last month's fall, analysts are split on whether the commodities prices have set a peak for the year. But the general bullish outlook is, nevertheless, cracking, with Deutsche Bank's strategists warning today that oil prices would fall below $100 a barrel by the start of next year. West Texas Intermediate fell $2.69 to $124.08 a barrel in New York. "We expect the short-term cyclical factors that drove the price of oil from $60 to $145 over the past year to reverse in the coming 12 months," said Marcel Cassard, of Deutsche Bank. "The impact of the decline in commodity prices on global inflation will be significant." Lehman Brothers is also forecasting lower oil prices, while Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Barclays Capital continue to be, in different degrees, bullish. Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Lehman Brothers, said: "Fundamentals are weakening, particularly in the oil market." Investors have been worried about a deteriorating economic outlook and signs of fresh crude oil supplies arriving from Saudi Arabia. The International Monetary Fund has warned that although the global economy weathered the crisis during the first half of the year, "global growth is expected to decelerate significantly in the second half of 2008". Traders warned the key commodity indices and energy markets closed the month below the previous month's opening, resulting in a strong technical bearish signal, which could trigger further sales in August. Commodities, Page 36 The Financial Market Crisis and Risks for Latin America Presentation by Anoop Singh Director, Western Hemisphere Department, IMF At the Conference on "The Euro: Global Implications and Relevance for Latin America" Sao Paulo, Brazil, March 17, 2008 From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 10:22:32 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:22:32 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Nicolas Magud on Inflation in Argentina Message-ID: Nicolas Magud's is a neoliberal economist's perspective, and his comments on wage increases, price controls, etc. can't be accepted and a coherent left-wing perspective on them must be presented to counter views like his, but his criticisms of the sources of tax revenues and "consumption-driven," as opposed to "investment-driven," economy are worth taking seriously (not just in Argentina, but everywhere in Latin America with a possible partial exception of Brazil), especially since it looks as if commodity booms that have improved Latin American governments' fiscal conditions and allowed for populist economic growth are already ending. -- Yoshie Is (the Kirchners' self-inflicted) Potential Hyperinflation Possible (Again) in Argentina? Nicolas Magud | Aug 1, 2008 This is a valid question to ask ourselves, as the Kirchners' administration has consistently pursued populist economic policies that usually end in a hyperinflation episode. This becomes more relevant if we review the economic history of the country. Once and again we have seen a sequence of events, many of which we have been observing during the past years, that ended badly. A short list follows. - Wage increases not only increase in frequency, but also in magnitude: during the last agreement (late July) minimum wage increase was in order of 27%?after having been raised closed to 20% in H1. - Tax revenue is mainly driven by the inflation tax (e.g. VAT) and the external boom (export taxes); the latter not being permanent. - Government expenditures increase at very high rates (in the 40% area). The government so far has been unable or unwilling to rein it in. - Given the already high inflation that has been partially and regressively repressed by subsidies, the government is now starting to let some of the "freezed" prices to partially accommodate. This is welcome; but too late. Notice that so far it only intends not to increase subsidies, but not reduce them. - The so-called fiscal surplus is under big dispute. Its present stance is probably worse than officially argued (as many private sector reports show). The future balance looks much worse. - Consumption-driven economy?as opposed to investment-driven. This is not trivial. Increases in present aggregate demand derived from investment create the ability to increase future aggregate supply in line with higher aggregate demand. Consumption-driven impulses do not necessarily create an investment stimulus; especially under weak property right?where every profit looks like "extraordinary profits" and thus "taxable to redistribute income". Of course this ignores the regressive income distribution?present and future?that high inflation causes. - Tardy (i.e. now that the current stance and especially the future outlook start to look gloomy) increases in retirement benefits. The main motive for this being increase aggregate demand while gaining some political support after the failure in the (export-tax) confrontation with the agricultural sector?as retired people tend to have a relatively high marginal propensity to spend. It is worth mentioning that the conflict with the agricultural sector is far from over, as the government still has plans to re-instate this export taxes, albeit in a different way?the administration needs the cash. - Price controls to (supposedly and ineffectively) control the inflation rate. This distorts relative prices and potentially triggers repressed inflation. If the latter holds, the relative price correction is rarely swift? And I can't call this an anti-inflationary plan. - Annual inflation expectations close to 35%. This seems to be in line with the private sector inflation estimates for the moths to come. The more so if with the price realignment mentioned above is considered. - Families are highly indebted and the delinquency rate is increasing. - The real exchange rate has been continuously appreciating as the inflation rate is on the rise while the central bank, in a way, targets the nominal exchange rate. - Political unrest: not only the President-Vice President recent controversy, but the social unrest in the interior (e.g. Cordoba, Santa Fe, etc.), and, consequently, a politically weakened government?its own alliances melting down due to the policies applied by the presidential couple during the last years. - History tell us that too frequently in the past Argentina raised wages, utilities, etc., and let some of the relative prices to re-accommodate as a pre-stage to a devaluation (with lots creativity such as splitting the foreign exchange market, fixing the exchange rate, interest rate caps, etc., and an infinite list). - Luckily the economy has not demonetized (yet?) and the central bank has not depreciated the domestic currency (yet?); as this will probably make the system to explode. But, as a signal, the "founding fathers (both ideologists and implementers)" of this so-called "productive model" are already fleeing away, trying to decouple themselves from it So, hyperinflation is not a problem in Argentina for the moment. However, I could change this to may be not yet, since unfortunately we cannot disregard it in the future. Unless I assume that the government is intentionally stimulating inflation to reduce (i.e. inflate away) its real expenditures instead of reducing its expenses. If so, somebody would need to remind the authorities of the Olivera-Tanzi effect?and that this basically does not work. This would be totally erroneous since?although worsening as a consequence of its own external tax policy?the surplus in the trade balance is still positive. Things can get really nasty is this surplus disappears? There is still (little) time to correct this. But among the features that should be included is a strong fiscal correction, freer markets (including relative prices!), better property rights, an independent central bank, a long-term growth strategy (that includes investment incentives along with lower inflation?the latter resulting from a serious anti-inflationary program). However, and against my wishful thinking, next year is an election year. The government has already lost a lot political support, so it could easily be tempted into reinforce the (already failed) populist policies. The more so since the policies that would help recover long-term and stable growth usually take time so enact?probably not enough time until the next election. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 11:00:46 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 13:00:46 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Fiscal Positions in Latin America: Have They Really Improved? Message-ID: Fiscal Positions in Latin America:Have They Really Improved? Ivanna Vladkova-Hollar and Jeromin Zettelmeyer | Jul 23, 2008 The improvement of fiscal balances has been a cornerstone of Latin America's macroeconomic stabilization and recovery following the crises of 1994?2002. After hovering around 5 percent in the last decade, the average fiscal deficit in Latin America declined steadily beginning in 2003, and reached a surplus in 2006. Initially, this reflected a reduction in government spending as a share of GDP, which reached a low around 2004. Beginning in 2005, spending picked up again, but was outpaced by an even larger increase in revenue growth. As a result, fiscal balances continued to strengthen (Table 1). Are these improvements sustainable? Or do they merely reflect exceptionally favorable external economic conditions?including an unprecedented boom in commodity prices?and the strong cyclical recovery that Latin America has enjoyed in the last few years? The fact that Latin America's recent fiscal improvements have come exclusively from the revenue side is a cause for concern (IMF, 2006, 2007; IADB, 2008; Izquierdo, Ottonello, and Talvi, forthcoming). In light of continued high debt levels, a return to the deficits of the 1990s could jeopardize the region's newfound stability. The key question is hence how much of the recent revenue growth can be expected to be "permanent"?i.e. to survive a return to normal cyclical conditions?and how strong fiscal balances would be in these circumstances. This is the subject addressed in this paper. We proceed in three steps. First, we analyze the sources of recent increases in the revenue to GDP ratio, distinguishing between revenues from commodity and noncommodity sources, and decomposing increases in the latter into three components: changes due to tax policy or tax administration; changes due to the economic cycle; and a residual. Based on this analysis as well as medium-term commodity price projections from two different sources, we compute "structural" revenue to GDP ratios separately for noncommodity and commodity revenues. Finally, we combine these with estimated structural expenditure ratios, under the assumption that expenditures in Latin America are not (automatically) linked to the economic cycle, to compute structural balance estimates for a number of countries in the region. The approach used in this paper [LINK: ] differs from standard structural balance methodology (Hagemann, 1999) in two ways. First, following Marcel et al. (2001), we distinguish between noncommodity and commodity revenues, and separately estimate the "structural" level for each. Second, when estimating noncommodity structural revenue, we consider the history of tax regime changes in each country in addition to the standard cyclical adjustment of observed revenues using the output gap. Conventional structural balance methodology implicitly assumes that all changes in the revenue ratio that are not identifiably cyclical? that is, cannot be statistically linked to the output fluctuations?are "structural," whether or not they can be attributed to changes in the tax system. This approach might give too rosy a picture of the fiscal balance if revenue ratios are buoyant for temporary, but not identifiably cyclical reasons. To address this problem, we adjust the observed tax revenue series, for each country, using the estimated revenue impact of all changes in the tax system that we are aware of, before regressing the adjusted series on changes GDP.2 The residual from this regression reflects the portion of revenue that is unexpected, given the state of both the tax system and the tax base (GDP). Structural revenue and balance estimates are computed both under the (conventional) assumption that this residual is structural, and under the alternative view that it is not. We also take a position on which view is closer to the truth by examining the statistical properties of the residual. We are aware of four related recent studies of fiscal performance in Latin America. Alberola and Montero (2006) examine the relationship between the fiscal stance and the economic cycle in a paper that is primarily interested in debt sustainability. As an intermediate step, they estimate structural fiscal balances in nine Latin American up to 2004 using the standard assumption that all non-cyclical revenue changes are structural, and disregarding changes in tax structure in their regressions.3 Lozano and Toro (2007) compute structural balances for Colombia, based on the standard approach, and a revenue series that is adjusted for changes in the tax structure. Cubero and Sowerbutts (forthcoming) analyze structural revenue in Costa Rica using a very similar methodology as this paper, with consistent results. Finally Izquierdo, Ottonello, and Talvi (forthcoming; see also IADB, 2008, which is based on their analysis) calculate structural balances for a group of Latin American countries using a different methodology, which relies on statistical filtering of the observed fiscal data. The flavor of their results is different from those of this paper, in that they attribute a much larger portion of the recent revenue increase to cyclical factors.4 Our study [LINK: ] has three main findings. First, not surprisingly, commodity related revenues play an important role in the recent revenue boom of commodity producing countries. Whether or not these revenue increases should be viewed as permanent or not depends on the commodity. For fuel commodities, medium term projections by the IMF and World Bank envisage largely flat prices in the medium run. For non-fuel commodities, declines are envisaged, particularly for some metals. Furthermore, the assessment of whether non-fuel commodity price increases should be viewed as permanent or not turns out to depend on the forecast source. Model-based forecasts by the World Bank envisage greater declines over the medium term than IMF projections, which are largely based on futures markets data. Second, revenue increases that are identifiably due to the business cycle play virtually no role in explaining the rise of the revenue-to-GDP ratio. The main reason is that estimated income elasticities of revenue are close to unity in most cases (they range between 0.8 and 1.35, with most elasticities clustered between 0.95 and 1.11). Hence, while noncommodity revenue levels are highly cyclical, revenue ratios should be quite insensitive to the cycle. Moreover, the estimated cyclical position of most Latin American countries is currently not very far from neutrality, namely in the order of 0?4 percent above "potential output." Hence, a return to a cyclically neutral position would not have a big impact on revenue ratios. Third, residual revenue changes that can be attributed neither to cyclical factors not to identifiable changes in the tax regime are quite large in a handful of countries, in the order of 1?3 percent of GDP. In these countries, structural balance estimates are sensitive to whether these residuals are interpreted as reflecting unobserved structural changes, or as temporary. Statistical tests indicate that for the most part they ought to be interpreted as temporary, but there are some exceptions. In sum, there is little doubt that fiscal positions in Latin America have "really" improved in recent years. The business cycle cannot have played a significant direct role in raising revenue ratios. Improved fiscal positions seem to mostly reflect persistently higher commodity prices, as well as changes in taxation and tax administration. This said, structural balances in Latin America are weaker than reported balances, particularly in the case of nonfuel commodity exporters, which are projected to suffer significant price declines in the medium term. Furthermore, they are subject to a large margin of uncertainty, both because of uncertain commodity price projections, and because some of the recent changes in noncommodity revenues as a share of GDP are hard to attribute either to cyclical conditions or to changes in the tax system. --------------------- Footnotes: (2) This approach follows Swiston, M?hleisen and Mathay (2007). (3) Alberola and Montero (2006) do not take account of changes in revenue regimes when estimating elasiticies of revenue with respect to income and commodity prices. This may explain the fact that their estimated income elasticities of revenue are generally much higher than ours (see section II below). (4) Their methodology consists in applying a Hodrick-Prescott filter with a smoothing parameter calibrated to reproduce the degree of smoothing that is implicit in the structural fiscal balance estimates of the Chilean authorities. Because the commodity prices that drive the Chilean balance exhibit much less persistence than those of other commodities produced in Latin America (see appendix 3), this leads to a far larger adjustment than if structural balances are based on country-by-country properties of commodity prices, as in this study. Paper published by the IMF [LINK: ] and introduction reproduced here with the author's permission. From suzannedk at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 11:57:18 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:57:18 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Group fighting against quiet ethnic cleansing' In-Reply-To: <200808021530.m72FUbSM009309@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> References: <200808021530.m72FUbSM009309@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> Message-ID: Israel is scared now that Ireland has stood up and in efectect said"Not in my name"! Many Israeli Zioniats have fanned out in stubborn nay saying Holland in order to propagandize it and to check who and where any movements are that might embarress Israel/USA as the leach and host are close as a kiss. On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > http://thenational.ae/article/20080731/FOREIGN/639654697/0/var > > The National August 1, 2008 > > Group fighting against 'quiet ethnic cleansing' > > By Jonathan Cook, Foreign Correspondent > > Anata, Jerusalem ? In the first hours of dawn, Nader Elayan was woken by a > call from a neighbour warning him to hurry to the house he had almost > finished building. By the time he arrived, it was too late: a bulldozer was > tearing down the walls. More than 100 Israeli security guards held back > local residents. > > The demolition, carried out four years ago, has left Mr Elayan, his wife, > Fidaa, who is now pregnant, and their two young children with nowhere to > live but a single room in his brother's cramped home. It is the only land > he > owns and he had invested all his savings in building the now destroyed > house. > > Over the past few years, the Elayans' fate has been shared by two dozen > other families in the Palestinian village of Anata, on the outskirts of > East > Jerusalem. Hundreds more families have demolition orders hanging over their > homes. "Not one person in my neighbourhood has a [building] permit," Mr > Elayan, 37, said. > > The problem of house demolitions affects Palestinians throughout the > occupied territories. But according to Hatem Abdelkader, an adviser to > Salam > Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, the situation is particularly acute > in the East Jerusalem area. > > He noted that Israel's policy of refusing building permits to many of the > 250,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem has resulted in the classification > of > 20,000 city homes as illegal since the occupation began in 1967. Last year > alone, the Jerusalem municipality issued more than 1,000 demolition orders > for "illegal dwellings". It is believed that three out of every four > Palestinian homes in the city are now built without a permit. > > "Illegal building is simply a pretext for destroying Palestinian families' > homes and lives," said Jeff Halper, head of the Israeli Committee Against > House Demolitions (ICAHD). > > "The demolitions are part of a policy to stop the natural expansion of > Palestinian communities in and around Jerusalem, freeing up the maximum > amount of land for use by Israeli settlers," Mr Halper said. "The > demolitions increase the pressure on Palestinians to move into the West > Bank, so that they will lose their residency rights in the city." > > In an act of defiance, Mr Halper's organisation and 40 international > volunteers helped the Elayans to rebuild their home this week in an attempt > to highlight what the committee calls the "quiet ethnic cleansing" of East > Jerusalem. The work was carried out during a two-week summer camp funded by > the Spanish government. Madrid also paid for 18 Spanish volunteers to > participate. > > "This is the first time a government has supported the rebuilding of an > 'illegal' Palestinian home demolished by the Israeli authorities," Mr > Halper > said. > > The issue of house demolitions is back in the spotlight now after two > separate incidents in July in which Palestinians, both of whom were > residents of Jerusalem, rampaged through the city in bulldozers, killing > three Israelis and injuring many more. Although the two Palestinians were > shot dead at the scene, Israeli officials, including Ehud Barak, the > defence > minister, are calling for their homes to be destroyed, making their > families > homeless, to deter others from following in their path. > > Such punitive destruction of homes was stopped in 2005, under the threat of > legal challenge, but not before some 270 homes were razed on security > grounds in the first years of the intifada. > > According to Mr Halper, however, the use of demolitions against > Palestinians > accused of illegal building is a far more significant problem. "We estimate > that there have been at least 18,000 homes destroyed during the four > decades > of occupation." > > In fact, Mr Halper said, he believes the true number of demolitions is > likely to be double the official figure. Many razings are unrecorded, > carried out by Palestinians themselves fearing a heavy fine if the Israeli > army enforces the demolition order. > > "Most demolitions are of multi-storey buildings that are home to several > families, meaning that well in excess of 100,000 Palestinians may have been > made homeless by Israeli administrative policies," he said. > > Since its founding a decade ago, the Israeli Committee Against House > Demolitions has rebuilt 150 Palestinian homes as part of its campaign to > bring the issue of demolitions to the attention of Israeli Jews and the > international community. It has been an uphill struggle, Mr Halper said. > The > European Union, which recently upgraded its relations with Israel, > announced > this month that it was withdrawing ICAHD's funding. > > But this year's work camp may make the continuing demolition of homes in > Anata a little harder, Mr Halper said. "It's one thing to destroy a home > supposedly built illegally by a Palestinian, but another to destroy one > built with money provided by the Spanish government." > > Mr Halper also believes that, by exposing such groups as the summer camp > volunteers to the Palestinians' plight, public perceptions may begin to > change. > Alonso Santos, a 21-year-old architecture student from Madrid, said he > learnt much from seeing at close hand Palestinian life under occupation. > > "It was an eye-opener to realise that the principles of urban planning we > are taught at the university are being used by the Israelis, but for > exactly > the opposite purpose from the one usually intended. The planning rules here > are designed not to improve the Palestinians' lives but to make them more > miserable." > > The volunteers were hosted at a peace centre in Anata erected on the site > of > Salim Shawamreh's home, which was demolished four times by Israeli > authorities. Known as Arabiya House, after Mr Shawamreh's wife, the > building > is decorated on one side with a mural depicting the death of Rachel Corrie, > a US peace activist, by an Israeli bulldozer that had been demolishing > homes > in Gaza. > > "Imagine your children leaving in the morning for school and returning > later > in the day to find their home, their whole world, has disappeared while > they > were gone," Mr Shawamreh said. "It's happened to my children four times. > It's cruelty beyond words." > > Mr Shawamreh, whose family were refugees from the northern Negev in 1948, > said he and ICAHD established the peace centre to highlight the plight of > the Palestinians in Anata. Today the house is overlooked by an Israeli > police station across the valley, part of the advance growth of a large > Jewish settlement, Maale Adumum, that Palestinians and Israeli human rights > groups believe is cutting the West Bank in two. > > The peace centre is also close both to the snaking route of Israel's > separation wall and to a new bypass road ? part of what critics call an > apartheid road system ? being built to ensure that Jewish settlers can > drive > separately from Palestinians across the West Bank. > > Arabiya House is under a temporary reprieve from demolition while Israeli > courts determine its status. > > Mr Halper said the judges have been reluctant to confirm the destruction > order because his group has threatened to take the case to the > International > Court of Justice if the ruling goes against it. > > jcook at thenational.ae > > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > > From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 14:13:34 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 16:13:34 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Why Pakistan Is Unlikely to Crack Down on Islamic Militants Message-ID: Posted on Fri, Aug. 01, 2008 Why Pakistan is unlikely to crack down on Islamic militants Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers last updated: August 01, 2008 10:05:22 PM WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration and its allies are pressing Pakistan to end its support for Afghan insurgents linked to al Qaida, but Pakistani generals are unlikely to be swayed because they increasingly see their interests diverging from those of the United States, U.S. and foreign experts said. The administration sought to ratchet up the pressure last month by sending top U.S. military and intelligence officials to Pakistan to confront officials there with intelligence linking Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence to the Taliban and other militant Islamist groups. When that failed to produce the desired response, U.S. officials told news organizations about the visit, and then revealed that the intelligence included an intercepted communication between ISI officers and a pro-Taliban network that carried out a July 7 bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the Afghan capital. The United States and Britain privately have demanded that Pakistan move against the Taliban's top leadership, which they contend is based near Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan Province, said a State Department official and a senior NATO defense official, who both requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly. Pakistan has been given "a pretty unequivocal message" to end ISI support for the militants and shake up the top ranks of the intelligence agency, the senior NATO defense official said. On Friday, however, Pakistan vehemently rejected the allegations of ISI involvement in the Indian Embassy blast, which killed 41 and injured 141. U.S. officials and experts said there's little chance that Pakistan will take any of the actions it's been asked to take. "There is a limit to what we can do in Pakistan," said the State Department official. "The fact that we're reduced to trying to send messages to the Pakistanis by putting stories in (newspapers) tells you we don't have any good options," said a former senior intelligence official knowledgeable about South Asia. "It also suggests that the high-level, face-to-face contacts haven't worked so far. The trouble is, these kinds of public threats are likely to backfire." For one thing, the Taliban and other groups allied with al Qaida could respond to any Pakistani crackdown by stepping up attacks inside Pakistan, which is battling Islamic extremist violence, U.S. officials and experts said. Furthermore, they said, Pakistan's nearly dysfunctional, feud-riddled civilian government has little power over the Army and the ISI. The latest evidence was a botched attempt under U.S. pressure to put the agency under the Interior Ministry before Prime Minister Yousaf Gilani's three-day visit to Washington this week. Pakistani generals and other leaders are also infuriated by President Bush's pursuit of a strategic relationship with India, their foe in three wars, as embodied by a U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation pact that won United Nations approval Friday, the U.S. officials and experts said. "One thing we never understood is that India has always been the major threat for Pakistan," said former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain, now the president of the Middle East Institute. Pakistan is alarmed by India's close ties to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and its growing influence in Afghanistan, where a $750 million Indian aid program includes the construction of a strategic highway that will open the landlocked country to Indian goods shipped through ports in Iran. Pakistan, which refuses to allow Indian products through its port of Karachi, has long coveted Afghanistan as a market, a trade route to central Asia and a rear area for its army in any new conflict with India. "Pakistan over the last several years has increasingly come to believe that it is being encircled by India and a U.S.-India-Afghan axis," said Seth Jones, an expert with the RAND Corp., a policy institute. For these reasons, Pakistan's military leaders may have decided to scale back their cooperation with the Bush administration's war against terrorism and boost support for the Taliban and other militant groups. "We have created a set of perverse incentives for the Pakistanis to continue their support for the Taliban," said a U.S. defense official, who requested anonymity to speak frankly. "Pakistan does not view the United States as a long-term player in the region and certainly doesn't view Pakistan's strategic interests as congruent with ours, and that divergence is getting larger, not smaller." Without a strategy to allay Pakistan's fears, U.S. officials and experts warned, there's little point in sending more U.S. and NATO troops to Afghanistan as Bush, Democratic candidate Barak Obama and his GOP rival, John McCain, all advocate. Pakistan vehemently denies backing the Taliban and other insurgents, pointing out that it's lost hundreds of troops in U.S.-funded counter-insurgency offensives. But many Afghan and U.S. officials scoff at Pakistan's denials, charging that the Taliban leadership operates undisturbed in Quetta and nearby tribal areas with ISI support, guidance, money and weapons. Bush, anxious to maintain Pakistani support in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al Qaida leaders, apparently believed that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, the former Army chief, would rein in the ISI. But that hope has proved to be misplaced. Truces forged by the ISI and the Pakistani army freed Taliban and other fighters to fight in Afghanistan, where the worst violence since the 2001 U.S. intervention is claiming higher U.S. casualties than in Iraq for the first time. On Friday, five more NATO troops were reported killed in eastern Afghanistan, a sector where U.S. troops are stationed. Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and CIA Deputy Director Stephen R. Kappes went to Pakistan to confront Prime Minister Gilani, Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Kayani and ISI Director Lt. Gen. Naveed Taj with the intelligence linking ISI officers to the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan. The Americans also documented other support that ISI officers have been giving the Taliban and other militant groups, including advance warnings of U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan's tribal region, said the State Department official and senior NATO defense official. "There is good evidence that elements of the ISI have re-engaged with the Taliban," said the senior NATO defense official. Gilani and his delegation heard similar complaints in Washington, according to American and Pakistani officials. Pakistan Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar told a television interviewer that Bush asked during a White House meeting, "Who is in control of ISI?" More from McClatchy: Pakistan's intelligence agency 'is like a woman with multiple lovers' Pakistani leader reproaches Bush for missile strike From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 14:47:00 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 16:47:00 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Why Choose Now to Complain about Pakistan's ISI? Message-ID: The timing must be in large part due to the fact that the Congress Party of India has just succeeded in outmaneuvering the CPI(M) and moving the Indo-US nuclear pact forward. -- Yoshie August 1st, 2008 Why choose now to complain about Pakistan's ISI? Posted by: Myra MacDonald Why now? Until this week, the ISI was an acronym for Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, that was little known outside of South Asia. Now it's all over the American media as the organisation accused of secretly helping Islamist militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the country it works for is a crucial ally in the U.S. battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban. The New York Times led the charge by reporting that the CIA had confronted Pakistan [LINK: ] over what it called deepening ties between members of the ISI and militant groups responsible for a surge in violence in Afghanistan. It followed it up with a story [LINK: ] quoting U.S. government officials blaming the ISI for an attack last month on the Indian embassy in Kabul. The Washington Post [LINK: ] and TIME [LINK: ], amongst others, ran similar stories. File photo of Indian parliamentWhenever you see a deluge of stories in the media quoting government or intelligence officials, it's always worth asking why those unnamed officials have chosen this particular moment to speak out. The accusations against the ISI ? denied by Pakistan [LINK: ] ? are not new. India has complained for years about the role of the ISI in supporting the insurgency in Kashmir. It threatened to go to war in 2001/2002 over a December 2001 attack on the Indian parliament that it blamed on militants backed by the ISI, a charge denied by Pakistan. The debate within India at the time was very similar to the one you can find today in the U.S. media ? how much do the ruling authorities in Pakistan control the ISI, and to what extent is it a monolithic disciplined organisation, and to what extent does it have renegade members who might follow their own agenda? More importantly, perhaps, in the current context, is how the Americans viewed the ISI. The U.S. diplomats I knew in India had no illusions about the ISI, although publicly they refused to take sides as they tried ? successfully as it turned out ? to persuade Islamabad and Delhi to stand down from a conflict that threatened to undermine America's post 9/11 efforts to tame Afghanistan. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, the CIA worked closely with the ISI to arm, train and fund the mujahideen. Between them they drove the Russians out of Afghanistan and helped bring down the Soviet Union. There can be no closer relationship between two countries' spy agencies than that. The CIA knows, and has long known, the ISI ? perhaps better than any other country's intelligence services. So I come back to my original question. Why turn on them now? There are, of course, obvious answers. Pakistan's new government, elected in February, just made a botched attempt to bring the ISI under civilian control. Its subsequent retraction served only to highlight the power of the ISI [LINK: ]. The Americans and their allies are suffering heavy losses in Afghanistan, while going into a presidential election where the war in Iraq, and the U.S. failure to hunt down al Qaeda and the Taliban, have become a major issue. But I can't help but wonder whether those unnamed officials now so keen to talk to the media are spinning a line. There have long been arguments within the CIA about how to handle the ISI, with agents based in Kabul generally arguing in favour of confrontation and those in Islamabad backing cooperation. So is what we are seeing in the U.S. media a reflection of a battle within the CIA over rival views on how to handle Pakistan and the ISI? Maybe. Or is it a reflection of actual events, including the increase in violence in Afghanistan, the renewed focus on Iraq/al Qaeda created by the U.S. presidential election, the speculation about whether the United States will send its troops into Pakistan to hunt down leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and heightened tensions between India and Pakistan over the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul? Maybe. I am not asking these questions in the kind of rhetorical way that suggests that I already know the answer. I'm asking because I don't know. April photo of a support holding a poster of Saddam Hussain/Saba al BazeeBut I am just a little bit suspicious when I see the media all heading in the same direction. It feels uncannily similar to the way the media quoted unnamed officials about WMD to justify the invasion of Iraq. Many countries had been suspicious of Saddam Hussein since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But having ignored that for years, there was suddenly a groundswell of opinion to remove him. Are we now seeing a similar groundswell against Pakistan? Once again, I don't know the answer, but suggest only that there is a need to ask why people have chosen this moment to talk. Otherwise we prove the old cliche true, that "we learn from history that we don't learn from history." (A word on comments. I write this blog because I want to hear what people have to say. Many people have posted excellent comments that have moved the debate forward. But please don't swear and don't abuse others. And stick to the subject. We're in the 21st century here so let's not go back to 1947.) From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 15:00:16 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:00:16 -0400 Subject: [R-G] The Crisis in Pakistan Message-ID: The Crisis in Pakistan posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 08/01/2008 @ 02:51am Here's a choice for would be foreign policy makers: is the solution to the current crisis in Pakistan (a) a comprehensive Pakistan-India accord, with full Iranian and Russian support, to strengthen Pakistan's civilian government and assert civilian control over Pakistan's rogue ISI intelligence agency, or (b) stepped-up US military intervention in Afghanistan, unilateral US strikes into Pakistan's lawless border areas in the northwest, and thuggish American threats aimed at Pakistan's fledging regime? If you picked (a), good for you. If you picked (b), well, the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain might offer you a job. Recent revelations in the New York Times about Pakistan's ISI and its ties to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, including reports that the ISI was indeed responsible [LINK: ] for the deadly bombing at India's embassy in Afghanistan, have pushed the Afghan-Pakistan-India nexus to the very front of the news. But greater US attacks and more US troops in Afghanistan aren't the answer. The answer lies in talks between India and Pakistan. India's Manmohan Singh and Pakistan's Yousuf Raza Gilani, the two leaders, held the first meeting between leaders of the two countries in fifteen months this week, and Pakistan's foreign minister was optimistic [LINK: ], saying that the talks had helped "clear the air" between the two nuclear-armed rivals which have fought three wars, two over the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir. "A lot of steam had been let out of the pressure cooker. The dish we're going to cook is going to be for the betterment of the region," he said. Trudy Rubin, writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer [cf. ], described the comments of Pakistan's foreign minister on the importance of improving India-Pakistan ties: Better relations with India "are a top priority," Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi told guests, emphatically, at a recent private dinner in Villanova, organized by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. Speaking the elegant English of a Cambridge University graduate, he insisted: "There is a large constituency on both sides that wants normalization. There may be hiccups, but we will forge ahead." This policy--if Pakistan's new civilian government really pursues it--is of crucial importance to the United States and the wider world. Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Quereshi said here on Thursday that Islamabad's response to a blast outside the Pakistan consulate in Herat, Afghanistan, was "measured" and it adopted the same attitude towards the blast outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul. "We believe charges and counter-charges would not help. It is easy to indulge in blame game. What we need is solutions to resolve issues," he told journalists. Of course, the problems between India and Pakistan aren't just hiccups. The United States, Afghanistan, and India have all accused Pakistan's ISI of supporting the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other anti-Indian terrorist groups in a campaign of violence against India. And Pakistan, not without some justification, has accused India and Afghanistan of supporting terrorists [LINK: ] against Pakistan in that country's Baluchistan province and elsewhere: Ruling Pakistan People's Party leader Rehman Malik, who functions as the interior minister and is a confidant of party chief Asif Ali Zardari, appealed to Pakistan's western allies, including the US, to stop India and Afghanistan's alleged activities. "India wants to destabilise FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas). What India and (Afghan President Hamid) Karzai are doing must stop. They must stop this," he told reporters in Washington yesterday. ? Though Pakistan has always blamed foreign hands for stirring trouble in Balochistan and the North West Frontier Province, this is the first time since the February 18 election that a senior government official has blamed India for fomenting unrest in the country. Pakistan has seen the Islamists are critical to securing Islamabad's control of Afghanistan since the 1970s, and it sees controlling Afghanistan as a way of countering Indian influence in the region. India, for its part, has worked closely with Iran and Russia over the years against Pakistan and the Taliban, and India used its ties to the non-Islamist, non-Pashtun Northern Alliance in Afghanistan as a way of weakening Pakistani influence in Iran and central Asia. (For most of the years after the 1970s, the United States supported Pakistan, the Islamists, and even the Taliban.) It ain't beanbag when two nuclear powers start accusing each other of close-to-war actions. Is this the kind of situation in which the United States wants to go into, guns blazing? I hope not. The remote chance that some nutball Islamists in Al Qaeda might do something nasty to the United States pales in significance against the real-world threats to the people of Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan posed by Islamic fundamentalists and other extremists, including Hindu fanatics. In fact, the United States is singularly ill-equipped to go bungling into that part of the world like some drunken sheriff. Last time we did, post-1979, when we supported the Afghan warlords and Islamist crazies against the USSR, we helped create the very problem we're trying to solve now. Many of the extremists holed up in Quetta, the Northwest Frontier Province, and the tribal agencies are people America armed and trained a generation ago. So let's let India and the new government of Pakistan handle their own problems. They'll need immense diplomatic support from the rest of the world, including the UN and the US, but also including Iran, Russia, China, and others. Pakistan is fragile. It's new government, having already lost one major coalition partner, is trying to bring ISI under civilian control at the same time they are trying to force General Pervez Musharraf out of office and reorganize the corrupt, pro-Islamist army command. For my part, I believe they'll do better without heavy-handed US threats, which only aid extremists and ultranationalists. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 15:42:25 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:42:25 -0400 Subject: [R-G] IMF and WB Pressure Africa Finance Chiefs on China Funds Message-ID: Africa finance chiefs eye consensus on China funds Fri Aug 1, 2008 6:39am EDT By Daniel Magnowski and Vincent Fertey NOUAKCHOTT, Aug 1 (Reuters) - African finance ministers and central bankers met IMF and World Bank counterparts on Friday hoping to hammer out guidelines on handling a tide of new investment into the continent, much from resource-hungry China. China, Brazil and India have been tying up infrastructure and loan deals in Africa, often in return for oil, metals and other resources they need to fuel their fast-growing economies. Traditional lenders like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank worry African states now benefiting from debt relief may run up new debt mountains they may find hard to sustain, especially if a commodities boom runs out of steam. "We decided to set aside a day to talk about non-traditional financing sources, that is, China, India, Brazil and sovereign wealth funds, in order to clarify the way the IMF and World Bank appreciate the interests of these new sources of financing in Africa," said Ousmane Kane, Mauritanian central bank governor and president of the African Caucus of the IMF and World Bank. The Caucus meeting in Mauritania, bringing together central bankers and finance ministers from the poorest continent, will hold a session to agree a common position on new investors, increasingly used as alternatives to traditional lenders. Besides loans, deals with China often involve Chinese workers building roads and other infrastructure projects, while natural resources move the other way, and the sums are awesome. IMF officials say they must examine the debt implications of a $9 billion mining and infrastructure deal between China and Democratic Republic of Congo before deciding if Congo will qualify for an IMF programme and subsequent debt relief package. Opposition politicians and anti-graft groups in Niger have criticised the lack of transparency surrounding a deal between the government and China's state oil company CNCP which could be worth $5 billion to one of the poorest countries on earth. RESPONDING TO AFRICA'S NEEDS "The advantage of the new financiers is that they respond to a need that Africa has, which is infrastructure, whereas traditional donors focus on things like education," said a finance official at the meeting who declined to be named. "An issue to be discussed is the way these loans are backed by mines and oilfields, which in the long-term is a big concern," he said. Despite rising prices for many of Africa's commodity exports in recent years, many economists worry countries which have benefited from huge debt forgiveness packages risk plunging into a new round of unsustainable borrowing from new lenders eager to secure access to oil and minerals. "A big concern is debt. Lots of debt has just been wiped out, and now with China coming, are we going to see a new cycle? Prices of oil and other resources are high at the moment, but if prices drop, African countries will still have to pay interest on loans from China," the delegate said. African countries, rather than lenders, must be responsible for fully assessing the future obligations to which they commit by accepting loans from new sources, Mauritania's Kane said. "We are for transparency ... The meeting aims to clarify the position between traditional and non-traditional financing sources, but most important is that Africa has to give its position to these non-traditional sources, to tell them what they have to do for us," he said. The Chinese Developent Bank's presence at the IMF-World Bank meeting demonstrated the sea change in African finance in recent years. "Like it or not, China is a big part of Africa now," another delegate said. (For full Reuters Africa coverage and to have your say on the top issues, visit: africa.reuters.com) (Editing by Alistair Thomson and Stephen Nisbet) From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Aug 2 20:10:35 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:10:35 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Nuking the Treaty Message-ID: <4895139B.50603@attglobal.net> Iran is the least of the world's offenders against non-proliferation. by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (July 28 2008) What is the Iranian government up to? For once the imperial coalition, overstretched in Iraq and unpopular at home, is proposing jaw, not war. The UN Security Council's offer was a good one: if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment programme, it would be entitled to legally guaranteed supplies of fuel for nuclear power, assistance in building a light water reactor, foreign aid, technology transfer and the beginning of the end of economic sanctions {1}. The United States seems prepared, for the first time since the revolution, to open a diplomatic office in Tehran {2}. But in Geneva ten days ago, the Iranians filibustered until the negotiations ended {3}. On Saturday President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran has now doubled the number of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium {4}. A fourth round of sanctions looks inevitable. The unequivocal statements Barack Obama and Gordon Brown made in Israel last week about Iran's nuclear weapons programme cannot yet be justified {5, 6}. Nor can the unequivocal statements by some anti-war campaigners that Iran does not intend to build the bomb. Why would a country with such reserves of natural gas and so great a potential for solar power suffer sanctions and the threat of bombing to make fuel it could buy from other states, if it accepted the UN's terms? Those who maintain that Iran's purposes are peaceful clutch at the National Intelligence Estimate published by the US government in November {7}. While it judged that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, it saw the country's civilian uranium programme as a means of developing "technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so". The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency notes that no fissile material has been diverted from Iran's stocks, but raises grave questions about some of the documents it has found, which suggest research into bomb-making {Iran says the papers are forgeries) {8}. Those of us who oppose an attack on Iran are under no obligation to accept Ahmadinejad's claims of peaceful intent. Nor do we have to accept the fictions of our own representatives. The Security Council's offer to Iran claimed that resolving this enrichment issue would help to bring about a "Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction" {9}. But like every other such document, it made no mention of the principal owner of these weapons in the region: Israel. According to a leaked briefing by the US Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel possesses between sixty and eighty nuclear bombs {10}. But none of the countries demanding that Iran scraps the weapons it doesn't yet possess are demanding that Israel destroys the weapons it does possess. This subject is the great political taboo. Neither Brown nor Obama mentioned it last week. The US intelligence agencies provide a biannual report to Congress on the weapons of mass destruction developed by foreign states, which covers Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and others, but not Israel {11}. During a parliamentary debate in March the British defence minister Bob Ainsworth was asked whether he thought that Israel's nuclear weapons are "a destabilising factor" in the Middle East. "My understanding", he replied, "is that Israel does not acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons" {12}. Does Mr Ainsworth really buy this nonsense? If so, can we have a new minister? If Iran builds a bomb, it will do so for one reason: that there is already a nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, by which it feels threatened. But we make the rules and we break them. The non-proliferation treaty (NPT) obliges the five official nuclear states, of which the United Kingdom is one, to work towards "general and complete disarmament" {13}. On Friday the Guardian published the notes for a speech made last year by a senior civil servant, which suggested that the decision to replace the UK's nuclear missiles had already been made, in secret and without parliamentary scrutiny {14, 15}. Since then defence ministers have told the Commons on five occasions that the decision has not yet been made {16, 17, 18, 19, 20}. They appear to have misled the House. At the Geneva conference on disarmament in February, one delegate pointed out that the "chances of eliminating nuclear weapons will be enhanced immeasurably" if non-nuclear states can see "planning, commitment and action toward multilateral nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon states" like the UK. If the nuclear states "are failing to fulfil their disarmament obligations", other nations would use this as an excuse for maintaining their weapons {21}. Who was this firebrand? Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence. A man of the same name is failing to fulfil our disarmament obligations. Browne claims that Britain must maintain its arsenal because of proliferation elsewhere, just as those proliferating elsewhere say that they must develop their arsenals because the official nuclear nations aren't disarming. With the exception of France, none of the other European states feels the need to deploy nukes. But the UK keeps preparing for the last war. Of course, no one is refusing to disarm; it's just that the task keeps getting pushed into the indefinite future. Opponents of British nuclear weapons maintain that a new generation of warheads would survive until 2055 {22}. The permanent members of the UN Security Council draw a distinction between their "responsible" ownership of nuclear weapons and that of the aspirant powers. But over the past six years, the UK, US, France and Russia have all announced that they are prepared to use their nukes pre-emptively against a presumed threat, even from states that do not possess nuclear weapons {23, 24, 25, 26}. In some ways the current nuclear stand-off is more dangerous than the tetchy d?tente of the Cold War. The danger has been heightened by the US government's current offensive. Condoleeza Rice, the secretary of state, is demanding that other countries accept her plans to destroy the last remaining incentive for states to abide by the NPT {27, 28}. The treaty grants countries which conform to it materials for nuclear power on favourable terms. It's a flawed incentive - as the spread of civil nuclear programmes makes the proliferation of military material more likely {29} - but an incentive nonetheless. Now Rice insists that India should have special access to US nuclear materials despite the fact that it has not signed the NPT and has illegally developed nuclear weapons. If she is successful, this effort - and the concomitant US demand that India is recognised as an official nuclear power - will blow the NPT to kingdom come. The treaty which survived the Cold War, and which remains the most important of the wilting guarantees against global annihilation, is being nuked for the sake of a few billion dollars of export orders. Here's where it gets really depressing. The Bush administration's proposal has been supported by both John McCain and Barack Obama {30}. The contrast between Obama's position on India and his statements on Iran could not be greater, or more destructive of the inflated hopes now vested in him. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's insistence that Iran enriches its own fissile material, and the guessing game he is playing with Israel, the atomic energy agency and the UN Security Council is irresponsible and staggeringly dangerous. But if I were in his position I might be tempted to do the same. www.monbiot.com References: 1. UN Security Council, 12th June 2008. Letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2008/infcirc730.pdf 2. Ewen MacAskill, 18th July 2008. Iran: US will seek green light to open base in Tehran. The Guardian. 3. Julian Borger, 20th July 2008. Iran given two-week deadline to end the nuclear impasse. The Observer. 4. No author given, 27th July 2008. Iran: Nuclear centrifuge total has doubled. The Observer. 5. Barack Obama, 23rd July 2008. Speech in Sderot. http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog#top 6. Gordon Brown, 21st July 2008. Speech to the Knesset. http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page16003.asp 7. National Intelligence Council, November 2007. National Intelligence Estimate. http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf 8. IAEA, 26th May 2008. Implementation of the NPT SafeguardsAgreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-15.pdf 9. UN Security Council, ibid. 10. US DIA, July 1999. The Decades Ahead, 1999-202. Extracted at: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html 11. Joseph Cirincione, 11th March 2005. Iran and Israel's Nuclear Weapons. http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3217 12. Bob Ainsworth, 26th March 2008. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080326/halltext/80326h0009.htm 13. Article VI. http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html 14. Matthew Taylor, 25th July 2008. Britain plans to spend GBP 3 billion on new nuclear warheads. The Guardian. 15. You can see the document here: http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/press-releases/trident/secret-plan-to-replace-nuclear-warheads-parliament-misled.html 16. Bob Ainsworth, 26th March 2008. 17. Des Browne, 7th January 2008. 18. Des Browne, 28th November 2007. 19. Des Browne, 19th November 2007. 20. Des Browne, 12 September 2007. 21. Des Browne, 5th February 2008. 'Laying the Foundations for Multilateral Disarmament'. Geneva Conference on Disarmament. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20080205layingTheFoundationsForMultilateralDisarmament.htm 22. Matthew Taylor, ibid. 23. This was first mentioned by Geoff Hoon, 24th March 2002 on The Jonathan Dimbleby Show, ITV 1, and has been reiterated several times since. 24. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/US-joint-nuclear-operations.pdf 25. No author given, 19th January 2008. Pre-Emptive Nuclear Threat Issued By Russian General Yuri Baluyevsky. Sky News. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20082851301432 26. Jacques Chirac, quoted by John Thornhill and Peter Spiegel, 20th January 2006. The Financial Times. 27. No author give, 26th July 2008. Condoleezza Rice Paks a proliferation punch. The Economic Times. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Condoleezza_Rice_Paks_a_proliferation_punch/articleshow/3281756.cms 28. Sue Pleming, 24th July 2008. Rice says will push Congress hard on India deal. Reuters. 29. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/09/21/proliferation-treaty/ 30. Elana Schor, 22nd July 2008. Q&A: India's stalled nuclear deal with the US. The Guardian. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/29/nuking-the-treaty/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 22:29:02 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 00:29:02 -0400 Subject: [R-G] CHILE: Copper Boom - Cui Bono? Message-ID: CHILE: Copper Boom - Cui Bono? By Daniela Estrada SANTIAGO, Jan 11 (IPS) - According to global forecasts, the price of copper, Chile's main export, will remain high in 2008 thanks to strong demand from China. But just who will benefit from this bonanza is up for debate. Chile is the world's largest producer and exporter of copper, with a 35 percent market share, and the biggest global reserves. According to the state Chilean Copper Commission (COCHILCO), the country produced 5,361 tons of copper concentrate in 2006, nearly five times as much as its closest competitor, the United States, which produced 1,226 tons. Peru followed, with 1,049 tons. The Chilean state controls just 30 percent of the total output, through the National Copper Corporation (CODELCO). The remaining 70 percent is in private hands. In 1966, the government of Christian Democrat President Eduardo Frei Montalva (1964-1970) "Chileanised" copper by purchasing 51 percent of the shares in mines worked by foreign companies. Then in 1971, Socialist President Salvador Allende (1970-1973) expropriated the private mining companies and nationalised the copper industry before he was overthrown by a military coup. But under the dictatorship of the late General Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990), laws were passed to promote the reopening of the industry to private companies, even though the Chilean constitution says that "the state has absolute, exclusive, inalienable and imprescriptible domain over all mines." This was done by granting concessions, which in practice allow private firms to treat mines as their private property. The system has attracted a large number of foreign investors, mainly since the return to democracy in 1990. But for critics, the new legislation is unconstitutional and signifies the denationalisation of copper. Debate on these issues has heated up because of the high international prices for copper seen since 2003. According to a COCHILCO report, the average price of copper for 2007 was 323 cents of a dollar per pound on the London Metal Exchange. That is 5.9 percent higher than the average for 2006, and is the highest nominal value in history and the third highest in real terms, after 1966 and 1969 (361 and 325 cents per pound, respectively), the December report says. "Some of the world's most respected companies and institutions in copper futures are saying that copper prices will fluctuate between 280 and 360 cents per pound in 2008, with an average of approximately 325 cents, similar to that of 2007," Gustavo Lagos, head of the Catholic University's Mining Centre, told IPS. "In 2009, the average price is predicted to be under 300 cents per pound, and in 2010 it is expected to be around 270," said Lagos. Despite the falling trend, these prospects are excellent, given that in 2003 the price per pound was 70 cents of a dollar. "There was no such extended copper boom in the 20th century. These very high prices, of over three dollars a pound, are likely to last for at least three years, 2006, 2007 and 2008, which is unprecedented," said the engineer. In Lagos' view, the run of high copper prices can be explained by two simultaneous global phenomena. These are, on one hand, "the unexpected rise in Chinese demand for commodities," including copper which is used in building infrastructure, and on the other hand, "the inability of the mining industry, in the short term, to supply the quantities it had promised, because of underinvestment" since 1998, he said. "The long-term price of copper will remain high, above 130 cents, unless there is world over-production, such as the transnational mining companies in Chile created between 1995 and 2000," economist Orlando Caputo, head of the Centre for Studies on Transnationalisation, Economics and Society (CETES), told IPS. Caputo's career has been in academia, except for the period when he was named general manager of CODELCO by Allende, from 1970 to 1973. Along with some lawmakers belonging to the centre-left coalition that has governed Chile since 1990, and subcontracted CODELCO workers who organised a major strike in mid-2007, Caputo holds the view that copper should be renationalised in order to finance wage increases, greater social spending and economic diversification. But in September, the lower chamber of congress rejected a draft statement calling on President Michelle Bachelet to move towards renationalisation. Gustavo Lagos, by contrast, says that "the future of copper in Chile can be splendid, significant, or plain irrelevant or negative, depending on how we handle it as a nation. Our development does not depend on foreign companies, nor imperialism, nor ghosts from our past; it depends on whether we do things properly." This, he says, means maintaining the present tax rates to ensure private investment over the coming years, drawing greater talent into the industry, removing barriers so that transnational mining companies can bring in technological innovation, and improving the management of CODELCO to increase its competitiveness, "because there are signs that it may not be competitive in the future." Due to the high prices, the industry's contribution to gross domestic product (GDP), measured at current prices, rose from 8.3 percent in 2003 to 23 percent in 2006. In 2006, CODELCO contributed 9.2 billion dollars to the state coffers -- over 20 percent of total revenue. And in 2007, the state received some 16 billion dollars from CODELCO profits and taxes on private mining companies. But the state mining company faced a series of labour conflicts in 2007, led by subcontracted workers who want equal wages and benefits to those of company employees doing the same jobs. The latest tension broke out late last year, when the Labour Ministry, which had completed a review of subcontracting practices in the mining industry, ordered CODELCO to directly hire 5,000 workers who are subcontracted in contravention of the recent Subcontracting Law. CODELCO refused, and has appealed in court. On Jan. 3, subcontracted mineworkers held protests demanding that the Labour Ministry's ruling be implemented. Two hundred protestors were arrested. Lagos says that subcontracting workers is one of the reasons for CODELCO's loss of productivity. Caputo, in turn, says that the subcontracted workers' demands are fair, because of their low pay and the physically demanding nature of work in the mining industry. Caputo also says that "there is a scramble for plunder going on within CODELCO. Former CODELCO employees are now owners of contracting firms, and some politicians are also involved in outsourcing." The Mining Ministry's public report for 2007 says that mining development has brought about considerable poverty reduction. "The mining regions of Tarapac?, Antofagasta and Atacama have poverty levels that are below the national poverty rate" of 13.7 percent, it says. Mining has generated more and better jobs, development of physical infrastructure, opportunities for companies to supply goods and services and the incorporation of new technology, among other benefits, it says. Among the proposals made by political and social sectors on how to make the most of the boom are improvements in education, investing in public capital goods (mainly in the health sector), supporting small and medium-sized businesses and spending more on the regions. In May, Bachelet announced that an additional 600 million dollars from copper earnings would be spent on education in 2008, but the government's economic policy is mainly based on investing savings abroad. Caputo complained that private mining companies made profits of nearly 20 billion dollars in 2006, which according to his calculations were equivalent to 17 percent of the country's GDP, 75 percent of the national budget, and twice the combined budgets of the Health and Education Ministries. In his view, the specific tax on mining approved in 2005 is too low. For 2007, it brought in revenues of approximately 670 million dollars, which are to be spent on technological innovation and development. "The Chilean state has no national development plan. That word (plan) is prohibited. Everything is left up to the market. Everyone talks about improving productivity factors, such as human capital, and generating conditions for higher productivity. But that isn't enough," said Caputo. According to Lagos, labour strife as well as international turbulence caused by the U.S. mortgage crisis may affect copper prices in 2008. (END/2008) From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 23:06:30 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 01:06:30 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Yet Another Celebration of Slow Growth in Brazil + A Booming Brazil? Just Another Myth Created by the Press Message-ID: Yet Another Celebration of Slow Growth in Brazil Brazil is a large country with a population of more than 190 million people. For this reason it is a position to command attention in world politics. It does not have an especially robust economy, in spite of efforts by the media to tell us otherwise. The NYT gives us another story today touting the success of Brazil's economy. While its economy has been performing better under the current administration than it did in the 80s or 90s, its economy has still not been growing rapidly in comparison with successful developing countries. Countries like China, India, and Russia, with whom Brazil is often compared, have enjoyed per capita GDP growth of more than 7 percent over the last 6 years. By comparison, Brazil's per capita GDP growth has averaged just 2.5 percent over this period. This rate of growth is weak for a developing country and makes Brazil one of the slower growing countries in Latin America over this period. While its growth rate exceeded that of Mexico (2.0 percent), it is well behind the growth rate of Argentina (7.5 percent), Chile and Columbia (both 3.6 percent), and Peru (4.9 percent). It would be helpful if the media would do a better job of putting Brazil's growth rate in perspective. --Dean Baker A Booming Brazil? Just Another Myth Created by the Press Written by Daniel Torres Thursday, 24 July 2008 04:43 The international media is infatuated with the Brazilian economy. Almost every week there is a new article adulating the Brazilian economic 'miracle.' Although these newspapers make accurate claims they also tend to frequently embellish the truth. A good example is in a recent online article published by The Guardian South American correspondent Rory Carrol, on Brazil, stating that, "Fiscal prudence and market-friendly policies have delivered economic stability and solid, if unspectacular growth (1)." The assertion that Brazil's economy, under Lula, experienced "solid, if unspectacular growth" lacks merit with no statistical evidence to support such claims but such statements are frequently touted by most mainstream newspapers. Many articles are correct to note the improvements to the economy. A growing number of Brazilians are purchasing goods on credit stimulating economic activity in various sectors. The minimum wage is growing and prices are relatively stable. Most of the economic improvements have been relegated to the external economic sector. Unfortunately, this sector is distant from the reality of average Brazilians. The stock market and financial market have undergone spectacular growth led by the rapid infusion of foreign investment. The growth in the financial sector does not in correlate to the increase experienced by the Brazilian economy. Since 2003, the export-led economy produced very strong results. For the first time in its history, Brazil holds slightly less than 200 billion dollars in its foreign reserves far surpassing its total external debt (2). Brazil is a net creditor (3). The Lula government made early repayments to both the IMF and to the Paris Club. In 2007, Brazil had 64 Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) raising US$ 42.8 billion with much of inflow originating from abroad. Since 2002, the S?o Paulo stock exchange, Bovespa, grew by 1,250 percentage points (4). Recently, Bovespa surpassed the 70,000 benchmark for the first time ever. Even CNN's news ticker mentioned this historic feat. For the past five years the trade surplus has comfortably exceeded US$ 35 billion helping to push the current account from deficit to surplus. The risk of default on Brazil's external debt has dropped to historically low levels (5). Last year, international investors sent Brazil over US$ 35 billion in foreign investment. The international debt agencies, of Fitch and Standard & Poor's, raised Brazil to the safest "investment grade" level securing it a new reputation as a low risk place for international investors (6). Petrobras, Vale do Rio Doce, and Embraer are just three Brazilian multinationals active in the global economy of today. These achievements did not go unrecognized by the likes of the Los Angeles Times. Like the Guardian article, it extols that, "After several boom-and-bust cycles in recent decades, Brazil is in the midst of its best sustained economic growth since the 1970s." Brazil's economic growth rate in the 1970s averaged 7 to 8% per year, a number almost three times the current economic growth rate. More importantly, Brazil is not experiencing a sustained economic growth worth noting. The author goes on to write that, "Economic growth will come in at 5.3 % this year, lower than the hemisphere's 5.7%, but quite a feat for a country that over the previous 10 years averaged only 2.5% annual expansion" (7). Although the figures cited are accurate, it provides a distorted impression that an economic boom is taking place by using the economic growth figure for only one year. The article then recites how the financial-stock sector boom is developing rapidly, which is true and positive, but it only furthers the perception that a new Brazilian miracle is occurring. Surprisingly absent is what percentage of Brazilians own stocks or how many purchased IPOs last year? I wonder why these figures are missing? By noting these improvements many journalists logically conclude that Brazil's economy is entering a period of unprecedented growth. For the financial sector, it is undeniable that there is growth bringing about relative economic stability but there is another economy, arguably more important, that is at best stagnant. A closer assessment of Brazil's internal, or domestic, economy is seriously lacking. The belief that economic growth is expanding rapidly is mistakenly absent. The economic truth is more somber. Since 1996, economic growth has been mired in a cycle of one year boom followed by years of stagnation. The external accounts, frequently touted as success by Western journalists, are beginning to show signs of fragility. Also, the lack of serious investment in the future deters economic development. The economy stagnated throughout President Lula's first term in office (2003-2006). Lula's first-term average growth rate is equal to Fernando Henrique Cardoso's, his predecessor; a lethargic 2.6% (8). During Lula' first term in office, the economy only grew more than 4%, in 2004, reaching 4.9% (revised to 5.7%). A more accurate growth measure is the per capita growth rate, which factors in the growth of population. Under Lula's tenure per capita grew by 1.2%, a slight improvement from Cardoso's overall average of 0.8% (9). In fact, over the past 10 years, per capita growth has averaged 0.7% (10). In contrast, in the 1960s and 70s, average per capita went up by 4.5% (11). Last year, the economic statistics were revised under a new methodology. Average economic growth for Lula's first term was revised upward to 3.35% (12). Lula's overall average growth rate from 2003 to 2007 is 3.76%. Although this average economic rate is faster than Cardoso's average growth rate of 2.3% over his 8 years in office (13). Since 2003, growth in Brazil can only be described as lackluster when compared globally. Since 2003, Brazil's average 3.8% economic growth is dwarfed by the global average of 39 developing nations who recorded a 5.6% growth rate during the same period according to Austing Rating (14). In fact, since 1996, Brazil's growth rate has consistently remained below the world's average until last year when Brazil finally surpassed the world average (15). Most experts agree that Brazil needs economic growth of at least 5 or 6% to create just enough jobs for those entering the labor market. The consistent failure of inducing economic growth likely caused Lula's administration to launch the PAC (the Program to Accelerate [Economic] Growth) a major public works program to improve the country's infrastructure and hopefully accelerate economic growth. If the real economy was in fact booming the Brazilian people would not be voicing their overwhelming discontent. A recent PEW poll indicated that 59% of Brazilians said the economy was going badly for them. This is an improvement from last year when 70% of Brazilians indicated such feelings (16). The strong growth, achieved in 2007, must have improved the economic outlook for a few Brazilians but the benefits of this economic boom has not trickled-down to the majority of the population. The once strong external economic sector is starting to show signs of distress. As of April 2008, the trade balance dropped by 79% in relation to last year (17). In the same month, the current account registered a deficit of US$ 14 billion, larger than the US$ 12 billion that the Central Bank predicted for all of 2008 (18). Although foreign investment is covering the current account deficit Brazil's economy for now, making Brazil more dependent on global inflows as the current account deficit grows. A prolonged global economic recession would likely be detrimental to Brazil. International investors tend to punish third-world nations that consistently run large current account deficits. The current account deficit was a significant component of Brazil's economic vulnerability, and instability, from 1997 to 2002 (19). A few years ago Turkey experienced economy difficulties under the weight of its current account deficits. The external conditions are likely to deteriorate further. Brazil's currency, the real, will continue to gain, in the short-term, against the dollar pushed upwards by higher domestic interest rates that attract massive speculative inflows. This 'strong real' policy cheapens imports, lowering inflation, while limiting Brazilian exports and economic growth. Also the costs of producing is growing rapidly causing industry to depart from Brazilian shores. The Financial Times (FT) explored the growing possibility of 'de-industrialization' taking hold in Brazil. The chief executive of Marcopolo, an international bus company, told the FT 'that it's too expensive to produce [in Brazil] that is why industry is leaving' (20). Domestic and international industry finds it profitable to relocate production operations, thus potential jobs and income, to countries with a more competitive exchange rate policy like Argentina. Former Communication Minister, Luis Carlos Mendon?a de Barros, under Cardoso's administration (1995-2002), also warns of the increased risk of de-industrialization especially as the ethanol industry increases export earnings. More exports will bring in more dollars to Brazil causing the currency to become even stronger than it is current high levels (21). China, on the other hand, is a competitive place to produce goods, in part, because it artificially keeps its currency devaluated at roughly 8.23 yuan per dollar making its exports artificially cheap and its imports expensive. Higher interest rates will cause growth to fall to about 4% for this year and growth for 2009, and probably for 2010, is already condemned to its usual stagnant rate. Growth is vitally important for any nation. Lula's administration comes with many excuses for the lack of growth yet one likely culprit is its own ultraconservative political economy. The Brazilian Central Bank consistently implements abusive interest rates, which remains the highest real interest rates in the world. There is no doubt that higher interest rates were needed to halt inflation but it has become a dangerous obsession within the government. What journalists consistently overlook is that Lula's government, led by the president himself, has sacrificed economic growth for lowest possible rate of inflation. Lula even said that he would make "any sacrifice" against the return of inflation (22). Somebody should tell him that there is a difference between hyperinflation, which Brazil suffered from in the past, and inflation. Most international commentators assumed that it was Lula's former finance minister, Antonio Palocci, who convinced President Lula of the importance of keeping inflation very low. International investors shuttered when Palocci resigned from his position under intense scrutiny. In actuality, it was Lula who taught Palocci that lower inflation was needed. According to Palocci's latest book, Lula argued for an inflation target of 4% while Palocci advocated a more manageable 5%. They eventually settled on a compromise figure of 4.5%. Although this figure kept inflation low it also inhibited economic expansion. Palocci warned Lula that keeping the inflation target this low would stunt economic growth. Lula understood this argument, but believed that inflation was clearly the greatest evil, a lesson he learned from his days as a union leader (23). A few government officials opposed these interest rates. The Institute of Research and Applied Economics (IPEA) economist, Marcio Pochmann, said that "we want to step on the accelerator [of economic growth], but the problem is the Central Bank" (24). The vice-president, Jos? Alencar, is one of the leading critics calling the interest rate policy as 'fiscally irresponsible' because it drives up interest payments costs thus Brazil runs a higher budget deficit (25). Also the current governor of S?o Paulo, Jos? Serra, has been another vocal critic of the interest rate policy. The ex-Secretary of the Political Economy of the Finance Ministry, Gomes de Almeida, left his government position, when he criticized the hyper-valuation of the currency, which he noted, was prejudicial to the country and a result of the high interest rate policy (26). The economic tools used to contain inflation, and keep interest rates low, have largely failed. In 2004, the Brazilian economy finally rebounded at a brisk 5.7% pace but the central bank wanted to reach its targeted inflation rate (27). So interest rates began to rise in September of 2004. Lula correctly worried that future growth would be compromised. In response, Lula raised the primary budget surplus (budget surplus that excludes interest payments on the debt) from 4.25% to 4.5% (28). Lula was told by government officials that a higher primary budget surplus would keep inflation low thus keeping interest rates lower. In theory, further cuts to the budget, raises the primary surplus, increasing the domestic savings rate by soaking up the excess money within the economy, lowering inflation. Unfortunately, he underestimated the central bank's commitment to low inflation at-all-cost. In fact in 2004, the government's official primary budget surplus ended at 4.6% but the domestic interest rates did not stop rising until later into the following year (29). They went from 16% in September 2004 to 19.75 a year later when the central bank ceased hiking interest rates. The effect of this policy stymied economic growth. In 2005, growth fell to 2.3 (revised to 2.9%), the second lowest rate among Latin American economies, beating only war-torn Haiti (30). Government officials, like ex-finance minister Palocci, blamed the political scandals that erupted that year for the anemic growth rates. In 2006, the official rate of economic growth was marginally better, at 2.9% (revised to 3.7) once again only surpassing Haiti (31). It is obvious that Brazil's economic growth is shackled. Although 2007 was another boom year, like 2004, the economy of 2008 and 2009 are likely to disappoint many foreign observers. Once again in April 2008, domestic interest rates are on the rise. They will continue to increase as Brazil experiences higher bouts of inflation. The government, once again, repeated its previous act by swiftly boosting the primary budget surplus from 3.8 to 4.3% of the GDP (32). Lula once again believes that this will somehow stop the central bank from raising interest rates. Clearly, he did not learn his lesson from 2004. Back then, even the central bank president openly declared that the hike in the primary surplus would not stop interest rates from going up (33). Inflation is growing in Brazil, above the excessively low official target of 4.5%, but this inflationary burst is arising from outside global forces not an overheating Brazilian economy. Brazil's growth alone never caused inflation to grow uncontrollably. Oil, commodity and energy prices are escalating everywhere. Interest rates will now be going up to contain the current global spike in inflation. Inflation will stay above its target for the foreseeable but it is not raging out of control as in the past. The Central Bank's ultraconservative policy is used against increasing inflation. It is what PhD economics programs all around the world teach their pupils: "the only role of the central bank is to keep inflation as low as possible". Any other intervention in the economy breeds horrendous inefficiencies and, is at worst, "Marxism". If it proven in the classical theoretical world of economics, then you know it must be true in the real world! The central bank's policy is also hypocritical. It easily moves up interest rates when inflation grows but refuses to lower it when inflation is very low. For example, in 2006, Brazil's yearly inflation rate (IPCA) accumulated to a mere 3.14%, below its 4.5% target, and was the 3rd lowest in all of Latin America (34). Although an important achievement, interest rates trickled down in an excessively cautious manner. Brazil still had the highest interest rates in the world. Why did not the Central Bank drastically slash interest rates in 2006 for inflation to reach 4.5%? Growth could have been faster than pathetic 2.9% and thousands of new jobs could have been created. In 2007, interest rates could have been even lower than they were because inflation ended at 4.14% once again below the 4.5% target. Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, has repeatedly reiterated that Brazil's economy could grow by lowering interest rates without fear of inflation (35). Obviously, his frank advice is ignored in the halls of Bras?lia. Not to mention that many mainstream economists now accept that an inflation rate below 10% has no negative impact on economic growth. Two World Bank economists even found that there is no consistent correlation between a country's inflation rate and growth rate when inflation stays below 40% (36). Conditions for many workers remain difficult. Average real income has been static throughout the past six years although unemployment has been slowly falling. According to the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) as of April 2008, real average income was 1,208.10 reais, its highest point since October 2002, when it stood at 1,224.48 reais. This demonstrates that the average worker is, in real terms, still earning less than it did back in 2002 (37)! So who are the biggest beneficiaries of the Brazilian economy? The clear winner is the financial-agriculture complex. Each year, the Brazilian government pays billions in interest on its internal debt. Each year, well over 100 billion reais, is transferred to public, domestic and international banks who own a majority of government debt. Yet, interest payments only display a part of the picture. Billions are paid on the principal of the country's debt. In 2002, the last year of the Cardoso administration, the government dispensed 349.6 billion on the amortization of its debt. This was equal to 46% of the budget. On the other hand, in 2003, Lula spent over 412.9 billion reais, 54.61% of the total budget. The consequence of this increased spending on the debt is a collapse in public investment in an infrastructure or public education. Cardoso, in 2002, made 11.6 billion reais in public investment, or 1.5% of the budget, while Lula, in 2003, invested 1.8 billion reais, a mere pitiful .24% of the budget for the year (38). Brazil's internal debt is approaching 1.3 trillion reais with 30% of it due in less than one year (39). The need to extend the maturity of the internal debt and limit its growth is real, all of which requires lower interest rates. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) chief economist Heiner Flassbeck warns Brazil that it is a victim of "international casino". The financial markets are making billions in the short-term by taking loans in Japan, with almost no interest, and placing it in Brazil's financial markets. They are making billions of this process as Brazil rewards them with the highest interest rates in the world (40). So it is not surprising that Brazil's financial market has grown astronomically. But when US interest rates begin to tick-up again foreign investors will return their short-term fortunes to safer US securities. Brazil continues to be a place where investors make immediate profits and then flee towards safer investments. Unfortunately, there continues to be minimal investment in actual long-term production in the Brazilian economy that could generate new employment, transfer technology and usher internal development. Industrial organizations, led by the powerful S?o Paulo Industrial Federation (FIESP), rightfully lashes out against the current interest rate policy of the central bank which frequently unites government allies and the opposition camp in the Brazilian Congress. In fact, most industry-led organizations, that produces millions of jobs, consistently plea with the government to be more flexible in enacting interest rate policy. In many respects, Brazil's economy is as a rent-seeking economy, one where the rich see their money grow at astronomical rates without lifting a finger. Little is actually invested in a productive manner that could spur innovative industries that could improve the lives of Brazilians. Loans to small businesses and average Brazilians can range from 30 to 100%. How can any business invest in the future and generate jobs in such an environment? Most interest rates are charged on a monthly basis. It is not surprising then that credit remains a small component of the economy although a growing one. Lula's administration has also regularly pursued direct support of big agriculture. In May 2008, President Lula held a meeting with his ministers defining future plans to consolidate its unique role as a world leader in agriculture production (41). Back in 2006, the government destined 50 billion reais for commercial agriculture while only giving 10 billion for family agriculture (42). In the growing season of 2007-2008 the government released 58 billion reais in aid and reduced interest rates for agriculture loans from 8.75% to 6.75% per year (43). Once again, in May of this year, Lula signed a provisional measure (MP) renegotiating 75 billion reais of debt accumulated by large-scale rural producers (44). With this type of government intervention, it is not surprising that big agriculture has performed so well in the past five years. Agriculture is thriving in part because the special interest rates are significantly lower than those in the rest of the economy. Lula's administration actively pursues trade negotiations with developed nations. The goal of the administration is to force rich countries to end agriculture subsidies. Many experts predict that Brazil would widely benefit from this move. Except that, in exchange reducing agriculture subsidies, first-world nations would demand that Brazil, and others, drop their stiff tariffs on industrialized goods. This would likely decimate domestic industry and small businesses. According to one study the net impact of a WTO deal would be a loss of 160 million dollars for Brazil (45). Specializing in ethanol, oranges, beef, poultry and soy beans will not be conducive in developing a dynamic economy that serves the need of nearly 200 million people. Large-scale agriculture depends on heavily mechanized equipment generating little employment. Numerous countries around the world produce similar agriculture goods causing agriculture exports, which is roughly half of exports, to fall. Brazil is repeating its historic failures of being the world's efficient supplier of sugarcane, soy beans, coffee, rubber and raw materials. These agriculture interests promote the knocking down of the Amazon Rainforest as a model of economic development which the former environment minister, Marina Silva, labeled "an archaic development model" which will obviously not expedite industrialization (46). The mere fact the US and Europe obliterated their forests hundreds years ago did not induce industrialization. Industrialization requires a set of cohesive policies that are absent from the current political agenda. Some journalists will reiterate that there is no alternative to the current economic model. Why I will not purport to decide what kind of economy Brazilians need or want, there are alternatives to the current economic policy. History is not over. Lower interests and faster growth is a requisite to inducing any sustainable development strategy. Economic growth is necessary but insufficient to transform Brazil. Arguably economic justice is more, or as, important as economic growth. Several countries, like Peru and Kenya, have experienced economic growth above 6% in the past few years but remain mired in poverty, joblessness and trapped within perverse inequality. Thus collective action by social movements and civil society must exert pressure on their democratically elected officials to enact measures that encourage job creation, promote a decent livable wage, affordable housing, public education and even a substantial land reform that offers credit and technical assistance to millions of landless peasants. Only by pursuing economic justice can Brazilian society be more inclusive, reduce poverty and tackle the perverse inequality that scars the basic fabric of society. Real positive change of any economic or social policy must come from the bottom-up not from the top-down. Year GDP growth (old methodology) GDP growth (new methodology) 1996 2.7 2.2 1997 3.3 3.4 1998 0.1 0 1999 0.8 0.3 2000 4.4 4.3 2001 1.3 1.3 2002 1.9 2.7 2003 0.5 1.1 2004 4.9 5.7 2005 2.3 2.9 2006* 2.9 3.7 Source: "Revis?o do PIB melhora posi??o do Brasil em ranking mundial, diz consultoria, Folha Online, 21.03.2007, accessed 3/25/2007 http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u115388.shtml *-figures for this year were found in another article (1) Carrol, Rory. "The accidental hero?," Guardian.co.uk March 14, 2008. accessed 3/15/2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/mar/14/rorycarroll.insidebrazil... (2) Cucolo, Eduardo. "Reservas internacionais sobem para US$ 195,8 bilh?es at? abril," Folha Online 26.05.2008. accessed 6/13/2008. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u405469.shtml (3) Carrol, Rory. "Land of contrasts," Guardian.co.uk March 14, 2008. accessed 3/15/2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/mar/14 /rorycarroll.insidebrail/.... (4) "Open for business", Guardian.co.uk March 14, 2008. accessed 3/15/2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/mar/14/davidteather.feature/print (5) "Risco-pa?s cai para menor n?vel hist?rico; d?lar recua e Bovespa tem queda," Folha Online 09.08.2006. accessed 6/9/2008. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u110067.shtml (6) Philips, Tom. "The country of the future finally arrives", Guardian.co.uk May 10, 2008. accessed 5/11/2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/10/brazil.oil/print (7) Kraul, Chris. "Brazil's now a hot commodity", Los Angeles Times December 31, 2007. accessed 12/31/2007. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-brazilecon31dec31,1,907266.story?.... (8) Spitz, Clarice. "PIB tem mesmo crescimento nos primeiros mandatos de Lula e FHC", Folha Online 28.02.2007. accessed 2/28/2007. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u114800.shtml (9) IBID (10) Spitz, Clarice. "Economia cresceu ? m?dia de 2,6% durante primeiro mandato de Lula," Folha Online 28.02.208. accessed 3/5/2008. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u114805.shtml (11)Chang, Ha-Joon. "Bad Samaritans" Bloomsbury Press: New-York, 2008. pg. 149 (12)"Revis?o do PIB melhora posi??o do Brasil em ranking mundial, diz consultoria," Folha Online 21.03.2007. accessed 3/25/2007. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u115388.shtml, I calculated average using data in article, (13) Spitz, Clarice. "PIB tem mesmo crescimento nos primeiros mandatos de Lula e FHC," Folha Online 28/02/2007. accessed 2/28/2007. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u114800.shtml (14) "PIB do Brasil fica entre os ?ltimos dos pa?ses emergentes," G1 Globo, 13.03.2008, accessed 3/15/2008, http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Economia_Negocios/0,,MUL348961-9356,00.html (15) Bacoccina, Denize. "Brasil cresce abaixo da m?dia mundial desde 96," BBC Brasil.com 25.3.2007. accessed 3/25/2007. http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/reportbbc/sotry/2007/02/printable/070228_pibbd.shtml (16) "Economia do pa?s 'vai mal para 59% dos brasileiros'," BBC 12.06.2008. accessed 6/13/2008. http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Economia_Nogocios/0,,MUL599278-9356,00.html (17) Casia, Rosana de. "Importa??o cresce e super?vit commercial dasaba quase 80%", Ag?ncia Estado 22.04.2008. accessed 5/19/2008. http://int.estadao.com.br/Multimidia/ShowImpresS?o.action?xmlPath... (18) "D?ficit em conta corrente j? supera proje??o do BC para 2008," Agencia Estado e Reuters 26.05.2008. accessed 6/1/2008. http://int.estadao.com.br/Multimidia/ShowImpresS?o.action?xmlPath... (19) Cucolo, Eduardo. "D?ficit pode amea?ar seguro do Brasil contra crise internacional," G1 Globo 5.2.2008. accessed 2/8/2008. http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/0,,PIO282178-9356,00.html (20) Albuquerque, Vinicius. "Real forte gera temor de 'des-industrializa??o'," diz "Financial Times," Folha Online 16.12.2005. accessed 2/8/2008. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u103478.shtml (21) Bacoccina, Deniza. "Ethanol vai prejudicar ind?stria brasileira, diz economista, BBC Brasil.com 29 Janeiro 2007. accessed 3/25/2007. http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2007/01/070126_ethanlmendoncab.sh... (22) "Lula diz que far? "qualquer sacrif?cio" contra infla??o," Folha Online com Ag?ncia Brasil 30.05.2008. accessed 6/4/2008. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u407206.shtml (23) Palocci, Antonio. Sobre formigas e cigarras. Rio de Janeiro: Objectiva, 2007, pg 112-114. (24) Aiko Lu Otta, "'Queremos pisar no acelerador, o problema ? o BC,'" O Estado de S. Paulo, http://int.estadao.com.br/Multimidia/ShowImpresS?o.action?xmlPath... (25) Portes, Ivone. "Alencar critica juros e diz que o pa?s pratica "irresponsbilidade fiscal" Folha Online 29.03.2004. accessed 10/30/2004. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u82537.shtml (26) "Secret?rio da Fazenda deixa cargo ap?s criticar BC," Estadao.com.br 04.04.2007. accessed 04/04/2007. http://www.estadao.com.br/ext/inc/print/print.htm (27) Junior, Cirilo. "Economia brasileira cresce 5,4% em 2007, maior taxa desde 2004, diz IBGE," Folha Online 12.03.2008. accessed 3/15/2008. http://brazzil.com/www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u381048.shtml (28) Rose, Ane Silveira. "Palocci anuncia aumento da meta do super?vit prim?rio," Folha Online 22/09/2004. accessed 6/4/2008. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult92u89220.shtml (29) Lage,Janaina. "Ipea recomenda aumento do super?vit prim?rio," Folha Online 08/03/2005. accessed 6/4/2008. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u94149.shtml (30) Lage, Janiana. "Brasil cresce so 2,3 % em 2005 e supera apenas o Haiti na America Latina", Folha Online 24/02/2006. accessed 2/24/2006. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u105546.shtml (31) Sandrini, Jo?o. "Pelo 2? ano seguido, Brasil s? deve crescer mais que Haiti na Am?rica Latina," Folha Online 20/10/2006. accessed 4/4/2008. http://www1.folha.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u111820.shtml (32) Froufe, Celia and Carolina Ruhman. "Para segurar infla??o, governo vai economizar 0,5% do PIB," Ag?ncia Estado 30 Maio 2008. accessed 6/1/2008. http://int.estadao.com.br/Multimidia/ShowImpresS?o.action?xmlPath... (33) Portes, Ivone. "Meirelles indica que juro pode subir mesmo com ajuste fiscal maior," Folha Online 27/09/2008. accessed 6/4/2008. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u89351.shtml (34) Spitz, Clarice. "Brasil tem infla??o pelo IPCA de 3,14% a 3ra menor da Am?rica Latina." Folha Online 12/01/2007. accessed 3/25/2007. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u113668.shtml (35) Garcez, Bruno. "Brasil pode crescer sem medo da infla??o, diz Stiglitz", BBC Brasil.com 26 Setembro, 2006. accessed 9/26/2006, http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/reporterbbc.story/2006/09/printable/060926_stiglitzbrasilbg.shtml (36) Chang, Ha-Joon. Bad Samaritans. London: Bloomsbury, 2008. pg. 150 (37) IBGE: renda salarial ? a maior desde outubro de 2002, Ag?ncia Estado 21 Maio 2008. accessed 6/4/2008. http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/s/21052008/25/economia-ibge-renda-salar.. (38) Athias, Gebriela and Otavio Cabral. "Lula fez menos investimentos e pagou mais d?vida que FHC," Folha de S. Paulo 01/03/2004. accessed 3/5/2008. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u58672.shtml (39)Riberiro, Ana Paula. "Governo paga mais de R$100 bi em juros sobre t?tulos p?blicos," Folha Online 24.01.2008. accessed 2/8/2008. http://www1.folha/uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u366611.shtml (40) Chade, Jamil. "Brasil est? sendo v?tima de cassino internacional," Estadao.com.br, 21.03.2008. accessed 4/2/2008. http://www.estadao.com.br/estadaodehoje/20080321/not_imp143723,..... (41) Nunes Leal Luciana. "Reuni?o define que Brasil estar? focado em ampliar agricultura," Ag?ncia Estado 21 Maio, 2008. accessed 6/4/2008. http://int.estadao.com.br/Multimidia/ShowImpresS?o.action?xmlPath... (42) Salvador Fabiola and Fabio Graner. "Governo anuncia MP para renegociar R$ 75 bi em d?vidas rurais," Ag?ncia Estado 27 Maio, 2008. accessed 6/13/2008. http://int.estadao.com.br/Multimidia/ShowImpresS?o.action?xmlPath... (43) Graner Fabio. "Governo anuncia libera??o de R$60 bilh?es para a agricultura," Estadao.com.br 25 Maio, 2006. accessed 5/25/2006. http://www.estadao.com.br/ext/inc/print/print/htm (44) Governo libera R$ 58 bi e reduz juros para safra 2007/2008, Folha Online 28/06/2007. accessed 6/13/2008. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u307883.shtml (45) Gallagher, Kevin P. "For All Its WTO Haggling Brazil Will Get US$ 160 Million - in Loss," Brazzil.com December 13, 2005. accessed 5/14/2006, http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/9483/79/ (46) "Pa?s tem modelo de desenvolvimento ultrapassado, diz Marina," Estadao.com.br 19.05.2008. accessed 6/13/2008. http://int.estadao.com.br/Multimidia/ShowImpresS?o.action?xmlPath... Daniel Torres is a political science and economics major at the University of Massachusetts. Comments welcome at dftorres at gmail.com. UPDATE 2-Brazil posts June current acct gap on remittances Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:15am EDT (Adds central bank forecasts for July) BRASILIA, July 28 (Reuters) - Brazil posted a wider-than-expected current account deficit in June as companies nearly doubled profit remittances abroad because of a strong domestic currency, central bank data showed on Monday. The deficit reached $2.6 billion in June, compared with a $539 million surplus in the same month of 2007. The country had been expected to post a deficit of $1.1 billion, according to the median forecast of 13 analysts surveyed by Reuters. The forecasts for the deficit ranged from $2.1 billion to $850 million. In May, Brazil posted a current account deficit of $649 million, according to previously reported central bank data. The deficit should widen to $2.8 billion in July, said Altamir Lopes, head of the central bank's economics department. Multinational companies in the country sent $3.4 billion in profit and dividends abroad, compared with $1.75 billion in June 2007, as gains in Brazil's currency made it cheaper to buy dollars. Brazil's currency, the real BRBY, has gained nearly 13 percent against the dollar so far this year after surging more than 20 percent last year. The strong real has fueled a surge in imports, cutting the country's trade surplus and affecting Brazil's external accounts. In the 12 months through June, the deficit was equal to 1.32 percent of gross domestic product compared with a deficit of 1.1 percent of GDP in the 12 months through May. Foreign direct investment in Brazil, Latin America's largest economy, fell to $2.72 billion in June from $10.3 billion in the same month in 2007, when the figures were unusually high because of ArcelorMittal's buyout of minority shareholders in its local unit. FDI is forecast to reach $3.2 billion in July, Lopes said. The current account balance tracks a country's net flow of external transactions, including foreign trade, interest payments and services such as tourism. It is used to gauge a country's dependence on foreign capital. (For central bank details on Brazil's current account figures, see: www.bcb.gov.br/?ECOIMPEXT) (Reporting by Isabel Versiani; Writing by Elzio Barreto; Editing by James Dalgleish) From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 23:20:36 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 01:20:36 -0400 Subject: [R-G] The Tragedy of Current Latin American Monetary Policy Message-ID: The Tragedy of Current Latin American Monetary Policy Jose Antonio Ocampo | May 1, 2008 On March 18 the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, ECLAC (www.cepal.org), made public an estimate of the effects food inflation is having on Latin America. Despite rapid economic growth, extreme poverty will increase by ten million people this year! This is a dramatic figure and represents more than half of the reduction in extreme poverty that had taken place during the recent economic boom, from 2004 to 2007. Food inflation is also making the task of managing of monetary policy extremely difficult. Indeed, the mix of two entirely exogenous shocks ?food price inflation and a financial crisis in the US?has created a situation in which monetary authorities are the main actors of an unprecedented tragedy. It is true that the theory of inflation targeting says that temporary shocks, such as those associated with a spike in food inflation, should not lead to a reaction by monetary authorities. But there is a clear risk that higher food inflation will get transmitted to wages and other prices, so monetary authorities cannot simply ignore it. And, of course, some Latin American economies are generating their domestic inflationary pressures after several years of rapid growth. However, given the external origin of food price inflation, a contractionary monetary policy would do little to moderate such inflation. In the second act of the tragedy, the US Federal Reserve enters the scene. Given the sharp reduction in US policy intervention rates, to manage its own financial crisis and the threat (or, I think along with many others, the reality) of recession, interest rate margins between Latin America and the US have widened significantly. This is, therefore, an open invitation to capital inflows and exchange rate appreciation. Central banks can absorb part of the surplus capital inflows through the accumulation of foreign exchange reserves, as most countries in the region have done, but this seems to have been insufficient, and may have invited further capital inflows. Some measure of prudential capital account regulations (reserve requirements or taxes on capital inflows, following the model used successfully by Chile and Colombia in the 1990s) could help, and Argentina, Colombia and, more recently Brazil, have taken some moderate measures in this regard, but none would be willing to use them to the extent that would be necessary to make a significant indent on capital flows. So, the major outcome has been exchange rate appreciation. This is shown in Figure 1, in which exchange rates are shown in domestic currency per dollar, so down means an appreciation. Four of the six largest Latin American economies have had significant appreciation in recent months (Venezuela is excluded, as it has a fixed exchange rate). Brazil and Colombia had experienced substantial appreciation earlier on, and the currencies of the two countries now look overvalued. The appreciation of Chile and Peru are in line with that of the euro vis-?-vis the US dollar, but Brazil and Colombia have appreciated even in relation to the euro. Argentina and Venezuela are also experiencing real appreciation, through domestic inflation. So, Mexico seems the only large Latin American economy immune to the current malaise, but it is also the one that would be worst hit by US recession. In recent years, one of the most trumpeted aspects of Latin American performance was that the region was running a current account surplus (not all of countries, of course). The mix of rapid growth with current account surpluses has been common in Asia, but it has been unusual in Latin America, at least since the 1970s. It could be said that it was due to high commodity prices, but then in the past Latin America managed to run current account deficits even when commodity markets were booming, such as during the 1970s. Colombia is already running a sizable deficit, and Brazil joined the deficit club in the last quarter of 2007. Furthermore, excluding Venezuela, Latin America will be running a deficit in 2008. And, if we take out the terms of trade shock, the current account deficit had already gone back in 2007 to the levels of the crisis of the late 1990s and the early part of this decade (see Figure 2). Source: Author's estimates based on the database of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Will there be, therefore, a third act of the tragedy in which Latin America returns to its traditional current account deficits and the vulnerability that is associated with them? Certainly the region looks more vulnerable now to the reversal of the favorable terms of trade shock (which, of course, appears solid for the time being). But, furthermore, is nominal appreciation the best that inflation targeting can achieve? If so, it needs a serious revision. Indeed, ignoring the effects of monetary policy on exchange rates is one of the major flaws of inflation targeting in emerging economies. The elegance of just having one objective looks nice at first, but it ignores the fact that the fundamental challenge of macroeconomic policy is how to manage difficult trade-offs. Multiple objectives and trade-offs also imply the need to use more instruments and to coordinate monetary policy more carefully with fiscal and other policies, which are the responsibility of governments. And, of course, in an orthodox interpretation, a current account deficit is as much a case of excess demand as domestic inflation. Furthermore, and perhaps even more importantly, current account deficits have been an even more important predictor of crises and of the inflationary shocks that accompany large exchange rate depreciations during crises. So, we are back to the basic question: why should inflation be the only objective of monetary policy? From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 23:39:03 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 01:39:03 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization Message-ID: August 3, 2008 Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization By LARRY ROHTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Shanghai to the United States has risen to $8,000, compared with $3,000 early in the decade, according to a recent study of transportation costs. Big container ships, the pack mules of the 21st-century economy, have shaved their top speed by nearly 20 percent to save on fuel costs, substantially slowing shipping times. The study, published in May by the Canadian investment bank CIBC World Markets, calculates that the recent surge in shipping costs is on average the equivalent of a 9 percent tariff on trade. "The cost of moving goods, not the cost of tariffs, is the largest barrier to global trade today," the report concluded, and as a result "has effectively offset all the trade liberalization efforts of the last three decades." From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Sun Aug 3 02:57:59 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 02:57:59 -0600 Subject: [R-G] What really happened in the mine at Crandall Canyon Message-ID: <000601c8f547$08cfac10$0400a8c0@computer> Disaster: One year later What really happened in the mine at Crandall Canyon Miners warn repeatedly of the mountain's building, pent-up fury, but the mine operator's orders are to press on, to pull out coal it is not authorized to take By Mike Gorrell The Salt Lake Tribune Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated:08/02/2008 11:49:34 PM MDT The task of stripping the Crandall Canyon mine of its last large blocks of coal fell to four crews. None was exposed to the mine's dangers more than the "D" crew, six members of which died last on Aug. 6, 2007. They logged 20 shifts in its thumping, ever-shifting passageways in the month before the walls blew in on them. It was also no accident that when the mine's walls imploded again 10 days later on a valiant group of would-be rescuers, two of the fatalities were Dale Black and Brandon Kimber. They were the foremen of the "A" and "C" crews, respectively, and had logged nearly as many hours gutting what little was left of the mine deep beneath East Mountain. All of these guys knew how volatile the conditions were. They had repeatedly heard the hollow rumbling sound produced by "bounces," miner lingo for the Earth's sometimes petulant manner of relieving pressures produced when a seam of coal is removed. They had seen how these bounces can cause coal to slough off tunnel walls or, worse yet, be expelled violently into voids. A bounce in March that terminated efforts to mine Crandall Canyon's North Barrier pillar - one of the last two enormous coal blocks that supported the mine's roof - had occurred on Kimber's shift. Just four days earlier, another foreman had noted it was "bouncing real hard on occasion. Smacked little Carlos up aside of the haid [sic] with a pretty good chunk." "Little Carlos" was Juan Carlos Payan, a 22-year-old member of the ill-fated "D" crew. He was a roof bolter. For the last eight weeks of his life, he worked alongside Jose Luis Hernandez, drilling steel bolts into the mine's roof or erecting other support props to hold it up. Their crewmates included Manny Sanchez, who operated the continuous mining machine that cut the coal, and two shuttle car drivers - Kerry Allred and Don Erickson - who moved coal from Sanchez's machine to a conveyor belt that carried it three miles to the surface. Brandon Phillips had joined them July 16 as a laborer to do odd jobs. All are now entombed in the mine. Benny Allred was their boss. He escaped death that night only because he left work early, taking comp time for having to attend a management meeting the next morning. Even luckier was mechanic Jameson Ward. He was with the crew three minutes before the mine imploded at 2:48 a.m. on Aug. 6, but had driven off to pick up fellow mechanic Tim Harper, whose truck had broken down elsewhere in the mine. Mine gave all it could: In its disaster investigation, released July 24, the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration concluded the disaster was inevitable. A seriously flawed engineering plan, one that MSHA's own roof-control engineers had approved, had sent the workers into a mine destined to fail. To make matters worse, the mine's operator, a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corp., had violated the inadequate plan by mining extra coal it was not authorized to take, further weakening the internal structure. MSHA also said the company broke the law by not reporting, as required, several work-disrupting bounces, which warned that the mine had given all it could give. MSHA fined Murray Energy's subsidiary $1.64 million, and its engineering consultant, Agapito Associates, Inc., $220,000. The mining company responded that MSHA's report was unfairly influenced by congressional and union figures looking for a scapegoat, and whose political pressure and threats prohibited the very engineers who knew the mine best from sharing their knowledge with MSHA investigators. The company vowed to fight the allegations, buttressing its defense with the findings of an independent U.S. Labor Department probe that was scathing in its criticism of MSHA's handling of Crandall Canyon. 'Must be pretty violent': Crandall Canyon was essentially played out early in 2006. The only significant blocks of coal left were two "barrier pillars." Roughly 440 feet wide and three-quarters of a mile long, they had been left behind to hold up the mountain above the mine after voracious longwall mining machines had removed expansive amounts of coal to the north and south. As early as 1992, company engineer R. Jay Marshall had informed a state mining official that "it is not good mining practice" to excavate barrier pillars "and in fact could be dangerous." But armed with new engineering reports from Agapito, Murray Energy's subsidiary went after these barrier pillars in 2006. An MSHA trainee engineer who reviewed Agapito's numbers felt it would be safe to "develop" a series of four parallel tunnels in these barriers. But he expressed doubt about the safety of "retreat mining," in which coal pillars between the tunnels are cut away by crews as they back toward the mine entrance, allowing the roof to collapse into the void they created. After the company responded to the trainee engineer's conclusions with additional data, MSHA's district manager in Denver approved the plan. The four crews went to work. Starting in the North Barrier pillar on Nov. 21, 2006, they rotated shifts around the clock, seven days a week, systematically carving tunnels through the seam. Production logs and internal company documents cited in MSHA's report and a Senate committee report show the advance went pretty smoothly. Tunnel walls shed some coal, but not violently, indicating the setup was fairly stable. But shortly after retreat mining began on Feb. 16, 2007, conditions deteriorated. A shift foreman's report six days into "pulling pillars," as the practice is commonly known, noted that miners were "getting some hard bounces, still caving right on our ass." The "D" crew was there for much of it. On March 1, a cave-in blew out two ventilation structures during its night shift and prompted a note to company safety director Jerry Taylor, saying, "This is at least the third time they have noted walls blown out by caves on the pillar section. Must be pretty violent." Four days later, the crew spent eight hours putting in extra-long roof bolts after "a couple hard bounces." The next day, Payan was hit in the face. Then on the crew's March 8-9 shift, one bounce knocked the roof bolting machine out of service for 30 minutes, another dumped coal all over the continuous miner. A more serious bounce on March 7, when Black's crew was in the mine, badly damaged two ventilation structures. It took 70 minutes to fix them. Although MSHA must be notified if an outburst halts production for more than hour, no notice was given. MSHA's report cites that violation as indicative of the company's failure to respond appropriately to actual mining conditions. Then, as Kimber's crew completed its March 10 day shift, a magnitude 2.3 bounce severely damaged more than 700 feet of tunnels, filling some stretches up to four feet deep with coal. No one was hurt, but mine superintendent Gary Peacock concluded, "We have used all the tricks we know of to pull these pillars, and I no longer feel comfortable we can do it without unacceptable risk." So the crews moved to the South Barrier pillar. Agapito engineers said that lengthening the pillars from 92 feet to 130 feet would provide extra stability, and made several other changes that seemed to work as tunnel development work proceeded from March 28 to July 15. But as soon as retreat mining began, problems returned. The first intentional cave-in proved much larger than expected, knocking out ventilation structures that took three hours to repair. In the next couple of weeks, as the crews backed into an area where the mountain overhead grew higher, the floor heaved upward on a couple of occasions, making it difficult to move equipment about. The "D" crew was on shift July 26 when an unplanned cave-in caused a 30-minute cleanup delay. Four days later, another in a series of bounces was severe enough to damage a torque shaft on Sanchez's continuous miner. A more serious bounce occurred Aug. 3 at 4:39 a.m., as foreman Josh Fielder's "B" crew was at work. Coal was thrown into a tunnel along the entire length of a pillar. A continuous-miner operator had the lower half of his body covered with debris, but was uninjured. Roof-supporting timbers were tossed about. A gap opened between the roof and the top of the pillar. Cleanup work took six hours, extending four hours into Black's shift. Yet MSHA was never notified of the shutdown, a point emphasized by the disaster investigation team, which added that Black and other miners "discussed the possibility that management would decide to pull out of the South Barrier section due to similarities between the outburst accident that morning and the [March 10] events in the North Barrier." But management didn't, instructing the crew instead to shift from pulling pillars to cutting into what was left of the South Barrier pillar - in an area MSHA had declared off-limits. The "D" crew was continuing that work in the wee hours of Aug. 6 when the catastrophic collapse occurred, registering magnitude 3.9 on seismic instruments. The six men apparently died instantly. Their fate was unknown to the outside world, however, prompting a vigorous rescue effort that ultimately, 10 days later, claimed the lives of MSHA inspector Gary Jensen and the two miners who intimately knew the mine's pent-up fury all too well - Brandon Kimber and Dale Black. mikeg at sltrib.com HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See our Community Organizing Course [with new material] http://hunterbear.org/my_combined_community_organizing.htm And see Grizzlies: http://hunterbear.org/grizzlies.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. [Hunter Bear] From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Aug 3 06:09:59 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:09:59 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Mugabe's Biggest Sin Message-ID: <4895A017.2000901@attglobal.net> Anglo-American and Chinese interests clash over Zimbabwe's strategic mineral wealth by F William Engdahl Global Research (July 30 2008) Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, presides over one of the world's richest minerals treasures, the Great Dyke region, which cuts a geological swath across the entire land from northeast to southwest. The real background to the pious concerns of the Bush Administration for human rights in Zimbabwe in the past several years is not Mugabe's possible election fraud or his expropriation of white settler farms. It is the fact that Mr Mugabe has been quietly doing business, a lot of it, with the one country which has virtually unlimited need of strategic raw materials Zimbabwe can provide - China. Mugabe's Zimbabwe is, along with Sudan, on the central stage of the new war over control of strategic minerals of Africa between Washington and Beijing, with Moscow playing a supporting role in the drama. The stakes are huge. Zimbabwe's President, Robert Mugabe is a very very bad man. This we all know from reading the newspapers or hearing the pronouncements of George W Bush, earlier Britain's Tony Blair and more recently Gordon Brown. In their eyes he has sinned badly. They charge that he is a dictator; that he has expropriated, often with violence, the farms of whites as part of land reform; they claim he rigged his re-election by vote fraud and violence; that he has ruined the economy of Zimbabwe. Whether Robert Mugabe deserves to be in Washington's honor roll of villains alongside Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, Ahmadinejad, and Adolf Hitler, however, it is not the reason Washington and London have made Zimbabwe regime change priority number one for their Africa policy. What his sin is seems to have more to do with his attempts to get out from under Anglo-American neo-colonial serfdom dependency and to pursue a national economic development independent of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. His real sin seems to be the fact that he has turned to the one nation that offers his government credits and soft loans for economic development with no strings attached - The Peoples' Republic of China. Western media accounts conveniently tend to omit the second major party to what is a huge tug of war between Anglo-American interests and China to get control of Zimbabwe's vast mineral wealth. We should keep in mind that for Washington there are always "good dictators" and "bad dictators". The difference is whether the given dictator serves US national interests or not. Mugabe clearly is in the latter category. Cecil Rhodes' legacy Zimbabwe is the name of what under the era of British Imperialism a century ago was named Rhodesia. The name Rhodesia came from the British imperial strategist and miner, Cecil Rhodes, founder of the Rhodes scholarships to Oxford, and author of a plan for a vast private African zone, to be chartered from the Queen of England, from Egypt to South Africa. Cecil Rhodes created the British South Africa Company, modeled on the East India Company, along with his partner, L Starr Jameson of Jameson Raid notoriety, to exploit the mineral riches of Rhodesia. It controlled what was later named Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Southern Rhodesia - Nyasaland. The model was that the British Government would assume all risks to militarily defend Rhodes' looting while Rhodes and his London bankers, above all Lord Rothschild, who was a close associate, would assume all the gains of the business. Rhodes, a seasoned geologist, knew well that there was a remarkable geological fault running from the mouth of the Nile at the Gulf of Suez south through Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, down through today's Zimbabwe on to South Africa. Rhodes had already instigated several wars to gain control of the diamonds of Kimberly and the gold of Witwatersrand in South Africa. This geological phenomenon he, as well as enterprising German explorers, had discovered in the 1880's. They named it the Great Rift Valley. Rhodesia, like South Africa after the bloody Boer wars, was settled by white settlers to secure future minerals gains for allied interests of the City of London, mainly those of the powerful Oppenheimer family and their gold and diamond enterprises in the region. In 1962 when Africa was undergoing the wave of national liberation from colonial rule, a wave calculatedly supported by "non-colonial power" Washington, Rhodesia was one of the last bastions, along with former British colony South Africa, of white Apartheid rule. Whites in Rhodesia constituted only one to two percent of the total population so their methods of holding on to power were rather ruthless. White supremacist Prime Minister, Ian Smith, declared Rhodesian independence from Britain in 1965 rather than agree to the slightest compromise on race or power sharing with black nationalists. Britain got UN trade sanctions imposed to force Smith to buckle under. Despite sanctions, there was considerable support from conservative business interests in London. Britain's Tiny Rowland, head of the Lonrho mining conglomerate, secured the bulk of his African profits from Rhodesian copper mining and related ventures under the Smith regime. The City of London knew very well what riches lay in Rhodesia. The question was how to secure enduring control. Smith's Rhodesian backers had little interest in giving it all to London. Following a long and bloody struggle, in 1980 the leader of the black African Popular Front coalition, Robert Mugabe, overwhelmingly won election as the first Prime Minister of a new Zimbabwe. Twenty eight years later, the same Robert Mugabe is under escalating attack from the West, especially Zimbabwe's former colonial master, England, including strong economic sanctions designed to bring the country to the brink of collapse, to force him to open the economy to foreign (read Anglo-American and allied) investment. Ironically, the issue seems not all that different from the Ian Smith era: London and US control of the resources of the rich land, and Zimbabwean efforts to resist that control. The Great Dyke Within Zimbabwe, a portion of the rich Great Rift is called the Great Dyke, an intrusive geological treasure zone running over 530 kilometers from the northeast to the southwest of the country, in places up to twelve kilometers wide. A river runs along the fault and the region is volcanically active. Here also lie vast deposits of chromium, of copper, platinum and other metals. The US State Department, as well as London, is aware of the vast minerals and other riches of Zimbabwe. It states in a recent report on Zimbabwe, "Zimbabwe is endowed with rich mineral resources. Exports of gold, asbestos, chrome, coal, platinum, nickel, and copper could lead to an economic recovery one day ... The country is richly endowed with coal-bed methane gas that has yet to be exploited. "With international attractions such as Victoria Falls, the Great Zimbabwe stone ruins, Lake Kariba, and extensive wildlife, tourism historically has been a significant segment of the economy and contributor of foreign exchange. The sector has contracted sharply since 1999, however, due to the country's declining international image. (sic) "Energy Resources "With considerable hydroelectric power potential and plentiful coal deposits for thermal power station, Zimbabwe is less dependent on oil as an energy source than most other comparably industrialized countries, but it still imports forty percent of its electric power needs from surrounding countries - primarily Mozambique. Only about fifteen percent of Zimbabwe's total energy consumption is accounted for by oil, all of which is imported. Zimbabwe imports about 1.2 billion liters of oil per year. Zimbabwe also has substantial coal reserves that are utilized for power generation, and coal-bed methane deposits recently discovered in Matabeleland province are greater than any known natural gas field in Southern or Eastern Africa. In recent years, poor economic management and low foreign currency reserves have led to serious fuel shortages." In short, chrome, copper, gold, platinum, huge hydroelectric power potential and vast coal reserves are what is at stake for Washington and London in Zimbabwe. The country also has unverified reserves of uranium, something in big demand today for nuclear power generation. It is clear of late that so long as the tenacious Mugabe is running things, not the Anglo-Americans, but rather the Chinese, are Zimbabwe's preferred business partners. This seems to be Mugabe's greatest sin. He's not reading from the right program as George W Bush's friends see it. His real sin seems to be turning East not West for economic and investment help. The Chinese connection During the Cold War China recognized and supported Robert Mugabe. In recent years as China's search for secure raw materials escalated its foreign diplomacy, relations have become stronger. According to the Chinese media, China has invested more in Zimbabwe than any other nation. Already back in July 2005 as Tony Blair turned the sanctions screws tighter on Zimbabwe, Mugabe flew to Beijing to meet with the top Chinese leadership, where he reportedly sought an emergency loan of US$1 billion and asked increased Chinese involvement in the economy. It began to bear fruit. In June 2006 state- owned Zimbabwean businesses signed a number of energy, mining and farming deals worth billions of dollars with Chinese companies. The largest was with China Machine-Building International Corporation, for a $1.3 billion contract to mine coal and build thermal-power generators in Zimbabwe, to reduce Zimbabwe's electricity shortage. The Chinese company had already built thermal-power stations in Nigeria and Sudan, and had been involved in mining projects in Gabon. In 2007 the Chinese government donated farm machinery worth $25 million to Zimbabwe, including 424 tractors and fifty trucks, as part of a $58 million loan to the Zimbabwean government. The Mugabe administration had previously seized white-owned farms and gave them to blacks, damaging machinery in the process. In return for the equipment and the loan the Zimbabwean government will ship thirty million kilograms of tobacco to the People's Republic of China. Other Zimbabwe-China agreements included a deal between the Zimbabwe Mining Development and China's Star Communications, forming a joint venture to mine chrome, with funding from the China Development Bank. Zimbabwe also agreed to import road-building, irrigation and farming equipment from the China National Construction and Agricultural Machinery Import and Export Corporation and China Poly Group. Zimbabwe also relies on China for imports of telecommunications equipment, military hardware and many other critical items it can no longer import from the west because of the British-led sanctions. Relations have become so important that Zimbabwe's police have a dedicated "China desk" to protect Chinese interests in the country. In April 2007 the chairman of China's top political advisory body, Jia Qinglin, head of the National Committee of the Chinese Peoples' Political Consultative Conference, flew to Harare to meet with Mugabe. It was a follow-up to the 2006 Beijing China-Africa Cooperation Summit where the Chinese government invited the heads of more than forty African states to discuss relations. Africa has become a diplomatic and economic priority for China and its economy. At that time, Beijing got an open invitation to help develop dormant mines in the country. The deputy speaker of Zimbabwe's parliament called for more Chinese investment in the country's mining sector, according to China's Xinhua news agency. Zimbabwe's mining laws were changed to allow the government to reallocate mining claims that were not being exploited. Mining generates half of Zimbabwe's export revenue. It is the only sector in the country that still has foreign investors after the collapse of the main agricultural sector. Western companies with mining claims in Zimbabwe were not exploiting them. "We would appeal to the Chinese government to come in full force to exploit these minerals", Zimbabwean Deputy Parliamentary Speaker, Kumbirai Kangai said to the official Xinhua. Kangai assured potential Chinese investors that they would not expose themselves to legal action if they took over claims held by Western companies. A few months after, in December 2007, Chinese company, Sinosteel Corporation, acquired 67 percent stake in Zimbabwe's leading ferrochrome producer and exporter Zimasco Holdings. Zimasco Holdings is the fifth largest high carbonated ferrochrome producer in the world. It used to produce 210,000 tons of high-carbon ferrochrome per year, nearly all of it along the mineral-rich Great Dyke, accounting for four percent of global ferrochrome production. Zimasco has also the world's second largest reserves of chrome, after South Africa. It was formerly owned by Union Carbide Corporation, now part of Dow Chemicals Corp. Oh, oh! Alarm bells went ringing in London and in Washington at that news. China clearly views Africa as a central part of its strategic plan, most notably for its oil reserves and vital raw materials such as copper, chrome, nickel. The continent is also at the same time becoming an important region for Chinese manufactured exports. But the raw materials battle is at the heart, and the real reason by all accounts, why Washington recently decided to form a separate Africa Command in the Pentagon. Controlling China's economic emergence is an un-stated strategic priority of United States foreign and military policy and has been since before September 11 2001. The only delicate point in the business is the fact that China, with well over $1.7 trillions of foreign exchange reserves, most believed in form of US Treasury securities, could trigger a complete dollar panic and further collapse of the US economy should she decide for political reasons it were too risky to continue holding its hundreds of billions of US dollar debt. In effect, by buying US Government debt with its trade surpluses, China has been indirectly financing US policies counter to Chinese national interest such as the Iraq war, or even the $100 million or so annually that Condi Rice's State Department spends on Tibet. China is refusing to play by the rules of the Anglo-American neo-colonial game. It does not seek IMF or World Bank approval before dealing with African countries. It makes soft loans, regardless who might be running the country. In this it does nothing different from Washington or London. The Chinese see American influence in Africa less entrenched than in the rest of the world, thus offering unique opportunities for China to pursue its economic interests. It may or may not be cynical. It may be Realpolitik. If it results in the ability of certain African countries to use China as a political counterweight to the one-sided Anglo-American domination of the Continent, that itself could be a major benefit to Africans depending on how they use it. Clearly, it has been extremely positive for Chinese access to vital economic minerals for its economy as well as oil from places such as Darfur and southern Sudan, or Nigeria. Mineral wealth has once more put Africa on center stage of a battle for mineral riches between East and West. This time, unlike during the Cold War era, however, Beijing is playing with far more assets, and Washington with far less. _____ F William Engdahl is a leading analyst of the New World Order, author of the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics, A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press), and Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (www.globalresearch.ca). His writings have been translated into more than a dozen languages. He may be contacted through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net . Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. (c) Copyright F William Engdahl, Global Research, 2008 (c) Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca007 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9707 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 3 10:14:31 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:14:31 -0700 Subject: [R-G] (Free Trade) Ding, dong Doha is dead Message-ID: <200808031614.m73GEV5P009929@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080803/c9f5316d/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 3 10:13:44 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:13:44 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Vital unresolved anthrax questions Message-ID: <200808031613.m73GDi5j009426@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080803/68206ae9/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 3 10:15:46 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:15:46 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Pakistan: The delicate task of playing both sides Message-ID: <200808031615.m73GFkkM010983@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080803/7f84f1de/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 3 10:15:15 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Robert Fisk: New actor on the same old stage (Obama) Message-ID: <200808031615.m73GFFdh010663@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080803/ed468ab0/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Aug 3 10:14:11 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:14:11 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Bad Voodoos War Message-ID: <200808031614.m73GEBRR009689@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080803/ccf5af8c/attachment.txt From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm Sun Aug 3 15:57:44 2008 From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:57:44 -0700 Subject: [R-G] How Good Was the Good War? In-Reply-To: <4893BE2D.1030805@attglobal.net> References: <4893BE2D.1030805@attglobal.net> Message-ID: <20080803215753.5DADBA10D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> The analogy with Munich and appeasement of Nazi Germany is actually not bad if one recognizes that the contemporary analog to the WWII Axis is not the U.S.-designated "Axis of Evil" but the U.S./Israeli-dominated Axis of Empire. And, as in 1938, the appeasers (Russia, China, the E.U.) have overlapping, though partly conflicting, interests with those they are appeasing. - Aaron >From: Bill Totten >Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:53:49 +0900 >Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] How Good Was the Good War? > >by Andrew J Bacevich > >The American Conservative (July 14 2008 Issue) > > >For historians, World War II revisionism is likely to remain a tough >sell. The process of enshrining the conflict of 1939-45 as the "Good >War" has now advanced to the point of being all but irreversible. The >war's canonical lessons, especially those relating to the perils of >appeasement, have permanently etched themselves in our collective >consciousness. > >The problem with this orthodox interpretation is not that it's wrong but >that it is inadequate. The reflexive tendency to see every antagonist as >another Hitler (or Stalin) and every sensitive diplomatic encounter as a >potential Munich (or Yalta) has produced an approach to statecraft that >is excessively militarized, needlessly inflexible, and insufficiently >imaginative. The remedy is not to engage in a vain effort to change the >way Americans remember World War II, however, but to restore that >conflict to its proper context. [SNIP] From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Aug 3 16:26:38 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 07:26:38 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Next Big Bail Out Message-ID: <4896309E.9020504@attglobal.net> State, Local and Private Pensions by Michael Hudson www.counterpunch.com (July 31 2008) The great economic fight of our epoch is being waged by the FIRE sector - Finance, Insurance and Real Estate - against the industrial economy and consumers. Its objective is to maximize property prices and the volume of debt relative to what labor and industry are able to earn. Rising debts and real estate prices go together, because asset prices depend on how much banks will lend. For creditors, the dream is to obtain an ultimate backup at public expense: government insurance that they will not lose when debtors are unable to pay. The political problem is how to get the government to insure and protect bankers rather than debtors, given that debtors are much more numerous when it comes to the voting booth. In such cases campaign contributions are the balancing factor. Governments are "privatized" and "financialized", that is, turned from democracies into oligarchies. The banking system aims to make sure that the only losers are the customers it is supposed to serve: debtors, homeowners and employees of companies being "financialized" as the economy is de-industrialized. Indeed, financialization and de-industrialization are becoming almost synonymous. The trick is to get voters to think they are getting rich while actually they are being painted into a debt corner, along with their employers, local government and the federal government too. For a while the bad-debt overhead can be bailed out by creating yet more debt, backed by public guarantees in what even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges is "socialism for the rich", that is, privatizing the profit and socializing the losses. But when has government been anything else, for thousands of years before anyone coined the term "socialism"? The so-called July 30 "housing bill" supports the price of mortgages that are the major asset base of most banks and other financial institutions today. What ultimately supports the price of these mortgage packages is the price of the real estate pledged as collateral. And despite Mr Greenspan's celebration of soaring housing prices as "wealth creation", it really was debt creation. As housing prices plunge, the debts remain in place. The question is, whose balance sheets are to plunge into negative equity territory - those of indebted homeowners, or those of banks that have made the bad loans and the financial institutions (largely pension funds, I'm sorry to say) that have bought "toxic mortgages"? Financial bubbles in their early phase inflate asset prices more rapidly than debts rise. This helps the financial sector encourage a belief that debt pollution is a quick way to make the economy rich - as long as one looks at financial balance sheets rather than tracing growth in the actual means of production and living standards. Living in the short run, most people do not see the financial war going on, and imagine that finance and industry, labor and capital are fighting for the same kind of economic growth and wealth. The reality is a conflict between financial and industrial growth objectives, subject to the adage that the solution to every problem tends to create yet new, unforeseen problems - ones often are larger in scale, requiring yet new solutions that cause yet larger and even more unforeseen. This is how societies transform themselves for better or for worse, crisis by crisis. Usually each side fights for its economic interests. But it is best not to crow too loudly over victory. The financial bailout is depicted as a housing bill, not as a giveaway to financial interests. And it is best not to acknowledge that the financial system's victory now threatens to push the economy further down the road to insolvency, headed by a squeeze on state and local finances, and pension funding public and private. Problems threaten to arise when creditors win too one-sided a victory. Here's what has happened so far. Early on the morning of July 30, President Bush signed the law that the Senate had passed at a special session the previous Saturday. Its aim was to restore US housing prices to unaffordably high levels, requiring new buyers to run even deeper into debts to obtain housing. Rather than rolling debts back to more affordable levels, the government now will use its own credit to guarantee payment on whatever portion of the unpayable exponential growth in debt cannot be sustained by the economy at large. The new "housing law" (a more honest title would have been the "financial bailout and giveaway act of 2008") authorizes the Treasury and Federal Reserve Board to provide unlimited credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and infuse new lending power to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and localities to support the "real estate market". This is a euphemism for saving mortgage lenders from the traditional response to falling property prices - defaults and walk-aways. The idea is for government loans to replace the bad loans that existing mortgage holders are stuck with, and to do so before property prices sink by another 25 percent. The cover story highlighted in the first line of the press release was that the new act was "intended to provide mortgage relief for 400,000 struggling US homeowners and to stabilize financial markets". The real aim is to help struggling banks and institutional investors, with little likely aid for homeowners. Mortgage defaults and foreclosures were threatening to wipe out the collateral valuations for the loans packaged and sold to US pension funds, other institutional investors and foreign banks - including the $1 trillion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities to foreign central banks and sovereign wealth funds. Piercing the cloud of public relations rhetoric, the actual impact on strapped mortgage debtors is that the increased funding for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA are part of a $1.4 trillion emergency supply of government credit intended to keep housing prices from falling back to more affordable levels. An alternative use of this funding would have been to save individual debtors from foreclosure and re-set their mortgages at more realistic levels. But the constituency of the Treasury and Federal Reserve is Wall Street, not homeowners. This is not a constituency whose interests reflect those of the economy as a whole over the long run. Finance and real estate extract interest and rents from the rest of the economy, shrinking rather than expanding it. This causes property prices to fall. Speculators (who have made up about fifteen percent of the housing market in recent years - one out of every six buyers) stop buying, while an over-supply of foreclosed or abandoned properties come onto the market. Falling prices push debt-leveraged homeowners into negative equity, followed by banks and the hapless buyers of the mortgages they have sold off. During the real estate bubble homeowners, commercial speculators and corporate raiders were able to borrow the interest charges by refinancing their properties at higher and higher appraisals. But banks now are pulling back from mortgage lending, largely because buyers of packaged mortgages find themselves stuck with paper that is a far cry from the security its AAA bond ratings implied. Companies that have insured these mortgages are far undercapitalized to sustain the risks, and themselves are threatened with bankruptcy. So the mortgage packagers and insurers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are being kept in business to "save the real estate market", by which is meant the exponential growth of debt. The parties being bailed out are the large institutions that hold the bad mortgages extended and packaged in recent years, and companies on the hook for having insured the face value of these mortgages. The growth of real estate debt has been achieved by the semi-public Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac providing "liquidity" not just by buying up and packaging mortgages in bulk, but by insuring their income streams. As William Poole, head of the Saint Louis Federal Reserve Bank from 1998 to 2008, points out: "Fannie and Freddie exist to provide guarantees for mortgage-backed securities trading in the market. The business is simply insurance." This insurance against mortgagees defaulting (and ultimately against banks and mortgage brokers making bad loans beyond the home buyer's ability to pay) is what has made their sale so irresponsibly liquid. And matters have reached the point where between two and three million US homeowners are still expected to default this year, leading to foreclosures. Mr Poole adds that the government's assumption of the mortgages underwritten and guaranteed by these two public agencies technically doubles the federal debt, from five to ten trillion dollars. The asset side of the government balance sheet also rises, but there may be a substantial shortfall. Private bondholders and stockholders of Fannie and Freddie also have claims on these assets, so any attempt at real-world accounting becomes thoroughly tangled. A deeper problem is that Fannie and Freddie underwrote and insured a debt increase whose continued exponential growth is unsustainable, because it causes domestic debt deflation. What Mr Greenspan called "wealth creation" - pumping up housing and stock market prices on credit - was actually debt creation. Asset prices are a function of how much banks will lend. If they lend more money on easier and easier terms, property prices will continue to soar. This is why the economy is facing debt deflation. More and more money will be diverted from being spent on consumption and paying taxes, in order to pay creditors. This will shrink the domestic market, squeezing profits, and also will squeeze state and local finances. The government will not solve this problem by providing yet more loans for stronger parties to buy the existing supply of homes otherwise in foreclosure. The dream is to keep housing high-priced to support the mortgage lenders, not for prices to fall so that new buyers do not need to run so heavily into debt to afford housing. Supporting real estate prices thus entails keeping the existing volume of debt on the books, and indeed running up even more debt. This levies an enormous charge on the economy to pay interest and amortization. These payments leave less available to be spent on goods and services or paid in taxes. The economy shrinks, leaving it even less able to carry its debt burden. Many individuals no doubt will default on their credit card debt, auto debt and other debts, but the largest remaining debt consists of pension and health care obligations to the private and public sector work force. This problem has been growing beneath the view of most public media. Private-sector pensions are insured by the federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), which is substantially undercapitalized. A much larger problem is state and local pension programs. not only are underfunded; they have no insurance at all. The expectation was that public-sector pensions would be paid out of rising property tax revenues and capital gains. But taxing property now threatens to cause defaults on mortgage payments. This is the corner into which the economy has painted itself by trying to preserve the exponential growth of mortgage debt. To cap matters, this threatens to push state and local budgets into deficit at a time when their pension and medical insurance payments are soaring. On the expense side of their balance sheet, localities must spend more money to cope with the consequences of empty houses being stripped of building materials, occupied by squatters, burned down and generally becoming a source of blight. On the fiscal income side, states and localities are facing populist political pressure crafted by large real estate interests and promoted with the usual flow of crocodile tears on behalf of retirees and other homeowners whose debt squeeze prompts them to support politicians promising to reduce property taxes. At first glance the connection between bailing out Fannie Mae and, behind it, the real estate market to keep prices high for American homeowners might not seem closely linked to corporate, state and local pension plans. So let us trace the linkage. Bailing out mortgage lenders ultimately must be achieved at the expense of state and local property tax revenues. Revenue that is used to pay interest is not available to pay taxes. If debts are to continue to grow exponentially and extract more carrying charges, this forces a tax shift onto labor and industry. For the past century the financial sector has made steady incursions to take over what used to be the role of government. Today's libertarian anti-tax "free market" rhetoric is simply a cover for the financial sector's replacement of elected democratic government. Forward planning is being distorted to serve the financial sector, not aiming to promote long-term growth and raise living standards, and certainly not to protect the public sector's fiscal position. One of the lesser-known features of this week's real estate bailout is the endorsement of "negative mortgages". These debt agreements add the accrual of interest onto the principal. The cover story is that this enables low-income homeowners to keep their houses with a lower carrying charge, borrowing the interest rather than paying it. But this means that what used to accrue to homeowners or their heirs as a "capital" (land-price) gain henceforth will accrue to the mortgage lender. For over a century, the main way that most American families have become rich has been by the free lunch of exponentially rising land prices. What is to rise exponentially in years to come is now their debt overhead. It is the financial sector that will get the free lunch of land-price gains. Adding the interest charge onto the principal is how Ponzi schemes work. They cannot work for long, because no real economy can keep up with "the magic of compound interest". The Bush-Paulson bailout plan calls for mortgages to become larger and larger, regardless of whether property prices keep pace. The interest is to accrue to the federal government as mortgagee at first, but this innovation is really a test run. It is the path of least resistance for private banks to start making mortgage loans that give them a return in the form of "capital" gains as well as interest. These gains consist of the inflation of land prices in cases where state, local and federal government fails to capture this gain for the economy at large. So the scheme obliged the public sector to turn elsewhere than property for its revenues - namely, to consumers and industry. Who is not going to get paid: bankers and bondholders, or pensioners? From listsubs at aarons.f-m.fm Sun Aug 3 16:30:04 2008 From: listsubs at aarons.f-m.fm (Aaron Aarons) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:30:04 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Haaretz Editor Refuses to Retract Israel Apartheid Statements In-Reply-To: <200808012058.m71KwSra008175@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> References: <200808012058.m71KwSra008175@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <20080803223018.08B9BAF5E@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> >Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:58:28 -0700 >From: Sid Shniad > > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123596 > IsraelNN.com 31 July 08 This item, from a frothing-at-the-mouth right-wing Zionist web site, was actually published on 5 September 2007. The date shown is probably when Sid copied it from their web site. A good web page with numerous related links is at . - Aaron From intnsred at golgotha.net Sun Aug 3 17:12:49 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:12:49 -0400 Subject: [R-G] How Good Was the Good War? In-Reply-To: <20080803215753.5DADBA10D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> References: <4893BE2D.1030805@attglobal.net> <20080803215753.5DADBA10D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <200808031912.50257.intnsred@golgotha.net> On Sunday 03 August 2008 17:57, Aaron wrote: > And, as in 1938, the appeasers (Russia, China, the E.U.) have overlapping, > though partly conflicting, interests with those they are appeasing. Ignoring the fact that the entire WWII "appeasement" angle has been heavily warped in US "popular history" -- as opposed to what happened pre-WWII -- the analogy above is flawed. Pre-WWII, the USSR was not on the side of appeasement. The USSR tried to get an alliance going with France and the British empire to defend Czechoslovakia but the western powers refused. Stalin made the non-aggression pact with Hitler that split Poland only after the west sold out Czechoslovakia. -- "I will not go 10,000 miles from here to help murder and kill another poor people simply to continue the domination of white slave masters over the darker people of the earth." -- Heavyweight boxing champion of the world Muhammad Ali announcing he is refusing to fight in the Vietnam War. From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Aug 3 22:58:56 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 21:58:56 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Private Spies: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing Message-ID: <1941BDD0-ADB1-4F40-A7B5-CFEA41014DB6@shaw.ca> Private Spies: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing by Tom Burghardt Global Research, August 2, 2008 Antifascist Calling... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUR20080802&articleId=9729 CACI Grabs Scottish Census Contract, Ignites Political Firestorm Over Torture Allegations Glasgow's Sunday Herald reported July 27 that a British subsidiary of CACI International was awarded an ?18.5 million ($36.6) contract by the Scottish government to carry out the country's next census. The announcement ignited a political firestorm. Leading human rights and antiwar organizations have condemned the deal and threatened the Scottish National Party (SNP) government with a mass boycott should the agreement stand. On June 30, the Center for Constitutional Rights and other law firms filed a series of civil lawsuits against CACI International, Inc., CACI Premier Technology and L-3 Services Inc., a division of L-3 Communications over allegations of torture at Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib prison. AFC has previously reported on these landmark cases, see: "Abu Ghraib Torture Claims Spook CACI, L-3 Communications." Sunday Herald investigations editor Neil Mackay writes, Granting CACI (UK) -- a subsidiary of the firm accused of torture -- the ?18.5 million contract has not only badly wounded the SNP government's claims of being more ethical than Labour and putting human rights at the top of its agenda, but has also led to fears personal data on millions of Scots collected by the company might be sifted by the US government given the close relationship between the Bush administration and the CACI head office in Arlington, Virginia. ("Scottish Government Hires Firm Accused of Torture in Iraq," Sunday Herald, 27 July 2008) As strategic partners in Washington's "global war on terror," private corporations, particularly those in the defense and burgeoning "homeland security" industries, have been incorporated into the state's intelligence apparatus--with little or no accountability and even less oversight. Human rights' lawyer John Scott told Mackay, "The government is opening itself up to significant and justified protest. Ordinary members of the public could refuse to have anything to do with the census. A boycott is something to be considered. It would be a legitimate step. We cannot ignore our principles." As outrage grows over the deal, The Stop the War Coalition, a UK-wide organization that has mobilized mass opposition to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, launched a petition drive against the contract. The SWC petition states "awarding millions of taxpayers' money to a subsidiary of a firm that has benefited from a contract at Abu Ghraib, profiting from an illegal and immoral occupation, is contrary to the views of the majority of the Scottish public." Aamer Anwar, a prominent human rights attorney with the organization Scotland Against Criminalising Communities told the Sunday Herald, "the US government doesn't give a damn about people's rights, it'll gather data in any way possible how can we be sure that the census information will not be handed over to the US government in the interests of homeland security?" Private Spies: A Cautionary Tale Anwar's concerns are indeed justified. In May, the San Diego Union- Tribune reported on the case of Col. Larry Richards, a Marine reservist stationed at Camp Pendleton. According to investigative journalist Rick Rogers, Richards, a group of fellow Marines and law enforcement officers, including the cofounder of the Los Angeles County Terrorist Early Warning Center (LACTEW), stole secret files from the Strategic Technical Operations Center. While Col. Richards and the other conspirators described below had no relationship to CACI or its web of worldwide affiliates their case however, is illustrative of the inherent dangers of employing private corporations with ties to the military-industrial-surveillance complex to perform sensitive public functions. Created in 1996, the LACTEW has been described by the FBI and the Office of National Intelligence as "a model for others to emulate," according to the ACLU. The LACTEW has since "evolved" into the the Joint Regional Intelligence Center (JRIC) in Los Angeles. When not on active duty, Richards worked as a "top specialist" at LACTEW, according to the Union-Tribune. But when he was working at Camp Pendleton, Richards' private spy ring stole hundreds of classified files, including those marked "Top Secret, Special Compartmentalized Information," the highest U.S. Government classification. The files included surveillance dossiers on the Muslim community and antiwar activists in Southern California. Members of the ring included a Marine Gunnery Sgt., Gary Maziarz, who was given access to Richards' "logon and password to access confidential computer accounts on the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System and Secret Internet Protocol Router Network," while Richards was deployed to Iraq, the Union-Tribune reported. Another conspirator was Lauren Martin, an intelligence analyst at U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado. NORTHCOM manages information about potential terrorism operations nationwide, and "Martin was responsible for the region that included Southern California, Maziarz testified" during his court martial. While the private spies claimed they were acting on "patriotic motives" and were seeking to "minimize the threat of a terrorist attack," Richards and the others, Rogers reported, "shared anti- terrorism intelligence with defense contractors in exchange for future employment." Among the firms being "scrutinized" for possible links to the ultranationalist spy ring are Kroll Associates, described as "a risk- management firm," and MPRI International Group, a "private military contractor" owned by L-3 Communications, a codefendant in the CCR lawsuit. According to Richards' account to investigators, MPRI allegedly offered him "$300,000 to work in Afghanistan," the Union- Tribune reported. Rogers reported that Kroll's clients included the city of San Diego and that some of its employees have had ties to the Los Angeles County Terrorist Early Warning Center. MPRI denied that Richards ever worked for the firm. Kroll refused to comment on the allegations to the Union- Tribune. As the American Civil Liberties Union documents in their update on the groups' November 2007 report on Fusion Centers, which LACTEW served as a "model," In the six months since our report, new press accounts have borne out many of our warnings. In just that short time, news accounts have reported overzealous intelligence gathering, the expansion of uncontrolled access to data on innocent people, hostility to open government laws, abusive entanglements between security agencies and the private sector, and lax protections for personally identifiable information. (Mike German and Jay Stanley, "Fusion Center Update," ACLU, July 29, 2008) While there was no CACI involvement in the scandal, the question must still be asked: will the "abusive entanglements between security agencies and the private sector" be replicated in Scotland? Considering the breathtaking reach of the Official Secrets Act and the shocking abuses perpetrated by British intelligence agencies against their own citizens, many of which have been documented by the Pat Finucane Centre for Human Rights and Social Change, this is not an issue that should be taken lightly. Will Data Be More Secure in Scotland? Given serious and well-documented data-security breaches in the United States and elsewhere, egregious civil liberties violations, as well as the seamless relationships that exist among the military, law enforcement and private security contractors with a vested interest in hyping the "terrorist threat," the concerns of Scottish human rights' campaigners are hardly misplaced. The Scottish government for its part, have denied the charges and defended its actions by claiming CACI (UK) was not involved in defense work and was a "separate legal entity from its US parent company. Allegations of improper conduct made against the parent company have been vehemently denied, but in any event there is no link between these allegations and the work of CACI (UK)," the Sunday Herald reported. Claiming the government "would never be a party" with any company "convicted" of human rights abuses, SNP spokespeople asserted that their choice of the firm was based solely on claims that CACI's offer represented "the best and most competitively priced of the bids we received, delivering best value for tax-payers' money." The government contended it "could not take unproven allegations into consideration". The SNP government also claimed that personal information would be protected through "independent audits of security," according to Mackay's report. CACI (UK) maintained that allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib "was?not substantiated by any evidence or proof, and subsequent investigations by both CACI and the US government could not confirm it. No CACI employee was ever depicted in the shocking and disturbing photos seen in the press." Despite CACI assertions to the contrary, photographic evidence indeed exits and was published more than two years earlier. In April 2006, Salon investigative journalist Mark Benjamin published a photograph of CACI International interrogator Daniel Johnson, a defendant in CCR's lawsuit against the company, interrogating an Iraqi prisoner in what Army investigators described as "an unauthorized stress position." According to Benjamin, The Army investigated the circumstances behind the photograph, found "probable cause" that a crime had been committed, and referred the case to the Justice Department for prosecution. (Salon obtained the photo from someone who spent time at Abu Ghraib as a uniformed member of the military and is familiar with the Army investigation there.) But in early 2005, a Department of Justice attorney told the Army that the evidence in the case did not justify prosecution. ("No Justice for All," Salon, April 14, 2006) Indeed, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command (CID) told Salon their office had "investigated the circumstances" surrounding the incident and found "probable cause to believe a crime was committed by civilian contractors." However, after the case was referred to the Department of Justice, "an assistant U.S. attorney in Virginia told the Army that he had reviewed the Johnson case and found there was 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute." There the case against Johnson and other contractors languished until this May when CCR initiated a lawsuit in Los Angeles federal district court, brought by a former "ghost" detainee at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and torture center. That case was filed against another former CACI contract employee, Steven Stefanowicz, aka "Big Steve." As I reported in July, CCR attorneys were forced to file separate civil suits only after a federal District of Columbia judge in 2004 refused the attorney's petition to consolidate some 237 victims' abuse claims as a class-action lawsuit. The judge ruled he "lacked jurisdiction," not that the charges were "baseless allegations," as CACI maintains. The original complaint is still pending. Why then, was CACI less than forthcoming? How Is this Relevant to the Issue of the Scottish Census? As the ACLU forcefully argues, "the elements of [a] nascent domestic surveillance system include: Watching and recording the everyday activities of an ever-growing list of individuals; channeling the flow of the resulting reports into a centralized security agency; sifting through ('data mining') these reports and databases with computers to identify individuals for closer scrutiny." (ACLU, op. cit.) A centralized database of census information culled by a private corporation with long-standing ties to the military-industrial- surveillance complex sets up a system ripe with the potential for abuse, particularly if such data were to fall--or drop--into the wrong hands, as feared by human rights, antiwar and civil liberties advocates. CACI is not some eager start-up; rather the firm has been described as "one of the Pentagon's favorite contractors" by Tim Shorrock in his essential book, Spies For Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. And according to Washington Technology's "Top 100 Federal Prime Contractors: 2008," CACI International, Inc. clocked-in at No. 17 with some $1,337,472,153 in total revenue. Some $1,105,765,855 or 82.6% was a result of defense-related contracts for IT and network services, data information, management services and what the publication terms "integrated security and intelligence solutions." Meanwhile, the victims of heinous abuse and torture that resulted from policies crafted at the highest levels of the Bush administration, and with the alleged complicity of many of their "outsourced" partners, are still awaiting their day in court and a modicum of justice. For more information on CCR's lawsuits see: "New Abu Ghraib Torture Claims Filed Against Military Contractors," Press Release, May 5, 2008 and "CCR Files Four New Abu Ghraib Lawsuits Targeting Military Contractors in U.S. Courts," Press Release, June 30, 2008. Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly, Love & Rage and Antifa Forum, he is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press. Tom Burghardt is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Tom Burghardt From suzannedk at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 01:16:02 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:16:02 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Haaretz Editor Refuses to Retract Israel Apartheid Statements In-Reply-To: <20080803223018.08B9BAF5E@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> References: <200808012058.m71KwSra008175@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> <20080803223018.08B9BAF5E@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: read this awhile ago in the form you sent ...... as well the beginning considerable brain drain from Israel..thanks Suzanne On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Aaron Aarons wrote: > >Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:58:28 -0700 > >From: Sid Shniad > > > > http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123596 > > IsraelNN.com 31 July 08 > > This item, from a frothing-at-the-mouth right-wing Zionist web site, was > actually published on 5 September 2007. The date shown is probably when Sid > copied it from their web site. > > A good web page with numerous related links is at < > http://moretreacheryof.blogspot.com/2007/09/more-on-treachery-of-noam-chomsky.html > >. > > - Aaron > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From listsubs at aarons.f-m.fm Mon Aug 4 05:55:26 2008 From: listsubs at aarons.f-m.fm (Aaron Aarons) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 04:55:26 -0700 Subject: [R-G] How Good Was the Good War? In-Reply-To: <200808031912.50257.intnsred@golgotha.net> References: <4893BE2D.1030805@attglobal.net> <20080803215753.5DADBA10D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <200808031912.50257.intnsred@golgotha.net> Message-ID: <20080804115543.88B8B4A25@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> >Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:12:49 -0400 >From: Intense Red > >On Sunday 03 August 2008 17:57, Aaron wrote: > > And, as in 1938, the appeasers (Russia, China, the E.U.) have overlapping, > > though partly conflicting, interests with those they are appeasing. > > Ignoring the fact that the entire WWII "appeasement" angle has been heavily >warped in US "popular history" -- as opposed to what happened pre-WWII -- the >analogy above is flawed. > > Pre-WWII, the USSR was not on the side of appeasement. The USSR tried to >get an alliance going with France and the British empire to defend >Czechoslovakia but the western powers refused. Stalin made the non-aggression >pact with Hitler that split Poland only after the west sold out Czechoslovakia. I certainly couldn't have meant that "Russia, China, the E.U." were "appeasers" in 1938, since the E.U. didn't even exist at the time and China had already been invaded by Nazi Germany's ally! I was referring to them as the main present day "appeasers" of the new Axis powers: the U.S. and Israel. I don't think "appeasement" is a very useful concept, but I like to turn it around against those who use it to attack those who refuse to join their imperial projects. - Aaron From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Aug 4 06:26:35 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:26:35 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Reviving the Household Economy Message-ID: <4896F57B.5050209@attglobal.net> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (July 30 2008) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society Part One: The World Outside the Market As the current pullback in oil prices continues - one of the benchmark grades dropped to a little over $120 a barrel yesterday, though it jumped back up $4 in early trading today - peak oil skeptics have seized the opportunity to insist that there's nothing wrong with the petroleum market that a few more trillion-dollar giveaways to the oil industry wouldn't fix. One interesting lesson worth drawing from the current barrage of punditry is that most of people who reject the concept of peak oil don't actually seem to know what the phrase means. A case in point is a recent opinion piece that denounced peak oil as "sheer nonsense", on the grounds that the world still has some forty years of oil left at today's rate of production. The author of this piece somehow managed not to notice that the peak oil theory focuses on precisely the point he took for granted, the sustainability of today's rate of production. The world may well have the equivalent of forty years' worth of current annual petroleum production left in its reserves, but if the amount it can produce each year plateaus and then begins to shrink due to geological limits, a global economy founded on ever-expanding energy supplies is in trouble. That's the essence of the peak oil position, and waving around claims about the absolute size of global reserves doesn't address it at all. Still, it's not surprising that so many people are finding such ingenious ways just now to avoid understanding the implications of peak oil. As worldwide oil production remains stuck in its current plateau - a plateau that increasingly has had to be propped up by massive production of high-cost biofuels and tar-sand products - some of the most basic presuppositions of the modern world are turning out to be well past their pull dates. Once production begins to slip down the far side of the world's Hubbert curve, that process is likely to accelerate, and much of what counts as conventional wisdom today will end up sitting in history's dumpster next to phlogiston and the divine right of kings. One example with sweeping implications unfolds from a particular mismatch between current economic theories and the practical realities of the age of peak oil. Perhaps the best way to introduce this example is to invite my readers to put on their walking shoes, pick up their canvas shopping bags, and join me in one of yesterday's errands. In the southern Oregon town where I live, Tuesday is the day of the weekly grower's market, and so yesterday, as we do nearly every Tuesday between March and November, my wife Sara and I walked the 3/4 of a mile or so to the National Guard armory parking lot where local growers and ranchers sell their produce. Among our purchases was a flat of fresh raspberries, and this afternoon we'll be turning those into home-canned raspberry jam for the year to come. Now it's unquestionably true that we could just buy an equivalent volume of commercially manufactured raspberry jam and eat that instead. Still, these two ways of putting by a supply of raspberry jam are by no means equal. Set aside for a moment the higher quality of homemade jam, which (in this case, at least) is made of fresher ingredients and prepared in small batches; one of the most important differences between the two processes is that the homemade jam represents a much more efficient use of fossil fuels. The grower who produced the raspberries used organic methods, which saved the petroleum and natural gas that would otherwise have had to go into pesticides and fertilizers. While she used a pickup to bring her crop to the market, the ten miles or so she drove compares favorably to the thousands of miles agricultural products are routinely shipped in their journey from farm to factory, warehouse, and supermarket, and even if we owned a car and drove to and from the market, the extra mile and a half of gas wouldn't shift the balance much. Turning berries into jam and canning the result probably takes about an equal amount of energy per pint of jam whether it's done in a home kitchen or a huge factory, though it's a lot easier to provide the energy via a solar cooker or other renewable source on a small scale. Even without that, though, the homemade jam takes a small fraction of the energy to go from raspberry canes to our pantry than commercial jam requires. One measure of these energy economies is that, including all expenses, our homemade jam costs us only about two-thirds as much as the same volume of commercial jam. Compare the homemade jam with its commercial equivalent from the viewpoint of conventional economic measures, though, and the balance swings the other way. In terms of its impact on the gross domestic product - generally considered the broadest measure of national prosperity - our homemade jam is practically an economic disaster. The very modest price of raspberries, sugar, pectin, and new lids for our much-recycled canning jars is the only contribution it makes to the economy. By contrast, making, shipping, storing, and selling the commercial jam requires, directly and indirectly, the expenditure of a very large amount of money, all of which counts mightily toward a higher gross domestic product. Consider the economics from the perspective of the participants in the creation of the homemade jam, though, and things take on a very different shape. Even aside from the other reasons Sara and I might want homemade jam, we have a potent economic motive; by making the jam ourselves we get a superior product at a lower price. The raspberry grower, in turn, benefits handsomely from the same decision; the price she gets for her berries when sold directly to the consumer is several times the price she can get from wholesalers. According to conventional economics, the end result of individuals freely pursuing their own interest in a market should be the maximization of prosperity - and yet if prosperity is measured by the gross domestic product, our free pursuit of our own interest decreases our contribution to national prosperity. What is happening here, of course, reflects one of the largest of the blind spots of contemporary economics: the assumption that market transactions mediated by money are the only significant form of economic activity. Our household jam-making activities drop off the economic radar screen the moment we finish paying for the raw materials. Value is being produced - the same jam offered for sale at next week's market would bring substantially more than the cost of the raw materials - but it's being produced outside the market economy, and therefore has no official existence in an economy measured entirely by market metrics. What makes this particularly relevant in the twilight of the age of cheap oil is that the world's industrial nations, and above all the United States, have spent most of the last century transferring as much as possible of the household economy into the market sphere. In making our own jam, among other things, Sara and I belong to a minority of American households. Glance back a hundred years, by contrast, and nearly every family in the country outside the very rich and the very poor had an active household economy that produced a large fraction of the total goods and services they consumed. Many factors contributed to this dramatic shift, but one of the most significant is the availability of cheap abundant energy. Most of the economies of scale that make mass production of processed foods economically viable, after all, are economies only because the cost of transportation is low enough to permit them. As recently as the first half of the 20th century, most consumer products in the US were produced locally for regional markets, in large part because transportation costs were still high enough to make national distribution a costly proposition. (Those brands that did find a nationwide niche, such as Coca-Cola (tm), did it by franchising out manufacturing and bottling to local firms.) It took the birth of a new transportation network of diesel-powered trucks using a massive new interstate highway network to create today's national distribution chains, and cheap petroleum provided the foundation on which the whole system arose. The twilight of cheap oil, in turn, bids fair to throw this process of economic centralization into reverse. As transportation costs rise to become a major part of the cost of consumer products, the economies to be gained by local production will sooner or later outweigh the economies of scale that shape the current system, opening economic niches for small and midsized firms nimble enough to move with the currents of economic change. Equally, though, the financial advantages of the household economy will become overwhelming. In a world of scarce oil, anything that can decrease the amount of fossil fuel energy that has to go into an product will pay off handsomely, and if the transition to scarcity involves widespread impoverishment - as seems most likely just now - the choice faced by many households throughout the industrial world may well come down to doing things themselves or doing without. At the same time, it's crucial to recognize that the forces holding the current economic order in place reach beyond the realm of simple economic calculations into murkier areas of culture and collective psychology. For those who have access to fruit growers - and with the growth of farmers markets across the US and elsewhere, this has become a tolerably large fraction of the population - making one's own jam, and a great many other food products, is already a paying proposition; so are many other activities that once formed part of the household economy, and very likely will do so again; yet these activities remain the hobbies of a minority of today's Americans, and most of their neighbors turn to the market economy to get inferior products at higher prices instead. The forces motivating this sort of economic irrationality will be the focus of next week's post. _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (Weiser, 2006). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/07/reviving-household-economy.html#links TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From tchilds at resist.ca Mon Aug 4 15:44:23 2008 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Inside the WTO's Collapsed Deal - Ellen Gould for thetyee.ca Message-ID: <62019.64.85.36.244.1217886263.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> This is pretty good news.. Oh how pleasing it is to read "failure" when hearing about the the collapse of the tyrannical agenda within the WTO's 'back room boys.' Nice homework done here by Ellen Gould. tc =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/08/04/WTO/ Inside the WTO's Collapsed Deal . World's poor dodged disastrous policies when world trade talks failed. By Ellen Gould Published: August 4, 2008 TheTyee.ca On July 21, the World Trade Organization held yet another meeting billed as a "do or die" effort to pull off a new global trade deal. Since the Doha round of talks were launched in Qatar seven years ago, trade ministers have met five times to work on an agreement. The ministerial meeting held last summer was charged with a sense of urgency, with warnings that this might be the last chance to hammer out a deal. So the hype about how this summer's meeting represented a "moment of truth" for the negotiations seemed like an overused ploy to get negotiators to resolve their differences. Lucky Break for Harper Basically sidelined from the negotiations along with the majority of WTO members, the Canadian government did not have to show its cards as the trade talks crumbled. If the negotiations had not foundered on the issue of how to safeguard farmers from surges in agricultural imports, Canada's delegation could have been caught in a politically dicey position over agricultural marketing boards. The Wheat Board is one of the last obstacles to total dominance of world grain markets by agribusiness and was targeted by the U.S. and the E.U. for elimination in the Doha round. Saskatchewan's agriculture minister undermined Canada's negotiating position by stating publicly in Geneva while the talks were going on that Canada might have to make concessions in this area. But while the Harper government has demonstrated its hostility to the Canadian Wheat Board, it would probably be loathe to go into an election this fall having just traded away the dairy and poultry marketing boards supported by farmers in Quebec and Ontario. Trade Minister Michael Fortier asserted at the negotiations that "our position on supply management will not change," but this assertion did not have to be tested since the key players walked away from the table. -- Ellen Gould This time, though, negotiators' inability to reach a deal seems more serious, with key figures appearing genuinely deflated at the outcome. WTO Director General Pascal Lamy said that "there is no escaping the fact that this meeting has failed," and that the multilateral trading system came out of it "dented." Negotiators behaving badly The recriminations over who was to blame for the failure were so venomous that they may poison the atmosphere for a resumption of multilateral talks for some time to come. The American negotiator claimed negotiators had actually reached an agreement but that two of the seven members of the core negotiating group -- a clear reference to India and China -- had scuttled it by rejecting a compromise reached on a key provision. The provision in question dealt with how to protect farmers from a surge in agricultural imports. The Indian negotiator retorted that a strong safeguard against such surges was essential to the livelihoods of the world's poorest farmers and "could not be traded off against the commercial interests of the developed countries." The E.U.'s trade chief, Peter Mandelson, slammed the conduct of the U.S. negotiators and hinted that rather than working for success, the U.S. was actually preparing for the failure of the talks. The U.S. delegation shot back that "the E.U.'s anger is misdirected, misguided and being misused," accusing Mandelson of trying to divert attention from the fact that the European position on agriculture was under attack by some of its own member states. Farmers in the balance What are the consequences of this year's ministerial collapse? If the only news you got about the latest WTO failure came from the business press, you would think that it was a major blow to the poor. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled "The End of Free Trade?" said the meeting had historic significance because "for the first time since the multilateral trading rounds began after World War II, a trade expansion effort has ended in failure." The Journal said the Indian trade minister was the "main villain" and he bore responsibility for blocking progress for impoverished people in his country. But generally organizations around the world that work on behalf of the disadvantaged have been celebrating the collapse of the so-called Doha Development Round. In exchange for largely illusory cuts to developed country farm-subsidies, developing countries were being asked to open their markets even further to the manufactured goods and services of developed countries. Basically, they were expected to permanently block their own path to development by eliminating the capacity to protect infant industries with tariffs, the path that the U.S. and Europe had followed to industrialize their own economies. The U.S. was claiming it was willing to make big reductions to its agricultural subsidies, but the recent passage of a $300 billion farm bill by the U.S. Congress make it unlikely that the U.S. is serious about real reductions. Such farm subsidies put developing-country farmers at a huge competitive disadvantage. In addition, a number of studies have showed that even if developed countries did actually cut their agricultural subsidies, it would make little difference to world poverty. A report from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development concluded that a Doha agreement could cost developing countries huge losses in tariff revenue, four times as much as any benefits they might gain. Ramping up a global banking disaster? Not even registering on the radar of the mainstream media were the consequences of a WTO package deal that would have included liberalization of services. It is remarkable that in the midst of a major financial crisis, with shockwaves continuing to be felt from the U.S. subprime mortgage disaster, journalists did not cover the financial services aspects of the WTO negotiations. In what Director General Pascal Lamy reported as a bright spot in the talks, countries met on July 26 to signal the major concessions they were prepared to make on services. Apparently oblivious to the shaky state of international banks, some countries proposed that they would eliminate deposit requirements for foreign bank branches. They said they would open up to increased trade in financial derivatives, even though these products are a prime source of financial instability. The trade ministers' cheery attitude towards further financial liberalization begs the question of how bad the financial crisis would have to get before they thought twice about permanently deregulating the sector through trade commitments. Under the WTO services agreement, if countries commit to the complete opening of a sector, they have to allow unlimited foreign ownership in that sector. Some of the trade ministers at the services meeting announced their countries were willing to allow total foreign control of key areas like banking, telecommunications, health and postal services. While Lamy's report of the services meeting names Canada as one of the 27 countries represented, he does not identify who made which offer to liberalize. So Lamy's report does not tell us what new offers Canada may have made. David Robinson, in his capacity as trade and education consultant for Education International, a global union federation claiming to represent 30 million teachers and other education workers, met with WTO negotiators during the ministerial to discuss potential impacts on public education. Robinson told The Tyee his organization's principle concern is that "commitments taken could lead to locking in the forces of privatization." Commitments to allow the establishment of foreign for-profit institutions, for example, could undermine domestic efforts to build a strong public education system. Education International also objects to the development of new WTO "disciplines" restricting how services are regulated, particularly in relation to requirements for education qualifications. Robinson said if governments tried to strengthen education qualifications for teachers, the proposed WTO restrictions on regulation could mean these governments would be challenged for creating a restriction on trade in education services. These WTO restrictions on the right to regulate still may be imposed, despite the collapse of the Doha round. Cherry-picking the results Although the ministerial meeting just ended in failure last week, it is already clear how different delegations are manoeuvring for advantage in the post-Doha era. Brazil, which jumped ship in Geneva on the developing-country coalition opposing deep cuts to industrial tariffs, has contacted President Bush directly to signal Brazil is still willing to negotiate. The U.S. is questioning the fundamental premise of a comprehensive trade package, one that covers agriculture, market access for industrial goods, and services. The U.S. trade negotiator said at her last news conference: "Why should it have to come together at exactly the same time? We need to reflect on how we move forward, but there are ways of moving forward certainly with pieces of this, both near term and longer term." The U.S. would probably like to harvest the services and industrial commitments that were made without having to give anything in the area of agriculture. But the Indian trade minister has already rejected this option, saying that the WTO is not a buffet where countries can just take what they want without making concessions. And while Pascal Lamy is claiming the WTO could proceed in all the areas where there was agreement, this view is categorically rejected by countries like Argentina that were excluded from the inner circle of seven countries that did most of the negotiating. The Bolivian way In their debriefing on a services meeting held as part of the ministerial, WTO staff described it as "dreadful." At this meeting, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua blasted the chair of the services negotiations for the text of a report he had drafted on how the negotiations would proceed. Among other things, this report would have had governments commit to locking in existing liberalization so that they would not be able to undo privatization and deregulation without risking a WTO challenge. Surprisingly, the group of countries that had previously given their okay to this language -- a group that included Canada, the U.S. and the E.U. -- mostly sat on their hands at the meeting and did not come to the chair's defence. While Bolivia is marginalized by the powers that be at the WTO, its views probably are more mainstream than those of most trade negotiators. It is Bolivia's position that services like health, education and water should be excluded from commercial trade negotiations because they are basic human rights. Local food production should be given priority over imports because the environmental costs of transporting foreign food have to be taken into account. The patenting of all life forms should be prohibited. These positions were sent in a letter from Bolivian president Evo Morales to Pascal Lamy. They provide a glimpse of what a real "development" round of negotiations might look like. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Aug 4 18:01:52 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:01:52 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The critical eye ... Message-ID: <48979870.3070609@attglobal.net> ... for the nightmare and the dream by Jan Lundberg Culture Change Letter #187 (June 15 2008) Oil/food crisis and government dissolution Recent rises in oil prices help more of us perceive that something's very wrong with what we've built and paved and sprayed. Anyone taking a look around can feel overwhelmed by the sprawling petroleum infrastructure, especially if the observer has any sense for its fragility or impermanence. Becoming worried or sickened is a sane response. Some also realize how we have been suffocated and brainwashed to see little else than the mass illusion and the spoon-fed image of a similar green-consuming future. Then there are those who are hungry right now around the world, protesting unprecedented fuel and food costs. These protesters will not back down. Regimes will not only topple, as government rule will dissolve for better or worse. This is eventually coming to the USA too, and to all nations, because when masses of people anywhere experience instability, and business-as-usual comes to a halt, the global economy affects all - rapidly and painfully as it fails. Somehow this vulnerability has been sold as "wealth" and "progress". While it dawns on some of us that the materialist world is stripped naked before us, die-hards still believe "prosperity" can be had widely - although it never came for anyone but the few who gluttonize non-renewable resources. The end result of the growing conflict will be, after the likely bloodletting, a return to local economics and real community. Meanwhile, the mess is right outside our window and has me thinking: It takes an unpopular critical eye to see the ubiquitous, utter waste and be hit by the folly. The motor-vehicle oriented landscape and all the businesses and properties depend on dwindling, ever-more costly petroleum for their usually needless products and services. These unsustainable establishments are in our face and keep us hemmed in our mental prison. Like a giant bloodsucker it is something we ignore as if it were a necessary appendage of civilized evolution. Human relations can be conscious Humanity is only now about to wake up to the dead-end of petroleum-fueled exuberance (as William Catton called our lifestyle in his 1980 book Overshoot). In so doing, people will not be able to help but realize also that their social relations have also been an embarrassing sham - neither enlightened nor just. Can there be another way? It is more than a dream. When love is relegated to romantic fantasy (of the honeymoon, say) or familial duty (mainly feeding one's children and packing them off to be educated by strangers), we miss most of life's opportunity for loving and for sharing positive experiences with unlimited numbers of people we can meet. We are deprived of this not by "human nature" but by the narrow, controlled and repressive society we know to be all about private property and individual gain. We are expected to find a semblance of love only behind our own walls. Within our worship halls' walls it's hardly worth calling love when authority judges us. It does so illegitimately. Creativity is the norm underneath Poets and other artists and revolutionaries should not be the only ones to see through the barren, ordered construct of the market economy and what it has done to our natural surroundings and souls. The full potential of beautiful creating that every person is capable of every day can be realized only if we somehow all abandon or remove the technological (=artificial) system that has already failed us. Through it we have not only let down one another, but also our fellow creatures. They are, we sometimes find when we are open enough, lovely and pure of spirit - life itself. Their wildness is their enviable simplicity and superiority, and is the source of undying admiration for those of us who know there are chains around us that choke off clear thought and feeling. Most of us moderns vainly imagine ourselves created above all other species - above life itself! But each of the countless species occupies successfully an essential niche in our common ecosystem. Yes, we can destroy them - but we only destroy ourselves, as we are just barely beginning to find out. Our aim, to a critical eye, seems only to gain short-term, mindless comfort. Even as we achieve a mass extinction for the future fossil record, we prove our "superiority". To write this makes me feel something more real and permanent than what's possible when being overwhelmed by the outrageously ugly corporate eateries and stores here along Interstate 5 in Washington State. I'm on a large shuttle bus en route to transfer to a car and a train. Though I am as separate from "The System" as one can be and still be connected to the "mainstream" I wish I were escaping like a native American once could, less than 150 years ago - to lands beyond the white invaders. The critical eye that some of us utilize is curiously rare in this age of denial as the American Dream bursts with it's unintended toxic excrement. I'm past imagining any acceleration of terminating the "global warming machine" (that is, industrial society), because I face that people are still far from seeing the need to change their way of life. They are not ready to storm city hall or the television stations; instead they will storm the supermarkets and palaces of the rich. Why that's inevitable: people remain either unexposed to alternatives to ecocide and their own oppression, or, even when they have been introduced, they stubbornly reject seriously participating in conserving energy and non-renewable materials. Imagine that! Instead, they hand over some more dollars to corporations for discretionary items. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one to almost vomit from the harsh reality of our impotence, evil, apathy, and needless self-destruction. Offering "a solution" to our ills and predicament is impossible, and it has been so for probably centuries - although stamping out the emerging dominant culture of greed and exploitation would have been easier long ago. Perhaps it would even have been a trivial task if the first mutation of neolithic culture, changing into what would soon become Western Civilization, were nipped in the bud. Instead, the mistake (or crime) was allowed to proliferate into mass selfishness enshrined especially for the most aggressive and cruel among us. Curtains How did we keep allowing a vicious yet self-gratifying system to rule over us generation after generation, even when we rebelled? One way was to appeal to our superiority as young things, swollen with fancy knowledge and technology. We pitied the older generations who didn't have our technical abilities. We laughed that ancestors had no telephones - how quaint and pathetic of them! If only they had been able to enjoy what we know and do. Except, instead, each new modern generation is in reality more ignorant and weaker than the previous. More information does not a great human make, nor does it serve to nurture and protect one's family. To the contrary, we find. As we have run up against the end of the automobile age - no more running around in sleek comfort - we are starting to feel anxious about even being able to have any transportation at all, or a livable environment in which to do it. As we see desperate industries trying to hang on in their gargantuan and overstretched states, trying to become more energy-efficient to survive, the realization hits: At this point in our abuse of Mother Earth and waste of nonrenewable energy, if we persist in manufacturing any kind of car or airplane on a mass scale, we flush our ecosystem and climate down the toilet. As my father used to say, be of good cheer. Change is coming soon, and it's far deeper and mind-blowing than Barack Obama is hinting at. _____ Reflections from Le Bon After discussion the above essay with Bill Le Bon, consultant for Culture Change, we had a discussion that resulted in this statement (mostly by him and partly by me, JL): People are busy working for the man because they get the house, wife, car and food. They give their day to the man but get to come back to the wife and kids. They resent and yet appreciate what the man provides. But they don't question why they want the house, wife and car. If they did they might not want it. If people kept in mind that food and water and shelter should be free, their politics would be different. But much of what's out in the world is scary, such as homelessness, and keeps people from learning about alternatives. To embrace the margin requires believing in a better way based on much information and visible examples of would be viable options. If they were obvious, people would drop out from working for the man. They're out there, but the media don't cover it and keeps bombarding people with messages to consume. It takes profit-generation to get media. Money and power are goals in themselves and have their adherents. The people with values don't have power or money. _____ Jan Lundberg, founder of Culture Change, was a well-known oil-industry analyst when he changed over to nonprofit environmental activism in 1988. His work has since been profiled in The Washington Post, Sun Magazine, Associated Press, and he has broadcast his ideas on CBS Radio Network, NPR, and elsewhere. http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=178&Itemid=1 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From intnsred at golgotha.net Mon Aug 4 18:56:44 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:56:44 -0400 Subject: [R-G] How Good Was the Good War? In-Reply-To: <20080804115543.88B8B4A25@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> References: <4893BE2D.1030805@attglobal.net> <200808031912.50257.intnsred@golgotha.net> <20080804115543.88B8B4A25@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <200808042056.45303.intnsred@golgotha.net> > I certainly couldn't have meant that "Russia, China, the E.U." [...] Yeah, sorry about that. I noticed it -- of course -- after I sent the message and reread the original. You'll have to forgive my knee-jerk reaction to what I thought was another person warping the WWII appeasement history. In solidarity. -- "When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil." -- Thomas Jefferson From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Aug 5 08:15:57 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:15:57 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Oil and peak misunderstood as we guzzle petroleum Message-ID: <4898609D.2010302@attglobal.net> by Jan Lundberg Culture Change Letter #191 (August 01 2008) Some of us wonder why some people we know worry little about the trend of sharply rising prices for food and petroleum. They may even acknowledge we have a huge population size and that the environment has been ravaged, but still the situation seems to them normal and stable. Theirs is a laid-back mindset common to those content to pay their bills, or perhaps they have given up on seeing fundamental societal change. They may be well-educated, liberal people. They are not usually the ones striving to change our culture toward respect for nature, although they are inclined to save the planet a bit and support social justice. Their lack of alarm ought to become better understood if it cannot be remedied. For us to just wait for economic or climatic collapse doesn't help. But warning of it (to deaf ears, usually) can do more than allow us to eventually say, "I told you so". I pass along this analysis stemming from conversations with friends who have not taken seriously enough the consequences of oil dependence: Many don't imagine themselves to be pro-capitalist or in favor of economic growth that's destructive to the environment. But they nevertheless have a form of faith in the market: that we will simply transition through the oil supply crisis. They say, "Higher prices bring down demand and there will be major conservation, and people will switch to other forms of energy. The economy will make more of the right products, and jobs will change." This scenario is based on (1) economics that deny indicators of resource depletion and ignore our world's losing its stable climate, and (2) a lack of understanding of energy and the role of our petroleum-based infrastructure. The laid-back way of discounting oil's monster role allows one to reject collapse as the most likely possibility. The implications of having to rapidly adjust to a fraction of the world's daily oil habit of 85 million barrels are more than formidable, but many of us just hope for the best. When reminded that all past empires collapse, and that civilizations collapse, the person rejecting likely modern day collapse responds that the process could take a long, long time. Jared Diamond in Collapse has fed the idea that we will see a long decline instead of a crisis on the level of a house-of-cards collapse. People don't seem to suspect they have a dire need to understand crucial aspects of energy, although we all can't be technical experts. Truths are staring us in the face regarding the function of the oil market and the hard realities of supply and demand. Both the economist and many a peak oilist seem to make up their own rules - something I've tried to address in publications, media interviews and speeches. Peak oilists do understand that the feasibility of alternative fuels for powering industrial society is in question. The inability to produce petrochemicals from solar panels and other "renewables" is a key point. Sadly, yet to be explored and hashed out with the public is the role of petroleum in our modern industrial culture. Growing social vulnerabilities demand organizational as well as culture-change solutions. However, there is no solution or simple answer; there is just a resolution awaiting us when we must face the "overshoot" society has accomplished with our natural bounty we're spending. At the same time, there do exist options for survival, even if we cannot just solve our problem with some fix. It helps to keep in mind that the real alternative to our fossil-fuel hell, and the energy crisis known as peak oil and petrocollapse, is the local-community approach to living that respects the fragile Earth and its shrinking biological and cultural diversity. But we are not on our way to sustainability as long as we're not dealing with our serious oil addiction. Ideally, dealing with it will involve increased understanding of oil and the oil industry. A basic understanding of the workings of the oil industry is lacking among experts and novices alike in peak oil, to be expected when non-industry types are the ones inclined to question the lucrative business of the fraternity of oil. The role of the oil market as it interplays with geological-based shortage is critical, but neglected. In ignoring or forgetting the supreme importance of the distribution system for all oil products readily available, and how it is controlled by buyers and sellers rather than how much crude oil may be left in the ground, many peak oilists assume there will be a gradual decline of oil extraction. They also assume the oil industry is set up for orderly contraction. I discussed why this isn't the case at the Ecocity World Summit last April in San Francisco: "I disagree with Dr Colin Campbell, peak oil geologist, that we are entering with peak the 'Second Half of the Age of Oil'. My view involves my donning my oil-industry analyst hat and discussing the oil market. I formerly ran Lundberg Survey which predicted the Second Oil Shock in 1979." Assumptions about oil's mirror-image demise (patterned after its graphic ascendancy) come largely from the "Hubbert Curve" and its arbitrary bell shape that implies extraction of oil gradually dwindling. As these thinkers and analysts with their non-industry background tout a milder effect of peak oil than collapse, a "doom and gloom" label tends to be put on anyone who does not see how substitute energy and materials (for our huge, growing population) can "save us". Socioeconomic collapse will come when global trade is hamstrung by the end of abundant oil - possibly suddenly, in the form of a fatal interruption of supply due to world events. However, as bad as the disruption will be, a positive outcome from the loss of global corporate products will result, probably unevenly and with delay. In the main, the chain of events will mean the inevitable abandonment of unsustainable practices, institutions, and obsolete cultural values. Perhaps this view could belong to every incurable optimist of the human spirit faced with today's compounding errors and failures of Western Civilization. Fortunately there are models already functioning that provide for reliable operation and increased self-reliance in the post-petroleum age. Energy's role in our post-petroleum future and the full potential of technology will have to hew to Earth's limits, a thought that disturbs and meets objection. Still, decentralized and diverse techniques and resources will assist local economies in their cultural development. Peak oilists are of many stripes, and most are unknown to the public. It could well be that few peak oilists today - with or without thorough oil industry understanding - see a positive outcome from full petrocollapse. Granted, goodness and survival are not guaranteed; they will have to arise out of the ashes - figuratively, one would hope - of petroleum civilization that happens to be already rusting, literally, much faster than it can be maintained. ______ This essay is from the forthcoming book Petrocollapse and Culture Change, by Jan Lundberg. http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=189&Itemid=1#cont ____________________ Matt Simmons: Rust happens by Leslie Haines blogs.oilandgasinvestor.com (May 05 2008) The offshore oil industry is seven years old this year, and industry analyst Matt Simmons says rust is becoming a bigger threat than oilfield depletion. The CEO and founder of investment bank Simmons & Company International spoke at OTC 2008 this week in Houston. "If the world wants to keep using energy from oil and gas, it will have to rebuild the infrastructure and the cost of doing this could rival the combined cost of the World War II war machine, the post-war Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe, and the post-war buildout of the US interstate highway system". Simmons said the costs could be enormous - in the $50 to $100 trillion range. Triage needs to happen immediately to prioritize which links in the system are the weakest and need to be repaired or replaced first. Pipelines are old, some dating to World War II. The average age of the drilling rig fleets onshore and offshore is 24 years. Refineries are even older. "No single US state has drawn up a blueprint of how to replace its aging energy infrastructure". Simmons cited infrastructure construction on the drawing board for the Middle East alone is as much as $1.5 trillion. Simmons also said that if and when we start to build back what the energy industry needs, there will be a severe blue-collar personnel shortage that will hamper progress and cause huge cost overruns. "We face a twin challenge", he said. "We need to end our addiction to oil at the same time that we need to rebuild our entire energy infrastructure". _____ Leslie Haines is Editor in chief, Oil and Gas Investor, lhaines at hartenergy.com http://blogs.oilandgasinvestor.com/leslie/2008/05/05/matt-simmons-rust-happens/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 5 14:22:50 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:22:50 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Haaretz Editor Refuses to Retract Israel Apartheid Statements Message-ID: <200808052022.m75KMoKR009438@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080805/2310a3c1/attachment.txt From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Aug 5 14:30:24 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:30:24 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Debate on the Albert Einstein Institution and its Involvement in Venezuela Message-ID: <19D72393-7CC7-4903-AA03-604C07695B1B@shaw.ca> Debate on the Albert Einstein Institution and its Involvement in Venezuela August 5th 2008, by Stephen Zunes, George Cicariello-Maher & Eva Golinger Editor's note: Below we reprint an exchange on the merits and demerits of the Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) and its director Gene Sharp. The occasion of the exchange is, among other things, a series of articles that appeared in Venezuelanalysis.com over the years, criticizing the AEI for its involvement in Venezuela. The first part of this exchange originally appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus, a progressive foreign policy think tank. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3690 From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 5 16:17:45 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:17:45 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Academics protest at army bar on Palestinians Message-ID: <200808052217.m75MHjGX000660@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080805/6308bd40/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 5 16:17:12 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:17:12 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Want Lower Gas Prices? Lift AIPAC's Sanctions on Iran Message-ID: <200808052217.m75MHCue028704@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080805/1afdb487/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 5 16:18:46 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:18:46 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Are you ready to face the facts about Israel? Message-ID: <200808052218.m75MIksa002741@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080805/11259857/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 5 16:24:49 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:24:49 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Afghanistan: Not a Good War Message-ID: <200808052224.m75MOnj2013852@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080805/aa9ef649/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 5 16:55:03 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:55:03 -0700 Subject: [R-G] FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials Message-ID: <200808052255.m75Mt36i008197@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080805/2950a2cf/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 5 17:05:26 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:05:26 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Bush can get away with it Message-ID: <200808052305.m75N5QiD026423@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080805/a8cb6341/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Aug 5 20:58:26 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:58:26 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Peak Oil Crisis: The Blackouts Spread Message-ID: <48991352.9090705@attglobal.net> by Tom Whipple Falls Church News-Press (July 16 2008) Of the 266 distinct nations or entities on the world today, nearly 100 are now reporting continuing energy shortages, mostly in the form of inadequate electricity supply, but in a growing number of cases, shortages of liquid fuels and natural gas. The actual number of countries affected is probably well over 100 but there are dozens of isolated island-states scattered around the world that are rarely heard from and are almost certainly suffering in silence while waiting for the next oil tanker to come in. The majority of these energy-short states are small, poor and play only a minor role in world trade. While we should feel sorry for the plight of their inhabitants who are, or shortly will be, enduring severe hardships from greatly reduced supplies of electricity, water, food and use of motor transport, the impact of their problems on the better-off OECD world is likely to be minimal for a while. Shortages, however, are not confined to small, poor states, but, in an increasing number of cases, are appearing in large, relatively well-off and active states on which the OECD world of North America, Europe and parts of Asia are very dependent. Several of the countries having energy problems are actually oil exporting states that, for one reason or another, are not able to turn their increasing oil wealth into smoothly functioning shortage-free economies. Unfortunately, several major countries appear to be on the path to an energy shortage-induced economic and perhaps political collapse within the foreseeable future which obviously will have serious consequences for us all. Currently, the most serious situations appear to be in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Both are nations with populations in excess of 150 million people that are ensnared in devastating power shortages that have destroyed their export industries. Both are facing water and agricultural problems that threaten their food supplies. Liquid fuels are running short and reductions in exports threaten their ability to import oil and natural gas. It was recently revealed that the Saudis already are forgiving $6 billion of Pakistan's $12 billion annual oil import bill. On top of this, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and its strategic location is vital to the course of the insurgency in Afghanistan. Worsening blackouts, the liquid fuels shortage and probably the food situation are likely to lead to serious political instability before the year is out. The next important pair of countries in terms of their impact on western economies is China and India, and although their situations are nowhere near as serious as the problems in Pakistan and Bangladesh, both are beginning to suffer from electricity shortages which will impact economic growth. China, which now has a shortfall of around four percent of its normal electricity production, is compensating by cutting back on production of aluminum and zinc which consume prodigious quantities of electric power. The recent earthquake has given Beijing pause in its ambitious plans to expand hydro and nuclear power production. If China cannot increase coal production rapidly enough to keep up electricity generation for its rapidly expanding economy, it is likely to increase imports of coal and oil keeping pressure on world prices. So far there is no indication of an unusually large increase in Chinese oil imports as there was during the power shortage four years ago. The world price of diesel is simply too expensive to be used to generate electricity for industrial production these days. India's energy shortages are more serious than China's. Its nuclear power plants are failing, hydro-power from the Himalayas is drying up due to global warming, and the costs of imported fuels are soaring. Over 85 percent of India's oil must be imported and coupled with the subsidies of oil prices the increasing costs are taking a heavy toll on the state budget. Although the situation in India is not yet as bad as in Pakistan, blackouts and liquid fuel shortages are being reported almost every day somewhere in the country. There is no end in sight to this situation and likelihood of an economic slowdown, coupled with water and food shortages, is increasing. Several members of OPEC are having electricity and/or liquid shortages. In Nigeria, and Iraq where there are active insurgencies that have damaged the infrastructure, the shortages are endemic. Indonesia, which is just about out of OPEC due to lack of exportable oil, is beginning to face frequent power blackouts and fuel shortages. Even Venezuela and Iran have occasional electricity and fuel supply problems as they are trying to do without substantial foreign technical assistance. In Mexico, demand for gasoline has outrun refining capacity and the country is forced to rely on imports. There are now daily diesel shortages along the border as Americans cross over to fill-up on subsidized half-priced Mexican fuel. Aside from the major oil-producing states, most countries in Africa, Latin America and Central Asia are enduring some form of energy shortages. In a number of important mineral producing countries such as South Africa, Chile and Zambia, they have already reduced production due to shortages of electricity and diesel fuel. The global wave of blackouts and shortages is almost certain to get worse. Although most governments have announced optimistic plans to increase electricity production and bring oil to market within the next few months or years, these are almost certain to fail. The cost of building electrical generation capacity is soaring and finding affordable fuel unlikely. In the OECD world, the effects of these shortages is likely to be felt in the form of much higher prices for declining exports from the energy-poor. For the citizens of the energy-poor world, life is going to become much harder very soon as electric lights, computers, motor transport, refrigeration, fresh water and imported anything become scarcer and scarcer. http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3301:the-peak-oil-crisis-the-blackouts-spread&catid=17:national-commentary&Itemid=79 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Aug 5 22:49:28 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:49:28 -0700 Subject: [R-G] There's Something About Mary: Unmasking a Gun Lobby Mole Message-ID: There's Something About Mary: Unmasking a Gun Lobby Mole NEWS: Mary McFate was a prominent gun control activist. Mary Lou Sapone was a freelance spy with an NRA connection. They are the same person. A Mother Jones investigation. By James Ridgeway, Daniel Schulman, and David Corn July 30, 2008 http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/mary-mcfate-sapone-gun-lobby-nra-spy.html From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Aug 5 22:52:33 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:52:33 -0700 Subject: [R-G] U.S. border agents given power to seize travellers' laptops, cellphones Message-ID: <24029CCD-0084-4114-B23F-CC0CD823B202@shaw.ca> U.S. border agents given power to seize travellers' laptops, cellphones Last Updated: Friday, August 1, 2008 | 3:33 http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/08/01/border-searches.html U.S. authorities now have the power to seize and detain travellers' electronic devices, including laptops and cellphones, and make copies of their contents at an off-site location, under newly disclosed customs policies. The policy gives border agents at any point of entry into the United States the authority to also take documents, books, pamphlets and hard drives. The items can be seized from anyone crossing the border and may then be copied and shared with other government agencies, according to Department of Homeland Security documents dated July 16. "Officers may detain documents and electronic devices, or copies thereof, for a reasonable period of time to perform a thorough border search," the policy says. "The search may take place on-site or at an off-site location." U.S. Senator Russ Feingold told the Washington Post he finds the new policies "alarming" and said he plans to introduce legislation that would make grounds for border searches more rigorous. Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Democracy and Technology, said the new policies allow authorities to conduct searches without suspicion of wrongdoing. "They're saying they can rifle through all the information in a traveller's laptop without having a smidgen of evidence that the traveller is breaking the law," he told the Post. If the authorities find there is not probable cause to hold the seized items, copies must be destroyed, according to the policy. The policy does not outline a timeframe in which materials must be returned. "These examinations are part of ... long-standing practice and are essential to uncovering vital law-enforcement information," the policy says, noting examinations help authorities detect possible instances of terrorism, narcotics smuggling, child pornography and violations of copyright and trademark laws. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Aug 6 03:43:59 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:43:59 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The lies of Hiroshima live on ... Message-ID: <4899725F.8020306@attglobal.net> ... props in the war crimes of the 20th century The 1945 attack was murder on an epic scale. In its victims' names, we must not allow a nuclear repeat in the Middle East by Jon Pilger The Guardian (August 06 2008) When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open. At a quarter past eight on the morning of August 6 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite. I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, then walked down to the river and met a man called Yukio, whose chest was still etched with the pattern of the shirt he was wearing when the atomic bomb was dropped. He and his family still lived in a shack thrown up in the dust of an atomic desert. He described a huge flash over the city, "a bluish light, something like an electrical short", after which wind blew like a tornado and black rain fell. "I was thrown on the ground and noticed only the stalks of my flowers were left. Everything was still and quiet, and when I got up, there were people naked, not saying anything. Some of them had no skin or hair. I was certain I was dead." Nine years later, when I returned to look for him, he was dead from leukaemia. In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world", reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague". For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate "good war", whose "ethical bath", as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote sixty years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb. The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks", concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis". The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment". Since 1945, the United States is believed to have been on the brink of using nuclear weapons at least three times. In waging their bogus "war on terror", the present governments in Washington and London have declared they are prepared to make "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states. With each stroke toward the midnight of a nuclear Armageddon, the lies of justification grow more outrageous. Iran is the current "threat". But Iran has no nuclear weapons and the disinformation that it is planning a nuclear arsenal comes largely from a discredited CIA-sponsored Iranian opposition group, the MEK - just as the lies about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction originated with the Iraqi National Congress, set up by Washington. The role of western journalism in erecting this straw man is critical. That America's Defence Intelligence Estimate says "with high confidence" that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 has been consigned to the memory hole. That Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" is of no interest. But such has been the mantra of this media "fact" that in his recent, obsequious performance before the Israeli parliament, Gordon Brown alluded to it as he threatened Iran, yet again. This progression of lies has brought us to one of the most dangerous nuclear crises since 1945, because the real threat remains almost unmentionable in western establishment circles and therefore in the media. There is only one rampant nuclear power in the Middle East and that is Israel. The heroic Mordechai Vanunu tried to warn the world in 1986 when he smuggled out evidence that Israel was building as many as 200 nuclear warheads. In defiance of UN resolutions, Israel is today clearly itching to attack Iran, fearful that a new American administration might, just might, conduct genuine negotiations with a nation the west has defiled since Britain and America overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953. In the New York Times on July 18, the Israeli historian Benny Morris, once considered a liberal and now a consultant to his country's political and military establishment, threatened "an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland". This would be mass murder. For a Jew, the irony cries out. The question begs: are the rest of us to be mere bystanders, claiming, as good Germans did, that "we did not know"? Do we hide ever more behind what Richard Falk has called "a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence"? Catching war criminals is fashionable again. Radovan Karadzic stands in the dock, but Sharon and Olmert, Bush and Blair do not. Why not? The memory of Hiroshima requires an answer. johnpilger.com http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/secondworldwar.warcrimes http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Aug 6 05:37:19 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:37:19 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The bush president ... Message-ID: <48998CEF.1060909@attglobal.net> ... of the United States is in Asia today. Why didn't he visit Hiroshima? From news at ckut.ca Wed Aug 6 10:31:59 2008 From: news at ckut.ca (CKUT Community News Collective) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:31:59 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Groundwire August 2008 edition is available for download! Message-ID: <4899D1FF.4010404@ckut.ca> Hello, The August edition of Groundwire is now online! You can download the show here: http://www.ncra.ca/exchange/dspProgramDetail.cfm?programID=74019 or here: http://www.ncra.ca/business/admin_ncra/progex/programFiles/149/groundwire_mixdown.mp3 This month, GroundWire reports on radio spectrum scarcity and the issue at CFXU, a walk for justice for murdered native women, private/public partnerships (or P3s) in Alberta, the battles over wind energy on native land, and two Canadian companies sued by a Palestinian village, along with this month's news headlines. GroundWire is a project of the National Campus/ Community Radio Association, providing grassroots coverage of local stories with progressive on national and international issues. Thank you to this month's contributors: ***Courtney Kirby***, Neskie Manual, Aaron Lakoff, Candace Mooers, Christopher Currie, Mark Shields, Sarah Hyde and Adam Dewji. Charlotte Bourne Programming Coordinator, CJSF Radio From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 6 12:30:44 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:30:44 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Hollow Time Message-ID: <200808061830.m76IUigh028594@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080806/f1dff8aa/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 6 12:31:14 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:31:14 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Shooting back: 100 cameras film Israeli occupation Message-ID: <200808061831.m76IVEeg029369@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080806/2e80b5e0/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 6 12:32:04 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:32:04 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Latinos in the States being harassed and forced to move Message-ID: <200808061832.m76IW4fM000887@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080806/939e4cfb/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 6 12:32:40 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:32:40 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Economic Free Fall? Message-ID: <200808061832.m76IWeou002442@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080806/237beea4/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 6 12:30:09 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:30:09 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Racism and Genocide: Lies of Our Times Message-ID: <200808061830.m76IU9BP027605@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080806/c6c92c06/attachment.txt From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 6 16:08:32 2008 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] freepeltiernow: Friends Digest Vol. 2, No. 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <322833.99061.qm@web50805.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Friends Digest Vol. 2, No. 6 * A Shout Out to Supporters/Support Groups * October 10 is the 10th anniversary of the Jericho National March to the United Nations on behalf of our political prisoners and POWs. We're issuing a call to action to all Peltier supporters -- those up and down the east coast, in particular. Create a presence for Leonard in NYC on Friday, October 10. Rent a bus and bring some friends. Make some noise! Demand freedom for Leonard Peltier and all political prisoners and POWs! Attend the evening concert to benefit the prisoners, as well. See www.thejerichomovement.com. For more information, call 718-853-0893 or send an e-mail to nycjericho at riseup.net. If you can't participate in the anniversary march in NYC, plan a solidarity event in your community. Let us know details so we can help you promote your event. * Other Events * NYC: Picnic at the Park for Leonard Peltier! Sunday, August 24, 2008, 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM at 9/11 Field at Prospect Park (Grand Army Plaza side of the Park). Join us for a potluck at Prospect Park, sharing your favorite grilled and barbequed summer treats and restyling your attire to benefit Leonard Peltier's commissary fund. A variety of Peltier stencil designs will be available for you to create your own clothing art. So bring your family, your friends and some clothes to support Leonard and his fight for freedom and justice! 2, 3 trains to Grand Army Plaza; F train to 7th Ave. Sponsored by the NYC branch of the LP-DOC; co-sponsored by NYC Jericho, Resistance in Brooklyn and In Our Hearts Network. NYC: A Birthday Party for Leonard Peltier! September 12 from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. at the Brecht Forum, 451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune Streets, New York, NY 10014; Phone: (212) 242-4201; E-mail: brechtforum at brechtforum.org. Sponsored by the NYC branch of the LP-DOC, NYC-Jericho, Resistance in Brooklyn and In Our Hearts Network. * Our Birthday Initiative * As you may recall, September 12th is Mr. Peltier's birthday. Please remember to send him cards and letters: Leonard Peltier #89637-132, USP-Lewisburg, US Penitentiary, PO Box 1000, Lewisburg, PA 17837-1000. On July 11th, the Longest Walk II presented its "Manifesto for Change" to Representative John Conyers in Washington, DC. See http://snurl.com/37dzd. The manifesto addresses many of the concerns in Indian Country including but not limited to the protection of sacred places and healing of the earth. One concern was mentioned, in particular -- the continuing illegal imprisonment of Leonard Peltier. Read the Longest Walk II resolution for/about Peltier at http://snurl.com/37dxf. In acknowledgement of Leonard's 64th birthday and his nearly 33 years of imprisonment, please send a letter to Rep. Conyers in support of the Indigenous manifesto. Do this in Leonard's name. In addition, ask Rep. Conyers to ensure: 1. The release of the over 100,000 documents on the Peltier case that are still being withheld by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) -- These documents are over 25 years old and are of historical significance. The public has the right to know the truth about the FBI's war against the American Indian Movement (AIM) and Leonard Peltier. 2. the conduct of a congressional investigation into the long-term effects of the FBI's COunter INTELligence PROgram (COINTELPRO) -- It is well known that the FBI targeted AIM and other political dissidents for annihilation. The FBI COINTELPRO effort resulted in the assassination, criminalization, vilification, and the splitting of various movements leading to their destruction, with many political activists today languishing in prisons. Yet, in 1974, the Senate Church Committee investigating the illegal FBI COINTELPRO activities declared such practices unconstitutional. The Senate Church Committee failed to complete their investigation by examining actions taken against AIM or the Pine Ridge "Reign of Terror" (1973-1976). Phone/fax/write to John Conyers and appeal to him to conduct public hearings on why victims of COINTELPRO still languish in prison over 30 years after the program was declared unconstitutional. Also contact your congressional representative and senators. Urge them to enable John Conyers to reopen COINTELPRO hearings. Contact: Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Chairman Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Fax: 202-225-0072 E-mail: John.Conyers at mail.house.gov Here's a new approach. Share your thoughts with Rep. Conyers with a video advocacy message in just three simple steps: See http://snurl.com/37e09. * Voter Registration and Get-Out-The-Vote Initiative * http://snurl.com/37e1o If you're not registered, you can't vote. We encourage everyone to register to vote and urge others to do the same. Also take the time to e-mail your contacts in your address book several times before the general election. Remind your friends, families, and associates to vote. Keep reminding them until the last vote is cast. Tell them: Vote for the candidate(s) of your choice, but vote! We'll provide more resources for Decision 2008 in the coming weeks. From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 16:27:36 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:27:36 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Muslim Holiday at Tyson Plant Creates Furor Message-ID: August 6, 2008 Muslim Holiday at Tyson Plant Creates Furor By STEVEN GREENHOUSE The union that represents workers at a Tyson Foods poultry plant in Tennessee has negotiated a contract that substitutes a Muslim holiday for Labor Day as one of the eight paid holidays at the plant. The provision, which was proposed by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, has delighted the plant's Somali workers, who account for hundreds of its 1,200 employees. But it has infuriated many outsiders, leading some to denounce Tyson and the union alike. "You are a union that is proud of achieving a Muslim holiday and prayer room?" one person wrote the union. "A union in the U.S.A., a country based on Christianity. You call yourselves Americans? Have you forgotten 9/11?" Another wrote: "You had no right to drop Labor Day. Muslim employees must integrate Labor Day into THEIR lives if they are going to live in America." Stung by the criticism, Stuart Appelbaum, the union's president, said the decision was fully consistent with the spirit of Labor Day. "We in the labor movement have always understood that unions are only strong when we work to protect the dignity of all faiths, and that includes Muslims," said Mr. Appelbaum, who also serves as president of the Jewish Labor Committee. "What we negotiated was the will of the workers," said Mr. Appelbaum, who added that his was the first union to negotiate a paid day off for a Muslim holiday and that he was sure Tyson would not be the last employer to agree. The plant affected is in the town of Shelbyville, some 40 miles south of Nashville. Under a five-year contract there, Id al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting, is now one of the plant's eight paid holidays. Union officials said the two Somali immigrants on the union's eight-member bargaining committee had been eager to make Id al-Fitr (pronounced eed-al-FIT-tr) a paid holiday. The union agreed to do so at the expense of Labor Day in part because it did not want to trade Christmas, the Fourth of July, Memorial Day or other existing paid holidays, and in part because Tyson has usually required the plant's employees to work on Labor Day anyway. (Employees received a holiday premium for working that day.) "We had worked 23 Labor Days in a row; it wasn't like it was a day to spend with our family," said Randy Hadley, a union representative who helped negotiate the contract. Mr. Hadley said both management and union were surprised when nearly all the Somali workers ? Tyson puts their number at 250, the union at nearly 400 ? did not work on Id al-Fitr last year. They were not paid, but the plant almost had to close that day, said Mr. Hadley, adding that management was "elated" by the proposal to make Id al-Fitr a holiday. The contract was negotiated last year and approved by workers in November. But the holiday provision largely escaped public notice until a local newspaper published an article about it last week. Many anti-immigrant bloggers and conservative commentators have since berated Tyson, urging a boycott. Thrown on the defensive, the company issued a statement Monday saying: "Contrary to recent reports, Labor Day is still a holiday at Tyson Foods. The issue concerns only the plant at Shelbyville." "This is not a religious accommodation," the statement added. "Rather, it is a union-initiated contract demand." Libby Lawson, a Tyson spokeswoman, noted that the plant had three Christian chaplains, and prayer rooms for Muslims and Christians alike. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Aug 6 18:20:24 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:20:24 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Dark (K)night Message-ID: <489A3FC8.6080803@attglobal.net> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005) www.kunstler.com (August 01 2008) The most striking thing about the new Batman movie, now smashing the all-time box office records, is its emphasis on sado-masochism as the animating element in American culture these days. It must appeal to the many angry people in our land who want to hurt others, even while they themselves feel deserving of the grossest punishments. In other words, the picture reflects the extreme depravity of the current American sensibility. Seeing it all laid out there must be very validating to the emotionally confused audience, and hence pleasurable, in all its painfulness. The rich symbolism in this spectacle represents the tenor of contemporary America as something a few notches worse than whatever the Nazis were heading toward around 1933. We like nothing better than to see people suffer and watch things get broken. The more slowly people are tortured (including the movie audience) the more exquisite the pleasure derived from the act. Civilization offers no consolation. In fact, its a mug's game. Thus, civilization is composed only of torturers and their mug victims. Gotham City, the setting for all these sadomasochistic vignettes, is a place devoid of comfort. (The suburbs are missing completely.) Even the personal haunts of "the Batman", aka zillionaire Bruce Wayne, are hard-edged non-spaces. His workplace (cleverly accessed via a dumpster) is an underground bunker the size of about three football fields with a claustrophobic drop ceiling and a single furnishing: the megalomaniacal computer console that is supposed to afford him "control" of the city, but which appears to be, in fact, a completely impotent sham piece of techno-junk, since it can't even outperform a $300 GPS unit in locating things. By the way, Hitler had a brighter sense of decor in the final days of the bunker. Bruce Wayne's personal apartment is one of those horrid glass-walled tower condos beloved of the starchitects, which, in its florid exposure to everything external practically screams "no shelter here"! At the center of all this is the character called "The Joker". Judging by the reams of reviews and reportage about this movie elsewhere in the media, the death of actor Heath Ledger, who played the role, adds another layer of juicy sadomasochistic deliciousness to the proceedings - we get to reflect that the monster on screen may have gotten away, but the anxiety-ridden young actor who played him was carted off to the bone orchard before the film even officially wrapped (and therefore deserves extra special consideration for America's greatest honor, the Oscar award, while the audience deserves its own award for recognizing the lovely ironies embroidered in this cultural phenomenon.) The Joker is not so much as person as a force of nature, a "black swan" in clown white. He has no fingerprints, no ID, no labels in his clothing. All he has is the memory of an evil father who performed a symbolic sadomasochistic oral rape on him, and so he is now programmed to go about similarly mutilating folks, blowing things up, and wrecking everyone's hopes and dreams because he has nothing better to do. He represents himself simply as an agent of "chaos". Taken at face value, he would seem to symbolize the deadly forces of entropy that now threatens to unravel real American life in the real world - a combination of our foolish over- investments in complexity and the frightening capriciousness of both nature and history, which do not reveal their motivations to us. By the way, forget about God here or anything that even remotely smacks of an oppositional notion to evil. All that's back on the cutting room floor somewhere (if it even got that far). And I say this as a non-religious person. But the absence of any possible idea of redemption for the human spirit is impressive. In the world of "the Batman", humanity at its very best is capable only of being confused about itself. This is perhaps an interesting new form of dramaturgy - instead of 'good versus evil' you only get 'befuddlement versus evil'. Goodness has lost its way in the dark night of the American psyche, as might be understandable considering the nation of louts, liars, grifters, bullies, meth freaks, harpies, and tattooed creeps we have become. The best we can bring to this predicament is the low-grade pop therapy that passes for thinking nowadays in educated circles. Any consideration of the heroic is off the menu here. We can't ask that much of ourselves. It's too difficult to imagine. Meanwhile, The People - that is, the citizens of Gotham City - literally banish even the possibility of heroism from town at the end of the movie - they take an axe to it! - perhaps indicating that they deserve whatever befalls them or, shall I say, "us". A few other striking elements of this spectacle deserve attention. One is the grandiosity that saturates the story elements, and the remarkable impotence of it all. The Batman possesses every high-tech weapon and survival implement ever dreamed up, yet they avail him nothing - except a lot off sickening leaps off skyscrapers and futile hard landings on car roofs, shipping containers, sidewalks, and other human carcasses. I doubt the writers/director Chris and Jonathan Nolan consciously aimed to depict good old American ingenuity as utterly valueless in the face of chaos, but that's the effect. Otherwise, everything in the Batman's world is overscaled and out-of-whack from the size of Bruce Wayne's fortune (what an executive package his Daddy must have made off with, and from which investment bank?!), to the energy expended in so many car chases and explosions, to the super-sized doom-worthy towers of the gigantic, soulless city. Finally there is the derivation of all this sadomasochistic nihilism out of a comic book. How appropriate, since we have become a cartoon of a society living on a cartoon of a North American landscape, that the deepest source of our mythos comes from cartoons. We're so far gone that real human emotion is beyond us. We're too far gone - and even without shame - to care how this odious movie portrays us to the rest of the world. It is already making a fortune out there. ____________________________________ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/08/dark-knight.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 22:32:53 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 00:32:53 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia Asks That Iran Be Given More Time: No Deadline on Incentives, Envoy Says Message-ID: Russia Asks That Iran Be Given More Time No Deadline on Incentives, Envoy Says By Colum Lynch Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, August 7, 2008; A04 UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 6 -- Russia said Wednesday that Iran should be granted more time to respond to a package of incentives that the United States and five other powerful nations have offered Tehran to freeze its uranium enrichment efforts, a stance that may slow U.S. and European efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on Tehran. Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly I. Churkin, said the six nations should continue negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. He dismissed assertions by the United States, Britain and France that Tehran had missed a deadline this week to respond to the offer, which would make a push for U.N. sanctions inevitable. "We haven't set any deadlines for their response," he said. "We have some negotiating opportunities, and rather than focus almost entirely on sanctions we should focus on what those opportunities should be." Churkin's remarks raised the prospect of renewed strains between Washington and Moscow over Iran policy during the final months of President Bush's tenure. Administration officials say Iran is buying time to advance its capacity to enrich uranium, an effort they suspect is intended to fuel a nuclear weapon. They have made it clear they hope to secure a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Tehran before Bush leaves office in January, according to U.N. diplomats. Iran denies that it is seeking nuclear weapons, and says that the council has no right to prevent it from developing a civilian energy program. The United States, France and Britain pressed ahead with efforts to punish Tehran after a conference call Wednesday between representative of the six nations. Britain's top Middle East expert, Kim Howells, indicated that the allies secured agreement with Russia and China to pursue a "dual track strategy" on Iran -- including discussion of possible U.N. sanctions and further contacts between Iran's nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, and Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief. The latest standoff comes nearly two months after the five permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- as well as Germany offered to sweeten a package of economic, political and security incentives to Iran. Solana, the group's representative, gave Iran until last Saturday to accept the package or face further U.N. sanctions. Iran said in a letter to Solana Tuesday that it is ready to respond to the offer as long as the six big powers "simultaneously" provide Tehran with a more detailed explanation of the incentives. The United States, France and Britain accused Iran of stonewalling, and said they would begin talks on a new U.N. sanctions resolution. Churkin, the Russian representative, conceded that "we would have preferred a more straightforward and positive answer from our Iranian colleagues." "The letter that we received yesterday appears to be a stalling tactic," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said. He said the big powers are "beginning to consider the possible outlines of another resolution." Council diplomats and analysts said Russia's initiative would lend support to what they think is an Iranian effort to buy time. "The Iranians seems determine to run out the clock," said Justin Logan of the Cato Institute. "The Iran problem appears likely to be handed to the next president." From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Aug 7 08:06:52 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:06:52 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Coal Scuttled Message-ID: <489B017C.1070003@attglobal.net> The climate camp outside the Kingsnorth power station is contesting the biggest issue of them all. by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian 5th August 05 2008 As soon as I have finished this column I will jump on the train to Kent. Last year Al Gore remarked "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants" {1}. Like hundreds of honorary young people, I am casting my Zimmer frame aside to answer the call. Everything now hinges on stopping coal. Whether we prevent runaway climate change largely depends on whether we keep using the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. Unless we either leave it in the ground or leave the carbon dioxide it produces in the ground, human development will start spiralling backwards. The more coal is burnt, the smaller are our chances of future comfort and prosperity. The industrial revolution has gone into reverse. It is not because of polar bears that I will be joining the climate camp outside the coal plant at Kingsnorth. It is not because of butterflies or frogs or penguins or rainforests, much as I love them all. It is because everything I have fought for and that all campaigners for social justice have ever fought for - food, clean water, shelter, security - is jeopardised by climate change. Those who claim to identify a conflict between environmentalism and humanitarianism have either failed to read the science or have refused to understand it. Our government could lead the world in one of two directions. Roughly one third of our power stations will come to the end of their lives by 2020. It could replace them with low-carbon plants or it could repeat - this time in full knowledge of the consequences - the disastrous decisions of the past. E.on's application to build a new coal-burning power station at Kingsnorth is the first for many years. At least five other such proposals hang on the outcome {2}. Between them they would account for 54 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year {3}: as much as the entire economy would produce if the UK, in line with current science, were to cut its emissions by ninety per cent {4}. The government seems determined to make the wrong decision. It has inherited the party's traditional love for coal, but, being New Labour, now supports the bosses not the workers, and has colluded with them to make the case for a new generation of power stations. It has one justification for this policy: that one day dirty coal will be transformed into clean coal by means of carbon capture and storage (CCS). All that is needed to effect this transformation is a sprinkling of alchemical dust, in the form of the future price of carbon. The market, it claims, will automatically ensure that coal plants bury their carbon dioxide, as this will be cheaper than buying pollution permits. Last month the House of Commons environmental audit committee examined this proposition and found that it was nonsense {5}. It cited studies by the UK Energy Research Centre and Climate Change Capital which estimate that capturing carbon emissions from existing coal plants will cost seventy to one-hundred or ninety to 155 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide. Yet the government predicts that the likely price of carbon between 2013 to 2020 will be around 39 euros per tonne. Even E.on believes that it won't rise above fifty euros. "The gap between the carbon price and the cost of CCS", the committee finds, "is enormous". The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, confessed to the MPs "I hope that the strengthening of carbon markets ... will bring forward a sufficiently good price for carbon that it will provide some of the financial incentive for CCS. Will it be enough? I do not know." This is the sum of government policy: to cross its fingers and hope the market delivers. If it approves a new coal plant at Kingsnorth, it will do so on the grounds that the power station will be "CCS-ready". CCS-ready seems to mean nothing more than this: that there's enough space on the site for a carbon capture plant, should the developer deign one day to build it. The committee warns that this meaningless promise could be used "as a fig leaf to give unabated coal-fired power stations an appearance of environmental acceptability" {6}. The government has already shown us what it wants to do. In January, Gary Mohammed, a civil servant at the business department, emailed E.on to ask whether he should include CCS as a condition for approving its new coal plant. (This gives a fascinating insight into how government works: companies are asked to write their own rules). E.on replied that the government "has no right to withhold approval for conventional plant". Six minutes later Mr Mohammed answered thus: "Thanks. I won't include. Hope to get the set of draft conditions out today or tomorrow". {7} There is a simple means by which the government could ensure that our future electricity supplies would not commit the UK to stoking runaway climate change. It would do as California has done, and set, by a certain date, a maximum level for carbon pollution per megawatt-hour of electricity production. This would have to be a low one: perhaps eighty kilograms of carbon dioxide. Then, in line with the government's precious principles (or absence thereof), it could leave the rest to the market. I have now reached the point at which I no longer care whether or not the answer is nuclear. Let it happen, as long as its total emissions are taken into account, we know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried, how much this will cost and who will pay, and there is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be used by the military. We can no longer afford any rigid principle but one: that the harm done to people living now and in the future must be minimised by the most effective means, whatever they might be. But I believe the likely response would be more interesting than this. Several recent studies have shown how, through maximising the diversity of renewable generators and by spreading them as far apart as possible, by using new techniques for balancing demand with supply and clever schemes for storing energy, between eighty and one-hundred per cent of our electricity could be produced by renewables, without any loss in the reliability of power supplies {8, 9, 10}. Unlike CCS, wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydro and geothermal power are proven technologies. Unlike nuclear power, they can be safely decommissioned as soon as they become redundant. A policy like this requires both courage and vision. So look at the current cabinet - Brown, Straw, Darling, Hutton, Blears, Kelly, Hoon - and weep. Every man and woman with backbone was purged from this government years ago, leaving those who know how to appease the interests that might threaten them. These people won't stand up to business, even when the future prospects of mankind are at stake. If fear is the only thing that moves them, we must present them with a greater threat than the companies planning new coal plants. We must show that this issue has become a political flashpoint; that the public revulsion towards new coal could help to eject them from office. You could do no better than joining us at Kingsnorth this week. www.monbiot.com References: 1. Quoted by Nicholas Kristof, 16th August 2007. The Big Melt. New York Times. 2. Longannet & Cockenzie (Scottish Power); Ferrybridge (Scottish and Southern Energy); Fiddler's Ferry (Scottish and Southern Energy); Tilbury (RWE npower); Blyth (RWE npower). 3. Greenpeace makes this calculation as follows: "10.6 GW (the generation capacity of the six plants) x 7884 hours of generation per year, assuming 90% operational = 83.57 TWH/y. 83.57 TWH/y x 0.65 = 54 mt/CO2/y". See footnote 23: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/654/654we13.htm 4. The provisional government estimate for the UK's CO2 emissions in 2007 is 543.7 million tonnes. Defra, July 2008. UK Climate Change Programme. Annual Report to Parliament, July 2008, p9. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp-ann-report-july08.pdf 5. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 22nd July 2008 . Carbon capture and storage. Ninth Report of Session 2007?08. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/654/654.pdf 6. ibid. 7. You can open the emails on this page: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/government-climate-policy-dictated-by-german-utility-giant-20080131 8. German Aerospace Center (DLR) Institute of Technical Thermodynamics Section Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment, June 2006. Trans-Mediterranean Interconnection for Concentrating Solar Power. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany. http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/TRANS-CSP_Full_Report_Final.pdf 9. Mark Barrett, April 2006. A Renewable Electricity System for the UK: A Response to the 2006 Energy Review. UCL Bartlett School Of Graduate Studies - Complex Built Environment Systems Group. http://www.cbes.ucl.ac.uk/projects/energyreview/Bartlett%20Response%20to%20Energy%20Review%20-%20electricity.pdf 10. Centre for Alternative Technology, 10th July 2007. ZeroCarbonBritain: an alternative energy strategy. This will be made available at www.zerocarbonbritain.com. Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/08/05/coal-scuttled/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 14:23:27 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:23:27 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Juan Cole on Obama's Muslim Outreach Coordinator Mazen Asbahi's Resignation and Islamophobia Message-ID: Thursday, August 07, 2008 Asbahi Resignation and Islamophobia Kudos to Jake Tapper for pointing out that Mazen Asbahi, the coordinator for Muslim affairs of the Obama campaign until he stepped down after 10 days, did nothing that Karen Hughes did not do. This resignation is in some ways a fallout of the witch hunt against American Muslims conducted by the Department of Justice under Ashcroft and Gonzales (those paragons of probity). Especially egregious was the naming of the Islamic Association of North America and the Muslim Brotherhood, among other perfectly peaceful organizations as 'unindicted co-conspirators' in the case against the charity, Holy Land Foundation-- a case the government did not win and which was always a waste of time. So a trumped up and failed case against Muslims generates unsubstantiated allegations that in turn can be cited by Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal to smear Muslims. You wonder if in Rupert's mind, Muslim = a kind of Aborigine. Basically the Right has it set up so that Muslims who have connections to *gasp* Muslim organizations can be smeared at will. In the meantime, rightwing Jewish-Americans with connections to settler extremists on the West Bank are supported by the GOP. Steve Clemons said it best. Truth in advertising: Mazen studied with me. Help Wanted: Muslim Outreach Adviser For Obama Campaign August 06, 2008 3:55 PM Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has been taking some heat for not doing enough to reach out to the Muslim community. (At the very least!) In an attempt to rectify that, a new volunteer national coordinator for Muslim American affairs for the Obama campaign -- Chicago attorney Mazen Asbahi -- was appointed on July 25. Asbahi lasted all of ten days. The problem, reports today's Wall Street Journal, started last Friday when the "Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report" -- an internet newsletter that monitors the fundamentalist Islamic group the Muslim Brotherhood -- noted that: "Democratic Presidential candidate Barrack Obama has named Mazen Asbahi, a Chicago lawyer with ties to a financial organization close to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, as National Coordinator for Muslim American Affairs for his campaign." The newsletter noted that Asbahi was listed as one of six trustees of Allied Asset Advisors Funds in a May 4, 2000 SEC filing. And according to Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, that group was a "subsidiary of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) and adviser to the Dow Jones Islamic Fund, both affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)," referring to its own February 2007 report "EXTREMISM AND THE ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA (ISNA)." Part of that report details the role NAIT played in an ideological struggle in a Bridgeview, Illinois, mosque, and the fundamentalist imam, Jamal Said, who ultimately won that battle. Said served along with Asbahi as a trustee of Allied Asset Advisors Funds. In 2004, the Chicago Tribune had an interesting story on Said's internal struggle to control this mosque. Read it HERE. Said was also one of the many listed as an "unindicted co-conspirator or joint venturer" named in the US government's ultimately unsuccessful racketeering trial The United States of America vs. the Holy Land Foundation, formerly the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., which the US government accused of being a front-group to fundraise for Hamas. Note that Obama had no apparent ties to Said -- the charge is that Obama named Asbahi to do Muslim outreach for his campaign, and Asbahi had ties to Said -- and to the Islamic Society of North America, which was also named as an "unindicted co-conspirator or joint venturer" in the Holy Land Foundation case. That case, it should be noted, ended in a mistrial. The newsletter also asserted that Asbahi has been listed as a speaker for ISNA and has spoken at ISNA conferences. (As long as we're playing the guilt by association game, we should note that Karen Hughes, back when she worked for the State Department, spoke before an ISNA conference and was honored with an ISNA dinner, and both former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have met with ISNA leadership.) By Monday Asbahi had tendered his resignation letter to the Obama campaign, saying: "I served on that board for only a few weeks before resigning as soon as I became aware of public allegations against another member of the board. Since concerns have been raised about that brief time, I am stepping down...to avoid distracting from Barack Obama's message of change." Indeed! From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 14:32:11 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:32:11 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Iran Invites Egypt Sunni University into Shiite Heartland Message-ID: Iran invites Egypt Sunni university into Shiite heartland 12 hours ago CAIRO (AFP) ? Despite Egypt-Iran tensions, the Shiite-dominated Islamic republic has made an unprecedented request for Cairo's Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam's highest seat of learning, to open a branch in Tehran. The overture has, however, sparked speculation in Egypt that Iran, increasingly embattled over its controversial nuclear programme, is merely seeking Arab support in its standoff with the West. "We have asked officially, but so far we have had no response," said Karim Azizi, spokesman at the Iranian interests section in Cairo where there has been no Iranian embassy since diplomatic relations were cut almost 30 years ago. Azizi told AFP the request to Al-Azhar -- founded in 975 AD -- was aimed at "reinforcing Iranian-Egyptian relations and bringing closer together the different Islamic confessions, especially Sunnis and Shiites." The surprise move comes amid anger in Sunni-majority Egypt after Iranian television screened a film reportedly calling assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat a traitor and hailing his executed killer as a martyr. After "Assassination of a Pharaoh" was shown, Egypt in July cancelled a football match, summoned Iran's envoy in Cairo and closed an Iranian satellite TV channel's office. Officially Iran has sought to distance itself from the broadcast, saying it does not represent Tehran's position and instead hailing relations between the two Middle East heavyweights as "based on friendship and brotherhood." In a region increasingly riven with Sunni-Shiite tensions and amid fears of a so-called Shiite crescent running from Beirut to Tehran, Egypt's soured relations with Iran have little to do with sectarianism, however. Diplomatic ties were severed in 1980 a year after Iran's Islamic revolution in protest at Egypt recognising Israel, hosting the deposed shah and supporting Baghdad during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Relations warmed recently, with both states signalling a willingness to restore ties. In January, President Hosni Mubarak met Iran's parliament speaker Gholam Ali Hada Adel, the first such high-level talks in almost three decades. Sheikh Ali Abdel Baqi, the head of Al-Azhar's Islamic Research Centre, said the Iranian request for a university or faculty was unofficial and came from Iran's five-million-strong Sunni minority, most of whom are members of ethnic minority groups living in the country's borderlands. He said Iranian Sunnis want to "teach their children the Sunnism that's taught at Al-Azhar because it is moderate and open, and this is Al-Azhar's message all over the world." In the wake of the Sadat film, the Egyptian press has increasingly reported what it calls a covert Shiite invasion. "We won't allow the existence of a Shiite tide in Egyptian mosques," Minister of Waqf (religious endowments) Mahmud Hamdi Zaqzuq told the independent Al-Masri al-Youm last month. Former Al-Azhar professor Adbel Moneim al-Berri said that Egyptian Shiite experts, including himself, have been asked to educate state security officers about "Shiite ideology and plans to break through the Sunni countries." But Abdel Baqi insists: "We are not afraid of Shiites... There is no tension between Al-Azhar and other sects." While Iran's Azizi suggested that an Al-Azhar presence in Iran could lead to an exchange of religious teachers, Abdel Baqi says Egypt would be unlikely to reciprocate. "We don't need to open Shiite institutions in Egypt because all Egyptians are Sunnis," he said, adding that no Shiites study at Al-Azhar and there are "between 50,000 and 60,000 Shiites in Egypt, Iraqis who have come to seek a life in security." However, Hossam Bahgat of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights says that many Shiites in Egypt are converts from Sunni Islam whom the state tries to coerce into converting back, using arrest, interrogation and torture. Security forces "have even summoned scholars from Al-Azhar to meet defendants to talk them out of their conversion," Bahgat charged. "It is not in the interest of Muslims in Egypt that the Shiite sect spreads among them because I think it is somewhat harsh and differs from the virtues and manners that we believe in," said Abdel Baqi, who has never been to Iran and has no wish to go. Mohammed Sayed Said, editor of the independent Al-Badil newspaper, described the Iranian initiative as "a very smart move. Iran keeps reaching out to Egypt and Mubarak's Egypt is not responsive and has not been for the past 10 years. "It's political. It's not even diplomatic because I don't think it will be approved by the state," he said. "The general feeling at the moment is that we (Muslims) are the target of destruction, so we should do whatever is necessary to restore unity." Middle East commentator Reza Zia-Ebrahimi called the request "very odd." "Not only do Iranian theologians boast about (the Iranian religious city of) Qom's greater open-mindedness, but Al-Azhar and Qom are attended by two very different breeds of Muslim theologian," he told AFP. Abdel Baqi refuses to be drawn on whether the Iranian request is a genuine religious outreach or ultimately aimed at improving its image among Arab leaders, many of whom -- Mubarak included -- are staunch US allies. "If there is a political background to this request we are not aware of it," Abdel Baqi said. "We do not read what is in the heart -- we listen to what the tongue says." From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 7 15:16:48 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:16:48 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Survivors: Block Yad Vashem Message-ID: <200808072116.m77LGmBC025354@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080807/aa4ea51b/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 7 15:15:23 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Afghanistan: Tensions over drug trade bubble to the surface Message-ID: <200808072115.m77LFNka021256@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080807/fd441e36/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 7 15:16:15 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:16:15 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Palestinians' self-inflicted wounds Message-ID: <200808072116.m77LGFeP023804@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080807/93b1b7eb/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 7 15:17:24 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:17:24 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Credit crisis turning into a fight for capitals soul Message-ID: <200808072117.m77LHOou027160@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080807/e6ef6a7a/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Aug 7 15:15:48 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:15:48 -0700 Subject: [R-G] U.S. and Afghan government frustrated by Taliban's resilience Message-ID: <200808072115.m77LFmHi022396@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080807/98b524a9/attachment.txt From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Aug 7 15:31:44 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:31:44 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Obama and Afghanistan Message-ID: <0BB6B8AA-682F-4A4C-BC75-7E4D0BD031CC@shaw.ca> August 6, 2008 More of the Same, Packaged as Change Barack Obama and Afghanistan By MARC HEROLD http://counterpunch.org/herold08062008.html When asked in Berlin by CNN?s Candy Crowley whether he believed the United States needed to apologize for anything over the past 7 ? years in terms of foreign policy, candidate Obama responded, ?No, I don?t believe in the U.S. apologizing. As I said I think the war in Iraq was a mistake?? So what does our contemporary ?charmer of change,? Barack Obama, propose regarding Afghanistan? In mid-December 2006, a charter member of the U.S. defense intellectual establishment and enthusiast of precision bombing, Anthony Cordesman, fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, advanced a set of proposals which would allegedly allow the U.S. to win the war in Afghanistan. The essence involves: far greater amounts of military and economic ?aid?; the economic aid must be managed from the outside; the aid should focus upon projects like roads, water and to a lesser degree, schools and medical services; NATO allies especially slackers like France, Germany, Italy and Spain need to increase aid to Afghanistan; U.S. military forces are too small ?to do the job? because of competing demands from Iraq and, hence, again those same NATO allies must provide larger, stronger and better-equipped forces to engage in combat (without political constraints); and as in Iraq, emphasis needs to be upon proper training of Afghan army and police forces. Cordesman wants the U.S. to furnish an additional $5.9 billion during the current fiscal year. In effect, Cordesman proposes nothing which has not long ago been suggested (even back in the days of Vietnam where the official clamor was for more ?aid? and Vietnamizing the fighting). Candidate Obama appears to have adopted wholesale what Cordesman was proposing about two year ago with one qualification: Obama recognizes that the U.S?s traditional European NATO allies will not provide large numbers of additional fighting forces, hence Obama proposes rotating three divisions or about 10,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. If we examine candidate Obama?s most important prepared foreign policy speech to-date, that given on July 14, 2008, we find the elements of what as president he might do in Afghanistan. He forthrightly casts his interest in Afghanistan purely in terms of ?making America safer?: I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century. In other words, Obama is committed to ?finishing the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban,? translated as the fight against ?Muslim extremism.? Notwithstanding that this examplifies a worst case example of fallacious sunk-cost reasoning, George W. Bush and candidate McCain would not disagree. He continues Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win?. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, and more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights. ?Make no mistake: we can?t succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. Resources need to be focused upon Afghanistan because it ?is the war we have to win.? In July 2008, the International Herald Tribune called it ?the war of necessity against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.? Why? Candidate Obama points to Taliban controlling parts of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda possessing an ?expanding base in Pakistan.? These are alleged to be spawning grounds of ?another attack on our homeland.? George W. Bush and candidate McCain would concur in being in error. Very solid reasons now exist why Al Qaeda is not interested in mounting Palestinian-style attacks in America. Any attack would have to be bigger than 9/11. As the ever-prescient Mike Scheuer writes, Al-Qaeda does not want to fight the United States for any longer than is needed to drive it as far as possible out of the Middle East, and its doctrine for so doing has, in Osama bin Laden's formulation, three components: (a) bleed America to bankruptcy; (b) spread out U.S. forces to the greatest extent possible; and (c) promote Vietnam-era- like domestic disunity. Based on this doctrine, al-Qaeda leaders have decided that attacks in the United States are only worthwhile if they have maximum and simultaneous impact in three areas: high and enduring economic costs, severe casualties, and lasting negative psychological impact. In fact, all three of bin Laden?s components have been realized ? casualties, costs, and domestic disunity ? all without a follow-up to the 9/11 attack. And how will this victory over radical Islam be accomplished? Obama?s recipe for success involves: o Sending 2-3 combat brigades (each of 3-5,000 troops) to Afghanistan; o Pressure NATO allies to follow suit; o More use of drones, aircraft, etc. ; o Training Afghan ?security? forces; o Supporting an Afghan judiciary; o Proposing an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year with safeguards to see no corruption and resources flowing to areas other than Kabul; o Invest in alternative livelihoods to poppies; o Pressure Pakistan to carry the fight into its tribal areas and reward it for so doing with military and non-military aid; o Should Pakistan fail to act in the tribal areas, the United States under Obama would act unilaterally; New? Change? President George W. Bush and candidate McCain have long signed on to exactly these policies. Certainly both would also see Afghanistan primarily through the lens of ?making America safer.? George Bush Sr. did just that during 1988-1990 when America was presumed safer once the Soviets were out of Afghanistan. Then, he cut and ran. Candidate Obama adopts the Pentagon?s military solution ? defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban ? without paying much attention to either what gave rise to these groups or to the complexity of tribal society on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Even more importantly, he fails to acknowledge that the current bombing, night-time assaults upon villages, hooding and abducting suspects, kicking down doors and entering women?s quarters, etc. is forging an unlimited supply of recruits to the resistance. No, all we hear is ?Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan?? The complete failure to improve life for those living in rural southern, eastern and northeastern Afghanistan alongside unbridled corruption, profligiate wealth and Afghanistan?s current culture of official impunity further stokes the resistance. All we hear is a vague promise of $1 billion more aid per year. As Patrick Buchanan points out candidate Obama has absolutely no exit strategy from Afghanistan, other than a presumed military victory. He utterly fails to understand the axoim of the guerrilla strategy: the guerrilla wins if he fails to lose. For the guerrilla it?s not about winning pitched battles, it?s about continuing the fight. The Taliban and associates have no difficulty with that: fighters from the Pashtun borderlands and monies from trhe Gulf States (and eslewhere). Moreover, Buchanan continues And, using the old 10-to-one ratio of regular troops needed to defeat guerrillas, if the Taliban can recruit 1,000 new fighters, they can see Obama's two-brigade bet, and raise him. Just as Uncle Ho raised LBJ again and again. What does President Obama do then? Send in 10,000 more?* The aim of shifting 2-3 U.S. combat brigades to Afghanistan, greatly increasing the use of drones in order to unleash the fire power of Hellfire missiles or the ?guided? bombs of B1-B?s, letting U.S. Special Forces and Navy Seals Teams loose to sow mayhem in the border regions on both sides of the Durand Line merely serves to continue the status-quo of death and destruction. Yet there are those like Ann Marlowe in the Wall Strert Journal who believe that the military solution in Afghanistan is to employ special forces to deal with the ?bad guys? infiltrating from Pakistan. For her, ?defeating the enemy is best accomplished by hiughly trained fighters who travel light.? Does Ms. Marlowe who was thrice embedded with U.S. occupatyion forces in Afghanistan recall the Green Berets in Vietnam or the Soviet Spetsnaz in Afghanistan? For some four years, U.S. Special Forces had free reign in the Afghan province of Kunar. With what effct? Kunar today is one of Afghanistan?s most volatile provinces just as it was when the Soviets unleashed their elite Spetsnaz units there. Britain could not seal the border between the Irelands with 40,000 soldiers. The Soviets with 120,000 troops under a unified command structure and three times as many Afghan satrap soldiers could not quell the mujahideen resistance. Candidate Obama advocates a policy of escalation simply in order not to lose. In doing such, he follows in the footsteps of Gordon Brown?s ambassador in Kabul who threatens ?to stay for 30 years? in an endless campaign of despair from which withdrawal is perceived as politically impossible. Thirty years for what? A campaign to prop up an embattled, corrupt, unpopular puppet regime in Kabul, a task for which Britain and its NATO allies are terribly undermanned? No, but rather as Jenkins points out to keep NATO alive in Europe. NATO?s agitated chief, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, certainly appears as a man fighting for his job. He should be as most Europeans see the Afghan conflict as wrong, immoral, America?s war, all about oil, and probably lost. For them NATO was created to deter the Soviet Union, not to supply foot soldiers to America?s wars in the Muslim world. Most alarmingly, candidate Obama and others before him (including George W. Bush) crudely conflate the Taliban with Al Qaeda when in fact, the two groups share very little and do not regard each other with high esteem. The Taliban and Al Qaeda represent two very different entities. The former comprise an ethno-national phenomenon rooted in space, appealing then and now to a loosely aligned movement, largely of Pashtun Afghans. The Taliban have profound roots in parts of Afghanistan. They form only part of the disparate resistance to the U.S/NATO occupation (other parts being nationalists, those seeking revenge for injury to family, those involved in poppy cultivation who perceive the West as threatening their livelihoods, those frustrated with Karzai?s and the West?s failed promises, unemployed men, etc.). Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is a de-territorialized, stateless organization formed to wage violent jihad anywhere in the world against those deemed to be Islam?s enemies. From a group spatially located in Afghanistan during the Taliban era, Al Qaeda has transformed itself into a decentralized, floating coalition of militant groups united in jihad. But for candidate Obama a simple undefined enemy exists: a unified Al Qaeda and Taliban who will be crushed by a few more brigades of occupation soldiers, Global Hawks in the skies and a billion dollars annually. Obama?s informal adviser, Afghan scholar Barnett Rubin, has long been arguing that ?the problem really is in neighboring Pakistan, where Taliban and Al Qaeda commanders lurk.? Encouraging cross border air and ground attacks raises the ire of the fiercely independent Pashtun tribals in the borderlands and further isolates a weak, post-Musharef regime in Islamabad bent on its own independent course of action. Moreover, Pakistan has lost thousands of its troops in fighting in the tribal lands under Musharef. The recent killing of 11 Pakistani frontier soldiers by U.S. Hellfire misslies promises to be a harbinger of the future. The elected political leaders of Pakistan?s borderlands virulently oppose Obama?s unilaterialism, e.g., the wily governor of the North-West Province, Owais Ghani, spoke out forecefully against Obama?s hinting at U.S. incursions. Pahstun nationalism is far cry from Al Qaeda?s world jihad. Indeed, a quite convincing case can be made that the best antidote to a resurgent Al Qaeda would be support for the Taliban. But such fine- tuning escapes candidate Obama and his entourage of former Clinton foreign policy advisers (e.g., Susan Rice, Anthony Lake, etc.) and of others adocating ?nation-building.? Change? George W. Bush, John McCain and Barack Obama are united in advocating policies which cement an alliance between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They all priviledge a military approach over a civilian one of negotiating. On the ?winnig hearts and minds? dimension, candiate Obama promises an extra $ 1 million annually to be spent mostly outside Kabul. The record of U.S. monies budgeted for Afghanistan is clear: Table. United States? Budgeted Outlays for ?Operation Enduring Freedom? by Fiscal Year (in $ billions) Total DOD & VA Medical Foreign aid Aid/Total FY 2001-2 $ 20.8 20.0 0.8 3.8% FY 2003 14.7 14.0 0.7 4.8% FY 2004 14.5 12.4 2.2 15.1% FY 2005 20.8 18.0 2.8 13.5% FY 2006 19.0 17.9 1.1 5.8% FY 2007 36.9 35.0 1.9 5.1% FY 2008 36.5 34.5 2.0 5.5% Sources: Wheeler (2007), op. cit. and Amy Belasco, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 (Washington DC: Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated June 23, 2008): 18-19 But how will such U.S funds be brought to a countryside largely controlled by a hostile resistance? Many parts of Afghanistan most desirous of improving everyday living are simply off-limits to non- governmental organizations, let alone the U.S. Government. The US/NATO strategy of relying upon an ink blot of ?aid? radiating out from 2-3 dozen heavily fortified PRT bases and scores of U.S. forward operating bases is at best very limited. So in order to ?secure? the countryside which will then be lavished with candidate Obama?s annual largesse of an extra billion dollars, the US/NATO needs to either bomb or take ground casualties, expel the resistance, and especially hold territory. Building another well or a school has little meaning in the Pashtun code of honor (Pashtunwali), but the killing of a family member demands revenge be taken against the perpetrator. Simon Jenkins has stressed that American, Canadian, British, Dutch and even Estonian troops (those brave ?new Europeans? forming part of the ?coalition? of the bribed ) simply snatch and hold towns for a while but are unable to command local loyalty. ?They cannot hope to garrison every settlement.? Musa Qala retaken by the British with much fanfare is a typical case, a success which is a failure. In other words, candidate Obama promises nothing other than what already is: more prolonged low-intensity conflict with endless death and destruction. If the U.S. military escalation of the past two years is any indication, a further escalation as he proposes will simply lead to more dead Afghan civilians, a countryiside and towns racked with the deadly explosions of IED?s and suicide bombers followed by the destruction unleashed by equally deadly close air support (CAS) strikes. A strong correlation exists during 2004-2007 between levels of U.S occupation soldiers in Afghanistan, tonnage of bombs dropped and numbers of dead and injured Afghans. Will the monetary value of dead Afghan remain about one-tenth that of an Alaskan sea otter? Will yet more CAS air strikes continue killing ten times more Afghan civilians per ton dropped than the numbers killed in Serbia in 1999? Why should an Obama future be different? The candidate of change in Afghanistan? History has clearly shown it?s easy to invade and conquer Afghanistan but it?s terribly difficult to govern and exit honorably. Obama is no Mikhail Gorbachev who took Russia out of the Afghan fiasco when he realized what many Russian leaders had been too scared to admit in public - that Russia could not win the war and the cost of maintaining such a vast force in Afghanistan was crippling Russia's already weak economy. The cost of America?s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was $171 billion in FY2007 and an estimated $195 billion in FY2008. Candidate Obama, his Clinton era advisers, and sadly all too many others fail to recognize a web of inter-connected, persistent constraints, or of given realties. One might label them as the ?five cannots?: US/NATO cannot send 400,000 combat troops to garrison Afghanistan?s towns, hamlets and countryside (which is a pre-condition for reconstruction to win hearts and minds ); the US/NATO cannot impose a powerful central government upon Afghanistan ; the US/NATO cannot neutralize the very effective least-cost weapons of choice of the Afghan resistance (IED?s and suicide bombers); the US/NATO cannot seal the Afghan-Pakistan border and hence will not eliminate the vital sanctuary so necessary to a guerrilla movement); and lastly, the Pakistan government has never been able to dominate its vast tribal borderlands and there is no reason to believe such will change. Those who choose not to understand these ?five cannots? advocate change in a vacuum. A military impasse begets a political solution. The perceived poison of a foreign occupation, the rampant corruption, the all-too-frequent desecration of Islam by the occupiers, the sheer folly of the US/NATO seeking to extend the writ of a central government to the Pashtun tribal regions , the spiraling count of civilian deaths has shifted the Afghan struggle towards a war of national liberation. Anatol Lieven of King?s College (London) puts it aptly. Afghanistan is Becoming a sort of surreal hunting estate, in which the U.S. and NATO breed the very terrorists they then track down. Candidates Obama and McCain promise more of the same carnage packaged as change. Marc Herold is an Associate Professor of Economic Development & Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire. He can be reached at: Marc.Herold at unh.edu Notes. Robert Scheer, ?Obama on the Brink,? Truthdig.com (July 22, 2008) at http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080722_obama_on_the_brink/ ?Transcript of Interview on CNN? (July 25, 2008) at http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obama-interview-on-cnn/ Anthony H. Cordesman, ?One War We Can Still Win,? International Herald Tribune (December 13, 2006) at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/13/opinion/edcord.php speech is reproduced on The Huffington Post (July 29, 2008) at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/15/obama-spokeswoman-hits-ba_n_112834.html ?Talking Sense on the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,? International Herald Tribune (July 17, 2008) at http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=14574298 Mike Scheuer, ?Why Doesn?t al-Qaeda Attack the US?? Antiwar.com (May 29, 2008) at http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=12911 as pointed out by Tom Hayden, ?Obama, Iraq and Afghanistan,? The Nation (July 15, 2008) at Explored in Thomas H. Johnson and M. Chris Mason, ?No Sign until the Burst of Fire. Understanding the Pakistan-Afghanistan Frontier,? International Security 32, 4 (Spring 2008): 41-77 Patrick Buchanan, ?Obama?s War,? Antiwar.com (July 29, 2008) at http://antiwar.com/pat/ Ann Marlowe, ?Afghanistan Doesn?t Need a Surge,? Wall Street Journal (July 22, 2008) at http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121668659664272147.html Hayden (2008), op. cit. Simon Jenkins, ?A Bad Attack of Beau Geste Syndrome at Our Expense,? The Guardian (July 5, 2006) at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/05/comment.afghanistan Eric Margolis, ?Why Europeans are not Eager to Die in Afghanistan,? LewRockwell.com (February 13, 2008) at http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis100.html well argued in Mark Levine, ?Obama and the Taliban,? Huffington Post (July 25, 2008) at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-levine/obama-and-the-taliban_b_114900.html James Gordon Meek, ?Afghanistan Experts Say John McCain and Barack Obama are Clueless,? New York Daily News (July 19, 2008) Simon Jenkins, ?Stop Killing the Talkiban ? They Offer the Best Hope of Beating Al Qaeda,? The Times (June 22, 2008) at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article4187504.ece as argued in Juan Cole, ?Obama is Saying the Wrong Things About Afghanistan,? Salon.org (July 23, 2008) at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/23/obama/ an excellent discussion of Pashtunwali may be found in Hamida Ghafour, ?Why NATO Misreads the Afghan Rulebook,? Globe and Mail (May 5, 2007) Paul Gilfeather, ?Coalition of the Bribed, Bullied & Blind,? The Mirror (March 22, 2003) at http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views03/0323-07.htm Jenkins, op. cit. Sean Rayment, ?In Afghanistan even our Successes are Failures,? The Telegraph (August 3, 2008) at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/03/do0306.xml Belasco (2008), op. cit.: 18 Occupation forces Commander McNeill has said himself that according to the current counterterrorism doctrine, it would take 400,000 troops to pacify Afghanistan in the long term (from Ulrich Fichtner, ?Why NATO Troops Can?t Deliver Peace in Afghanistan,? Der Spiegel (May 29, 2008) at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-556304,00.html The umbrella organization ACBAR (Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief) reported 463 insurgent attacks during May and 569 in June 2008. Nineteen aid workers have been killed this year. The result has been greatly scaled back aid and relief efforts (?Record Afghan Unrest Hampering Aid NGOs,? Agence France Presse (August 1, 2008) at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9LKPSwMVEzC25r7wQ4-XuOkz4sw ). see Johnson and Mason (2008), op. cit As Gerard Chaliand, veteran geo-strategist of so-called asymmetrical wars, put it recently, ?victory is impossible in Afghanistan?Today one must try to negotiate,? because the Taliban control much of the local power in the south and east of the country (Immanuel Wallerstein, ?Afghanistan: Shoals Ahead for President Obama,? Middle East Online (August 1, 2008)). Johnson and Mason (2008), op.cit: 54 Anatol Lieven, ?The Dream of Afghan Democracy is Dead,? The Financial Times (June 11, 2008) at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f25de8f4-37b1-11dd-aabb-0000779fd2ac.html From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Aug 7 20:55:34 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:55:34 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Seeds of Destruction Message-ID: <489BB5A6.4020206@attglobal.net> The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation Review of F William Engdahl's book published by Global Research by Arun Shrivastava Global Research (June 19 2008) Last three or four years have seen a number of books, documentaries and articles on the dangers of Genetically Modified (GM) seeds. Majority has focused on adverse health and environmental impact; almost none on the geo-politics of GM seeds, and particularly seeds as a weapon of mass destruction. Engdahl has addressed this issue but the crop seed is one of the many "Seeds of Destruction" in this book. Engdahl carefully documents how the intellectual foundations of 'eugenics,' mass culling of the sick, coloured, and otherwise disposable races, were actually first established, and even legally approved, in the United States. Eugenics research was financially supported by the Rockefeller and other elite families and first tested on Jews under Nazi Germany. It is purely by chance that world's poorest nations also happen to be best endowed with natural resources. These regions are also the ones with growing population. The fear among European ruling families, increasingly, integrating with economic and military might of the United States, was that if the poor nations became developed, the abundant natural resources, especially oil, gas, and strategic minerals and metals, may become scarcer for the white population. That situation was unacceptable to the white ruling elite. The central question that dominated the minds of the ruling clique was population reduction in resource rich countries but the question was how to engineer mass culling all over the world without generating powerful backlash as it was bound to happen. When the US oil reserves peaked in 1972 and it became a net oil importer, the situation became alarming and the agenda took the centre stage. Kissinger, one of the key strategists of Nixon, nurtured by the Rockefellers, prepared what is known as National Security Study Memo (NSSM#200), in which he elaborated his plan for population reduction. In this Memo he specifically targets thirteen countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Thailand, and The Phillipines. The weapon to be used was food; even if there was a famine food would be used to leverage population reduction. Kissinger is on record for stating, "Control oil, you control nations; control food and you control the people". How a small group of key people transformed the elitist philosophy, of controlling food to control people, into realistic operational possibility within a short time is the backdrop of Engdahl's book, the central theme running from the beginning till the end with the Rockefellers and Kissinger, among others, as the key dramatis personae. He describes how the Rockefellers guided the US agriculture policy, used their powerful tax-free foundations worldwide to train an army of bright young scientists in hitherto unknown field of microbiology. He traces how the field of Eugenics was renamed "genetics" to make it more acceptable and also to hide the real purpose. Through incremental strategic adjustments within a handful of chemical, food and seed corporations, ably supported by the key persons in key departments of the US Government, behemoths were created that could re-write the regulatory framework in nearly every country. And these seeds of destruction of carefully constructed regulatory framework - to protect the environment and human health - were sown back in the 1920s. Pause to think: a normal healthy person can at the most go without food for perhaps seven days but it takes a full season, say around four months, for a seed to grow into food crop. Just five agri-biz corporations, all US based (Cargill, Bunge, Archer Daniels, et al), control global grain trade, and just five control global trade in seeds. Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, and Dow Chemicals control genetically engineered seeds. While these powerful oligopolies were being knocked into place, anti-trust laws were diluted to exempt these firms. Engdahl writes, "It was not surprising that the Pentagon's National Defense University, on the eve of the 2003 Iraq War, issued a paper declaring: 'Agribiz is to the United States what oil is to the Middle East'. Agribusiness had become a strategic weapon in the arsenal of the world's only superpower." (page 143) The "Green Revolution" was part of the Rockefeller agenda to destroy seed diversity and push oil and gas based agriculture inputs in which Rockefeller's had main interest. Destruction of seed diversity and dependence on proprietary hybrids was the first step in food control. (See my notes, Box 1) It is true that initially Green Revolution technologies led to spurt in farm productivity but at a huge cost of destruction of farmlands, bio-diversity, poisoned aquifers and progressively poor health of the people and was the true agenda of 'the proponents of Green Revolution'. The real impetus came with the technological possibility of gene splicing and insertion of specific traits into unrelated species. Life forms could be altered. But until 1979, the US Government had steadfastly refused to grant patent on life form. That was changed [my comment: helped much by a favorable judgment in the US Supreme Court granting patent protection to oil eating bacteria developed by Dr Ananda Chakraborty]. Life forms could now be patented. To ensure that the world surrendered to the patent regime of the seeds corporations, the World Trade Organization was knocked into shape. How it conducted business was nobody's business, but it forced the world to accept intellectual property right of these corporations. There is opposition but these firms are too determined as Engdahl describes. "The clear strategy of Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and the Washington Government backing them was to introduce the GMO seeds in every corner of the globe, with priority on defenceless ... African and developing countries", write Engdahl (page 270). However, Engdahl also describes how US and Canadian farmlands came under GMOs. It was suspected that GMO could pose serious threat to human and animal health and the environment, yet efforts at independent biosafety assessment were discontinued. Scientists carrying out honest studies were vilified. Reputed scientific establishments were silenced or made to toe the line that was supportive of the Rockefeller's food control and mass culling agenda. The destruction of the credibility of scientific institution is yet another seed of destruction in Engdahl's book. Engdahl cites the example of a German farmer Gottfried Glockner's experience with GM corn. Glockner planted Bt176 event of Syngenta essentially as feed for his cows. Being a scientist, he started with ten percent GM feed and gradually increased the proportion, carefully noting milk yield and any side effects. Nothing much happened in the first three years but when he increased the feed to 100% GM feed, his animals "were having gluey-white feaces and violent diarrhea" and "milk contained blood". Eventually all his seventy cows died. Prof Angelika Hilbeck of Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found from Glockner's Bt 176 corn samples Bt toxins were present "in active form and extremely stable". The cows died of high dose of toxins. Not if, but when human food is 100% contaminated should be a sobering thought. In the US unlabelled GM foods were introduced in 1993 and that seventy percent of the supermarket foods contain GMOs in varying proportions in what should rightly be called world's largest biological experiment on humans. While Engdahl has clearly stated that the thrust of US Government and the agi-biz is control over food especially in the third world, he has left it to the readers to deduce that American and European citizens are also target of that grand agenda. And there are more lethal weapons in the arsenal: Terminator seeds, Traitor seeds, and the ability to destroy small independent farmers at will in any part of the world, and these are powerfully presented in the book. Engdahl provides hard evidences for these seeds of final destruction and utter decimation of world civilizations as we have known. It is a complex but highly readable book. It is divided into five parts, each containing two to four short chapters. The first part deals with the political maneuverings to ensure support to Seed and Agri-biz firms, the second deals with what should be widely known as 'The Rockefeller Plan', the third deals with how vertically integrated giants were readied for Washington's silent wars on planet earth, the fourth part deals with how GM seeds were unleashed on unsuspecting farmers, and the final part deals with how the elites is going on destroying food, farmers that would eventually cause mass culling of population. He does not offer any solution; he can't because it is up to the rest of the world, including Europeans and Americans, to wake up and take on these criminals head on. An essential read for anyone who eats and thinks. Seeds of Destruction The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F William Engdahl Global Research, 2007 ISBN 978-0-937147-2-2 SPECIAL ONLINE AND MAIL ORDER PRICE US$17.00 (list price $24.95) This skillfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. "Control the food and you control the people". This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms. The author cogently reveals a diabolical World of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is. Engdahl's carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and World peace. _____ F William Engdahl is a leading analyst of the New World Order, author of the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics, A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New World Order,' His writings have been translated into more than a dozen languages. _____ What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in this new age of "free markets", everything - science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds - have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All they need is to control food production. (Dr Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland) If you want to learn about the socio-political agenda - why biotech corporations insist on spreading GMO seeds around the World - you should read this carefully researched book. You will learn how these corporations want to achieve control over all mankind, and why we must resis ... (Marijan Jost, Professor of Genetics, Krizevci, Croatia) The book reads like a murder mystery of an incredible dimension, in which four giant Anglo-American agribusiness conglomerates have no hesitation to use GMO to gain control over our very means of subsistence ... (Anton Moser, Professor of Biotechnology, Graz, Austria). Order Now: Online or Mail Order List Price US$24.95 plus taxes. US$17.00 plus s and h (incl. taxes where applicable) _____ Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. (c) Copyright Arun Shrivastava, Global Research, 2008 (c) Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9379 From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 04:21:16 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 06:21:16 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Saul Landau and Nelson Valdes on Cuba's Reforms Message-ID: Aug 7 - 13, 2008 Cuba's Reforms By Saul Landau and Nelson Valdes Read Spanish Version Cuban leaders have begun a reform process -- combining certain ministries, opening up more farming possibilities and decentralizing certain functions. They have not given clear signals as to what model will emerge. The government appears determined to following the familiar path of pragmatic and cautious approaches to problems that have arisen over five decades, especially those aggravated because of the 1991 Soviet collapse. As the October 2009 Communist Party Congress grows nearer, the results of discussions throughout the country, the Party may add new wrinkles in Cuba's half century quest to build a just system. Do not expect Cuba to abandon meaningful socialism. Beginning with their 1959 revolutionary triumph, Cuban leaders have weaved a unique approach to social change. Western media has ignored that Cuba's government has operated through consensus. Indeed, western reporters refer to Castro's dictatorship as if such a concept was axiomatic. Rather, under Fidel -- a master of consensus politics -- a collective leadership had to remove the old order and replace it with a just society, a Herculean task that one man could not do alone! To make their own system, Cubans faced the wrath of their former elites and the fury of a northern neighbor. Fifty years later, U.S. officials still froth at the mouth at Cuba's audacious disobedience, Raul Castro and partners, including significant numbers of younger people, address a new formidable adventure: building sensible socialism on one island. Raul acknowledged this on July 26, as he commemorated past successes and referred to needs for more reforms. Perpetual U.S. aggression placed Cuba into a national security mentality, but Cuban leaders can blame U.S. hostility for only some of their problems. Moncada, Sierra and Underground veterans can indeed boast of accomplishing their historic goals. In 1959, after waging numerous wars and uprisings since the 1860s, Cubans won independence. Cuba then defended its revolution against U.S. belligerence while simultaneously establishing an egalitarian system based on rights -- to eat, have housing, medical care, education, etc? As gravy over their meat of success, Cubans danced -- and still do -- on the world stage: liberators of parts of Africa, slayers of the Monroe Doctrine, purveyors of emergency medical teams providing vital services to Pakistanis, Hondurans and others who suffered from natural disasters. Cuban eye specialists have saved the vision of countless third world people. Cuban artists, athletes and scientists have etched their names on the honor roles of talent throughout the world. And Fidel ranks as one of the 20th Century's great leaders. When he would enter international public spaces, even some of his ideological opponents applauded -- because of the respect he gained by courageously challenging U.S. dictates. The U.S. media does not report on Cuba. It provides silly coverage of peripheral issues such as posing the Cuba issue as Fidel v. Raul. The story typifies rumor-based U.S. journalism on Cuba. Ironically, the "superior" U.S. press dismisses Cuban media as non-objective. In a July 31, 2008, New York Times story, reporter Marc Lacey assumed the posture of cosmic knowledge. Lacy sneers at Fidel for having "left the country in economic disarray." Funny, when did the NY Times refer to U.S. economic disarray as millions suffer pains of unemployment, or devastating sub-prime mortgage madness; 50 million Americans lack access to health care or safety nets! Nor does one find references to "disarray" in rare stories about Honduras, sub Saharan Africa and other third world nations where majorities lack food, education and health care. Instead of expressing amazement over Cuba's role in shaping history, and affording millions of its citizens a chance to participate in events, despite their daily hardships, Lacey focuses on "the odd dynamic" between Raul and Fidel. Ahem! The two brothers have been partners in key decisions since they attacked Moncada in July 1953. Moreover, in 2005, Fidel reminded the Party to change all that needed change. The Party has not changed enough, however, to satisfy disaffected Cubans, those unimpressed by past accomplishments. "What do past glories have with to do with the uncertainty of daily life?" they ask. Possessing quality education, high skill levels and good health, they feel they deserve good jobs. Indeed, their entire school experience from day care through doctorates has taught them self esteem and stimulated them to expect the best. But quality jobs are scarce on the island -- and in most third world countries. Several Cubans in their 20s and 30s offered glazed looks to references of the revolution's accomplishments and replied: "I don't see much future for myself here." Yes, a qualified Engineer can feel frustrated making pizzas eight hours a day. Frustration can also lead some to become oblivious to the outside conditions that affect their lives. Cuba exists within the larger globalized corporate economy, possesses limited resources, and remains victim of a seemingly eternal U.S. super embargo. So thousands leave. The U.S. government, bound by Treaty to authorize 20,000 residence visas annually, delivers many fewer. Yet, neither the Clinton nor Bush Administration tried to get it repealed. Thus smugglers -- not from the island -- drool over their profits (about $15,000 per person) and some Cubans die at sea. These human traffickers took some 6,000 persons to Mexico between October 2007 and April 2008. Three thousand more landed in South Florida between last October 2007 and July 2008. The Coast Guard intercepted 1,700 others before they reached the U.S. Such migration occurs because of the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, allowing Cubans -- and no one else -- to enter the United States. This law undercuts the formal visa process, in which consular officials vet the applicants. After Washington imposed an embargo in 1962, Cuba issued libretas, ration books in an attempt to assure equality of distribution and a safety net, similar to British policy during World War II. During the "Special Period," the State lacked sufficient goods to meet its obligations and the U.S. tightened the embargo to further squeeze Cuba's economy. People began hustling to obtain food. To do so, they broke the law by buying and selling illegally and stealing from the state. Such a situation logically dampened morale. Cuba's problems go beyond sagging commitment. This year, the government announced a dramatic shortage of teachers -- 8,000 officially partly due to insufficient salary incentives. Fidel, writing from his convalescence, appealed to Cubans to understand such news in a proper context. "We don't become discouraged by the news of enemies, who twist the meaning of our words and present our self-criticism as tragedies," he wrote in Granma, Cuba's official newspaper. Compare Cuba's education to systems in the United States "and other rich countries," he urged readers. "They have, yes, many more automobiles, use more gasoline, consume many more drugs, buy more costume jewelry and benefit from the looting of our people, as they have for centuries." Teacher shortages paled in comparison, however, to the performance of Cuban agriculture. Last year the government had to import more than 70% of the food offered through the libreta. Cuba now "exports" highly educated graduates, a judicious means to offer educational and technical assistance to needy countries and at times generate income as well. Over the past two years, Cuba has begun to restructure its energy sector, refurbishing its electrical grid and introducing energy saving programs from light bulb replacement to obtain efficiency to producing solar energy and increasing public awareness on the issue. Imaginative urban agriculture and organic farming experiments have spread in an attempt to become more self sufficient. Changes in land usage also respond to discouraging levels of food production. The shift includes offering existing and perspective farmers clear material incentives, while eliminating cumbersome bureaucratic procedures. Labor productivity, which should rank high given Cuba's levels of education and skill, had sunk to disappointing levels. Inside the Cuban labor movement, healthy dialogue has begun to bring unions more into coincidence with current grievances. This process began earlier when Fidel, in 1987, referred to the prevailing "chapuceria" in the work place, sloppy and unfinished work, which sapped economic and moral strength. Fidel taught Cubans to understand their entitlements, which meant they had the right to expect the state to meet these rights. Younger generations, however, don't seem to recognize the State's severe material limitations, nor are they impressed by Cuba's egalitarian distribution of its less than sufficient wealth. They complain because the government doesn't meet their childhood expectations. Cuban television rebroadcasts shows like Desperate Housewives, so Cubans see Americans with plasma TVs; not daily scenes of road rage and Americans going postal. TV and visiting Americans throw extravagant consumerism in the face of some Cubans, Raul has talked about educating people to Cuba's real possibilities and about decentralizing to increase efficiency and accountability. Raul -- meaning the majority inside the Party apparatus -- also called for diverse opinions inside the Party to address what many perceived as a paucity of dialogue. Communist Party leaders understand the need to build a sensible socialism. The United States remains a constant security threat, which places limits on their imaginations. Indeed, Bush's aggressive, impulsive shadow will loom until January 2009. Cuban leaders will move slowly, prudently and with grass roots participation. They don't want to provide any excuse for a Bush "surprise." Saul Landau is an Institute for Policy Studies fellow. Nelson Valdes is Professor Emeritus at the University of New Mexico. From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Fri Aug 8 06:05:42 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:05:42 +0000 Subject: [R-G] Some 'Rights History -- Real and Otherwise Message-ID: NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR [AUGUST 8 2008]: There really isn't a hell of a lot in the world to grin about these days, but something came in the [conventional] mail yesterday that -- despite the awful nature of its origin more than 45 years ago -- made Eldri and myself grin more than once. Joan Trumpauer Mulholland, a Freedom Rider who thereby spent several weeks in Mississippi State Penitentiary, and who, as a subsequent Tougaloo College [a private Black school] student was involved in various Mississippi civil rights doings "back in the day," was also one of us three who are featured in the most famous Woolworth Sit-In photo taken in the several hours of mob scene at Jackson on May 28, 1963. In addition to Joan and myself, the other member of our embattled trio was Anne Moody, a Tougaloo student, who later wrote a well known book, Coming of Age in Mississippi. There were other sit-in participants including Lois Chaffee, who, like Joan, is a member of a couple of our lists -- as is Steve Rutledge who played a significant role in the Jackson Movement struggle. [Eldri and I got to Mississippi in latter summer 1961, right after the Rides.] Joan has done yeoman service in sending Eldri and me very interesting packets of selected clippings on various topics of interest. A few days ago, a packet was accompanied by a fine CD, Classic Labor Songs, which I greatly appreciate. And yesterday there was another packet. This contained a sheet of print from a publication, We Shall Overcome, by a Herb Boyd [who I don't know] and a sub-title, "Narrated by Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee" -- of whose work I have always much approved. Mr Davis and I corresponded cordially at a couple of points. The section of interest is this: "In May. 1963, three students at Tougaloo College, near Jackson, organized a sit-in at Woolworth's. What began as a non-violent protest became another violent encounter of the civil rights movement. "A huge mob gathered, with open police support and, while the three of us sat there for three hours, I was attacked with fists, brass knuckles, and the broken portions of glass sugar containers, and was burned with cigarettes," wrote John Salter in his memoir. Salter, who had talked [Medgar] Evers out of participating in the sit-in, was covered with as much blood as he was with salt, sugar, mustard, catsup and an assortment of other condiments. His associates, Joan Trumpauer and Anne Moody, were also covered by whatever the white mob could dispense from the lunch counter. Dr. Martin Luther King arrived at the scene, hustled them into a car, and sped away. The shepherd of non-violence had come just as another round of assault was coming." Joan, her sense of humor forever intact, had written in the margin, "Just thought you'd want to know who saved us!" Well, first, the always very good Martin King was not there -- through no fault of his -- at that sanguinary event. Not there -- unless he was disguised as a hostile white teen or an equally hostile white cop. He did come to Jackson a little more than two weeks later -- at my direct, telephoned request to him on the heels of the murder of Medgar and I picked him up at the airport -- and some extremely exciting episodes followed all of that forthwith. The first paragraph is accurate save for the fact that I was not, of course, a student but a teacher. But I was not too far removed from that status age-wise. From childhood on, I've always known I had lots of blood to spare and a tough head and hide. The sit-in ended only when the mob began to destroy the interior of the Woolworth store and its material contents -- and the cops cleared them away. A very reluctant contingent of Jackson police finally opened a path through the mob out front and we got to a friendly car, then to a Black physician, and then to a huge rally. I should add that I discouraged the always courageous Medgar from participating in the sit-in since he was a very "marked man" indeed -- obviously widely targeted for hate killing. Anyway, the piece on Martin King and the dramatic getaway made us grin. Something out of a '50s flick. I should add that my book, Jackson Mississippi, has been widely and accurately used by many researchers and writers. Lots of links on our website on all of this but I'll only give two in case anyone wants to go further. And many, many thanks to you, Joan! For a discussion of the major sit-in photo and background and ramifications of the whole Event, see this now well known webpage of ours: http://hunterbear.org/Woolworth%20Sitin%20Jackson.htm And for additional discussion of the broader dimensions of the sit-in and a listing of all of our participants, see this Link [also given on that basic photo page]: http://hunterbear.org/jackson.htm HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See our Community Organizing Course [with new material] http://hunterbear.org/my_combined_community_organizing.htm And see Grassroots Organizing: Race and Ethnicity http://hunterbear.org/GRASSROOTS%20ORGANIZING__RACE%20AND%20ETHNCITY.htm From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Aug 8 08:44:04 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:44:04 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Compassionate capitalism Message-ID: <489C5BB4.4060003@attglobal.net> Ecocide with a smiley face by Lorna Salzman Culture Change (July 20 2008) "We all agree that development that pollutes and destroys in order to enrich the already-rich is morally wrong. But development that pollutes and destroys in order to help the poor is just fine. We owe it to the poor. This is Compassionate Capitalism. And it is as ruthless, unforgiving and unjust as the old kind." _______________ Imagine a crew of poor and minority construction workers. After years of poverty, lack of opportunity and discrimination they finally have secure, well-paying jobs with good benefits. They are building a new village that will house low and moderate income families, including themselves. This village is located downstream from a high dam that provides hydropower for the region. The dam is old and recent inspections have revealed serious flaws that could result in dam failure that could wipe out the village and cause severe loss of life. The exact date of such failure is unknown but the risk is large and real and engineers and geologists recommend that the village be evacuated and rebuilt elsewhere as a precautionary measure, until the dam is repaired. Repairs sufficient to guarantee dam integrity will be expensive and will take up to three or four years to complete. The costs are unknown as are the sources of funding. State revenues are scarce and the federal government has cut back on infrastructure repair. It is not known whether funds will be made available, how much and when. The villagers, which include the construction workers, do not welcome the cost and inconvenience of relocation so they decide to remain where they are, figuring that dam repair as well as village development will provide lots of jobs. Some of them distrust the engineers and geologists and their predictions. Some of them believe that the repairs can be completed in a shorter period of time. Some believe the dam is fundamentally sound and doesn't need much repair, if any. The village, county, state and federal officials meet, confer, haggle, argue, hiring consultants, holding public hearings, debating costs and benefits and wasting over two years on the problem due to conflicting opinions. While dam repair contracts are put out for bidding, the construction workers continue their work on building housing developments, schools, shopping centers, churches and light industrial structures. Investment is attracted to the area. The village expands and becomes a small city, with a larger economy and local industry, and residents prosper. Lots of cars and RVs are sold, large air conditioned homes on large lots with swimming pools are built as is an airport, and the interstate is extended to the city. Shopping malls appear on the outskirts. Several banks open new branches. Sewage systems are extended to the new developments and a large water supply system to deliver water from the river is also expanded. The increase in energy demand results in construction of two new coal powered plants and plans are laid for a nuclear plant at a "safe" distance, to accommodate growth. Three years later, the dam breaks, destroying the entire city, killing most of its residents. This story is fictitious but the situation it describes is not. It is what we face now with global warming. Those who staked their own lives on the integrity of the dam were mainly low income minority workers, who had faith in "the system" and in technology. There are millions more of these among us today who doubt there is a global warming crisis and who believe that new jobs and technology to help the unemployed and the minorities should come first. To rationalize this, they denigrate the seriousness of the climate change situation and, like the village construction workers, look to technology and renewable energy development as their salvation. Meanwhile, growth continues, energy consumption expands, the consumer sector continues to spend as before, floods, droughts and wildfires run rampant, water supplies are drying up, food prices rise due to higher energy and import costs, garbage and wastes accumulate, wildlife habitat, open space and recreational lands are sacrificed for roads, malls and development, energy prices skyrocket for numerous and uncontrollable reasons, the oceans die, and the quality of life rapidly deteriorates. And what do these workers and minorities demand? More of the same things that caused the crisis in the first place: cheap energy. Why do they call for this? In order to consume more. Under all of this is an unswerving religious faith in the need for continued economic growth: for unabated production of goods and consumption, in the name of equity and social justice, to benefit those who had been left out of the country's prosperity. This is the message just delivered by Niger Ennis, a Republican strategist and head of CORE (Congress on Racial Equality), a beneficiary of Exxon ($275,000 since 1998), who is pushing for cheap energy, more fossil fuel plants and offshore oil drilling. Ennis gave an infamous Capitol Hill briefing, along with climate skeptics, titled "Eco-Imperialism: Reflections on Earth Day". He also said: "We support any candidate that is not cowed by the powerful environmental lobby". The prosperity approach is also the message delivered by the Apollo Alliance, a front for the Democratic Party and possibly for the auto industry which supports "clean coal". The affiliated 1Sky movement has fairly strong positions on reducing energy consumption (25% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020, eighty percent by 2050), but they have bought into the carbon trading scam instead of supporting carbon taxes, and promote that now-familiar cliche of "smart growth", without defining it. Though the term "economic growth" is not the explicit message of Green for All, headed by Van Jones, formerly head of the Ella Baker Center and its "green growth" campaign, its overall thrust of creating "five million jobs conserving twenty percent of our energy by 2015" (the 1Sky objective as well), not basing its objectives on science, fails to acknowledge the need to sharply reduce energy consumption in the next three or four years (the time period remaining before we exceed several climate tipping points, according to James Hansen). In so doing it leapfrogs over the global climate crisis to that golden land of opportunity, not comprehending that no amount of renewable energy technology can ever meet our present demand, much less the future demand of the five million new workers in renewable energy who will, if past experience is a guide, use their newfound wealth to emulate the life style of profligate Americans. A twenty percent reduction in energy use by 2015 is barely an improvement over the ineffectual Kyoto Protocol proposal. Green for All supported the Lieberman-Boxer energy bill, with some reservations, while most environmental groups declared the bill to be woefully inadequate. Essentially Green for All is an anti-poverty effort with a green tinge, not an anti-global warming effort. And the strongest pro-growth shout emanates from the Break Through Institute, headed by neo-liberal growth and globalization fanatics Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, whose prescription for survival is one word: Prosperity. It is no accident that most of those pushing for Business as Usual are either members of a minority group or use economic justice as their justification. This is a clever move since it guarantees funding from liberal donors like the Pew Charitable Trust and the Nathan Cummings Foundation as well as the Rockefeller Foundation. It also guarantees credibility in the media and with liberal leaders and organizations, who would rather retire to a desert island than be considered racist. The subliminal theme here is this: we all agree that development that pollutes and destroys in order to enrich the already-rich is morally wrong. But development that pollutes and destroys in order to help the poor is just fine. We owe it to the poor. This is Compassionate Capitalism. And it is as ruthless, unforgiving and unjust as the old kind. It is striking that spokesmen for minority groups have for so long found little to criticize about corporate greed, profits and pollution, or capitalism in general, but had little trouble attacking their friends - the environmental community - for what they believed was racism and deliberate ignoring of urban minorities. So the push for millions of new minority jobs also raises the following question: since corporations have shown little or no interest in the needs of minorities or the poor in the past, how much faith can we have that in the hoped-for future renewable energy economy they will make an effort to include them? The main objective here is to distract the liberals' attention away from the breaking dam and onto the jobs being created in the city beneath the dam as it expands ... to distract attention away from the global warming tipping points that we face in the next few years, away from the bad news, away from anything that instills doubt in economic growth and in capitalist society itself. To express doubt of traditional growth patterns smacks of hardship and sacrifice, especially for the poor. Thus, doubt must be completely abolished by drawing attention to the purported benefits of growth to the poor, by pointing to the jobs ... not to the dam. Where are the jobs? We know where they are: in renewable energy, energy efficiency, public transportation, rehabilitation of buildings and infrastructure, local and regional food supplies, weatherization, and elsewhere. These are already cliches. Nothing new there. But the Good News Bears who want you to ignore the breaking dam don't tell you the truth about these jobs, particularly about how long it will take to bring them to the needy. How long will it take to replace fossil fuel and nuclear plants with wind energy systems? How long to rebuild and expand Amtrak and build new regional and local public transportation systems to replace air travel and private cars? How long to replace high-energy, processed, prepackaged and imported food with local food supplies? How long before the federal government and the private investors turn away from fossil fuels and nuclear reactors definitively and put their faith and funds into these things? If you guessed more than five years, you guessed correctly. Try twenty. Or fifty. The problem is that the dam is crumbling in the meantime. That minority leaders like Ennis and Jones are not aligning themselves with those demanding real solutions to slow down and mitigate global warming through dramatically reduced consumption of energy and goods is truly tragic. That their followers are being duped into supporting the American Dream of increasing consumption of energy and goods - Compassionate Capitalism - including a demand for cheaper oil, is testimony to the tragic gullibility that characterizes all Americans, not just the poor and the minorities. In a nutshell, we don't have a tough uncompromising movement or leadership with curbing global warming as its focus. We have anti-poverty and social justice groups and campaigns posing as green but with a "plentiful lack" of serious proposals to overhaul the entire capitalist/consumer society. It is quite clear that marginal and incremental economic reforms will not slow down the economic growth beast much less threaten its existence. It appears that even those members of society who have lived at the bottom are not ready or willing to admit that this society is neither sustainable nor reformable. Perhaps they are whistling in the dark. But it is more likely that these reformist groups are being encouraged in their schemes by funders and forces cemented to the concept of economic growth and to capitalism at all costs who welcome the emphasis on jobs and renewable energy as a distraction from the daily reports of accelerating climate change. The revolutionaries, however, are nowhere to be seen. I've got news for them. Nature doesn't distinguish between rich and poor. _____ Lorna Salzman, formerly with Friends of the Earth during David Brower's leadership, writes on politics, energy and the environment. Her website is lornasalzman.com "We are already fighting World War III and I am sorry to say we are winning. It is the war against the earth". - author Raymond Dasmann _____ Further reading: "Neo-liberals in green clothing: Nordhaus, Shellenberger and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors", by Lorna Salzman: culturechange.org Questioning the social-justice-first approach: article, "What is the grassroots' and environmental establishment's main failure?" by Jan Lundberg, Culture Change Letter #179: culturechange.org "Smart Growth: Smart or not? Debunking the myths of sustainable growth" Culture Change magazine, issue 20, 2002: culturechange.org 1Sky: 1sky.org http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=188&Itemid=1#cont http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Aug 8 09:46:13 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:46:13 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Grandin: Is the Monroe Doctrine Really Dead? Message-ID: <6680F2D5-80D8-4A7D-B7F7-A9A9911ED985@shaw.ca> posted June 08, 2008 4:39 pm Tomgram: Greg Grandin, Is the Monroe Doctrine Really Dead? http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174941 [Note for Tomdispatch Readers: As you'll see from its striking cover (at the left of the main screen of the Tomdispatch website), The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire, has just been published. This new TD book focuses on subjects uncovered or poorly covered in the mainstream these last mad years -- you know the ones -- and is filled with Tomdispatch classics from your favorite site authors. I'll officially launch the book with Tuesday's post. In the meantime, I wanted to let those of you in New York City know that Book Culture (536 West 112th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam) is hosting an event at 7pm on Wednesday June 11th -- to be covered by C- SPAN -- in honor of the book's publication. (Check it out by clicking here.) Tomdispatch regular Michael Schwartz and I will talk about the book, what the mainstream media doesn't cover, and the situation in Iraq. I hope some of you -- certainly, anyone interested in a signed copy of The World According to TomDispatch -- will consider coming.] At least once a week -- I've long suspected -- the Chinese leadership must file into the streets of Beijing's Forbidden City to sing, dance, and pray to the (geo)political gods who drew the Bush administration into the black (gold) hole of Iraq. Without Iraq, we would undoubtedly have heard a great deal more these last years about the "China threat" from the neocons. Without Iraq, Latin America, too, would undoubtedly be a very different place. Some years ago, it was evident that both former Cold War superpowers were losing control over what the Russians liked to term their "near abroad" (the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia) and Americans preferred to call their "backyard" (Latin America). Despite mutterings about, and a coup attempt against, Hugo Ch?vez (and another against Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide), Latin America has, since 2001, experienced as close to benign neglect from Washington as might be imaginable. In those years, new regional blocs have begun to form, the most surprising of which may be a growing set of left-leaning democracies in Latin America determined to pursue their own collective interests whatever the Bush administration has in mind. As Russia rose from the ashes as an energy superpower and began to use its control over natural gas to put renewed pressure on parts of its former "near abroad," a distracted U.S. has remained somewhat laggard about the state of its backyard. It's worth noting, however, that the Pentagon has just officially reconstituted the "U.S. Fourth Fleet" -- for the Caribbean and the coasts of Central and South America -- "after nearly a 60-year slumber." As of now, it remains a symbolic gesture meant, as Rear Admiral James Stevenson has said, to send "the right signal, even to the people that you know aren't necessarily our greatest supporters." As for just whose backyard, if anyone's, Latin America will prove to be in the years to come, let Greg Grandin, author of that indispensable book on the American imperial role in Latin America, Empire's Workshop, take up the topic with his usual intelligence. Tom Losing Latin America What Will the Obama Doctrine Be Like? By Greg Grandin Google "neglect," "Washington," and "Latin America," and you will be led to thousands of hand-wringing calls from politicians and pundits for Washington to "pay more attention" to the region. True, Richard Nixon once said that "people don't give one shit" about the place. And his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger quipped that Latin America is a "dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica." But Kissinger also made that same joke about Chile, Argentina, and New Zealand -- and, of the three countries, only the latter didn't suffer widespread political murder as a result of his policies, a high price to pay for such a reportedly inconsequential place. Latin America, in fact, has been indispensable in the evolution of U.S. diplomacy. The region is often referred to as America's "backyard," but a better metaphor might be Washington's "strategic reserve," the place where ascendant foreign-policy coalitions regroup and redraw the outlines of U.S. power, following moments of global crisis. When the Great Depression had the U.S. on the ropes, for example, it was in Latin America that New Deal diplomats worked out the foundations of liberal multilateralism, a diplomatic framework that Washington would put into place with much success elsewhere after World War II. In the 1980s, the first generation of neocons turned to Latin America to play out their "rollback" fantasies -- not just against Communism, but against a tottering multilateralist foreign-policy. It was largely in a Central America roiled by left-wing insurgencies that the New Right first worked out the foundational principles of what, after 9/11, came to be known as the Bush Doctrine: the right to wage war unilaterally in highly moralistic terms. We are once again at a historic crossroads. An ebbing of U.S. power -- this time caused, in part, by military overreach -- faces a mobilized Latin America; and, on the eve of regime change at home, with George W. Bush's neoconservative coalition in ruins after eight years of disastrous rule, would-be foreign policy makers are once again looking south. Goodbye to All That "The era of the United States as the dominant influence in Latin America is over," says the Council on Foreign Relations, in a new report filled with sober policy suggestions for ways the U.S. can recoup its waning influence in a region it has long claimed as its own. Latin America is now mostly governed by left or center-left governments that differ in policy and style -- from the populism of Hugo Ch?vez in Venezuela to the reformism of Luiz In?cio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Michelle Bachelet in Chile. Yet all share a common goal: asserting greater autonomy from the United States. Latin Americans are now courting investment from China, opening markets in Europe, dissenting from Bush's War on Terror, stalling the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, and sidelining the International Monetary Fund which, over the last couple of decades, has served as a stalking horse for Wall Street and the Treasury Department. And they are electing presidents like Ecuador's Rafael Correa, who recently announced that his government would not renew the soon-to- expire lease on Manta Air Field, the most prominent U.S. military base in South America. Correa had previously suggested that, if Ecuador could set up its own base in Florida, he would consider extending the lease. When Washington balked, he offered Manta to a Chinese concession, suggesting that the airfield be turned into "China's gateway to Latin America." In the past, such cheek would have been taken as a clear violation of the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823 by President James Monroe, who declared that Washington would not permit Europe to recolonize any part of the Americas. In 1904, Theodore Roosevelt updated the doctrine to justify a series of Caribbean invasions and occupations. And Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan invoked it to validate Cold War CIA-orchestrated coups and other covert operations. But things have changed. "Latin America is not Washington's to lose," the Council on Foreign Relations report says, "nor is it Washington's to save." The Monroe Doctrine, it declares, is "obsolete." Good news for Latin America, one would think. But the last time someone from the Council on Foreign Relations, which since its founding in 1921 has represented mainstream foreign-policy opinion, declared the Monroe Doctrine defunct, the result was genocide. Enter the Liberal Establishment That would be Sol Linowitz who, in 1975, as chair of the Commission on United States-Latin American Relations, said that the Monroe Doctrine was "inappropriate and irrelevant to the changed realities and trends of the future." The little-remembered Linowitz Commission was made up of respected scholars and businessmen from what was then called the "liberal establishment." It was but one part of a broader attempt by America's foreign-policy elite to respond to the cascading crises of the 1970s -- defeat in Vietnam, rising third-world nationalism, Asian and European competition, skyrocketing energy prices, a falling dollar, the Watergate scandal, and domestic dissent. Confronted with a precipitous collapse of America's global legitimacy, the Council on Foreign Relations, along with other mainline think tanks like the Brookings Institute and the newly formed Trilateral Commission, offered a series of proposals that might help the U.S. stabilize its authority, while allowing for "a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system." There was widespread consensus among the intellectuals and corporate leaders affiliated with these institutions that the kind of anticommunist zeal that had marched the U.S. into the disaster in Vietnam needed to be tamped down, and that "new forms of common management" between Washington, Europe, and Japan had to be worked out. Advocates for a calmer world order came from the same corporate bloc that underwrote the Democratic Party and the Rockefeller-wing of the Republican Party. They hoped that a normalization of global politics would halt, if not reverse, the erosion of the U.S. economic position. Military de- escalation would free up public revenue for productive investment, while containing inflationary pressures (which scared the bond managers of multinational banks). Improved relations with the Communist bloc would open the USSR, Eastern Europe, and China to trade and investment. There was also general agreement that Washington should stop viewing Third World socialism through the prism of the Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union. At that moment throughout Latin America, leftists and nationalists were -- as they are now -- demanding a more equitable distribution of global wealth. Lest radicalization spread, the Trilateral Commission's executive director Zbignew Brzezinski, soon to be President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, argued that it would be "wise for the United States to make an explicit move to abandon the Monroe Doctrine." The Linowitz Commission agreed and offered a series of recommendations to that effect -- including the return of the Panama Canal to Panama and a decrease in U.S. military aid to the region -- that would largely define Carter's Latin American policy. Exit the Liberal Establishment Of course, it was not corporate liberalism but rather a resurgent and revanchist militarism from the Right that turned out to offer the most cohesive and, for a time, successful solution to the crises of the 1970s. Uniting a gathering coalition of old-school law-and-order anticommunists, first generation neoconservatives, and newly empowered evangelicals, the New Right organized an ever metastasizing set of committees, foundations, institutes, and magazines that focused on specific issues -- the SALT II nuclear disarmament negotiations, the Panama Canal Treaty, and the proposed MX missile system, as well as U.S. policy in Cuba, South Africa, Rhodesia, Israel, Taiwan, Afghanistan, and Central America. All of them were broadly committed to avenging defeat in Vietnam (and the "stab in the back" by the liberal media and the public at home). They were also intent on restoring righteous purpose to American diplomacy. As had corporate liberals, so, now, neoconservative intellectuals looked to Latin America to hone their ideas. President Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, for instance, focused mainly on Latin America in laying out the foundational principles of modern neoconservative thought. She was particularly hard on Linowitz, who, she said, represented the "disinterested internationalist spirit" of "appeasement" -- a word back with us again. His report, she insisted, meant "abandoning the strategic perspective which has shaped U.S. policy from the Monroe Doctrine down to the eve of the Carter administration, at the center of which was a conception of the national interest and a belief in the moral legitimacy of its defense." At first, Brookings, the Council on Foreign Affairs, and the Trilateral Commission, as well as the Business Roundtable, founded in 1972 by the cr?me de la CEO cr?me, opposed the push to remilitarize American society; but, by the late 1970s, it was clear that "normalization" had failed to solve the global economic crisis. Europe and Japan were not cooperating in stabilizing the dollar, and the economies of Eastern Europe, the USSR, and China were too anemic to absorb sufficient amounts of U.S. capital or serve as profitable trading partners. Throughout the 1970s, financial houses like the Rockefellers' Chase Manhattan Bank had become engorged with petrodollars deposited by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and other oil- exporting nations. They needed to do something with all that money, yet the U.S. economy remained sluggish, and much of the Third World off limits. So, after Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential victory, mainstream policymakers and intellectuals, many of them self-described liberals, increasingly came to back the Reagan Revolution's domestic and foreign agenda: gutting the welfare state, ramping up defense spending, opening up the Third World to U.S. capital, and jumpstarting the Cold War. A decade after the Linowitz Commission proclaimed the Monroe Doctrine no longer viable, Ronald Reagan invoked it to justify his administration's patronage of murderous anti-communists in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. A few years after Jimmy Carter announced that the U.S. had broken "free of that inordinate fear of communism," Reagan quoted John F. Kennedy saying, "Communist domination in this hemisphere can never be negotiated." Reagan's illegal patronage of the Contras -- those murderers he hailed as the "moral equivalent of America's founding fathers" and deployed to destabilize Nicaragua's Sandinista government -- and his administration's funding of death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala brought together, for the first time, the New Right's two main constituencies. Neoconservatives provided Reagan's revival of the imperial presidency with legal and intellectual justification, while the religious Right backed up the new militarism with grassroots energy. This partnership was first built -- just as it has more recently been continued in Iraq -- on a mountain of mutilated corpses: 40,000 Nicaraguans and 70,000 El Salvadorans killed by U.S. allies; 200,000 Guatemalans, many of them Mayan peasants, victimized in a scorched- earth campaign the UN would rule to be genocidal. The End of the Neocon Holiday from History The recent Council on Foreign Relations report on Latin America, arriving as it does in another moment of imperial decline, seems once again to signal a new emerging consensus, one similar in tone to that of the post-Vietnam 1970s. In every dimension other than military, Newsweek editor Fareed Zacharia argues in his new book, The Post- American World, "the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from American dominance." (Never mind that, just five years ago, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, he was insisting on the exact opposite -- that we now lived in a "unipolar world" where America's position was, and would be, "unprecedented.") To borrow a phrase from their own lexicon, the neocons' "holiday from history" is over. The fiasco in Iraq, the fall in the value of the dollar, the rise of India and China as new industrial and commercial powerhouses, and of Russia as an energy superpower, the failure to secure the Middle East, soaring oil and gas prices (as well as skyrocketing prices for other key raw materials and basic foodstuffs), and the consolidation of a prosperous Europe have all brought their dreams of global supremacy crashing down. Barack Obama is obviously the candidate best positioned to walk the U.S. back from the edge of irrelevance. Though no one hoping for a job in his White House would put it in such defeatist terms, the historic task of the next president will not be to win this president's Global War on Terror, but to negotiate America's reentry into a community of nations. Parag Khanna, an Obama advisor, recently argued that, by maximizing its cultural and technological advantage, the U.S. can, with a little luck, perhaps secure a position as third partner in a new tripartite global order in which Europe and Asia would have equal shares, a distinct echo of the trilateralist position of the 1970s. (Forget those Munich analogies, if the U.S. electorate were more historically literate, Republicans would get better mileage out of branding Obama not Neville Chamberlain, but Spain's Fernando VII or Britain's Clement Richard Attlee, each of whom presided over his country's imperial decline.) So it has to be asked: If Obama wins in November and tries to implement a more rational, less ideologically incandescent deployment of American power -- perhaps using Latin America as a staging ground for a new policy -- would it once again provoke the kind of nationalist backlash that purged Rockefellerism from the Republican Party, swept Jimmy Carter out of the White House, and armed the death squads in Central America? Certainly, there are already plenty of feverish conservative think tanks, from the Hudson Institute to the Heritage Foundation, that would double down on Bush's crusades as a way out of the current mess. But in the 1970s, the New Right was in ascendance; today, it is visibly decomposing. Then, it could lay responsibility for the deep and prolonged crisis that gripped the United States at the feet of the "establishment," while offering solutions -- an arms build-up, a renewed push into the Third World, and free-market fundamentalism -- that drew much of that establishment into its orbit. Today, the Right wholly owns the current crisis, along with its most immediate cause, the Iraq War. Even if John McCain were able to squeak out a win in November, he would be the functional equivalent not of Reagan, who embodied a movement on the march, but of Jimmy Carter, trying desperately to hold a fraying coalition together. The Right's decay as an intellectual force is nowhere more evident than in the fits it throws in the face of the Left's -- or China's -- advances in Latin America. The self-confidant vitality with which Jeane Kirkpatrick used Latin America to skewer the Carter administration has been replaced with the tinny, desperate shrill of despair. "Who lost Latin America?" asks the Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney -- of pretty much everyone he meets. The region, he says, is now a "magnet for Islamist terrorists and a breeding ground for hostile political movements? The key leader is Ch?vez, the billionaire dictator of Venezuela who has declared a Latino jihad against the United States." Scare-Quote Diplomacy But just because the Right is unlikely to unfurl its banner over Latin America again soon doesn't mean that U.S. hemispheric diplomacy will be demilitarized. After all, it was Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, who, at the behest of Lockheed Martin in 1997, reversed a Carter administration ban (based on Linowitz report recommendations) on the sale of high-tech weaponry to Latin America. That, in turn, kicked off a reckless and wasteful Southern Cone arms race. And it was Clinton, not Bush, who dramatically increased military aid to the murderous Colombian government and to corporate mercenaries like Blackwater and Dyncorp, further escalating the misguided U.S. "war on drugs" in Latin America. In fact, a quick comparison between the Linowitz report and the new Council on Foreign Relations study on Latin America provides a sobering way of measuring just how far right the "liberal establishment" has shifted over the last three decades. The Council does admirably advise Washington to normalize relations with Cuba and engage with Venezuela, while downplaying the possibility of "Islamic terrorists" using the area as a staging ground -- a longstanding fantasy of the neocons. (Douglas Feith, former Pentagon undersecretary, suggested that, after 9/11, the U.S. hold off invading Afghanistan and instead bomb Paraguay, which has a large Shi'ite community, just to "surprise" the Sunni al-Qaeda.) Yet, where the Linowitz report provoked the ire of the likes of Jeane Kirkpatrick by writing that the U.S. should not try to "define the limits of ideological diversity for other nations" and that Latin Americans "can and will assess for themselves the merits and disadvantages of the Cuban approach," the Council is much less open- minded. It insists on presenting Venezuela as a problem the U.S. needs to address -- even though the government in Caracas is recognized as legitimate by all and is considered an ally, even a close one, by most Latin American countries. Latin Americans may "know what is best for themselves," as the new report concedes, yet Washington still knows better, and so should back "social justice" issues as a means to win Venezuelans and other Latin Americans away from Ch?vez. That the Council report regularly places "social justice" between scare quotes suggests that the phrase is used more as a marketing ploy -- kind of like "New Coke" -- than to signal that U.S. banks and corporations are willing to make substantive concessions to Latin American nationalists. Seven decades ago, Franklin Roosevelt supported the right of Latin American countries to nationalize U.S. interests, including Standard Oil holdings in Bolivia and Mexico, saying it was time for others in the hemisphere to get their "fair share." Three decades ago, the Linowitz Commission recommended the establishment of a "code of conduct" defining the responsibilities of foreign corporations in the region and recognizing the right of governments to nationalize industries and resources. The Council, in contrast, sneers at Ch?vez's far milder efforts to create joint ventures with oil multinationals, while offering nothing but pablum in its place. Its centerpiece recommendation -- aimed at cultivating Brazil as a potential anchor of a post-Bush, post- Ch?vez hemispheric order -- urges the abolition of subsidies and tariffs protecting U.S. agro-industry in order to advance a "Biofuel Partnership" with Brazil's own behemoth agricultural sector. This would be an environmental disaster, pushing large, mechanized plantations ever deeper into the Amazon basin, while doing nothing to generate decent jobs or distribute wealth more fairly. Dominated by representatives from the finance sector of the U.S. economy, the Council recommends little beyond continuing the failed corporate "free trade" policies of the last twenty years -- and, in this case, those scare quotes are justified because what they're advocating is about as free as corporate "social justice" is just. An Obama Doctrine? So far, Barack Obama promises little better. A few weeks ago, he traveled to Miami and gave a major address on Latin America to the Cuban American National Foundation. It was hardly an auspicious venue for a speech that promised to "engage the people of the region with the respect owed to a partner." Surely, the priorities for humane engagement would have been different had he been addressing not wealthy right-wing Cuban exiles but an audience, say, of the kinds of Latino migrants in Los Angeles who have revitalized the U.S. labor movement, or of Central American families in Postville, Iowa, where immigration and Justice Department authorities recently staged a massive raid on a meatpacking plant, arresting as many as 700 undocumented workers. Obama did call for comprehensive immigration reform and promised to fulfill Franklin Roosevelt's 68 year-old Four Freedoms agenda, including the social- democratic "freedom from want." Yet he spent much of his speech throwing red meat to his Cuban audience. Ignoring the not-exactly-radical advice of the Council on Foreign Relations, the candidate pledged to maintain the embargo on Cuba. And then he went further. Sounding a bit like Frank Gaffney, he all but accused the Bush administration of "losing Latin America" and allowing China, Europe, and "demagogues like Hugo Ch?vez" to step "into the vacuum." He even raised the specter of Iranian influence in the region, pointing out that "just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits." Whatever one's opinion on Hugo Ch?vez, any diplomacy that claims to take Latin American opinion seriously has to acknowledge one thing: Most of the region's leaders not only don't see him as a "problem," but have joined him on major economic and political initiatives like the Bank of the South, an alternative to the International Monetary Fund and the Union of South American Nations, modeled on the European Union, established just two weeks ago. And any U.S. president who is sincere in wanting to help Latin Americans liberate themselves from "want" will have to work with the Latin American left -- in all its varieties. But more ominous than Obama's posturing on Venezuela is his position on Colombia. Critics have long pointed out that the billions of dollars in military aid provided to the Colombian security forces to defeat the FARC insurgency and curtail cocaine production would discourage a negotiated end to the civil war in that country and potentially provoke its escalation into neighboring Andean lands. That's exactly what happened last March, when Colombia's president Alvaro Uribe ordered the bombing of a rebel camp located in Ecuador (possibly with U.S. logistical support supplied from Manta Air Force Base, which gives you an idea of why Correa wants to give it to China). To justify the raid, Uribe explicitly invoked the Bush Doctrine's right of preemptive, unilateral action. In response, Ecuador and Venezuela began to mobilize troops along their border with Colombia, bringing the region to the precipice of war. Most interestingly, in that conflict, an overwhelming majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries sided with Venezuela and Ecuador, categorically condemning the Colombian raid and reaffirming the sovereignty of individual nations recognized by Franklin Roosevelt long ago. Not Obama, however. He essentially endorsed the Bush administration's drive to transform Colombia's relations with its Andean neighbors into the one Israel has with most of the Middle East. In his Miami speech, he swore that he would "support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who seek safe-havens across its borders." Equally troublesome has been Obama's endorsement of the controversial Merida Initiative, which human rights groups like Amnesty International have condemned as an application of the "Colombian solution" to Mexico and Central America, providing their militaries and police with a massive infusion of money to combat drugs and gangs. Crime is indeed a serious problem in these countries, and deserves considered attention. It's chilling, however, to have Colombia -- where death-squads now have infiltrated every level of government, and where union and other political activists are executed on a regular basis -- held up as a model for other parts of Latin America. Obama, however, not only supports the initiative, but wants to expand it beyond Mexico and Central America. "We must press further south as well," he said in Miami. It seems that once again that, as in the 1970s, reports of the death of the Monroe Doctrine are greatly exaggerated. Greg Grandin teaches history at New York University. He is the author of Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism and The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 10:05:29 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:05:29 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Economists' Letter on Offshore Drilling and Talking to Iran Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Naiman Date: Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM Subject: [ufpj-iran] Economists' Letter on Offshore Drilling and Talking to Iran Just Foreign Policy is circulating the following letter. If you know any economists who might like to sign it, please pass it along to them. ---- please send signatures to naiman at justforeignpolicy.org, with subject line: sign economists letter. please include some affiliation broadly consistent with the notion of "economists' letter." deadline: end of day Friday August 15. Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org ------ [date] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi House Minority Leader John Boehner Dear Senators Reid and McConnell and Representatives Pelosi and Boehner, As economists, we write out of concern that you are being pressured to lift the Congressional ban on most oil drilling off our coasts, despite the fact that this would do nothing in the short term and almost nothing in the long term to reduce gas prices. Simpler measures that don't threaten our environment would do much more. The federal government's Energy Information Administration projects that this would have no impact on gas prices in the near-term since it will be close to a decade before the first oil could be extracted. The EIA projects production would reach 200,000 barrels a day at peak production. It describes this amount as too small to have any significant effect on oil prices, even when production is at its peak. [1] If the US had raised auto fuel efficiency standards between 1985-2005 by a quarter of the amount it raised them annually from 1980-1985, instead of leaving them virtually unchanged, the result would roughly have been the equivalent of 3.3 million barrels of oil per day in new production,16 times the projected impact of offshore drilling. [2] It is reasonable to assume that modest increases in fuel efficiency in the future would have a similar effect. If we negotiated an agreement with Iran that led to the lifting of US sanctions, oil production in Iran could increase 1-2 million barrels a day. That would be 5-10 times the projected impact of drilling off our coasts. U.S. oil companies are not doing all they can do boost production. In May, the Washington Post reported that Exxon had spent $8 billion buying back shares in the first quarter as a way to boost the value of the stock for shareholders. That far exceeded the company's $5.5 billion capital spending budget.[3] In 2006, Exxon spent $25 billion buying back its stock, again more than its capital spending budget. [4] The industry spent $52.4 billion on stock buybacks in 2006, nearly double the amount in 2005. [5] It would be far better to pursue modest conservation and negotiations with Iran, having the effect of bringing 20-25 times as much oil on the market, rather than endanger tourism, fishing, and beaches on our coasts for a long-term effect on gas prices that we won't even notice. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Michael Perelman, Economics Dept., California State University, Chico Jim Devine, Economics Dept., Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles Hadi Esfahani, Economics Dept. University of Illinois, Urbana Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington Rudy Fichtenbaum, Economics Dept., Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio Michael Brun, Economics Dept., Illinois State University, Bloomington-Normal Hank Leland, Research Analyst, SEIU, Washington References: [1] "Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030," Energy Information Administration, February 2007, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/issues.html [2] " Offshore Drilling and Energy Conservation: The Relative Impact on Gas Prices," Dean Baker and Nichole Szembrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2008, http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/offshore_drilling_2008_06.pdf [3] "Up $10.9 Billion, Exxon Worries About New Tax," Steven Mufson, Washington Post, May 2 2008. [4] "Higher Oil Prices Help Exxon Again Set Record Profit, " Steven Mufson, Washington Post, February 2, 2007. [5] "Big Companies Put Record Sums Into Buybacks," Ian McDonald,. Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2006. From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Aug 8 11:40:18 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:40:18 -0700 Subject: [R-G] U.S. Escalates in Afghanistan Message-ID: <1C6A9396-C099-42F4-BBAD-90B98858211C@shaw.ca> U.S. endorses $20 billion bid to aid Afghans By Thom Shanker Friday, August 8, 2008 http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=15099606 WASHINGTON: Defense Secretary Robert Gates will endorse a $20 billion plan to substantially increase the size of Afghanistan's army and will also restructure the military command of American and NATO forces in response to the growing Taliban threat, senior Pentagon and military officials said Thursday. Taken together, the two decisions are an acknowledgment of shortcomings that continue to hinder NATO- and American-led operations in Afghanistan. With the war in Iraq still an obstacle to any immediate American troop increase in Afghanistan, the plan was described by officials as an attempt to increase allied and Afghan capabilities in advance of deploying the additional American brigades that Gates and his commanders agree are necessary. The additional American troops are unlikely to be available until next year. Under a plan initially proposed by the Afghan government and now endorsed by Gates, the Afghan National Army will nearly double in size over the next five years, to more than 120,000 active-duty troops. Such a large increase would not be possible without American funds, which will pay for trainers and for equipment, food and housing for Afghan forces. But Pentagon officials said that Gates would seek contributions from allies to help underwrite the $20 billion cost over five years. In a closely related decision, Gates plans to reshape a command structure that has divided the NATO and American missions in Afghanistan, a system now viewed as unwieldy in the face of increasing insurgent violence, senior Pentagon and military officials said. Under an order expected to be signed by Gates before the end of August, General David McKiernan, the four-star army officer who leads the 45,000-member NATO force, would be given command of most of the 19,000 American troops who have operated separately. (The NATO force already includes about 15,000 other Americans.) The moves come nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, a conflict that has claimed more than 500 American lives. The last two months have been among the deadliest in Afghanistan for American forces, who are trying to contend with a sharp increase in attacks by Taliban militants, some of them staged with support from insurgents based in the remote tribal areas of neighboring Pakistan. Pentagon officials say they hope the creation of a more unified command structure under McKiernan will help to coordinate all forces in Afghanistan ? most notably American units near the Pakistani border in eastern Afghanistan, which have operated independently of the NATO- led force in charge in southern Afghanistan. "General McKiernan is in the best possible position to most efficiently and effectively deploy all of the resources to the benefit of the overall mission," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. "This creates one commander in country and in charge of all forces, and establishes a structure to deploy them as best suits the mission and to improve synchronization among all military assets." In the months ahead, NATO and the United States will nevertheless continue to pursue somewhat different missions in Afghanistan, Pentagon officials said, and the new command structure will not result in a merger of the two missions. NATO took command of the nationwide mission to stabilize Afghanistan in 2006. The allies expected to face little direct combat and to focus on reconstruction and on maintaining security in areas that were relatively calm. In contrast, the American-led mission in Afghanistan has focused from the start of the war on combat operations to capture or kill insurgents and terrorists, as well as on training Afghan security forces, counter-insurgency and reconstruction. Although the situation has significantly changed, some allied units operate under strict constraints placed by their home governments that prevent them from participating in certain kinds of combat missions, which American officials have said is a major obstacle to beating back the Taliban. Pentagon policy makers said one goal of the command restructuring would be to allow the movement of American and allied troops ? including the British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers who participate in a full range of combat missions ? to support one another in a more seamless fashion. It remains unclear if the change will persuade the militaries operating under restrictions to take on additional battlefield responsibilities. Because of the constraints on allied forces, Pentagon officials said, two kinds of missions will remain under a separate American command: running prisons and counterterrorism operations to capture or kill high-value Taliban and Qaeda leaders. Many of those counterterrorism missions are classified, so it is not publicly known how many troops will remain under American command. The command reorganization implies that an American officer will be in charge of the NATO and American missions for the foreseeable future. The restructuring would also be intended to streamline the American- led training mission, which to a large extent has been outside the NATO structure. But Pentagon and military officials said the new approach was crafted with attention to the sensitivities of NATO allies, and Gates and other officials consulted with the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, and with the governments that have the largest number of troops in Afghanistan. Gates has pledged that the United States will work to send up to two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan next year, a force that would number 6,000 to 10,000 troops. Previously, the goal had been to expand the Afghan Army to 80,000 from 63,000 troops, and funds had already been allocated for that. The $20 billion will pay for the additional increase in soldiers. Pentagon officials expect that they will need an estimated $5 billion per year for the first three years of the expansion, and then about $3 billion for each of the final two years of the expansion. The United States will work with allies to help pay for the effort, Morrell said. Any new American money for the expanded Afghan Army, or proposals to divert money currently in the budget to that effort, would have to be approved by Congress. More Articles in World ? A version of this article appeared in print on August 8, 2008, on page A1 of the New York edition. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 8 11:56:17 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:56:17 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The President's State: A short Story Message-ID: <200808081756.m78HuHBa003742@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080808/bd97793a/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 8 11:54:58 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:54:58 -0700 Subject: [R-G] An Israeli Jew in Gaza Message-ID: <200808081754.m78HswYt001395@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080808/a76e76e0/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 8 11:53:56 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:53:56 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The lies of Hiroshima live on Message-ID: <200808081753.m78HruNh029626@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080808/7c5f569c/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 8 11:57:01 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:57:01 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The mask of altruism disguising a colonial war Message-ID: <200808081757.m78Hv19N004862@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080808/16acf10b/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Aug 8 11:57:32 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:57:32 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Cubas reforms Message-ID: <200808081757.m78HvWtM005811@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080808/37fe8d9b/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 12:29:07 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 14:29:07 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia, Georgia, Iraq, and Turkey Message-ID: Putin Says `War Has Started,' Georgia Claims Invasion (Update4) By Torrey Clark and Greg Walters Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said ``war has started'' over the breakaway region of South Ossetia as Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili accused its neighbor of a ``well-planned invasion.'' Saakashvili said in a Bloomberg Television interview that his nation of 4.6 million people is ``fighting to secure its borders'' amid a ``full-blown military aggression'' involving thousands of Russian troops. Aerial bombings and wide-spread fighting in and around the region killed an unknown number of civilians and wounded ``scores'' more, Saakashvili said. Putin earlier today told U.S. President George W. Bush in Beijing that ``volunteers'' were pouring over the border to help defend South Ossetia from Georgian forces, according to Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. ``War started today in South Ossetia'' when Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers in the disputed region, Putin said. The Defense Ministry later said it deployed ``reinforcements'' in the region. The ruble dropped the most against the dollar in 8 1/2 years and Russian stocks tumbled today on concern the conflict will worsen. The U.K., European Union and NATO, which Georgia is seeking to join, all called on both sides to end hostilities. The U.S. called for an immediate cease-fire. Bush supports the ``territorial integrity'' of Georgia, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. ``We urge all parties, Georgians, South Ossetians and Russians, to de-escalate the tension and avoid conflict,'' Perino said in a statement from Beijing, where Bush and Putin attended the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. ``We are working on mediation efforts to secure a cease fire and we are urging the parties to restart their dialogue.'' `NATO Hopes' ``Georgia's immediate NATO hopes have all but evaporated,'' Dominic Fean, a researcher at IFRI, the French Institute of International Affairs, said by telephone. ``Countries like Germany and France were already resistant to the idea of giving a NATO security guarantee to a country with an open dispute with Russia. I can't see how they can get the consensus of 26 states anytime soon.'' South Ossetia, which has a population of about 70,000 and is less than half the size of Kosovo, broke away from U.S.-backed Georgia in the early 1990s and now is a de facto independent state with Russian peacekeepers and economic support. The peacekeepers are deployed under a Commonwealth of Independent States mandate. ``We will not allow the deaths of our compatriots to go unpunished,'' Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, 42, said on state television after the Interfax news service said Russian troops were killed in Georgian shelling of a barracks and checkpoint. ``The guilty will get the punishment they deserve.'' Iraq Pullout Georgia called today for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on South Ossetia. ``We've been encouraging everyone involved and every international party to engage in talks for years, months, days, hours,'' Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze said by telephone. ``What we get is another column of Russian tanks.'' Georgia, the third-largest member of the allied coalition in Iraq after the U.S. and U.K., will bring home half of its 2,000 soldiers from the Middle East country in the next few days, Kakha Lomaia, head of Georgia's Security Council, said by telephone. The Georgian contingent is stationed in Al-Khut, 185 kilometers (114 miles) southeast of Baghdad. Fighting escalated throughout the day, with Russian planes dropping four bombs on the Vaziani military base, which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization uses for training, Lomaia said. The base is about 15 kilometers from the Georgian capital. Russian Tanks Georgian forces have shot down three Russian planes since the fighting began, Lomaia said. Russia earlier bombed two Georgian towns, Gori and Kareli, he said. Russia's Foreign Ministry denied the bombing claim. The Defense Ministry denied losing aircraft. Russian troops occupied parts of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said by telephone. Russian television showed tanks heading over the border to South Ossetia from the Russian region of North Ossetia at about 3:30 p.m. Moscow time. ``We find ourselves in a situation similar to where the Czechs were in 1968, to where the Hungarians found themselves in 1956,'' Lomaia said. ``All we can do is defend our freedom.'' Georgia last month increased the size of its military to 37,000 soldiers and today Saakashvili called up reservists and urged the nation to defend ``every meter'' of land. Russia has a standing army of about 1.1 million. `Energy Corridor' ``Fighting continues,'' Russian Major General Marat Kulakhmetov, commander of Russia's peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia, said by mobile phone. The peacekeepers have suffered casualties, although it's too early to say how many, he said. Georgia is a key link in a U.S.-backed ``southern energy corridor'' that links the Caspian Sea region with world markets, bypassing Russia, the world's biggest energy producer. Two pipelines pass through the country linking Azerbaijan and Turkey. The BP Plc-led Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which has been closed since Aug. 5 due to an explosion in Turkey, runs about 100 kilometers south of the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. The most recent violence in the region erupted on Aug. 1, when South Ossetia said Georgian shelling of the regional capital Tskhinvali claimed six lives. Georgia said South Ossetian forces sparked the fighting. ``The conflict might be short and hot, but my sense is that neither party wants a prolonged conflict,'' said Michael Denison, associate fellow at London-based research group Chatham House and a professor of international security at the University of Leeds. The EU, in a statement today expressed ``grave concern'' about the fighting and said it is ``working toward a cease fire.'' To contact the reporters on this story: Greg Walters in Moscow gwalters1 at bloomberg.net; Torrey Clark in Moscow at tclark8 at bloomberg.net Last Updated: August 8, 2008 13:02 EDT Georgia and Russia are careening towards war. And the U.S. isn't exactly a detached observer in the fight. The American military has been training and equipping Georgian troops for years. The news thus far: Georgia, which has been locked in a drone war over the separatist enclave of Abkhazia, has launched an offensive to reclaim another breakaway territory, South Ossetia. Latest reports indicate that Georgian forces are laying siege to Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital. And Russia, which has backed the separatists, is sending in the tanks. So why should we care? Oh, just the prospect of a larger regional war that could drag in Russia ? and involve the United States as well. Since early 2002, the U.S. government has given a healthy amount of military aid to Georgia. When I last visited Tskhinvali, Georgian troops patrolled the streets -- decked out in surplus U.S. Army uniforms and new body armor. The first U.S. aid came under the rubric of the Georgia Train and Equip Program (ostensibly to counter alleged Al Qaeda influence in the Pankisi Gorge); then, under the Sustainment and Stability Operations Program. Georgia returned the favor, committing thousands of troops to the multi-national coalition in Iraq. Last fall, the Georgians doubled their contingent, making them the third-largest contributor to the coalition. Not bad for a nation of 4.6 million people. Leaving aside the question of Russian interference (see below), the larger concern has been that Georgia might be tempted to use its newfound military prowess to resolve domestic conflicts by force. As Sergei Shamba, the foreign affairs minister of Abkhazia, told me in 2006: "The Georgians are euphoric because they have been equipped, trained, that they have gained military experience in Iraq. It feeds this revanchist mood. ? How can South Ossetia be demilitarized, when all of Georgia is bristling with weaponry, and it's only an hour's ride by tank from Tbilisi to Tskhinvali?" One of the U.S. military trainers put it to me a bit more bluntly. "We're giving them the knife," he said. "Will they use it?" Security Council fails to agree on statement on hostilities in South Ossetia 08/08/2008 The UN Security Council on Friday expressed concern about the worsening fighting in Georgia's breakaway enclave of South Ossetia, but could not agree on a statement urging the warring sides to renounce the use of force. Russia called an emergency session of the 15-nation council that began at 11.00 pm, Thursday, in New York with closed talks for two hours. The session continued with an open meeting and public speeches by Russia, Georgia and other council members for another hour. Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin (photo), says the key sticking point was "the reluctance" of some council members to accept a reference to the need for the warring parties "to renounce the use of force": "Some members of the Security Council were somehow reluctant to call on the parties including Georgia of course, to refrain from the use of force and we think that this is a very serious blunder of judgment, error of judgment and political blunder." The UN Security Council has scheduled consultations for Friday afternoon to discuss the situation in Georgia. It's the second time in the past 24 hours that the Council is meeting on that topic. This is Donn Bobb reporting for United Nations Radio. (duration: 1'03") From intnsred at golgotha.net Fri Aug 8 12:57:56 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:57:56 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia, Georgia, Iraq, and Turkey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200808081457.57154.intnsred@golgotha.net> Things like this are being repeated frequently by the US corporate mass media: > The U.S. called for an immediate cease-fire. Without uttering a word that it was the US that shot down a proposed UN Security Council resolution because the Russian-authored resolution called on all sides to refrain from violence. It's highly likely that the US okayed the Georgian attack. But now that Russia is seen as serious in its statement of a few days ago that it would respond to any Georgian attack, the US probably knows that Georgia will lose badly in an open conflict -- thus the call for a ceasefire. -- "When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil." -- Thomas Jefferson From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Aug 8 14:19:11 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:19:11 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Pentagon looks back to four great empires for tips on how to rule the world Message-ID: Don't Know Much About History Commentary: The Pentagon looks back to four great empires for tips on how to rule the world. By Justin Elliott August 4, 2008 http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2008/07/dont-know-much-about-history.html In the summer of 2002, the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA) published an 85-page monograph called "Military Advantage in History". Unusual for an office that is headed by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon's "futurist in chief," the study looks back to the past?way back. It examines four empires, or "pivotal hegemonic powers in history," to draw lessons about how the United States "should think about maintaining military advantage in the 21st century." Though unclassified, the study was held close to the vest; a stamp on the cover limits its dissemination without permission. Mother Jones obtained it only through a Freedom of Information Act request. Though the report is far from revelatory, it provides a window into a mindset that unselfconsciously envisions the United States as the successor to some of history's most powerful empires. The study looks a little like a high school text book, devoting chapters to Alexander the Great, Imperial Rome, Genghis Khan, and Napoleonic France and citing texts by Sun Tzu, Livy, and Jared Diamond. It attempts to break down exactly how historic empires sustained their military might across continents and even centuries. The study posits that the historical examples offer "insights into what drives U.S. military advantage," as well as "where U.S. vulnerabilities may lie, and how the United States should think about maintaining its military advantage in the future." There is no one secret to world domination, however. The Mongols' military advantage was rooted in their "tactical and operational superiority"; the Macedonians' in the "exceptional leadership" of and "cult of personality" surrounding Alexander the Great; Napoleon's in "innovative operational concepts" and "information superiority"; and the Romans' in "robust tactical doctrine" and "strong domestic institutions" which were "designed to incorporate conquered peoples as the empire grew." In an extraordinary passage, the study cites the Roman experience?from over a millennium ago?as a precedent for America's long-term dominance: "The Roman model suggests that it is possible for the United States to maintain its military advantage for centuries if it remains capable of transforming its forces before an opponent can develop counter-capabilities. Transformation coupled with strong strategic institutions is a powerful combination for an adversary to overcome." The report's language is jargon laden and opaque?a lance used by Macedonian horsemen is referred to as a "primary weapon system." That may be due to the methodology of "net assessment," a fancy term for the ONA's approach to analyzing complicated real-world situations that is rooted in systems analysis and game theory. Military author James Dunnigan compares it to engineering. "You take apart historical events, reassemble them as a simulation, and then tinker with the simulation until you can recreate the historical event accurately," he explains. "What that allows you to do is play out 'what if?' situations: What if Napoleon did this? What if Ghengis Khan did that?" While the study was produced under the auspices of the ONA, its five authors work for government intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, and they wrote the study as part of a contract for the Defense Department's Information Assurance Technology Analysis Center. Booz Allen won a 10-year, $200 million cost-plus contract to establish and "host" that center in 1998. (In May, the Carlyle Group announced it will be taking over Booz Allen's government services arm.) The original idea for the study predates the Bush administration. Mark Herman, the Booz Allen vice president and war-game designer who is the study's lead author, recalls being asked to give a presentation on historical empires at one of Andrew Marshall's famous "summer studies" at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1999. At that annual retreat, experts from government, academia, and beyond are invited to contemplate a big-picture question. Newt Gingrich, for example, participated in the 1999 program, according to Herman. He says that the ONA "liked the presentation so much they felt it should be written down" and expanded. A earlier version of the report, titled "Sustaining Military Dominance: Examples From Ancient History," was presented at the 2001 summer study and was later cited in a Maureen Dowd column. The current version was published a year later. Coming out of the Office of Net Assessment, the study's theme of military transformation is not surprising. Described by the Washington Post as "an obscure but highly influential unit," the ONA was established as an in-house think tank in 1973. Its founding director was Marshall, a strategist who achieved demigod status in the press after years of colorful profiles portraying him as a visionary. (A 2002 article in the New York Times Magazine named Marshall the "Yoda of the Rumsfeld Defense Department"; William Safire dubbed him "the freshest mind in the Puzzle Palace.") ONA specializes in trend spotting and forecasting military threats. The office spent the 1980s exhaustively studying the US-Soviet balance; recently, it has turned to topics as diverse as neuropharmacology, Islamic warfare, and the national security implications of climate change. Now in his 80s, Marshall has been a chief proponent of the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs, a cause also championed by Donald Rumsfeld that emphasizes speed and increased use of precision weapons and advanced communications technology. In 2001, Marshall was given a high-profile assignment by Rumsfeld to conduct an extensive review of the military and the possibilities of military transformation. Most striking is how the study conceives of the United States in imperial terms. "You'll see some neoconservatives at the beginning of the Bush administration crowing that 'we do have an empire, let's just come out of the closet and say we do,'" said Ivan Eland, the author of a book on America's "informal empire" and the director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute, on hearing a description of the study. "But the administration never did that because empire doesn't sell well with the public." After reviewing the study at Mother Jones' request, William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, said he was struck by its "arrogance and immorality." "The presumption that the United States should rule the world, sword at the ready, for the foreseeable future is an unacceptable basis for a just, even-handed foreign policy." Even coming from an office vaunted for its intellectual seriousness, "Military Advantage in History" often reads like it was meant as window dressing for the Revolution in Military Affairs agenda? sometimes at the expense of historical fact. (Herman says that the theme of transformation emerged naturally from his research.) After reviewing a section that identifies five discrete "transformations" of the Roman military over a period of 1,000 years, Lee Brice of Western Illinois University, president of the Society of Ancient Military Historians, described it as "so completely incorrect as to be useless." In general, Brice noted, "it is inappropriate to apply modern concepts of systems theory, doctrine, and strategy to ancient armies. That required a level of planning and centralization that simply did not exist." Eland speculates that a study like this would "get warped by the military-industrial-congressional complex into more money for weapons." Furthermore, he says, it ignores the economic implications of military expansion. "The Office of Net Assessment is doing this to show, 'Well, gee, these other empires transformed themselves, they were successful, we need to do the same thing,'" Eland says. "Well that's going to cost big bucks, and that will cause economic overstretch. People say it can't happen to us since we have such a big economy, but every empire has said that." It is unclear how the study has been used; the Office of Net Assessment declined a request for an interview. Herman says only that "a whole bunch of [copies] went out to the government." The idea that contemporary society can or should try to find direct guidance in the past has been assailed by some historians. The American historian Bernard Bailyn wrote of "an obvious kind of presentism, which at its worst becomes indoctrination by historical example." But the ONA study charges ahead, plumbing the past for contemporary lessons. An extraordinary color-coded table in the study's conclusion attempts to literally "map" the historical findings to the United States with an eye toward "enduring dominance." (See image above.) Several historians who reviewed the study differed on its quality and meaning. Walter Scheidel, a Stanford professor of classics and the coauthor of a forthcoming survey of ancient empires, called it "a successful distillation of relevant information and scholarship complemented by very interesting systematic analysis." Others found the scholarship to be shoddy and superficial. Pamela Crossley, a Dartmouth historian who teaches on the Mongols, described the chapter on Genghis Khan as mostly "an accumulation of popularly transmitted misconceptions." She also noted the study's "amazingly strange spelling 'Chengis.'" Brice, the ancient military historian, said the text suffered from "an intense, myopic habit of wanting to make the ancient world fit into modern stereotypes." He compares it with "much lower-undergraduate-level work." Justin Elliott, a former senior fellow at Mother Jones, is news editor at Talking Points Memo. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 16:23:38 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:23:38 -0400 Subject: [R-G] IRAQ: Sadr "Will Maintain Elite Fighting Units to Resist the Americans if a Timetable for the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops Is Not Established" Message-ID: Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr reorganizes militia By BUSHRA JUHI ? 3 hours ago BAGHDAD (AP) ? Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered most of his militiamen to disarm but said Friday he will maintain elite fighting units to resist the Americans if a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops is not established. Fighters in the Sunni-led insurgency, meanwhile, set off a car bomb at a market in the northern city of Tal Afar, killing 21 people and wounding dozens, Iraqi police said. It was the latest in a series of deadly attacks seeking to chip away at recent security gains. Al-Sadr's statement ? read to worshippers during Friday prayers in Baghdad's former militia stronghold of Sadr City ? was in line with details revealed earlier this week and appeared to be an extension of plans he announced in June aimed at asserting more control over the militia. "Weapons are to be exclusively in the hands of one group, the resistance group," while another group called Momahidoun is to focus on social, religious and community work, Sadrist cleric Mudhafar al-Moussawi said. He said the announcement was particularly aimed at members of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been blamed for some of the worst violence against American troops and rival Sunni Arabs. Thousands of worshippers streamed out into the streets after the Islamic service, burning an American flag and shouting: "No, no to America. No, no to occupation." The cleric has linked the reorganization of the Mahdi Army to U.S.-Iraqi negotiations over a long-term agreement that would extend the American presence in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year. Al-Sadr and his followers want the deal to include a timeframe for an American withdrawal and have warned they may not suspend operations without such a clause. Several cease-fires by al-Sadr have been key to a sharp decline in violence over the past year, along with a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and a U.S. troop buildup. But American officials still consider his militiamen a threat and have backed the Iraqi military in operations to try to oust them from their power bases in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. The fighting cells will be "small and limited" and will only launch attacks under direct orders from al-Sadr in case of "dire necessity," the cleric's spokesman, Sheik Salah al-Obeidi, told The Associated Press in the holy city of Najaf. He also ruled out attacks on Iraqis. "Now our stance is to watch the political developments and the security agreement. We will see if there will be a withdrawal timetable or not. We will wait for the results. These cells have not yet conducted any operations," he added. Two Iraqi officials close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have said government and U.S. negotiators are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that. The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were still under way. U.S. officials, however, insisted no dates had been agreed. "It's premature to say what the aspiration goals and time horizons are going to be," and a date for troop withdrawals will not be "plucked out of thin air," White House press secretary Dana Perino said, speaking to reporters in Beijing on Friday where President Bush is attending the Olympics. Throughout the conflict, Bush steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last month, however, Bush and al-Maliki agreed to set a "general time horizon" for ending the U.S. mission. The car bomb in Tal Afar exploded by a food market about 6:30 p.m., when the area was crowded with shoppers, police said. One official said Iraqi soldiers had searched the car at a checkpoint leading to the market but failed to notice the explosives. Two local officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information, gave the casualty toll as 21 dead and 72 wounded. The U.S. military confirmed the attack but said initial reports indicated 15 people were killed and 50 wounded. "I was standing near my cart when I heard a big explosion and I felt as if hell was in front of me," said Hussein Ali, a 15-year-old food vendor wounded in the head and legs. "The next thing I knew I was in the hospital receiving treatment," he said from his bed. Tal Afar, a predominantly Shiite Turkomen city 260 miles northwest of Baghdad, also was hit by a car bombing July 16 that killed at least 18 people, including seven children. U.S.-Iraqi military operations are currently under way pursuing al-Qaida in Iraq fighters and other insurgents in Mosul and elsewhere in the north. Ethnic tensions also have been rising between Turkomen, Arabs and Kurds in that region over the status of the oil city of Kirkuk. Kurdish leader Massoud al-Barzani visited Kirkuk on Friday and called for the rival factions "to have an open dialogue" to resolve their disagreement over sharing control of the city. His appeal came two days after the dispute blocked passage of a provincial elections law, casting doubt on whether U.S.-backed balloting can be held this year in Iraq's 18 provinces. The bill failed because the sides were unable to come to agree on a power-sharing deal for the region around Kirkuk, the center of Iraq's northern oil fields. Kurds consider Kirkuk their ancestral capital and want to incorporate it into their self-ruled region in the north. Most Arabs and Turkomen want Kirkuk to remain under central government control. In Washington, the State Department expressed irritation that the parliament had gone into summer recess without having reached a compromise on the matter. "The status of Kirkuk is indeed a sensitive issue that needs to be addressed in a serious fashion, but it is an issue that cannot be solved through the legislative mechanism of the election law," spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said. "The election law should not be held hostage to that problem." Associated Press writer Saad Abdul-Kadir contributed to this report. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 16:33:35 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:33:35 -0400 Subject: [R-G] UN council split on South Ossetia, Russia angry Message-ID: UN council split on South Ossetia, Russia angry Fri Aug 8, 2008 2:49am EDT (Adds Russian, Georgian, U.S., French envoys) By Louis Charbonneau UNITED NATIONS, Aug 8 (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council failed on Friday to reach an agreement on a Russian-drafted statement that would have called on Georgia and separatists in its South Ossetia region to immediately halt all bloodshed. The 15 Security Council members began meeting late on Thursday and remained behind closed doors for two hours until early Friday morning to discuss the three-sentence statement. But council diplomats said one phrase in it was unacceptable to the Georgians, backed by the United States and Europeans. That wording called on all sides in the conflict "to renounce the use of force," according to a draft of the text. After failing to agree, the council decided not to take any action on the issue, the diplomats said. Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, who had asked for the 11 p.m. EDT (0300 GMT) meeting to be held, did not hide his disappointment at the council's inability to agree. He said it "unfortunately represents the absence of any political will amongst the members of the Security Council." Georgian troops, backed by warplanes, pounded separatist forces near the South Ossetian capital on Friday hours after launching an assault on the breakaway region following a short-lived truce. The crisis fueled fears of full-blown war in the region, which is emerging as a vital energy transit route and where Russia and the West are vying for influence. Russia backs the separatists who have controlled the region since a war in the early 1990s. Churkin also chided the council for failing to heed his earlier warnings that the situation in South Ossetia was about to escalate. U.S. URGES RUSSIAN RESTRAINT U.S. envoy Rosemary DiCarlo called for an end to hostilities and urged respect for Georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty. She condemned the separatists' refusal to attend a Thursday meeting with Georgian officials. DiCarlo also had some suggestions for Moscow. "We also call on Russia to pull its troops back and not inflame the situation by sending its forces to Georgia," she said. "Russia must cease the transport of troops and equipment ... from Russia into South Ossetia." Churkin expressed surprise that the U.S. envoy had condemned the separatists but not Georgia. Georgian Ambassador Irakli Alasania reiterated Tbilisi's position to the council, accusing the separatists of starting the crisis and describing his country's reaction as restrained. Speaking to reporters later, he said the separatists seemed to want to "ethnically cleanse" Georgians from the region. "Georgia as a responsible state has the responsibility to protect our peaceful population," Alasania said. He called on the separatists to halt attacks and said Moscow was interfering in South Ossetia in support of the separatists. He said that Russian officials, military personnel and security agents were active in the region. French, British and other Western envoys also called for all sides to stop fighting and resume negotiations. French Deputy Ambassador Jean-Pierre Lacroix told reporters the council would probably come back to the issue. (Reporting by Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Vicki Allen) From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 16:57:54 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:57:54 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Georgia's Importance as an Energy Transit State Message-ID: FACTBOX - Georgia's importance as an energy transit state Fri Aug 8, 2008 11:21am BST (Reuters) - Georgia, where government forces fought pro-Russian separatists on Friday, is an energy highway to the West with two major pipelines routed via the capital Tbilisi. Georgia and other transit states have an obligation to ensure the security of the pipelines, which follow similar routes and carry oil and gas from the Azeri section of the Caspian Sea. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 18:57:02 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 20:57:02 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Ossetians: Their Language and Identity Message-ID: Ambrose Bierce said that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography. It can also teach ethnolinguistics. As Georgia, backed by the United States and Europe (cf. ), attacked South Ossetia, I looked for background information and found out that the Ossetians speak an Iranian language, divided into two dialects Iron and Digor: . Here's a short excerpt from a paper that includes a fascinating section on the history of construction of Ossetian identity (the full text is available at the link below): Acta Slavica Iaponica, Tomus 23, pp. 37-73 The Politics of a Name: Between Consolidation and Separation in the Northern Caucasus* Victor Shnirelman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ossetia and the Ossetians received their name from the Russians, who used the Georgian term Oseti for the Iranian-speaking inhabitants of the central part of the Caucasus. The term became popular and was accepted by the Ossetians themselves already before they were integrated into the Russian empire. At the same time the Ossetians retained their internal division into a few sub-groups with their own names in Ossetian. In Northern Ossetia they are the Irons in the East and the Digors in the West. Yet, the Ossetians lacked any single inclusive name for themselves in their own language, and for a long time they felt comfortable with the name given to them by the Georgians and Russians. This practice was put into question by the new Ossetian nationalism. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 19:50:15 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 21:50:15 -0400 Subject: [R-G] The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Oil Window to the West Message-ID: Look, a free book! The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Oil Window to the West Edited by S. Frederick Starr and Svante E. Cornell 150 pages, $15. Free, downloadable PDF files are available below. For ordering information, please see bottom of page. To download the entire book in PDF format, [2,5MB file] click here Contents 0. Contents and Contributor pages pp. 1-6 1. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: School of Modernity S. Frederick Starr pp. 7-16 2. Geostrategic Implications of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Svante E. Cornell, Mamuka Tsereteli and Vladimir Socor pp. 17-38 3. Economic Implications of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Jonathan Elkind pp. 39-60 4. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implications for Azerbaijan Svante E. Cornell and Fariz Ismailzade pp. 61-84 5. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implications for Georgia Vladimer Papava pp. 85-102 6. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implications for Turkey Zeyno Baran pp. 103-118 7. Environmental and Social Aspects of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline David Blatchford pp. 119-150 This book is published by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center. All rights reserved. To order hard copies, please send a check or money order of $15 payable to The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute as well as mailing information to one of the following addresses: (If unable to send a check or money order please contact one of the Centers offices or use the electronic version) For the U.S., Canada and Latin America: Att: BTC book c/o Andriy Proshschenko Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Johns Hopkins University-SAIS 1619 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036 USA For Europe and Asia: Att: BTC book c/o Emin Poljarevic Silk Road Studies Program Uppsala University Box 514, SE-75120 Uppsala University Sweden From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Aug 8 20:55:30 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:55:30 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Cash and the class system Message-ID: <489D0722.2070303@attglobal.net> The old social markers are all redundant. British society is now a money nation shaped exclusively by wealth - airs and graces no longer matter by Danny Dorling New Statesman (July 24 2008) There was once an age when class came with breeding. One's parents gave one one's position. One might stray a little above or below - a perfect marital match is never possible - but one knew one's place. Then, for much of the past century, class was about occupation. You had only to ask someone his or her job and you felt you knew almost everything about them. In 2008 that is no longer true. The fifty per cent of the British people who can just about pay the bills, but who cannot even imagine paying inheritance tax, have a huge range of occupations. Just as those above and below them do. These families, which we still call middle-class, usually have two jobs (the British norm), two or more cars (the norm), a small semi-detached or large terraced house, and a combined income that pays for the mortgage, food, fuel and a couple of holidays a year (one of them somewhere warm). Nowadays, class is all about money. In the late 19th century, accent, clothing, title and behaviour reflected our origins. There were schools for all classes: the Great Schools for those destined for greatness, and a multitude of not-so-great schools, mostly created or expanded under Victoria's reign, catering for the children of different strata of the new middle classes. You could tell whether a family was upper-middle, middle-middle, or lower-middle-class from the school its children attended. The working classes had their day schools, Sunday schools, church schools and elementary schools, or didn't go to school. You could also tell their class from the street they inhabited. Charles Booth, the philanthropist and social researcher, had maps of London beautifully coloured, street by street. You could see the subtle differentiation between the areas not shaded yellow, the colour of the servant-keeping classes. You could also see those areas shaded black and labelled "vicious, semi-criminal, poor". Mrs Beeton wrote a book on household management that sold well in those days. It turns out she had only one servant, but she did a good job of pretending to have more. Her book was so successful because of a popular demand for information on how to act up to the class you wished to be. Just like Nigella Lawson today, she provided the fantasy that you, too, could appear to come from a stable above, be of better stock and be more respectable. We used to have many popular guides to the British class system that told you how to appear just a slight cut above. But in 2008 those at the top have to try to appear like the rest: chummy and normal. This year women had to be told to wear knickers to the Royal Enclosure at Ascot. How did we get here from there? The change happened slowly throughout the 20th century. The decimation of the sons of the Great Schools in the 1914-18 war, the "gifting" of stately homes to what is now the National Trust, the collapse of the financial might of the upper class through the 1920s and 1930s, and a progressive tax regime that lasted from the end of the Second World War until the beginning of Thatcherism - all these things changed what class meant. Whereas under Queen Victoria secondary schools had been designed to segregate the middle class, the Education Act 1944 split up the working class. It had the side effect of creating a one-off generation, selected at eleven by what was called an ability test, a few of whom later got good jobs in universities and mused about class. Boys were in the majority, as the eleven-plus tests had been made easier for them. (They had to be made easier as there were far more grammar school places for boys than for girls, yet boys did worse in the tests.) Not surprisingly, these grammar school boys, with occupations their fathers had often not heard of, came to think of occupation and job title as very important. As civil servants, university dons and market researchers, they designed class classification systems based on men's occupations. Occupation was seen as a proxy for behaviour, for leisure pursuits, for taste, for class. Under this system, the university lecturer from humble origins was equal to the don who did not need to draw his salary. Women fitted awkwardly into such schema. Unfortunately, classification based on occupation came to predict certain behaviour less well over time. Almost from the moment when the occupations were grouped, people started voting less and less reliably by occupational class. They took longer to stop behaving so predictably in lifestyle, partly because health outcomes have long antecedents, but premature mortality, too, has become a little less predictable by class. So, are we a more classless society? It doesn't feel quite like that. What I think has shifted is how we know what class we are in. Give someone a fancy job title today and it may not mean quite as much as it did a few decades ago. You know what "general manager for the horizontal arrangement of goods" means, and what is being stacked where. Yet it is also possible for two jobs to have the same title but be completely different. Different members of parliament, for instance, have very different lifestyles and differing levels of income and wealth. In the past they did, too - but you could predict their class from knowing their political party label. That is much less the case today. Now there are better ways to gauge class. Tell me where you went to school, what your father's job was then, and your home postcode, and I'll quite happily put you in a pigeonhole. It still helps to know your job title, but I'm not that bothered about it. I'd be much more interested in your financial situation and that of your wider family. Your class is your wealth - and your family wealth. The new definitions In Britain in 2008, if you cannot save ten GBP a month and pay for an annual holiday, you are most probably Poor. This month, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a survey, A Minimum Income Standard for Britain: What People Think, which suggested that GBP 13,400 a year was the minimum for a single adult, and GBP 26,800 for a couple with two children. Roughly a quarter of households live on less than the equivalent amounts in Britain today. Most are in debt. A holiday would be taking the kids to their grandparents over the summer. If they are pensioners, they spend over a tenth of their income to stay warm. The Poor are the new "lower class". The Poor are now so numerous that sociologists subclassify them. The poorest of the poor - the Very Poor - have an income of GBP 8,600 or less, and have no savings or wider family network to call on (so no annual visits to Grandma's). If you are in the poorest tenth of households in Britain, and your child asks for three GBP for the coach fare for a school trip, you have to go without something else to pay for it. When asked, the Very Poor describe themselves as living in poverty. Above the quarter who are poor is a group that has been squeezed in number in recent years: those who are neither wealthy nor poor. They are Normal. If you are Normal you can pay for school trips, and a holiday (but not in Mauritius). You are getting by, but not comfortably. You are in a shrinking middle group. A single adult living in the middle will have an annual income of between GBP 13,400 and about GBP 29,600. Being at the top of that band entails working for fiftee GBP an hour for a 38-hour week. Live on your own and earn more than that, and you are not Normal - you are in the best-off quarter. Have two kids and a joint income of GBP 60,000-plus, and you are not Normal. Those in the middle (single income: GBP 13,400 to GBP 29,600) are not the old middle class, but what was the old lower middle class and upper working class. Those who once tottered on that crucial boundary now find they are all jumbled up in a new middle where acquired airs, or evidence of a more humble background, count for much less. Today, the middle makes up almost exactly fifty per cent of UK households. Across Britain, outside of London, most people are still Normal, but that normality ranges from living a whisker above poverty to living a whisker below the wealthy. The Wealthy are the 25 per cent of the population who are living on an income of more than GBP 60,000 for a couple with kids, or on GBP 30,000 or over for a single adult. (Having high savings and low outgoings can also make you wealthy at annual incomes below this level.) You are in the Wealthy group if, should you and your spouse simultaneously drop dead today, your estate would be liable for inheritance tax (the single-person inheritance tax threshold is now GBP 312,000). But don't worry: most people like you will manage to spend your wealth in old age long before you have a chance to pass much of it on. If you are wealthy, you are partaking in most of the norms of society. Most people in this group, however, choose not to use private health and education provision. If they did, other luxuries would have to be forgone. Above the Wealthy is a group that does exclude itself from the norms of society, and for which the choices are less problematic: we'll call it the Exclusively Wealthy. They make up about five per cent of us. For them, the question is not where to go on holiday, but where is best to go in each season. What sets the Exclusively Wealthy apart from the rest is not their reliance on private provision, which they use routinely, but their large properties, multiple foreign holidays, and outright purchase of new luxury cars. You need to be doing about two out of three of those things, while preferably having a six-figure household income, to be up with these Joneses. There is a national fixation with this group, and enough written on them to sell a month of Sunday newspapers. Suffice to say here that they are fractal in nature. Within the best-off five per cent, the top half are so much better off than the rest that they make the other half feel poor. Within that better-off half, half are so much better off that ... and so on. It's a recursive definition. It ends with the 0.01 per cent at the very top who worry about being kidnapped, and know that their children and lovers lie to them for their wealth. This is our wealth-based British class system today. It is a 25-50-25 division, the edges of which can be shaved off to almost infinite layers of abstraction. It may sound crude, but money is. Airs and graces no longer matter. In fact, it is crucial to try to avoid them regardless of which end of the scale you are from. Dress down if you might otherwise look like a "toff": take off that tie, unclip that accent. Dress up if you come from more dour stock: sensible suits, a neat haircut, and hold your knife and fork correctly. Most of the old markers of class fade as, for men, a ubiquitous "bloke" is created and women look "smart". Where the signs remain - those brown leather shoes that only men from certain schools still wear, that fake handbag that only women not quite au fait would carry - they matter less and less. Knowing the shape we're in The comedian Roseanne Barr once said that Americans were all middle-class until the man came to turn the electricity off. In the United States, those from the worst-off fifth of families work for eight days or more to earn what those in the best-off fifth are paid in a day. In Britain, that ratio is seven days' work for one day's pay, in Ireland six days, in France just over five days, in Sweden four days and in Iceland three and a half days. Class systems within the rich countries of the world increasingly reflect their income-inequality ratios. The very least we should do, if we ever want to understand our changed social world, is to learn about its basic shape. In Britain, as in many other countries, we best know our place through a mechanism even older than the Victorian class system: we take a census. In the past, British censuses have responded to the way society was changing. When people started to get hot running water, the census asked if they had it. When almost everyone did have it, the census stopped asking (similarly over inside toilets, over cars and over occupations). It took a riot or two before the census asked about ethnicity. It took parliament to insist that in 2001 we ask about religion. Yet a campaign in the same year to insert a question about household income failed. In the US, the census asks about income. In Scandinavia, it is recorded on national population registers. The next UK census in 2011, however, will still not ask about citizens' income or wealth. (Not, at least in England and Wales; Scotland may be the exception.) It will mean, in effect, that we will not be asking about class. Perhaps we are afraid of what we would be told, and what kind of a segregated country we would see. _____ This article is published in the summer edition of the Fabian Review as part of the Fabian Society's work on class and inequality, and on the Fabian website (www.fabians.org.uk). Danny Dorling works with the Social and Spatial Inequalities Research Group in the department of geography, University of Sheffield. With Bethan Thomas, he is the author of Identity in Britain: a Cradle-to-Grave Atlas (Policy Press). He is also an author, with colleagues, of The Atlas of the Real World (Thames & Hudson) and The Grim Reaper's Road Map (Policy Press), both to be published in October. "When I was growing up, class was clearly defined. You knew where you were in the pecking order. You knew your place. Mine was lowly. Now we have a disparity between people, and no social movement. Footballers and pop stars have got rich through talent and energy and bravado, but haven't taken the working class with them. People do feel they are at the bottom of the pile." -- Joan Bakewell, Broadcaster "It's always been the same - those who do the work versus those who own the wealth. The slave owners had their land, and the slaves tilled it. In the end, I think Marx had it right." -- Tony Benn "Does money now mean more than class? Ask yourself what is the first thing new money does. It puts its sons down for Eton and buys a stately home. Money has not killed off the old class system: it is fuelling its survival into a new century." -- Meredith Etherington-Smith, Author and etiquette expert "Class has always been about money. Breeding has now been exposed; it is now just a commodity itself. Where I live, even 'the middle class' is a redundant term. Whether you can afford access to leisure activities or pay your bills defines your class." -- Soweto Kinch, Jazz musician and rapper "It's rather discouraging that people give a degree of respect for grand fortunes and not grand titles. People like Roman Abramovich get enormous amounts of respect and dukes don't." -- Max Hastings, Former editor http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/07/middle-class-british-income TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Aug 9 03:54:20 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:54:20 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Lunar Conspiracy Message-ID: <489D694C.7060702@attglobal.net> A Proposal to Hamish Mykura, Head of Documentaries, Channel 4 From intnsred at golgotha.net Sat Aug 9 07:58:26 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 09:58:26 -0400 Subject: [R-G] US-Russian tensions in Caucasus erupt into war Message-ID: <200808090958.27652.intnsred@golgotha.net> US-Russian tensions in Caucasus erupt into war By Bill Van Auken 9 August 2008 Long-escalating tensions between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia erupted into full-scale war Friday, leaving hundreds if not thousands of civilians dead and turning thousands more into refugees, forced to flee for their lives. The immediate focus of the fighting is the attempt by Georgia to militarily seize control of the enclave of South Ossetia, which has existed as a de facto independent entity for the past 16 years, and Russia?s armed intervention to counter this assault. Underlying this military confrontation, however, are far broader conflicts. Feeding the bloody confrontation in South Ossetia is US imperialism?s drive to establish hegemony over the vast energy resources of Central Asia and the Caucasus through the assertion of American military power in the region. The Russian ruling elite, for its part, is seeking to reassert its grip over a region that was ruled by Moscow for two centuries before the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. This bitter rivalry between Washington and Moscow?the world?s two greatest nuclear powers?lends the fighting in the Caucasus a particularly explosive and dangerous character. The tensions between the two countries have been exacerbated in the recent period by the Bush administration?s drive to incorporate Georgia into the NATO alliance, a move that Moscow sees as part of an attempt to establish a military encirclement of Russia. The US-backed Georgian regime of President Mikheil Saakashvili sent massed military units into South Ossetia on Thursday morning, after claiming that South Ossetian military forces had shelled Georgian villages, supposedly violating a unilateral cease-fire declared by Tbilisi. While the Georgian regime initially claimed it was carrying out a ?proportionate response,? it quickly became clear that it had launched an all-out military offensive aimed at conquering the region. Using artillery, tanks, truck-mounted multiple rocket launchers and war planes, the Georgian military laid siege to the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. Much of the city was reportedly in flames Friday. The regional parliament building had burned down, the university was on fire, and the town?s main hospital had been rendered inoperative by the bombardment. The International Red Cross reported that ambulances were unable to reach the wounded. ?As a result of many hours of shelling from heavy guns, the town is practically destroyed,? Marat Kulakhmetov, the commander of Russian peacekeepers in the territory, told the Russian news service Interfax. Eduard Kokoity, the South Ossetian leader, estimated late Friday that more than 1,400 civilians had been killed in the Georgian military assault. ?I saw bodies lying on the streets, around ruined buildings, in cars,? Lyudmila Ostayeva, 50, told the Associated Press after fleeing the city with her family to a village near the Russian border. ?It?s impossible to count them now. There is hardly a single building left undamaged.? Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov charged Georgia with utilizing massive violence with the aim of forcing the Ossetian population to flee. ?We are receiving reports that a policy of ethnic cleansing was being conducted in villages in South Ossetia, the number of refugees is climbing, the panic is growing, people are trying to save their lives,? said Lavrov. According to Moscow, among the dead were ten Russian peacekeepers, while 30 more were wounded in the shelling of their barracks by the Georgian forces. The peacekeepers were deployed in the area as part of an agreement reached between Moscow, Tbilisi and South Ossetia to end the fighting that erupted following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent bid by the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to separate from Georgia. The inhabitants in both regions feared the newly independent Georgian regime would abolish their autonomous status. Since then, however, Tbilisi has charged that the Russian troops are backing the South Ossetian forces. Russia seized upon the deaths of its troops and the civilian casualties as the justification for sending a tank column and infantry into South Ossetia, where they have become engaged in fierce combat with Georgian units for control of Tskhinvali. ?In accordance with the constitution and federal law, I, as president of Russia, am obliged to protect lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are located,? Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told a meeting of his security council at the Kremlin. ?We won?t allow the death of our compatriots to go unpunished.? Meanwhile, Georgian authorities charged that Russian warplanes had struck the country?s military bases, airfields and the main Black Sea port of Poti late Friday and early Saturday, killing some civilians. Bombs reportedly fell on the capital of Tbilisi and on the area of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. ?All day today, they?ve been bombing Georgia from numerous warplanes and specifically targeting (the) civilian population, and we have scores of wounded and dead among (the) civilian population all around the country,? Saakashvili told the US news network, CNN. Saakashvili announced that he had called up the country?s reserves, while sources in Georgia said he was expected to announce the imposition of martial law. The timing of the Georgian incursion, on a day when world attention was focused on the opening of the Olympics in Beijing, where both Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and US President George Bush are present, hardly seemed fortuitous. Saakashvili, however, suggested that it was Russia that had chosen the date, calling it a ?brilliant moment to attack a small country? and charging that the quick response by the Russian military demonstrated Moscow?s preparations for an intervention. The Georgian president declared that his country was ?looking with hope? to the US. The armed confrontation with Russia, he claimed, ?is not about Georgia anymore. It?s about America, its values... America stands up for those freedom-loving nations and supports them. That?s what America is all about.? Under the Bush administration, Washington has attempted to forge close ties with Georgia, particularly since the US-backed ?Rose Revolution? that paved the way for Saakashvili?s rise to power. US imperialism?s main interest in Georgia is as an American bridgehead into the oil and gas-rich Caspian Basin and as a strategic transit route for funneling energy supplies out of the region, while bypassing Russia. To cement its ties with the Georgian regime, Washington has provided hundreds millions of dollars in military aid, while sending in large numbers of US military trainers for the country?s growing armed forces. Georgian troops, meanwhile, account for the third largest contingent participating in the US occupation of Iraq, numbering some 2,000. Tbilisi indicated Friday that it would seek US help in bringing at least 1,000 of these soldiers back to participate in the fighting in South Ossetia. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov alluded to the US military support for Georgia, declaring, ?Now we see Georgia has found a use for these weapons and for the special forces that were trained with the help of international instructors.? He added, ?I think our European and American colleagues... should understand what is happening. And I hope very much that they will reach the right conclusions.? Last month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paid a provocative visit to Tbilisi, denouncing Russia and reiterating US backing for Georgian NATO membership. Washington?s NATO allies in Western Europe, however, have greeted the proposal coolly, seeing it as an unnecessary provocation against Russia, upon which they depend for energy supplies. Whether Rice during her visit gave an explicit green light for the intervention in South Ossetia, or whether the Georgian regime felt the demonstration of US support gave it the assurance of Washington?s backing for such a military action, is not known. In the wake of Friday?s assault, Washington has stopped short of providing explicit support for the Georgian action, but has made it clear that it backs the position of its client state in the Caucasus. The United Nations Security Council failed to support a Russian-backed resolution calling for an end to the fighting because of Washington?s opposition to a clause calling on all sides to ?renounce the use of force.? The clear implication is that the US is backing Georgia?s right to take military action. Secretary of State Rice, meanwhile, issued a statement effectively condemning Russia, while providing tacit justification for Georgia?s intervention. ?We call on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircraft and missiles, respect Georgia?s territorial integrity, and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil,? she said. ?We underscore the international community?s support for Georgia?s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.? The eruption of war in the Caucasus is the end product of the increasingly aggressive policy pursued by US imperialism in the wake of the dissolution of the USSR nearly 17 years ago. Washington has systematically manipulated national conflicts in the region to further its own aim of military and economic hegemony. This began with the bloody wars in the former Yugoslavia. All of the arguments used by Washington to justify its support for Bosnia and Kosovo and its military assault on Serbia during the Balkan wars of the 1990s could be employed just as effectively to condemn Georgia?s intervention and defend South Ossetia, as well as Russia?s military intervention on its behalf. In this case, however, Washington has elevated Georgia?s ?territorial integrity? as the paramount principle in the conflict, effectively justifying Georgia?s military intervention and an assault on the province?s Russian population that Moscow has branded as ?ethnic cleansing.? The apparent contradiction between these two policies only underscores the fact that US imperialism?s supposed aversion to ethnic cleansing and the suppression of ethnic enclaves is entirely dependent upon who is doing it and whether or not it serves US strategic interests. There is a direct link between this latest war and those waged by the US in the Balkans. In February, the US and the West recognized Kosovo?s ?independence? based on its unilateral secession from Serbia, in direct violation of various UN resolutions. The aim in backing this secession ?as in its support for the suppression of similar secessionist entities in Georgia?was to further US military plans for the encirclement of Russia and the securing of access routes to the Caspian Basin. In the run-up to Kosovo?s unilateral declaration of independence, Moscow had repeatedly warned that it would set a precedent for similar actions by other territories in the former USSR?Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in particular. In its aftermath, the Russian regime stepped up its support for both territories. Now, the eruption of war in South Ossetia poses the threat of a regional conflagration that can bring the world?s two biggest nuclear-armed powers, the US and Russia, into direct military confrontation, with the immense dangers that such a conflict poses to humanity. -- "If this war is so righteous, why don't you send your children?" -- Mother of dead GI Susan Niederer to First Lady Laura Bush (Bush didn't answer). From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 08:43:01 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:43:01 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Battle Lines Move from Kashmir to Kabul Message-ID: Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Tehran and Moscow thought along the same line as New Delhi's that M K Bhadrakumar explains below. You hate the Taliban? Why, me too. Why can't we all get along? But Washington came to adopt this line only with regard to India, decisively tilting toward India especially after Musharraf lost the elections this year. Putin changed his mind in response to Washington's cold shoulder, and pro-Americans in Tehran lost power to Third-Worldists who want Russia, China, the Latin Left, and the NAM as Iran's strategic allies. -- Yoshie Aug 9, 2008 Battle lines move from Kashmir to Kabul By M K Bhadrakumar There is wide acclaim today among Indian strategic analysts and diplomatic editors that New Delhi has scored a major diplomatic victory in Afghanistan and that its "influence" in Kabul has "peaked". This victory has come on the back of Washington's strategic pro-India tilt and, in the period since end-2001 to date, India's earmarking of a staggering US$1.2 billion as assistance for Afghan "reconstruction". Some Indian cheerleaders expound the thesis that it is the hallmark of an aspiring great power to "first learn to become a net provider of regional security" - and Delhi must therefore step in and lend a hand in fixing the Afghan problem. Others visualize Afghanistan providing a "unique opportunity" to be of help to the United States, and that Delhi will eventually benefit from the payback by a grateful superpower that is sure to come. Yet another Indian viewpoint is that it simply pays to rattle Islamabad by creating space for Afghan President Hamid Karzai. An invidious Indian argument is that Delhi should use Afghan soil to retaliate against Islamabad's support of Kashmiri militants. In diplomacy, maybe, it pays to sidestep historical memory. Archives may contain only chronicles of wasted time. Very few Indian strategic analysts who at present hold forth on Afghanistan seem to be even remotely aware of how, like Karzai, the then head of state in Kabul, Dr Mohammad Najibullah, was a frequent visitor to Delhi in the late 1980s. That, too, was a twilight zone in the 30-year-old Afghan war when the conflict, like today's, uneasily lingered in the shade. Fortunately for Delhi, though, the slow-rolling coup that worked its way through the Afghan labyrinth for months before culminating in the morning of April 16, 1992, with Najib's ouster, didn't come entirely as surprise. Indian diplomats soon began diligently seeking out the Afghan mujahideen in the dangerous Hindu Kush mountains, to explain to those new masters the cold rationale of India's exceedingly warm friendship with Najib. They explained patiently that it was after all a strictly state-to-state, government-to-government relationship with Najib, shorn of ideology or religion or commitments. The Northern Alliance's Ahmad Shah Massoud still looked away as elements in his militia systematically ransacked the Indian Embassy, forcing its diplomats to flee Kabul. Yet, within no time, by the mid-1990s, Massoud had become India's key Afghan ally - or, as much as he could be anyone's ally. Certainly, it remains a tantalizing proposition whether with all the Indian help Taliban rule could have been overthrown but for al-Qaeda's historic decision to attack New York and Washington in September 2001. Historically, there has never been a dearth of justification for Indian involvement in Afghanistan. At the time of the Afghan jihad in the 1980s against the Soviets, Indian policy maintained that secular India had everything to lose with the advent of Islamism in the region - encouraged as a factor of Cold War geopolitics by the US - and that Najib provided a bulwark against the Islamist mujahideen based in Peshawar in Pakistan. But Delhi swiftly switched tack after the mujahideen takeover in 1992. It found itself networking instead with a mujahideen group that was famously rooted in political Islam - the Jamiat-i-Islami, belonging to the Afghan-based Akhwan-ul-Muslimeen, which had strong links with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Following the appearance of the Taliban in the mid-1990s, India confidently took the side of the Northern Alliance. In political terms, this phase signified a wholesale embrace of Islamists, as the Northern Alliance comprised a variety of radical Islamist groups (including die-hard mujahideen groups like the Ittihad-i-Islami, which followed the Wahhabi ideology and enjoyed generous funding during the Afghan jihad from wealthy Saudi benefactors, including from Osama bin Laden). The changed rationale was that the Taliban represented the dark forces of "obscurantism" and "extremism", which posed a threat to regional security and stability. However, since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, Delhi incrementally distanced itself from the Northern Alliance. Instead, Delhi began supporting the US-backed power setup in Kabul. The pro-US policy was rationalized in terms of the upcoming struggle against "terrorism" proclaimed by US President George W Bush. No one knows how much of its surplus capital Delhi ended up spending on various Afghan groups through the three decades - and, more important, what durable dividend it brought for India. Unfortunately, the Indian political system doesn't insist on stocktaking. The 59-year-old Indian parliament is yet to evolve a system of in-camera hearings, which is a redeeming feature of most serious democracies in the world, including neighboring Iran. All through the painful twists and turns, Indian policy towards Afghanistan was steeped in pragmatism and remained largely Pakistan-centric. But things seem to be changing. The horizons appear to have vastly expanded. According to Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid, Kabul is "replacing Kashmir as the main area of antagonism" between India and Pakistan. The Pakistani security establishment has convinced itself that Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies are engaged in undermining Pakistan's security. American analysts say Afghanistan has explicitly become a theater of Pakistan-India adversarial relations. But there is a much larger dimension. The Pakistani establishment is also sizing up the new geopolitical reality - the unprecedented pro-India tilt in the US's regional policy. It is having a hard time coping with the trilateral consensus between Kabul, Delhi and Washington, which pillories Islamabad as the "primary and near-exclusive trouble maker" in the region. The Pakistani establishment cannot accept that while Islamabad remains a key partner for Washington in the "war on terror", it is Delhi that is on the way to becoming a stakeholder in US global strategies. Indeed, the National Defense Strategy document released by the Pentagon in Washington on July 31 confirms the worst Pakistani suspicions. It underscores, "We [the US] look to India to assume greater responsibility as a stakeholder in the international system, commensurate with its growing economic, military and soft power." India is the only country hailed in this fashion in the entire 29-page document. The Pentagon seems to have overlooked how such a vehement US national defense strategy pronouncement citing India as a pivotal country would go down with the Pakistani generals. To be sure, Delhi finds the US doctrine to be immensely attractive. This is how the Indian elite always wanted the US to view India. But the Pakistani perspective sees the emerging regional equations as a dangerous slide toward Indian military superiority and regional "hegemony". How does the Pakistani military, weaned on adversarial feelings towards India, countenance such a challenge? First, Pakistan will assert its legitimate interests in Afghanistan, no matter what it takes. Make no mistake about it. The Pakistani generals know what transpired when American and British top brass met in Britain last month to exchange notes on Afghanistan. The conclave assessed there were huge problems with the Karzai regime's performance and the war might last for another 30 years, which is a hopeless scenario, as "war fatigue" is setting in among North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and the tide of public opinion is turning against the war. But that isn't all. From fentona at shaw.ca Sat Aug 9 08:53:24 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 07:53:24 -0700 Subject: [R-G] US-Israel relationship misconceptions Message-ID: US-Israel relationship misconceptions Saturday, August 09, 2008 Justin Podur http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=128942 After one of the public lectures I gave in Islamabad earlier this month at the Iqbal International Institute for Research and Dialogue, where I and Professor Robert Jensen of the University of Texas discussed the economic, ecological, and cultural 'crises of the empire?, an audience member came up to me and said: "Basically the conflict is between Muslims and Jews." At another panel we were on, about Globalization and Democracy, PML-Q Senator Mushahid Hussein said that "US even-handedness stops with Israel." At yet another public lecture, a questioner asked, why does the US, a champion of peace, support Israel?s violence against the Palestinians? These statements all reveal serious - and dangerous - misconceptions about the real relationship between the US and Israel. First, the notion of a Muslim-Jewish conflict is historically inaccurate: the historical relationship between Muslims, Jews, and Christians was always much more complex, and included co-operation, exchange, and mutual learning as well as fighting, crusades, and inquisitions. Boundaries hardened in recent centuries, due to colonialism and imperialism and reactions to these. Second, the US is no champion of peace and is not even-handed on any issue - Israel is no exception in this sense. To take some examples where the victims are from the non-Muslim world: The US destroyed Vietnam, killing 2-4 million people. It sponsored Indonesia?s genocidal massacres of the East Timorese. It sponsored the destruction of Central American countries by dictatorships in the 1980s, in which hundreds of thousands died. It was not even-handed with Nicaragua when it ignored the World Court ruling, nor with Venezuela or Cuba or Haiti: it supports violent reactionaries and wealthy parties in all these places. There is no question about where US even-handedness ends, because it has nowhere to begin. But the biggest problem with these misconceptions is not their inaccuracy, but the strategic implication. Behind these statements is the idea that US foreign policy is orchestrated by a pro-Israel lobby. It is certainly true that Israel has a well-organized, well-funded infrastructure to lobby Congress and to build popular support for Israel in the media and on campuses. But the key problem is that this infrastructure cannot be countered by equivalent lobbying by Muslim countries. Why can?t they do the same thing? Muslim countries have plenty of money. Do they merely lack organizational or communication skill? In fact the lobby is only part of the story, and it is the success of the lobby that needs to be understood. To say that the US supports Israel because of the lobby is to beg the question. Furthermore, the idea that US policy is orchestrated by a small group of Jews is basically an anti-Semitic fantasy, worthy of medieval Europe during the Inquisition, but unworthy for decent and serious people. The actual reasons the US supports Israel are much deeper. First, there is complete economic, intelligence, and military integration of the countries. The military industry is a key component of both countries? economies, and their industries are integrated. Free trade agreements exist between US allies (Canada, Australia, etc.) and Israel. Second, Israel is a 'strategic asset? in ways that other countries in the region cannot be. While the US has exercised control by sponsoring military dictatorships, these are always at risk of being overthrown by revolt, as occurred in Iran in 1979 and could occur in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. When the US tries to exercise control by promoting democracy, on the other hand, the results may not be to their liking, as occurred in Palestine and could occur in Iraq. Israel, however, is dependent for its existence on US diplomatic, economic, and military support - there is no tension between the rulers and the ruled on this question, the way there would be in other countries. Third, and perhaps most important, Israel is seen as part of the west. In a global order still structured by a kind of colonialism and racism, this is an impossible factor to ignore. For all the struggles for dignity, economic development, and freedom for the formerly colonized world, the peoples of Asia, Africa, and the indigenous peoples of the Americas are not viewed as equals by the west. Individual westerners need not subscribe to this view of the world, and many do not, but it still tells. Just as the west still pays more attention to the 60,000 Americans who died in Vietnam than the 2-4 million Vietnamese, or the 19 American soldiers who died in Somalia?s 'Black Hawk Down? incident than the 7-10,000 Somalis who died, Israeli lives are seen as worth more than Palestinian or Lebanese lives. Simply put, this means that the US will never be 'even-handed? on Israel because Israel is part of the west and the Muslim countries are not. There is no way to counter the baleful acts of Israel by convincing the empire to be fair. The only way is to stop collaborating with the empire itself, by opposing US policy and rejecting military and economic collaborations with it. Every appeal made to the empire strengthens it - and Israel too. The Muslim world would do better to stop appealing to the US and start building its own world, in partnership with others that have been harmed by the empire and want a better world, in Africa, the rest of Asia, and South America, and anti-empire westerners, including Jews. The writer was a fellow of the Iqbal International Institute for Research and Dialogue at the International Islamic University- Islamabad from June 24-July 17, where he taught a course on critical thinking. He is based in Toronto and his blog is www.killingtrain.com. From fentona at shaw.ca Sat Aug 9 10:15:30 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:15:30 -0700 Subject: [R-G] West key irritant in Georgia conflict Message-ID: West key irritant in Georgia conflict Russian support of South Ossetia's wish to unite with northern brethren has triggered latest violence David Marples The Edmonton Journal http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=227207c9-22bf-4210-8fd0-61232a906028&sponsor= Saturday, August 09, 2008 On Friday, Georgia launched an attack on its autonomous republic of South Ossetia in an apparent bid to remove a separatist government and reincorporate the region into Georgia. Russia responded with air strikes and reportedly casualties within the main South Ossetian city of Tskhinvali have been heavy. How did this crisis develop and what are the possible solutions to it? South Ossetia is a small mountainous region occupied mainly by Ossetians (about 65 per cent) and Georgians (about 30 per cent). To the north lies North Ossetia, an autonomous republic within the Russian Federation. Many South Ossetians wish to reunite with their northern compatriots. In 1992, they held a referendum in support of independence, which was supported by a large majority. However, the international community did not recognize the results. In 2003, after what was termed the "Rose Revolution," Mikheil Saakashvili was elected Georgian president and took office in January 2004. He made it clear his priorities were NATO and EU membership as well as renewed negotiations with de facto independent regimes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He received encouragement from the United States, which recognizes the territorial integrity of Georgia, as well as from NATO, which has indicated that Georgia will soon be accepted as a member. These developments incensed Russia, which regards the area as a vital part of its sphere of interest. After the 1992 conflict, Russia sent several hundred peacekeepers into South Ossetia. It also offered Russian passports to ethnic Ossetians for their own protection, and about half of South Ossetian residents are now officially Russian citizens. Georgia claims that Russian planes have frequently violated Ossetian airspace and that Russia's goal is the outright incorporation of South Ossetia and its reunion with the northern territory. In 2006, South Ossetia once again held a referendum, which again voted overwhelmingly for independence. Although international observers were present to monitor the vote, and it was reported that 99 per cent of South Ossetians supported the motion, Georgians were disenfranchised. Therefore, the UN and EU did not recognize it as valid. The Western powers also maintained that any referendum required the consent of the Georgian government in Tblisi, the rightful ruler of the territory. Today there are effectively two governments in South Ossetia: an unrecognized de facto separatist government based in Tskhinvali under Eduard Kokoiti, 44, a former wrestling champion, and an alternative pro-Georgian Provisional Government of South Ossetia that is led by Ossetian Dmitri Sanakoev, aged 39, formerly an officer in the Soviet army. Sanakoev was inaugurated as "president" in a village several kilometers to the north-east of Tskhinvali on Dec. 1, 2006. Koikoiti wishes to unite the two Ossetias under the umbrella of Russia. Sanakoev's government derives from another 2006 referendum held among the Georgian and Ossetian population, organized by the "Salvation Union of South Ossetia." He has received encouragement from the U.S. and has presented a speech in Brussels to EU and Georgian parliamentary officials. However, his election according to most accounts was not democratic, and he enjoyed a near total monopoly of the Georgian media. Moreover, it seems inconceivable that a lasting solution to the Ossetian question can be found without reflecting the wishes of the titular population. Although South Ossetia has a population of only about 70,000 and few major resources--it is mainly mountainous--the conflict that broke out on Aug. 8 could develop into a major international problem. Georgia's sudden assault on Tskhinvali represents an attempt to resolve an intractable issue by force. Russia, in turn, responded with air strikes on the grounds that several of its peacekeepers died during the invasion. In the earlier 1991-92 conflict there were many examples of "ethnic cleansing." Thousands of Ossetians fled into Russia, and over 20,000 Georgians moved into Georgia proper. Though the two peoples have also enjoyed long periods of peaceful cohabitation and have intermarried extensively, there is a danger that ethnic conflict could now develop in full. Moreover, the Russian Caucasus is already volatile because of the continuing war in Chechnya as well as violence in Daghestan and Ingushetia. Neither the Western nor Russian attitudes to the issue seem particularly helpful. The West was quick to recognize Kosovo, essentially a second Albanian state in Europe that declared unilateral independence, but seems reticent about South Ossetia, which has expressed a similar wish. Some analysts perceive the conflict as originating with and exacerbated by Russia, and there are numerous citations of Russian violations of Georgian airspace. The circulation of the Russian ruble in South Ossetia is perceived as a symbol of Russia's intentions. However, there should be some room for manoeuvring between the major powers if they wish to resolve the dispute peacefully. Russia is unwilling to become involved in a major military conflict despite its support for South Ossetian separatism. Georgia cannot continue to occupy a region that has expressed a clear desire for independence. Though Russia responded with unwarranted violence, it is the West and its new ally Georgia that needs to find a compromise solution. Georgia's territorial integrity--notwithstanding Russian pressure--is no longer viable within its current territory, if indeed it ever was. Saakashvili bears responsibility for the sudden invasion, carried out at a time when world leaders are focused on the Olympic Games in Beijing. Georgian control over its wayward province cannot be established without bloodshed. David Marples is professor of history at the University of Alberta and director of the Stasiuk Program on Contemporary Ukraine at the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies. From fentona at shaw.ca Sat Aug 9 10:22:09 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:22:09 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Battle over Georgian republic pits Russia vs. U.S. Message-ID: Battle over Georgian republic pits Russia vs. U.S. Aug. 8, 2008. http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/475206 Aug 09, 2008 04:30 AM Megan K. Stack Los Angeles Times MOSCOW?Russian tanks rumbled into the breakaway Georgian republic of South Ossetia yesterday, and volunteer Russian fighters reportedly made their way over the border, pushing Moscow closer to a full-blown war against U.S.-backed Georgia. The fighting that erupted among Georgia, Russia and Ossetian rebels over the mountainous sliver of land killed an unknown number of civilians and threatened to provide a battleground for long-simmering tensions between Moscow and the West. At nightfall, each side was calling in reinforcements and pumping out its own, radically unique versions of the day's events. Fighting continued overnight, with Georgia's interior ministry saying early today that planes attacked three Georgian military bases and key facilities for shipping oil to the West. A terrified stream of people fleeing South Ossetia capital Tskhinvali reported bodies on the streets, in cars, in bombed buildings. "It was impossible to count them," said Lyudmilia Ostayeva, 50. A sharp escalation began earlier yesterday, when Georgia launched a large-scale, pre-dawn military operation meant to seize control of the rebel region, whose de facto autonomy and ties to Russia have long been an irritant to Georgian leaders. Backed by warplanes, Georgian troops plunged into South Ossetia and waged a hard battle throughout the day for control of the republic's capital Officials on both sides reported civilian deaths but estimates could not be confirmed. South Ossetian officials said that some 1,400 people had been killed in the battles. Georgia didn't say how many casualties it had caused but reported that the Russian bombardment killed 30 people. The fighting broke out as much of the world's attention was focused on the start of the Olympics and many leaders, including Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush, were in Beijing. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili agreed the timing was not coincidental, but accused Russia of being the aggressor. "Most decision makers have gone for the holidays," he told CNN. "Brilliant moment to attack a small country." At the Pentagon, a senior defence official said yesterday that Georgian authorities have asked the U.S. for help getting their troops out of Iraq. Georgia has about 2,000 troops serving with the coalition forces there, making it the third-largest contributor after the U.S. and Britain. A source told The Associated Press the U.S. will likely support the troop withdrawal. Last night each side blamed the other for violating a shaky ceasefire and throwing the republic back into fighting. And both claimed that victory was almost theirs. Tskhinvali's status remained unclear late yesterday. Both sides, by turns, claimed to have seized control of most of the city. Russian troops reported that many of the buildings had been destroyed, and that the Parliament building burned to the ground. Aid organizations warned that civilians were hiding out in basements without water, electricity or medical help. "We will remember this tragedy for the rest of our lives,'' said Sarmat Laliyev, 28, after arriving in Dzhava, a town near the border with Russia. "They are killing civilians, women and children, with heavy artillery and rockets." The United Nations Security Council called its second emergency session in less than 24 hours in an attempt to prevent war, but by last night diplomats remained unable to reach an agreement on a statement calling for negotiations and an end to violence. The Russian army reported 12 of its troops killed and 30 wounded in the fighting. Russia's defence ministry said it was sending in reinforcements. At the Kremlin, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev vowed to protect his country's citizens. "In accordance with the constitution and federal law, I, as president of Russia, am obliged to protect lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are located," Medvedev said. "We won't allow the death of our compatriots to go unpunished." In Beijing, White House press secretary Dana Perino said the United States, which "supports Georgia's territorial integrity," was calling for an immediate ceasefire. The Pentagon has about 200 troops in Georgia training units deployed to Iraq, officials said. The Georgian foreign ministry, meanwhile, issued a statement calling on the international community to "give Russia the message that invading the territory of a sovereign state and bombing its territory is unacceptable in the 21st century." South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity called the fight a "genocide." "The latest tragic developments should become the last step toward the recognition of South Ossetia's independence," he told Interfax. "I am sure that the independence of South Ossetia will be recognized in the near future." Pitting Russia against U.S.-backed Georgia, the conflict could escalate quickly ? and prove difficult to quell. From Chechnya to Abkhazia, Russian-sponsored volunteers were encouraged to join South Ossetia's fight against Georgia, raising the threat of a war that could engulf the historically bellicose Caucasus. Last night a military convoy left the Abkhaz capital and headed for South Ossetia to join the battle, Interfax reported. The region is strategically important for its oil and gas pipelines, and has emerged as a sort of post-Cold War proving ground where the United States and Russia jockey for influence. Relations between the two countries have chilled under the leadership of Putin, as an increasingly strong, wealthy Russia tries to regain superpower status. Georgia is a key player in that contest. A small, mountainous and poor country on Russia's southern flank, Georgia has deeply distressed Moscow by allying itself with the U.S., fighting in Iraq and campaigning for NATO membership. But Georgia has long been bedevilled by the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Both republics fought bloody wars for de facto independence following the Soviet collapse, and have depended upon Moscow for everything from passports to political cover. Russian peacekeeping forces have been stationed in the republics for years. With files from Associated Press From fentona at shaw.ca Sat Aug 9 10:30:24 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:30:24 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The "new Cold War" escalates Message-ID: <7F12EE80-1D4E-4001-98F2-860555C33A18@shaw.ca> Saturday, August 09, 2008 The "new Cold War" escalates. http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-cold-war-escalates.html There must have been widespread bemusement last night as newspapers dramatically announced that Russia had invaded Georgia. In fact, it's a little bit more complicated than that, since Russian troops were already in South Ossetia as part of a fragile 'peacekeeping' coalition. The Russian government is (dishonestly) arguing that its actions are merely the extension of its peacekeeping remit, even as it strikes beyond South Ossetia's borders. The headlines subtly changed, at any rate, to omit talk of an invasion. Even with that change, there seems to be an odd reluctance to acknowledge the weirdest fact about this: Georgia seems to have 'invaded' South Ossetia in a deliberate act of provocation, and - according to Reuters - are now attacking Ossetian separatists with jets and troops. One can only imagine that the pro-US Georgian leadership, which has ambitions to join NATO, had some sort of assent from Washington before acting in this way. After all, if it truly intends to withdraw 1,000 of its troops from Iraq to attack the South Ossetian independence movement, I would expect they had to ask Bush nicely first. (Incidentally, if successful, Georgia's accession to NATO would commit other NATO countries to defend Georgia's borders, even as independence movements in South Ossetia, Abkhazia - both of which have declared themselves separate from Georgia - and Ajaria take off). This doesn't mean that Russia aren't behaving aggressively themselves - they have been bolstering their power in South Ossetia for years, supporting the secessionists and so on - it just means that Georgia is the client of a bigger power than South Ossetia. The big picture here is a battle between Washington and Moscow over political control of the oil and gas rich Central Asian territories. The Clinton-IMF reform process led to the creation of a bloc of pro- Western states across Central Asia, while the status of South Ossetia as an autonomous territory was defended by a joint Georgian-Russian peacekeeping force. Bush used the opportunity supplied by 9/11 to plot military bases across the region, thus encircling Russia's southern flank with a new iron curtain and giving the US crucial military leverage against potentially hostile (probably Islamist) popular movements. One of the embarrassments this strategy produced was Craig Murray's revelations about Washington-ally Islam Karimov's practises of torture and the fact that 'intelligence' gained from such methods were circulated and swallowed by Western intelligence agencies. This was compounded by the bigger embarrassment of Karimov kicking the Americans out of the country and cutting a deal with Putin. In respect of Georgia, the Bush administration has supported the "rose revolution" of the pro-US Mikhail Saakashvili against a decrepit and nepotistic Soviet era leader, Eduard Shevardnadze. The National Endowment for Democracy was heavily involved in the opposition campaign, and the State Department halved aid to the country before the elections in order to apply financial pressure to the leadership. But like the other colour-coded 'revolutions', this one represented a superficial change in personnel with a new global orientation toward Washington, not a substantial change in the society. In fact, the spontaneous popular spread of the revolt deeply worried the Saakashvili team, which ordered its supporters to go home (see Neal Ascherson's account). Saakashvili's government was soon notorious for busting up peaceful demonstrations with the use of heavily armed security forces as the economic crisis deepened, the national debt soared, and the authoritarianism and corruption that characterised the old regime persisted. His popularity dropped from an astonishing 94% in the autumn of 2003 to 23% two years later. Washington has repeatedly bailed out the floundering "rose" leadership with aid grants, purportedly rewarding it for 'democratic' reforms. In 2006 alone, the former Soviet states received $565 million in aid programmes courtesy of the US Senate, to protect them from "authoritarian Russia". The US is eager to stymy the pro-independence trends in Georgia, as these will redound to the benefit of the Putin- Medvedev government. It is, as Stephen Cohen has argued, part of a US- driven "new Cold War" against Russia. The current president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, is the billionaire former chair of Gazprom's board of directors. An oligarch made powerful in part by IMF policy, he is now, alongside Putin, leading a nationalist government determined to re-assert Russia's hegemony in the region. Gazprom is the Russian state gas monopoly which became a key protagonist in a battle with Ukraine which stimulated the "new Cold War" rhetoric in Western newspapers in 2005. Essentially, to punish Ukraine for it's 'Orange revolution' and for seeking integration with the EU, the Russian government threatened to jack up the prices unless the Ukrainian government sold part of their pipeline network to Gazprom. In 2006, Gazprom was once again at the centre of a geopolitical crisis as it threatened to double prices to Georgia, just as it was finishing a pipeline to carry gas directly to the break-away South Ossetia. Every time Gazprom has acted in this way, hypocritical reports in Europe and America have howled about Russian arrogance. But Russia is not doing anything astonishing here: its control of gas and oil is one of its few strengths, and it is using it just as the Pentagon relies on US military strength to make up for its shortcomings in other areas. Russia's other strength has been its nuclear arsenal. As Chomsky has pointed out, the Bush administration's sabotage of efforts to reduce and dispose of Russia's arsenal as part of multilateral efforts has been extremely dangerous: In February 2004, Russia carried out its largest military exercises in two decades, prominently exhibiting advanced WMD. Russian generals and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that they were responding to Washington's plans "to make nuclear weapons an instrument of solving military tasks," including its development of new low-yield nuclear weapons, "an extremely dangerous tendency that is undermining global and regional stability,... lowering the threshold for actual use." Strategic analyst Bruce Blair writes that Russia is well aware that the new "bunker busters" are designed to target the "high-level nuclear command bunkers" that control its nuclear arsenal. Ivanov and Russian generals report that in response to US escalation they are deploying "the most advanced state-of-the- art missile in the world," perhaps next to impossible to destroy, something that "would be very alarming to the Pentagon," says former Assistant Defense Secretary Phil Coyle. US analysts suspect that Russia may also be duplicating US development of a hypersonic cruise vehicle that can re-enter the atmosphere from space and launch devastating attacks without warning, part of US plans to reduce reliance on overseas bases or negotiated access to air routes. US analysts estimate that Russian military expenditures have tripled during the Bush-Putin years, in large measure a predicted reaction to the Bush administration's militancy and aggressiveness. Putin and Ivanov cited the Bush doctrine of "preemptive strike"-- the "revolutionary" new doctrine of the National Security Strategy -- but also "added a key detail, saying that military force can be used if there is an attempt to limit Russia's access to regions that are essential to its survival," thus adapting for Russia the Clinton doctrine that the US is entitled to resort to "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources." The world "is a much more insecure place" now that Russia has decided to follow the US lead, said Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution, adding that other countries presumably "will follow suit." Since the US government has preferred to 'neutralise' Russia's nuclear advantage in the region by building up a 'missile defense' system around the latter's perimeter, Russia is working aggressively to escalate its weapons systems (which are dwarved by the American equivalents), intimidate rivals, and build up local support - forging new relations with Turkmenistan, for example, with a new pipeline to import gas from the country, thus increasing its hold on supplies of the substance to Europe. This particular conflagration may not last long - Russian investors are unhappy about it, and the state-owned oil and gas companies are losing value rapidly. However, that depends on how much the Russian ruling class feels is at stake in this battle. Washington could easily escalate the situation, and a new Brzezinski-advised Obama administration would certainly focus far more intently on shoring up US power in Central Asia than continuing to fight the lost battle in Iraq. And the US ruling class, in pursuing its "new Cold War", has introduced an infernal logic of mutual escalation, so that even if this crisis simmers down, a new one is bound to emerge soon. The much- vaunted new world order is increasingly resembling the old one, but with more nuclear weapons and less stability. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Aug 9 17:43:22 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:43:22 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Debt capitalism self-destructs Message-ID: <489E2B9A.1000902@attglobal.net> by Henry C K Liu Asia Times Online ?(July 22 2008) In a period of less than a year, what had been described by US authorities as a temporary financial problem related to the bursting the housing bubble has turned into a fully fledged crisis at the very core of free-market capitalism. A handful of analysts have been warning for years that the wholesale deregulation of financial markets and the wrong-headed privatization of the public sector during the past two decades would threaten the viability of free-market capitalism. Yet ideological neoliberal fixation remain firmly imbedded in US ruling circles, fertilized by irresistible campaign contributions from profiteers on Wall Street, methodically purging regulatory agencies of all who tried to maintain a sense of financial reality. This ideology of "market knows best" has allowed the nation to slip into an unsustainable joyride on massive debt giddily assumed by all market participants, ranging from supposedly conservative banks, investment banks and other non-bank financial institutions, to industrial corporations, government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and individuals. The once-dynamic US economy has turned itself into a system in which it is difficult to find any institution, company or individual not over their head in speculative debt. Undercapitalized capitalism, also known as debt capitalism, has been the engine of growth for the US debt bubble in the last two decades. This debt capitalism cancer is caused by a failure of central banking. In the face of a broad systemic collapse of debt capitalism, where capital has become dangerously inadequate and new capital hazardously and prohibitively scarce, having been crowded out by massive debt collateralized by overblown assets of declining value and with a credit crisis that clearly requires systemic restructuring and comprehensive intensive care, those in the US responsible for the financial well-being of the nation seem to have been reacting tactically from crisis to crisis with a script of adamant denial of obvious facts, symptoms and trends, with no signs of any coherent grand strategy or plan to save the cancerous system from structural self-destruction. This band-aid short-term approach to artificially pop up share prices in the collapsing equity market and to maintain insolvent financial institutions with technical life-support will lead only to long-term disaster for the whole economy. Yet this approach is preferred by those in authority, trapped in self deception about unregulated market capitalism being still fundamentally sound. They try to calm markets by asserting that the current turmoil is merely a minor liquidity bottleneck that can be handled by the central bank releasing more liquidity against the full face value of collaterals of declining worth. The message is that somehow, if easy money in the form of debt is made endlessly available, the economy will recover from this credit crunch, notwithstanding that excessive debt has been the cause of the problem; or bad loans can be made good by Congress giving the US Treasury authority to buy up bad loans with unlimited amounts of taxpayer money. Yet these incremental measures taken so far by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve make the two government units with direct responsibility on the nation's long-term financial health look like panicky rogue traders trading for the national account in desperate hope to score a win in the next quarter by upping the ante, to contain allegedly isolated crisis hot points. The aggregate effect adds up to a broad stealth nationalization of the insolvent financial sector. Their prescription for stabilizing a debt-destabilized market is more public debt to support corporation socialism. For years, anyone warning that the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), namely Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, should be held to normal capitalization requirements was ridiculed as a fear monger by the powerful lobbying machines these GSEs employed. Capital is considered as superfluous in the new game of debt capitalism held up by complex circular hedging. As a result, the GSEs have become the monstrous tail that wags the dog of housing finance. The current talk about the need to curb speculation in the commodities and financial markets to stabilize prices is off target, especially for believers of market capitalism. All market transactions are speculative in nature. Speculation can stabilize prices as well as to destabilize them, but only in the short term. Long-term price levels (inflation or deflation), as Milton Friedman aptly observed, are always monetary phenomena. The current turmoil in the financial system, the subprime mortgage implosion, the credit crisis from the seizure in the asset-backed commercial papers market, the undercapitalization of commercial and investment bank, the rating agency dysfunction, the insolvency of monocline (bond) insurers, the massive financial losses by the GSEs and a host of other financial problems percolating under the media radar, are the outcome, and not the cause, of this market turbulence. (See Perils of the debt-propelled economy, Asia Times Online, September 14 2002.) Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, GSEs that have provided mortgage funds for the housing market since 1938, were created as part of the New Deal to help low-income families. They were privatized in 1968 on terms that would alter their social mandate and would inevitably lead them into financial trouble on a big scale. Finally but suddenly, these GSEs find themselves in danger of defaulting on their massive debts, upwards of US$5 trillion, in the course of a single week. Deeply rooted in US political culture is the view that credit is a financial public utility, much like air and water, and should be equally accessible to all, not just to the rich. Economic democracy has been the core strength of US political democracy. Government loan guarantees for students and home mortgages for low- and moderate-income groups and loans to small business are based on this principle. Yet from time to time, this principle of economic democracy is overshadowed by free-market extremism to push the nation's economy into extended depressions. The US National Housing Act was enacted on June 27 1934, as one of several economic recovery measures of the New Deal to get the nation out of the Great Depression. It provided for the establishment of a Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Title II of the Act provided for the insurance of home-mortgage loans made by private lenders, taking the disaggregated risk in lending to low-income borrowers off private lenders and managing the risk on a national scale with a government agency to take advantage of the law of large numbers, a theorem in probability that describes the long-term stability of a random variable. Title III of the Act provided for the chartering of national mortgage associations by the FHA administrator. These associations were to be independent corporations regulated by the administrator, and their chief purpose was to buy and sell the mortgages insured by the FHA under Title II. Only one association was ever formed under this authority. On February 10 1938, this association, the National Mortgage Association of Washington, became a subsidiary of the Reconstruction Finance Corp, a government corporation. Its name was changed that same year to Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). By amendments made in 1948, Title III of the US National Housing Act became a statutory charter for Fannie Mae. Balloon payment barrier Before the Great Depression, affording a home was difficult for most people in the US. At that time, a prospective homeowner had to make a down payment of forty percent and pay the mortgage off in three to five years. Until the last payment, borrowers paid only interest on the loan. The entire principal was paid in one lump sum as the final "balloon" payment. Lenders could demand full payment of the outstanding loan at any time of the lender's choosing, often at time least advantageous to borrowers. This allowed lenders to use foreclosures as a means to take over desirable properties. During the 1920s boom time in real estate, a rudimentary secondary mortgage market had come into being. The stock-market crash of 1929 ended the real-estate boom and forced many private guarantee companies into insolvency as home prices collapsed. As economic conditions worsened, more and more borrowers defaulted on mortgages because they couldn't come up with the money for the final balloon payment or to roll over their mortgage because of low market value of their homes. To help lift the country out of the Great Depression, Congress created the FHA through the National Housing Act of 1934. The FHA's insurance program protected mortgage lenders from the risk of default on long-term, fixed-rate mortgages. Because this type of mortgage was unpopular with private lenders and investors, Congress in 1938 created Fannie Mae to refinance FHA-insured mortgages. As soldiers came home from World War II, Congress passed the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944, which gave the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) authority to guarantee veterans' loans with no down payment or insurance premium requirements. Many financial institutions considered this arrangement a more attractive investment than war bonds. By revision of Title III in 1954, Fannie Mae was converted into a mixed-ownership corporation, its preferred stock to be held by the government and its common stock to be privately held. It was at this time that Section 312 was first enacted, giving Title III the short title of Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act. By amendments made in 1968, the Federal National Mortgage Association was partitioned into two separate entities, one to be known as the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), the other to retain the name Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). Ginnie Mae remained in the government, and Fannie Mae became privately owned by retiring the government-held stock. Ginnie Mae has operated as a wholly owned government association since the 1968 amendments. Fannie Mae, as a private company operating with private capital on a self-sustaining basis, expanded to buy mortgages beyond traditional government loan limits, reaching out to a broader income cross-section. By the early 1970s, inflation and interest rates rose drastically. Many investors drifted away from mortgages. Ginnie Mae eased economic tension by issuing its first mortgage-backed security (MBS) guarantee in 1970. Investors found these guaranteed MBSs highly attractive. Also in 1970, under the Emergency Home Finance Act, Congress chartered the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (Freddie Mac) to buy conventional mortgages from federally insured financial institutions. The legislation also authorized Fannie Mae to purchase conventional mortgages. Freddie Mac introduced its own MBS program in 1971. Fannie and Freddie charters give these GSEs exemptions from state and local taxes, allow them relatively meager capital requirements, and provide them with an ability to borrow money at lowest possible rates to lend at near market rates. Over the years, this advantage has served not to lower home prices and mortgage payments to help low-income buyers but to enrich debt securitizers and brokers. Aging credit line Each agency now has a $2.25 billion credit line with the Treasury, set nearly forty years ago by Congress at a time when Fannie had only about $15 billion in outstanding debt. It now has total debt of about $800 billion, while Freddie has about $740 billion. Today the two companies also hold or guarantee loans with face value of more than $5 trillion, about half the nation's mortgages. Market analysts estimate that the market value of this liability may be less than fifty percent unless the housing market recovers. In other words, the GSEs face a $3.5 trillion exposure to default if they cannot raise new funds in the credit market. In the early 1980s, the US economy spiraled into deep recession. Interest rates were high while house prices while falling, remaining beyond the reach of many low- and moderate-income buyers because income growth stayed stagnant. The US economy faced a dual problem of income deficiency and money devaluation. In this poor housing market environment, Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all created programs to handle adjustable-rate mortgages. The Ginnie Mae guaranty is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Today, Ginnie Mae guaranteed securities are one of the most widely held and traded MBSs in the world. Ginnie Mae has guaranteed more than $1.7 trillion in MBSs. Historically, 95% of all FHA and VA mortgages have been securitized through Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae is a guarantor, a surety. Ginnie Mae does not issue, sell, or buy MBSs, or purchase mortgage loans. Ginnie Mae is not in financial distress. Fannie Mae is another story. Many of the innovative mortgage options introduced during the early 1980s to revive the weak housing market in a recession were exploited to fuel a housing bubble with excessive liquidity provided by the Federal Reserve, helping low- and middle-income buyer to buy homes their stagnant income could not afford. Fannie continues to operate under a congressional charter that directs it to channel its efforts into increasing the availability and affordability of home ownership for low-, moderate- and middle-income Americans. Yet Fannie Mae receives no government funding or backing, and it is one of the nation's largest taxpayers as well as one of the most consistently profitable corporations until now. The company has evolved to become a shareholder-owned, privately managed corporation supporting the secondary market for conventional loans. Its congressional mandate of keeping homes affordable has since been largely forgotten in favor of an unprecedented boom in the housing market. Yet it continues to operate under a congressional charter that provides it with low-cost funds with only perfunctory oversight from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Treasury. Fannie Mae has two primary lines of business: Portfolio investment, in which the company buys mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) as investments, funding those purchases with debt, and credit guaranty, which involves guaranteeing for a fee the credit performance of single-family and multi-family loans. Overseas debt holders During the housing bubble which it essentially helped create with the Fed easy money, Fannie was highly profitable, with high returns for happy shareholders and lucrative compensation for its executives. Above all, it provided a continuous stream of income and profit for Wall Street and central banks around the world while US homeowners were led down a treachery path of eventual foreclosure. According to data from the Council on Foreign Relations, foreign central banks own $925 billion of debt in the two GSEs. China tops the list with $420 billion in Freddie and Fannie debt; Russia and Japan come in second with a combined $407 billion in GSE debt. Others countries that hold the debt include Singapore, Taiwan, and several cash-rich countries in the Persian Gulf. Fannie's portfolio investment business includes mortgage loans purchased throughout the US from approved mortgage lending institutions. It also purchases MBSs, structured mortgage products and other assets in the open market. The corporation derives income from the difference between the yield on these investments and the low subsidized costs to fund the purchase of these investments, usually from issuing debt in the domestic and international markets. Fannie Mae has $3.46 trillion in MBSs outstanding today, held by a dispersed network of investors, including foreign central banks, topped by China's. The GSEs now only pay lip service to accomplishing its mission to provide products and services that increase the availability and the affordability of housing for low-, moderate- and middle-income buyers by operating in the secondary rather than the primary mortgage market. Fannie Mae purchases mortgage loans from mortgage lenders such as mortgage companies, savings institutions, credit unions and commercial banks, thereby replenishing those institutions' supply of mortgage funds. It either packages these loans into MBSs, which it guarantees for full and timely payment of principal and interest, or purchases these loans for cash and retains the mortgages in its own portfolio. Yet Fannie's role in recent years has been to supply the housing bubble with excess liquidity released by a wayward central bank, by buying at a profit economically unsound mortgages that depended on a continuing spiral of rising home prices way beyond reasonable projection of home buyer income growth. It has turned the US from a nation of homeowners into a nation of foreclosed homes. Fannie Mae is now one of the world's largest issuers of debt securities, the leader in the $14 trillion US home-mortgage market. Fannie Mae's debt obligations are treated as US agency securities in the marketplace, which is just below US Treasuries and above AAA corporate debt. This agency status is due in part to the creation and existence of the corporation pursuant to a federal law, the public mission that it allegedly serves, and the corporation's continuing ties to the US government through a weak oversight link. It benefits from an appearance, though not the essence, of being backed by sovereign credit that borders on outright fraud and protected by the doctrine of too big to fail. Fannie Mae debt obligations receive favorable treatment from a regulatory perspective. Fannie Mae securities are "exempted securities" under laws administered by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to the same extent as US government obligations. Also, Fannie Mae debt qualifies for more liberal treatment than corporate debt under US federal statutes and regulations and, to a limited extent, foreign overseas statutes and regulations. Fund managers who buy GSE debt are protected from fiduciary challenges. Some of these statutes and regulations make it possible for deposit-taking institutions to invest in Fannie Mae debt more liberally than in corporate debt and other mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. Others enable certain institutions to invest in Fannie Mae debt on par with obligations of the United States and in unlimited amounts. Fannie Mae uses a variety of funding vehicles to provide investors with debt securities that meet their investment, trading, hedging, and financing objectives, not all of which serves the public interest. Fannie Mae is able to issue different debt structures at various points on the yield curve because of its large and consistent funding needs. As the Treasury retired thirty-year bonds, these GSE agencies stepped in to fill the void in long term finance. Ideology triumphant The privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was an ideological move. It was financially unnecessary as sovereign credit could have funded the entire low-, moderate- and middle-income housing-mortgage needs with no profit siphoned off to private investors and brokers. These agency debt instruments played a crucial role in developing and sustaining the credit bubble in the US that is now coming home to roost. In fact, the funding risk of both agencies was questioned, among many others, by the voice of free-market capitalism, the Wall Street Journal, on February 20 2002 in an editorial about Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's safety, soundness and financial management, characterizing both agencies as risky, fast-growing companies that "look like poorly run hedge funds" ... "unduly exposed to credit risk with large derivative positions", and that they "use all manner of derivatives" and "are exposed to unquantified counterparty risk on these positions". Such concerns would have been avoided if both agencies had been funded directly with government credit, and the cost of housing to low-, moderate- and middle-income Americans would have been lower. As it happens, the government is now faced with the prospect of having to bail out these GSEs with public funds. The term "undercapitalization" for financial institutions is merely a sanitized euphemism for insolvency. The real source of the present market turbulence is more than just the waywardness of runaway GSEs sidetracked from their public purpose. It is another symptom of the failure of central banking. The world is now witnessing the slow but steady collapse of the central banking regime that came into being in the US in 1913, which has since failed to fulfill its mandate of managing the monetary system to maintain price stability and full employment. Dysfunctional monetary policies adopted by all central banks, led by the US Federal Reserve, have allowed the market to take capital out of free market capitalism to turn it into a gigantic Ponzi scheme. In the 1990s, the original congressional intent for the GSEs was distorted from making homeownership affordable to low- and moderate-income families to a new role of supporting a housing bubble that enables families to buy homes at prices with mortgages their incomes cannot service. The profit from housing price appreciation went mostly to mortgage originators and banks that bought and sold MBSs to investors who also profited from buying debt with debt collateralized with the debt they bought. Capital suddenly became only a notional value in the market of debt derivatives. Homebuyers bought mortgages with no down payment, banks and mortgage brokers sold the debt to securitizers who sold it to institutional investors who borrowed using the securities as collateral. The GSEs also became very profitable, leaving homeowners to default on their mortgages as the market turned on them. The whole transaction cycle did not require any capital. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ranked Aaa by the world's leading credit-rating companies, are now being treated by derivatives traders as if they were rated five levels lower because the issuers are pitifully undercapitalized for the size of the debt they issue. Credit-default swaps tied to $1.45 trillion of debt sold by these two biggest allegedly US-backed mortgage finance companies are trading at levels that imply the bonds should be rated A2 by Moody's Investors Service. The price of contracts used to speculate on the creditworthiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to protect against a default has doubled in the past two months. Debt guarantee disregarded Traders are disregarding the government's implied guarantee of GSE debt as credit losses grow and concern rises about the GSEs not having enough capital to weather the biggest housing slump since the Great Depression. Fannie Mae has lost eighty percent of market capitalization value in the first half of 2008 on the New York Stock Exchange; and Freddie Mac lost seventy percent. The two GSEs reported combined operating losses of more than $11 billion, and have raised more than $20 billion new capital since December 2007. After Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc released a report on June 7 2008, saying a new accounting rule may require the GSEs to raise another $75 billion in new capital, Freddie Mac shares dropped another eighteen percent and Fannie Mae fell sixteen percent. Still, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulator of these GSEs, declared them as adequately capitalized in regulatory terms. The companies' existing congressional charters give the Treasury the authority to buy as much as $2.25 billion in each of their securities in the event of possible default, against a total liability of over $5 trillion. The works out as an equity injection of less than half-a-cent on each dollar of liability. Credit-default swaps tied to the senior debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have climbed 35 basis points to seventy basis points since May 1 2008. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point. The cost to protect the companies' subordinated debt from default rose at a faster rate. That debt is rated Aa2 by Moody's. Credit-default swaps on Fannie Mae's subordinated notes jumped 103 basis points to 190 basis points since May 1, while contracts on Freddie Mac's subordinated notes rose 102 basis points to 190 basis points. The median credit-default swap on debt rated Aaa by Moody's was 26 basis points as of July 8. It was 76 basis points for debt rated A2, and 180 basis points for debt rated Baa3, the lowest investment-grade ranking. The costs likely reflect counterparty risk, or the risk that the bank or securities firm on the other end of the contract fails. For most companies, the counterparty risk embedded in credit-default swap costs would not be as pronounced because the risk of a default on the underlying debt would be greater than that of the bank backing the protection. In the case of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other companies with Aaa ratings, the default risk for lower-rated banks is greater. Credit-default swaps are financial instruments based on bonds and loans that are used to speculate on a company's ability to repay debt. They pay the buyer face value in exchange for the underlying securities or the cash equivalent should a borrower fail to adhere to its debt agreements. A rise indicates deterioration in the perception of credit quality; a decline, the opposite. A basis point on a contract protecting $10 million of debt for five years is equivalent to $1,000 a year. On January 11 2006, in Asia Times Online I wrote in Of debt, deflation and rotten apples: "In the US, where loan securitization is widespread, banks are tempted to push risky loans by passing on the long-term risk to non-bank investors through debt securitization. Credit-default swaps, a relatively novel form of derivative contract, allow investors to hedge against securitized mortgage pools. This type of contract, known as asset-back securities, has been limited to the corporate bond market, conventional home mortgages, and auto and credit-card loans. Last June [2005], a new standard contract began trading by hedge funds that bets on home-equity securities backed by adjustable-rate loans to sub-prime borrowers, not as a hedge strategy but as a profit center. When bearish trades are profitable, their bets can easily become self-fulfilling prophesies by kick-starting a downward vicious cycle." The US charter and the GSEs' role in guaranteeing about 46% of the $12 trillion US mortgages outstanding led to expectations that the government would stand behind the agencies' debt. Standard & Poor's assigned the debt top ratings, citing the agencies' "explicit and implicit support" from the government. Moral hazard effect The bailout of Bear Stearns Cos arranged by the Federal Reserve in March signaled to the market that the government would not allow the GSEs to fail or default on their debts. It is clear evidence of the moral hazard effect on the financial market from bailing out one institution. With all the exposure that all banks and non-bank institutions and central banks have to Fannie and Freddie debt default, the ripple effect through the whole financial system would be unbelievable if they were allowed to fail. It was also clear evidence of the "too big to fail" doctrine. The risk surrounding Fannie Mae was reflected in the GSE's latest sale of $3 billion of two-year benchmark notes at higher yields over benchmark rates than in previous offerings. The 3.25% notes, which mature August 12 2010, priced to yield 3.27%, or 74 basis points more than comparable US Treasuries. The company in June 2008 sold $4 billion of three-percent notes maturing July 12 2010, that priced to yield 3.036%, or 65 basis points more than Treasuries. The government has been leaning on the GSEs to help revive the home mortgage market. Congress lifted growth restrictions on the companies, eased their capital requirements and allowed them to buy bigger, so-called jumbo mortgages, to spur demand for home loans as private lenders fled the market. The decision to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of a $300 billion housing stimulus plan strengthened perceptions of the government's support of the GSEs. Their share of new conforming mortgages, or loans of $417,000 or less, almost doubled to 81% in the first quarter of 2008, according to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulator. It appears that the fire engines caught on fire on its way to the scene of the fire. Merrill Lynch analyst Kenneth Bruce said in a report that the "highly levered financial institutions" would have pretax credit-related losses of $45 billion, suggesting that Fannie and Freddie are going to have to raise more capital, but the market does not think they are going to be able to raise capital when they need to at a cost they can live with. The New York Times reported on the night of July 13 2008 (Sunday) that discussions among senior US government officials had heated up with respect to the US taking over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae before markets opened in Asia. The structure being contemplated is a "conservatorship", which is permitted under a 1992 law and is one that would essentially wipe out the two GSEs' respective equity while allowing their loans to be managed. Conservatorship is another fancy term of nationalization. The scheme allows the government to pretend the GSEs' liabilities are not its own even after it assumes them. A finding from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the enterprises' regulator, that the GSEs are "critically undercapitalized" would be needed for conservatorship application. Up to now, the OFHEO has sent out the opposite message to the public. It will have to announce a 180-degree "correction" to shift quickly from "adequately capitalized" to "critically undercapitalized" for the government's proposal to work. But unlike 1933 in the days of the New Deal when deficit financing was an operative option to revive the economy because the government was relatively free of debt, the US in 2008 is already deeply in debt, having operated with deficit financing in a boom time for more than two decades. Estimates suggest that for each ten percent decline in Freddie/Fannie assets value, a loss of $150 billion would result, equivalent to the cost of the Iraq War to date. And Fannie has lost eighty percent of market capitalization and Freddie has lost seventy percent to date. Soaring government obligations By assuming the GSEs' combined $5 trillion in liabilities, the US government's total obligations would soar from $9.5 trillion to $14.5 trillion. This will raise the per capita national debt from $31,250 to $47,650. The added debt is one and a half times the Bush Administration proposed 2008 fiscal budget of $3.1 trillion. While the agencies own housing-related assets that roughly match their liabilities, the still-collapsing housing market makes their value uncertain. This will unavoidably force the dollar to fall and dollar interest rates to rise. Meanwhile, the turmoil is impeding or even paralyzing the GSEs in their crucial life-support role for the housing market. An analyst's early July report from Lehman Brothers, an investment bank itself on the brink of collapse, provoked the market panic over the GSEs. Lehman, a major player in the mortgage-backed securities market, lost as much as tweny percent in intraday trading on talk that PIMCO, the world's largest bond trader, no longer was conducting business with the Wall Street firm. Then William Poole, a respected former chief of the St Louis Federal Reserve, now a private investment advisor since July 1 2008, observed that Fannie and Freddie were technically insolvent in the first quarter this year on a mark-to-market basis. Such information was not news - in a 2006 speech, Emil Henry, then a Treasury assistant secretary, likened a failure of one of the GSE companies to a "single gunshot setting off an avalanche" - and had no bearing on the GSEs' solvency in regulatory terms. Yet the new unsettling attention on two market leaders of overwhelming scale in an uncertain climate threw financial markets into a downward spin. Fannie and Freddie were the original inventors of mortgage-backed security, a key cause of the housing bubble and its subsequent deflation. These GSEs received credit and recognition for ingenuity in unbundling risk and reselling mortgage-backed securities to buyers of varying risk appetite in the global market. It was the secret behind the US housing boom and the enabling idea behind the structured finance market. Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman, praised it ceaselessly as an ingenious breakthrough that did much to widen home ownership. But the development weakened the mortgage originators' oversight of loan quality. Greenspan accepted the risk as part of the natural phenomenon of "bad loans are made in good times". The backing of the GSEs enabled securitization of "ninja" mortgages (no income, no job or assets), loans that no one would buy if they were not guaranteed by the government. Thus the fault did not lie with mortgage originators, for they would not be able to issue shaky mortgages unless there was a market for them. GSEs' abuse of their alleged government guarantee had rendered market discipline inoperative, allowing the system to go on a wide joyride that was bound to crash of a cliff. Because of their complexity and broad distribution, when securitized debts default, restructuring is almost impossible. There is no effective fire break once the fire begins and quickly engulfs the whole market. The sooner the need for a systemic restructure is acknowledged and acted upon, the better it would be for the long-term health of the economy, or the future of regulated market capitalism itself. However, hybrid solutions of quick fixes to paper over seismic financial faults are being proposed to enable the evasion of responsibility and for political advantage in an election year. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said on Friday, July 6 this year that the government would support the GSEs "in their current form as they carry out their important mission". On Sunday, the Treasury issued a statement indicating that "... its main focus was still on supporting Fannie and Freddie in their current form. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies. Their support for the housing market is particularly important as we work through the current housing correction. GSE debt is held by financial institutions around the world. Its continued strength is important to maintaining confidence and stability in our financial system and our financial markets. Therefore we must take steps to address the current situation as we move to a stronger regulatory structure." Regulatory reform while necessary cannot be backdated. There are $5 trillion of outstanding debt instruments written under problematic regulatory oversight that need to be dealt with. Expressions of support for the "current form" that has proved wanting by a wide margin, a new line of credit to support bad loans and a proposed unlimited injection of capital by government that would surely face congressional opposition is a prescription to muddle through a major structural rupture. Government support The ability of the GSEs to raise new capital and credit from private sources is totally dependent on government support. Thus the plan to support these GSEs in distress will be much more costly if it must be done through private profit incentives. The outcome is likely to be a new contraction in the supply, and increase in the cost, of mortgage finance - further lessening the chances of an early recovery in the housing market and the wider economy. Private profit incentive overwhelming public interest got the GSEs in trouble. How can more private profit incentives be expected to get them out of trouble? The Fed has announced that it will allow Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to borrow from its discount widow, normal open only to commercial banks and since March 2008 open also to investment banks as part of the bail out of Bear Stearns. Under a three-part proposal by the Treasury, the Fed will also be given a consultative role in setting capital requirements and other regulatory standards for Fannie and Freddie, as part of an evolution to be the top regulator and overseer of the nation's financial system. Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker expressed concern that by expanding its role of lender of last resort to institutions beside commercial banks that previously were not allowed to hold positions in equities, the Fed may have opened itself up to moral hazard dangers if large institutions believe their adventurous behavior will be bailed out by the Fed. With the Fed, whose perspective tends to align with those of its member banks, taking over many of the regulatory powers of the Security Exchange Commission, whose mandate was originally to protect the interest of small investors, the public interest may face further diminished protection. Yet the financial market has irreversibly changed with the emergence of structured finance in which loan securitization has taken loans that once had to stay in the balance sheets of issuing banks but are now securitized and sold by brokers to institutional investors worldwide. Default of a major broker default, such as Fannie and Freddie, will be as damaging as failure of a major money-center bank and cause catastrophic collapse of the credit market. In 1968, then president Lyndon Johnson, as part of his Great Society program, turned Fannie into a shareholder-owned company as part of a national housing policy to make finance capitalism finance the nationalization of housing. It was the beginning of corporate market socialism in the name of populist economic democracy. The public could only benefit if corporate and financial institutional interests could profit first. And the public must pay if market capitalism fails systemically, absolving the losses of wayward corporations and financial institutions. In 1970, the savings and loan industry, envying the huge profit made by commercial and investment banks from Fannie Mae, called for and received congressional approval for a GSE of their own and Congress created Freddie Mac. Like the Urban Renewal program of the 1950s, the GSEs served a coalition of interest that included liberals who wanted to help low-income households, real state developers that wanted guaranteed demand, home builders that wanted a guaranteed market, local politicians who wanted tax revenue from redevelopment, banks that wanted lucrative risk-free loan proceeds and congressmen who wanted campaign contributions from mortgage lenders. Too good to be true Low-income voters were first dazzled by the new homes they were able to acquire with no money down and with monthly payments financed with home equity loans as house prices rose. They acted like Pinocchio in a Pleasure Island - that would soon turn them into jackasses to be sold to work in salt mines. The financial institutions were comforting their pangs of conscience over taking loans off their balance sheets as soon as they made them by excusing themselves with the idea that they were making low-cost mortgage available to millions of homebuyers. Neoliberal economists were celebrating the US miracle of mass capitalism that does not need capital. The program of passing unsustainable loans to faceless investors benefited also land speculators, home builders, real estate agents, investment bankers, structured financiers and household furnishers. Since the main thrust of the GSE program was to help low- and moderate- income homebuyers, opposition was considered undemocratic. Yet everyone knows that the GSEs face an interest-rate risk in their long-term mortgages if interest rates should rise over the loan period. To protect itself from interest rate risks, the GSEs use derivatives to hedge against interest-rate risk. The OFHEO was created by the House Banking Committee chaired by Texas populist Henry Gonzalez in 1992 with minimal power to regulate the two giant GSEs on the ground that GSEs were institutions intended to support the national policy of a nation of homeowners by making housing loans affordable and should be exempt from regulation regulating commercial institutions. The problem of this good policy intention was that during the era of neoliberal ascendancy, the light regulatory environment was used to negate a more fundamental economic law: the need to increase worker income to match mortgage payments, subsidized or not. The GSEs have been financially successful because they combine private sector appetite for profit with access to government-backed credit at below market rates. It was a way to nationalize housing through the free market capitalism. The problem was that financial manipulation cannot replace the need for adequate income growth. The mismatch of income with asset price is the definition of a financial bubble. People were buying homes with cheap credit at prices that their income could not afford. The more home prices rose due to cheap credit, the more homeowners fell into the debt trap. Yet in all the current talk about finding ways to deal with the crisis, not one single voice is heard from official circles about the need to increase worker income. Instead, false hopes on one-time stimulant tax rebates are hailed as the magic bullet. Suddenly this summer, Fannie and Freddie's relatively anemic capital supply is a serious concern for the market. In one week in July, Fannie's stock plummeted to $10.25, down 74% in 2008. Freddie's shares also dived, closing at $7.75, a loss of 77% this year. Even as investors stampede out of these battered stocks, the sycophants of free market capitalism in Washington, led by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, rushed to reassure the market, pointing out that the mortgage giants' regulators had confirmed that the companies were "adequately capitalized", trying to give the impression that regulators had the problem firmly in hand and that no new capital was needed by the GSEs. But these two leaders had lost much credibility since in August 2007 when they voiced a similar mantra that problems in the mortgage market were "contained" to subprime loans and would not spread beyond. SEC chairman Christopher Cox tried to calm investors by telling them that Bear Stearns passed financial muster only days before it required a Fed-engineered bail out by JP Morgan Chase with Fed loans. More than capital adequacy is at risk. The credibility of the team with responsibility for the nation's monetary system and its financial market is heading for a meltdown. Unfortunately, credibility is much easier to lose than to regain. (See America's Untested Management Team Asia Times Online, June 17 2006.) Recurring anxiety Anxiety about Fannie and Freddie's liabilities of more than $5 trillion getting too big for the funding authority of the Federal Reserve of a measly $2.5 billion credit line has been a recurring concern in many quarters in recent years. Even after both GSEs were found to be infested with accounting irregularities (Freddie Mac in 2003 and Fannie Mae in 2004), Congress failed to act, except to make the regulator require the GSEs to hold thirty percent more capital than the minimum previously required, in effect capping their ability to purchase mortgages when the housing bubble was approach its peak. Still, Fannie and Freddie were allowed to pose as high-growth companies whose shares were safe enough for widows and orphans. GSE market share fell to 45% at the peak of the housing bubble. After the bubble burst, it rose to 68% in the first quarter of 2008. After empty official assurances failed to convince the market because it was plain for all to see that the two GSEs' direct and guaranteed liabilities were almost 65 times their regulatory capital at the end of the first quarter of 2008, the near-term priority was to restore the rapidly fading confidence of buyers of Fannie's and Freddie's debt, many of whom are foreigners. By increasing the GSEs' credit line and pushing for authority to inject fresh equity if necessary, the Treasury's proposed plan appears to be aimed at allaying fears of widespread counterparty default and market failure. Freddie seemed to have no serious problem offloading $3 billion of new paper on Monday, July 14, although arm-twisting was rumored to have been needed to persuade banks to buy it. The bigger problem for Washington is that merely stabilizing Fannie and Freddie is not enough. With US banks seriously distressed by the credit crisis, the GSEs, which hold or guarantee 22% of the $24.3 trillion outstanding debts borrowed by US households and the non-financial sector, are a major source of credit. Yet the market is clearly uncomfortable with the inability of the GSEs to maintain its over-bloated balance sheet. The options are either to shrink the balance sheet drastically, thus exacerbating the credit crisis, or to seek a massive injection of new capital, both requiring government action at an unprecedented scale. Despite these ad hoc measures, which may or may not receive congressional approval, the whole world knows that credit capacity is shrinking drastically in the market. There are rumors that the US is pressing foreign central banks to acquire more GSE debt, but the market is inundated with fear of new crises before the housing market recovers. And the housing market is lying in a coma in intensive care with an oxygen tank of new credit running near empty. As the housing market collapses, both GSE companies are reporting steep losses. But the subprime mortgage meltdown has also made the GSEs more important than ever in holding up the housing finance sector. Since the credit markets seized up, Fannie and Freddie have regained their central role in mortgage finance after losing significant market share to investment banks during the housing boom. They have issued the vast majority of mortgage securities sold in the last six months because investors have lost confidence in deals put together by big investment banks. In February 2008, prodded by the Treasury, federal regulators announced they were easing some restrictions on lending by Fannie and Freddie. Then on March 19 the federal government announced that it was easing those restrictions in an effort to calm the turmoil afflicting the mortgage markets. Officials said the change could allow the two GSEs to invest $200 billion more in mortgages. Alarmed by the sharply eroding market confidence in the nation's two GSEs, the largest mortgage finance companies, the Bush administration announced plans on Sunday, July 13 to ask Congress to approve a sweeping rescue package that would give officials the power to inject unlimited funds into the beleaguered companies through investments and loans. In a separate announcement, the Federal Reserve said that at the request of the Treasury it would make one of its temporary short-term lending programs at the discount window available to the two GSEs, "to promote the availability of home mortgage credit during a period of stress in financial markets". The program for the GSEs would end when Congress approves the Treasury's proposed plan. Treasury Secretary Paulson announced dramatically Sunday on the steps of the Treasury building: "The president has asked me to work with Congress to act on this plan immediately. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies. Their support for the housing market is particularly important as we work through the current housing correction." Paulson paradox While officials in successive administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have for many years repeatedly denied that the trillions of dollars of debt Fannie and Freddie issued is guaranteed by the government, the Paulson package, if adopted, would bring the Treasury closer than ever to exposing taxpayers to potentially huge new liabilities. The two GSEs are expected to face significant new losses this year as the wave of housing foreclosures continues and rises. Paulson seemed to suggest that there is no choice but for the government to intervene. The proposed plan, requiring the Treasury to be giving authority by Congress to command unlimited funds to stabilize the GSEs, is predicated on the hope that the very availability of unlimited funds would make it unnecessary to use them. The investment and lending elements of the proposed plan are to last two years. Over the weekend, Treasury officials sought assurances from Wall Street firms that the $3 billion auction on Monday by Freddie Mac of short-term debt would go off without a hitch. While $3 billion is a relatively small sum for an institution of Freddie's size, officials said they did not want to risk even a small misstep that could set off a new round of problems. Despite repeated assurances by top officials that the companies had adequate cash to weather the current financial storm, Fannie and Freddie had suffered a withering blow of confidence the week before. As a result, Freddie was faced with an uncertain debt offering on Monday. Should Fannie and Freddie fail, $5.3 trillion in mortgage debt would go unpaid. As it happened, the offering went smoothly but everyone knew it was not a normal market. Freddie Mac continued to try to raise capital from private investors even after a government rescue plan it and its sister company Fannie Mae was announced the weekend before, indicating concern that the government plan may be delayed in Congress. On Friday, July 18, Freddie Mac cleared one of the last obstacles to raising new capital through a planned $5.5 billion stock offering when it received approval to register with US securities regulators. However, Freddie Mac's ability to attract much-needed capital from new and existing shareholders has been potentially lessened by the possibility of a future government stake that might place restrictions on the business. There is also little clarity with regard to where in the capital structure the government might invest, and how dilutive such a move would be to existing shareholders. The government's rescue plan, which would allow the Treasury unlimited powers until the end of 2009 to increase its credit line to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and invest in their equity, met some strong vocal resistance in Congressional hearings during the week before July 18. While many expect Congress to have no option except to approve the Paulson plan, a few skeptics were voicing their opposition in public hearings. Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, described Paulson as "asking for a blank check ... for this unprecedented intervention in our free markets". He also vowed to try his best to stop a proposal that would give the Federal Reserve sweeping new powers aimed at protecting the nation's shaky financial system. Bunning said the Federal Reserve "can't be trusted with the power it already has". He says the Fed's policies in recent years have contributed to economic woes, including surging inflation, a declining dollar and the housing bust. "When I picked up my newspaper yesterday, I thought I woke up in France. But no, it turns out socialism is alive and well in America. The Treasury Secretary is asking for a blank check to buy as much Fannie and Freddie debt or equity as he wants. The Fed's purchase of Bear Stearns' assets was amateur socialism compared to this", thundered the Republican Senator against his own party's Treasury secretary. In US political discourse, socialism is a dirty word, albeit what Paulson proposes is not anywhere near what socialism is commonly understood to be in the rest of the world, but a scheme to use public funds to save debt capitalism by frustrating the right to fail in market capitalism. Predatory lending Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas, told Bernanke that the Federal Reserve is a "predatory lender". But he did not mention that by law, predatory lenders forfeit any right of collection. Lender liability is embodied in common and statutory law covering a broad spectrum of claims surrounding predatory lending. It is a key concept in environmental-cleanup litigation. If a lender knowingly lends to a borrower who is obviously unable to make reasonable beneficial gain from the use of the funds, or causes the borrower to assume responsibilities that are obviously beyond the borrower's capacity, the lender not only risks losing the loan without recourse but is also liable for the financial damage to the borrower caused by such loans. For example, if a bank lends to a trust client who is a minor, or someone who had no business experience, to start a risky business that resulted in the loss not only of the loan but of the client trust account, the bank may well be required by the court to make whole the client. In the United States, although predatory lending is not defined by federal law, and various states define abusive lending differently, it usually involves practices that strip equity away from a homeowner, or equity from a company, or condemn the debtor into perpetual indenture. Predatory or abusive lending practices can include making a loan to a borrower without regard to the borrower's ability to repay, repeatedly refinancing a loan within a short period of time and charging high points and fees with each refinance, charging excessive rates and fees to a borrower who qualifies for lower rates and/or fees offered by the lender, or imposing new unjustifiably harsh terms for rolling over existing debt. Predation breaks the links between an economy's aggregate resource endowment and aggregate consumption and between the interpersonal distribution of endowments and the interpersonal distribution of consumption. The choice by some to be predators decreases aggregate consumption, both because the predators' resources are wasted and because producers sacrifice production by allocating resources to guarding against predators. Much of welfare economics is based on the concept of pareto optimum, which asserts that resources are optimally distributed when an individual cannot move into a better position without putting someone else into a worse position. In an unjust global society, the pareto optimum will perpetuate injustice. Now, there is a close parallel in most Third World debts and International Monetary Fund (IMF) rescue packages to the above predation examples, where sophisticated international bankers knowingly lend to dubious schemes in developing economies merely to get their fees and high interest, knowing that "countries don't go bankrupt", as Walter Wriston, former chairman of Citibank, once famously proclaimed. The argument for Third World debt forgiveness contains large measures of lender liability and predatory lending. Debt securitization allows predatory bankers to pass the risk to global credit markets, socializing the potential damage after skimming off the privatized profits. The housing bubble has been created largely by predatory lending without any lender liability. The argument for forgiving Third World debt is applicable to low- and moderate-income home mortgage borrowers in the US as well. Let's hear some proactive commitments from the presumptive candidates of both political parties instead of empty populist campaign rhetoric. _____ Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group. His website is at http://www.henryckliu.com. Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JG22Dj06.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 17:45:39 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:45:39 -0400 Subject: [R-G] In Georgia Clash, a Lesson on U.S. Need for Russia Message-ID: August 10, 2008 News Analysis In Georgia Clash, a Lesson on U.S. Need for Russia By HELENE COOPER WASHINGTON ? The image of President Bush smiling and chatting with Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia from the stands of the Beijing Olympics even as Russian aircraft were shelling Georgia outlines the reality of America's Russia policy. While America considers Georgia its strongest ally in the bloc of former Soviet countries, Washington needs Russia too much on big issues like Iran to risk it all to defend Georgia. And State Department officials made it clear on Saturday that there was no chance the United States would intervene militarily. Mr. Bush did use tough language, demanding that Russia stop bombing. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded that Russia "respect Georgia's territorial integrity." What did Mr. Putin do? First, he repudiated President Nicolas Sarkozy of France in Beijing, refusing to budge when Mr. Sarkozy tried to dissuade Russia from its military operation. "It was a very, very tough meeting," a senior Western official said afterward. "Putin was saying, 'We are going to make them pay. We are going to make justice.' " Then, Mr. Putin flew from Beijing to a region that borders South Ossetia, arriving after an announcement that Georgia was pulling its troops out of the capital of the breakaway region. He appeared ostensibly to coordinate assistance to refugees who had fled South Ossetia into Russia, but the Russian message was clear: This is our sphere of influence; others stay out. "What the Russians just did is, for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union, they have taken a decisive military action and imposed a military reality," said George Friedman, chief executive of Stratfor, a geopolitical analysis and intelligence company. "They've done it unilaterally, and all of the countries that have been looking to the West to intimidate the Russians are now forced into a position to consider what just happened." And Bush administration officials acknowledged that the outside world, and the United States in particular, had little leverage over Russian actions. "There is no possibility of drawing NATO or the international community into this," said a senior State Department official in a conference call with reporters. The unfolding conflict in Georgia set off a flurry of diplomacy. Ms. Rice and other officials at the State Department and the Pentagon have been on the telephone with Russia's foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and other Russian counterparts, as well as with officials in Georgia, urging both sides to return to peace talks. The European Union ? and Germany, in particular, with its strong ties to Russia ? called on both sides to stand down and scheduled meetings to press their concerns. At the United Nations, members of the Security Council met informally to discuss a possible response, but one Security Council diplomat said it remained uncertain whether much could be done. "Strategically, the Russians have been sending signals that they really wanted to flex their muscles, and they're upset about Kosovo," the diplomat said. He was alluding to Russia's anger at the West for recognizing Kosovo's independence from Serbia. Indeed, the decision by the United States and Europe to recognize Kosovo may well have paved the way for Russia's lightning-fast decision to send troops to back the separatists in South Ossetia. During one meeting on Kosovo in Brussels this year, Mr. Lavrov, the foreign minister, warned Ms. Rice and European diplomats that if they recognized Kosovo, they would be setting a precedent for South Ossetia and other breakaway provinces. For the Bush administration, the choice now becomes whether backing Georgia ? which, more than any other former Soviet republic has allied with the United States ? on the South Ossetia issue is worth alienating Russia at a time when getting Russia's help to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions is at the top of the United States' foreign policy agenda. One United Nations diplomat joked on Saturday that "if someone went to the Russians and said, 'OK, Kosovo for Iran,' we'd have a deal." That might be hyperbole, but there is a growing feeling among some officials in the Bush administration that perhaps the United States cannot have it all, and may have to choose its priorities, particularly when it comes to Russia. The Bush administration's strong support for Georgia ? including the training of Georgia's military and arms support ? came, in part, as a reward for its support of the United States in Iraq. The United States has held Georgia up as a beacon of democracy in the former Soviet Union; it was supposed to be an example to other former Soviet republics of the benefits of tilting to the West. But that, along with America and Europe's actions on Kosovo, left Russia feeling threatened, encircled and more convinced that it had to take aggressive measures to restore its power, dignity and influence in a region it considers its strategic back yard, foreign policy experts said. Russia's emerging aggressiveness is now also timed with America's preoccupation with Iraq and Afghanistan, and the looming confrontation with Iran. These counterbalancing considerations mean that Moscow is in the driver's seat, administration officials acknowledged. "We've placed ourselves in a position that globally we don't have the wherewithal to do anything," Mr. Friedman of Stratfor said. "One would think under those circumstances, we'd shut up." One senior administration official, when told of that quote, laughed. "Well, maybe we're learning to shut up now," he said. He asked that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. C. J. Chivers contributed reporting. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 17:49:52 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:49:52 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Mourning for Mahmoud Darwish Message-ID: Arabeyes: Mourning for Mahmoud Darwish Saturday, August 9th, 2008 @ 23:11 UTC by Amira Al Hussaini Bloggers around the Arab world mourned the death of Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish today. Scores of posts appeared online in Arabic and English even before news of his death was officially confirmed. The award-winning poet, whose work has been translated to more than 22 languages, is best known for his poems which depict the suffering of Palestinian people, their longing for their homeland and infighting between various Palestinian factions. Born in historical Palestine, in what is now Israel, Darwish leaves behind over 30 volumes of poetry and eight books of prose, and millions of fans. From Jerusalem, the UN-Truth's Marian Houk says news of Darwish's death is: .. the top news story here. Never mind the Olympics, or John Edward's affair?. She also describes what makes Darwish's poetry special: It's probably true that you need to understand the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in order to really appreciate the poignant and intense economy with which Mahmoud Darwish described how Palestinians see the situation. The blogger, who has also met Darwish several times, says the world will never be the same without the poet: I saw Mahmoud Darwish over more than two decades in Beirut, in Damascus, in Washington, in New York, in London, in Paris, in Geneva ? and last month in Ramallah. He was part of my life, and part of the lives of every Palestinian in Jerusalem and Ramallah and everywhere. And now, he is gone, and the world is not the same. She shares her favourite poem with us - a biblical story of Yousef: Oh my father, I am Yusuf Oh father, my brothers neither love me nor want me in their midst They assault me and cast stones and words at me They want me to die so they can eulogize me They closed the door of your house and left me outside They expelled me from the field Oh my father, they poisoned my grapes They destroyed my toys When the gentle wind played with my hair, they were jealous They flamed up with rage against me and you What did I deprive them of, Oh my father? The butterflies stopped on my shoulder The bird hovered over my hand What have I done, Oh my father? Why me? You named me Yusuf and they threw me into the well They accused the wolf The wolf is more merciful than my brothers Oh, my father Did I wrong anyone when I said that I saw eleven stars and the sun and the moon Saw them kneeling before me? Jordanian Samer Marzouq, writing at Jazarah, says Darwish's death is a big loss for the Arab world. Bad news, the greatest Arab poet, the Palestinian Mahmoud Darwish has died today in a hospital in Huston in the USA, this is a big loss for the Arab cultural scene, rest in peace Mahmoud Darwish, rest in peace. Tunisian blog Khil We Lil [Ar] marks Darwish's death saying: ????? ??? ???? Another giant passes away. Radwa Osama, from Egypt, is shocked at the news and awaits a message from Darwish - via another poet: ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? - ????? ????? ??? -???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? - ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????????? - ????? ???? ???? - ?? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? - ???? ?? ?? ????? - ????? ??? - ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? - ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? - ???? ???? ???? ? ?????? ??? ???? ? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ????-?????? ???? "?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??????"-???? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? -???? ????? ??????? ???? ? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? - ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? -????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???????! -????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? - ???????? ?? ?????? In a sad tone, Amr told me that Mahmoud Darwish passed away. I have repeatedly asked him not to break such stories to me in one go. A little while later, we listened to Mahmood Darwish's voice on the computer. I can hear his clear sadness. I don't find a lot of words to add but I am extremely sad. I was thinking that next time his visited Cairo, it would be at the American University. I was preparing myself for that event. It has really been a long time since I last heard Darwish. I used to listen to him every time I felt annoyed. He was able to calm me down. Amr asks me: "What do you think Mahmoud Darwish is doing now?" I think logically and say: "Mahmoud Darwish is now contemplating on the experience (of death), in order to write a poem, and send it to us, the people who are eager for the truth. Very soon, I will stop enjoying poetry. Mahmoud Darwish, do you still think that death mistakes us?! I am looking forward for a poem from you, with the first person who contacts you. Poets never die. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 18:23:44 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Georgia and Russia Nearing All-Out War Message-ID: August 10, 2008 Georgia and Russia Nearing All-Out War By ANNE BARNARD This article was reported by Anne Barnard, Andrew E. Kramer, and C. J. Chivers and written by Ms. Barnard. GORI, Georgia ? The conflict between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia moved toward full-scale war on Saturday, as Russia sent warships to land ground troops in the disputed territory of Abkhazia and broadened its bombing campaign across Georgia. The fighting, which sharply escalated when Georgian forces tried to retake the capital of South Ossetia, a pro-Russian region that won de facto autonomy from Georgia in the early 1990s, appeared to be developing into the worst clashes between Russia and a foreign military since the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. As Russia moved more forces into the region and continued aerial bombing, it appeared determined to occupy both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both Moscow-backed breakaway regions where Russia had issued passports to most residents and declared them Russian citizens. Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, said Russia's ambitions were even more extensive. He declared that Georgia was in a state of war, and said in an interview that Russia was planning to seize sea ports and an oil pipeline and to overthrow his government. Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia left the Olympics in China and arrived Saturday evening in Vladikavkaz, a city in southern Russia just over the border. State-controlled news broadcasts showed Mr. Putin meeting generals, suggesting that he was directly in charge of military operations, eclipsing the authority of President Dmitri A. Medvedev. Mr. Putin said that dozens of people had been killed in South Ossetia and hundreds wounded, and tens of thousands were reported to be fleeing. Georgia's health minister said that more than 80 people had been killed, including 40 civilians who died in airstrikes in Gori, a city north of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. Another Georgian official said at least 800 people, almost all of them civilians, had been injured. Each side's figures were impossible to confirm independently. The fighting, and the Kremlin's confidence in the face of Western outcry, had wide international implications, as both Russian and Georgian officials placed it squarely in the context of renewed cold war-style tensions and an East-West struggle for regional influence.. Western influence over Russia appeared minimal. The East and West were stuck in diplomatic impasse, even as reports of heavy civilian casualties indicated that the humanitarian toll was climbing. The United Nations Security Council was meeting Saturday to discuss the crisis, but with no resolution. Georgian officials said their only way out of the conflict was for the United States to step in, but with American military intervention unlikely, they were hoping for the West to exert diplomatic pressure to stop the Russian attacks. "Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected," President Bush said at the Olympics in Beijing. "We have urged an immediate halt to the violence and a stand-down by all troops. We call for the end of the Russian bombings." Senior European Union officials were adamant on Saturday that both Russia and Georgia were to blame for the recent escalation of the conflict, and that finger-pointing was counterproductive. Cristina Gallack, a spokeswoman Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said that the Union's immediate objective was to reach a cease-fire, and European envoys were reported to be en route to the region. Other Western officials monitored the movements with alarm. "The record is crystal clear," said a Western official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Russia has launched a full-scale military operation, on air, land and sea. We have entered a totally new realm ? politically, legally and diplomatically." Russia appeared to be opening a second front in Abkhazia, to the west of South Ossetia, and to be aiming to drive Georgian troops from the Kodori Gorge, a small mountainous area in Abkhazia that Georgia reclaimed by force in 2006. Georgian officials said 12 Russian jets were bombing the area, shortly after a Western official said United Nations peacekeepers had withdrawn from the area at the request of Abkhazia's de facto government. Russia also notified Western governments that it was moving ships of its Black Sea fleet to Ochamchire, a port on the Abkhaz coast. Georgian officials said they expected Russian troops to land there. Mr. Putin made clear that Russia now viewed Georgian claims over the breakaway regions to be invalid, and that Russia had no intention of withdrawing. "There is almost no way we can imagine a return to the status quo," he said in remarks on Russian state television. Mr. Saakashivili, the Georgian president, said Russia's oil riches and desire to assert economic leverage over Europe and the West had emboldened Kremlin country to attack. Georgia is a transit country for oil and natural gas exports from the former Soviet Union that threatens Russia's near monopoly. "They need control of energy routes," Mr. Saakashvili said. "They need sea ports. They need transportation infrastructure. And primarily, they want to get rid of us. " In turn, Russian officials said that ties to the United States had emboldened Mr. Saakashvili, who wants to make Georgia part of NATO, into sparking the conflict. But there were signs that Mr. Saakashvili was feeling the limits of how much American help he could expect. Pentagon officials said late on Friday that Georgia had requested assistance in airlifting home the approximately 2,000 Georgian troops now in Iraq. The request was under review, and standard procedures would indicate that the United States government would honor the request, officials said. Alexander Lomaya, secretary of Georgia's National Security Council, said conflict arose because Russia sought to "thwart its neighbors' movement toward Western society and Western values" and framed the stakes in expansive terms that were reminiscent of the cold war. "If the world is not able to stop Russia here, then Russian tanks and Russian paratroopers can appear in every European capital," he said. Russian officials, however, blamed outside meddling for stoking the conflict, and said their goals were narrow. President Medvedev said Russia was acting to restore peace and protect its citizens and peacekeeping troops who had come under Georgian attack. In a news conference, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia said Georgian attacks on what he called "Russian citizens" in South Ossetia "amounted to ethnic cleansing." He reserved some of his harshest language for Georgia's allies, referring at one point to "Mr. Saakashvili and his Western friends" ? an apparent reference to the United States, which has provided Georgia with extensive military aid since Mr. Saakashvili took office in 2004. With Russia's Black Sea fleet, warplanes and tanks bearing down on the small, mountainous country, Georgian officials acknowledged they were taken by surprise by the intensity of the Russian response. But Russia, too, found itself facing resistance. Russia acknowledged that Georgian forces had shot down two Russian warplanes, while Mr. Lomaya said the Georgians had destroyed 10 Russian jets. In Gori, people cheered as a Russian pilot ejected from an airplane that was shot down. Georgian television later showed a pilot's bloody helmet and said a pilot had been captured. Russian strategic bombers were seen over Georgia for the first time in the three-day conflict. Georgian tanks attacked the lone road linking South Ossetia to Russia, trying to cut off Russian supply routes. But Russia continued to flow forces into Georgia, and appeared on track to at least double the number of troops there. Georgian officials said at least 2,500 Russian troops were already in South Ossetia. Along a military highway entering Georgia from Russia, military transports and armored vehicles were backed up for several miles. They were flying both Russian flags and plain red flags. The mood was buoyant. "I am going to help our people," said Zelimkhan Gagiev, 27, an irregular fighter in a maroon four-wheel drive who said he had family trapped in Tskhinvali. "If I can, I'll fight to the death." The columns were headed to the Roki Tunnel, which gives access to South Ossetia. Asked whether Georgia and Russia were headed for war, a soldier from Rostov, who gave his name as Alexei, grinned. "If there is, it won't last long." Civilians came under fire on both sides. Georgian troops shelled the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, with artillery. Russian television footage showed damaged houses and apartment buildings. Russian warplanes struck at least five Georgian cities. Witnesses said they struck a train station in Tsenakhi, five apartment buildings in Gori, and the Black Sea port of Poti. Georgian officials said that Russian warplanes had attacked the major Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, operated by British Petroleum, that carries oil to the West from Asia, but that the pipeline had not been struck. The Russian authorities said their forces had retaken the South Ossetian capital from Georgian control during the morning hours, while Georgian officials said they had withdrawn from the area voluntarily. But heavy fighting resumed there later Saturday, with Georgian tanks and heavy artillery attacking from the south, Russian television reported. Twelve Russian troops were killed, according to Anatoly Nogovitsyn, a colonel general in the Ministry of Defense. When asked whether Russia was in a state of war with Georgia, General Nogovitsyn said it was not. Roads were clogged with refugees, as South Ossetians fled north into Russia and Georgians from Gori fled southeast to Tblisi. Russia said 30,000 people had fled South Ossetia. Along the single road connecting Tskhinvali to Vladikavkaz, in southern Russia, Zema Vazhenina, 26, described three days spent stuck in her home while the walls and ceiling shook from shelling. When she finally emerged, she said, "it looked like the end of the world." Andrew E. Kramer reported from Gori and Tbilisi, Georgia, and Anne Barnard from Moscow. Reporting was contributed by Michael Schwirtz from Gori; Ellen Barry from Moscow; Matt Siegel from Vladikavkaz, Russia; Steven Lee Myers from Beijing; and Katrin Bennhold from Paris. From intnsred at golgotha.net Sat Aug 9 18:55:44 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:55:44 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Georgia and Russia Nearing All-Out War In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200808092055.44949.intnsred@golgotha.net> > Georgian officials said their only way out of the conflict was for the > United States to step in, but [...] That's pretty laughable. The Georgians ought to read up on how many times the US has screwed over the Kurds. There's no way the US is going to directly defend Georgia. Sheesh, did the Georgians really believe the crap the US gov't spouts off?! One BBC report bluntly stated: "It would be difficult even for Washington to accede to a Georgian request for transport aircraft to bring Georgian combat troops home from Iraq without looking as though it was involving itself directly in an armed conflict with Russia." Ouch. 2000 combat tested troops and they'll probably have to walk back to Georgia. Oh well, that's what they get for joining the "Coalition of the Willing." I don't think we're going to have to worry about short-term US involvement. Bush is too busy watching sports and reminiscing about his days with the Texas Rangers. :-) My fear is that this chaos was designed to keep Russia busy and opens up an "opportunity" for the US/Israel to attack Iran. -- Fast fact: The wealth gap between the richest and poorest countries went from 3 to 1 in 1820 to 72 to 1 in 1992. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 19:05:02 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 21:05:02 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia Prepares for Naval Blockade of Georgia + Azerbaijan Halts Oil Exports via Georgia Ports + Oil Falls as Dollar Rises, Ignores Georgia Conflict Message-ID: Aug. 10, 2008 Russia Prepares for Naval Blockade of Georgia Ships are grouping in the Black Sea near the Georgian aquatic border. A unnamed naval source has said that the move is necessary to prevent arms deliveries to Georgia by sea. He added that the naval blockade of Georgia will help avoid escalation of military actions in Abkhazia. Radio station Echo of Moscow reports that several Georgian Internet publications have confirmed that the Russian Black Sea fleet is regrouping. Witnesses say that several Georgian military vessels attempted to approach the coast of Abkhazia. The Interfax correspondent in Sukhumi reports that the Georgian attempt was countered by the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which opened preventative fire. The Interfax information was confirmed by enforcement bodies in Abkhazia. Apparently, after Georgian forces were repulsed from Tskhinvali, air connections with Georgian were broken and Georgian military activity was suppressed and Russia began economic suppression. Georgia in the meantime is accusing Russia of attempting to blow up the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Georgian Minister of Economic Development Ekaterina Sharashidze stated that Russian Air Force planes attacked the pipeline, but missed their target. "That makes it clear that the targets of the Russian military were not only Georgian economic objects, but international objects on Georgian territory," she said. Reports were received throughout the day that Russian military planes struck targets in Georgia, however, they were military, not economic. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline runs a total of 1768 km., of which 443 km. stretches through Azerbaijan, 249 km. through Georgia and 1076 km. through Turkey. Construction of the pipeline began in 2003 and it began to pump oil on May 18, 2005. About 1 million barrels of oil per year are pumped through the pipeline. Construction of the pipeline cost $4 billion, not counting the filling of the pipeline, financial servicing or interest costs. The shareholders in the pipeline are BP (30,1%), AzBTC (25%), Chevron (8,9%), StatoilHydro (8,71%), ???? (6,53%), ENI (5%), Total (5%), Itochu (3,4%), Inpex (2,5%), ConocoPhillips (2,5%) and Hess (2,36%). www.kommersant.com Azerbaijan halts oil exports via Georgia ports: state oil firm 8 hours ago BAKU (AFP) ? Azerbaijan has halted oil exports via the Georgian ports of Batumi and Kulevi due to clashes between Russia and Georgia, the head of the state oil company said Saturday. "Since last night the import and export of oil through the Georgian ports of Kulevi and Batumi have been halted," said Rovnag Abdullayev, the head of the Azeri state oil company SOCAR, in televised comments. "This is due to armed actions in the area of the Georgia-Ossetia conflict." He added that SOCAR was "looking into the possibility of exporting oil through the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline, but the capacity of this pipeline is quite low," in a reference to a route that links the Azerbaijani capital to the Russian Black Sea Coast. Earlier Saturday Russian planes staged a raid near the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, a major international oil route that runs through Georgia, but did not damage it, Georgia's prime minister said. In recent years Georgia has become an important transport route for oil from Azerbaijan and other Caspian Sea oil producers, allowing Western oil firms to bypass Russia's oil pipelines. Oil falls to $115 on economic worries, dollar gains Fri Aug 8, 2008 7:01pm EDT By Matthew Robinson NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil dropped $5 to a three-month low on Friday as the dollar surged and concerns about global economic growth weighed on demand expectations. The fall came even as Russia sent forces into Georgia, a key energy transit region, to repel a Georgian assault on the breakaway South Ossetia region. U.S. light crude settled down $4.82 to $115.20 a barrel, before falling to $114.90 in post-settlement trade, the lowest level since early May. Prices have slid since hitting a record high over $147 a barrel on July 11. London Brent crude settled at $113.33, down $4.53. "It seems that we've got a lot of selling based on the stronger dollar," said Peter Beutel, president of trading consultants Cameron Hanover. "Energy demand destruction and the dollar return have formed a quiet alliance to bring the oil market down, and today the louder of the two is the dollar." Strong demand from emerging economies like China sent oil on a six-year rally, with prices up sevenfold at their peak. More support came from investors rushing into commodities as a hedge against inflation and the weak dollar. But mounting global economic problems and high fuel prices have begun to hurt demand. The dollar surged against the euro and was on track for its biggest one-day gain in four years as concerns mounted that the U.S. economic slowdown was spreading around the world. USD/] "The market has been ignoring the Tbilisi pipeline situation, and now the problems with Russia -- the move lower really now has a momentum of its own with the financial players coming out," said Olivier Jakob at Petromatrix. Georgia's pro-Western president said on Friday the two countries were at war as Georgian troops backed by warplanes pounded separatist forces in South Ossetia and Russia sent forces to repel the assault. Analysts were concerned fighting could disrupt energy exports from the Caspian region that travel through Georgia. Oil had risen on Thursday due to the disruption of supplies through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline following a blast this week in Turkey. The pipeline was still burning, halting loadings of Azeri Light crude shipped to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, but the fire could be extinguished on Friday or Saturday. Once the blaze is out, the pipeline could be reopened within 10 days. BP has cut output by at least 400,000 barrels a day at the Azeri-Chirag Gunashli oilfields, traders said. (Reporting by Matthew Robinson, Robert Gibbons, Gene Ramos and Richard Valdmanis in New York; Margaret Orgill, Barbara Lewis and Ikuko Kao in London; and Felicia Loo in Singapore; Editing by David Gregorio) From intnsred at golgotha.net Sat Aug 9 20:19:35 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:19:35 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Georgia declares 'state of war' Message-ID: <200808092219.36271.intnsred@golgotha.net> Georgia declares 'state of war' Georgia's parliament has approved a decree saying the country is in a "state of war", as hostilities with Russia escalated over the breakaway region of South Ossetia. The decree by Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president, was announced on Saturday and is to remain effective for 15 days. At the same time, Georgia called for a ceasefire as Russia bombed targets outside South Ossetia and 30,000 people tried to flee the fighting. Nika Gvaramia, the Georgian justice minister, read the decree. "First to announce the state of war on the whole territory of Georgia, second the term for the state of war to be announced for 15 days, the third, with regards of intoduction of the state of war mobilisation to be announced and the Georgian military force to be used to prevent the military aggression," he said. Georgia said a Russian air raid had "devastated" the Black Sea port of Poti. Russian jets have also carried out up to five raids on mostly military targets around the Georgian town of Gori. Hours later, Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, touched down in North Ossetia and described Russia's military intervention as "well-founded, legitimate and even necessary". Mounting casualties Al Jazeera's Jonah Hull, reporting from Gori, 30km outside South Ossetia, said: "Nobody here suspected it [Gori] would come under attack. The Reuters news agency reported that at least one bomb hit an apartment block, killing five people. "Civilians were hit very hard by these attacks, allegedly targeting military facilities but not doing a very good job of it," Hull reported. "Russia says it is bombing Georgia into peace." Russian tanks and troops surged into South Ossetia late on Thursday to repel a Georgian offensive aimed at reclaiming the region amid fighting that was said to have left hundreds dead. Georgian and South Ossetian forces both claim that Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, is under their control, and on Saturday Russia said that it had "liberated" the city from Georgia. "Tactical battalions have completely liberated Tskhinvali from Georgian military forces," General Vladimir Boldyrev, head of Russia's ground forces, was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies. The Moscow-backed administration in South Ossetia said 1,600 people had been killed since Georgia launched its offensive on Tskhinvali, but Saakashvili dismissed the claim as a "truly Soviet-style disinformation campaign". Later, Russia's ambassador to Georgia said "at least 2,000" civilians had been killed in Tskhinvali. 'Dangerous escalation' World leaders, fearing a return to the Caucusus wars of the 1990s, have stepped up calls for an end to the conflict. George Bush, the US president, said attacks by Russia on Georgia outside the war zone of South Ossetia marked a "dangerous escalation" of the crisis and urged Moscow to halt the bombing immediately. "I'm deeply concerned about the situation in Georgia," Bush said. "The attacks are occurring in regions of Georgia far from the zone of conflict in South Ossetia. They mark a dangerous of escalation in the crisis." Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, told Bush by telephone that only a pullout by Georgian troops from the conflict zone would end the fighting, according to a news release from the Kremlin. "The Russian president has specifically stressed that the only way out from the tragic crisis provoked by the Georgian leadership is a withdrawal by Tbilisi of its armed formations from the conflict zone," the release said. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, has said Moscow was not seeking all-out war with Georgia. Russian attacks Ivan Safranchuk, a military analyst with the Moscow-based Centre for Defence and Information, told Al Jazeera: "There is no full-scale war and Russia isn't going to make a full-scale war. Russia is just showing its willingness to defend its citizens." Russia is the main backer of the South Ossetian separatists and the majority of the region's population, who are ethnically distinct from Georgians, have been given Russian passports. "Russia is saying that it is actually responding to a direct attack on its citizens and on its 'peace keepers' in South Ossetia," Alexander Nekrassov, a London-based Russian analyst, told Al Jazeera. "This is a difficult legal situation here because techinically speaking South Ossetia is in the territory of Georgia, so any big Russian troop movement can be interpreted as an invasion of Georgia." On Saturday, Poland called for an emergency EU summit to discuss the escalating conflict. As both sides sought to influence the world powers, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to Nato, said that "genocide" was taking place in South Ossetia. "What we have in South Ossetia can only be called ethnic cleansing and genocide," he told reporters in Brussels. Conflict widens Even as the South Ossetian conflict mounted, Georgia faced possible fighting on two fronts. The foreign minister of Georgia's other breakaway province of Abkhazia said its separatist forces had launched air and artillery strikes to drive Georgian troops from the region. Sergei Shamba said Abkhazian forces intended to push Georgian troops out of the Kodori Gorge. The northern part of the gorge is the only area of Abkhazia that has remained under Georgian government control. A spokesman for the pro-Georgian Abkhaz government-in-exile said the bombings had been carried out by Russian warplanes. "Earlier today ... Russian jet fighters bombed two villages in the upper part of the gorge," Raul Kiria, the government in exile's spokesman, said. Russian ceasefire refusal dims UN hopes for peace The Associated Press UNITED NATIONS: Russia refused to agree to a cease-fire or a diplomatic agreement with Georgia on Saturday, ensuring that fighting over the breakaway South Ossetia region would keep spilling over to areas such as Abkhazia's Kodori Ridge, where 15 U.N. military observers were told to evacuate. The diplomatic standoff continued Saturday in the U.N. Security Council, which met for the third time since late Thursday night to try to help resolve the situation. Negotiations were intense as the council dynamics mainly pitted Russia against the other 14 council members led by the United States, an ally of Georgia, who were pressing for a cease-fire that respects Georgia's sovereignty, diplomats said. "A cease-fire would not be a solution. The fighting is still going on. The Georgian forces are continuing to be on the South Ossetian territory," Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said. "All those actions and signals we have seen are not things which would not be conducive to a cease-fire." Russia, the U.S., Britain, France and China are the five nations with council veto power. "This conflict is expanding, this conflict is escalating," U.S. Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff told reporters. Churkin also said "the fighting is spreading" and thousands were killed since Georgia launched a major military offensive to maintain control of South Ossetia, a separatist area of Georgia, and then Russian troops and tanks rumbled in. "The Georgian forces must pull out of South Ossetia," he said. "And then they must accept the need to sign an agreement on nonuse of force with South Ossetians." Many of the council members who met in private chambers appealed for an immediate cease-fire and "expressed grave concern on the further deterioration of the situation," said Belgian Ambassador Jan Grauls, the council president this month. "And it is clear that the conflict has now expanded to other areas of Georgia than only South Ossetia." Georgia is not a member, but its ambassador has attended some of the council meetings over the past three days. Georgia has requested another meeting, but it was not clear if and when one would be held. Despite diminishing hopes, the council plans to keep trying for an agreement in the form of a unanimous public statement. "Regrettably, I have come to the conclusion it will be very difficult if not impossible to find common ground in the council on a draft statement to the press," Grauls said. After his closed-door briefing to the council, Edmond Mulet, assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, said the U.N. was immediately pulling out the military observers in Kodori on advice from Abkhazia, where a military offensive was imminent. The northern part of the gorge is the only area of northern Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia republic that has remained under Georgian government control. The U.N. observers patrolled Kodori due to bloodshed between Georgia and Abkhazia in the early 1990s after the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia, which backs the Abkhazia separatists, insists Georgian troops must withdraw from Kodori. Russia warns the U.S.-allied Georgia's moves toward joining NATO bolster the separatists in Abhkazia and South Ossetia. "At this point we are particularly concerned that the conflict appears to be spreading beyond South Ossetia into Abkhazia," Mulet said, adding that Abkhazia had warned of preparations for "a military operation in the Upper Kodori Valley, probably tomorrow morning." Outside U.N. headquarters, hundreds of Georgians protested into the evening, shouting "Russia out of Georgia," and carrying flags and signs with such messages as "Stop Russian Aggression" and "Georgia Without Russia." -- "The greatest crime since World War II has been U.S. foreign policy." -- Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General under President Lyndon Johnson. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Aug 10 06:49:54 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:49:54 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] How the Left Saved Capitalism Message-ID: <489EE3F2.6080204@attglobal.net> by Gregory W Esteven Monthly Review (July 20 2008) There is an entire genre of theory explaining why the Western capitalist democracies did not undergo socialist revolution in the 20th Century, as Classical Marxism had predicted. Not surprisingly, most of this material comes from the Left itself {1}. We can include Antonio Gramsci's work on hegemony in this genre, as well as the entire output of the Frankfurt School and other psychoanalytically-inclined Marxist theorists (Althusser comes to mind). Taken together, this work contributes greatly to our understanding of the complex dynamics of political and social change, reminding us to avoid over-simplifications and belief in quick fixes of all varieties. I do not want to diminish these contributions in any way and am not challenging them here. But at the same time I am suspicious of placing too much emphasis on the Left's failures in order to account for the ongoing state of affairs. To supplement the theories I've already mentioned, I would like to propose a subversive reading of the conventional narrative. Couldn't we also say that the successes of the organized Left (modest though they were) actually helped to preserve capitalism, saving it from runaway contradictions, and therefore temporarily reducing the need for revolution? At first this may seem counterintuitive, but not when we take into account a key feature of capitalism that distinguishes it from previous modes of production - namely its need for instability. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels assert that: "The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones." I think that old saying, "Sometimes your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness", applies here. Capitalism sustains itself through its contradictions (e.g. the preponderance of the small owning class over the vast working class, the social nature of wealth generation contrasted with the private nature of accumulation), but these same contradictions always threaten the integrity of the system itself. We know that the capitalist class benefits, for instance, from maintaining high profits and low wages, as well as from divisions in society, such as those of gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. But if workers become too impoverished, or sexism, racism, and homophobia become too pronounced, the system becomes destabilized to a dangerous degree; explosion, or rather implosion, is a real possibility. If wages drop so low that workers give up shopping, this starts to cut into profits. And although it is in the interests of the capitalist class to keep workers divided on the basis of race, they don't want crazy racist militias roving the streets murdering minorities. We have a delicate balancing act here. Capitalism can't afford for the pendulum to swing too far in either direction (towards stability or instability). Marx and Engels were writing when capitalist relations of production were at their most inhuman. Workers in most industrialized and industrializing countries weren't even afforded the bare minimum of workers' rights which at least some of us enjoy today, such as the right to organize, limits on the length of the work day, and bans on child labor. Observing these conditions, along with growing concentrations of wealth, it's no wonder that Marxism's early proponents believed that revolution was inevitable. Something strange happened, however. The rise of labor unions and radical political organizing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, though they faced intense, and often violent, opposition from the ruling classes, resulted in increasing positive gains for workers. The grossest contradictions of capitalist relations were reduced, precisely because the working class was winning important battles. In many countries workers won better wages, a shortened work day, and safety regulations at the workplace. And with the birth of the welfare state in Western Europe and the New Deal in the United States, a new "capitalism with a human face" seemed to be on the horizon. Let's be clear. The level of prosperity and freedom which existed in the West, from roughly the early 1950s to the beginning of deep reaction in the 1980s, was unprecedented in world history. There were a number of reasons for this, and one of them was that the past and continuing successes of the Left were ensuring that workers were getting a fairer share of the pie, thus providing economic stability and less intense contradictions. More of the wealth was going to more of the people than ever before. (Not to mention the fact that the Left and progressive movements were working hard to reduce other contradictions, such as sexism and racism.) It's probably hard for young people nowadays to imagine, but my grandfather - after fighting in Japan in World War Two - worked for one company from the early 1950's to the early 1990's: United Gas. Until the 1970s, he and his family lived in houses provided by the company, which paid the utility bills and offered many opportunities for job advancement and higher pay. With the money they saved over the years they were able to move up to the middle class, buy land and their own home, without going into debt to do it. They had a great health plan at low cost. And when my grandfather retired, his pension was more than enough to cover living expenses. He often remarked that although he never belonged to a union, he knew that he only enjoyed these kinds of wages and benefits because other workers did belong to unions. Now, his company was perhaps more kindly and paternalistic than most, but it does illustrate the more humane capitalism which existed in that period. {2} Capitalism is an incredibly dynamic and adaptable system, since, as we have seen, it was able to adopt "socialistic" reforms in order to ameliorate the conditions of workers and avoid crisis and revolutionary upsurges in the core nations. But the question for us today is whether this (broadly-defined) Keynesian logic of amelioration has run its course, reaching its limits with the advent of the global economy, which is qualitatively distinct from the international trade of yesteryear. In other words, was the great wave of reaction, the end of capitalism with a human face, simply brought about by the initiative of certain interests represented by Thatcher in Britain and Reagan in the United States, or has a more fundamental, structural change taken place in the world system? The possibility I hint at is that the more humane version of capitalism is irreconcilable with globalization, as the former was associated with more autonomous national economies which could offer greater protections to workers, shielding them from blows from foreign markets. We all know what the picture looks like today. A global division of labor has emerged, with manufacturing jobs moving to the peripheral and semi-peripheral nations, and the core nations transitioning to "postindustrial" economies, dominated by information and service industries. Whatever is left of the welfare state is being dismantled. Workers are watching the hard-won gains of the past disappear. Multinational corporations set the policy agenda and workers in one part of the world are pitted against workers in other parts of the world (e.g. the euphemistically called "outsourcing"). In the year 2000, the richest one percent of the world's adults owned forty percent of global assets. While some say that Marx is irrelevant today, I maintain that the time of Marxism has just arrived. Isn't it in today's global economy that Marx has been vindicated? The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, and the concomitant immiseration of the vast majority of the world's population, have occurred on a scale that makes Marx's predictions seem utterly conservative. A more intense contradiction of profit-driven environmental degradation than he could have foreseen further supports the core of his theories. And isn't it really in today's era of globalization that the old Leftist dream of internationalism becomes conceivable, practically, and necessary, strategically? I've long thought that the Industrial Workers of the World's objective of organizing skilled and unskilled labor together, across national boundaries, was ahead of its time. Far from being relics of a bygone era, the work they are doing now is cutting edge. They have a better understanding of the present conjuncture than many mainstream unions, which have been slow to adapt to the realities of the postindustrial economy. The IWW has worked to organize such service industry employees as Starbucks coffee shop workers; there are more of these kinds of jobs in the US than traditional manufacturing jobs today. My perverse Leftist imagination can't help but envision workers at both ends of the chain (the people who pick the beans and the people who serve the coffee) organized into the same transnational union. But that may be a ways down the road. Whatever the case with the IWW, Marx is definitely having his revenge, and it is not at all clear whether capitalism can continue to be reformed, in any significant way, as it was in the past. What comes next we cannot be sure, but it seems that the time to revive the socialist project has arrived, and it must be one adapted to the needs of the 21st century. Notes: 1 This has led Slavoj ?i?ek to suspect - perhaps with some justification - that the Left has long settled into a comfortable, moralistic posture, relishing defeat with the masochistic rapture that we project onto Christian martyrs of old. 2 Of course, this increased sharing of the wealth with workers in the Western democracies was predicated upon the fact that those countries had largely built their fortunes through colonialism in the past and from the ongoing super-exploitation of workers in the world's periphery and semi-periphery. We can't forget this aspect of the picture. The kinder, gentler capitalism wasn't being experienced by all the world's peoples. _____ Gregory W Esteven is a sociologist working as a research assistant at the Southeastern Social Science Research Center at Southeastern Louisiana University. He also serves on the advisory board of the Land Trust for Southeast Louisiana and is a frequent contributor to Political Affairs Magazine, a publication of the CPUSA. http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/esteven200708.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From intnsred at golgotha.net Sun Aug 10 07:50:15 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:50:15 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Thoughts on cutting through the Georgian/Russia propaganda Message-ID: <200808100950.16012.intnsred@golgotha.net> From everything I've read, the war between Georgia and Russia was initiated by Georgia. You can make the argument that Georgia has "the right" to do whatever it wants inside its own borders, but this ignores many realities. The Russian soldiers Georgia attacked in South Ossetia were peacekeepers. They were there to keep peace based on an international agreement that Georgia agreed to. For Georgia to attack those peacekeepers is a serious crime. Did we really expect Russia to sit on its hands when its peacekeepers were being killed by Georgian troops? What would the US do if some country killed its peacekeepers with a large, obviously planned-in-advance offensive? For Georgia to launch its assault at the outset of the Olympics is tacky. Not illegal, just extremely tacky. Georgia has been planning to settle the relatively peaceful South Ossetia problem by force for some time. As the pro-west Global Security web site documents Georgia was shrinking its military and retraining its forces to NATO standards. But this changed in 2004/2005 and Georgia then started expanding its armed forces. According to Global Security, "A four-brigade structure, along with an increased reserve force, represent an increase of 25-30 percent on earlier planning figures in the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) agreed with NATO in 2004." Even more ominous, Georgia increased its offensive weapons purchases. Global Security reports, "The weaponry purchased reportedly includes armored personnel carriers, self-propelled artillery, helicopters, and T-72 tanks. The latter three items called into question earlier statements that Georgia has no aggressive intentions and plans to strengthen its armed forces exclusively for defensive purposes, to repel any external invasion. These weapons are well suited for an offensive against the Ossetians. From mid-June to mid-July 2005, some 800 Georgian troops conducted large-scale tank exercises using some 170 battle tanks. One year earlier, Georgia had only 76 T-55 and T-72 tanks." Clearly, Georgia had been planning for years to solve the South Ossetian situation by force. And they timed their attack when the world would be occupied by the start of the Olympics. Since the US and NATO are the backers of Georgia and the US provided much of the funding and training for Georgia's military, it is highly likely that Georgia sought and received US approval for its offensive when Condi Rice visited Georgia about a month before Georgia launched its offensive. Much is made in the western corporate mass media about respecting Georgia's "territorial integrity" and its borders. But the west only respects territorial integrity and borders when it suits them -- there is a huge double standard here. The US did not respect Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia or any of the other wars of aggression the US is waging. And the US/NATO was brutal in dismembering the former Yugoslavia. Russia has warned the west that its act of funding "terrorists", "freedom fighters" or "guerrillas" (call them what you will) in Kosovo and then recognizing Kosovo as an independent country was a dangerous precedent. If the US and NATO can redraw Serbian borders, why can't Russia redraw the Georgian borders that Stalin drew up? There should be no double standards. Georgia's history is one of being part of Russia. Georgia has been a part of Russia for far longer than Texas has been part of the US. There are large numbers of native-born, ethnic Russians in Georgia, which is a key part of what the South Ossetian dispute is about. The other key to the Georgian/Russian dispute is the US/NATO pushing into an area that has been Russian territory for centuries. The US funded the so-called "Rose Revolution" that put Georgian president Saakashvili into power. Georgia may claim to be a freedom-loving democracy, but Saakashvili's crushing of pro-democracy protests last year puts the lie to that claim. What is without question is that western transnational oil corporations view Georgia as vital, having built a pipeline across Georgia to allow oil to be moved from the Caspian Sea area to the Mediterranean Sea and then sold to western countries. Historians say that most wars are fought for economic reasons. Here's the economic reason why the west is funding Georgia's war -- it's all about oil and control of spheres of influence. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Cold War was supposedly dead. But the US and NATO kept the Cold War going, breaking its agreement with the USSR not to expand NATO eastward, ringing Russia with military bases, breaking the anti-ballistic missile treaty, etc. It's clear who the aggressor is. So Russian forces are attacked by Georgia. Russia responds. Just exactly what is Russia's crime? Russia's "crime" is that they didn't read the west's script. Russia was supposed to either be defeated or to quickly seek a cease fire with the aggressor. Instead, Russia viewed the Georgian attack on South Ossetia as an attack by the country of Georgia. And so Russia responded with counterattacks all across the country of Georgia. But isn't that the way militaries typically respond? The Russian army seems to be handily defeating the NATO-trained Georgian army. But that's not the way the west's script was written. The Russian military was supposed to have performed badly thus highlighting the military prowess of NATO. Now we are witnessing Georgia moan and whine as it demands a ceasefire. Yet the Russians are not ready for a ceasefire. So instead, Georgia is now ignoring the fact that they started the conflict and they're painting themselves as a victim and the war as the big Russian bear is picking on us. My feeling is that Georgia should have thought of that before starting the conflict. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see peace break out and the fighting stopped. But since Georgia initiated the conflict, Georgia is hardly in a position to whine that Russia responded to Georgia's attack on Russian peacekeepers. To me, it reminds of advice given in an old book I read that "you reap what you sow." Georgia is suffering from the fact that they started the war and that it didn't go according to what they had planned. In this war, the US/NATO and Georgia are clearly the aggressors -- the South Ossetian situation was and could have have been handled peacefully. Right now, Russia is in control of how the situation will be handled, and the Georgians have no one to blame but themselves for starting the conflict. -- Fast fact: Since the mid-1970s, the richest one percent of households have doubled their percentage of the US national wealth. As the richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, bluntly said, "If[sic] class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning." From intnsred at golgotha.net Sun Aug 10 08:34:40 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:34:40 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russian war ships sail for Georgia Message-ID: <200808101034.41244.intnsred@golgotha.net> This report from Russia Today hints of the potential for the conflict to widen. Could Russia be pissed enough that it would try to take out the pro-western gov't in the Ukraine and reverse one of Washington's "colored revolutions"? Russian war ships sail for Georgia The Russian Navy has confirmed that a section of its Black Sea Fleet is en route to the Georgian coastline. The task force includes a missile cruiser. Military officials insist the operation is to help refugees and is not part of an operation to blockade Georgia. According to a source in the Russia?s defense ministry, three assault ships were earlier sent to the same destination. ?This is not a sea-blockade, as a blockade would mean a state of war with Georgia, while we are not in a state of war?, the source said. Georgia?s National Security Council Secretary, Aleksandr Lomaya, earlier said that Russian ships have reached the Abkhazian port of Ochamchir. Ukraine may bar Russia from Black Sea Ukraine?s Foreign Ministry has announced that Russian ships returning from the Georgian shore may be refused permission to enter its territorial waters in the Black Sea. The ministry says Ukraine doesn?t want to be involved in the conflict between Russia and Georgia. It underlines that the move corresponds with the international law. Meanwhile, Moscow remains unconvinced about Ukrainian claims of neutrality. Referring to the shooting down of a Russian Tu-22 bomber over Georgia, the Defence Ministry says the Georgian military would have needed a C-200 anti-aircraft system to carry out the attack. According to Russia, the Georgian army did not possess such equipment before the conflict. Only Russia and Ukraine are armed with C-200 anti-aircraft systems, which is leading Russian defence officials to suspect that Kiev may have sold the equipment to Georgia. -- "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis, 1935. From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Aug 10 09:25:03 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:25:03 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Is Evo in danger after the August 10 referendum? Message-ID: Is Evo in danger after the August 10 referendum ? My impressions of Bolivia MICHEL COLLON Bolivia has certainly changed. In La Paz, I attended a large reception given by the Cuban ambassador. Mojitos, buffet, dances... Where was it held? In the ceremonial hall of... the Bolivian army. Yes, the one that killed Ch?. Bolivia has certainly changed, but not everyone wishes it well. We had come to get an idea first hand with some progressive intellectuals from about 15 countries. Frei Betto, Ernesto Cardenal, Ramsey Clark, Fran?ois Houtart, Luis Britto Garcia, Pascual Serrano... A few days of meetings and exchanges with Bolivian intellectuals, representatives of the Indian communities, artists... It's a sensitive moment. The rightwing is trying to split away the wealthy regions of the country's East. To frustrate this operation, President Evo Morales, in the middle of his mandate, has called for a revocatory referendum, this Aug. 10. It's a sort of vote of confidence. It puts his legitimacy in play, but also that of the prefects of departments, including those who belong to his opposition. The rightwing is trying to sabotage the referendum and people fear incidents... We will see who is behind these incidents, which role the United States plays, and the CIA, and a really strange ambassador, and also Europe... Strong impressions Strong impressions. Physically, first of all. La Paz is at an altitude of 11,800 feet. Its airport at 13,100. We arrived in the night, short of oxygen, at the brink of passing out. Very attentive, the young people who welcome us have us sit down calmly, while they deal with our luggage and let us catch our breath. The first day will be devoted to rest and acclimatization. With Luis, a Venezuelan friend, we take a small tour, taking small steps from one bench to the next, in one of the most beautiful capitals of the world. Imagine an immense basin, bordered by the imposing mountains Huayna Potos? (20,000 ft.) and Nevado Illimani (21,200 ft.), not far from the lake Titicaca, the highest navigable lake of the world. Here, water boils at 176? F instead of 212? F at sea level. And no street is flat. What is striking about La Paz, in winter in any case, is the gentle climate, sunny and fresh. And the gentle people. Everywhere, you are welcomed with kindness, with a kind of quiet serenity. Indians wear heavy clothing with superb multi-coloured shawls. And of curious small "bolo" hats, black, brown or gray. Sometimes, they also carry impressive loads. Two-thirds of the population are Indians. The importance of the Indian communities "An Indian president? The white racist oligarchy still won't accept it," Evo confides to us. I began to understand all the wealth of this Indian heritage while visiting with Bolivian friends in Tiwanaku, the capital of an old Incan empire... We are on the very high plateau of the Altiplano, bordered by mountains. Here, Indians live under difficult conditions, from farming and raising animals. Not a cloud in the sky, an incredibly pure air, you can still feel the nighttime chill. Tiwanaku was an immense city, whose excavations have hardly begun. A hundred local Indians are busy restoring the temple, an enormous pyramid in terraces. It was a very advanced civilization, which constructed its buildings based on a thorough knowledge of astronomy. It had created a metallurgical and textile industry. It cultivated more than 200 different kinds of corn and 400 kinds of potatoes, of which one species could be frozen and remain edible for ten years. The system of irrigation was very sophisticated with a very precise slope so that the stones would heat the water enough to prevent it from freezing. This system was so sophisticated that today the Agriculture Ministry will revive it to develop agriculture on the terraces. Water is rare here, a treasure. An Indian elder carries out a ritual ceremony with our group, a sort of sacrifice of small symbolic objects, to celebrate the unity with the cosmos and to gather the wishes that we form. Emotion. It is no about glorifying the past for its own sake, but to preserve the common memories and values and integrate them into the new society. A Bolivian journalist explains the importance of community here: "It is a strong element of Bolivia. Look here, according to international statistics, a Bolivian peasant has an average income of 50 dollars per year. You may as well say that he is dead! Except if one understands that the communal economy is the basis of our life here. " In short, it's an invaluable heritage that must not be lost. One Bolivian in four must emigrate Strong impressions also regarding social realities in this country. In La Paz, the upper classes live at the lower end of the city, below 10,000 feet, where one breathes more easily. Lower classes, on the other hand, in El Alto: at over 13,000 feet. Small trade, small craft industries, a little animal husbandry in the high plateaus... Life is hard. The second poorest country of Latin America, Bolivia has seen one of four of its children emigrate. Why? For centuries, this land was colonized by Spain. And all the benefit of its mining wealth, extracted at the cost of a murderous labor in semi-slavery, were carried to Europe. For decades, its gas and its oil benefited only a handful of rich people, but most of all some transnational corporations, especially European-based. The North bled the South thoroughly, leaving behind only misery. And conflicts. Evo Morales, president for two-and-a-half years, did not fall from the sky. His presidency is the fruit of long years of worker and peasant resistance. The Indian communities have always been exploited, excluded and scorned by a white racist elite, dependent on the United States and Europe. That's where poverty and underdevelopment arise. But when the Bolivians, to survive, take care of housework in Europe, they are treated like criminals and thrown into prison. Even children! Evo Morales courageously denounced the recent "Directive of Shame" which will make it possible all European countries to imprison the criminals, sorry, the immigrants, for up to 18 months. Precisely, before leaving, I met with immigrant workers in Brussels, in particular the Latinos and Latinas. In struggle for months to obtain papers, i.e., their rights, their dignity. Confronting ministers who completely ignored them, they had to risk their lives: hunger strike, climbing cranes... Since they greatly appreciated Evo's letter to the E.U., they asked me to give a small message of gratitude to the Bolivian president. I did. It brought a smile to his face. In fact, when you see the poverty here, the very low wages, the lack of industry, one understands why so many Bolivians must emigrate. But, when investigating further, one also understands that Europe is a dirty hypocrite who bears a heavy responsibility for this emigration. We will return to this later... What has Evo accomplished? But first of all let us take a look at what Evo accomplished in two- and-a-half years ... He nationalized oil and gas. Would you like to know why the corporate media calls the Colombian President Uribe "good" and Evo Morales "bad"? Very simple. The former cut the taxes of the transnational corporations from 14 percent to... 0.4 percent. To help these transnationals get installed locally under optimum conditions, the Colombian paramilitaries drove four million peasants off their land. The latter, Morales, in order to combat poverty, dared to return to the Bolivian nation the wealth it owned. By nationalizing its hydrocarbon resources, Evo multiplied the public revenues by five and gave himself the means for relieving the most urgent evils: illiteracy has dropped by 80 percent, a part of the children working in the streets have returned to school, schools teaching in the Indian languages Aymara and Quechua have been established (20,000 graduates), free health care is already available for half of the Bolivians, a "Dignity" pension for those over 60, credit with zero-percent interest for products like corn, wheat, soy and rice. Thanks to Venezuelan aid, 6,000 computers were made available, especially at schools. Thanks to Cuban aid, 260,000 people had eye operations. Elsewhere in Latin America, they would be condemned to be blind, because they are poor. Moreover, the public investments to develop the economy increased greatly. Bolivia eliminated its fiscal deficit, repaid half of its foreign debt (now down from $5.0 to 2.2 billion), reconstituted a small financial reserve, multiplied employment in the mines and the metal industries by four, and doubled the production and the incomes of these industries. The industrial GDP passed from $4.1 to $7.1 billion in three years. A thousand tractors were distributed to peasants. New roads were built. In short, Bolivia advances. Not quick enough, some say. For these people, Evo is not moving hard enough against the rightwing and the big landowners. It is a debate that must be carried out among those who live on the spot and can appreciate the situation, with all its possibilities and dangers. And by understanding that it is not enough to say "Do it" to bring a country out of poverty and dependence. By knowing that it is necessary to take account of the relationship of forces with the rightwing, which is agitating and sabotaging. By taking account of the army (Will all its generals be loyal to the government under all conditions?). Another negative factor: "The legal system remains completely corrupted," was confided to me by... the highest ranking magistrate in La Paz. "It is an old caste that protects itself and the interests of the rich. It's a business, truly. However, we have threatened the immediate recall of any judge caught in an obvious crime. But it is a difficult battle." And precisely, when I was there, the courts came rushing to help the rightwing by trying to prevent by a legal battle the holding of the referendum. But there is danger much greater than the legal system... Behind the rightwing, the United States prepares a civil war It is the new tactic of the United States. Finding themselves unable to win a war of occupation, Washington is resorting to indirect war, war by proxies. Currently, strategy of Washington is to try to foment a civil war in Bolivia. For that, the provinces controlled by the rightwing and which contain the greater part of the oil and gas reserves along with the large agricultural properties tied to the transnationals, these provincial regimes are multiplying their provocations to prepare to secede. Having personally studied the secret actions of the great powers to break up Yugoslavia (1), I made a point of drawing the attention of the Bolivians, during some interviews: today, Washington will try to transform their country into a new Yugoslavia. Here are the ingredients needed for this deed: 1. Massive CIA investments. 2. An ambassador specialized in destabilization. 3. Experienced fascists. With these ingredients, you can prepare a coup d'etat or a civil war. Or both. First ingredient. As in Venezuela, the CIA is investing a lot in Bolivia. Through its usual covers: USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, Republican International Institute, etc. The right-wing separatist organizations are abundantly subsidized. USAID, for example, financed Juan Carlos Orenda, adviser of the extreme right Civic Committee of Santa Cruz and author of a plan envisaging the secession of this province. But they also support the more discreet organizations charged to sow confusion and to prepare an anti-Evo propaganda. At the University of San Simon of Cochabamba, the Thousand-year Foundation received $155,000 to criticize the nationalization of gas and defend neoliberalism. Thirteen young Bolivian right-wing leaders were invited for training in Washington: $110,000. In the popular districts of El Alto, USAID launched programs "to reduce the tensions in the zones prone to social conflicts." Read: to discredit the left. In all, millions of dollars have been handed out to all kinds of organizations, student groups, journalists, politicians, judges, intellectuals, businesspeople. The Spanish Popular Party, around Jose Maria Aznar, takes part in these operations. Second ingredient. Where does Philip Goldberg, the current ambassador of the United States to Bolivia, come from? From Yugoslavia. Where he accumulated a rich personal experience in how to split a country apart. From 1994 to 1996, he worked in Bosnia for Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, one of the strategists of disintegration. Then, he stirred up conflict in Kosovo and fomented the split between Serbia and Montenegro. An expert, you could say. And not inactive. As the Argentinian journalist Roberto Bardini tells it: "On June 28, 2007, a 20-year-old U.S. citizen, Donna Thi of Miami, was held at the airport of La Paz for trying to bring into the country 500 45-caliber bullets that she had declared to customs were 'cheese.' Waiting for her at the terminal was the wife of Colonel James Campbell, the chief of the military mission of the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia. U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg immediately intervened to obtain her release, saying that it was only an 'innocent error.' The ammunition, he declared, was to be used only for sport and show. In March 2006, another U.S. citizen, Triston Jay Amero, alias Lestat Claudius, a 25-year-old Californian, carrying 15 different identity documents, set off 660 pounds of dynamite in two La Paz hotels." (2) Why did the U.S. export Goldberg from the Balkans to Bolivia? To transform, I am sure, this country into a new Yugoslavia. Washington favors the method of promoting separatism to retake control of natural resources or strategic areas when governments act too independent, too resistant to the transnationals. Third ingredient. Experienced fascists. In Bolivia, Goldberg openly supported and collaborated with Croatian-origin businesspeople in the leadership of the secessionist movement. Particularly with Branko Marinkovic, member of Federation of Free Entrepreneurs of Santa Cruz (the secessionist province). A very big landowner, Marinkovic also pulls the strings of the Transporte de Hidrocarbures Transredes (which works for Shell). He manages the 3,750 miles of oil and gas pipelines that feed out to Chile, Brazil and Argentina. And when did these people come from Croatia? It should be recalled that, during World War II, the German leader, Nazi Adolf Hitler established fascist Greater Croatia where his collaborators, the Ustashis, set up death camps (including one especially for children!) that carried out a terrible genocide aimed at Serbs, Jews and Roma ("gypsy") people. (3) After the Nazi defeat, the Croatian Catholic Church and the Vatican organized "ratlines," paths for the Croatian fascist criminals (and for German Nazi Klaus Barbie) to escape. From Croatia in Austria, then onto Rome. And from there towards Argentina, Bolivia or the United States. (4) When it became known that Franjo Tudjman and the leaders of the "new" Croatia born in 1991 had rehabilitated the former Croatian World War II criminals, one would like to know if Mr. Marinkovic disavows all this past or if, quite simply, he employs the same methods where he is now. As for the United States, one knows that it rehabilitated and recycled a large quantity of Nazi criminals and spies of World War II. The networks are always useful. What hides behind separatism There. All the ingredients are ready to blow Bolivia apart... The dollars of the CIA, plus the experts in provoking civil wars, plus the fascists recycled as businesspeople. A civil war that would serve the interests of the multinationals, but that international public opinion must absolutely prevent. The Bolivians have the right to decide their fate themselves. Without the CIA. Because a secession would benefit only the elite. The Brazilian writer Emir Sader has just written very precisely: "Today, one of the methods that includes racism is separatism, the attempt to delimit the lands controlled by the white race, by adapting and privatizing the wealth that belongs to the nation and its people. We already knew these intentions in the form of the rich districts that sought to be defined as municipalities, with the goal that a share of the taxes taken by law from their immense richnesses remains under their control to increase the revenue to their split-off districts, behind which they sought to insulate and to use a privately controlled security apparatus to guard their privileged life styles.(...) The separatist referendum is an oligarchic, racist and economic device used because they want to keep the greatest part of the wealth of Santa Cruz for their own benefit and because the oligarchs want, moreover, to prevent the government of Evo Morales from continuing the process of land reform and extending all over the country." (5) This autonomy, indeed, that means that the rich white people who have always controlled Bolivia refuse to listen to the non-white majority in its West. When one speaks about autonomy, Evo Morales answers: "Let us speak about autonomy, not for the oligarchy, but for the people with whom we struggle. These separatist groups which have just lost their privileges were for a long time in the palace, they controlled the country and allowed the plundering of our country, our natural resources, including its natural resources, and the same with the privatization of our companies, and now they once again want to reestablish this system which exposes their true interest: economic control." But it's not only the United States that intervenes in Bolivia... The hypocrisy of Europe : who thereby caused, "all the misery of the world"? While hunting down undocumented workers, Europe slips into a sigh from the genteel nobility: "We cannot after all give succor to all the suffering of the world." Ah, well? But, actually, this misery, it is you who created it! Your Charles the Fifth, your Louis XIV, your Elisabeth I and your L?opold II happily massacred the "savages" to steal their wealth! This plundering was the basis of European capitalism's rapid economic growth. And today still your mining, agricultural and other corporations have not ceased to plunder the raw materials without paying for them, have not ceased dominating and deforming the local economies and blocking their development! Isn't it you who have the debt--to repay the South? Would this be dredging up the past? In the media, the Europeans in charge like to say that today, they want only the best for Latin America and the Third World... "Completely false," confided to me with indignation Pablo Solon, who represents Bolivia in the trade negociations between Latin America and the E.U: "Bolivia exp-lained it to the E.U. Before the negotiations, we had said that we would not negotiate a Free-Trade-style treaty. And we had communicated our points of divergence regarding services, investments, intellectual property and public property. The commission promised us that these points would be on the table during the negotiations. That in contrast with the "others," they would not try to impose a unique format on us. But, when we met with Peter Mandelson, European commerce official, he told us in a categorical and imperative way: 'This is a Free Trade Agreement. Accept it or you're out of the talks.' I answered personally that we were not going to exclude ourselves and that we were going to defend our points of view until the end. Because Bolivia has many industries which it must defend: steel, plastic, paper, which need mechanisms to protect themselves, as was done for the emergent European industries in the past." Indeed, Europe showed that it is hyper-dominating and arrogant. It claims it will impose on all of Latin America and the Caribbean the end of subsidies that help to develop the local products, the suppression of the import duties (but it refuses to do the same at home!), suppression of every limit for European exports (refusing the reverse), the transfer without limits of the qualified European labor, and the modification of all laws protecting the local economies. And moreover, the E.U. wants to impose the privatization of all state services, goods and enterprises. Although already in 2000, out of the 500 largest companies of Latin America and of the Caribbean, 46 percent already belonged to foreign corporations. And moreover, the E.U. wants to impose patents on living things (Bolivia has a very rich biodiversity coveted by the chemical and pharmaceutical transnationals). But aren't living things, and water also, goods essential for survival, an innate property that should remain with those who always protected them and used them with care? Ultimately, the E.U. wants to impose completely unbalanced treaties which will wipe out the Bolivian companies. All that it seeks is that the European companies can invade the markets freely. Thus they will ruin these countries. Thus they will provoke emigration. An absurd system, no? Who chooses immigration and why? I wrote that Europe drove out the Latino immigrants. That is less than accurate. Europe does not treat them all the same way. On the one hand, European bosses import the best brains of the Third World, and also the very qualified technicians. They are under-paid to increase company profits. It is what Sarkozy and others call "selected immigration". The boss selects those who will be likely to work for him. But this brain-drain deprives the Third World of people whom it taught (at great cost) and who would be necessary to its development. A new form of plundering. On the other hand, Europe also welcomes a part of the non-qualified workers. By leaving them without papers, therefore without rights, it forces them to live in fear, to accept wages and working conditions that constitute social reverses. It's an effective way to divide the working class and pressure the other workers. That's how the "competitiveness" of this virtuous Europe is manufactured. How Europe treats undocumented workers is no aberration, but an essential moving part of an economic system. To sum up: Europe stole from Latin America. Europe continues to steal from Latin America. It stops the continent from nourishing its children. But when those children are forced to emigrate, it imprisons them. Then, it offers lessons of democracy and morality to the whole world. The time has come I could not remain in Bolivia a long time, but these people deeply impressed me. I remember the thousands of demonstrators who went down, this Sunday, towards the center of La Paz, crammed into their minibuses, cars or taxis, Indians and whites, from the fairest to the darkest. With astonishing calm and much less noise than in any demonstration in any other part of the world. With a simple and noble determination. And in their eyes you could read a determination: the time has come to put an end to centuries of humiliations, the time has come for dignity for all, the time has come to make misery disappear. And I thought once again of those undocumented friends in Brussels, who also demonstrated for their future and their dignity. The problem is obviously the same one, in Brussels and La Paz: for whom must the wealth of a country be used? And if this problem is not resolved in La Paz, the millions of undocumented workers will continue to knock on Europe's doors. And tomorrow? How will this evolve? For August 10, an pro-U.S. polling institute, like the majority of my contacts in La Paz, predicted a victory of Evo with 60 percent. On the other hand, some feared the influence of the problem of the inflation and the increase in the cost of living. Still others fear that the rightwing will launch violent provocations. Whatever happens, the referendum itself will resolve nothing, neither in one direction, nor the other. Evo Morales will still face the same problem: the government is on the left, but it does not control the country's economy, nor its media (which is in the hands of the big landowners and the Spanish multinational Prisa), nor its universities, nor the Church, which is on the side of the rich as usual on this continent. One cannot do everything in two-and-a-half years. But, to advance, Evo will have to succeed more than even in mobilizing the popular masses. His only strength. In any event, after the referendum, the question will remain the same: will the wealth of the country be used to enrich the wealthy and the transnational corporations or to develop the country and overcome poverty? To resolve this question in its favor, Washington is ready to do anything. And the international progressive movement? How will it react against disinformation and the preparation of a civil war? The answer depends on all of us. Michel Collon La Paz - Brussels August 2008 Translation from French: John Catalinotto If you want to send to your friends, French and Spanish versions available at : [1] Test-media Yugoslavia y Kosovo, http://www.michelcollon.info/archives_testm.php [2] Roberto Bardini, el embajador de la secesi?n, traducci?n francesa vuelta a ver B.I., n? 133, junio de 2008. [3] Michel Collon, Liars' Poker, IAC, New York, 2002, p. 78 [4] Operaci?n Ratlines, documental de David Young amargo Chanel 4 TVES, 1991. Citado en El Juego de la mentira, p. 83. [5] CEPRID, la CIA all? la oligarqu?a en contubernio contradijo a Bolivia, ww.nodo50.org/ceprid/spip.php?article169 From intnsred at golgotha.net Sun Aug 10 11:31:06 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:31:06 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russian media reports US and other mercenaries fighting for Georgia Message-ID: <200808101331.07050.intnsred@golgotha.net> Here are a few (of many) links from Russian media reporting that American and other mercenaries are fighting for Georgia, with some killed and captured. These stories obviously could easily be propaganda, but if true, they're significant. In Russian: Google Translation: In Russian: Google Translation: -- Fast fact: Combining the gross domestic products of the 48 poorest nations (representing 25% of global population) yields a figure that is less than the wealth of the three richest people in the world. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Aug 10 17:49:40 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:49:40 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Reviving the Household Economy Message-ID: <489F7E94.4050105@attglobal.net> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (August 06 2008) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society Part Two: The Decline and Fall of Home Economics Raspberry jam, the ostensible subject of last week's Archdruid Report post, is only one of hundreds of goods and services that until recently were produced almost entirely in the household economy, outside the reach of the market. Nowadays, by contrast, nearly all those goods and services are either produced commercially or are not available at all. This represents an economic transformation on a massive scale, and yet it's one that has seen remarkably little discussion by economists. It also represents a social transformation of equally massive scope. Visit the library of an American public university that has not yet taken up the currently fashionable habit of purging its collection of "outdated" materials, wander through the stacks until you find the dingiest and most neglected shelves in the building, and odds are that you'll be looking at the mummified remains of a field of study, a profession, and a university department as dead as the dinosaurs, and a good deal less popular nowadays: home economics. Not all that many decades ago, an impressive network of home economists working for universities, county extension services, and private industry provided an extensive support system for the household economy. Backing that network, and the by no means negligible expenditures that supported it, was an almost universal consensus that recognized the social and economic importance of the household economy. The experience of two world wars, in which government-promoted home economics measures had played a major role in softening the impact of food rationing and enabling the United States to feed armies and allies alike, gave support to that consensus. At the same time, the household economy had long faced steady pressure from the expansionistic habits of the market economy. Beginning around the end of the 19th century, and accelerating over the decades that followed, the market seeped into the domestic sphere with a steady stream of "convenience" products and "labor-saving" devices. Many of these were neither convenient nor labor-saving, but the massive marketing programs that backed them up made them highly fashionable, especially in the newly prosperous middle classes that emerged as the 20th century wore on and America entered on its age of empire. These two major social forces - the broad consensus surrounding the domestic economy and the expanding pressure of a metastatic market economy - finally collided head on in the decades following the Second World War. A third force, however, played what may well have been the decisive role in the collision. Bringing up that third force at all may be problematic, for it's remained a hot-button issue in American culture right down to the present, and very few people seem to be able to discuss it dispassionately just now. Still, what happened to the household economy is impossible to understand without taking it into account. That force, of course, is the role played by the economics of gender in launching and shaping the second wave of American feminism in the 1960s and 1970s. Many currents of social change flowed together to launch the women's movement of the 1960s, but one factor that has not always been given its due is the impact of the abrupt changeover from the war economy of the 1940s to the consumer economy that followed it. As the troops came home, government and industry alike did everything in their very considerable power to get Rosie the Riveter off the factory floor and turn her into Suzy Homemaker as fast as possible, in order to free up jobs for millions of demobilized soldiers. At the same time, the quest for markets to fuel the consumer economy's expansion and employ those same millions threw the market assault on the household economy into overdrive. Postwar propaganda - "advertising" is too mild a word for the saturation campaigns that flooded the popular media in the late 1940s and early 1950s - presented middle class families with a glittering image of affluence in which convenient, up-to-date consumer products provided by the market would replace the dowdy routine of the domestic economy with a life of elegance and leisure. The reality behind the facade turned out to be much less palatable. Denied both the place in the market economy they had occupied during the war years, and the role in the household economy their mothers had held before that, millions of middle class women across America found themselves expected to lead a purely decorative and essentially purposeless existence. As a motor for rebellion, deprivation of meaning is even more potent than deprivation of food, and so an explosion was inevitable. Many of the forms that explosion took were altogether admirable. A great many injustices were set to rights, or at least challenged, and social roles that had become hopelessly restrictive for women and men alike came in for a much needed reassessment. Still, as the feminism of the Sixties and Seventies percolated outward into popular culture, it suffered in some measure the common fate of progressive social movements in the modern West: instead of challenging the system of male privilege, and the presuppositions that underlay it, a great many women who considered themselves feminists simply set out to seize their share of the positions of privilege within the existing system. In the process, no small number of them embraced the manners, mores, and attitudes of those they hoped to supplant. Compare a Playboy from the 1960s with a Cosmopolitan from the 1980s, for example, and it's impossible to miss the parallels, all the way from the shared obsession with sexual conquest, conspicuous consumption, and personal appearance, to the mutually interchangeable cover girls meant to allure potential readers. The astonishing thing is that the "Playboy man" and the "Cosmo girl", those airbrushed icons of consumer culture, were both considered to be liberated, and liberating, in their day. The household economy, or what was left of it, was one of the casualties of the process that made these dubious figures popular. The feminist movement might have posed hard questions about the relative social value assigned to the household and market economies, and indeed some of the subtler minds within the movement made forays in this direction, but their ideas found few listeners. Instead, many feminists - and ultimately a great many American women - simply accepted the relative values their culture assigned to the two economies, and aspired to the one that they were taught to consider more valuable. The ensuing shift in attitudes cut the ground out from under the consensus that once made home economics relevant; by the 1980s most universities had closed their home economics departments, and county extension agencies and private firms followed suit. Still, the old social roles assigned to women carried so much emotional force in the collective imagination for so long that they had to go somewhere. To a remarkable extent, they came to be applied to the institution that supplanted the economic roles once held by women: the market itself. Look at the rhetoric applied to the market over the last few decades and you'll find every clich? applied to women in 1950s men's magazines present and accounted for. The market, in effect, has become American society's coquettish and curvaceous sex kitten, its June Cleaver mom complete with patriotic flags and apple pie, its nubile innocent waiting to be rescued from the lustful grasp of government regulations and tax collectors. Placed on a rhetorical pedestal as absurdly florid as anything Coventry Patmore ever said about Victorian womanhood, and abused and exploited as ruthlessly as Victorian women so often were, the market is America's pinup girl, the focus of overheated notions every bit as detached from real life as the fantasies that filled the pages of Playboy or Cosmo in their prime. Any attempt to rebuild the household economy in the wake of peak oil will inevitably have to contend with these issues. It's not at all uncommon today, for example, to find couples for whom the cost of professional childcare, an extra car and commuting expenses, and the other costs of a two-salary lifestyle add up to more money than the second salary brings in. In many cases these families would come out substantially ahead if one of the adults were to stay home and provide the same services within the household economy, but in the present social climate, this option is very nearly unthinkable for many people. As a longtime househusband, I can speak to this from a certain degree of experience. During slightly more than half of 24 years of married life, it made a great deal more economic sense for my spouse, a bookkeeper, to work in the market economy, while I tended the garden, cooked the meals, did most of the cleaning, and worked my way through the long learning curve of a career as a writer in my off hours. I came in for a fair amount of criticism for making this choice, though I have to say it was a great deal less savage than the treatment meted out, mostly by other women, to women I knew who made the same choice. Despite the pressure, though, it was unquestionably the right choice for us; it enabled us to maintain a very comfortable lifestyle on a modest income. That choice is likely to be at least as valuable an option for a great many more people as the market economy contracts in the wake of peak oil. The abandonment of the household economy, after all, was only viable in the first place because of the temporary conjunction of American imperial expansion with the rapidly expanding fossil fuel production of the postwar years. As America's empire frays and global energy production falters, the costs of the energy-intensive economic structure we have built over the last sixty years will fairly rapidly begin to outweigh its benefits. In that context a renewal of the household economy offers one valuable set of tools for taking up the slack and providing needed goods and services, and those dusty books in the home economics section of your local college library may turn out to be valuable once again. Such a renewal, though, will require a reassessment of social roles and values as ambitious as anything the pioneering feminists of the 1960s envisaged. Measures of value evolved within the market, and shaped to a large degree by market-centered ideologies, fall flat when applied to nonmarket economies in which custom, reciprocity, and collective benefit govern exchanges, rather than the quest for individual profit. Money itself, that abstract fiction that has very nearly smothered the real economy of goods and services it originally evolved to support, may be a good deal less relevant as alternative forms of value become ascendant. The form that will be taken by those alternatives in the ecotechnic world of the future is probably impossible to guess at this point, but an openness to options and a willingness to look beyond the market are likely to be valuable steps just now - and a renewed household economy may just turn out to be the seed from which the economics of the future can take root and grow. _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (Weiser, 2006). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/08/reviving-household-economy.html#links TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Aug 10 18:30:48 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:30:48 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?19=3A35_Proyecci=F3n_de_medios=3A_Evo_sube_a?= =?iso-8859-1?q?l_60=25_y_revocan_a_Manfred=2C_Paredes_y_Aguilar?= Message-ID: 19:35 Proyecci?n de medios: Evo sube al 60% y revocan a Manfred, Paredes y Aguilar El presidente Evo Morales logr? el 60 por ciento de apoyo del electorado en el referendo de este domingo y los prefectos de La Paz, Cochabamba y Oruro fueron revocados de sus cargos con una votaci?n mayor al 50 por ciento, seg?n un c?mputo preliminar divulgado por las cadenas de televisi?n. El Jefe de Estado subi? seis puntos m?s en relaci?n a la elecci?n del 18 de diciembre del 2005, cuando obtuvo 53.74 por ciento de los votos v?lidos a nivel nacional. Con esta victoria el Jefe de Estado ve fortalecida su gesti?n gubernamental. Tras conocer los datos preliminares, un grupo de militantes y simpatizantes del Movimiento Al Socialismo (MAS) se dieron cita en la plaza Murillo de la ciudad de La Paz para saludar el triunfo de Morales en las urnas, quien ayer anticip? que se producir?a una redefinici?n del escenario pol?tico boliviano. En la pr?ximas horas est? previsto que el Presidente de la Rep?blica brinde un mensaje a la naci?n, en el que posiblemente convoque a los prefectos que hayan sido ratificados para retomar el di?logo a fin de superar la crisis pol?tica que atraviesa el pa?s. En cuanto a los prefectos, los datos proporcionados por cadenas de televisi?n reflejan que Manfred Reyes Villa de Cochabamba, Jos? Luis Paredes de La Paz y Luis Alberto Aguilar de Oruro, est?n revocados de su mandato obtenido en diciembre del 2005. Erbol, La Paz BOLIVIA: El S? a Morales lleva ventaja Por Franz Ch?vez LA PAZ, 10 ago (IPS) - Normalidad dentro de la tensi?n. As? calific? Miguel Bofill, observador de la OEA, al referendo de este domingo en Bolivia, donde el presidente Evo Morales acumul? un considerable respaldo que le permite ratificar su mandato, seg?n la tendencia de los primeros c?mputos. Los resultados extraoficiales difundidos por medios locales indican que Morales y el vicepresidente ?lvaro Garc?a Linera recogen 60 por ciento de los votos, sobre el 80 por ciento contado. Lejos de las previsiones m?s pesimistas y tras una semana intensa por la violencia que rode? el tramo final de la campa?a pol?tica, la tranquilidad domin? en todo el pa?s en la concurrencia a las urnas, al punto de que Morales, el l?der ind?gena del izquierdista Movimiento al Socialismo, dijo sentirse admirado por el comportamiento sereno de la ciudadan?a. Unos cuatro millones de electores estaban convocados para decidir por la continuidad o revocatoria del mandato constitucional de Morales, de Garc?a Linera y de ocho de los nueve prefectos (gobernadores) departamentales. Una resoluci?n de la Corte Nacional Electoral aclar? que para revocar el mandato del presidente y del vicepresidente la f?rmula del No deb?a ganar con un porcentaje mayor al 53,740 por ciento de los votos v?lidos, es decir por encima de lo obtenido por Morales y Garc?a Lineras en las elecciones de diciembre de 2005 cuando alcanzaron el gobierno. A diferencia del c?lculo anterior, para los prefectos rige una modalidad diferente y se?ala que esa autoridad departamental podr? ser revocada cuando los votos por el No sean mayores al 50 por ciento de los votos v?lidos. Una cifra igual a dicho porcentaje o inferior no determinar? el cambio de las autoridades departamentales. "Al margen de los peque?os problemas, destaco la participaci?n del pueblo boliviano. Estoy sorprendido por la participaci?n de la gente y esperamos que esta asistencia profundice la democracia", afirm? la tarde de este domingo en la regi?n central del Chapare, conocida por su importante producci?n de coca, en el departamento de Cochabamba donde sufrag?. "Estamos para contribuir a la transparencia del proceso", dijo el espa?ol Bofill a IPS mientras visitaba los recintos electorales de la ciudad de El Alto, contigua a La Paz, un escenario electoral donde Morales tiene mayores adherentes. Incidentes espor?dicos como el asalto y secuestro de material electoral en la poblaci?n de Yucumo, 250 kil?metros al este de Trinidad, la capital del norte?o departamento de Beni, han sido las notas marginales que fueron superadas por las autoridades de la Corte Departamental con la reposici?n de papeletas y ?nforas en r?pidos env?os mediante una avioneta. Al atardecer de este domingo, el ministro de Gobierno (interior), Alfredo Rada, expres? el temor de asaltos a las ?nforas para evitar la conclusi?n del proceso de consulta ciudadana y llam? a la polic?a y al ej?rcito para cooperar en el traslado y vigilancia de las planillas de recuento hasta las cortes electorales departamentales. Los adherentes del prefecto de La Paz, Jos? Luis Paredes, denunciaron que una persona desconocida intent? atacar a la autoridad departamental con un arma de fuego. Los prefectos de las regiones que impulsan la autonom?a, Rub?n Costas, de Santa Cruz, Leopoldo Fern?ndez, de Pando, Ernesto Su?rez, de Beni, y Mario Coss?o, de Tarija, abandonaron por unos minutos los recintos donde cumplen una huelga de hambre en demanda de recursos fiscales recortados por el gobierno nacional, votaron y luego continuaron con su protesta. Esos cuatro prefectos, de sector de oposici?n al gobierno de Morales, recogen apoyo en el referendo con tendencias de voto diferentes, que seg?n observadores pol?ticos podr?an debilitar al movimiento autonomista en caso de que a la postre se revoque el mandato de una o m?s de esas autoridades departamentales. Como una "jornada ordenada y de total tranquilidad", calific? por su parte el observador uruguayo Luis Rosadilla, diputado del izquierdista y gobernante Frente Amplio, ante la consulta de IPS. Rosadilla record? los momentos de tensi?n de la semana pasada y los enfrentamientos registrados entre mineros y la polic?a, pero observ? que la calma se instal? en este pa?s de 10 millones de habitantes para dar lugar a un d?a "sin incidentes que pudieran distorsionar el ambiente electoral y donde se dirimieron las diferencias mediante el voto". El recuento de votos, tras ocho horas de votaci?n, se?aladas por las normas electorales, ha comenzado a se?alar las tendencias de la opini?n ciudadana que se inclinan por el respaldo a Morales y a Garc?a Linera, pero opinan de manera diversa sobre la continuidad o revocatoria de los prefectos departamentales. Morales acumula mayor apoyo en el occidente del pa?s, que comprende a los departamentos de La Paz, Oruro y Potos?, adem?s de la regi?n central de Cochabamba, pero el caudal de votaci?n es menor en los departamentos donde la oposici?n se asent? con mucha fortaleza, como es la llamada media luna oriental conformada por Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando y Tarija. El caso m?s complejo es en Chuquisaca, el departamento localizado al sur de La Paz, donde la lucha es dram?tica y obligar? a recuentos minuciosos para determinar el resultado final. La consulta revocatoria no incluy? esta vez a la prefecta de ese departamento, Savina Cuellar, pues fue elegida el pasado 29 de junio, con el apoyo del voto urbano y la oposici?n de los electores rurales.(FIN/2008) Sondeos a boca de urna ratifican a Morales con m?s votos de los que obtuvo en 2005 Los resultados a boca de urna ratificaron al Presidente Morales y su Vicepresidente Morales en su cargo, y revocaron a tres de los ocho prefectos que fueron sometidos a la votaci?n del referendo. Los primeros resultados a boca de urna del referendo revocatorio que se celebr? este domingo en Bolivia, dan como resultado la ratificaci?n en sus puestos del presidente Evo Morales y de su vicepresidente ?lvaro Garc?a Linera, con 61 por ciento de votos a favor y 39 por ciento en contra, seg?n c?lculos que public? TV Bolivia en un bolet?n informativo. Otra encuesta del grupo Captura Consulting, le otorga la victoria a Morales y Linera pero con 60 por ciento contra 40, con un margen de error de 5 por ciento. De mantenerse esta tendencia el d?o Morales - Linera habr?a obtenido m?s de siete puntos porcentuales de los 53,7 que necesitaban que fue su votaci?n en la elecci?n presidencial de diciembre de 2005.. La cadena privada ATB, se?al? que el presidente tuvo a su favor un 56,7 por ciento de los votos. En los resultados a boca de urna de la revocatoria de los prefectos, Jos? Luis Paredes, prefecto opositor de La Paz (oeste), fue revocado por un 60 por ciento de los votos por el No, contra un 40 por ciento de los sufragios por el S?. Manfred Reyes, prefecto opositor de Cochabamba (centro), fue revocado de su cargo, por una votaci?n del 40 por ciento por el S? contra un 60 por ciento por el No. Mario Cossio, prefecto de Tarija (sur) obtuvo un 65 por ciento de votos por el S?, contra un 35 por ciento de votos por el No en la consulta popular, que lo ratifican en su cargo. Mario Virreira, prefecto de Potos? (sur), obtuvo 77 por ciento por el S?, y 33 por ciento por el No, lo cual lo ratifica en su mandato como gobernante de este departamento. Ernesto Su?rez, prefecto de Beni (norte), obtuvo 72 por ciento por el S?, y 28 por ciento por el No, lo cual lo ratifica en su mandato como gobernante de este departamento. Leopoldo Fern?ndez, prefecto de Pando (norte), obtuvo un 59 por ciento de los votos por el S? contra un 41por ciento por el No, tambi?n ratificado en su cargo. Rub?n Costas, prefecto de Santa Cruz (este), fue ratificado en su cargo, por una votaci?n del 79 por ciento por el S?, contra un 21 por ciento por el No. Alberto Aguilar, prefecto de Oruro (suroeste), del oficialista partido Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), obtuvo un 42 por ciento de los votos por el S? contra un 58 por ciento por el No, lo cual lo revoca en su mandato. La enviada especial de teleSUR a La Paz, Patricia Villegas adelant? que se espera que el primer bolet?n oficial de la Corte Nacional Electoral (CNE) se d? a las 20H00 locales (00H00 UTC). From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Aug 10 19:41:14 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:41:14 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Morales victory seen in Bolivian recall referendum Message-ID: <9DFD3204-7F67-4756-98F9-8B2757D4C8C7@shaw.ca> Morales victory seen in Bolivian recall referendum http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hixNmT5oMuJeaEbe5pNfw0fOeSwg LA PAZ, Bolivia (AFP) ? Bolivian President Evo Morales easily survived a recall referendum Sunday, according to exit polls, but his use of the vote to weaken a coalition of political enemies was seen as falling short. Morales, a former coca farmer who became Bolivia's first indigenous leader in 2006, appeared to have won 60 percent of valid ballots, the exit polls by the ATB commercial television station and the firm Captura Consulting said. The projection, which had yet to be confirmed by official results, was in line with pre-poll surveys. Of the eight state governors whose jobs were also on the line in the plebiscite, three of them were seen to have been ousted -- two of them Morales critics, and one of them a Morales ally. The sole other presidential ally won overwhelming support in his state -- but so did four opposition governors in wealthier states to the east that have been spearheading the challenge to the president by pushing for autonomy. Analysts said Morales would now probably say he had the upper hand over the opposition, and he would organize another national vote to have his reforms ratified. Chief among those is a proposed constitution giving more land and revenues to the downtrodden indigenous folk who make up 60 percent of the population of 10 million. The result seen in the exit polls "means that his support nationwide is significantly stronger now than it was in December 2005 when he was first elected (with 54% of the vote)," a US political analyst living in Bolivia, Jim Shultz said. The eastern governors, noting that triumph alongside their own landslide support, "will either talk more in the language of de facto secession or start to negotiate," he added on the website of the Democracy Center he runs in the central city of Cochabamba. "My big dream is to have unity among the Bolivian people," Morales said as he cast his ballot in Villa 14 de Septiembre, a town in the central Chapare state that is a bastion of support for him. But that ambition looked difficult to achieve, the referendum notwithstanding. Morales has already called the autonomy moves this year by the governors of the eastern states of Santa Cruz, Pando, Beni and Tarija "illegal." Demonstrators have responded by making those regions no-go areas for the president. The crisis has deeply divided the country along ethnic, political and regional lines. In Cochabamba, there were fears it might even turn explosive in the wake of the referendum. The governor there, Manfred Reyes, has said he will ignore a result ousting him. The ATB poll suggested 57 percent of the ballots went against him. The National Electoral Court ruled last week that a governor could be toppled if the proportion of "no" votes against him topped 50 percent. From suzannedk at gmail.com Sun Aug 10 23:30:32 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:30:32 +0200 Subject: [R-G] The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Oil Window to the West In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Free Book and what a book! Thanks. Suzanne On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi < critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote: > Look, a free book! > > > The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: > Oil Window to the West > > Edited by S. Frederick Starr and Svante E. Cornell > > 150 pages, $15. Free, downloadable PDF files are available below. > > For ordering information, please see bottom of page. > > To download the entire book in PDF format, [2,5MB file] click here > > > Contents > > 0. Contents and Contributor pages > pp. 1-6 > > > 1. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: School of Modernity > S. Frederick Starr > pp. 7-16 > > > 2. Geostrategic Implications of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline > Svante E. Cornell, Mamuka Tsereteli and Vladimir Socor > pp. 17-38 > > > 3. Economic Implications of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline > Jonathan Elkind > pp. 39-60 > > > 4. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implications for Azerbaijan > Svante E. Cornell and Fariz Ismailzade > pp. 61-84 > > > 5. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implications for Georgia > Vladimer Papava > pp. 85-102 > > > 6. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implications for Turkey > Zeyno Baran > pp. 103-118 > > > 7. Environmental and Social Aspects of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline > David Blatchford > pp. 119-150 > > > This book is published by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk > Road Studies Program, Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center. > All rights reserved. > > To order hard copies, please send a check or money order of $15 > payable to The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute as well as mailing > information to one of the following addresses: (If unable to send a > check or money order please contact one of the Centers offices or use > the electronic version) > > For the U.S., Canada and Latin America: > Att: BTC book > c/o Andriy Proshschenko > Central Asia-Caucasus Institute > Johns Hopkins University-SAIS > 1619 Massachusetts Ave. NW > Washington, DC 20036 > USA > > For Europe and Asia: > Att: BTC book > c/o Emin Poljarevic > Silk Road Studies Program > Uppsala University > Box 514, SE-75120 Uppsala University > Sweden > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Aug 11 11:38:24 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:38:24 -0700 Subject: [R-G] A war waiting to happen Message-ID: <8962174E-7C4C-4529-B2E8-7ECCFCA8AED4@shaw.ca> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JG16Ag01.html Jul 16, 2008 A war waiting to happen By F William Engdahl The Caucasus Republic of Georgia, as nations go, is not apparently a major global player. Yet Washington has invested huge sums and organized to put its own despot, Mikhail Saakashvili, in the presidency in order to close a nuclear North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) iron ring around Russia. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited the capital Tbilisi and made sharp statements against Moscow for supporting the separatist Georgian states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in essence blaming Moscow for an imminent war Washington has incited in order to bring Georgia into NATO by the December NATO summit. Western media have either tended to ignore the growing tensions in the strategic Caucasus region or to suggest, as Rice does, that the entire conflict is being caused by Moscow's support of the "breakaway" republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In reality, a quite different chess game is being played in the region, one which has the potential to detonate a major escalation of tensions between Moscow and NATO. The underlying issue is the fact that since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, one after the other former members as well as former states of the USSR have been coaxed and in many cases bribed with false promises by Washington into joining the counter organization, NATO. Rather than initiate discussions after the 1991 dissolution of the Warsaw Pact about a systematic dissolution of NATO, Washington has systematically converted NATO into what can only be called the military vehicle of an American global imperial rule, linked by a network of military bases from Kosovo to Poland to Turkey to Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1999, former Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia followed in March 2004. Now Washington is putting immense pressure on the European Union members of NATO, especially Germany and France, that they vote in December to admit Georgia and Ukraine. The Georgia-Abkhazia military picture The present escalation of tensions in the region began in May when Abkhazia said it had shot down two Georgian drones over its airspace. The announcement came two weeks after Georgia accused Russia of shooting down an unmanned drone over Abkhazia, which Tbilisi considers its sovereign territory. Moscow has denied involvement. Russia has administered a peacekeeping contingent in Abkhazia and South Ossetia since bloody conflicts in the 1990s, and sent additional troops to Abkhazia recently to deter what it calls a planned Georgian military offensive. The two sides, Georgia and Abkhazia, have been in a state of suspended conflict since 1993, when Abkhaz separatists, backed by Russian forces, succeeded in driving the Georgians out of the province. Tbilisi claims sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia and refers to both as "breakaway republics". In 2001, Georgian troops joined with anti-Moscow mujahideen-trained Chechyn soldiers from neighboring Russian Muslim province of Chechnya to mount a military attack, unsuccessfully, against Abkhazia. In an analysis of what a possible military clash, short of nuclear war between Russia and NATO might look like, the Russian government's RIA Novosti military commentator, Ilya Kramnik, laid out the array of forces on both sides. In late 2007, the Georgian armed forces had about 33,000 officers and men, including a 22,000-strong army that comprised five brigades and eight detached battalions. These units had over 200 tanks, including 40 T-55 and 165 T-72 main battle tanks that are currently being overhauled. Kramnik says that the Georgian military faces a 10,000-strong Abkhazian Self Defense Force with 60 tanks, including 40 T-72s, and 85 artillery pieces and mortars, including several dozen with a 122-152mm caliber and 116 armored vehicles of different types, numerous anti- tank weapons ranging from RPG-7 rocket launchers to Konkurs-M anti- tank guided missiles (ATGMs). The Abkhazian navy has over 20 motor boats armed with machine-guns and small-caliber cannons. But most decisive, as was shown in the experience of the 1992-1993 Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, even small units can resist superior enemy forces in mountainous areas for a long time. Consequently, the outcome of any hypothetical conflict would depend on the aggressors' level of military training and the influence of third parties, primarily Russian units from the Collective Commonwealth of Independent States Peacekeeping Force. Georgia's armed forces are notoriously corrupt and poorly trained. Although the United States has trained several crack Georgian units in the past few years, the fighting effectiveness of all other elements is uncertain. There are no trained sergeants, and troop morale is running low. Only about 50% of the military equipment is operational, and coordinated operations in adverse conditions are impossible. The Abkhazian armed forces pack a more devastating punch because they would resist an aggressor that has already tried to deprive the republic of its independence. And Abkhazian units are commanded by officers trained at Russian military schools. Many of them fought in the early 1990s. Most analysts agree that the combat-ready Abkhazian army does not suffer from corruption. Moscow has recently beefed up the local peace-keeping contingent. Neighboring Caucasus states including North Ossetia side with Abkhazia and are ready to take on Georgia. Moscow's possible strategy Moscow has stepped up ties with the two small republics against the backdrop of Georgia's NATO bid and Western recognition of Kosovo's independence from Serbia. Russia, however, has not formally recognized Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Moscow has long backed Abkhazia's de facto independence however. It has granted Russian citizenship to many of its residents and recently legalized economic ties with the separatist republic. For Russia, the conflict provides a source of leverage on both Abkhazia and Georgia. The more Georgia seeks to distance itself from Russia, the more Russia throws its weight behind Abkhazia. However, Georgia under Washington's man, strongman President Mikhail Saakashvili - a pretty ruthless dictator as he recently showed against domestic opposition - refuses to back off its provocative NATO bid. Georgia is also a strategic transit country for the Anglo-American Caspian oil pipeline from Baku in Azerbaijan through Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. As well, the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline has been key to Azerbaijan as an alternative to the control of the Russian state monopoly Transneft in order to convey its oil and gas resources toward the West. The entire Caucasus is part of what can be described as a new Great Game for control of Eurasia between Washington and Russia. As the Moscow Times sees it, "One way to disrupt Georgia's NATO aspirations would be to heat up the conflict in Abkhazia to a level that would make it unacceptable for the Western alliance, which acts by the consensus of all members, to offer membership. Georgia's leadership could be escalating tensions in hope of prompting Abkhazia and Russia to make a move that would leave the West with no chance but to intervene. "Regardless of the motivation, whoever is stoking the conflict must realize that they are playing with fire. This brinkmanship can lead to a full-fledged war. Georgia would probably lose a war if Russia backed Abkhazia, while Russia would lose its hope of becoming a benign global player and would risk seriously straining its ties with the European Union and the United States." Rice adds gasoline to the fire The George W Bush administration is adding gasoline to the fire in the Caucasus. In Tbilisi on July 10, Rice told the press, "Russia needs to be a part of resolving the problem and solving the problem and not contributing to it. I have said it to the Russians publicly. I have said it privately." The effect of her comments, blaming Moscow for the escalating tensions, is to signal US support for the Georgia side in their efforts to force Russian troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In May, Abkhaz President Sergei Bagapsh said he was willing to conclude a military treaty with Moscow similar to that between the US and Taiwan. "Abkhazia will propose to Russia the signing of a military treaty that would guarantee security to our republic," Bagapsh stated. "We are also prepared to host Russian military bases on our territory within the framework of this treaty. I would like to emphasize that this would not go against the precedents already existing in international practice. For instance, this treaty could be analogous to the treaty between the US and Taiwan." Just as Moscow refuses to recognize the sovereignty of Kosovo, so Washington refuses to admit the sovereignty of Abkhazia. In May, a senior US State Department delegation was in Abkhazia, meeting with local non-governmental organizations (NGOs)there as well as the president. In the past, from Serbia to Georgia to Ukraine, Washington intelligence agencies have used NGOs, including the George Soros- financed Open Society foundations, the US Congress-financed National Endowment for Democracy, the Central Intelligence Agency-linked Freedom House and Gene Sharp's misleadingly-named Albert Einstein Institution to steer a wave of regime changes which became known as "color revolutions". In each case, the new regime was pro-Washington and anti-Moscow, as in the case of Saakashvili in Georgia and Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine. Both countries began seeking NATO entry after the success of the US- financed color revolutions. In all this, Washington is definitely playing with potential nuclear fire by escalating pressure to push Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Czech Foreign Minister Karl Schwarzenberg on July 8 signed an agreement allowing US deployment of special radar facilities on Czech soil as part of the top-secret US "missile defense" it alleges is aimed at rogue missile threats from Iran. As even former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger recently pointed out, the Bush administration's categorical refusal to pursue the 2007 counter-offer of then-president Vladimir Putin to station US radar at the Russian-leased reconnaissance facility in Azerbaijan instead, was a provocative mistake. It makes abundantly clear that Washington is aiming its military strategy at the dismantling of Russia as a potential adversary. That is a recipe for a possible nuclear war by miscalculation. Rice's latest Caucasus and Czech visit only added to that growing danger. F William Engdahl is author of the book A Century of War: Anglo- American Oil Politics and the New World Order and is finishing a book, provisionally titled, The New Cold War: Behind the US Drive for Full Spectrum Dominance. He may be reached via his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net (Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Aug 11 13:33:12 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:33:12 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Saakashvili says Moscow wants to oust him Message-ID: <9F571B7B-D507-467A-8DD3-9C0729BC5178@shaw.ca> Saakashvili says Moscow wants to oust him By Quentin Peel in London, Catherine Belton in Moscow, Charles Clover in Tbilisi, Harvey Morris at the United Nationsand Edward Luce in Washington http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/077576b6-670b-11dd-808f-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1 Published: August 10 2008 19:51 | Last updated: August 11 2008 15:21 President Mikheil Saakashvili on Monday accused the Russian government of invading undisputed Georgian territory and of seeking to depose his government as foreign ministers from the Group of Seven urged Russia to agree an immediate ceasefire with Tbilisi. ?They claim their purpose is to depose the democratically-elected government of the republic of Georgia,? Mr Saakashvili told a tele- conference before the line went down because of what the conference operators described as Russian aircraft ?overflying? the president?s location. Before he was interrupted, Mr Saakashvili said Russian aircraft were deliberately targeting civilians on the roads of Georgia and that tanks had advanced to within five km of the town of Gori ? Stalin?s birthplace ? but had then pulled back to 20km. Mr Saakashvili said the tanks had been ?firing extensively into the centre of Gori? and that 90 per cent of the casualties were civilian. ?We should be crazy to want to continue this war,? the Georgian leader said. ?But of course we are never going to give up our independence and freedom. We are going to fight to the end. There is no surrender.? As Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president who occupies the rotating chair of the European Union, prepared to go to Moscow, a US State Department spokesman said G7 foreign ministers expressed support for mediation efforts led by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb. ?(The G7 ministers) called on Russia to accept an immediate cease-fire. They expressed deep concern for the civilian casualties and continued attacks on civilian locations,? said the spokesman. Russia meanwhile rejected Tbilisi?s latest ceasefire offer as president Dmitry Medvedev said Russian military operations in the breakaway region of South Ossetia were near conclusion. ?We have completed a significant part of the operations to force the Georgian side and the Georgian authorities into peace in South Ossetia,? Mr Medvedev said. He said the capital ?Tskhinvali has been taken under control by a strengthened Russian peacekeeping contingent?. EDITOR?S CHOICE Lex: Investing in Russia - Aug-11 Video: Quentin Peel on South Ossetia crisis - Aug-04 In depth: South Ossetia crisis - Aug-10 Slideshow: Russia-Georgia crisis in pictures - Aug-10 Oil rebounds as war in Georgia continues - Aug-11 Loathing mounts as Russia reveals iron fist - Aug-10 After initially denying it had invaded or bombed Georgia proper, Russia confirmed later on Monday that its troops had advanced from the breakaway region of Abkhazia to the town of Senaki inside undisputed Georgian territory. The Defence Ministry justified the operation in Senaki, which lies outside the so-called security zone along the de facto Abkhaz boundary, by a need to avert news attacks on another breakaway region of South Ossetia. A Russian military spokesman said Moscow was readying 9,000 troops to bolster its forces inside the separatist region of Abkhazia where it currently has a peacekeeping contingent. On Sunday the Georgian government said Moscow sent 4,000 soldiers into Abkhazia, and an additional 6,000 into South Ossetia. The Kremlin?s ultimate goals in its Georgia campaign remain a mystery, but so far the stated objective has been only to secure control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. On Monday, Vladimir Putin, the prime minister hit out at the US for airlfiting Georgia troops from Iraq. ?It?s a shame that some of our partners are not helping us, and are trying to interfere,? he said. ?I am talking about US military planes airlifting the Georgian military contingent from Iraq practically into the conflict zone.? Like President Medvedev, he said the west was wrong to identify Georgia, which last Thursday launched an offensive to take South Ossetia, as the victim. ?I am suprised by the extent of this cynicism, the ability to pass off white as black and black as white,? said Mr Putin. The ability to present the aggressor as a victim of aggression and to lay the responsibility for the consequences on the victims.? Earlier, the US, which backs the Georgian government, stepped up confrontational rhetoric in an effort to get Russia to back down. Vice President Dick Cheney telephoned Mr Saakashvili to express US solidarity in the conflict with Russia and told him ?Russian aggression must not go unanswered,? the vice president?s office said on Monday. ?The vice president expressed the United States? solidarity with the Georgian people and their democratically elected government in the face of this threat to Georgia?s sovereignty and territorial integrity,? Mr Cheney?s office said in a statement. The comments from the vice president appeared to go further than those made by President George W. Bush. In a statement issued in Beijing, the White House said the ?dangerous escalation? of conflict could have a ?significant long-term impact on US-Russia relations?. Mr Bush, who is attending the Olympics, said: ?The attacks are occurring in regions of Georgia far from the zone of conflict in South Ossetia. They mark a dangerous escalation in the crisis.? In New York, the United Nations Security Council met to tackle the mounting crisis and the US and other western states were expected to press for a formal UN resolution demanding a ceasefire in what envoys described as the most serious world crisis in years. At least two thousand people, including soldiers and civilians, are estimated to have died on both sides. Moscow on Monday rejected Georgia?s latest proposal for a ceasefire. ?According to information from peacekeepers in South Ossetia, Georia continues to use military force and in this regard we cannot consider this document,? a Kremlin spokesman told reporters. It follows a proposal signed in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi by the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, offering a ceasefire. From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Aug 11 13:53:40 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:53:40 -0700 Subject: [R-G] John K. Cooley--R.I.P. Message-ID: Friday, August 08, 2008 John K. Cooley--R.I.P. One of the great old hands has died. Younger readers will not know this, and older readers may have forgotten, but there was a time when the Christian Science Monitor was a giant of a paper for its foreign coverage. More than three decades ago, the paper was a broadsheet published six times weekly. In those pre-Internet days, people in the U.S. interested in following events in far away places would have a mail subscription to the Monitor. The paper never rivaled the NYTimes in circulation, but it had a loyal readership of informed readers. I remember walking through the corridors of the State Department in 1975, when I was there on a fellowship, and outside every office you would see the discards of the day's papers for recycling. There would typically be copies of the Monitor right there in the pile with the Times and Post. One reason the paper was so popular was that the paper had great correspondents of the caliber of John K. Cooley. He was a Middle East hand, and wrote fairly and honestly about a range of topics, especially developments in the Arab-Israeli zone. His "Green March, Black September" is a seminal account of the fedayeen (to use his spelling), but his old accounts of the some of the marking moments of the 1970s remain invaluable. He deserves a moment of quiet thanks for his contributions. http://bostonuniversity.blogspot.com/2008/08/john-k-cooley-rip.html http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0808/p08s04-cogn.html From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 11 15:13:18 2008 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Environment CA Leg. Director: Presidential straw poll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <726770.35531.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Here was my reply :) This is the worst time in recent American history to be on the fence, how can one be "neutral" when the republican conspiracy, predominantly through pathological lying, has brought humanity far along the corporate structure's convolution's devolutionary direction, exterminating humanity on the way; while they say they're "not doing anything", etc.. For decades the republicans have fabricated that global warming "doesn't exist", "isn't a bad thing", etc., while tens of millions are 'dying' from the 'natural disasters' being more severe and more frequent, which the altering of weather cycles has caused, from global warming, etc.; instead of the 1 million that used to die from it per year- and some will still say that when it's 100's of millions 'dying' from it a year! If all you can bring yourself, and/or your organization, to do is support Barack, instead of a real change like Cynthia Mckinney and the Green Party, then, by sanity, and all means, please do it! Tolerance and cowardice aren?t the same thing. reality (aja) :) james m nordlund Presidential straw poll Hi, Before we make a decision on endorsing a candidate for president, there's one thing we need to know: Do you think we should endorse Barack Obama or stay out of the presidential election? Tell us today: http://www.environmentamerica.org/action/voter-action/wdyt44354?id4=ES We've done our homework. We think electing Barack Obama offers the best chance for advancing the environmental progress we've worked so hard to achieve together. As you might know, our national federation of state environmental groups and Washington, D.C.-based staff has formed Environment America Voter Action, the electoral arm of our network. You can use this online form to send text comments or, if you prefer, a video or audio file, to let us know what you think: http://www.environmentamerica.org/action/voter-action/wdyt44354?id4=ES As you might imagine, we're not making this decision lightly. We're proud of the progress our staff and supporters have made in promoting clean energy, tackling global warming, and protecting the rivers, lakes, forests and other places we know and love. Yet, too often, the politicians in Washington, influenced by powerful special interests, have stood in the way or even made matters worse. Given the environmental challenges that are staring us in the face -- not least our dead-end dependence on oil and coal and the need to break our fossil fuel addiction in order to solve global warming -- we can't afford to sit on the sidelines this November. Think about it: If we had the right president now, he would be pushing Congress to solve global warming and lay out a bold plan for a new energy future that ends our dependence on coal and oil. If we had the right president today, with the stroke of a pen he could be raising gas mileage standards to 50 mpg or more by 2020. If we had one more pro-environment vote in the U.S. Senate this year, we would be on track to supply 15 percent of our electricity with clean, renewable energy by 2020. If we had one more pro-environment vote in the Senate, the wind and solar power industries could depend on federal tax credits for new clean energy production. This November, we have a chance to get the political and environmental winds blowing in a new direction. That's why, working together with the leaders of our national federation, we decided to join forces and take a stand in this election. And, as you might expect, if we're in it, we're in to win it. Yet why Barack Obama? We've studied the votes, the scorecards, the statements, the platforms and the plans. Our conclusion: Barack Obama is the right choice for our environment. Here's some of what we learned: In 2008, Sen. Obama earned a 90 percent score on the Environment Illinois Congressional Scorecard. [1] His pro-environment stands include adopting stronger gas mileage standards, protection for a pristine Alaskan national forest, and co-sponsorship of the most far-reaching global warming bill in the Senate. [2, 3, 4] He has said, in response to how we should judge his performance as president: "If I haven't... created a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we've missed the boat." [5] He has backed up this pledge with specifics, including a cap on global warming pollution, making carbon emitters pay to pollute, a $150 billion investment in renewable energy, and within 10 years more oil saved than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined. [6] Make no mistake: John McCain is no George Bush. He has, in the past, bucked his party's leaders to support action against global warming and to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But he opposed making polluters pay for the cleanup of toxic waste sites, opposed giving the public the right to know more about toxic pollution in their environment, and opposed requirements to get more of our energy from clean renewable sources. In fact, our analysis of his voting record shows him on the wrong side of environmental protection 70 percent of the time. [7] In the last month, we've seen Sen. McCain soften, and even reverse, some of the pro-environment positions he had, such as opposing the federal moratorium on drilling in the last remaining coastal areas that are protected. [8] It's disappointing. This could have been a contest between green and greener. No more. The closer we looked, the more convinced we became that Sen. Obama is not only the right choice, but a clear choice. We think the record is clear, but maybe there's something we're missing. That's why we want to hear from you. Do you think we should endorse Barack Obama or stay out of the presidential election? http://www.environmentamerica.org/action/voter-action/wdyt44354?id4=ES And in case you're wondering if it's worth your time or whether we can make a difference, consider this: We have a plan to hire thousands of organizers and canvassers to reach out and help persuade undecided voters, register new voters (especially younger voters who have the most at stake), and turn out pro-environment voters in 11 key states that could make the difference on Election Day. Not only could this outreach effort help us elect the next president, but we will also mobilize to support more pro-environment congressional candidates, building a stronger majority for clean energy, stopping global warming and protecting special places and open spaces. Of course, as you know from experience, we'll still be here on November 5, preparing to hold the feet of whomever wins to the fire when it comes to the health and future of our environment. Thank you, in advance, for sharing your thoughts with us. http://www.environmentamerica.org/action/voter-action/wdyt44354?id4=ES And, as always: Thanks for making it all possible. Sincerely, Dan Jacobson Environment California Legislative Director DanJ at environmentcalifornia.org http://www.environmentcalifornia.org P.S. In the interest of full disclosure, we're part of Sen. Obama's back story. As a young man, Sen. Obama worked as an organizer with NYPIRG (the New York Public Interest Research Group). As you might know, Environment California became the new home of CALPIRG's environmental work not long ago. Small world. BACKGROUND [1] You can access Environment Illinois' scorecard at www.EnvironmentIllinois.org. [2] Read more about support for increasing gas mileage standards here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ [3] Sen. Obama voted in favor of Amendment 1026 to H.R. 2361, which would have banned subsidies for road-building in the Tongass National Forest. [4] Obama co-sponsored the Lieberman-Warner Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-280 [5] http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/21472234/a_conversation_with_barack_obama/print [6] http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ [7] McCain's lifetime Environment Arizona score is 30 percent. [8] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891.html Paid for by Environment America at www.EnvironmentAmerica.org and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Aug 11 16:03:13 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:03:13 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The medicare myth that refuses to die Message-ID: <200808112203.m7BM3Du8005418@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080811/0b84d40c/attachment.txt From intnsred at golgotha.net Mon Aug 11 16:55:18 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:55:18 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Saakashvili says Moscow wants to oust him In-Reply-To: <9F571B7B-D507-467A-8DD3-9C0729BC5178@shaw.ca> References: <9F571B7B-D507-467A-8DD3-9C0729BC5178@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <200808111855.18965.intnsred@golgotha.net> > Saakashvili says Moscow wants to oust him (LOL) That's not surprising. This conflict is so disgusting in so many ways. Saakashvili came to power because of Washington's money, funnelled through the Nat'l Endowment for Democracy[sic] and other US organizations. (His opponent had the backing of Russia, so it wouldn't have been much different.) Then Saakashvili wastes money building up Georgia's military, and uses it to launch a war that failed miserably. With Saakashvili's initial assault ethnically cleansing South Ossetian villages and killing Russian troops which were part of an int'l agreement which Georgia agreed to; is it any wonder that Moscow wants him ousted?! In a just world, Saakashvili would be tried for war crimes right after Bush and most of his administration. But that's in a just world, so I'm not holding my breath... -- "The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power." -- Vice President Henry Wallace, April 9, 1944. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Aug 11 17:03:02 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:03:02 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Companies Tap Pension Plans To Fund Executive Benefits Message-ID: <200808112303.m7BN32F2004052@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080811/a1f2ebf6/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Aug 11 17:03:35 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:03:35 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Canadians Betrayed in the Name of Fighting Terror Message-ID: <200808112303.m7BN3Z4o004938@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080811/85a97dd2/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Aug 11 17:04:02 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:04:02 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Israel's front-line thugs Message-ID: <200808112304.m7BN42Z5005689@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080811/be9474ea/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Aug 11 17:09:25 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:09:25 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Netanyahu the devil Message-ID: <200808112309.m7BN9PQM016737@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080811/e59fa155/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Aug 11 18:54:38 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:54:38 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Peak Oil Crisis: America's Electricity Message-ID: <48A0DF4E.6030307@attglobal.net> by Tom Whipple Falls Church Press-News (July 24 2008) Earlier this week, the National Conference of State Legislators held an energy policy forum entitled "The Future of State Electricity Policy" for the benefit of legislators from all over the US who were attending the annual conference. At the outset, the organizers announced they had been considering a transportation fuels forum, but had finally deemed the subject too confusing and too politicized to grapple with at this time. The first speaker, a senior Energy Information Administration (EIA) official, felt impelled, however, to tell the gathering that before talking about electricity, he should warn them that his agency is very concerned about the cost of home heating which is set to at least double this coming winter. For the next eight hours, twelve speakers and hundreds of PowerPoints covered nearly every conceivable aspect of America's electric power situation - past, present and future. The good news is that, for the present, there is enough power to go around, so that unlike much of world, we should not have pervasive, continuing power shortages. It seems that twenty or thirty years ago, America's power industry overbuilt its generating capacity on the theory that America's homes, commercial spaces and industry would continue to grow robustly. They got the part about the residential and commercial space right, but failed to foresee that much of America's manufacturing capacity would depart for foreign lands. The result was that despite building larger houses, air-conditioning them to the hilt and stocking them with a myriad of power-guzzling electronic gizmos, we are still above water. If nothing else, our sagging economy and home sales should help out with somewhat lower demand for electricity in the immediate future. From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Aug 11 22:40:32 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:40:32 -0700 Subject: [R-G] CIFA Closes, Pentagon Opens New Spy Shop Message-ID: <568F523B-6B45-42FA-A617-7DA90391ACBC@shaw.ca> CIFA Closes, Pentagon Opens New Spy Shop http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/cifa-closes-pentagon-opens-new-spy-shop-2/ by Tom Burghardt / August 11th, 2008 Back in April, Antifascist Calling reported on the proposed shut-down of the Pentagon?s controversial Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) office that illegally spied on the antiwar movement. That office was officially ?disestablished? August 4 by the Department of Defense (DoD). Simultaneously, it ?activated? the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center (DCHC) ?under the direction of the Defense Intelligence Agency.? DCHC will ?combine CIFA resources and responsibilities with longstanding DIA CI and HUMINT capabilities.? DCHC director Army Maj. Gen. Theodore Nicholas says that ?the realignment of CIFA?s functions and resources into DIA strengthens the close historical and operational relationship between counterintelligence and HUMINT.? According to the Associated Press, DIA?s new office will engage in what it calls ?offensive counterintelligence? to identify what terrorist operatives or foreign intelligence officers are up to and thwart their activities. The DoD stresses that ?CIFA?s designation as a law enforcement activity did not transfer to DIA. The new center will have no law enforcement function.? In other words unlike CIFA, if we?re to believe the Defense Department, DCHC will not spy on Americans? or subvert their constitutionally-protected rights of free speech and assembly. But unlike DCHC?s classified budget, talk is cheap and the devil is in the details which are few and far between. CIFA: mired in cronyism, scandal and corruption The brainchild of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, CIFA was mired in cronyism, scandal and corruption. Indeed, disgraced Congressman Randy ?Duke? Cunningham (R-CA), now a convicted felon cooling his heels in a federal penitentiary, was caught in a cash-and-hookers-for-contracts scandal along with Mitchell Wade, the notorious ex-chairman of MZM Inc. Cunningham, a member of the House Appropriations and Intelligence Committees, chaired the subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence that had authority over CIFA operations. Like any good congressman dedicated to ?fighting the terrorists over there, so we don?t have to fight them here,? Cunningham showered MZM with some $16 million in dubious ?earmarks? for contracts with CIFA before being run to ground. One MZM deal would have allegedly provided the Pentagon office with a data-mining and storage system, the usual suite of ?tools? for illegal spy operations we?ve come to expect from the Bush regime. The problem was, MZM?s ?product? was useless and was never installed. According to U.S. News & World Report, Wade?s shady dealings extended deep into CIFA?s dark heart. Wade enjoyed a ?special? relationship with a company named Gray Hawk Systems Inc. The firm, according to investigative journalist Chitra Ragavan, ?obtained several lucrative and questionable contracts from CIFA, which it then shared with MZM.? To sweeten the grift, ?three senior CIFA officials with influence over the contracting process left the agency and joined Gray Hawk,? according to Ragavan. With knowledgeable insiders in place, Wade was then able to ?craft earmarks for Cunningham,? who then inserted them into appropriations bills worth tens of millions of dollars. After that, Cunningham was able to pressure ?Pentagon officials to award the contracts to Gray Hawk and MZM.? Pretty neat trick, eh? Unfortunately for Wade, his extracurricular activities earned him an eight year sentence in federal prison like his buddy, the ?Dukester.? Gray Hawk was purchased in 2005 for $100 million by ManTech International Corp. in an ?all cash acquisition,? according to Washington Technology. Approximately 90% of the firm?s employees hold security clearances which, as we?ve previously described, are marketable commodities. No charges were ever brought against Gray Hawk or its corporate officers. But wait, there?s more! Before the smoke cleared, Kyle ?Dusty? Foggo, the CIA?s Executive Director, former Iran-Contra operative and close confidant of both ex- CIA Director Porter Goss and convicted fraudster Brent Wilkes, the former CEO of ADCS Inc., was indicted in 2007 on charges of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. On February 19, 2008, Foggo?s poker- playing pal Wilkes was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison for his role as Mitchell Wade?s ?subcontractor? in CIFA shenanigans, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. However, the execution of a search warrant on a top CIA official by San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in May 2006, proved too much for the Bush administration and their close political allies in the Republican party. In addition to Cunningham, Wade, Foggo and Wilkes, Lam?s net now was closing around several other congressmen involved in CIFA sleaze. Indeed Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonazales? Chief of Staff, was enmeshed in the scandal over fired U.S. Attorneys by the Bush regime. When the Justice Dept. learned of the Foggo search warrant, the very next day Sampson wrote an e-mail to his political masters stating the need to discuss ?the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.? Shortly thereafter, Lam was forced to resign and became one of the first victims of the ?Attorneygate? scandal that eventually led to Gonzales? forced resignation as U.S. Attorney General. Foggo?s 2007 indictment was superseded when the CIA?s former No. 3 was indicted on new charges filed May 20, 2008 by federal prosecutors. The new indictment charged Foggo with accepting tens of thousands of dollars in ?gratuities? and ?sexual companionship? (the hookers in ?hookergate?) in exchange for helping Wilkes secure plum government contracts. His trial is currently pending. Small world?of crony capitalist grifting on a grand scale! CIFA targets the antiwar movement But the ?hookergate? scandal was the least of CIFA?s problems. The office was caught red-handed spying on Americans when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) obtained documents detailing the Pentagon?s illegal domestic spying operation. Multiple news reports beginning in late 2005 revealed that CIFA, with 400 full-time DoD workers and 900 ?outsourced? contractor employees and a classified budget, had been authorized to track ?potential terrorist threats? against DoD through reports known as Threat and Local Observation Notices (TALON). As it turned out, ?nonvalidated? TALON reports were maintained in a huge database that compiled information on antiwar activists who organized demonstrations and vigils near U.S. military bases. Even when supposed ?threats? were designated ?not credible,? the office retained the files nonetheless. Examples of TALON reports were subsequently published by The National Security Archive on their website. According to Archive analyst Jeffrey Richelson, There were approximately four dozen reports concerning anti-war meetings or protests, including reports that remained in the database long after it was concluded that the targets were unrelated to any threat. Among the meetings that attracted the attention of military counterintelligence authorities were a large anti-war protest in Los Angeles in March 2005, a planned protest against military recruiters in Boston in December 2004, a planned demonstration outside the gates of the Fort Collins, Colorado, military base, and a planned protest at McDonald?s National Salute to America?s Heroes?a military air and sea show in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. It was concluded that the Ft. Lauderdale protest was not a credible threat and a column in the database noted that it was a ?US group exercising constitutional rights.? (?The Pentagon?s Counterspies,? The National Security Archive, September 17, 2007) The TALON database was shut down in September and future ?threat reports? would now ?be funneled to an FBI database known as Guardian,? Wired reported last August. Guardian and its related e-Guardian database will be available for sharing ?certain unclassified information? with state and local law enforcement officers. ?Once sharing agreements are signed,? according to SourceWatch, ?police chiefs and sheriffs will be able to query local terrorism threats and also submit terrorism information to the FBI through e-Guradian.? However, ?in accordance with intelligence oversight requirements,? even though CIFA is now closed, DoD ?will maintain a record copy of the collected data,? SourceWatch revealed. In other words TALON reports, including data illegally collected on antiwar activists, will continue to exist somewhere deep in the bowels of the Defense Department. The ties that bind (and pay handsomely in the process!) Though CIFA is gone, the DoD?s new office will retain many of the characteristics of its predecessor, including DIA?s reliance on outsourced contracts to private defense and security firms. According to a July 22, 2008 Memorandum from Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England obtained by Cryptome, On August 3, 2008, all DoD CIFA CI missions, responsibilities, functions, and authorities as well as all associated resources including all personnel, support contracts and contractors, and appropriate records and archives shall transition in place to DIA. Personnel transfer notifications, as appropriate and required, shall be accomplished in advance of the August 3, 2008, transfer from DoD CIFA to DIA. [emphasis added] Major CIFA contractors included QinetiQ, a British-owned defense and intelligence firm based in McClean, Virginia. Investigative journalist Tim Shorrock reported in January for CorpWatch that QinetiQ?s ?Mission Solutions Group, formerly Analex Corporation, had just signed a five- year, $30 million contract to provide a range of unspecified ?security services?.? Interestingly enough, Cambone became a QinetiQ vice president when he left the Pentagon and CIFA signed the QinetiQ deal a scant two months after he was hired. Just a coincidence, I?m sure. CIFA?s brief included a Directorate of Field Activities, tasked with ?preserving the most critical defense assets;? the Counterintelligence and Law Enforcement Center, designated as the office to ?identify and assess threats;? and Behavioral Sciences, the office that provided ?a team of renowned forensic psychologists [who] are engaged in risk assessments of the Guantanamo Bay detainees,? according to Shorrock. Will the CIFA shut-down and the transference of its intelligence brief to DIA mean that a privatized military-surveillance complex is now a relic of the corrupt Bush regime? Hardly. According to estimates, some 30-40% of DIA personnel are outsourced contractors themselves. Indeed, Washington Technology reported that ?the Defense Intelligence Agency is planning a billion-dollar contract for information technology and services.? According to the brief report, the contract ?to be known as the Solutions for Information Technology Enterprise, will be open to Defense Department intelligence agencies, the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines Corps as well as non-DOD agencies involved in intelligence.? (emphasis added) Back in April, the publication reported that eight giant multinational defense and security firms ?won prime contracts? from DIA ?for military intelligence analysis services.? The companies included BAE Systems Inc., Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., CACI International Inc., Concurrent Technologies Corp., L-3 Communications Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., Science Applications International Corp. and SRA International Inc. In other words, the usual suspects! Interestingly enough, two items that appeared last week in the federal insider and high-tech defense industry press paint DIA ?partner? Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in a less than favorable light, to say the least! The first item was an August 5 piece in Washington Technology, that detailed how the Department of Homeland Security had to ?suspend a procurement? for the upcoming TopOff 5 (Top Officials) ?national disaster drill to investigate improprieties in the contracting process.? According to Alice Lipowicz, ?lawmakers said a contractor who apparently wrote parts of FEMA?s request for proposals for the Topoff 5 contract might also be a bidder on the contract. If so, that would present an unfair competitive advantage due to an organizational conflict of interest, and possibly other ethics infractions. The senators also said FEMA officials did not recognize the potential conflict nor approve a mitigation strategy, such as firewalls, that would have mitigated it. The contractor has not been named, but sources identified it as SAIC, which confirmed it submitted a bid for the Topoff 5 work. (?FEMA Suspends TopOff, SAIC Drops out of Competition,? Washington Technology, August 5, 2008) The second item appeared the very next day, when Federal Times revealed that SAIC had been found guilty of violating the False Claims Act ?and ordered the company to pay the government $6 million in damages.? Elsie Castelli reports, SAIC failed to disclose conflicts of interest that could have biased the company?s work assisting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the jury found. SAIC was hired by the agency to help it develop a rule to govern the recycling of radioactive waste from nuclear facilities. The jury ruled the company concealed its relationships with private firms that would benefit from the rule, and made 77 false statements and claims to obtain payment on two NRC contracts in the 1990s. (?SAIC Found Guilty of False Claims Act Violations,? Federal Times, August 6, 2008) The second case is far more serious since ?companies found liable? for submitting false claims ?are subject to suspension or debarment,? Federal Times reports. SAIC, No. 5 on Washington Technology?s ?Top 100 List? of Federal prime contractors, clocked in with $4,919,829,998, more than two thirds of which were defense and security related. ?No such actions have been taken against SAIC, according to the government?s Excluded Parties List, which tracks suspensions and debarments,? according to Federal Times. Would anyone care to wager whether or not the San Diego-based defense and security giant will be suspended or debarred from future government contracts? I didn?t think so. While the Defense Department claims that the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center will ?have no law enforcement function,? the question remains: with a massive domestic intelligence apparatus aimed like a Borg death-ray at America?s democratic Republic, where has the Pentagon?s ?law enforcement function? been transferred? According to investigative journalist Erin Rosa?s report in The Colorado Independent, ?the military will? be sharing intelligence information and providing support through U.S. Northern Command, (NORTHCOM) a unit stationed at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs that was created in 2002 for homeland defense missions,? during the upcoming Democratic National Convention later this month in Denver. The more things change? Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly, Love & Rage and Antifa Forum, he is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press. Read other articles by Tom, or visit Tom's website. From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Aug 11 22:47:25 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:47:25 -0700 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?The_Caucasus_=97Washington_Risks_nuclear_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ar_by_miscalculation?= Message-ID: The Caucasus ?Washington Risks nuclear war by miscalculation by F. William Engdahl Global Research, August 11, 2008 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20080811&articleId=9790 The dramatic military attack by the military of the Republic of Georgia on South Ossetia in the last days has brought the world one major step closer to the ultimate horror of the Cold War era?a thermonuclear war between Russia and the United States?by miscalculation. What is playing out in the Caucasus is being reported in US media in an alarmingly misleading light, making Moscow appear the lone aggressor. The question is whether George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are encouraging the unstable Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili in order to force the next US President to back the NATO military agenda of the Bush Doctrine. This time Washington may have badly misjudged the possibilities, as it did in Iraq, but this time with possible nuclear consequences. The underlying issue, as I stressed in my July 12 Global Research article entitled Georgia, Washington and Moscow: a Nuclear Geopolitical Poker Game , is the fact that since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 one after another former member as well as former states of the USSR have been coaxed and in many cases bribed with false promises by Washington into joining the counter organization, NATO. Rather than initiate discussions after the 1991 dissolution of the Warsaw Pact about a systematic dissolution of NATO, Washington has systematically converted NATO into what can only be called the military vehicle of an American global imperial rule, linked by a network of military bases from Kosovo to Poland to Turkey to Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1999, former Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia followed suit in March 2004. Now Washington is putting immense pressure on the EU members of NATO, especially Germany and France, that they vote in December to admit Georgia and Ukraine. The roots of the conflict The specific conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia has its roots in the following. First, the Southern Ossetes, who until 1990 formed an autonomous region of the Georgian Soviet republic, seek to unite in one state with their co-ethnics in North Ossetia, an autonomous republic of the Russian Soviet republic and now the Russian Federation. There is an historically grounded Ossete fear of violent Georgian nationalism and the experience of Georgian hatred of ethnic minorities under then Georgian leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia, which the Ossetes see again under Georgian President, Mikhel Saakashvili. Saakashvili was brought to power with US financing and US covert regime change activities in December 2003 in what was called the Rose Revolution. Now the thorns of that rose are causing blood to spill. Abkhazia and South Ossetia?the first a traditional Black Sea resort area, the second an impoverished, sparsely populated region that borders Russia to the north?each has its own language, culture, history. When the Soviet Union collapsed, both regions sought to separate themselves from Georgia in bloody conflicts - South Ossetia in 1990-1, Abkhazia in 1992-4. In December 1990 Georgia under Gamsakhurdia sent troops into South Ossetia after the region declared its own sovereignty. This Georgian move was defeated by Soviet Interior Ministry troops. Then Georgia declared abolition of the South Ossete autonomous region and its incorporation into Georgia proper. Both wars ended with cease-fires that were negotiated by Russia and policed by peacekeeping forces under the aegis of the recently established Commonwealth of Independent States. The situation hardened into "frozen conflicts," like that over Cyprus. By late 2005, Georgia signed an agreement that it would not use force, and the Abkhaz would allow the gradual return of 200,000-plus ethnic Georgians who had fled the violence. But the agreement collapsed in early 2006, when Saakashvili sent troops to retake the Kodori Valley in Abkhazia. Since then Saakashvili has been escalating preparations for military action. Critical is Russia?s support for the Southern Ossetes. Russia is unwilling to see Georgia join NATO. In addition, the Ossetes are the oldest Russian allies in the Caucasus who have provided troops to the Russian army in many wars. Russia does not wish to abandon them and the Abkhaz, and fuel yet more ethnic unrest among their compatriots in the Russian North Caucasus. In a November 2006 referendum, 99 percent of South Ossetians voted for independence from Georgia, at a time when most of them had long held Russian passports. This enabled Russian President Medvedev to justify his military's counter-attack of Georgia on Friday as an effort to "protect the lives and dignity of Russian citizens, wherever they may be." For Russia, Ossetia has been an important strategic base near the Turkish and Iranian frontiers since the days of the czars. Georgia is also an important transit country for oil being pumped from the Caspian Sea to the Turkish port of Ceyhan and a potential base for Washington efforts to encircle Tehran. As far as the Georgians are concerned, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are simply part of their national territory, to be recovered at all costs. Promises by NATO leaders to bring Georgia into the alliance, and ostentatious declarations of support from Washington, have emboldened Saakashvili to launch his military offensive against the two provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Saakashvili and likely, Dick Cheney?s office in Washington appear to have miscalculated very badly. Russia has made it clear that it has no intention of ceding its support for South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Proxy War In March this year as Washington went ahead to recognize the independence of Kosovo in former Yugoslavia, making Kosovo a de facto NATO-run territory against the will of the UN Security Council and especially against Russian protest, Putin responded with Russian Duma hearings on recognition of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, a pro-Russian breakaway republic in Moldova. Moscow argued that the West's logic on Kosovo should apply as well to these ethnic communities seeking to free themselves from the control of a hostile state. In mid-April, Mr. Putin held out the possibility of recognition for the breakaway republics. It was a geopolitical chess game in the strategic Caucasus for the highest stakes?the future of Russia itself. Saakashvili called then-President Putin to demand he reverse the decision. He reminded Putin that the West had taken Georgia's side. This past April at the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, US President Bush proposed accepting Georgia into NATO?s "Action Plan for Membership," a precursor to NATO membership. To Washington?s surprise, ten NATO member states refused to support his plan, including Germany, France and Italy. They argued that accepting the Georgians was problematic, because of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They were in reality saying that they would not be willing to back Georgia as, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which mandates that an armed attack against any NATO member country must be considered an attack against them all and consequently requires use of collective armed force of all NATO members, it would mean that Europe could be faced with war against Russia over the tiny Caucasus Republic of Georgia, with its incalculable dictator, Saakashvili. That would mean the troubled Caucasus would be on a hair-trigger to detonate World War III. Russia threatens Georgia, but Georgia threatens Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia looks like a crocodile to Georgia, but Georgia looks to Russia like the cats' paw of the West. Since Saakashvili took power in late 2003 the Pentagon has been in Georgia giving military aid and training. Not only are US military personnel active in Georgia today. According to an Israeli-intelligence source, DEBKAfile, in 2007, the Georgian President Saakashvili "commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery combat tactics. They also have been giving instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel. These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army?s preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday." Debkafile reported further, "Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem halt its military assistance to Georgia, finally threatening a crisis in bilateral relations. Israel responded by saying that the only assistance rendered Tbilisi was ?defensive.?" The Israeli news source added that Israel?s interest in Georgia has to do as well with Caspian oil pipeline geopolitics. "Jerusalem has a strong interest in having Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel?s oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean." This means that the attack on South Ossetia is the first battle in a new proxy warfare between Anglo-American-Israeli led interests and Russia. The only question is whether Washington miscalculated the swiftness and intensity of the Russian response to the Georgian attacks of 8.8.08. So far, each step in the Caucasus drama has put the conflict on a yet higher plane of danger. The next step will no longer be just about the Caucasus, or even Europe. In 1914 it was the "Guns of August" that initiated the Great War. This time the Guns of August 2008 could be the detonator of World War III and a nuclear holocaust of unspeakable horror. Nuclear Primacy: the larger strategic danger Most in the West are unaware how dangerous the conflict over two tiny provinces in a remote part of Eurasia has become. What is left out of most all media coverage is the strategic military security context of the Caucasus dispute. Since the end of the Cold War in the beginning of the 1990?s NATO and most directly Washington have systematically pursued what military strategists call Nuclear Primacy. Put simply, if one of two opposing nuclear powers is able to first develop an operational anti-missile defense, even primitive, that can dramatically weaken a potential counter-strike by the opposing side?s nuclear arsenal, the side with missile defense has "won" the nuclear war. As mad as this sounds, it has been explicit Pentagon policy through the last three Presidents from father Bush in 1990, to Clinton and most aggressively, George W. Bush. This is the issue where Russia has drawn a deep line in the sand, understandably so. The forceful US effort to push Georgia as well as Ukraine into NATO would present Russia with the spectre of NATO literally coming to its doorstep, a military threat that is aggressive in the extreme, and untenable for Russian national security. This is what gives the seemingly obscure fight over two provinces the size of Luxemburg the potential to become the 1914 Sarajevo trigger to a new nuclear war by miscalculation. The trigger for such a war is not Georgia?s right to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Rather, it is US insistence on pushing NATO and its missile defense right up to Russia?s door. Global Research Associate F. William Engdahl is author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press) and Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (www.globalresearch.ca . He may be reached through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net. F. William Engdahl is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by F. William Engdahl From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Aug 11 22:51:17 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:51:17 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Mumia on Haiti's Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine Message-ID: <1F0C499C-8DD0-4796-8784-1471052673EC@shaw.ca> 4 THE LIBERATION OF KEMET 11 AUGUST 2008 FROM: MUMIA ABU-JAMAL THE STRUGGLE FOR THE SAFE RETURN OF LOVINSKY PIERRE-ANTOINE: HAITIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST 5 August 2008 Tuesday http://mumiapodcast.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=365974 For Haitians, this coming August is a reminder of the kidnapping and disappearance of their brother, (DR.) LOVINSKY PIERRE-ANTOINE, who was taken after a meeting with a US-Canadian human rights delegation visiting Haiti in mid-August, 2007. PIERRE-ANTOINE was a co-founder of the FONDAYSON TRANT SEPTENM, (KREYOL for September 30th Foundation), a group which assisted and supported the people who during (and especially after) the 1991 and 2004 coups against the democratically-elected president, Bertrand Aristide. Members of the FONDAYSON have been targeted for years. Around the world, activists have been organizing in LOVINSKY?S support, calling on various governments, from Haiti's President Rene Preval, Brazil (which forms the bulk of the United Nations forces in the country), Canada, the US and France, which organized the latest coup against Haitian democracy. When PIERRE-ANTOINE was abducted, it forced other democracy and human rights activists in Haiti to go into hiding to avoid waves of state repression. Haiti has a proud and illustrious career on the world's stage, becoming the first free Black republic in the West after its 1804 revolution against France, which abolished slavery almost 70 years before the US Civil War spelled the end to human bondage in the US. Their freedom spread the bright lights of liberty and independence throughout the Caribbean, and when South America rose against Spain, it was to Haiti that their Liberator Simon Bolivar turned for support, arms, and a place to rest. For their bold struggle to bring Black freedom to the West, the US and Europe have unleashed an unholy war. France forced reparations (!) on Haiti -- an act unprecedented in history, forcing the victor in war to pay away it's wealth for almost a century. The US repeatedly invaded the country, brutalized its people, and imposed an assortment of puppet dictators to exploit the country for foreign benefit, and national impoverishment, for generations! Because Haiti's popularly elected JEAN BERTRAND-ARISTIDE dared to oppose Haiti's rich elite, and tried to make things nominally better for its peasantry, US Marines forced him into exile. Because LOVINSKY comes from the popular mass movements, he was snatched off the streets of Haiti a year ago, and the movement is building to bring him back home to his family, his community, and the popular movements of which he was a part. Haiti must never be forgotten, and neither must we forget LOVINSKY PIERRE-ANTOINE. [For petitions to circulate and sign, contact: womenstrike8m at servor101.com ; or call: (215) 848-1120. http://www.globalwomenstrike.net] Or sign online: http://www.petitiononline.com/lovinsky/petition.html 7/30/08 (c) '08 MUMIA ABU-JAMAL From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Aug 11 22:56:36 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:56:36 -0700 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?The_corporate_takeover_of_=91reason=92_and?= =?windows-1252?q?_=91science?= Message-ID: The corporate takeover of ?reason? and ?science? http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/5130/8/ David Miller, 8 August 2008 ImageThose who say that they favour science and rationality can end up supporting the opposite. Science and rationality retain a very significant force in public debate and is thus worth exploiting by vested interests. The strategic use of science is a well used part of the armoury of the public relations industry. Indeed it is true to say that the founding of the PR and lobbying industries were based on attempts to pervert rationality and science in the interests of vested interests. The very earliest PR practitioners such as Freud?s nephew Edward Bernays, were adept at this. Bernays use of psychology was famously put to use in promoting cigarette smoking among women by styling them ?torches of freedom? and associating them with women?s equality and liberation. Bernays was amongst the first to make a profession out of what he called the ?conscious? and intelligent manipulation? of the beliefs and behaviour of the public. Those who ?manipulate this unseen mechanism? of society were, he wrote, an ?invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.? 1 Today the PR industry is still based on the same philosophy. The promotion of ?science-i-ness? is an ever present talisman. It has two cardinal principles. The first - seen increasingly following the neoliberal turn of the late 1970s ? is that where science or truth will undermine corporate interests, the science or truth must be changed. The second principle is to disguise the source of information where useful. When a message is likely to be disbelieved or treated with scepticism when said openly by a corporation or politician, the words must be put in the mouth of someone more believable and apparently disinterested. This is the famous third party technique and has led to a whole swathe of scientists taking corporate money to promote corporate friendly science. Because science is still such a resource it is imperative for powerful interests to try and co-opt, undermine, distort, influence or buy ?science?. This is now so widespread that the issue is openly debated in the scientific journals and there is a small but growing number of studies examining the question of the potential bias introduced by corporate funding.2 From the 50 year battle to protect the tobacco industry to today?s strategic use of science in climate change denial, and to muddy the waters as obesity and binge drinking become crisis issues, scientists have been recruited as a resource. For example they receive research grants, are paid as consultants or have their names added to academic journal articles ghost written by PR operatives. Some scientists are even kept on retainers by corporations or lobby groups and can be wheeled out to order. The third party technique fits nicely into the co-option strategy. Scientists whose research budgets are nicely swelled by corporate money can often be surprisingly willing recruits to speak on behalf of industry. A study of toxic industrial contaminants in farmed Salmon published in Science in 2004, was greeted with a chorus of condemnation in the press. Many of the voices were described as academic scientists. In fact almost all had financial links to the industry undisclosed in the press. The study itself was well grounded. 3 Nonetheless the industry campaign to remove the stain of poisoned Salmon from the public mind was largely successful. In the US and UK the creation of ?front groups? is common. These are organisations usually including a science-like term in their title such as ?foundation? ?institute? or ?research?. In the UK the food industry has been able to sabotage healthy eating initiatives since the 1970s by ? among other things - funding the apparently independent British Nutrition Foundation which is able to place representatives on a myriad of government committees.4 The International Life Science Institute sounds a bit scientific. In fact it is a food industry lobby group funded by hundreds of the biggest food, pharma and chemical companies and was for years more or less directed by the Coca Cola company. It was able to infiltrate the WHO process on dietary sugars by covertly funding some of the scientists involved.5 In January 2006 the WHO decided that ILSI ?can no longer take part in WHO activities setting microbiological or chemical standards for food and water?, as a result of complaints about its lobbying tactics.6 The PR industry is at the forefront of creating and managing front groups today. The Scientific Alliance turned out to be run from the offices of Foresight Communications a PR firm in central London and to be funded by Scottish quarry owner Robert Durward. The Social Issues Research Centre 'fosters the image of an ultraconcerned public spirited group' and of 'a heavy-weight research body'.7 It is also run by a PR/marketing company from the same address. That company - MCM Research - used to announce on its website its approach to open and truthful communications: ?Do your PR initiatives sometimes look too much like PR initiatives? MCM conducts social/psychological research on the positive aspects of your business... The results do not read like PR literature?.8 Of course the corporations can do little else than lie and attempt to co-opt science. They require to extract maximum surplus from both labour and natural resources to be part of the global market. Their problem is that these qualities of corporate operations are not very attractive to the overwhelming majority of the population of the globe. As a result corporations and their PR agents must try to undermine or co-opt science. The only defence is transparency, enhanced ethics standards and public funding of research. NOTES 1. Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, New York: Horace Liverwright. 2. Kassirer, J.P. On the take: How medicine's complicity with big business can endanger your health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 2005.; Lesser et al. ?Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles?. PLoS Medicine 2007.; Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 2006;333:782-5.;Veronica Yank, Drummond Rennie, Lisa A Bero, Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study BMJ 2007;335:1202-1205 (8 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE (published 16 November 2007); Jim Giles, Industry money skews drug overviews Nature 437, 458-459 (22 September 2005); DeAngelis, C. Comment on ?Conflict of interest in medical research: facts and friction? in meeting proceedings, call to action: Managing financial relationships between academia and industry in biomedical research 2007; 15-16.;Peppercorn, J, Blood, E., Winer, E, Partridge, A. Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2005. 3. David Miller ?Spinning Farmed Salmon (part 2 of 3)?, Spinwatch, 28 May 2008 http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4953/8/ 4. Geoffrey Cannon The Politics of Food Century Hutchinson, London, UK, 1987. John Yudkin, Pure, White and Deadly, Penguin, 1988. 5. Sarah Boseley 'WHO "infiltrated by food industry"' The Guardian Thursday January 9, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/09/foodanddrink; Sarah Boseley 'Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO' The Guardian Monday April 21, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food; Sarah Boseley 'WHO 'buried' report to please food industry' The Guardian Wednesday November 3, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/nov/03/media.advertising 6. John Heilperin, ?WHO to Rely Less on U.S. Research?, Associated Press, January 27, 2006. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/27/national/w150409S47.DTL 7. Annabel Ferriman ?An end to health scares?? BMJ 1999;319:716- ( 11 September ) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7211/716 8. Ibid. A shorter version of this article was published in the New Scientist (subscription required) on 23 July 2008. From suzannedk at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 02:14:44 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:14:44 +0200 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The bush president ... In-Reply-To: <48998CEF.1060909@attglobal.net> References: <48998CEF.1060909@attglobal.net> Message-ID: Because he may well have a guilty consciousnesses for two unprovoked wars and three totally destroyed third world countries and thousands of stolen, tortured, uncharged prisoners? Genna will vote for Obama. That is a check and balance of sorts where the man lives. This is a self indulgent, petulant, man who would rather brush cut in Texas than check out what Katrina had done. His Vice President has advised, read bullied, him badly and is even more hated, so, acknowleging Hiroshima when on the table today is such an atomic weaponry attack on Iran is not an acknowlegment that Brush Cutters of the World would feel sanguin about? He reads the world through his gut "I read your Soul, Mr. Putin!" ...perhaps dysepsia has set in? But, seriously, I think his advisors, knowing how close the administration is to bombing Iran, felt that the future history news the world in the present would tie those bombing together which would deeply flaw the world wide imperial ambitions, looking at how weak the US is really. Alot of it is quite unravelled. 'Diplomatic' caution perhaps. Suzanne On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Bill Totten wrote: > ... of the United States is in Asia today. > > Why didn't he visit Hiroshima? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From suzannedk at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 02:51:47 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:51:47 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Shootong Back: 100 cameras Message-ID: Sirs: Neither the vidoes nor anything came up! Perhaps the site is blocked? The Isaeli Lobby will do virually anything to hide what it does to those in countries that could change the Israeli trajectory. suzannedk at gmail.com From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Aug 12 04:37:44 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:37:44 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Why Did They Do It? Message-ID: <48A167F8.5090204@attglobal.net> Torture, Political Manipulation and the American Psychological Association by Dr Bryant Welch www.counterpunch.org (July 28 2008) The regressive effects of current forms of political manipulation that I describe in my new book, State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind (Thomas Dunne Books, St Martin's Press, 2008) have not only affected American politics. They have also taken their toll on psychologists' national organization, the American Psychological Association. Many APA members were shocked last year when APA twice refused to take an unequivocal stance against psychologists' participation in the Bush detention centers. The fact that other health care organizations, typically more conservative than APA on humanitarian issues, were very outspoken about the issue made it all the more puzzling. In human rights groups and liberal organizations around the world the arguments APA spokespersons advanced in support of APA's position did not pass the red face test for credibility. Instead, their seemingly transparent disingenuousness only made the APA sound embarrassingly like the Bush Administration. Banning psychologists' participation in reputed torture mills was clearly unnecessary, it was argued. To do so would be an insult to military psychologists everywhere. Psychologists would never engage in torture. Further, psychologists' participation in these detention centers was really an antidote to torture since psychologists' presence could protect the potential torture victims. We psychologists were both too good and too important to join our professional colleagues in taking an absolutist moral position against one of the most shameful eras in our country's history. There are two questions that beg for answers. How did the APA form such an obviously close connection to the military? And why did the APA governance - the Board of Directors and the Council of Representatives - go along with the military interests? How could an organization of such bright and ethical people be rendered so incompetent to protect the profession from the horrible black eye they have given us? I have had ample opportunity to observe both the inner workings of the APA and the personalities and organizational vicissitudes that have affected it over the last two decades. With one interruption, for most of the twenty year period from 1983 through 2003 I worked inside the APA central office as the first Executive Director of the APA Practice Directorate and served in several governance positions including Chair of the APA Board of Professional Affairs and member of the APA Council of Representatives. When the torture issue broke last year, the answer to the first question about APA's military connection seemed obvious to me. Since the early 1980's APA has had a unique relationship with Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye's office. Inouye, for much of that time, has served as Chair of the Subcommittee on Defense for the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Subcommittee has responsibility for all US defense spending. One of Inouye's administrative assistants, psychologist Patrick DeLeon, has long been active in the APA and served a term as APA president. For over twenty-five years relationships between APA and the Department of Defense (DOD) have been strongly encouraged and closely coordinated by DeLeon. It was DeLeon acting on behalf of Inouye who initiated the DOD psychologist prescription demonstration project in the late 1980's that began psychology's efforts to secure prescriptive privileges. For many APA governance members, most of whom have little Washington political experience, Dr DeLeon is perceived as a canny politician and political force on Capitol Hill. The two most visible APA presidents on the torture issue, Ronald Levant and Gerald Koocher, based on personal discussions I have had with them in recent years, clearly hold DeLeon's political savvy in high regard. While I personally got along well with DeLeon and never doubted his commitment to psychology, his view of psychology and his sense of priorities were quite different from mine, and I did not share the positive assessments of Dr DeLeon's political prowess. I felt his priorities often had more to do with the status of psychology as reflected in comparatively minor issues that were often unconnected to issues that were of true importance to practitioners and patients. Rightly or wrongly, I often felt that an accurate sense of context was missing from his political analysis and objectives. It's the same feeling I have now when I look aghast at what APA has done on the torture issue. Except this time, it is not something relatively innocuous. Some people attempt to explain APA's recent seemingly inexplicable behavior by assuming that large sums of money changed hands on the torture issue. I could certainly be wrong, but I think the more likely (and more remarkable) explanation is that those APA leaders making the decisions simply exercised judgment that was both that bad and that insensitive to the realities of the human suffering they were supporting.. Regardless, there is no question that APA had formed a strong relationship with military psychologists and the DOD through its connections with Inouye's office. But it is the second question that is probably more difficult to understand from afar. How could both the APA Board of Directors and the APA Council of Representatives support the military on this issue and subject the profession to such embarrassment by supporting a policy that is anathema to the vast majority of psychologists? The moral decay and functional regression of an organization does not rise or fall with any single event any more than the fall of Rome truly occurred in 476 AD. What is clear to me, instead, is that the pluralistic and multi-faceted governing process that I witnessed when I first entered the APA in the early 1980s was sharply curtailed during the 1990s. Differences of opinion stopped and the APA suffered a terrible regression. Increasingly inbred, under the administration of Raymond Fowler, the association agenda was primarily and at times exclusively financial, focusing on making money both through real estate ventures and through what many of us felt was a an unwarranted, financially harsh treatment of APA employees. More peculiarly, Fowler's "agenda" for APA was encapsulated in the phrase "working together" a noble idea that to the best of my knowledge was never attached to any actual substantive agenda. Instead, it served as a means of social control, a subtle injunction against raising any of the conflictual issues, challenges, or ideas that need to be addressed in any vital and accountable organization. The APA became placid and increasingly detached. The result was that much of the activity of the APA Council of Representatives turned away from substantive matters into an odd system of fawning over one another. Many members appeared to me to simply bathe in the good feeling that came from "working together". For some, the bath was a narcissistic one and organizational regression became more debilitating. In other instances during this period, isolated dissent from rank and file members was stifled either with heavy handed letters from the APA attorney threatening legal action or by communications from prominent members of the APA governance threatening ethical action if policy protests were not discontinued. The inept ability to deliberate on the torture issue was but the shocking denouement of an organizational process that was really set in motion in the early 1990s largely to serve the convenience of a very small number of individuals. As a result of the lengthy era of regression, the governance of APA was ill prepared for thoughtful deliberation on a matter as important as the torture issue. As I have written in State of Confusion when people are confused they are eager to be told what is real. The governance was simply over its head in trying to effectively deliberate on such an issue when there was organized support on the other side coming from the military interests supported by Koocher and Levant and possibly DeLeon. When the torture issue arose, the Council, despite the efforts of several council members, fell victim to some of the very silly arguments described above. Council members were told that to oppose psychologists participation in the detention actions was to cruelly suggest that our colleagues might engage in torture. In a fashion chillingly characteristic of the gaslighter it was implied that those who raised concern about torture, were themselves torturing their colleagues who were working in the military. One prominent member of the APA governance gratuitously raised the ethnicity of one of the military psychologists seemingly opening the possibility that the opponents to torture were racist. These arguments were then followed with the grandiose closing argument that psychologists presence at the detention centers was critical to make sure torture did not recur. We psychologists had a moral duty to prevent immoral behavior. The piano player once aroused to the possibility of what was going on upstairs was now necessary to prevent it. Yes, these were the arguments that carried the day in APA deliberations and enabled the military to have its way with the APA. In the more discerning eyes of the world, they have very little credibility. But the gaslighting is not over, even now. There is one more step in the process. History will show this to be a despicable period of American history. The people who have supported APA's position on this issue obviously do not want their legacy at APA to include that they supported a policy that failed to indict the detention centers. The recent history must be revised. In a seeming gesture of reconciliation the APA has offered to continue negotiating the matter with the dissident groups. In this fashion the historical revision has already begun. It may well be the final policy APA adopts will ultimately read the way it should have last summer and much, much earlier when it actually mattered. APA will "get it right" shortly before or shortly after George Bush leaves office. In leaving a final written policy that is like our sister organizations' original policies, APA's shocking failure at the critical time will appear never to have happened. Such is the work of a regressed and chronically manipulated organization. Despite being an organization of psychologists, APA has been subjected to very little analysis. Psychologists are amongst the most moral and ethical people I know. They deserved better from their national organization, just as Americans have deserved better from their government. _____ Dr Bryant Welch has been a nationally prominent psychologist for thirty years. He currently resides on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina where he provides psychotherapy to adolescents and adults and marriage counseling to couples. In August of 2005, Dr Welch was awarded the American Psychological Association's Presidential Citation for his "seminal and unique contribution to professional psychological practice". He is the author of State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind. http://www.counterpunch.org/welch07282008.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From intnsred at golgotha.net Tue Aug 12 07:58:59 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:58:59 -0400 Subject: [R-G] The truth is, it's not Russia that is the aggressor Message-ID: <200808120958.59990.intnsred@golgotha.net> In this entire Georgian saga, it's actually refreshing to see how many people realize the truth, see the US/NATO double standards, and acknowledge that the corporate mass media is lying to them. The below letter from Oz is a well-written example of this sentiment. The question then becomes, how can we make governments actually reflect the will of their people? The truth is, it's not Russia that is the aggressor * August 12, 2008 WHAT are the undeniable facts of the conflict that started on the day of the Olympic Games opening? Georgia, using the Games as cover, made a dash for cash, barely four hours after its President had publicly declared that he had no intention of using force. In an area with UN-sanctioned peacekeepers and no overt conflict in progress, Georgian troops started shelling the peaceful city of Tskhinvali, using artillery and its air force. The people being killed and driven out of their homes are claimed by Georgia but are of a different nationality. Refugees are fleeing towards the Russian border ? they know which way safety lies, even if the world hears a different story. In the first hours of fighting, 10 Russian peacekeepers were killed. These are men who were performing their duty, supported by the United Nations. The Georgian military viewed them as valid targets, shelling their barracks. The Russian President, barely four months in the job, is confronted with his country's peacekeepers being killed and genocide on his doorstep. The Georgian gamble of a quick victory under the cover of darkness failed ? now its President is scared and trying to frame himself and his country as a victim of aggression. It's up to the world to learn the truth of the matter. Alex Radun, Dandenong -- "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas." -- Texas Republican Governor Miriam Amanda "Ma" Ferguson (and she wasn't joking). From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Aug 12 09:29:03 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:29:03 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Real News: Who's to blame for the Russian Georgian conflict? Message-ID: <417A2712-1B53-45DF-80BA-5ACDCD5B6219@shaw.ca> August 12, 2008 Who's to blame for the Russian Georgian conflict? Pepe Escobar: Georgia is a strategic client state of the US with close ties to the Bush administration Georgian troops launched an aerial bombardment and ground attack on its separatist province of South Ossetia on Thursday. South Ossetians want to join up with their ethnic brethren in North Ossetia, an autonomous republic within the Russian Federation. Seeing this as an act of aggression Russia launched bombing raids against Georgia, vowing to defend its citizens. More than half of South Ossetia's citizens are said to have taken up Moscow's offer of a Russian passport. Pepe Escobar believes that "the hypocrisy of the international community knows no bounds for if the West forced the issue of Kosovar independence then the independence of South Ossetia should also be on the cards." [...] Video: http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2042&updaterx=2008-08-12+11%3A15%3A58 From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Aug 12 10:04:14 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:04:14 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Huge Stakes Behind War in Caucasus Message-ID: <52AAB0DC-D7C0-4D6D-B543-1C4555E8EB41@shaw.ca> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A Socialist Project e-bulletin .... No. 131 .... August 11, 2008 __________________________________________________ Huge Stakes Behind War in Caucasus Sungur Savran "Serbia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity should be respected." Had George Bush said what he said about Georgia from Beijing about Serbia as well, this is how he would have approached the so-called independence of Kosovo. The truth, of course, is far from this. The U.S. was the first country to recognise the new 'state' when Kosovo seceded from Serbia last spring. Yet, Bush now has the audacity to talk about the territorial integrity of Georgia. The policies of imperialism will have pride of place in the annals of hypocrisy. The war over the issue of South Ossetia has three political dimensions. The first is an entirely local question. Certain peoples (in particular the Ossets and the Abhaz) that were part of Georgia under the Soviet Union have, since the dissolution of the latter, declared loud and clear that they do not wish to live under Georgian rule any longer. Georgia, in contrast, wants to keep these peoples forcibly tied to its domination. Thus the rights of these peoples to self-determination are violated by Georgia. Saakashvili's bluff Secondly, Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili is a fiery partisan of U.S. imperialism and covets NATO membership for Georgia. Only several months ago, under Russian pressure, most EU members of NATO had rejected the American proposal regarding NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. By attacking Tshkinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, a de facto independent territory since the 1992 ceasefire between Georgian and Osset armies, Saakashvili seems to have attempted to provoke Russia into a confrontation and thus force the hand of the NATO alliance into acting more rapidly. Russia has seen this bluff. But the West, despite some harsh words by the U.S. administration, has simply not followed suit. Saakashvili is a political adventurer who has not refrained from risking to throw the region, indeed the whole world, into the vortex of all out war just to have his country join the imperialist alliance. The Georgian people should get rid of this blood-thirsty politician for its own interests. Saakashvili, the darling of the West, has also made Georgia into a Ghurka of U.S. imperialism. Today, after the withdrawal of troops by some countries, Georgia is the third country in Iraq, after the U.S. and the UK, in terms of troops on the ground. A country with a population of less than 5 million, a country whose people are suffering from unemployment and poverty maintains two thousand troops in Iraq! It is not imminent defeat at Russian hands that should shame the Georgian people, but the fact that the country has acted as the hitman of U.S. imperialism in Iraq. U.S. Plans for the Caucasus and Central Asia The third and most important question behind the present war is the long-standing U.S. policy that aims to encircle and isolate Russia. Even in the 1990s, when the U.S. was supposedly on good terms with the Yeltsin administration and Strobe Talbott's friendship policy was running high, the U.S. strove to encircle Russia through a web of alliances in what is known as Russia's 'near abroad'. The establishment of the Partnership for Peace alliance ? the waiting room for NATO ? and the subsequent expansion of NATO to former Soviet republics and Eastern Eurpoean countries were only the most salient dimension. GUUAM was the name given to the loose web of alliances that the U.S. entertained with Russia's southern and eastern neighbours, Georgia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan (no longer part of the web), Azerbaijan and Moldova. The Afghanistan war, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the 'war on terror', was devised to penetrate former Soviet Central Asia, where thanks to the war the U.S. established, for the first time in modern history for a Western power, military bases. Putin's acquiescence to Bush's post-9/11 policies with the aim of covering up his own dirty war in Chechnya was as stupid as Stalin's reliance on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in order to protect the Soviet Union from Nazi aggression. This political conflict between the U.S. and Russia is thus the real stake of the war over miniscule South Ossetia. U.S. ambitions regarding the oil and natural gas of the Caucasus and Central Asia in addition to that of the Middle East is the economic basis of this tug- of-war between the U.S. and Russia. The U.S. desires to deprive Russia of the benefits of these regional riches, a policy symbolised by the Baku-Tblissi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline. Behind this is the U.S. strategic aim of keeping Russia and China down as contending superpowers in the 21st century. This self-serving policy of U.S. imperialism has borne its first product, leading to a situation where a tiny conflict has led to a conflagration that threatens the region and the world. Socialists around the world should condemn the adventurist policy of Saakashvili and demand the immediate withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia. Bush's argument regarding the "territorial integrity of the sovereign nation of Georgia" is not valid even from a legalistic point of view, since the 1992 ceasefire established de facto autonomy for South Ossetia, sanctioned internationally through the appointment of a peace mission headed by Russian troops. Much more important than any legal considerations are the facts of the right to self-determination of the Ossets and the Abhaz, the reactionary adventurism of Saakashvili, and the imperialist aims of the U.S. in the region. To see the Russian-Georgian war over South Ossetia as one between a historically dominant big nation (the Russians) and a historically oppressed small nation (Georgia) is to misconceive its real import. This is a proxy war, where the proxy (Saakashvili's Georgia) has made a rash move without the consent of the real culprit, U.S. imperialism. Hence Georgia has engaged in an unjust war and should withdraw. Turkey's complicity Turkey, among the region's medium-sized powers, has given extensive support to Georgia in recent years, providing aid to the level of USD 45 million, donating military materiel, weapons and ammunition, including missile ramps, warships, and early air warning systems, and trained Georgian officers to acclimatise them to NATO standards. This is part and parcel of Turkey's overall orientation of aiding and abetting U.S. expansionism in the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a policy that bears within it the seeds of catastrophic developments. Should Turkey, the southern neighbour of Georgia, find itself in a military standoff with the Russian Federation, the limited threat from the Russian-Georgian war would be magnified to a power that would threaten to throw the whole region into flames. The deceptive neutral stance the Turkish government has so far displayed vis-a-vis the ongoing war should not hide Turkey's complicity in the adventurist policy of the Saakashvili government. Turkey should stop aiding Georgia militarily, should leave NATO and withdraw its troops from Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The Caucasus is a mosaic of peoples. Imperialism whips up old hostilities and Russia, the oppressor nation in the region for two centuries, manipulates or forces all small nationalities into submission. Given the interpenetration and geographic mixity of the various peoples of the Caucasus, the quest for entirely independent national states would lead to ethnic cleansing and massacres that would dwarf the catastrophe that visited Yugoslavia. The only way forward is for the peoples of the Caucasus to move away from narrow nationalism and unite in a polyphony of cultures. The only way forward in the longer term is a Federation of Caucasian Peoples. ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Bullet is produced by the Socialist Project. Readers are encouraged to distribute widely. Comments, criticisms and suggestions are welcome. Write to info at socialistproject.ca If you wish to subscribe: www.socialistproject.ca/lists/?p=subscribe The Bullet archive is available at www.socialistproject.ca/bullet For more analysis of contemporary politics check out 'Relay: A Socialist Project Review' at www.socialistproject.ca/relay From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Aug 12 10:24:20 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Message from President Aristide on Lovinsky abduction Anniversary References: Message-ID: Justice and peace spring from our inherent dignity and inalienable rights. As stipulated in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: All human being are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Today, this spirit of brotherhood prevents us from remaining silent. Yes, it is already one year since the disappearance of our brother Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine. On this sad anniversary, as we call for his safe return, we defend our inherent dignity and inalienable rights. Lovinsky?s absence certainly increases great passions, such as the passion for justice and peace. Indeed on this sad anniversary all of us who share in a commitment to non-violent struggle for justice and peace once again proclaim that the human rights of all must be protected by the rule of law. Authorities in Haiti must address this tragic kidnapping for a safe return of our mission brother. May the spirit of this brotherhood revitalize and strengthen Lovinsky?s family as well as all innocent victims who have suffered since the February 29, 2004 kidnapping. Dr. Jean- Bertrand Aristide Pretoria, South Africa August 12, 2008 From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 11:09:15 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:09:15 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Plan_de_paix_russo-fran=E7ais=2C_la_G=E9or?= =?windows-1252?q?gie_demande_l=27=22assistance=22_de_l=27Otan?= Message-ID: Plan de paix russo-fran?ais, la G?orgie demande l'"assistance" de l'Otan Il y a 6 heures MOSCOU (AFP) ? Le pr?sident fran?ais Nicolas Sarkozy et son homologue russe Dmitri Medvedev, qui a ordonn? la fin des op?rations contre la G?orgie, ont pr?sent? mardi un plan pour r?gler le conflit russo-g?orgien, Tbilissi demandant de son c?t? une "assistance militaire" ? l'Otan. La Russie sera contrainte de prendre de nouvelles "mesures" contre la G?orgie, si celle-ci rejette ce plan, a aussit?t averti le ministre russe des Affaires ?trang?res, Sergue? Lavrov, selon lequel "ce serait mieux" si le pr?sident g?orgien pro-occidental Mikhe?l Saakachvili "partait". Le ministre finlandais des Affaires ?trang?res, Alexandre Stubb, dont le pays pr?side l'OSCE (Organisation pour la s?curit? et la coop?ration en Europe), s'est dit "prudemment confiant" qu'un accord mettant fin au conflit intervienne ? l'occasion de la visite du chef de l'Etat fran?ais. Parall?lement, la communaut? internationale commen?ait mardi ? acheminer une aide humanitaire de premi?re urgence vers la G?orgie, o? le conflit avec la Russie a provoqu? le d?placement d'au moins 100.000 personnes, d'apr?s le Haut commissariat de l'ONU pour les r?fugi?s (HCR). Les parties russe et g?orgienne doivent s'engager ? ne pas "recourir ? la force", ? "cesser les hostilit?s de fa?on d?finitive", assurer un "acc?s libre ? l'aide humanitaire", les forces g?orgiennes doivent retourner "dans leur lieu habituel de cantonnement", tandis que l'arm?e russe doit se retirer "sur les lignes ant?rieures au d?clenchement des hostilit?s", a d?clar? M. Sarkozy. Le sixi?me point du plan russo-fran?ais pr?voit "l'ouverture de discussions internationales sur le statut futur et les modalit?s de s?curit? durable en Abkhazie et en Oss?tie du Sud", les deux territoires s?paratistes pro-russes en G?orgie, a ajout? le pr?sident fran?ais au cours d'une conf?rence de presse commune avec M. Medvedev ? Moscou. M. Sarkozy, qui a fait savoir que l'Union europ?enne -dont la France assure la pr?sidence- ?tait "disponible" pour participer ? une force de paix en G?orgie, a aussi jug? qu'il y avait "un engagement russe de garantir la souverainet? et de respecter la souverainet? de la G?orgie", un point qui ne "fait l'objet d'aucune ambigu?t?". Le pr?sident russe a, lui, estim? que "la voie ?tait libre pour une normalisation par ?tapes de la situation en Oss?tie du Sud", consid?rant que d?sormais "tout d?pend de Tbilissi", o? le chef de l'Etat fran?ais s'est rendu mardi soir pour poursuivre sa m?diation. Mais il n'y a "aucun cessez-le-feu du c?t? g?orgien", a d?nonc? M. Medvedev, selon qui les forces g?orgiennes ont continu? ? tirer, notamment avec de l'artillerie, apr?s avoir annonc? qu'elles interrompaient leurs tirs. De son c?t?, la G?orgie, qui a annonc? quitter la Communaut? des Etats ind?pendants, regroupant sous la houlette de la Russie douze des quinze ex-r?publiques sovi?tiques, a demand? une "assistance militaire" ? l'Otan, notamment pour remplacer son syst?me de radars d?truit par l'offensive russe. Les perspectives pour la G?orgie d'une entr?e ? terme au sein de l'Alliance atlantique "sont maintenues", a not? le secr?taire g?n?ral de l'Otan. Les Etats-Unis, qui ont qualifi? d'?v?nement "positif" l'ordre donn? par Moscou de mettre fin ? son action militaire, pr?parent, eux, un ensemble de mesures d'aide ?conomique ? la G?orgie. Les pr?sidents polonais, ukrainien, lituanien et estonien, ainsi que le Premier ministre letton sont partis mardi dans le m?me avion de Simf?ropol, dans le sud de l'Ukraine, pour la G?orgie. Le procureur de la Cour p?nale internationale, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, pourrait ouvrir une enqu?te pr?liminaire sur le conflit entre la G?orgie et la Russie, tandis que la Cour europ?enne des droits de l'homme a recommand? ? la Russie de s'abstenir de toute mesure "susceptible de menacer la vie ou la sant? des populations civiles" en G?orgie. Sur le terrain, la situation demeurait confuse dans l'apr?s-midi, Tbilissi affirmant que les Russes continuaient de bombarder des villages en G?orgie, Moscou accusant des unit?s g?orgiennes de tirer "de fa?on sporadique". L'arm?e russe a notamment, d'apr?s un responsable de l'?tat-major, pris le contr?le de l'a?roport de Senaki, proche de la r?publique s?paratiste d'Abkhazie, dans l'ouest de la G?orgie. Des soldats russes et de l'artillerie se dirigaient mardi vers la r?gion g?orgienne de Mestia, pr?s de l'Abkhazie, selon les autorit?s g?orgiennes. Deux journalistes, l'un g?orgien et l'autre n?erlandais, ont ?t? tu?s dans le bombardement de la ville g?orgienne de Gori, selon un photographe de l'AFP et la cha?ne de t?l?vision RTL pour laquelle travaillait le correspondant n?erlandais. "Nous avons de tr?s lourdes pertes, une grande partie de nos ?quipements militaires et de notre armement a ?t? d?truit", les forces russes ont fait sauter mardi au moins trois navires de guerre dans le port g?orgien de Poti, sur la mer Noire, a annonc? le Conseil de s?curit? g?orgien. Pour leur part, les forces g?orgiennes se sont retir?es des gorges de Kodori, une r?gion disput?e du territoire ind?pendantiste d'Abkhazie, a annonc? mardi le minist?re g?orgien de l'Int?rieur. Nicolas Sarkozy : "Moscou s'engage ? respecter la souverainet? de la G?orgie" LEMONDE.FR avec AFP, Reuters et AP | 12.08.08 | 11h11 ? Mis ? jour le 12.08.08 | 17h50 17 h 10 : Nicolas Sarkozy affirme depuis Moscou qu'il y a "un engagement russe de garantir la souverainet? et de respecter la souverainet? de la G?orgie" et donc de ne pas y rester. A l'issue d'une rencontre avec son homologue russe, Dmitri Medvedev, le chef de l'Etat fran?ais, qui assure b?n?ficier du "soutien" des 27 Etats membres de l'Union europ?enne dont il assure la pr?sidence, ajoute que l'UE est "disponible" pour participer ? une force de paix en G?orgie. Les deux pr?sidents appellent ? un retour des forces russes et g?orgiennes sur les positions qu'elles occupaient avant le conflit. M. Medvedev ajoute que la r?solution du conflit d?pend d?sormais de Tbilissi, qui doit retirer ses troupes et accepter le plan de paix n?goci? entre lui et Nicolas Sarkozy. Le pr?sident russe dit appeler, avec Paris, ? des "discussions internationales" sur le "statut futur" des r?publiques s?paratistes de G?orgie (Oss?tie du Sud et Abkhazie). From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 12 11:31:40 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:31:40 -0700 Subject: [R-G] New evidence suggests Ron Suskind is right Message-ID: <200808121731.m7CHVesN004534@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080812/fb71a15a/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 12 12:20:07 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:20:07 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Georgia: Where the Cold War Never Ended Message-ID: <200808121820.m7CIK7IZ023872@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080812/e230a883/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 12 12:24:45 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:24:45 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Georgia: How the Hawks Won Message-ID: <200808121824.m7CIOjD8002352@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080812/66c9dd28/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 12 12:38:52 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:38:52 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Ingrates! Message-ID: <200808121838.m7CIcqx1004445@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080812/53a25e87/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 12 12:38:27 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:38:27 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Prophetic Challenge: Few Are Guilty, but All Are Responsible Message-ID: <200808121838.m7CIcRMr003542@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080812/3f5acda5/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Aug 12 12:51:46 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:51:46 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Obama (Serge Halimi in Le Monde Diplomatique) Message-ID: <200808121851.m7CIpkWC004534@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080812/190f5d10/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Aug 12 16:56:25 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:56:25 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Memo to Obama, McCain Message-ID: <48A21519.9060908@attglobal.net> No one wins in a war by Howard Zinn The Boston Globe (July 17 2008) Barack Obama and John McCain continue to argue about war. McCain says to keep the troops in Iraq until we "win" and supports sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama says to withdraw some (not all) troops from Iraq and send them to fight and "win" in Afghanistan. For someone like myself, who fought in World War II, and since then has protested against war, I must ask: Have our political leaders gone mad? Have they learned nothing from recent history? Have they not learned that no one "wins" in a war, but that hundreds of thousands of humans die, most of them civilians, many of them children? Did we "win" by going to war in Korea? The result was a stalemate, leaving things as they were before with a dictatorship in South Korea and a dictatorship in North Korea. Still, more than two million people - mostly civilians - died, the United States dropped napalm on children, and 50,000 American soldiers lost their lives. Did we "win" in Vietnam? We were forced to withdraw, but only after two million Vietnamese died, again mostly civilians, again leaving children burned or armless or legless, and 58,000 American soldiers dead. Did we win in the first Gulf War? Not really. Yes, we pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, with only a few hundred US casualties, but perhaps 100,000 Iraqis died. And the consequences were deadly for the United States: Saddam was still in power, which led the United States to enforce economic sanctions. That move led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, according to UN officials, and set the stage for another war. In Afghanistan, the United States declared "victory" over the Taliban. Now the Taliban is back, and attacks are increasing. The recent US military death count in Afghanistan exceeds that in Iraq. What makes Obama think that sending more troops to Afghanistan will produce "victory"? And if it did, in an immediate military sense, how long would that last, and at what cost to human life on both sides? The resurgence of fighting in Afghanistan is a good moment to reflect on the beginning of US involvement there. There should be sobering thoughts to those who say that attacking Iraq was wrong, but attacking Afghanistan was right. Go back to September 11 2001. Hijackers direct jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing close to 3,000 A terrorist act, inexcusable by any moral code. The nation is aroused. President Bush orders the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan, and the American public is swept into approval by a wave of fear and anger. Bush announces a "war on terror". Except for terrorists, we are all against terror. So a war on terror sounded right. But there was a problem, which most Americans did not consider in the heat of the moment: President Bush, despite his confident bravado, had no idea how to make war against terror. Yes, Al Qaeda - a relatively small but ruthless group of fanatics - was apparently responsible for the attacks. And, yes, there was evidence that Osama bin Laden and others were based in Afghanistan. But the United States did not know exactly where they were, so it invaded and bombed the whole country. That made many people feel righteous. "We had to do something", you heard people say. Yes, we had to do something. But not thoughtlessly, not recklessly. Would we approve of a police chief, knowing there was a vicious criminal somewhere in a neighborhood, ordering that the entire neighborhood be bombed? There was soon a civilian death toll in Afghanistan of more than 3,000 - exceeding the number of deaths in the September 11 attacks. Hundreds of Afghans were driven from their homes and turned into wandering refugees. Two months after the invasion of Afghanistan, a Boston Globe story described a ten-year-old in a hospital bed: "He lost his eyes and hands to the bomb that hit his house after Sunday dinner". The doctor attending him said: "The United States must be thinking he is Osama. If he is not Osama, then why would they do this?" We should be asking the presidential candidates: Is our war in Afghanistan ending terrorism, or provoking it? And is not war itself terrorism? _____ Howard Zinn is author of A People's History of the United States (1980, 2003). (c) Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/07/17/memo_to_obama_mccain_no_one_wins_in_a_war/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From tchilds at resist.ca Tue Aug 12 19:26:23 2008 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Saskatchewan group concerned about climate change Message-ID: <49652.24.87.34.192.1218590783.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/business_agriculture/story.html?id=0c8a0ee6-6a24-4150-a187-d4b0c6f556db Group concerned about climate change Angela Hall, The Leader-Post Published: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 As companies bid Monday for the chance to explore Saskatchewan's oilsands, those opposed to such development made their voices heard at the Legislative Building. About a dozen people with placards reading "Tar Sands = Climate Change" and "Get informed Saskatchewan" urged the provincial government to stop issuing exploratory permits for the oilsands until further study is done. The event, organized by the local chapter of the Council of Canadians, coincided with the province's August sale of oil and natural gas rights, which offered oilsands rights for only the second time. View Larger Image A group led by Eriel Deringer (wearing white head band) gathered on the steps of the Legislative Building on Tuesday to express concern over tar sands exploration in Saskatchewan. Roy Antal, Leader-Post The August 2007 sale included six exploration licenses related to oilsands, covering 54,000 hectares. Monday's sale had four exploratory permits up for bid encompassing 328,000 hectares. "We have a responsibility in Saskatchewan to stop this before we add more problems to the problem of climate change," Larissa Shasko, one of those participating in the rally, said of the oilsands exploration. "This is a very sad day for me, especially as a youth, for this day really, for me, signifies the beginning of no return." Shasko, who is prairie regional co-ordinator for the youth wing of the Green Party, said there should be more study of environmental impacts before a decision is made to pursue oilsands exploration in the province. However, Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd said the government is committed to ensuring any oilsands development is as environmentally, economically and socially sustainable as possible. He cited the development of a northwest Saskatchewan land use plan as one way activities in the area are being guided. "This has the potential to be a very large type of development, but we are working to ensure it's being done in a responsible fashion," said Boyd. Boyd said development in Saskatchewan also won't mirror that of Alberta, as oil reserves are much deeper here and won't be extracted through open pit mining. "The environmental footprint will be very, very modest in comparison to what many people think of as traditional oilsands developments," Boyd said. "If you went down to the Estevan-Weyburn area and looked at a conventional well, it would be very similar to what you would see in the northwest in a type of oilsands development there." The groups gathered Monday said those assurances from the government aren't enough. "Most tar sands will still need water, will still need energy," said Jim Elliot, chairman of the Regina chapter of the Council of Canadians. "I don't how much different it will be. I think we need to have, again, a full assessment of that well before we actually go ahead and make a decision on going ahead with it." Regina resident Sue Deranger, a member of Alberta's Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, said Saskatchewan needs to learn from problems caused by development in Alberta. She said oilsands developments have taken a toll in Fort Chipewyan, where there have been claims of unusually high cancer rates. "We need to be concerned," she said. "We need to be proactive." ? The Leader-Post (Regina) 2008 From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Aug 12 19:14:53 2008 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:14:53 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Fw: Costa Rica bids to go carbon neutral Message-ID: <032d01c8fce1$fde36b00$0200a8c0@agingCHS072729> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Menec" To: Cc: "RAD TIMES" ; "DISSIDENT VOICE" ; "ICH" ; "ALTERNET" ; "COMMON DREAMS" ; "COUNTERCURRENTS" ; "ASHEVILLE GLOBAL REPORT" Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 9:17 PM Subject: Costa Rica bids to go carbon neutral > > > Monday, 11 August 2008 > > Costa Rica bids to go carbon neutral > > By Claire Marshall BBC News, Costa Rica > > In February 2008, Norway, New Zealand, Iceland and Costa Rica made a > commitment to go carbon neutral. > > The tiny Central American country is the only developing country to have > made the tough pledge to turn its economy green. > > It has also set itself the hardest target with the government saying it > will > go carbon neutral by 2021. > > "If any country can do it, it's Costa Rica," said Sergio Musmanni, who is > helping to lead the government's new national climate change strategy. > > "We have been at the forefront of the climate change issue for years. A > large percentage of our electricity... already comes from renewable energy > sources. And we are in the tropics. We don't have problems heating up our > homes and buildings during the winter." > > Some sectors are getting behind the idea. > > At a plantation on the country's Caribbean coast, bunches of bananas, > Costa > Rica's biggest export, are encased in plastic while growing to protect > them > from insects and disease. > > Rudy Amador, from the Dole food company, looks up at the pale blue cocoons > being cut down with machetes. > > "The first thing is measuring what the emissions actually are. Then we're > looking at ways that we can do our agricultural practices better to reduce > the emissions. In addition to production, we are also involved in > transportation, so we are also looking at ways of being more fuel > efficient," he said. > > 'Incredible growth' > > One of the keys to all attempts to go carbon neutral is to find ways to > off-set emissions. > > The Costa Rican government is attempting to do this through reforestation. > > The government planted what it says is a world record five million trees > last year, and is aiming for a new record of seven million this year. > > The theory is that if enough trees are planted, they will absorb enough > carbon dioxide to cancel out the country's emissions of greenhouse gases. > > Many of the seedlings come from the Earth University, 80km (50 miles) east > of the capital, San Jose. > > The private, not-for-profit institution is in more than 3,000 hectares > (7,400 acres) of breathtakingly rich and fertile land. > > Professor Ricardo Russo is in charge of the reforestation programme. He > gestures over a wide area of cleared land, where vivid green four-month > old > saplings are thrusting in to the sky. > > "You can see the growth here in the tropics. It's incredible. In four > months, they can grow 50 to 60cm." > > Professor Russo believes that planting trees is a good way to stop the > planet heating up. > > "The tree starts absorbing carbon dioxide from when it's a seedling. > Especially during the first 10 to 15 years, it's a very efficient way of > absorbing carbon from the atmosphere". > > Transport challenge > > Costa Rica already has some progressive environmental policies. More than > 30% of the country has been given over to national parks, and the country > pioneered the concept of eco-tourism in the region. > > However, some voice doubts over the tough time limit that the country has > set itself. > > We need to be an example to the rest of the world Alex Khajavi Nature Air > airline > > "Costa Rica has been the only country in Central America ahead of everyone > else, in terms of protecting the environment," said Jose Vasquez, from the > World Wildlife Fund. > > "I believe this is the first step to mitigate even more the impact they > have > on climate change. The only thing I see is a little bit problematic is by > 2021. It's a huge target." > > There is one overwhelming issue that needs to be addressed, particularly > for > a developing country. > > "The real challenge for Costa Rica is transportation. Most of our > emissions > come from this sector. We really have to start making changes in how Costa > Ricans are moving, but as the economy grows, if more people want to have > their own cars, we have to take that in to account," said Mr Musmanni. > > There is one example from private industry. Four years ago, Nature Air > began > moves to become a carbon neutral airline. > > Sitting back in one of the company's Twin Otter planes, chief executive > Alex > Khajavi looks down fondly at the Pacific coastline, the emerald hills > folding down to long white strips of beach. > > "We are in the right position in this country to be the crucible for the > changes that the rest of the world is looking for. We cannot let it fail. > We > need to get everyone on our side to make this small experiment in > something > very radical but very necessary, to work," he said. > > "We need to be an example to the rest of the world". > > The Costa Rican government has given itself just 13 years to turn its > economy green and become that example. > > Published: 2008/08/11 11:01:13 GMT > > (c) BBC MMVIII > > ============== > Fresh Ink is an alternative news service > and sister project of Booksinternationale.com. > Join us! https://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink > ============== > From tchilds at resist.ca Tue Aug 12 19:29:30 2008 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Disarmed to nuclear danger - Linda McQuaig Message-ID: <49658.24.87.34.192.1218590970.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/476555 Toronto Star Disarmed to nuclear danger Aug 12, 2008 04:30 AM LINDA MCQUAIG It's striking that the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons ? arguably the most pressing issue humankind faces ? has slipped so far off the political agenda it rarely merits a mention. Apart from the annual Aug. 6 anniversary of Hiroshima ? acknowledged briefly in the media last week, including in a powerful documentary on CBC Newsworld ? the issue seems to suffer the fate of subjects the media just doesn't consider hot enough to cover. Of course, the issue of nuclear weapons does get a lot of attention ? when it comes to keeping them out of the hands of Iran, North Korea or Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Few subjects consume more oxygen in the public arena these days than Iran's nuclear ambitions ? even after the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, representing the consensus of all 16 U.S. government spy agencies, reported last fall that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and hasn't revived it since. That would be zero nuclear weapons for Iran. Meanwhile, well out of the spotlight, are more than 20,000 nuclear weapons, including thousands on hair-trigger alert, in the hands of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, India and Pakistan. But then what possible risk could they pose? So while there's a lot of energy for blocking the nuclear ambitions of enemies, what's fallen into virtual oblivion in the West is the goal of disarming ourselves as well. That's a curious development. As everyone knows, a serious nuclear exchange ? even one triggered accidentally ? could wipe out the world. Hence no one actually argues in favour of nuclear weapons. Rather we simply ignore them, even as we go on living with them. Peace advocates Anatol Rapoport and Leonard Johnson (a retired Canadian general) compare our society to the cells of a body in the process of committing suicide. All the cells keep operating normally, each doing its own job, even as the person writes a suicide note, puts a gun in his mouth and prepares to pull the trigger. This public obliviousness has allowed the Bush administration, with its disdain for disarmament, to keep expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal, even openly defying the decades-old ban against weapons in space. But, with a new U.S. administration next year, this should be the time for an organized disarmament push from the rest of the world. What's needed is some leadership ? something Canada used to provide. In the late 1990s, Canada played a pivotal role in a group of middle power countries trying to break the deadlock at disarmament talks in Geneva. In 2002, Canada became the first NATO country to vote for the group's pro-disarmament resolution, despite strong opposition from the United States. Other NATO countries later followed Canada's lead. A group of disarmament experts, led by former Canadian disarmament ambassador Douglas Roche, met in Ottawa last February in an effort to push the Harper government to resume that sort of leadership role ? to no avail, or even media interest. Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has stepped up to the plate, announcing last June the establishment of a nuclear disarmament commission, to be chaired by former Australian prime minister Gareth Evans. Sadly, Canada lacks that sort of leadership at the moment. But is it too much to expect we could perhaps fall in line behind Australia? Or we could just keep on doing what we're doing, even as the suicide note is being written, with the gun in the mouth and the hand on the trigger. Linda McQuaig's column appears every other week. lmcquaig at sympatico.ca From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 19:22:16 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:22:16 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Police Shootings Raise Kashmir Toll to 19 + Deadly Force Used to Halt March in Kashmir Message-ID: August 13, 2008 Police Shootings Raise Kashmir Toll to 19 By YUSUF JAMEEL and SOMINI SENGUPTA SRINAGAR, Kashmir ? The death toll from violence in Indian-controlled Kashmir climbed to 19 on Tuesday, as security forces fired on protesters defying a curfew and were themselves pelted with stones. Nearly 300 security officers have been injured, the police said, since clashes broke out Monday. Six protesters died Monday when the police opened fire in an attempt to stop thousands of protesters from the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley from approaching the disputed border with Pakistan, the Kashmir state government said. The protesters were seeking an alternate route out of the valley, to break a blockade of the main highway south. The dead on Monday included Sheik Abdul Aziz, a former anti-Indian militant who joined the moderate faction of the Kashmiri separatist group called the Hurriyat Conference. The government imposed a curfew on Srinagar, the valley's principal city, and several other cities and towns. Protesters filled the streets in defiance and 13 were killed Tuesday in confrontations with security forces, according to the state police chief, Kuldeep Khuda. Meanwhile, the governor of Jammu and Kashmir State, Narendra Nath Vohra, tried to calm tempers. He said that the highway from the valley into the plains of northern India had been opened to traffic, and that the police would ensure safe passage of goods. In a statement, he acknowledged "sporadic attempts" to block the highway. He appealed for an end to the violent demonstrations. The protests erupted after apple farmers complained that their apples were rotting because they could not haul their crop to markets in the plains. The governor's statement said that over the past four days, 1,100 trucks had traveled the highway into the valley, including hundreds carrying fuel and food, and that nearly 2,000 trucks had left, many loaded with fruit. Tens of thousands of people attended Mr. Aziz's funeral on Tuesday in Srinagar. Police vans and police stations were burned during the day, as well as the homes of some police officers and politicians. The governor's envoys continued to negotiate with protesters in the Hindu-majority region of Jammu, in the plains. The Hindu nationalist group Vishwa Hindu Parishad urged supporters to block roads on Wednesday during the morning rush hour. Tensions have risen since late May, when the government turned over 98 acres of land to a panel that administers Amarnath, a Hindu shrine in the Himalayas. Protests by Muslims faded after the land transfer was rescinded, but then Hindus in the plains of Jammu demonstrated in force. Led by Hindu nationalists, they disrupted the movement of trucks in and out of the Kashmir Valley. The latest troubles in Kashmir, which India and Pakistan each claim, have soured relations between the nations after a period of relative amity. On Tuesday, Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, condemned what he described as "excessive and unwarranted use of force" in Indian-administered Kashmir, according to news agency reports from Pakistan. The Indian Foreign Ministry accused Pakistan of unnecessary interference. Yusuf Jameel reported from Srinagar, and Somini Sengupta from New Delhi. August 12, 2008 Deadly Force Used to Halt March in Kashmir By SOMINI SENGUPTA and YUSUF JAMEEL NEW DELHI ? Indian security forces on Monday fired into marchers and killed a prominent Kashmiri separatist in an effort to stop thousands of protesters from the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley from approaching the disputed frontier with Pakistan, the Kashmir state government said. The government responded by imposing a curfew on Srinagar, the valley's principal city, for the first time in a decade or more. Four people died in the protests, which were prompted by a blockade of the main road between the valley and the plains of northern India. More than 100 were injured, mostly in Srinagar and in Baramula, a town about 27 miles from the Pakistan-controlled portion of Kashmir. The violence on Monday threatened any immediate prospects of calm within Indian-controlled Kashmir, the state known as Jammu and Kashmir, which has been agitated by increasing tensions between Hindus and Muslims in recent months. The tensions began in late May when the state government turned over 98 acres of land to a panel that administers Amarnath, a popular Hindu shrine high in the Himalayas. Protests by Muslims faded after the government rescinded the order, but then Hindus in the plains of Jammu started their own demonstration. Hindu nationalists blocked a vital highway linking the Kashmir Valley, with its Muslim majority, to the plains of northern India. Their blockade prevented essential supplies from flowing into the valley and the main cash crop ? apples, at the height of harvest ? from being shipped out. Apple farmers and traders said last week that they intended to break the blockade by trucking produce through Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. They did not get very far. On Monday, Indian security forces thwarted marches from numerous cities and towns across the valley well before they reached Pakistani territory. The state government said Monday night that the police had warned the marchers not to proceed beyond Baramula, but "the crowd did not relent and in order to disperse the unruly and violent mob, the police was forced to open fire." A bullet was said to have killed Sheik Abdul Aziz of the moderate separatist coalition known as the Hurriyat Conference, in Baramula. The coalition's leader, Umar Farooq, said Mr. Aziz, a former militant, died instantly. Speaking on Indian television Monday night, Mr. Farooq warned that the killing would make matters worse. "The people of Kashmir are not going to sit still at the death of a leader," he said on NDTV. Asked whether a march to Pakistan was wise at a time of heightened tension, Mr. Farooq said the road blockade had left Kashmiris with no choice, describing it as "a war against the people of Kashmir." Police vans with loudspeakers announced a curfew in Srinagar. Thousands defied the call, carrying Mr. Aziz's body from the main government hospital to the historic Grand Mosque. A mob razed a police booth at the hospital entrance. The police forced their way into wards and fired tear gas, Dr. Wasim Qureshi said from the hospital. The troubles in Kashmir Province are the worst since the anti-Indian rebellion in the 1990s. For several years the government has sought to restore normal life, including starting a bus service for Kashmiris to visit relatives by crossing between the Indian and Pakistani areas. And peace talks between India and Pakistan have made progress. Somini Sengupta reported from New Delhi, and Yusuf Jameel from Srinagar. Fifteen shot dead in Jammu & Kashmir Praveen Swami Worst day of violence since Amarnath Shrine Board controversy erupted SRINAGAR: Police and army personnel opened fire across Jammu and Kashmir on Tuesday, in which 15 protesters were killed. This was the worst violence seen since the State government's decision to grant land-use rights to a Hindu religious trust sparked massive protests last month. Some of the worst violence was reported from Srinagar, where six protesters were shot dead, in day-long skirmishes between mobs and police. Police killed three more protesters in the central Kashmir town of Lasjan, where police said Islamist-led rioters had attempted to storm the home of the former Minister and People's Democratic Party legislator Javaid Ahmad Mir. A police officer was also seriously injured in the firing, which officials said was initiated by Mr. Mir's panicked bodyguards. Soldiers killed three more protesters, including a woman, near the north Kashmir town of Paribal. A spokesperson for the Srinagar-based 15 Corps said the protesters, who were throwing stones at an isolated military picket, refused to disperse despite repeated appeals. A protester was killed in Anantnag, although confirmation on the cause of his death was not available. Police in the remote mountain town of Kishtwar killed two members of a mob that attacked homes belonging to the region's Hindu minority. Half a dozen homes were reported damaged in the attacks, which mark some of the most serious communal violence so far seen in the Shrine Board rioting. Earlier, Hindu chauvinist mobs initiated several arson attacks against Gujjar Muslims' homes in and around Jammu. Eight people have now died in Jammu since Hindu chauvinist groups launched a movement demanding that the Shrine Board's land-use rights be restored ? three in police firing, one in a terrorist grenade attack, one in an accident, and the last in a protest-suicide. In the Kashmir region, the death toll is over three times as high. Tuesday's wave of violence in Kashmir came even as tens of thousands of people gathered in Srinagar for the funeral of secessionist leader Abdul Aziz Sheikh, who was shot dead while participating in a march seeking to force its way across the Line of Control on Monday. Both All Parties Hurriyat Conference chairperson Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who lead its rival-turned-ally, the Tehreek-i-Hurriyat, called on their supporters to stage three more days of protests, leading up to India's independence day on August 15. However, both leaders called on protesters to ensure that their demonstrations remained peaceful, and appealed to the police not to use lethal force to disperse them. APHC leaders also plan to make renewed attempts to cross the LoC after August 16, an action they say has been necessitated by the choking off of road links out of the Kashmir valley by Hindu fundamentalist groups ? claims the State government denies. In Kashmir, a reign of error Praveen Swami SRINAGAR: Barricades of burning tyres marked the route home of the former Chief Minister, Farooq Abdullah, from Humhama airport. Mobs of young men lined the streets defying curfew orders ? and police bullets. "People used to say I didn't know how to run a government,", he said, peering out of the dark-tinted windows of his bullet-proof car at the clouds of smoke that shrouded the streets, "and now look at the mess we're in." Less than two months ago, politicians like Mr. Abdullah were discussing strategies for winning elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, which are scheduled to be held in October. But poor political judgment ? and an apparently catatonic administration ? precipitated a crisis, which have made even the prospect of an election appear somewhat surreal. Political failure Monday's secessionist march to the Line of Control spiralled into murderous street clashes between police and protesters and have now claimed 20 lives. It was initiated by the state's Fruit Growers and Dealers Association early this month. Orchard owners claimed that hundreds of trucks laden with fruit were rotting because of a blockade of the Srinagar-Jammu highway by Hindu chauvinist groups ? part of the Shrine Board riots which have gripped the State these past eight weeks. It is likely the claims were hyped ?most varieties of Kashmir apples do not ripen until the end of August ? but growers were legitimately concerned that protracted problems on the highway would destroy their highly-perishable crop as it came to market. Kashmir Divisional Commissioner Masood Samoon immediately held negotiations with the fruit growers and promised to ensure proper security for fruit trucks on the highway. At the end of their talks, association chief Bashir Ahmad Baig deferred the march to the LoC until August 7. The Jammu and Kashmir government delivered on part of its promise ? but not enough. Although hundreds of trucks did indeed begin to move along the highway to Jammu, Kashmir-based truck drivers and orchard-owners were too terrified by the prospect of Hindu chauvinist attacks to risk the journey. It would have taken no great effort to allow convoys to travel under Army escort. None, however, was provided ? increasing the fruit trade's frustrations. Still, the Association agreed to hold back on their march for another three days, until Union Home Minister and members of an all-party delegation visited Srinagar. At the end of his August 10 meeting, Mr. Patil announced that the State government would make bulk purchases of the small quantities of early-flowering fruit to compensate growers for any losses they sustained because of the disruption of the Srinagar-Jammu road. As more fruit came to market over the next month, Mr. Patil said, "if there's still some damage, we'll assess the loss and pay full compensation on the pattern of relief provided to other States in case of such circumstances." It was a generous promise ? but the people who needed it most weren't there to listen. Fruit growers' representatives had been called to meet Mr. Patil and his delegation ? but for reasons that still haven't become clear, were eventually refused an audience. After being kept waiting in an ante-room for several hours, the fruit growers' representatives left Srinagar, angered ? and sceptical of the government's promises. Their fears were well founded: no announcement was made on how, and when, the government intended to keep its word. When it became clear the fruit growers' march on Muzaffarabad would go ahead ? and would have the backing not just of secessionist groupings but also the People's Democratic Party ?Jammu and Kashmir administrators again failed to prepare for a showdown. Despite intelligence warnings that the LoC march would gather tens of thousands of supporters, the State government and top police officials refused to impose a curfew. "Coordination was needed with the Army," a senior government official said, "since it is responsible for holding the ground in rural Kashmir, and for securing the LoC. But no one in the government acted." In the event, small groups of police personnel were left to hold back the marchers. Desperate police units finally opened fire at protesters in Sheeri, leading to the loss of five lives ? including that of secessionist leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz. Little seems to have been learned from Monday's disaster. All through Tuesday, police at rural outposts like Lalpora in Lolab, Trehgam in Kupwara and Kraalgund in Handwara were besieged by mobs ? but nearby Army units did not have orders to intervene in their support. From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Aug 12 19:29:28 2008 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:29:28 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Costa Rica bids to go carbon neutral Message-ID: <036d01c8fce4$07bfea20$0200a8c0@agingCHS072729> Apologies for the formatting -- this should be better: Monday, 11 August 2008 Costa Rica bids to go carbon neutral By Claire Marshall BBC News, Costa Rica In February 2008, Norway, New Zealand, Iceland and Costa Rica made a commitment to go carbon neutral. The tiny Central American country is the only developing country to have made the tough pledge to turn its economy green. It has also set itself the hardest target with the government saying it will go carbon neutral by 2021. "If any country can do it, it's Costa Rica," said Sergio Musmanni, who is helping to lead the government's new national climate change strategy. "We have been at the forefront of the climate change issue for years. A large percentage of our electricity... already comes from renewable energy sources. And we are in the tropics. We don't have problems heating up our homes and buildings during the winter." Some sectors are getting behind the idea. At a plantation on the country's Caribbean coast, bunches of bananas, Costa Rica's biggest export, are encased in plastic while growing to protect them from insects and disease. Rudy Amador, from the Dole food company, looks up at the pale blue cocoons being cut down with machetes. "The first thing is measuring what the emissions actually are. Then we're looking at ways that we can do our agricultural practices better to reduce the emissions. In addition to production, we are also involved in transportation, so we are also looking at ways of being more fuel efficient," he said. 'Incredible growth' One of the keys to all attempts to go carbon neutral is to find ways to off-set emissions. The Costa Rican government is attempting to do this through reforestation. The government planted what it says is a world record five million trees last year, and is aiming for a new record of seven million this year. The theory is that if enough trees are planted, they will absorb enough carbon dioxide to cancel out the country's emissions of greenhouse gases. Many of the seedlings come from the Earth University, 80km (50 miles) east of the capital, San Jose. The private, not-for-profit institution is in more than 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) of breathtakingly rich and fertile land. Professor Ricardo Russo is in charge of the reforestation programme. He gestures over a wide area of cleared land, where vivid green four-month old saplings are thrusting in to the sky. "You can see the growth here in the tropics. It's incredible. In four months, they can grow 50 to 60cm." Professor Russo believes that planting trees is a good way to stop the planet heating up. "The tree starts absorbing carbon dioxide from when it's a seedling. Especially during the first 10 to 15 years, it's a very efficient way of absorbing carbon from the atmosphere". Transport challenge Costa Rica already has some progressive environmental policies. More than 30% of the country has been given over to national parks, and the country pioneered the concept of eco-tourism in the region. However, some voice doubts over the tough time limit that the country has set itself. We need to be an example to the rest of the world Alex Khajavi Nature Air airline "Costa Rica has been the only country in Central America ahead of everyone else, in terms of protecting the environment," said Jose Vasquez, from the World Wildlife Fund. "I believe this is the first step to mitigate even more the impact they have on climate change. The only thing I see is a little bit problematic is by 2021. It's a huge target." There is one overwhelming issue that needs to be addressed, particularly for a developing country. "The real challenge for Costa Rica is transportation. Most of our emissions come from this sector. We really have to start making changes in how Costa Ricans are moving, but as the economy grows, if more people want to have their own cars, we have to take that in to account," said Mr Musmanni. There is one example from private industry. Four years ago, Nature Air began moves to become a carbon neutral airline. Sitting back in one of the company's Twin Otter planes, chief executive Alex Khajavi looks down fondly at the Pacific coastline, the emerald hills folding down to long white strips of beach. "We are in the right position in this country to be the crucible for the changes that the rest of the world is looking for. We cannot let it fail. We need to get everyone on our side to make this small experiment in something very radical but very necessary, to work," he said. "We need to be an example to the rest of the world". The Costa Rican government has given itself just 13 years to turn its economy green and become that example. Published: 2008/08/11 11:01:13 GMT (c) BBC MMVIII ============== Fresh Ink is an alternative news service and sister project of Booksinternationale.com. Join us! https://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Menec" To: "Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion." Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:14 PM Subject: Fw: Costa Rica bids to go carbon neutral > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Menec" > To: (clip) From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 22:41:59 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:41:59 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia, France Agree on 6 Principles to Resolve S. Ossetia Crisis Message-ID: Russia, France agree on 6 principles to resolve S.Ossetia crisis 20:06 | 12/ 08/ 2008 MOSCOW, August 12 (RIA Novosti) - The presidents of Russia and France agreed Tuesday on six principles to resolve the situation in the Georgian breakaway republic of South Ossetia. "The first is not to resort to the use of force. The second is to halt all military action. The third is free access to humanitarian aid. The fourth is that Georgian Armed Forces should return to their bases. The fifth is that Russian Armed Forces should pull back to their positions prior to combat," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told a news conference with his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy. "The sixth is the beginning of international discussions on the future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and on ways to ensure their security," he added. Medvedev also said that Georgia's August 8 attack on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, should be taken into account when deciding the future status of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway Georgian republic. He made reference to the "precedent" of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence in February, and its subsequent recognition by the United States and the majority of EU countries. The Russian president added that the residents of the two rebel regions should be consulted on whether they wanted to be part of Georgia. "They will give an unequivocal answer, an answer that cannot be given by Russia or any other country," he said Medvedev also accused Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili of lying when he said that Georgia had ceased fire two days ago. "As to the statement made by the Georgian president that a ceasefire has been in place for two days, this is a lie," he said. Medvedev also commented that Russia's offensive against Georgia was the only possible response to Tbilisi's attack on South Ossetia. "If Russia had had another way to react to Georgia's aggression against South Ossetia, we would have done this. There was no other way to respond," Medvedev said. "Bullies differ from normal people in that when they sense blood it's very hard to stop them, and then one is forced to employ surgical methods," he added. Russia has said that some 1,600 people were killed in Friday's attack on Tskhinvali by Georgian forces. Russia has accused Georgian troops of atrocities, including the burning alive of women and children. The U.S. led Western condemnation of Russia's military operation to "enforce peace" in South Ossetia, with President George Bush calling Russia's response "disproportionate." He also said that Russia "has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people." Sarkozy said at the news conference that Europe was ready to join peacekeeping operations in South Ossetia. The French leader is due to take the Russian-French peace plan to Tbilisi later this evening. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said however that if Tbilisi rejected the peace plan, Moscow would have to take measures to prevent further violence in South Ossetia. South Ossetia and Abkhazia broke away from Georgia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Both republics fought vicious wars with Tbilisi that eventually ended in the retreat of Georgian troops and the regions gaining de facto independence. Georgia alleged, although the claims were unproven, that the rebels had been armed with Russian-supplied military equipment. When the Rose Revolution street protests swept the pro-Western Saakashvili to power in 2004, the new president vowed to bring the regions back under central government control. Russian had earlier granted citizenship to residents of both republics. Saakashvili also pledged to bring Georgia into NATO. For this to happen, the country's "frozen" conflicts would have to be resolved. Indeed, South Ossetia and Abkhazia were the reason why Georgia was not given a NATO Membership Action Plan in April, objections from Germany and France that doing so would unnecessarily antagonize Russia thwarting U.S. enthusiasm for welcoming Tbilisi into the military alliance. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said on Tuesday that a Russia-NATO session on the situation in Georgia and its breakaway republic of South Ossetia would be held in the near future. From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Aug 12 23:08:01 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:08:01 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The long, hard slog against scrappy Taliban fighters Message-ID: <4547241C-C1D6-43A6-8643-8399F7DE5BD2@shaw.ca> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/12/the_long_hard_slog_against_scrappy_taliban_fighters/ H.D.S. Greenway The Boston Globe The long, hard slog against scrappy Taliban fighters August 12, 2008 'RAGTAG TALIBAN Show Tenacity in Afghanistan," read the headline last week. Washington and NATO capitals were reportedly "soul-searching" over how a disheveled insurgency had managed to "keep the world's most powerful armies at bay." This should hardly have come as a surprise. There is a certain irony for those of us who were up on the North-West Frontier in the 1980s interviewing Islamic fighters who, from their safe bases in Pakistan, were making life miserable for the Soviets in Afghanistan. I once visited a training camp just over the border where insurgents were being trained in guerrilla tactics and in making bombs to be smuggled into Kabul. I guess you would have to say they were terrorists, but they were our terrorists so we called them freedom fighters. As for the Russians, they were always being taken by surprise at the tenacity of their ragtag opponents. The Afghan insurgents were masters of terrain. They knew how to flatten themselves on hillsides, their bodies covered by long cloaks with not even their fingernails showing lest they reflect light to passing helicopters overhead. The Soviets tried to overwhelm the guerrillas with firepower, bombing villages into dust, causing more and more young men to join the resistance. The Afghans who had thrown their lot in with the Russians seemed evermore isolated in their cities while the insurgents roamed the countryside. Today's insurgents, again from their safe havens in Pakistan, are making life miserable for foreigners in Afghanistan, only this time the foreigners are Americans and their allies. Allah has always held a mighty hold over the Pashtuns of the frontier. During the Raj, the British fought endless campaigns against this or that jihad-driven uprising, right up until World War II drew Britain's attention elsewhere. One such dust-up came when a Muslim captured a Hindu girl and forced her to convert. She was rescued, but the tribesmen were furious that the girl had been taken away from the embrace of Islam, and the voice of jihad was heard in the land. A Mullah Omar of his time was the Faqir of Ipi, who right up into the 1950s bedeviled the British and then the Pakistanis trying to carve out an independent Pashtun state out of the frontier on both sides of the border. When the British left they bequeathed to Pakistan the same old problem of tribal areas that were not fully absorbed into the state. And on the frontier soldiers from the Punjab are almost as foreign as Englishmen. Listen to the quandary the British faced fighting on the frontier, as described by the writer John Masters, who served with the Prince of Wales's Own Gurkha Rifles in the 1935 Waziristan campaign. "The core of our problem was to force battle on an elusive and mobile enemy (who) tried to avoid battle, and instead fight us with pinpricking hit- and-run tactics." Only when the tribesmen tried to hold territory were they "pulverized." When they "sniped, rushed, and ran away we felt as if we were using a crowbar to swat wasps." America and NATO face the same problems today. Long ago in Vietnam, Americans were constantly being surprised at the resilience of their ragtag enemies. The United States unleashed unimaginable firepower, tried to win hearts and minds, and reinvented counterinsurgency tactics that were learned in the Philippines in the 19th century but forgotten. Today the country is reinventing antiguerrilla tactics it knew in the 20th century but forgot. The story of the fight for Afghanistan is filled with what-ifs. What if the United States had concentrated on Afghanistan when the Soviets left? What if resources and attention had not been pulled from Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq? What if Omar and Osama bin Laden had not slipped through America's fingers to escape into the frontier territories? The Taliban recognize no border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and they know all the passes from which we watched a previous generation of insurgents slip through to fight the Soviets. The fighters know, too, that to win all they have to do is not lose, and eventually the foreigners will leave. The fate of Afghanistan will then be up to the Afghans. This is how it has always been. H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe. From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 23:16:58 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:16:58 -0400 Subject: [R-G] "Iran Is Friends with the American and Israeli People" . . . But Not If Ali Larijani Were in Charge Message-ID: Iran's VP told to clarify pro-Israel comments By DPA TEHRAN - Iranian Vice President Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei has been summoned by parliament for having made pro-Israeli comments, ISNA news agency reported yesterday. The cultural commission of the parliament has called for a special session today with Rahim-Mashaei, where he will reply to "questions, ambiguities and criticism" by the deputies over the comments. The vice president, who is in charge of cultural heritage and tourism, said that Iran would be friends with both the Israeli and American people, despite political problems with the two countries. He emphasized this position again on Monday. Reacting to Rahim-Mashaei's comments, parliament speaker Ali Larijani on Monday reiterated that Iran was no friend of the Israelis. The reaction by the parliament and Larijani was surprising, as the vice-president's remarks are in line with the stance of Iran's Islamic system, which distinguishes peoples from governments, including political arch-foes Israel and the United States. Even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has earned himself international notoriety for his frequent verbal assaults on Israel, has several times stressed that he was addressing the Israeli administration and not the Jews, and hence rejected charges of being anti-Semitic. 'Iranians believe in peace and love' Aug. 11, 2008 jpost.com staff and ap , THE JERUSALEM POST Iranian Vice President Esfandiar Rahim Mashai said Monday that he would not retract his recent statements that the Iranian people were fond of Israelis and Americans. Speaking to reporters in Teheran, Mashai said that he was proud of his remarks and did not regret making them since "the Iranians believe in peace and love between people." "We are friends of all of humanity. There is no difference at all between the Iranians and Americans, even the Israelis are our friends," he said. Mashai stressed, however, that his comments did not constitute recognition of Israel's legitimacy. On July 20, Mashai said that Iran was "friends with the Israeli people and described United States as "one of the best nations in the world." "Today, Iran is friends with the American and Israeli people. No nation in the world is our enemy, this is an honor," he said on the sidelines of a tourism congress in Teheran. "Of course we have enemies and the most unfair hostilities are committed against the Iranian people," he said. "We regard the American people as one of the best nations in the world." Mashai is in charge of Iranian tourism and historical sites. He is said to be extremely close to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and earlier this year, his daughter married Ahmadinejad's son. We're no friends of Israelis: Iran parliament speaker 1 day ago TEHRAN (AFP) ? Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani said on Monday Iran is no friends of the Israelis, reacting to remarks to the contrary by an aide of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Fars news agency reported. "We are not friends with the Israeli people and Iran has a logic which is what the (supreme) leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) has said," Larijani was quoted as saying. Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, a deputy of Ahmadinejad, has insisted that Iran is "friends with the Israeli people." Rahim Mashaie first made statements to this effect in July. More recent remarks reaffirming his position in unequivocal terms were printed in several local newspapers on Monday. "I had said this before that we do not have any hostility against the Israeli people and I still say the same thing proudly," Rahim Mashaie was quoted as saying by Kargozaran newspaper. "Not all the Israeli people are wearing (military) boots on the street," added Rahim Mashaie, vice president in charge of tourism. Rahim Mashaie's initial comment raised controversy among Iran's conservatives, as he is one of Ahmadinejad's closest confidants. The president has earned international notoriety for his frequent verbal assaults against Israel, which he has described as a "stinking corpse" and has predicted is doomed to disappear. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that Iran is ready to talk to all countries except the "Zionist regime" -- Tehran's usual term for Israel. The Islamic republic has repeatedly vowed never to recognise Israel, which was an ally of pro-US shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ousted by the 1979 Islamic revolution. The animosity has spilled over to the Beijing Olympics, where Iranian swimmer Mohammad Alirezaei failed to appear for the men's 100m breaststroke heats on Saturday, apparently because an Israeli was also racing. Alirezaei's lane one was empty when the field left the starting blocks. Israel's Tom Beeri, starting in lane seven, finished fourth. International Olympic Committee spokeswoman Giselle Davies said if it was shown that the Iranian had deliberately pulled out, "the IOC would take it seriously." 'No Iran official will recognize Israel' Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:53:33 Iran's Vice President for Tourism and Cultural Heritage says no Iranian government official would ever acknowledge the Zionist regime. "It is preposterous to assume that any Iranian official would acknowledge the Zionist regime," Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaie said in response to comments on his controversial remarks on Sunday. "We oppose the Zionist regime but we have no problem with the people residing in the occupied lands," Rahim-Mashaie was quoted by Fars News Agency as saying. The Iranian deputy added that 'the American nation is one of the best nations of the world' but confirmed that the Islamic Republic is not on good terms with the government of the United States. Rahim-Mashaie said he had been made aware that certain parties would misinterpret his earlier remarks, adding that the US and Israel are pursuing a policy to portray President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a warmonger "This is while Mr. Ahmadinejad follows a reasonable stance," said the Iranian official. Rahim-Mashaie said that the Islamic Republic would not wage war on any country and that the Iranian government adhered to a doctrine of resistance. He went on to warn the US and Israel against taking hostile measures against Iran, saying that 'they would not dare attack Iran.' 'Iran is friends with Israeli people': Ahmadinejad aide Jul 20, 2008 TEHRAN (AFP) ? Iran is "friends with the Israeli people", a deputy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, in stark contrast to Tehran's usual verbal assaults against the Jewish state, local media reported on Sunday. Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, vice president in charge of tourism and one of Ahmadinejad's closest confidants, also described the people of Iran's arch-enemy the United States as "one of the best nations in the world". "Today, Iran is friends with the American and Israeli people. No nation in the world is our enemy, this is an honour," Rahim Mashaie said, according to the Fars news agency and Etemad newspaper. "Of course we have enemies and the most unfair hostilities are committed against the Iranian people," he said on the sidelines of a tourism congress in Tehran. "We regard the American people as one of the best nations in the world." Ahmadinejad has earned international notoriety for his frequent verbal assaults against Israel, which he has described as a "stinking corpse" and predicted is doomed to disappear. Rahim Mashaie is one of the figures closest to the president in the Iranian government. This was emphasised earlier this year when his daughter married Ahmadinejad's son. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that Iran is ready to talk to all countries except the "Zionist regime", Tehran's usual description for Israel. "An unexpected statement: Mashaie talks about friendship with the people of Israel?!" was the headline on the conservative Tabnak news website. The website said it was all the more surprising he had made the comment when much of Ahmadinejad's popularity in the Arab world stems from his hostility towards Israel and the United States. This is not the first time Rahim Mashaie has been involved in controversy. He was sharply criticised by MPs for allegedly watching a Turkish woman dance while at a tourism congress in Turkey. The Islamic republic has repeatedly vowed never to recognise Israel, which was an ally of pro-US shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ousted by the 1979 Islamic revolution. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Aug 13 02:40:39 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:40:39 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Bush Administration's Secret Biowarfare Agenda Message-ID: <48A29E07.40608@attglobal.net> by Stephen Lendman Countercurrents.org (July 28 2008) When it comes to observing US and international laws, treaties and norms, the Bush administration is a serial offender. Since 2001, it: -- spurned efforts for nuclear disarmament to advance its weapons program and retain current stockpiles; -- renounced the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and asserted the right to develop and test new weapons; -- abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) because it expressly forbids the development, testing and deployment of missile defenses like its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and other programs; -- refuses to adopt a proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) that would prohibit further weapons-grade uranium and plutonium production and prevent new nuclear weapons to be added to present stockpiles - already dangerously too high; -- spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined plus multi-billions off-the-books, for secret programs, and for agencies like the CIA; -- advocates preventive, preemptive and "proactive" wars globally with first-strike nuclear and other weapons under the nihilistic doctrines of "anticipatory self-defense" and remaking the world to be like America; -- rescinded and subverted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) to illegally develop new biowarfare weapons. In November 1969 and February 1970, Richard Nixon issued National Security Decision Memoranda (NSDM) 35 and 44; they renounced the use of lethal and other types of biological warfare and ordered existing weapons stockpiles destroyed, save for small amounts for research - a huge exploitable loophole; the Reagan and Clinton administrations took advantage; GHW Bush to a lesser degree; GW Bush went further by renouncing the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that prohibits "the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons ..." On May 22 1990, GHW Bush signed it into law to complete the 1972 Convention's implementation; what the father and Nixon established, GW Bush rendered null and void: "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is his central policy document for unchallengeable US hegemony; among other provisions, it illegally advocates advanced forms of biowarfare that can target specific genotypes - the genetic constitution of individual organisms. A Brief Modern History of Biowarfare -- the Hague Convention of 1907 bans chemical weapons; -- World War I use of poison gas causes 100,000 deaths and 900,000 injuries; -- Britain uses poison gas against Iraqis in the 1920s; as Secretary of State for War in 1919, Winston Churchill advocates it in a secret memo stating: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"; -- the 1928 Geneva Protocol prohibits gas and bacteriological warfare; -- in 1931, Dr Cornelius Rhoads infects human subjects with cancer cells - under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations; Rhoads later conducts radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients; -- in 1932, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins on 200 black men; they're not told of their illness, are denied treatment, and are used as human guinea pigs to follow their disease symptoms and progression; they all subsequently die; -- in 1935, the Pellagra Incident occurs; after millions die over two decades, the US Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease; -- In 1935 and 1936, Italy uses mustard gas in conquering Ethiopia; -- In its 1936 invasion, Japan uses chemical weapons against China; in the same year, a German chemical lab produces the first nerve agent, Tabun; -- in 1940, 400 Chicago prisoners are infected with malaria to study the effects of new and experimental drugs; -- the US has had an active biological warfare program since at least the 1940s; in 1941, it implements a secret program to develop offensive and allegedly defensive bioweapons using controversial testing methods; most research and development is at Fort Detrick, Maryland; beginning in 2008, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs will also conduct it; production and testing are at Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Dugway Proving Ground, Utah; -- from 1942 to 1945, (US) Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on about 4000 servicemen; -- in 1943, the US begins biological weapons research at Fort Detrick, Maryland; -- in 1944, the US Navy uses human subjects (locked in chambers) to test gas masks and clothing; -- during World War II, Germany uses lethal Zyklon-B gas in concentration camp exterminations; the Japanese (in Unit 731) conduct biowarfare experiments on civilians; -- in 1945, German offenders get immunity under Project Paperclip; Japanese ones as well - in exchange for their data and (for Germans at least) to work on top secret government projects in the US; -- in 1945, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) implements "Program F"; it's the most extensive US study of the health effects of fluoride - a key chemical component in atomic bomb production; it's one of the most toxic chemicals known and causes marked adverse central nervous system effects; in the interest of national security and not undermining full-scale nuclear weapons production, the information is suppressed; fluoride is found naturally in low concentration in drinking water and foods; compounds of the substance are also commonly used for cavity-prevention, but few people understand its toxicity; -- in 1946, VA hospital patients become guinea pigs for medical experiments; -- in 1947, the US has germ warfare weapons; Truman withdraws the 1928 Geneva Protocol from Senate consideration; it's not ratified until 1974 and is now null and void under George Bush; -- in 1947, the AEC's Colonel E E Kirkpatrick issues secret document #07075001; it states that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects; -- in July 1947, the CIA is established; it begins LSD experiments on civilian and military subjects with and without their knowledge - to learn its use as an intelligence weapon; -- in 1949, the US Army releases biological agents in US cities to learn the effects of a real germ warfare attack; tests continue secretly through at least the 1960s in San Francisco, New York, Washington, DC, Panama City and Key West, Florida, Minnesota, other midwest locations, along the Pennsylvania turnpike and elsewhere; more on outdoor testing below; -- after the (official) 1950 Korean War outbreak, North Korea and China accuse the US of waging germ warfare; an outbreak of disease the same year in San Francisco apparently is from Army bacteria released in the city; residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms; -- in 1950, the DOD begins open-air nuclear weapons detonations in desert areas, then monitors downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates; -- in 1951, African-Americans are exposed to potentially fatal stimulants as part of a race-specific fungal weapons test in Virginia; -- in 1953, the US military releases clouds of zinc cadium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, Canada, Saint Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia - to determine how efficiently chemical agents can be dispersed; -- in 1953, joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in New York and San Francisco - exposing tens of thousands of people to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii; -- in 1953, the CIA initiates Project MKULTRA - an eleven year research program to produce and test drugs and biological agents that can be used for mind control and behavior modification; unwitting human subjects are used; -- in 1955, the CIA releases bacteria from the Army's Tampa, Florida biological warfare arsenal - to test its ability to infect human populations; -- from 1955 to 1958, the Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research (on over 1000 subjects) - to study its effect as an incapacitating agent; -- in 1956, the US military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Georgia and Avon Park, Florida - to test the health effects on victims; -- in 1956, Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, specifically states bio-chemical warfare isn't banned; -- in 1960, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence authorizes LSD field tested in Europe and the Far East; -- in 1961, the Kennedy administration increases chemical spending from $75 to $330 million; it authorizes Project 112 - a secret program (from 1962 to 1973) to test the effects of biological and chemical weapons on thousands of unwitting US servicemen; Project SHAD was a related project; subjects were exposed to VX, tabun, sarin and soman nerve gases plus other toxic agents; -- in 1962, chemical weapons are loaded on planes for possible use during the Cuban missile crisis; -- in 1966, the New York subway system is used for a germ warfare experiment; -- in 1968, the Pentagon considers using some of its chemical weapons (including nerve gas) against civil rights and anti-war protesters; -- in 1969, an apparent nerve agent kills thousands of sheep in Utah; Nixon issues two National Security Memoranda in 1969 and 1970; the first (in November 1969) ends production and offensive use of lethal and other type biological and chemical weapons; it confines "bacteriological/biological programs ... to research for defensive purposes" and has other loopholes as well; the second (in February 1970) orders existing stockpiles destroyed, confines "toxins ... research and development (to) defensive purposes only", and declares only small quantities will be maintained to develop vaccines, drugs and diagnostics - a huge exploitable loophole; -- in 1969, the General Assembly bans herbicide plant killers and tear gases in warfare; the US is one of three opposing votes; despite being banned, open-air testing intermittently continues to the present, and the Pentagon apparently authorized it in its most recent annual report; it calls for developmental and operational "field testing of (CBW) full systems", not just simulations, and followed it up in a recent March 2008 test; in Crystal City, Virginia, it released perflourocarbon tracers and sulfur hexaflouride assuring residents it's safe; it's not and may harm persons with asthma, emphysema and other respiratory ailments; -- in 1969, DOD's Dr Robert MacMahan requests $10 million to develop a synthetic biological agent for which no natural immunity exists; -- from the 1960s through at least the 1980s, the US assaults Cuba with biological agent attacks; -- in 1970, US Southeast Asian forces conduct Operation Tailwind using sarin nerve gas in Laos; many die, including civilians; Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Joint Chiefs Chairman, confirmes the raid on CNN in 1998; under Pentagon pressure, CNN retracts the report and fires award-winning journalist Peter Arnett and co-producers April Oliver and Jack Smith because they refuse to disavow their report; -- in 1971, US forces end direct use of Agent Orange in Southeast Asia; also in 1971 with CIA help, an anti-Castro paramilitary group introduces African swine fever into Cuba; it infects a half a million pigs and results in their destruction; a few months later a similar attack fails against Cuban poultry; in 1981, a covert US operation unleashes a type 2 dengue fever outbreak - the first in the Caribbean since the turn of the century involving hemorrhagic shock on a massive scale; over 300,000 cases are reported, including 158 fatalities; -- in 1975, the Senate Church Committee confirms from a CIA memorandum that US "defensive" bioweapons are stockpiled at Fort Detrick, Maryland - including anthrax, encephalitis, tuberculosis, shellfish toxin, and food poisons; -- in 1980, Congress approves a nerve gas facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas; -- during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, the US supplies Iraq with toxic biological and chemical agents; Ronald Reagan signs a secret order to do "whatever (is) necessary and 'legal' " to prevent Iraq from losing the war"; a 1994 congressional inquiry later finds that dozens of biological agents were shipped, including various strains of anthrax and precursors of nerve gas (like sarin), gangrene, and West Nile virus; -- in 1984, Reagan orders M55 rockets retooled to contain high-yield explosives and VX gas; his administration begins researching and developing biological agents allegedly for "defensive purposes"; -- in 1985 and 1986, the US resumes open-air biological agents testing; it likely never stopped; -- in 1987, Congress votes to resume chemical weapons production; -- in 1989, 149 nations at the Paris Chemical Weapons Conference condemn these weapons; after signing the treaty, it's revealed that the US plans to produce poison gas; at the UN, GHW Bush reaffirms the US commitment to eliminate chemical weapons in ten years; the US implements the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 - "to implement ... the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction ..."; -- in 1990, GHW Bush signs the 1989 act making it illegal for the US to develop, possess or use biological weapons; Bush also signs Executive Order 12735 stating: the spread of chemical and biological weapons constitutes an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States"; -- following the Gulf War, reports surface about US forces' health problems - later called Gulf War Syndrome; the likely cause - widespread use of depleted uranium, other toxic substances, and the illegal use (on nearly 700,000 theater forces) of experimental vaccines in violation of the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation; over 12,000 have since died and over thirty percent are now ill from non-combat-related factors; they've since filed claims with the VA for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits; -- in 1997, Cuba accuses the US of spraying crops with biological agents; -- in 1997, the US ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) banning the production, stockpile and use of these substances; -- in 2001, the Bush administration rejects the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) citing 38 problems with it, some called serious; claiming a need to counter chemical and biological weapons threats, it's spending multi-billions illegally to develop, test and stockpile "first-strike" chemical and biological weapons that endanger homeland security and threaten good relations with other countries; -- all along, a BWC loophole allows appropriate types and amounts of biological agents to be used for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes" - construed to be defensive; it also permits "research", not "development"; the CIA took full advantage to conduct programs for offense, not defense or to further peace; further, the BWC includes nothing about genetic engineering because it didn't exist at the time. The US Secret Bioweapons Program In November 2001, Michel Chossudovsky used this title for his Global Research.ca article. It was when "an impressive military arsenal of aircraft carriers and gun-boats" was building up in the Persian Gulf in preparation for "a major bombing operation ... against Iraq" at a future designated time. Back home, the administration used the 2001 anthrax attacks as "justification for extending the 'campaign against international terrorism' to Iraq ... Washington singled out Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya of violating the international treaty banning weapons of germ warfare". At the same time, ample evidence "confirms that the US has built an extensive arsenal of biological weapons (in blatant violation) of international laws and covenants". It was enlarged in the 1980s and 1990s but significantly expanded under George Bush on the pretext of being strictly "defensive" and to "curb the use of germ warfare by 'rogue states.' " On October 29 2002, the London Guardian reported that "Respected scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned that the US is (illegally) developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare" - ironically at the same time it accused Iraq of these same type violations. University of Bradford international security professor Malcolm Dando and University of California microbiology lecturer Mark Wheelis accused the Bush administration of "encouraging a breakdown in arms control" treaties by secretly conducting these programs. Dando said they include: -- developing a cluster bomb to disperse bioweapons; -- building a bioweapons plant from commercially available materials to prove "terrorists" can do it; -- genetically engineering a more potent anthrax strain; -- producing dried and weaponized anthrax spores in quantities far larger than for research; -- researching and producing hallucinogenic weapons such as BZ gas; and -- developing "non-lethal" weapons similar to the gas Russia used to end the 2002 Moscow theater siege that killed around 170 people and injured hundreds. In February 2008, the Sunshine Project suspended operations, but its website is still accessible. It was an NGO dedicated to banning and "avert(ing) the dangers of" bioweapons. In 2001, it accused the Bush administration of advancing "a plan to undermine international controls on biological weapons". On May 8 2002, it issued a press release titled "US Armed Forces Push for Offensive Biological Weapons Development - genetically engineered microbes that attack items such as fuel, plastics and asphalt" in violation of international law. The proposals date from 1997 and involve the (Washington, DC) Naval Research Laboratory and the (Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas) Armstrong Laboratory. They come at a time when the US rejected "legally-binding" UN inspections of "suspected" facilities producing weapons "explicitly for offense". Additional documents have been suppressed and those known "are probably only the tip of the iceberg ... The National Academies are also concealing related documents. After the Sunshine Project requested copies ... on March 12 2002, (they) placed a 'security hold' on the public file" without explanation. "The research proposed by the Air Force and Navy raises serious legal questions. Under the (1989) US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, development of biological weapons, including those that attack materials, is subject to federal criminal and civil penalties". It also prohibits development, acquisition and stockpiling of agents intended as bioweapons. On May 21 2004, AP reported that arms control advocates warned the Bush administration that "proposed research for a new (Fort Detrick) Homeland Security center may violate an international ban on biological weapons and encourage other countries to follow". Experts said proposals for the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) flout bioweapons prohibitions by crossing the line between "defensive" research and banned weapons development. On July 31 2007 the London Guardian reported that the US is "Building (a) Treaty-Breaching Germ War Defence Centre" near Washington, DC" - NBACC. It's to be completed in 2008 and will be a "vast germ warfare laboratory intended to help protect the US against an attack with biological weapons, but critics say the laboratory's work will violate international law and its extreme secrecy will exacerbate a biological arms race (by) accelerat(ing) work on similar facilities around the world". It will house "heavily guarded and hermetically sealed chambers ... to produce and stockpile the world's most lethal bacteria and viruses" - forbidden by the 1972 BWC and 1989 US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act. The Fort Detrick facility will be used for the new 160,000 square foot lab, and it's authorization coincided with the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, and along with 9/11, unleashed everything that followed. DHS calls Fort Detrick the home of "The National Interagency Biodefense Campus". Besides NBACC, other agencies there include: -- the Health and Human Services' (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); -- the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research Unit (FDWSRU); and -- the Department of Defense's US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). DHS says USAMRIID "conduct(s) basic and applied research on biological threats (to provide) cutting-edge medical research for the warfighter against biological threats". International law and bioweapons expert, Francis Boyle, disagrees. He says the "program constitutes clear violations of the international (1972 BWC) arms control treaty ... ratified by the United States in 1975". He also cites BWC's preamble that states in part: " ... Parties to this Convention (are) Determined to act with a view to achieving effective progress towards general and complete disarmament, including the prohibition and elimination of all types of weapons of mass destruction, and convinced that the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons and their elimination, through effective measures, will facilitate the achievement of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control ..." The BWC goes on to say that use of these weapons are so "repugnant to the conscience of mankind ... that no effort should be spared to minimize this risk". In Boyle's view, Fort Detrick's NBACC and USAMRIID heighten risks because their work involves: "acquiring, growing, modifying, storing, packaging and dispersing classical, emerging and genetically engineered pathogens". This work is an "unmistakable hallmark of an offensive weapons program" in violation of the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act that he authored. Even worse according to Edward Hammond, former director of the Sunshine Project: Recreating the deadly 1918 "Spanish flu" germ that killed an estimated forty million worldwide (or other dangerous pathogens) increases "the possibility of (a) man-made disaster, either accidental or deliberate ... for the entire world". If a single viral particle or cell escapes or is unleashed, an enormous outbreak may result with potentially catastrophic consequences. The Fort Detrick plan derives from a Bush Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-10) written April 28 2004. It states: "Among our many initiatives we are continuing to develop more forward-looking analyses, to include Red Teaming efforts, to understand new scientific trends that may be exploited by our adversaries to develop biological weapons and to help position intelligence collectors ahead of the problem". Boyle calls it "a smoking gun" aimed at the BWC. "Red Teaming means that we actually have people out there on a Red Team plotting, planning, scheming and conspiring how to use biowarfare" and sooner or later will unleash it using living organisms for military purposes. They may be viral, bacterial, fungal, or other forms that can spread over a vast terrain by wind, water, insect, animal, or humans, according to Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Biotech Century (1999). Rifkin also asserts it's "impossible to distinguish between defensive and offensive research in the field", and given this administration's penchant for lying and secrecy, other nations will be justifiably suspicious. The Bush administration proceeded anyway. Since 9/11, it spent or allocated around $50 billion on bioweapons development through eleven federal departments and agencies, including DOD and DHS. For FY 2009, it wants an additional $8.1 billion or $2.5 billion more than in FY2008. It calls its program preventive and defensive and cites Project BioShield as an example. It became law in July 2004 as a ten year program to develop countermeasures to biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents. It was, in fact, a gift to companies like Gilead Sciences, the company Donald Rumsfeld led as chairman from 1997 to 2001 (and remains a major shareholder) until he left to become George Bush's Defense Secretary. It would have also required every American to be vaccinated under the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005. It passed the Senate but not the House and would have, under a public emergency, allowed experimental or approved drugs to be used with insufficient knowledge of their safety - in violation of the Nuremburg Code on medical experimentation. It also would have immunized companies from liability and denied those harmed the right to sue. Private Bioweapons Labs Cashing In According to the Sunshine Project, "scores of US universities and biotechnology companies (since 2001) have benefitted handsomely from billions of dollars in 'biodefense' cash. Across the country, 'biodefense' labs are sprouting up like weeds. The unrelenting spigot of federal money (has) thousands of scientists and technicians" doing bioweapons research on some of the deadliest pathogens. But the problem is much greater than that: -- projects underway are illegal; -- immense secrecy enshrouds them; and -- federal oversight is so lax that NIH safety guidelines aren't enforced and CDC poorly identifies problems it should address; as a result, "accidents are popping up everywhere" amidst a "pervasive cover-up culture" that hides them - in direct violation of federal rules and responsible practice that: (1) require government agencies to protect the public from dangerous pathogens, and (2) obligate research labs to disclose the nature of their work; failure to do so suggests alleged biodefense research is, in fact, cover for offensive biowarfare programs to complement Fort Detrick and other government site efforts. The Sunshine Project believes about 400 private bioweapons labs now operate around the country with no public disclosure of their activities - and plenty of reasons to worry Francis Boyle that the Bush administration is up to mischief. It "sabotaged the Verification Protocol for the BWC (and) fully intend(s) to (engage in) research, development and testing of illegal and criminal offensive biowarfare programs". That prospect should frighten everyone. Reporter Sherwood Ross for sure. He calls the administration's project "the costliest, most grandiose research scheme ever attempted (with) germ warfare capability ... going forward under President Bush and in defiance of" US and international laws. Far worse, where once "germ warfare was an isolated happenstance, (today's efforts elevate it) to an instrument of (deadly and loathsome) policy. Other Recent Developments On February 21 2008, the Sidney Morning Herald reported that the Bush administration rejected claims made by Indonesian Health Minister, Siti Fadilah Supari, in her book titled: "It Is Time for the World to Change! God's Hand Behind Bird Flu Virus". She questions whether the US is using bird flu samples collected from developing nations to develop biological weapons, not new vaccines as claimed. On July 20 2008, the Jakarta Post reported: "If there were a "National Darling Award" contest ... Supari would probably win it. (Her) supporters praise her as a great third world heroine who dares challenge the global structure of injustice and inequality perpetrated by powerful states (like the US) and networks of international institutions. Most of the praise is based on opinions" from her new book mentioned above. She claims the US is transferring virus samples to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It's one of two US nuclear weapons labs that will operate new biological research facilities capable of researching and developing dangerous pathogens in violation of the BWC and US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. California-based Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is the other one. On January 25, it began operating a new Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) lab. In August, Los Alamos is scheduled to complete a federally mandated environmental study for a similar lab to begin operations shortly thereafter. Given the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy, Supari's accusations may be justified. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) establishes biosafety classifications. BLS-4 ones, like for Ebola, are the most dangerous, in part, because no known cures exist. Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore currently operate BLS-2 labs. They'll now have BLS-3 ones to study infectious agents able to cause serious or fatal illnesses if inhaled. But there's no way to know if both labs, Fort Detrick, others like the former Edgewood Arsenal (now the Edgewood Area at the Aberdeen Proving Ground), Oak Ridge Ridge National Laboratory, and still more we don't know about will secretly research any type pathogens, including the most dangerous ones, for any purpose - offense or defense. What is known is that government labs will study pathogens posing serious public health and safety threats. Ones like anthrax, botulism, brucellosis, plague, Rickettsia, tularemia, Avian influenza, H5N1 (the recent strain reported and called the most dangerous), and valley fever plus whatever others are planned but kept secret. Most important is this. These labs conduct weapons research, so they'll likely focus on bioweapons and not follow BWC "prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes" guidelines. For example, vaccines and potential biological weapons defenses may, in fact, be for offense. Distinguishing between the two is impossible so other nations and figures like Supari are suspicious. They're not comforted by Lawrence Livermore's Lynda Seaver. On February 12, she told Arms Control Today that the US is "a signatory to the Biowarfare Convention and does not conduct bioweapons research". She also said most work there will be unclassified. On February 15, however, a CDC spokesperson suggested otherwise and informed Arms Control Today that Lawrence Livermore security restrictions are tight as they are at Los Alamos, Fort Detrick and other US weapons research facilities. They bar transparency and place strict limits on sharing select agents research to prevent other nations from knowing it exists or its purpose. Further, later this year DHS will complete construction of the new Fort Detrick lab (NBACC), and a new $500 million animal research facility is planned. Both will have BLS-3 and 4 capabilities. They'll work on the most dangerous known pathogens and conduct controversial type threat assessment research - to develop and produce new biological weapons and develop defenses against them. Once again, differentiating between offense and defense is impossible, and given their penchant for deception and secrecy, no one takes Bush administration officials at their word nor should they. Francis Boyle's "Biowarfare and Terrorism" Boyle drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act and covers it in his 2006 book. It's now codified in Title 18 of the US Code, sections 175 - 178 and was the implementing legislation for the landmark 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). MIT molecular biology professor Jonathan King wrote this about the book in its forward: It "outlines how and why the United States government initiated, sustained and then dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms buildup ... Boyle reveals how the new (multi-) billion-dollar US Chemical and Biological Defense Program has been reoriented (endorsing "first strike" CBW use in war) to accord with the Neo-Conservative pre-emptive strike agenda - this time by (illegal) biological and chemical warfare". This "represent(s) a significant emerging danger to our population (and) threaten(s) international relations among nations". These programs "are always called defensive (but) with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely". "Boyle (also) sheds new light on the motives for the (2001) anthrax attacks, the media black hole of silence (about them), and why the FBI may never apprehended the perpetrators of this seminal crime of the 21st century". They killed five people, injured seventeen others, and temporarily shut down Congress, the Supreme Court, and other federal operations. Army scientist Dr Steven Hatfill was unfairly implicated as a "person of interest" but was never charged. He sued the Justice Department and in June was awarded $2.8 million and a $150,000 annuity for violating his privacy, leaking false and inflammatory information, costing him his job and reputation, and blasting his name all over the media for days. It was the beginning of the frightening events that followed. Boyle is currently a leading proponent of an effort to impeach George Bush, Dick Cheney and other high-level administration figures for their crimes of war, against humanity and other grievous violations of domestic and international law. In his "Biowarfare and Terrorism", he sounds an alarm about the administration's bioweapons program and what it means for humanity. He fears "a catastrophic biowarfare or bioterrorist incident or accident (is) a statistical certainty". It highlights enormous new risks plus other frightening ones like the possibility of nuclear war and catastrophic fallout from it. That, permanent wars, a potential Andromeda Strain, police state justice, and destroying the republic are but five among other threats since the advent of George Bush and his roguish team. In Biowarfare and Terrorism (?Clarity Press, 2005), Boyle addresses the bioweapons threat as an expert on the subject and gives readers an historical perspective. He asserts that the US government dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms development, production, and buildup that endangers all humanity with its potential. It's part of an extremist agenda for unchallengeable power and right to unleash "proactive" wars with the most aggressive weapons in its arsensal - nuclear, chemical, biological, others, space-based ones, and new ones in development. Since World War II, America has actively developed, tested, and used terror weapons, including biological ones. Even after Nixon ended the nation's biowarfare programs, they never stopped. The CIA remained active through a loophole in the law, then the Reagan administration reactivated what Nixon slowed down. It acted much like the current regime with many of the same officials espousing similar extremist views - that America must exploit its technological superiority and not let laws, norms, or the greater good deter them. The Bush administration raised the stakes and threatens all humanity. Boyle believes it used 9/11 and the anthrax attacks to stampede Congress and the public into aggressive wars and a menu of repressive laws. He also thinks the FBI knows who's behind the anthrax attacks: criminal US government elements planning a police state and another frightening enterprise - to fight and win a future biowar. A possible nuclear one as well. Boyle sounds the alarm about what may lie ahead and its potential consequences. In October 2003, the National Academy of Sciences did as well. It warned about the "misuse of tools, technology, or knowledge base of (bioweapons) research for offensive military or terrorist purposes". That's the present risk. It makes everyone unwitting subjects of a recklessly endangering experiment. _____ Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11 AM to 1 PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman280708.htm TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Aug 13 10:11:35 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:11:35 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The NATO Occupation and Fundamentalism: An Interview with Miriam of RAWA References: <48A2F88E.1020900@killingtrain.com> Message-ID: <3524379D-FB47-4B5B-840A-F98AAF7BE64C@shaw.ca> http://www.killingtrain.com/node/643 The NATO Occupation and Fundamentalism: An Interview with Miriam of RAWA Justin Podur August 13/08 ISLAMABAD ? The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) is a women's organization that runs underground schools and other projects, educates Afghan girls, runs a periodic journal, and agitates politically for women's rights, human rights, secularism, and social justice in Afghanistan. From the 1979 Soviet invasion through to the 2006 closings of the camps, millions of Afghan refugees lived in Pakistan and many still do. While RAWA's operations were always based primarily in Afghanistan, they have also had a strong presence in the Pakistan refugee community. I spoke to Mariam from RAWA in Islamabad when I was there in July 2008. JUSTIN PODUR (JP): To begin, perhaps you could introduce readers to RAWA and its work in Afghanistan and Pakistan. MARIAM (RAWA): RAWA was begun in 1977 in Kabul as an organization of Afghan women for human rights and women's equality. After the Soviet invasion, some RAWA members were imprisoned in Kabul, and as a huge number of refugees fled to Pakistan, RAWA also shifted its focus somewhat, and began to work with refugee women and children in Peshawar (the capital city of the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan, close to the Afghan border). We began providing humanitarian services and some social assistance, through which we also tried to educate Afghan women of their rights. We continued our political activities, but because of the security situation in Afghanistan it was not easy. We continued to work underground in some Afghan cities. When the Soviet occupation was followed by the fundamentalists? bloody rule and later the Taliban regime, we continued to work both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We ran literacy programs, orphanages and schools in Afghanistan, but a lot of our public, political statements were made from Pakistan. We publish a political magazine called Payam- e-Zan (Women?s Message). Today under the NATO occupation and after the closing of the refugee camps, we do the political part mostly from Afghanistan as well, but much of our work is still semi-underground due to grave security risks. JP: Can you say something about how RAWA is organized, how you 'recruit', where RAWA's leaders are drawn from? RAWA: Through our literacy programs, orphanages, and schools, RAWA has had contact with many girls over the past 15-20 years. There is a deep difference between the life of women in Afghan society who have lived through war, the Taliban, and the fundamentalists, in normal domestic life, and those girls that have been basically raised by or worked with RAWA. The latter have different vision, ideas, and mentality; they are aware of their rights and know that they must fight to achieve it. Some of them continue to work for RAWA after they are grown up. Some are adult women when they get involved and their whole families get involved. Some young girls and boys get involved. Others are involved who don't yet read and write but become attached to RAWA, especially in rural areas, where RAWA members live and work and are part of the community with the people. JP: And what is the situation of Afghan refugees in Pakistan today? RAWA: In general, Pakistan has been better to Afghan refugees compared to Iran or other neighboring countries. There have been some limits. The life in refugee camps was very hard and with very basic resources. The majority of the camps were under the control of fundamentalist parties who imposed their restrictions on the refugees. Work for democratic-minded groups such as RAWA was very hard and risky. Many Afghan freedom-loving individuals were assassinated by Jehadi groups with the help of Pakistani ISI. Meena, RAWA?s founder, was one of them. But despite all the problems, RAWA had its presence in some of the camps and we were running a refugee camp in suburbs of Peshawar for over two decades until it was finally forcibly evacuated by the Pakistan government some months ago. In 2001-2002, after the US invasion and occupation, large numbers of Afghans went back. The Peshawar refugee communities were basically emptied, but due to bad conditions, returning to Afghanistan is still an unattractive option for many refugees. When the government decided to close some refugee camps in 2006, it had a huge effect. Most of the refugees were forced to leave, even though they had lost everything in Afghanistan: they had no jobs, no shelter, nothing to go back to. And in fact no one knows what happened to them. Those families who have returned to Afghanistan are very disappointed with the lack of any job and facilities in Afghanistan, and many came back to seek refuge to Pakistan for the second time. Today according to the UNHCR, refugees are coming back to Pakistan and they are trying to find places in the cities. When there is any tension between the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments, the Afghan refugees who suffer the most. Pakistan puts pressure on refugees to return to Afghanistan. But the people in the border areas are the same people ? they share language, culture, clothing, tradition. After thirty years, too, many refugees saw Pakistan as their second country. Afghans know Pakistan supports the Taliban and the fundamentalists in Afghanistan, but the political crisis won't weaken the relations of the people across the border. JP: Perhaps we could complete the introduction with a bit of your analysis of the political and military situation in Afghanistan. RAWA: It is a complicated situation. We have NATO's occupation and the interference of neighbors, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Russia etc. all of whom have supported different fundamentalist groups in recent years. The Taliban control some areas and in recent months even reached the borders of Kabul. They are being supported by some circles in Pakistan. Even the Iranian regime sends arms and ammunition to the Taliban. Afghan civilians are the prime victims of Taliban brutalities, again, including their suicide bombings. The brothers-in- creed of the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, are in power today and generously supported by the US government. Much of the northern part of Afghanistan is ruled by the local warlords of the northern alliance. The government of Hamid Karzai has no tangible control there. The Taliban and other Islamic movements are the enemy of the Afghan people. And their strength is supported by the US and the West. The support the fundamentalists get from outside makes it difficult for the Afghan people to resist them. On the other hand the US/NATO play a Tom and Jerry game with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, while ordinary Afghans severely suffer from the impact of their blind bombardments and we witness awful tragedies of civilian casualties on a daily basis. JP: You have described all of these Islamic political movements as enemies of the people, whether they are supported by the West or fighting NATO. I have heard the argument here that Pakistan and Afghanistan are deeply religious countries, and any political movement has to contend with that fact. As a consequence, I have heard that groups like RAWA isolate themselves because of their uncompromising stand on secularism and religion. Do you find that your secularism makes you unpopular? RAWA: That is the impression the Western media give of Afghan society. Maybe it is true from their eye. We Afghans have lived through it. How it expresses itself depends on many factors, including social, cultural, and economic factors. We have worked in some of what would be called the most 'backward' areas, very religious, without much recognition of women's rights. But after some time, and sometimes it is quite quickly, over weeks or months, they come to like what we are doing and even get involved, even whole families. We have seen this in some areas. So I do not agree that the country as a whole couldn't accept democratic rights or secular values. It needs time and work to build social and political awareness, and in recent years people have not had that opportunity. The brand of Islam the fundamentalists present is different from that of common Afghan people. Their Islam is a political Islam and each party has their own brand, which contradict each other. The Islam of Mullah Omar is different from the Islam of Burhanuddin Rabbani or Rasul Sayyaf, and these groups have been at war for years although they all pretend to be true Muslims. The fundamentalist groups have committed unprecedented crimes under the name of Islam over the past two decades. Today Afghans are so fed up with them that majority of Afghans support any voice raised against the fundamentalists. When Malalai Joya spoke against them for only 2 minutes in the Loya Jirga, her voice was soon echoed and supported by millions of Afghan across the country and she was called a heroine and voice of the voiceless. The fundamentalists impose their domination with the help of their weapons, foreign masters and money. Without these, they have no footing in Afghan society. JP: Is the NATO' occupation helping or harming Afghanistan? Can it be used somehow to strengthen progressive forces? Is it holding back a Taliban victory which would be worse than the current situation? RAWA: Seven years ago when the US invaded, the situation was different. Many Afghans appreciated their presence and were happy to get rid of the Taliban's oppressive rule. They thought ? the Taliban had been eliminated, the international community worked, they were promised a better life, democracy and freedom and an end to the fundamentalist groups. Within months, it was clear that the US government still continues its wrong policy of supporting the fundamentalists in Afghanistan. We saw that the US rely on the fundamentalists of the Northern Alliance to fight another fundamentalist band ? the Taliban. It doesn't matter if they fight the Taliban or ?terrorism?, they are supporting the Northern Alliance, and for Afghans both are the same ? both are terrorists and fundamentalists, supported by foreign governments, whether by the West, or Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia or any other country. They violate human rights, they abuse women, they commit corruption and fraud and smuggling, as we have documented. From the beginning, RAWA announced that the US and the West have their own reasons for being here and it is not for the freedom of the Afghan people. We said that what the US/NATO is doing under the name of democracy is in fact a mockery of democracy. It is clear for us. Today NATO bombings are increasing, more civilians are being killed, and other violations are being done by the US and NATO. And now even they are trying to share power with the Taliban and terrorist party of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. If this plot is realized, it will mean another tragedy for Afghanistan and its people, the unification of all enemies of Afghan people under one umbrella so they could jointly smash the Afghan people and freedom-loving individuals and forces. Under the mafia system and the shadow of gun and warlordism, unfortunately there is no chance for progressive forces to come to the scene and work openly. Any serious and stanch anti-fundamentalist and anti-occupation force still needs to fight underground and they are not supported and encouraged. In fact the US is afraid to see emergence of a powerful progressive movement in Afghanistan. Those who openly criticize the government and warlords face threats, imprisonment and restrictions. We are facing the same problems and risks today which we were faced under the Taliban. The privatization and the free market system imposed on Afghanistan since 2001 is opening the way for neoliberalism in Afghanistan, which is another nightmare for our people. We are feelings its disastrous impact on poor people of Afghanistan. The degree of destitution and poverty in Afghanistan is beyond imagination. The gap between rich and poor is getting wider day by day. Over 70% of Afghan people are living under the poverty line. According to official statistics, 42% are living with only US$10/month. Skyrocketing prices in recent months have made life a torture for the majority of Afghan people. JP: What about the argument that if NATO left, Afghanistan would quickly fall to the Taliban, which would be worse? RAWA: It is true that it might be worse under a Taliban regime. But at least we will not be occupied by a foreign power. Today we have two problems: our own local fundamentalists and a foreign occupier. If NATO left we would have one problem rather than two. RAWA has announced a number of times that neither the US nor any other power wants to release Afghan people from the fetters of the fundamentalists. Afghanistan?s freedom can be achieved by Afghan people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters on the neck of our nation. JP: If NATO left the Taliban would also have a more difficult time portraying themselves as a national liberation movement, an argument they can make and a source of prestige for them so long as the occupation continues. RAWA: Actually both parties depend on each other. If the US were to eliminate the Taliban somehow, they would find themselves with no pretext for being here. But the Taliban and terrorism are only a pretext. They are not honest. They are here for the strategic ends: the central location from which to control Iran, Russia and China, affect Pakistan's government and society, strengthen its grip on the Central Asian Republics and so on. That is why they keep increasing their military presence and building up bases. NATO will probably leave, but the US won't ? they wanted a pretext for being here, and the US will not set aside the golden opportunity. JP: NATO's ?development effort? has involved a lot of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have been involved in providing social services. Is RAWA seen as one of these? RAWA: RAWA never introduces itself as an NGO. It is a political organization for women's rights and human rights. But it does try to meet direct needs and we do run social programs. Actually it is our political stance and activities that hurt our relations with the NGOs and agencies and why we don't get funds from foreign governments. Embassies do not want to give RAWA funds because we are political. This is in contrast to the thousands of recently established NGOs in Afghanistan over the past 6-7 years. It is a good business. You will have some families, with some English and a computer, and they become an NGO with funds, documents, and proposals being produced in their homes. Most NGOs that are larger, or bigger aid agencies, are funded by governments and influenced by those governments. The smaller ones often get involved in fraud and corruption ? they work not for the Afghan people but for their own purposes. Millions of dollars of funds go to NGOs and are wasted in overhead, salaries, office expenses, and so on. They collect huge salaries, they have no long-term projects, they spend huge amounts for security expenses and vehicles. NGO-ism is a policy exercised by the West in Afghanistan; it is not the wish of the Afghan people. The NGO is a good tool to divert people and especially intellectuals from struggle against occupation. NGOs defuse political anger and turn people into dependent beggars. In Afghanistan people say, the US pushed us from Talibanism to NGO-ism! JP: Your political stance means governments don't want to give you money. Do you have any criteria for where you will accept donations? RAWA: The question has not come up since we have not been offered funds from a government. But we will accept unconditional support from any source. We rely on individuals and sometimes, groups of feminists in other countries who support RAWA. We sell our own materials through income-generating projects, carpets, handicrafts, CDs, posters; we do fundraising whenever we go on speaking tours to other countries. That is how we continue. After 9/11 there was some interest in RAWA and we had good funding for 1-2 years. Today Afghanistan has the same problems but we have had to scale back our operations, reduce the numbers of children in our orphanages, and cancel some projects for lack of funding. RAWA is facing a grave financial problems today which affects the scales of our activities. We see a total difference between the Western governments and their people. Most of these people are not in favor of the policies of their government towards Afghanistan. I have heard there is a free media in the US, but also that people do not know much about the outside world or the policies of their governments. RAWA is proud to receive donations from individuals, organizations, and groups not linked to governments, but not from government sources that would put pressure on RAWA. We would rather forego such money and attempts to control us. Even if we face problems, one hundred dollars from individuals gives us courage and lets us know we have support, in a way that thousands of dollars from a government agency would not. JP: These projects RAWA runs, they must be underground as well? RAWA: They are semi-underground but not the way we were under the Taliban. We are able to run education projects, and have meetings and gatherings in Afghanistan. But we are not registered with the government. Even if we were, we know they would try to stop us. We never use the title RAWA for our projects. People mostly know, but officially, we are not registered as RAWA ? all run as private activities, initiatives, run by locals. JP: The primary media source in Afghanistan is the radio. Is it possible for RAWA to get on the radio? What is RAWA's media strategy? RAWA: It is not possible at the moment, partly because of the financial (although some supporters from Italy have suggested they could raise funds for it, in fact), but mainly because of the security problem. But we can use some other techniques to run a radio station if we were provided with the needed funds and equipment. We can run it without any sign of RAWA in it, but still in the current situation, we can?t reflect our points of view as clearly and openly as we do through our web site and magazine, because if we do so, the next day the radio staff will be gunned down by the warlords. JP: I read recently that Afghanistan and Pakistan has a growing number of opium addicts, including women, as a consequence of the war and displacement. Has RAWA come across this in its social service work? RAWA: Out of the estimated 26 million population, over one million are addicted, which include even children and women, and the number are increasing. Many people who are involved in poppy fields gradually become addicted: a mother working in the fields all day with health problems of her own, can't get her child to sleep or stop crying, she might give some to her child. There are many women in prisons today, and large numbers get addicted in prisons. JP: What is RAWA's perspective on drugs? RAWA: We think poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is part of the US regional strategy to control this third biggest global commodity (in cash terms). And it is not a new phenomenon, but has been a project of the CIA's covert operations in the region since the start of the Soviet-Afghan war in 80?s. Today even the US/NATO encourage farmers to cultivate poppies. There are some reports that even the US troops have hand in the drug trafficking and the US government makes billions from the Afghan drug business. The UK military are negotiating deals with the Taliban on drugs, in Helmand. Since 2001 the opium cultivation increased over 4,400%. Under the US/ NATO, Afghanistan became world largest opium producer, which produces 93% of world opium. Those engage in the dirty business reach to the Afghan cabinet and even recently Mr. Karzai was accused by US officials of supporting the drug-dealers. His brother Wali Karzai leads the largest network of drugs in Kandahar. Gen. Daud, head of the counter-narcotics department of the interior ministry, himself is a famous drug-trafficker! Warlords in the Northern Afghanistan each control the route of drug-smuggling to the Central Asian Republics. No one talks about this horrible aspect of the US occupation of Afghanistan. We are now living under a narco-state and drugs has already impacted Afghan people with horrible consequences. JP: As a political organization, what is RAWA's relationship with political parties in Afghanistan? RAWA: We have good relations with some. But unfortunately most political groups, democratic groups, human rights, women's rights, and intellectuals are not active. Thirty years ago there were lots of activities of such groups, and RAWA was just one. After the Soviet invasion and the Northern Alliance, the Taliban and Pakistan, many activists were arrested, assassinated, or made to flee the country. Our founder, Meena, and many others, were killed here in Pakistan, in the killing grounds of the Russian puppets and elsewhere. The past 30 years, the progressive forces of Afghanistan faced many losses and were always under pressure. And today still they are being marginalized or neutralized by the NGO-ism policy. So the most powerful forces on the political scene are fundamentalists or linked to them, representing them, and using their political positions to protect them. Movements of left groups and intellectuals have been greatly weakened. But there are many progressive and freedom- loving individuals around and we have a long way to go and unite them under a unified force. There are some small groups too and we are in touch with them. We have to support each other. There has been some rather small resistance against the US/NATO and warlords in some parts of the country. If the US/NATO occupation and atrocities continue for long, there will be stronger resistance from Afghan people. To donate to RAWA, see the Afghan Women's Mission . RAWA's website is www.rawa.org. Justin Podur is a writer and activist based in Toronto. He was in Pakistan in July 2008. His blog is www.killingtrain.com. From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Aug 13 10:27:26 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:27:26 -0700 Subject: [R-G] A Shattered Myth in Georgia Message-ID: <1F9D9B20-ADF8-4E74-A092-10D2BFCB89C4@shaw.ca> http://counterpunch.org/cooney08132008.html August 13, 2008 "Now America and the EU are Spitting on Us!" A Shattered Myth in Georgia By BRENDAN COONEY The glass shards littering the towns of Georgia are the pieces of a shattered illusion. Surprisingly, there are still people in the world who think that the United States believes in fighting oppression, and that it will put itself on the line to defend democracy and the little guy. At first, the quotes from angry Georgians are startling. Pyotr Bezhov, a man fleeing the violence on Sunday, told a New York Times reporter, "The biggest problem here is you, your country. You said that the Soviets were an evil empire, but it's you that are the empire." Retreating troops spoke not of the brutality of their Russian attackers ? that was expected ? but of their betrayal at the hands of the Americans. "Over the past few years, I lived in a democratic society," Major Georgi, a retreating Georgian soldier, told The New York Times. "I was happy. And now America and the European Union are spitting on us." "Where are our friends?" said another exhausted soldier. Georgia was a country that loved the United States. The road from the airport was named George W. Bush Street. Pictures of Bush hung on the walls of homes. Desperate for allies in its terrorizing war, the United States trained the Georgian military and became its best friend. After Britain, Georgia sent the largest number of troops to support the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Maybe it was folly for the Georgians to believe the United States would put its muscle where its mouth was, but they did believe. Since believing in fictions is part of what makes us human, one can hardly blame East Europeans, who suffered the yoke of Russian rule for so long, for being blinded by pro-United States sentiment. Still, it is sometimes hard to believe that anyone takes seriously the myth that the United States fights for self-determination when it has invaded more countries and killed more civilians than any other nation in the past 50 years. This week Bush said that the Russian offensive was "unacceptable in the 21st century." Does Bush have a different calendar from the rest of us? In what century did his invasions occur? What was the principle under which he finds it unacceptable? That it wasn't bloody enough, or that the occupation is not yet total? That Putin has not yet hanged Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for his alleged crimes? It's a good thing for Putin that Bush has already set the course of the 21st century. Bush's aggression offers him a ready analogy: "Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed ten Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilians alive in their sheds ? these leaders must be taken under protection." None of Putin's charges has yet been confirmed, although scattered reports of Georgian aggression in South Ossetia have started to trickle in. If true, we'll want to know more about what prompted Saakashvili's cockamamie attack. Russian leaders have also suggested Georgia got the green light from the United States, another insinuation yet to be confirmed. It's too early to draw conclusions, but it would be hard to believe Saakashvili got his swagger from anywhere other than his ex-best bud, Bush, who once thrilled thousands of Georgians by jigging to one of their folk songs. As good as Saakashvili's English is, it's not surprising he was unable to see through the fake Texas accent of the paper tiger. When you believe fervently in a myth, you discard anything that contradicts it. You forget that the United States recently smashed the territorial integrity of Afghanistan and Iraq and now wants to do the same in Iran. You might remember that it attacked Iraq in 1991 ostensibly for the sake of Kuwait's territorial integrity. But you forget that it exercises this rationale only with weak countries, never with strong. It allows Chinese abuses in Tibet, and will stand idly by while Russia invades Georgia and massacres people for years in Chechnya. A bully does not stand up to other bullies. Russia knows it can do what it wants on its block while another bully stamps its foot at the other end of the street. It finally makes sense that Georgian anger is the anger of a burst bubble. These people are starting to see that they believed in a myth. "It was just interesting to me that here we are, trying to promote peace and harmony, and we're witnessing a conflict take place," said Bush Monday, while he was still playing grab-ass with the athletes in Beijing. The first sitting U.S. president to attend an Olympics on foreign soil, Bush returned to the White House to deliver the following words with a straight face: "The Russian government must respect Georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty." The Georgians no longer believe. Does anyone? Ah yes, many of us here at home still do. The Times on Sunday published an op-ed by William Kristol describing the "aggressive powers" of the world without even a self-reflexive twitch, not even a nod at the most aggressive power of them all. It's like Parisians used to say about the ugly Eiffel Tower when it first went up?the only time you can't see it is when you're inside it. Brendan Cooney is an anthropologist living in New York City. He can be reached at: itmighthavehappened at yahoo.com From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 13 13:27:40 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:27:40 -0700 Subject: [R-G] A Ruso-Georgian Media War in South Ossetia Message-ID: <200808131927.m7DJReBo004221@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080813/eb40f776/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 13 13:28:33 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:28:33 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Canada plays spoiler on asbestos - Toronto Star Message-ID: <200808131928.m7DJSX8m006918@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080813/36491488/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 13 13:35:08 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:35:08 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Russia no longer content to swallow its bitterness Message-ID: <200808131935.m7DJZ8Wf019009@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080813/729bad4d/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 13 13:46:52 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:46:52 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power - Stratfor Message-ID: <200808131946.m7DJkqcu011119@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080813/55603133/attachment.txt From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Aug 13 14:55:29 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:55:29 -0700 Subject: [R-G] China's Growing Pipeline into Canada Message-ID: China's Growing Pipeline into Canada Cindy Hurst August 11th 2008 Cutting Edge Energy Contributor http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=697&pageid=21&pagename=Energy China?s relentless quest for energy has brought it to the U.S. neighboring country of Canada. Fifteen years ago, China did not import any oil at all. Today, however, the Asian country is the world?s second largest consumer of oil. In 2004, oil imports to China are said to have increased by 37 %, which contributed to soaring oil prices around the world. In 2007, China consumed an average of 7.5 million barrels per day (mbd) of oil. That amount is projected to increase to approximately 13.6 mbd by 2025. That same year, China?s production level is expected to be approximately 3.7 mbd, which will require the country to have a net import of at least 9.9 mbd. The significance of China extending its pursuit of oil into Canada is that Canada has been the number one source of U.S. oil imports for the past decade. According to figures released by the Energy Information Administration, in 2006 Canada produced an average of 3.288 mbd of oil. Of this, an average of just over 2.353 mbd, or 72 % of the oil produced, has been exported to the U.S. Within the past three years, in an effort to increase its own energy security, China has begun flexing its muscles to strike various deals with Canada to win access to some of the most prized oil reserves in North America. In April 2005, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), through its wholly owned subsidiary CNOOC Belgium BVBA, signed an agreement with MEG Energy Corp., a Canada-based company, to buy 16.67% of MEG for $135 million. MEG has the rights to an oil sands lease in a 52-section (32,900 acres) oil sands block that is believed to contain 2 billion barrels of recoverable oil. This acquisition is expected to help pave the way for further investment into Canada?s huge oil sands resources. In another deal, Sinopec has acquired 40 % of the Northern Lights Oil Sands Project in Alberta, where production is expected to begin sometime in 2010. Then, last year China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) won exploration rights for a 260-acre tract in Alberta. China has also been concentrating on creating export routes from Canada. In another business transaction, PetroChina Co. Ltd. and Enbridge Inc., Canada?s number two pipeline company, signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on the development of the Gateway pipeline which is expected to transport approximately 400,000 bpd of oil produced from the Alberta oil sands from Edmonton to a port on the west coast of British Columbia, where it can then be shipped via tanker to China as well as other Asia-Pacific markets and California. China will possibly sign up for as much as half of the pipeline?s capacity of (200,000 bpd), while Enbridge will broker the supply deals between PetroChina and oil sands producers. In 2003, the U.S. bought over 50% of Canada?s oil production, which equates to 1.5 mbd or 553,000,000 barrels for the year. That same year China imported a mere 376,000 barrels the entire year, most likely in one or two small shipments during the winter. Although China?s involvement may seem insignificant thus far, further encroachment into neighboring Canada?s oil supply could potentially cause uneasiness between Canada and the U.S., which have shared a smooth energy relationship since the 1970s. Historically almost all of Canada?s exported oil had been sent via a pipeline heading south. Now China is busy striking up deals with Canadian companies that could ultimately cause it to begin gaining market share. Like any capitalistic business, Canadian firms would not likely reject offers made by the Chinese simply to protect U.S. imports. Additionally, Canada is capitalizing on China?s growth in other areas as well. For example, economic growth in the U.S. has been slowing. As a result of this slowing, the U.S. is not importing as much from Canada. This would have a negative impact on the Canadian economy if it weren?t for China offsetting this with its purchases of metallic minerals, machinery and electrical equipment exports. While exports to the U.S., which account for 64 % of Canada?s exports, drop in areas such as the forestry sector, China is picking up the slack in other areas. In April 2005, the Canadian government released its International Policy Statement which stated, ?Internationally, we will secure and enhance Canada?s place in the U.S. market, anchoring our position in a globally competitive North American economy, and further develop our trade and investment links with new economic powerhouses such as China, India and Brazil.? With a newfound interest in expanding its economic reach to further its exports, coupled with the slowing economies of the U.S. and Japan, Canada could easily feel justified in increasing its oil supplies to China. Should China become aggressive enough, it would be plausible to cause the U.S. to lose part of its market share. This is not likely to happen any time soon, however. There are a number of hurdles China first needs to overcome. Long-term contracts to sell oil to the Chinese need to be signed. Supply deals with other potential shippers need to be signed. Canada must figure out which port will best support supertankers. Canada currently prohibits oil-tanker traffic along most of its Western Coast, which could pose a problem to China. Finally, Chinese refineries are better suited for handling Middle-Eastern crude than Canadian crude. If China hopes to diversify its oil sources, this will have to change. Cindy Hurst is a political-military research analyst with the Foreign Military Studies Office. She is also a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy Reserve. This article was adapted from a report for the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security www.iags.org. The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Aug 13 15:08:55 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:08:55 -0700 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Soros=92_double-dealing_in_the_Caucasus_oi?= =?windows-1252?q?l_market?= Message-ID: <0B1989AE-E478-4925-95EC-AB67F1764A92@shaw.ca> Soros? double-dealing in the Caucasus oil market By Wayne Madsen Online Journal Contributing Writer http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3614.shtml Aug 13, 2008, 00:18 (WMR) -- WMR has learned details of so-called ?progressive? cause donor George Soros in the underlying turmoil between Russia and Georgia in the Caucasus. In 1994, Soros set up shop in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, to engineer what would become known as the ?Rose Revolution,? carried out ten years later. Soros? Open Society Institute (OSI) jointly pumped tons of money into programs designed to propel Georgia?s neocon president, Mikheil Saakashvili, to power in a November 2003 coup that toppled Georgia?s President Eduard Shevardnadze, the last Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, from power. The OSI money was mostly spent on training neocon political operatives loyal to Saakashvili and his party and influencing the Georgian media. Media manipulation is a favorite tactic of Soros, one that he has used effectively to curb the power of the American progressive liberal movement. After the Rose Revolution, Soros and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) director Mark Malloch Brown launched the Georgia Development and Reform Fund that was designed to curb corruption in Georgia. However, the fund was actually used to pay increased salaries for employees of the Georgian President?s office and the National Police. The $40 million pumped into the fund was matched dollar-for- dollar between OSI and the UNDP. The salaries for Georgia government apparatchiks and police bought loyalty for Saakashvili and Soros in the country. The Tbilisi daily newspaper, 24 Saati (?24 Hours?), discovered the source of the fund was a Cyprus-registered ?charity? called ?Golden Fleece.? The Development and Reform fund was managed by an old Saakashvili crony, former Deputy Justice Minister Konstantine Kublashvili, who served under then-Justice Minister Saakashvili during the Shevardnadze presidency. Kublashvili told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty?s Georgia Service that there was no ?dirty money? involved in the Golden Fleece charity. However, WMR has learned that was not what was discovered by the ?Georgia shop? at the National Security Agency?s (NSA) Medina Regional Security Operations Center (MRSOC) in San Antonio, Texas. A special and highly secure unit at the MRSOC that monitored financial flows to the region discovered the links between Golden Fleece in Cyprus -- Cyprus is a center for Russian-Israeli mob activities -- and Russian-Israeli oligarchs who were trying to oust Russian President Vladimir Putin from power. After leaving the UN, Malloch Brown became vice chairman of Soros? Quantum Fund, Soros? flagship hedge fund, as well as vice president of Soros? OSI. In 2004, Soros, using his ?Democracy Alliance,? which represented nothing more than a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party by globalist forces represented by Soros and his friends, pooled and bundled campaign contributions for a number of Democratic candidates, earning him the same loyalty that similar bribes bought him in Georgia. Soros reportedly convinced organizations and web sites he funded, including MoveOn.org, DailyKos, Democratic Underground, and others to launch an anti-Halliburton campaign. Halliburton was engaged in the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that pumped oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to the Turkish deep water port at Ceyhan on the Mediterranean coast. The campaign by Soros against Halliburton worked. The firm began divesting itself of its Kellogg, Brown & Root subsidiary in early 2006. As the result of the Soros effort against Halliburton, the company?s stock plummeted from $40 a share to $26 a share. Soros, a longtime hedge fund and currency speculator who profits from crises and financial collapses, bought 2 million shares of Halliburton at its low share price of $26 per share. He then, according to WMR?s financial industry sources, ordered his ?progressive? recipients of funding to ease off on their criticism of Halliburton. The result was that Halliburton shares increased to $50 a share. Soros earned a cool $40 million from his manipulation of the politics and finances surrounding Vice President Dick Cheney?s old firm. Soros? manipulation of the progressive media is highlighted in an article by Michael Barker, a doctoral student at Griffith University in Australia, titled ?The Soros Media ?Empire.?? Soros? role in ?democracy manipulation? is cited in the article: ?The Soros Foundations? most recent annual report shows that Soros still remains a force to be reckoned with among democracy manipulators, as the entire Soros Foundations Network distributed over $400 million worth of grants in 2006.? Saakashvili?s own ties with ?progressive journalists? linked to Soros are highlighted by his friendship with Scott Horton, a journalist with Harper?s. Horton hired Saakashvili in 1994 to work for him at the New York law firm of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler after the Georgian graduated from Columbia Law School. Other Patterson, Belknap et al. alumni include former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and current Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Saakashvili referred to Horton as his ?colleague? at a July 2006 seminar at the neocon citadel, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, DC. In January of this year, Saakashvili won the presidential election amid opposition charges of fraud. Opposition Labor Party officials charged that Saakashvili supporters voted more than once at multiple polling places. The verdict from Florida Democratic Representative Alcee Hastings, an impeached former federal judge, was that he saw no evidence of election fraud. Hastings was heading an election observer delegation from the Organization for Security and Cooperation on Europe (OSCE), an organization that his been co-opted by Soros. In 2006, when Saakashvili?s police arrested opposition leaders, Konstantin Zatulin, an exiled former Georgian security chief and leader of the opposition Justice Party, told Moscow?s Ekho Moskvy radio station that one of those arrested in Georgia was the head of the ?Anti-Soros Movement.? Russia is taking intense heat from not only the neocon media in its reprisal against Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, but also from the usual Soros-funded ?progressive? media outlets, print, broadcast, and web-based. WMR has taken quite a beating over the years from parties funded by Soros. However, we are working on a major initiative that will throw a significant monkey wrench into the manipulation of the media by Soros and his partners-in-crime. Previously published in the Wayne Madsen Report. Copyright ? 2008 WayneMadenReport.com Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and nationally-distributed columnist. He is the editor and publisher of the Wayne Madsen Report. Copyright ? 1998-2007 Online Journal Email Online Journal Editor From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Aug 13 16:23:29 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:23:29 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Airport Gestapo Message-ID: <48A35EE1.1010102@attglobal.net> How Bush's No Fly List is Making Americans Unsafe by Paul Craig Roberts www.counterpunch.org (July 17 2008) The Bush Regime's "terrorist" protection schemes have reached the height of total incompetence and utter absurdity. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, a private organization that defends the US Constitution that inattentive Americans neglect, there are now one million names on the "terrorist" watch list. One of them is that of former Assistant US Attorney General Jim Robinson, whose top security clearances are current. Every time MrRobinson flies away on business, he is delayed by a totally incompetent "terrorist" protection racket that cannot tell a person named Jim Robinson, who served in the highest echelons of the US government, from a Muslim terrorist. What confidence can we have in a regime that is incapable of differentiating an Assistant US Attorney General from a terrorist? Mr Robinson said: "If I were convinced that America is a safer place because I get hassled at the airport, I might put up with it, but I doubt it. I expect my story is similar to hundreds of thousands of people who are on this list and find themselves inconvenienced." "Hundreds of thousands of people" on a watch list that they have no business being on? Yes. "Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes and other 'suspicious characters', with names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape", said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. And this is America, not Nazi Germany? How can Airport "Security" possibly protect anyone when the idiots cannot differentiate a high level American government official from a terrorist? Do you really believe there are one million terrorists and nothing has blown up in the US since September 11 2001 (assuming you believe the government's account of that episode)? How can there possibly be 1,000,000 terrorists and America still be in one piece? If there were 1,000,000 terrorists, America would be in ruins. According to the Bush Regime's line, it only took a handful of terrorists to destroy America's tallest skyscrapers and a section of the Pentagon and to send the President of the United States scurrying to a hiding place. One million terrorists could bring America to its knees, and they wouldn't need to fly on airplanes to accomplish this. What we are witnessing with the one million person "watch list" is bureaucracy run amok. One Million Terrorists makes the danger seem overwhelming. Such overwhelming danger rationalizes the aggressive behavior of the bullies and thugs attracted by the power of confiscating your toothpaste and bottled water and riffling your belongings in your luggage. Show your ID. Take off your shoes. Take off your belt. Take off your jacket. Empty your pockets. Don't complain about being searched without a warrant or you will miss your flight. You might be arrested, handcuffed, kicked and otherwise abused - the fate of many American citizens. The morons who comprise the US government call the "watch list" one of the government's "most effective tools in the fight against terrorism". What an effective tool it is! It cannot tell the difference between Jim Robinson and a Muslim terrorist. The "watch list" has not apprehended a single terrorist, but thousands of American citizens have been inconvenienced and arrested. The ACLU says that "putting a million names on a watch list is a guarantee that the list will do more harm than good by interfering with the travel of innocent people and wasting huge amounts of our limited security resources on bureaucratic wheel-spinning". It is worse than that. What the "watch list" or "no-fly list" is doing is training Americans to submit to warrantless searches, to abandon their constitutional rights, and to submit to humiliation by thugs and bullies. A Gestapo is being trained to have no qualms about searching and intimidating fellow citizens, using any excuse to delay or arrest them. Americans are being taught to use arbitrary power and to submit to arbitrary power. In the false name of "safety from terrorists", Americans are being made the least safe people on earth. _____ Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000). He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts at yahoo.com http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07172008.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Aug 13 16:48:03 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Sh