I find this rather surprising. Maybe this explains why in a recent survey of 15 year olds globally that studied science skills the US scored 29th. Most of the developed world as the article mentions certainly does not share US attitudes. In spite of these attitudes among the majority of Americans the US is still a world player in scientific research. However, Germany under the very unscientific Nazi ideology managed to function quite well for the most part as far as certain types of scientific research were concerned. In the US religion does block certain research to some degree such as that on stem cells.
It is rather weird that only thirty percent of Protestants believe in the theory of evolution whereas more than 40 per cent of Catholics do. The Catholic Church historically has often fought against Darwinism in spite of Teilhard de Chardin. As far as I know only the fundamentalist Protestants are concerned about evolution.
Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin
Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:56pm - .By Ed Stoddard
DALLAS (Reuters Life!) - More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.
It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.
It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have "Intelligent Design" theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution.
The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.
It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.
Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research.
Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory which largely informs how biology and related sciences are approached. While often referred to as evolution it is in fact the 19th century British intellectual's theory of "natural selection."
There are unsurprising differences among religious groups.
"Born-again Christians are more likely to believe in the traditional elements of Christianity than are Catholics or Protestants. For example, 95 percent believe in miracles, compared to 87 percent and 89 percent among Catholics and Protestants," according to the poll.
"On the other hand only 16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants, believe in Darwin's theory of evolution."
What is perhaps surprising is that substantial minorities in America apparently believe in ghosts, UFOs, witches, astrology and reincarnation.
The survey, which has a sampling error of plus or minus two percent, found that 35 percent of the respondents believed in UFOs and 31 percent in witches.
More born-again Christians -- a term which usually refers to evangelical Protestants who place great emphasis on the conversion experience -- believed in witches at 37 percent than mainline Protestants or Catholics, both at 32 percent.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Kyoto framework still best
The Canadian Prime minister, Stephen Harper, has allied himself more closely with the US on many issues than the former Liberal Government. Anderson was in the former government. Although the government signed on to Kyoto it did little and in fact emissions grew. So the former govt. took the moral high ground and then in practice made the environment worse. Stephen Harper blows hot air at very high temperatures and his idea of fairness is to not do anything as long as developing countries such as China and India do not sign on to targets even though as the article points out they certainly have quite legitimate complaints and suspicions about the US and Canada idea of fairness.
Kyoto framework is still best hope for the world
Nov 30, 2007 04:30 AM
David Anderson
The major objective of President George Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Bali Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that begins Monday is to replace the emission reduction Kyoto targets for the developed countries with an agreement that also includes targets for the developing countries.
Unfortunately, by abandoning the Kyoto approach of starting global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions with the developed industrial nations, Bush and Harper make the chances of getting the developing countries to accept emission reduction targets less likely, not more so.
The starting point for the developing countries is their firm and correct understanding that the increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past two centuries overwhelmingly has been caused by the use of fossil fuels in the developed countries of the world.
The global warming problem thus is a problem created by those developed countries, not by them. This belief then leads to the not unreasonable conclusion that if the atmosphere now has a dangerous level of greenhouse gases, then those responsible for those emissions should be the first to step up to the plate and do something about it.
The position of Bush and Harper, by contrast, is not based on that increase in the contamination level of the past two centuries, but rather on the emissions currently occurring. It is not a two-century buildup of the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that they focus on; instead, they talk of the current rate of flow of contaminants into the atmosphere. Thus, the responsibility of the developed nations for the acute nature of the current problem is not, in their view, relevant to the current question of reducing emission levels today.
We have a dialogue of the deaf. Canada and the U.S. are talking of current flows of greenhouse gas emissions, while the developing countries are talking of accumulated stocks of greenhouse gas emissions. As long as each ignores the argument of the other, the likelihood of agreement is nil. One is talking of the contaminated pond, the other of the contaminating stream.
The Kyoto process bridged this gap by introducing a staged approach to emission reductions. The developed countries that ratified (essentially the European Union countries, Japan and Canada under the Chrétien government) agreed that the developed nations of the world should be the first to implement serious reductions. Then, after their good faith in dealing with a problem that they were responsible for had been demonstrated through significant reductions in emissions, discussions would take place on emission reduction programs for developing countries as well.
The key was overcoming the suspicion of developing countries that international greenhouse gas emission reduction programs would be used to hamper the development of their economies and their efforts to provide a better life for their citizens.
An important component of the developing countries' argument was the issue of international fairness. The atmosphere surrounding our world is equally necessary to the survival of each and every one of us. Therefore, fairness dictates that we each have an equal share of this common resource. Why then, they ask, are the per capita emissions of the developed countries so flagrantly in excess of the global averages and why are the developed countries not reducing their per capita emissions to that global average?
The question of equal share of the common global resource was sidelined by the agreement of the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions, as the reduction targets they accepted implicitly recognized the validity of the fairness claim of the developing countries.
Without Kyoto, this fairness or moral question will come once more to the fore. Indeed, the failure to achieve the Kyoto emission reduction targets that we in the developed world committed ourselves to 10 years ago will increase the suspicion of the developing countries that emission targets are not in their interests, and make this issue even more difficult to handle than ever.
The Kyoto Protocol was the result of extremely difficult negotiations, took a very long time, was a compromise, and is by no means perfect. Unfortunately, it was and still is the best the international community, working together, has been able to come up with.
The central problem with Harper's and Bush's proposed changes for a system with emission targets for all countries is that if they return to that starting point and ignore the difficult factors that Kyoto took into account through so many painstaking compromises, they will likely achieve far less in Bali than was achieved at Kyoto. The Kyoto approach, imperfect though it may be, is still the world's best hope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Anderson is director of the Guelph Institute of the Environment at the University of Guelph. He served from 1999 to 2004 as the federal minister responsible for the climate change file, and during that time represented Canada at the international meetings on climate change.
Kyoto framework is still best hope for the world
Nov 30, 2007 04:30 AM
David Anderson
The major objective of President George Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Bali Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that begins Monday is to replace the emission reduction Kyoto targets for the developed countries with an agreement that also includes targets for the developing countries.
Unfortunately, by abandoning the Kyoto approach of starting global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions with the developed industrial nations, Bush and Harper make the chances of getting the developing countries to accept emission reduction targets less likely, not more so.
The starting point for the developing countries is their firm and correct understanding that the increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past two centuries overwhelmingly has been caused by the use of fossil fuels in the developed countries of the world.
The global warming problem thus is a problem created by those developed countries, not by them. This belief then leads to the not unreasonable conclusion that if the atmosphere now has a dangerous level of greenhouse gases, then those responsible for those emissions should be the first to step up to the plate and do something about it.
The position of Bush and Harper, by contrast, is not based on that increase in the contamination level of the past two centuries, but rather on the emissions currently occurring. It is not a two-century buildup of the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that they focus on; instead, they talk of the current rate of flow of contaminants into the atmosphere. Thus, the responsibility of the developed nations for the acute nature of the current problem is not, in their view, relevant to the current question of reducing emission levels today.
We have a dialogue of the deaf. Canada and the U.S. are talking of current flows of greenhouse gas emissions, while the developing countries are talking of accumulated stocks of greenhouse gas emissions. As long as each ignores the argument of the other, the likelihood of agreement is nil. One is talking of the contaminated pond, the other of the contaminating stream.
The Kyoto process bridged this gap by introducing a staged approach to emission reductions. The developed countries that ratified (essentially the European Union countries, Japan and Canada under the Chrétien government) agreed that the developed nations of the world should be the first to implement serious reductions. Then, after their good faith in dealing with a problem that they were responsible for had been demonstrated through significant reductions in emissions, discussions would take place on emission reduction programs for developing countries as well.
The key was overcoming the suspicion of developing countries that international greenhouse gas emission reduction programs would be used to hamper the development of their economies and their efforts to provide a better life for their citizens.
An important component of the developing countries' argument was the issue of international fairness. The atmosphere surrounding our world is equally necessary to the survival of each and every one of us. Therefore, fairness dictates that we each have an equal share of this common resource. Why then, they ask, are the per capita emissions of the developed countries so flagrantly in excess of the global averages and why are the developed countries not reducing their per capita emissions to that global average?
The question of equal share of the common global resource was sidelined by the agreement of the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions, as the reduction targets they accepted implicitly recognized the validity of the fairness claim of the developing countries.
Without Kyoto, this fairness or moral question will come once more to the fore. Indeed, the failure to achieve the Kyoto emission reduction targets that we in the developed world committed ourselves to 10 years ago will increase the suspicion of the developing countries that emission targets are not in their interests, and make this issue even more difficult to handle than ever.
The Kyoto Protocol was the result of extremely difficult negotiations, took a very long time, was a compromise, and is by no means perfect. Unfortunately, it was and still is the best the international community, working together, has been able to come up with.
The central problem with Harper's and Bush's proposed changes for a system with emission targets for all countries is that if they return to that starting point and ignore the difficult factors that Kyoto took into account through so many painstaking compromises, they will likely achieve far less in Bali than was achieved at Kyoto. The Kyoto approach, imperfect though it may be, is still the world's best hope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Anderson is director of the Guelph Institute of the Environment at the University of Guelph. He served from 1999 to 2004 as the federal minister responsible for the climate change file, and during that time represented Canada at the international meetings on climate change.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Coup staged from Luxury Hotel in Manila fizzles out.
Apparently there is quite a bit of unrest within the AFP so perhaps this group thought that they could just call for the armed forces to rise up against Arroyo and their superiors and have some chance of success. However some of these people were already on trail for mutiny. Trillanes and a couple of the military officers involved are more or less experts by now on how to fail at coups. I wonder who pays for repairs to the hotel. Although no one seems to have been hurt I imagine there was considerable property damage.
Botched coup bid in Philippines ends, no casualties
By Karen Lema and Raju Gopalakrishnan
MANILA, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Philippine military and police teams stormed a luxury hotel in Manila on Thursday to end a short-lived coup attempt by a small group of soldiers and others who had called on the army to mutiny.
Government forces fired teargas into the lobby of the Manila Peninsula Hotel and used an armoured personnel carrier (APC) to batter down its glass doors before storming in under cover of repeated bursts of fire in the air.
There were no casualties.
The rebel soldiers, a senator and a handful of priests who had occupied the plush icon in the sprawling city of 12 million people surrendered and were arrested.
"We are going out for the sake of the safety of everybody," their leader Senator Antonio Trillanes earlier told reporters. "For your sake, because we will not live with our conscience if some of you get hurt or get killed in the crossfire. We cannot afford that."
It was the latest in a series of coup attempts to plague the Southeast Asian nation since dictator Ferdinand Marcos was ousted two decades ago.
Thursday's drama attracted hundreds of curious onlookers, but no one voiced any support for those inside the hotel, and there were no reports of unrest within the military. Most of the guests had been evacuated before the assault, but over 100 people, including hotel staff and journalists, were caught in the midst of the action.
Trillanes, who led a failed mutiny in 2003 against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and was elected to the upper house in May, was hauled away in plastic wrist restraints.
Fellow mutineers, including around two dozen soldiers, a priest and a retired bishop, were also arrested along with scores of journalists.
Authorities said the journalists would be freed after identity checks.
"The wrong ways of some does not speak well for the nation or the armed forces and the police," Arroyo said in a brief television address.
"Just like before, we will impose the full force of the law strictly and without favour."
LATEST COUP ATTEMPT
The drama started when Trillanes and some other soldiers walked out of their own trial for the 2003 mutiny, escorted by guards assigned to keep them from escaping.
They marched to the Peninsula Hotel in Manila's Makati financial district and took over the building, calling for the overthrow of Arroyo.
"We have been witness and victims of the kind of ruthlessness this administration is giving to the people. Now, like soldiers we are going to face this," Trillanes told reporters, when asked if he was ready to face fresh charges over this incident.
Journalists trying to do live phone-ins spluttered and covered their faces with handkerchiefs as the tear gas rose from the lobby to higher floors.
Government forces closed down virtually the entire Makati area, and surrounded the Peninsula with troops and trucks. Five armoured personnel carriers were used in the assault on the hotel.
The rebel soldiers, who had earlier stopped people from leaving the hotel lobby as a 3 p.m. (0700 GMT) deadline for them to end their mutiny passed, later relented and let them go.
"I haven't been to bed yet," said Dave Anderson from Anchorage, Alaska, who had flown in overnight to Manila.
"They came and beat on my door and told me to leave by 3 p.m. They told me to take my bags, so here I am sitting in the lobby because I can't go out," he said before being allowed to leave.
Arroyo, deeply unpopular due to long-running corruption allegations, has survived at least two coup plots and three impeachment bids because the jaded middle class is sick of political instability, and she has a huge majority in the lower house.
She has also been buoyed by a strong economy.
The stock market and the peso currency pared earlier gains on the soldiers' actions but the main index still finished up 1.17 percent and has risen nearly 20 percent this year.
The peso is Asia's top performing currency, up 14.80 percent since the start of 2007.
"It hurts the whole country," said Vivian Yuchengco, a director of the Philippine Stock Exchange. "People like that should be thrown in jail."
The government imposed a curfew from midnight to 5 a.m. in Manila and two surrounding regions on Friday, a government holiday. Officials called it a precautionary measure.
Markets were unlikely to be much affected when they reopen on Monday, barring any further unrest, economic analysts said. (Additional reporting by Rosemarie Francisco and Manny Mogato; Editing by Carmel Crimmins and Jerry Norton)
Botched coup bid in Philippines ends, no casualties
By Karen Lema and Raju Gopalakrishnan
MANILA, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Philippine military and police teams stormed a luxury hotel in Manila on Thursday to end a short-lived coup attempt by a small group of soldiers and others who had called on the army to mutiny.
Government forces fired teargas into the lobby of the Manila Peninsula Hotel and used an armoured personnel carrier (APC) to batter down its glass doors before storming in under cover of repeated bursts of fire in the air.
There were no casualties.
The rebel soldiers, a senator and a handful of priests who had occupied the plush icon in the sprawling city of 12 million people surrendered and were arrested.
"We are going out for the sake of the safety of everybody," their leader Senator Antonio Trillanes earlier told reporters. "For your sake, because we will not live with our conscience if some of you get hurt or get killed in the crossfire. We cannot afford that."
It was the latest in a series of coup attempts to plague the Southeast Asian nation since dictator Ferdinand Marcos was ousted two decades ago.
Thursday's drama attracted hundreds of curious onlookers, but no one voiced any support for those inside the hotel, and there were no reports of unrest within the military. Most of the guests had been evacuated before the assault, but over 100 people, including hotel staff and journalists, were caught in the midst of the action.
Trillanes, who led a failed mutiny in 2003 against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and was elected to the upper house in May, was hauled away in plastic wrist restraints.
Fellow mutineers, including around two dozen soldiers, a priest and a retired bishop, were also arrested along with scores of journalists.
Authorities said the journalists would be freed after identity checks.
"The wrong ways of some does not speak well for the nation or the armed forces and the police," Arroyo said in a brief television address.
"Just like before, we will impose the full force of the law strictly and without favour."
LATEST COUP ATTEMPT
The drama started when Trillanes and some other soldiers walked out of their own trial for the 2003 mutiny, escorted by guards assigned to keep them from escaping.
They marched to the Peninsula Hotel in Manila's Makati financial district and took over the building, calling for the overthrow of Arroyo.
"We have been witness and victims of the kind of ruthlessness this administration is giving to the people. Now, like soldiers we are going to face this," Trillanes told reporters, when asked if he was ready to face fresh charges over this incident.
Journalists trying to do live phone-ins spluttered and covered their faces with handkerchiefs as the tear gas rose from the lobby to higher floors.
Government forces closed down virtually the entire Makati area, and surrounded the Peninsula with troops and trucks. Five armoured personnel carriers were used in the assault on the hotel.
The rebel soldiers, who had earlier stopped people from leaving the hotel lobby as a 3 p.m. (0700 GMT) deadline for them to end their mutiny passed, later relented and let them go.
"I haven't been to bed yet," said Dave Anderson from Anchorage, Alaska, who had flown in overnight to Manila.
"They came and beat on my door and told me to leave by 3 p.m. They told me to take my bags, so here I am sitting in the lobby because I can't go out," he said before being allowed to leave.
Arroyo, deeply unpopular due to long-running corruption allegations, has survived at least two coup plots and three impeachment bids because the jaded middle class is sick of political instability, and she has a huge majority in the lower house.
She has also been buoyed by a strong economy.
The stock market and the peso currency pared earlier gains on the soldiers' actions but the main index still finished up 1.17 percent and has risen nearly 20 percent this year.
The peso
"It hurts the whole country," said Vivian Yuchengco, a director of the Philippine Stock Exchange. "People like that should be thrown in jail."
The government imposed a curfew from midnight to 5 a.m. in Manila and two surrounding regions on Friday, a government holiday. Officials called it a precautionary measure.
Markets were unlikely to be much affected when they reopen on Monday, barring any further unrest, economic analysts said. (Additional reporting by Rosemarie Francisco and Manny Mogato; Editing by Carmel Crimmins and Jerry Norton)
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Afghan MPs in mass walk-out
This is from the BBC.
It seems that many of the casualties were the result of guards firing into the crowd. The whole bombing is somewhat of a mystery. The Taliban have denied responsibility. They are usually not shy about accepting responsibility even when the carnage has been rather indiscriminate.
Afghanistan MPs in mass walk-out
Afghanistan's Speaker has led a walk-out of parliament, followed by nearly half the country's deputies.
Yunus Qanuni left the assembly because he said the government of President Hamid Karzai was ignoring parliament.
Many MPs want senior officials in Baghlan province to be suspended after a bombing there earlier this month.
Nearly 80 people were killed in the attack, including six MPs and about 60 children. The government has said it is still investigating the bombing.
Correspondents say much is still unclear about the bombing in Baghlan.
Some reports say many of the victims died from gunshot wounds and appear to have been shot by the MPs' bodyguards.
It seems that many of the casualties were the result of guards firing into the crowd. The whole bombing is somewhat of a mystery. The Taliban have denied responsibility. They are usually not shy about accepting responsibility even when the carnage has been rather indiscriminate.
Afghanistan MPs in mass walk-out
Afghanistan's Speaker has led a walk-out of parliament, followed by nearly half the country's deputies.
Yunus Qanuni left the assembly because he said the government of President Hamid Karzai was ignoring parliament.
Many MPs want senior officials in Baghlan province to be suspended after a bombing there earlier this month.
Nearly 80 people were killed in the attack, including six MPs and about 60 children. The government has said it is still investigating the bombing.
Correspondents say much is still unclear about the bombing in Baghlan.
Some reports say many of the victims died from gunshot wounds and appear to have been shot by the MPs' bodyguards.
Sharif urges Bhutto to boycott vote
It is surprising that Musharraf let Sharif back into Pakistan. I wonder if he was pressured to do this by the US. I am not sure the US would be happy if Sharif actually won. The US would prefer Bhutto. Perhaps there will still be some understanding between Bhutto and Musharraf. Notice that Sharif is the one calling so strongly for re-instatement of the chief justice and others. He is right that the court is now stacked with Musharraf supporters. As with other leaders Sharif is saddled with corruption charges. Before he can run they must be dropped or ignored so he can probably run only if Musharraf thinks it is a good idea! Sharif is wise enough not to be too principled. If Bhutto decides to run he will also in spite of his denouncing of the election. These chaps sound very much like Western politicians.
Sharif urges Bhutto to boycott vote
(AFP)
27 November 2007
LAHORE, Islamabad - Pakistani ex-premier Nawaz Sharif called on Tuesday on rival opposition leader Benazir Bhutto to join his party in boycotting upcoming general elections.
Sharif, who returned home from exile Sunday, said he had been in telephone contact with Bhutto three or four times in the last few days as they consider their strategy against President Pervez Musharraf.
A Bhutto party aide earlier said the two had not spoken.
‘I shall try to convince Benazir Bhutto to boycott the polls,’ Sharif told reporters in his home city of Lahore, in eastern Pakistan, adding that he had already asked her to take a ‘firm stance’ against the vote.
He said Musharraf wanted to rig the January 8 polls in order to secure a sufficient majority in parliament that would indemnify him over his imposition of emergency rule and his sacking of many of the nation’s top judges.
Bhutto and Sharif, both two-time former premiers and now Pakistan’s main opposition leaders, are jockeying for position as they seek to lead a united front against Musharraf.
Sharif will preside a meeting Thursday of a broad coalition of opposition groups to decide whether they should boycott the polls, senior party leader Raja Zafarul Haq said.
Bhutto’s party, however—the largest opposition party in Pakistan—is not part of the alliance and is widely expected to take part in the vote.
Her spokesman Farhatullah Babar said Bhutto sent flowers to Sharif with a message welcoming him home Sunday.
But he said there had been no telephone contact, and that while Bhutto was ready to meet Sharif, nothing had been planned.
‘If they meet they will discuss how to make the elections free and fair or whether they should boycott the vote,’ Babar told AFP.
However a formal electoral alliance is out of the question, and observers believe neither will want to cede electoral advantage to the other.
Sharif has said he would be ready to boycott the elections if there is a consensus to do so—code for saying that if Bhutto takes part, so will he.
He is a religious conservative while Bhutto, a secular leader, is seen by the United States—anxious to preserve Pakistan’s role in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taleban—as pro-Western.
Sharif urges Bhutto to boycott vote
(AFP)
27 November 2007
LAHORE, Islamabad - Pakistani ex-premier Nawaz Sharif called on Tuesday on rival opposition leader Benazir Bhutto to join his party in boycotting upcoming general elections.
Sharif, who returned home from exile Sunday, said he had been in telephone contact with Bhutto three or four times in the last few days as they consider their strategy against President Pervez Musharraf.
A Bhutto party aide earlier said the two had not spoken.
‘I shall try to convince Benazir Bhutto to boycott the polls,’ Sharif told reporters in his home city of Lahore, in eastern Pakistan, adding that he had already asked her to take a ‘firm stance’ against the vote.
He said Musharraf wanted to rig the January 8 polls in order to secure a sufficient majority in parliament that would indemnify him over his imposition of emergency rule and his sacking of many of the nation’s top judges.
Bhutto and Sharif, both two-time former premiers and now Pakistan’s main opposition leaders, are jockeying for position as they seek to lead a united front against Musharraf.
Sharif will preside a meeting Thursday of a broad coalition of opposition groups to decide whether they should boycott the polls, senior party leader Raja Zafarul Haq said.
Bhutto’s party, however—the largest opposition party in Pakistan—is not part of the alliance and is widely expected to take part in the vote.
Her spokesman Farhatullah Babar said Bhutto sent flowers to Sharif with a message welcoming him home Sunday.
But he said there had been no telephone contact, and that while Bhutto was ready to meet Sharif, nothing had been planned.
‘If they meet they will discuss how to make the elections free and fair or whether they should boycott the vote,’ Babar told AFP.
However a formal electoral alliance is out of the question, and observers believe neither will want to cede electoral advantage to the other.
Sharif has said he would be ready to boycott the elections if there is a consensus to do so—code for saying that if Bhutto takes part, so will he.
He is a religious conservative while Bhutto, a secular leader, is seen by the United States—anxious to preserve Pakistan’s role in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taleban—as pro-Western.
Monday, November 26, 2007
New Australian PM signals Iraq pullout.
I don't know why Rudd would be called a Tone Clone. Perhaps it is his Third Way policies modeled after UK labor. However, Rudd will pull out from Iraq and will sign onto Kyoto moves that will hardly please Bush et al. I doubt that Blair is a republican. I expect that he supported the monarchy!! This is from the Times on Line.
New Australian PM signals Iraq pulloutPaul Ham, Sydney
AUSTRALIA’S new prime minister Kevin Rudd will mark his arrival on the international stage by announcing the withdrawal of his country’s combat troops from Iraq and signing the Kyoto treaty on climate change.
Rudd, a republican and former diplomat, swept to power as his Labor party stormed to a landslide victory in yesterday’s elections.
Official figures showed Labor had won more than 53% of the vote, compared with just under 47% for the ruling Liberal coalition of John Howard, who had served four terms as prime minister but lost his seat. Computer projections forecast that Labor would secure 86 seats in the 150-seat lower house of parliament.
Rudd, 50, who has been called a “Tone Clone” for his similarities to Tony Blair on policy, told cheering supporters that the electorate had decided to “write a new page in our nation’s history”.
Howard, who dominated Australia’s political scene for more than a decade, was accused of misreading the mood of voters who wanted change despite a booming economy.
Clearly shaken by the scale of the defeat Howard, 68, told demoralised supporters that he may soon retire. “This is a great democracy and I want to wish Mr Rudd well,” Howard said. “We bequeath to him a nation that is stronger and prouder and more prosperous than it was 11½ years ago.”
While Howard is a monarchist, Rudd favours a plebiscite on the question of whether the Queen should remain head of state. As one of his first acts, Rudd plans to bring home most Australian troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, both deeply unpopular wars.
Gordon Brown telephoned from the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kampala, the Ugandan capital, to congratulate Rudd, who emphasised his determination to reverse Australia’s long-standing resistance to the Kyoto treaty
and told Brown he would work hard to achieve a fresh agreement at an international climate change conference in Bali next month.
Rudd’s deputy prime minister will be Julia Gillard, 46, who emigrated with her parents from Barry, South Glamorgan, 41 years ago.
The daughter of a retired policeman, she trained as a lawyer and first came to public attention as leader of the Australian Union of Students. She is now the most powerful woman in Australian politics.
New Australian PM signals Iraq pulloutPaul Ham, Sydney
AUSTRALIA’S new prime minister Kevin Rudd will mark his arrival on the international stage by announcing the withdrawal of his country’s combat troops from Iraq and signing the Kyoto treaty on climate change.
Rudd, a republican and former diplomat, swept to power as his Labor party stormed to a landslide victory in yesterday’s elections.
Official figures showed Labor had won more than 53% of the vote, compared with just under 47% for the ruling Liberal coalition of John Howard, who had served four terms as prime minister but lost his seat. Computer projections forecast that Labor would secure 86 seats in the 150-seat lower house of parliament.
Rudd, 50, who has been called a “Tone Clone” for his similarities to Tony Blair on policy, told cheering supporters that the electorate had decided to “write a new page in our nation’s history”.
Howard, who dominated Australia’s political scene for more than a decade, was accused of misreading the mood of voters who wanted change despite a booming economy.
Clearly shaken by the scale of the defeat Howard, 68, told demoralised supporters that he may soon retire. “This is a great democracy and I want to wish Mr Rudd well,” Howard said. “We bequeath to him a nation that is stronger and prouder and more prosperous than it was 11½ years ago.”
While Howard is a monarchist, Rudd favours a plebiscite on the question of whether the Queen should remain head of state. As one of his first acts, Rudd plans to bring home most Australian troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, both deeply unpopular wars.
Gordon Brown telephoned from the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Kampala, the Ugandan capital, to congratulate Rudd, who emphasised his determination to reverse Australia’s long-standing resistance to the Kyoto treaty
and told Brown he would work hard to achieve a fresh agreement at an international climate change conference in Bali next month.
Rudd’s deputy prime minister will be Julia Gillard, 46, who emigrated with her parents from Barry, South Glamorgan, 41 years ago.
The daughter of a retired policeman, she trained as a lawyer and first came to public attention as leader of the Australian Union of Students. She is now the most powerful woman in Australian politics.
The Biggest Gas-Guzzler of them All.
There is never a peep about this matter. The US taxpayer seems to worry about the cost of social programs and about fuel consumption of private cars and commercial jets but the huge consumption by the US military doesn't merit a mention.
The Biggest Gas-Guzzler of them All
Sunday, November 25th, 2007 in News, Empire, Military spending, Politics, US Military by Tim Swanson| Comment |
After Al Gore won the Peace Prize I mentioned that he did next to nothing to dismantle or even criticize military intervention during his terms as a senator and Vice President.
Yet, despite his fawning over a government controlled “green” world, neither he nor the rest of the political class have done anything to stymie the worlds largest oil consumer: the Department of Defense.
And unsurprisingly, despite substantially higher oil prices, “the needs” of the military will go undeterred for the foreseeable future.
The Biggest Gas-Guzzler of them All
Sunday, November 25th, 2007 in News, Empire, Military spending, Politics, US Military by Tim Swanson| Comment |
After Al Gore won the Peace Prize I mentioned that he did next to nothing to dismantle or even criticize military intervention during his terms as a senator and Vice President.
Yet, despite his fawning over a government controlled “green” world, neither he nor the rest of the political class have done anything to stymie the worlds largest oil consumer: the Department of Defense.
And unsurprisingly, despite substantially higher oil prices, “the needs” of the military will go undeterred for the foreseeable future.
Lawyers in residential school case make big bucks.
There is no mention of Frank Iacobucci, chair of the Iacobucci Inquiry, who received 2.5 million as fees for his role in the cases. See this site. The lawyers certainly have done well but probably without them the settlement would have been much lower. The payout to the claimants seems to be slower than that to the lawyers!
Ottawa pays $45.6M to lawyers involved in residential school cases
Last Updated: Monday, November 26, 2007 | 9:35 AM CT
CBC News
More than $45 million has recently been paid to residential school lawyers — one of the largest legal bills in Canadian history.
According to federal officials, a government cheque for $45.6 million has been sent to a consortium of lawyers — most of them in Alberta and Ontario — who had been involved in the Indian residential schools class action.
Former students like Roy Sanderson aren't impressed that, in some cases, lawyers are getting paid first.
"That hurts me. Why did they get paid first, get the money first and we never got nothing yet — the survivors, a lot of us," said Sanderson, who went to a residential school in the 1950s.
Over the past two decades, more than 12,000 former students have filed legal claims against the federal government and the churches that ran the schools for much of the 20th century. Many of the claims alleged physical and sexual abuse and said that the schools caused them to lose their language and culture.
Under a $2-billion compensation plan approved earlier this year, every student who went to school is entitled to $10,000 plus an extra $3,000 for each year the student attended.
Sanderson said he didn't benefit much from his education at the school.
"I was stuck in Grade 4 for many, many years for no reason," he said. "They put you in the barns and we used to work. They didn't give you a proper education."
Sanderson is among more than 50,000 former students who have asked for settlement money and are still waiting.
Sanderson's lawyer is Regina-based Tony Merchant, who is not among the group that has been paid. Federal officials said Merchant's legal bill, which will be at least $25 million, is still under dispute.
Ottawa pays $45.6M to lawyers involved in residential school cases
Last Updated: Monday, November 26, 2007 | 9:35 AM CT
CBC News
More than $45 million has recently been paid to residential school lawyers — one of the largest legal bills in Canadian history.
According to federal officials, a government cheque for $45.6 million has been sent to a consortium of lawyers — most of them in Alberta and Ontario — who had been involved in the Indian residential schools class action.
Former students like Roy Sanderson aren't impressed that, in some cases, lawyers are getting paid first.
"That hurts me. Why did they get paid first, get the money first and we never got nothing yet — the survivors, a lot of us," said Sanderson, who went to a residential school in the 1950s.
Over the past two decades, more than 12,000 former students have filed legal claims against the federal government and the churches that ran the schools for much of the 20th century. Many of the claims alleged physical and sexual abuse and said that the schools caused them to lose their language and culture.
Under a $2-billion compensation plan approved earlier this year, every student who went to school is entitled to $10,000 plus an extra $3,000 for each year the student attended.
Sanderson said he didn't benefit much from his education at the school.
"I was stuck in Grade 4 for many, many years for no reason," he said. "They put you in the barns and we used to work. They didn't give you a proper education."
Sanderson is among more than 50,000 former students who have asked for settlement money and are still waiting.
Sanderson's lawyer is Regina-based Tony Merchant, who is not among the group that has been paid. Federal officials said Merchant's legal bill, which will be at least $25 million, is still under dispute.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Oxfam: Too much aid to Afghanistan wasted.
This is from common dreams. From the point of view of corporations that get paid for projects and locals who benefit from a corrupt system the waste is quite profitable. A consultant can make up to 500,000 a year. I was not aware as this article claims that there has been a change in the process of authorising air strikes so that the numbers have gone down. I thought the opposite was the case.
Too Much Aid to Afghanistan Wasted, Oxfam Says
by Jon Hemming
KABUL - Too much aid to Afghanistan is wasted — soaked up in contractors’ profits, spent on expensive expatriate consultants or squandered on small-scale, quick-fix projects, a leading British charity said on Tuesday.
Despite more than $15 billion of aid pumped into Afghanistan since U.S.-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in 2001, many Afghans still suffer levels of poverty rarely seen outside sub-Saharan Africa.
“The development process has to date been too centralised, top-heavy and insufficient,” said a report by Oxfam.
By far the biggest donor, the United States approved a further $6.4 billion in Afghan aid this year, but the funds are spent in ways that are “ineffective or inefficient”, Oxfam said.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocates close to half its funds to the five largest U.S. contractors in Afghanistan.
“Too much aid is absorbed by profits of companies and sub-contractors, on non-Afghan resources and on high expatriate salaries and living costs,” the report said.
A full-time expatriate consultant can cost up to $500,000 a year, Oxfam said.
More money needed to be channelled through the Afghan government, strengthening its influence and institutions.
Aid also needed to be better coordinated to avoid duplication, it said.
Only 10 percent of technical assistance to Afghanistan is coordinated either with the government or among donors.
SECURITY DETERIORATES
Spending on development is dwarfed by that spent on fighting the Taliban. The U.S. military is spending $65,000 a minute in Afghanistan, Oxfam said.
The report called for the 25 provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) run by the armies of 13 different nations across the country to withdraw where the security situation is stable enough and carry out relief work only where there is a critical need.
The PRTs, Oxfam said, “being nation-led are often driven more by available funding or the political interests of the nation involved rather than development considerations”. The result was “a large number of small-scale, short-term projects”.
“Given the historic suspicion of foreign intervention, such efforts to win ‘hearts and minds’ are naive. It is unsurprising that the huge expansion of PRT activities has not prevented the deterioration of security.”
Violent incidents are up at least 20 percent since last year, according to U.N. estimates, and have spread northwards to many areas previously considered safe.
More than 200 civilians have been killed in at least 130 Taliban suicide bombs and at least 1,200 civilians have been killed overall this year — about half of them in operations by Afghan and international troops.
Oxfam called on the 50,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan to take greater care not to hurt civilians, particularly in air strikes. The lower number of troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq — less than a third as many in a much bigger country with a larger population — leads to a greater reliance on air power.
There are four times as many air strikes in Afghanistan as in Iraq, Oxfam said.
The NATO-led force in Afghanistan says it takes every effort to avoid civilian casualties and has already modified procedures for launching air strikes resulting in fewer civilian deaths.
(Editing by Richard Meares)
© 2007 Reuters
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Too Much Aid to Afghanistan Wasted, Oxfam Says
by Jon Hemming
KABUL - Too much aid to Afghanistan is wasted — soaked up in contractors’ profits, spent on expensive expatriate consultants or squandered on small-scale, quick-fix projects, a leading British charity said on Tuesday.
Despite more than $15 billion of aid pumped into Afghanistan since U.S.-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in 2001, many Afghans still suffer levels of poverty rarely seen outside sub-Saharan Africa.
“The development process has to date been too centralised, top-heavy and insufficient,” said a report by Oxfam.
By far the biggest donor, the United States approved a further $6.4 billion in Afghan aid this year, but the funds are spent in ways that are “ineffective or inefficient”, Oxfam said.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocates close to half its funds to the five largest U.S. contractors in Afghanistan.
“Too much aid is absorbed by profits of companies and sub-contractors, on non-Afghan resources and on high expatriate salaries and living costs,” the report said.
A full-time expatriate consultant can cost up to $500,000 a year, Oxfam said.
More money needed to be channelled through the Afghan government, strengthening its influence and institutions.
Aid also needed to be better coordinated to avoid duplication, it said.
Only 10 percent of technical assistance to Afghanistan is coordinated either with the government or among donors.
SECURITY DETERIORATES
Spending on development is dwarfed by that spent on fighting the Taliban. The U.S. military is spending $65,000 a minute in Afghanistan, Oxfam said.
The report called for the 25 provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) run by the armies of 13 different nations across the country to withdraw where the security situation is stable enough and carry out relief work only where there is a critical need.
The PRTs, Oxfam said, “being nation-led are often driven more by available funding or the political interests of the nation involved rather than development considerations”. The result was “a large number of small-scale, short-term projects”.
“Given the historic suspicion of foreign intervention, such efforts to win ‘hearts and minds’ are naive. It is unsurprising that the huge expansion of PRT activities has not prevented the deterioration of security.”
Violent incidents are up at least 20 percent since last year, according to U.N. estimates, and have spread northwards to many areas previously considered safe.
More than 200 civilians have been killed in at least 130 Taliban suicide bombs and at least 1,200 civilians have been killed overall this year — about half of them in operations by Afghan and international troops.
Oxfam called on the 50,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan to take greater care not to hurt civilians, particularly in air strikes. The lower number of troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq — less than a third as many in a much bigger country with a larger population — leads to a greater reliance on air power.
There are four times as many air strikes in Afghanistan as in Iraq, Oxfam said.
The NATO-led force in Afghanistan says it takes every effort to avoid civilian casualties and has already modified procedures for launching air strikes resulting in fewer civilian deaths.
(Editing by Richard Meares)
© 2007 Reuters
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Syria to join US led Middle East Conference.
Syria seems determined to reach out to the US perhaps in the vain hopes that it will help settle the Golan Heights situation. Syria has also helped out considerably in the war on terror being a common destination for suspects rendered for torture in Syria's infamous prisons. There were some rumblings about an alternate meeting with Hamas and others opposed to the Annapolis meeting in Syria but obviously Syria decided it was in its interests to be at the Bush meeting. The Arab peace initiative got nowhere since the US and Israel were unwilling to recognise the coalition government. Now that the Hamas controls Gaza and there is a "new" Palestinian govt. without Hamas the US hopes that some way forward can be found. However, it is doubtful. Neither side is in any position to deliver much but lofty sounding words that are basically hot air.
Syria to join U.S.-led Middle East conference
Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:18 AM EST
By Jeffrey Heller
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Syria said on Sunday it would attend a U.S.-led conference aimed at launching talks to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, giving another boost to U.S. efforts to enlist wide Arab support a new peace drive.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas arrived in Washington two days before the meeting in Annapolis, Maryland. But all sides have played down the prospect of any breakthrough at the conference or afterwards.
Ending weeks of uncertainty, the official Syrian news agency said Syria "has accepted the American invitation and will send an official delegation headed by Deputy Prime Minister Fayssal Mekdad."
A spokeswoman for Olmert welcomed the announcement, calling the decision to send a high-ranking member of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government a positive move.
The spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, said the Israeli-Palestinian track would remain the main focus of the conference, although Syria's participation "could open additional avenues to peace in the Middle East."
Syria, Israel's neighbor to the north and a long-time foe, had insisted the meeting also deal with the future of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, speaking to reporters on Olmert's flight to Washington, said the issue could be raised in a forum at the conference in which "comprehensive peace in the Middle East" would be discussed.
Israel and Syria last held peace negotiations in 2000, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, but could not reach a deal on the Golan, which overlooks the Sea of Galilee, the Jewish state's main reservoir.
ARAB PARTICIPATION
"We consider the Annapolis conference a launching pad for final status negotiations that will lead to the realization
of the Palestinian people's dream of establishing a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital," Abbas aide Nabil Abu Rdainah told Reuters after the Palestinian leader's arrival.
But Abbas has lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas Islamists and Olmert is unpopular with voters, not least due to corruption accusations, and faces opposition to concessions within his coalition. President George W. Bush has little over a year left in power.
In the run-up to the conference, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have so far failed to agree on a joint document on how to proceed with negotiations.
Abu Rdainah said they would meet again in Washington on Sunday and Livni told reporters on Olmert's plane she expected the two sides to agree on a document to "launch the (peace) process, not solve (the conflict)."
The mere attendance at talks with Israel of Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Syria, which have had cold-to-hostile relations with the Jewish state, is likely to be hailed in Israel and Washington as a major achievement at Annapolis.
Livni said the Arab presence boosted chances for success, and that without support from other Arabs, there was not "a single Palestinian" who could reach a deal with Israel.
The prospect of better ties with Arab neighbors could also help Olmert, whose governing coalition includes right-wing partners, sell any deal.
At Annapolis, Israel and the Palestinians are expected to reaffirm commitments under the U.S.-backed "road map" to peace, agreed in 2003.
Israel has made any final deal conditional on Abbas carrying out a commitment to rein in militants. Palestinians demand Israel fulfill its promise under the plan to halt "settlement activity" in the occupied West Bank.
The Annapolis meeting will be held seven years after a summit at Camp David hosted by Bush's predecessor Bill Clinton collapsed and a Palestinian uprising erupted.
Faced with the legacy of an unpopular war in Iraq, the conference will give Bush a chance for diplomatic success in the Middle East -- an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal all sides say they hope to achieve before he leaves office in January 2009.
Olmert told reporters on his plane he hoped Annapolis would launch serious negotiations on "all the core issues that will result in a solution of two states for two peoples."
Non-Arab Iran, which the United States has ostracized for developing nuclear technology, has not been invited.
Iran said on Sunday the conference would erode Palestinian rights. Hamas's armed wing vowed to keep fighting Israel and said any concessions would be tantamount to "treason."
In Jerusalem, Israeli police set up roadblocks to try to avert violence after a security alert. Israeli troops killed three Palestinian gunmen in raids in Gaza and the West Bank.
(Additional reporting by Wafa Amr in Ramallah and Avida Landau in Jerusalem, writing by Rebecca Harrison, editing by David Storey)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
Syria to join U.S.-led Middle East conference
Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:18 AM EST
By Jeffrey Heller
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Syria said on Sunday it would attend a U.S.-led conference aimed at launching talks to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, giving another boost to U.S. efforts to enlist wide Arab support a new peace drive.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas arrived in Washington two days before the meeting in Annapolis, Maryland. But all sides have played down the prospect of any breakthrough at the conference or afterwards.
Ending weeks of uncertainty, the official Syrian news agency said Syria "has accepted the American invitation and will send an official delegation headed by Deputy Prime Minister Fayssal Mekdad."
A spokeswoman for Olmert welcomed the announcement, calling the decision to send a high-ranking member of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government a positive move.
The spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, said the Israeli-Palestinian track would remain the main focus of the conference, although Syria's participation "could open additional avenues to peace in the Middle East."
Syria, Israel's neighbor to the north and a long-time foe, had insisted the meeting also deal with the future of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, speaking to reporters on Olmert's flight to Washington, said the issue could be raised in a forum at the conference in which "comprehensive peace in the Middle East" would be discussed.
Israel and Syria last held peace negotiations in 2000, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, but could not reach a deal on the Golan, which overlooks the Sea of Galilee, the Jewish state's main reservoir.
ARAB PARTICIPATION
"We consider the Annapolis conference a launching pad for final status negotiations that will lead to the realization
of the Palestinian people's dream of establishing a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital," Abbas aide Nabil Abu Rdainah told Reuters after the Palestinian leader's arrival.
But Abbas has lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas Islamists and Olmert is unpopular with voters, not least due to corruption accusations, and faces opposition to concessions within his coalition. President George W. Bush has little over a year left in power.
In the run-up to the conference, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have so far failed to agree on a joint document on how to proceed with negotiations.
Abu Rdainah said they would meet again in Washington on Sunday and Livni told reporters on Olmert's plane she expected the two sides to agree on a document to "launch the (peace) process, not solve (the conflict)."
The mere attendance at talks with Israel of Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Syria, which have had cold-to-hostile relations with the Jewish state, is likely to be hailed in Israel and Washington as a major achievement at Annapolis.
Livni said the Arab presence boosted chances for success, and that without support from other Arabs, there was not "a single Palestinian" who could reach a deal with Israel.
The prospect of better ties with Arab neighbors could also help Olmert, whose governing coalition includes right-wing partners, sell any deal.
At Annapolis, Israel and the Palestinians are expected to reaffirm commitments under the U.S.-backed "road map" to peace, agreed in 2003.
Israel has made any final deal conditional on Abbas carrying out a commitment to rein in militants. Palestinians demand Israel fulfill its promise under the plan to halt "settlement activity" in the occupied West Bank.
The Annapolis meeting will be held seven years after a summit at Camp David hosted by Bush's predecessor Bill Clinton collapsed and a Palestinian uprising erupted.
Faced with the legacy of an unpopular war in Iraq, the conference will give Bush a chance for diplomatic success in the Middle East -- an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal all sides say they hope to achieve before he leaves office in January 2009.
Olmert told reporters on his plane he hoped Annapolis would launch serious negotiations on "all the core issues that will result in a solution of two states for two peoples."
Non-Arab Iran, which the United States has ostracized for developing nuclear technology, has not been invited.
Iran said on Sunday the conference would erode Palestinian rights. Hamas's armed wing vowed to keep fighting Israel and said any concessions would be tantamount to "treason."
In Jerusalem, Israeli police set up roadblocks to try to avert violence after a security alert. Israeli troops killed three Palestinian gunmen in raids in Gaza and the West Bank.
(Additional reporting by Wafa Amr in Ramallah and Avida Landau in Jerusalem, writing by Rebecca Harrison, editing by David Storey)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Australia's PM-elect Rudd vows better global ties
Perhaps Rudd will better ties with some other countries but the US ties may be strained to say the least. Rudd will sign on to Kyoto and withdraw troops from Iraq. Domestically he will have more pro-labor parties. Labor is also in power in the six Australian states.
Australia's PM-elect Rudd vows better global ties
Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 PM EST
By Rob Taylor
BRISBANE (Reuters) - Incoming Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a Mandarin-speaking former diplomat, has pledged closer Australian ties with overseas allies and unity at home after ending 11 years of conservative rule under John Howard.
Rudd, 50, presented himself as a new-generation leader by promising to pull about 500 frontline Australian troops out of Iraq and sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, further isolating Washington on both issues.
"To our friends and allies around the world, I look forward as the next Prime Minister of Australia to working with them in dealing with the great challenges which our world now faces," he told cheering supporters at a victory party late on Saturday.
The surge to Labor left Howard battling to win even his own parliamentary seat, which he has held since 1974. He was in danger of becoming the first prime minister since 1929 to lose his constituency.
As part of Rudd's promised "fresh thinking," he also teamed with a female deputy, former lawyer Julia Gillard, who will be Australia's first woman deputy prime minister.
"King Kevin the new conqueror," said the Sun-Herald newspaper in Howard's home town of Sydney on Sunday. "It's Labor in a Ruddslide," said the national newspaper the Australian.
Up to six government ministers, including Howard, looked likely to be ejected in only the sixth change of government since World War Two. Labor is set to hold up to 86 seats in the 150-seat parliament.
Rudd is expected to forge closer ties with China and other Asian nations and has said he wants a more independent voice in foreign policy, with past Labor governments more supportive of an energetic United Nations and global organizations.
U.S. TIES
But he has also promised to maintain Australia's close alliance with the United States as the cornerstone of Australia's foreign and strategic policy.
"Rudd will have to open negotiations soon with the United States about the withdrawal of Australia's combat troops from Iraq. This is a delicate operation because it will be Labor's first testing of the alliance," veteran political commentator Michelle Grattan wrote in the Sun-Herald.
President George W. Bush congratulated Rudd on his election victory, and praised Howard's leadership.
"The United States and Australia have long been strong partners and allies and the president looks forward to working with this new government to continue our historic relationship," the White House said in a statement.
Rudd promised to sign the Kyoto climate pact immediately and lead his country's delegation to next month's U.N. climate summit in Bali, which is expected to kick-start talks on a post-Kyoto deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions globally.
He also pledged unity at home, vowing to shut down controversial offshore detention of illegal immigrants and to take care of Aborigines in the wake of a conservative intervention to seize control of remote indigenous communities with troops and police.
"I will be a prime minister for all Australians, a prime minister for indigenous Australians, Australians who have been born here and Australians who have come here from afar," he said.
Family Minister Mal Brough, responsible for the Aboriginal intervention to stop rampant sexual abuse of children and "rivers of grog" in remote outback towns, was a high-profile casualty of the Labor win, losing his Queensland seat.
HOSTILE SENATE
But Labor could be frustrated by a hostile upper house. The conservatives will have a Senate majority until July next year, possibly delaying Rudd's agenda and his promise to dump unpopular labor laws which supercharged his victory.
Centre-left Labor will have to negotiate with diverse minor Senate parties including the left-leaning Australian Greens and the conservative, Christian values Family First party.
The election was fought mainly on domestic issues, with Labor cashing in on anger at labor laws and rising interest rates which put home owners under financial pressure at a time when Australia's economy is booming.
The result puts Labor in power nationally and in all of Australia's six states and two territories. The lord mayor of the northern city of Brisbane is now the senior-ranking elected official in Howard's Liberal Party.
Outgoing Foreign Minister Alexander Downer glumly said it had been hard for the conservative government to present itself as fresh and new after more than 11 years, despite 16 years of economic expansion and unemployment at 33-year lows.
"I think at the end of the day, people just thought it was time for a change," Downer told local television on Sunday.
(Additional reporting by James Grubel in Sydney, editing by Roger Crabb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
Australia's PM-elect Rudd vows better global ties
Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 PM EST
By Rob Taylor
BRISBANE (Reuters) - Incoming Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a Mandarin-speaking former diplomat, has pledged closer Australian ties with overseas allies and unity at home after ending 11 years of conservative rule under John Howard.
Rudd, 50, presented himself as a new-generation leader by promising to pull about 500 frontline Australian troops out of Iraq and sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, further isolating Washington on both issues.
"To our friends and allies around the world, I look forward as the next Prime Minister of Australia to working with them in dealing with the great challenges which our world now faces," he told cheering supporters at a victory party late on Saturday.
The surge to Labor left Howard battling to win even his own parliamentary seat, which he has held since 1974. He was in danger of becoming the first prime minister since 1929 to lose his constituency.
As part of Rudd's promised "fresh thinking," he also teamed with a female deputy, former lawyer Julia Gillard, who will be Australia's first woman deputy prime minister.
"King Kevin the new conqueror," said the Sun-Herald newspaper in Howard's home town of Sydney on Sunday. "It's Labor in a Ruddslide," said the national newspaper the Australian.
Up to six government ministers, including Howard, looked likely to be ejected in only the sixth change of government since World War Two. Labor is set to hold up to 86 seats in the 150-seat parliament.
Rudd is expected to forge closer ties with China and other Asian nations and has said he wants a more independent voice in foreign policy, with past Labor governments more supportive of an energetic United Nations and global organizations.
U.S. TIES
But he has also promised to maintain Australia's close alliance with the United States as the cornerstone of Australia's foreign and strategic policy.
"Rudd will have to open negotiations soon with the United States about the withdrawal of Australia's combat troops from Iraq. This is a delicate operation because it will be Labor's first testing of the alliance," veteran political commentator Michelle Grattan wrote in the Sun-Herald.
President George W. Bush congratulated Rudd on his election victory, and praised Howard's leadership.
"The United States and Australia have long been strong partners and allies and the president looks forward to working with this new government to continue our historic relationship," the White House said in a statement.
Rudd promised to sign the Kyoto climate pact immediately and lead his country's delegation to next month's U.N. climate summit in Bali, which is expected to kick-start talks on a post-Kyoto deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions globally.
He also pledged unity at home, vowing to shut down controversial offshore detention of illegal immigrants and to take care of Aborigines in the wake of a conservative intervention to seize control of remote indigenous communities with troops and police.
"I will be a prime minister for all Australians, a prime minister for indigenous Australians, Australians who have been born here and Australians who have come here from afar," he said.
Family Minister Mal Brough, responsible for the Aboriginal intervention to stop rampant sexual abuse of children and "rivers of grog" in remote outback towns, was a high-profile casualty of the Labor win, losing his Queensland seat.
HOSTILE SENATE
But Labor could be frustrated by a hostile upper house. The conservatives will have a Senate majority until July next year, possibly delaying Rudd's agenda and his promise to dump unpopular labor laws which supercharged his victory.
Centre-left Labor will have to negotiate with diverse minor Senate parties including the left-leaning Australian Greens and the conservative, Christian values Family First party.
The election was fought mainly on domestic issues, with Labor cashing in on anger at labor laws and rising interest rates which put home owners under financial pressure at a time when Australia's economy is booming.
The result puts Labor in power nationally and in all of Australia's six states and two territories. The lord mayor of the northern city of Brisbane is now the senior-ranking elected official in Howard's Liberal Party.
Outgoing Foreign Minister Alexander Downer glumly said it had been hard for the conservative government to present itself as fresh and new after more than 11 years, despite 16 years of economic expansion and unemployment at 33-year lows.
"I think at the end of the day, people just thought it was time for a change," Downer told local television on Sunday.
(Additional reporting by James Grubel in Sydney, editing by Roger Crabb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
Middle East Peace Conference Begins in Annapolis
This article points out the many difficulties facing any peace talks. Without Hamas there is little hope of any agreement being honoured but there is not likely to be an agreement in any event. No one mentions any more that Hamas was actually the elected government and that the negotiations are in effect with a rump of parliament that the West finds more acceptable. Anyway most in Israel will not accept a peace agreement acceptable to even Abbas I expect.
Briefing: Middle East peace conference begins in Annapolis
Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State, is said to be serious about solving the conflict. Will she succeed where so many others have failed?
By Donald Macintyre
Published: 25 November 2007
The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has invited all the main Middle East regional players except Iran to Annapolis, Maryland, this week in an effort to get serious peace talks going for the first time in seven years.
How did we get here?
The summit was the one item of news in President George Bush's speech on the Middle East in July, in the wake of the bloody infighting which ended with Hamas's seizure of internal control in Gaza. The idea – crude or not – was that the subsequent outlawing of Hamas by the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, provided a new "opportunity" for negotiations on a two-state solution to the conflict with the emergency, Hamas-free, government Abbas had appointed in the West Bank. And the summit was to kick-start those negotiations.
So are we going to see the framework of a deal on Tuesday?
No. The two sides are unlikely even to engage gears in Annapolis on the big issues which need to be resolved: Jerusalem, borders, and the families of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war. Even if there were to be a joint Israeli-Palestinian statement on Tuesday, it wouldn't be much more than an agreement to talk about the key issues after the conference, in the the hope of some kind of deal being made by the end of the Bush presidency.
And what are the chances of that?
This is certainly the first real push for a deal since the collapse of negotiations at Camp David in 2000 and the bloodshed of the past seven years. But there are huge obstacles. Hamas, which has resisted almost two years of international pressure to recognise Israel, won't be at Annapolis or in any talks that follow. Yet controlling Gaza as it does, and with a substantial if currently subdued presence in the West Bank, it remains a formidable force which would have to be contained if any agreement between Abbas and the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, could be turned into a real peace plan.
So the problem is all on the Palestinian side?
Hardly. Olmert may well believe that talks with Abbas afford a better chance for a two-state solution than anyone who could succeed him. But he is beset by forces who want to prevent him making a deal, let alone implement it: the right-wing parties threatening to walk out of his coalition, the 250,000 Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank who want to stay put, and quite possibly his own, apparently deeply sceptical, Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, who wants to succeed him as Prime Minister.
How can these problems be overcome?
With great difficulty. Much now depends on President Bush, who has shown little interest until recently in solving the conflict; and whether – after the debacle in Iraq and in the face of a possible confrontation with Iran – he now really needs to offer something to his Arab allies. Palestinians who have been in and out of the State Department recently believe Rice is serious, and even that she has the backing of Bush.
Should we be looking for any surprises at Annapolis?
The Syrians could be the ones to watch. Assuming they show up, the US will find it less easy to continue regarding them as associate members of the "Axis of Evil". Given their policies towards Iran, both the US and Israel may have an interest in detaching Damascus from Tehran. Some Israeli analysts argue it would be better to talk first to President Bashir Assad, who might deliver, while Abbas might not. But the question is still whether Olmert would have the political strength to pay the price for Syria's ending support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad: handing back the Golan Heights, seized in 1967.
Briefing: Middle East peace conference begins in Annapolis
Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State, is said to be serious about solving the conflict. Will she succeed where so many others have failed?
By Donald Macintyre
Published: 25 November 2007
The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has invited all the main Middle East regional players except Iran to Annapolis, Maryland, this week in an effort to get serious peace talks going for the first time in seven years.
How did we get here?
The summit was the one item of news in President George Bush's speech on the Middle East in July, in the wake of the bloody infighting which ended with Hamas's seizure of internal control in Gaza. The idea – crude or not – was that the subsequent outlawing of Hamas by the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, provided a new "opportunity" for negotiations on a two-state solution to the conflict with the emergency, Hamas-free, government Abbas had appointed in the West Bank. And the summit was to kick-start those negotiations.
So are we going to see the framework of a deal on Tuesday?
No. The two sides are unlikely even to engage gears in Annapolis on the big issues which need to be resolved: Jerusalem, borders, and the families of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war. Even if there were to be a joint Israeli-Palestinian statement on Tuesday, it wouldn't be much more than an agreement to talk about the key issues after the conference, in the the hope of some kind of deal being made by the end of the Bush presidency.
And what are the chances of that?
This is certainly the first real push for a deal since the collapse of negotiations at Camp David in 2000 and the bloodshed of the past seven years. But there are huge obstacles. Hamas, which has resisted almost two years of international pressure to recognise Israel, won't be at Annapolis or in any talks that follow. Yet controlling Gaza as it does, and with a substantial if currently subdued presence in the West Bank, it remains a formidable force which would have to be contained if any agreement between Abbas and the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, could be turned into a real peace plan.
So the problem is all on the Palestinian side?
Hardly. Olmert may well believe that talks with Abbas afford a better chance for a two-state solution than anyone who could succeed him. But he is beset by forces who want to prevent him making a deal, let alone implement it: the right-wing parties threatening to walk out of his coalition, the 250,000 Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank who want to stay put, and quite possibly his own, apparently deeply sceptical, Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, who wants to succeed him as Prime Minister.
How can these problems be overcome?
With great difficulty. Much now depends on President Bush, who has shown little interest until recently in solving the conflict; and whether – after the debacle in Iraq and in the face of a possible confrontation with Iran – he now really needs to offer something to his Arab allies. Palestinians who have been in and out of the State Department recently believe Rice is serious, and even that she has the backing of Bush.
Should we be looking for any surprises at Annapolis?
The Syrians could be the ones to watch. Assuming they show up, the US will find it less easy to continue regarding them as associate members of the "Axis of Evil". Given their policies towards Iran, both the US and Israel may have an interest in detaching Damascus from Tehran. Some Israeli analysts argue it would be better to talk first to President Bashir Assad, who might deliver, while Abbas might not. But the question is still whether Olmert would have the political strength to pay the price for Syria's ending support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad: handing back the Golan Heights, seized in 1967.
Chomsky On US and Iran
This is an interview. A video and transcript is available at ICH.
As usual Chomsky is his caustic self and refuses to go along with the ordinary framing of discourse in which the US is somehow not interfering in Iraq even though it invaded and overthrew the existing government whereas Iran a neighbour is if it interferes in any way with the US occupation!
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: ElBaradei, is the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated quite definitively there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. The recent resolution—the Kyle-Lieberman amendment—and the recent U.S. sanctions against Iran, which one of the charges is that Iran has been helping what they call insurgents in Iraq. There's practically no evidence of that either. Based on what we know as evidence, there's not a lot of reasons for U.S. policy to be as aggressive right now towards Iran as it is, certainly not for the stated reason. What really does motivate U.S. policy towards Iran?
NOAM CHOMSKY, PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS, MIT: Well, if I can make a comment about the stated reasons, the very fact that we're discussing them tells us a lot about the sort of intellectual culture and moral culture in the United States. I mean, suppose it was true that Iran is helping insurgents in Iraq. I mean, wasn’t the United States helping insurgents when the Russians invaded Afghanistan? Did we think there was anything wrong with that? I mean, Iraq's a country that was invaded and is under military occupation. You can't have a serious discussion about whether someone else is interfering in it. The basic assumption underlying the discussion is that we own the world. So if we invade and occupy another country, then it's a criminal act for anyone to interfere with it. What about the nuclear weapons? I mean, are there countries with nuclear weapons in the region? Israel has a couple of hundred nuclear weapons. The United States gives more support to it than any other country in the world. The Bush administration is trying very hard to push through an agreement that not only authorizes India's illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons but assists it. That's what the U.S.-Indo Nuclear Pact is about. And, furthermore, there happens to be an obligation of the states in the Security Council and elsewhere to move towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. Now that would include Iran and Israel and any U.S. forces deployed there. That's part of Resolution 687. Now to your question. The real reasons for the attack on Iran, the sanctions, and so on go back into history. I mean, we like to forget the history; Iranians don't. In 1953, the United States and Britain overthrew the parliamentary government and installed a brutal dictator, the Shah, who ruled until 1979. And during his rule, incidentally, the United States was strongly supporting the same programs they're objecting to today. In 1979, the population overthrew the dictator, and since then the United States has been essentially torturing Iran. First it tried a military coup. Then it supported Saddam Hussein during Iraq's invasion of Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Then, after that was over, the United States started imposing harsh sanctions on Iran. And now it's escalating that. The point is: Iran is out of control. You know, it's supposed to be a U.S.-client state, as it was under the Shah, and it's refusing to play that role.
JAY: The sanctions that were just issued recently [are] the beginnings of a kind of act of war, this ratcheting up of the rhetoric right at a time when the IAEA is saying, in fact, Iran's cooperating in the process. But it's all coming down to this question of does Iran even have its right to enrich uranium for civilian nuclear, which in fact it has, under the non-proliferation treaty. But Bush in his last press conference, where he had his famous World War III warning, has said even the knowledge of having nuclear weapons we won't permit, never mind a civilian program. This puts U.S. policy on a collision course with the IAEA, with international law.
CHOMSKY: Just a couple of years ago, from 2004 through 2006, Iran did agree to suspend all uranium enrichment, halt even what everyone agrees they're legally entitled to. That was an agreement with the European Union. They agreed to suspend all uranium enrichment. And in return, the European Union was to provide what were called full guarantees on security issues—that means getting the United States to call off its threats to attack and destroy Iran. Well, the European Union didn't live up to its obligation, [as] they couldn't get the U.S. to stop it. So the Iranians then also pulled out and began to return to uranium enrichment. The way that's described here is-- the Iranians broke the agreement.
JAY: The experts are saying, including ElBaradei and others, that if you can enrich uranium to something just under 5%, which is apparently what's needed for civilian purposes, you're most of the way there towards the technology of having a bomb, that once you have that enrichment technology, you're not that much further towards a bomb.
CHOMSKY: Yeah, but that's true of every developed country in the world. Why pick out Iran? It's true of Japan, it's true of Brazil, it's true of Egypt. And in fact, one could say—here I tend to agree with the Bush administration. In the non-proliferation treaty, there's an article, Article 4, which says that countries signing the NPT are allowed to develop nuclear energy. Well, okay, that made some sense in 1970, but by now technology has developed enough so that it has reached the point that you describe. When you've developed nuclear energy, you're not that far from nuclear weapons. So, yeah, I think something should be done about that. But that has nothing special to do with Iran. In fact, it's a much more serious problem for those nuclear weapons states who are obligated under that same treaty to make good faith efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. And, in fact, there are some solutions to that. ElBaradei had proposed a couple of years ago that no states should develop weapons-grade materials: all high enrichment should be done by an international agency, maybe the IAEA or something else, and then countries should apply to it. If they want enriched uranium for nuclear energy, the international agency should determine whether they're doing it for peaceful means. As far as I'm aware, there's only one country that formally agreed to ElBaradei's proposal. That was Iran. And there's more. I mean, there's an international treaty, called the Fissban, to ban production of fissile materials except under international control. The United States has been strongly opposed to that, to a verifiable treaty. Nevertheless, it did come to the General Assembly, the U.N. Disarmament Commission in the General Assembly, which overwhelmingly voted in favour of it. The disarmament commission vote was, I think, 147 to 1, the United States being the 1. Unless a verifiable fissile materials treaty is passed and implemented, the world very well may move towards nuclear disaster.
JAY: Do you think we're actually moving towards a military confrontation? Or are we seeing a game of brinksmanship?
CHOMSKY: Well, whether purposely or not, yes, we're moving towards a military confrontation.
Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at MIT. He is the author of over 30 political books dissecting U.S. interventionism in the developing world, the political economy of human rights and the propaganda role of corporate media.
As usual Chomsky is his caustic self and refuses to go along with the ordinary framing of discourse in which the US is somehow not interfering in Iraq even though it invaded and overthrew the existing government whereas Iran a neighbour is if it interferes in any way with the US occupation!
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: ElBaradei, is the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated quite definitively there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. The recent resolution—the Kyle-Lieberman amendment—and the recent U.S. sanctions against Iran, which one of the charges is that Iran has been helping what they call insurgents in Iraq. There's practically no evidence of that either. Based on what we know as evidence, there's not a lot of reasons for U.S. policy to be as aggressive right now towards Iran as it is, certainly not for the stated reason. What really does motivate U.S. policy towards Iran?
NOAM CHOMSKY, PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS, MIT: Well, if I can make a comment about the stated reasons, the very fact that we're discussing them tells us a lot about the sort of intellectual culture and moral culture in the United States. I mean, suppose it was true that Iran is helping insurgents in Iraq. I mean, wasn’t the United States helping insurgents when the Russians invaded Afghanistan? Did we think there was anything wrong with that? I mean, Iraq's a country that was invaded and is under military occupation. You can't have a serious discussion about whether someone else is interfering in it. The basic assumption underlying the discussion is that we own the world. So if we invade and occupy another country, then it's a criminal act for anyone to interfere with it. What about the nuclear weapons? I mean, are there countries with nuclear weapons in the region? Israel has a couple of hundred nuclear weapons. The United States gives more support to it than any other country in the world. The Bush administration is trying very hard to push through an agreement that not only authorizes India's illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons but assists it. That's what the U.S.-Indo Nuclear Pact is about. And, furthermore, there happens to be an obligation of the states in the Security Council and elsewhere to move towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. Now that would include Iran and Israel and any U.S. forces deployed there. That's part of Resolution 687. Now to your question. The real reasons for the attack on Iran, the sanctions, and so on go back into history. I mean, we like to forget the history; Iranians don't. In 1953, the United States and Britain overthrew the parliamentary government and installed a brutal dictator, the Shah, who ruled until 1979. And during his rule, incidentally, the United States was strongly supporting the same programs they're objecting to today. In 1979, the population overthrew the dictator, and since then the United States has been essentially torturing Iran. First it tried a military coup. Then it supported Saddam Hussein during Iraq's invasion of Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Then, after that was over, the United States started imposing harsh sanctions on Iran. And now it's escalating that. The point is: Iran is out of control. You know, it's supposed to be a U.S.-client state, as it was under the Shah, and it's refusing to play that role.
JAY: The sanctions that were just issued recently [are] the beginnings of a kind of act of war, this ratcheting up of the rhetoric right at a time when the IAEA is saying, in fact, Iran's cooperating in the process. But it's all coming down to this question of does Iran even have its right to enrich uranium for civilian nuclear, which in fact it has, under the non-proliferation treaty. But Bush in his last press conference, where he had his famous World War III warning, has said even the knowledge of having nuclear weapons we won't permit, never mind a civilian program. This puts U.S. policy on a collision course with the IAEA, with international law.
CHOMSKY: Just a couple of years ago, from 2004 through 2006, Iran did agree to suspend all uranium enrichment, halt even what everyone agrees they're legally entitled to. That was an agreement with the European Union. They agreed to suspend all uranium enrichment. And in return, the European Union was to provide what were called full guarantees on security issues—that means getting the United States to call off its threats to attack and destroy Iran. Well, the European Union didn't live up to its obligation, [as] they couldn't get the U.S. to stop it. So the Iranians then also pulled out and began to return to uranium enrichment. The way that's described here is-- the Iranians broke the agreement.
JAY: The experts are saying, including ElBaradei and others, that if you can enrich uranium to something just under 5%, which is apparently what's needed for civilian purposes, you're most of the way there towards the technology of having a bomb, that once you have that enrichment technology, you're not that much further towards a bomb.
CHOMSKY: Yeah, but that's true of every developed country in the world. Why pick out Iran? It's true of Japan, it's true of Brazil, it's true of Egypt. And in fact, one could say—here I tend to agree with the Bush administration. In the non-proliferation treaty, there's an article, Article 4, which says that countries signing the NPT are allowed to develop nuclear energy. Well, okay, that made some sense in 1970, but by now technology has developed enough so that it has reached the point that you describe. When you've developed nuclear energy, you're not that far from nuclear weapons. So, yeah, I think something should be done about that. But that has nothing special to do with Iran. In fact, it's a much more serious problem for those nuclear weapons states who are obligated under that same treaty to make good faith efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. And, in fact, there are some solutions to that. ElBaradei had proposed a couple of years ago that no states should develop weapons-grade materials: all high enrichment should be done by an international agency, maybe the IAEA or something else, and then countries should apply to it. If they want enriched uranium for nuclear energy, the international agency should determine whether they're doing it for peaceful means. As far as I'm aware, there's only one country that formally agreed to ElBaradei's proposal. That was Iran. And there's more. I mean, there's an international treaty, called the Fissban, to ban production of fissile materials except under international control. The United States has been strongly opposed to that, to a verifiable treaty. Nevertheless, it did come to the General Assembly, the U.N. Disarmament Commission in the General Assembly, which overwhelmingly voted in favour of it. The disarmament commission vote was, I think, 147 to 1, the United States being the 1. Unless a verifiable fissile materials treaty is passed and implemented, the world very well may move towards nuclear disaster.
JAY: Do you think we're actually moving towards a military confrontation? Or are we seeing a game of brinksmanship?
CHOMSKY: Well, whether purposely or not, yes, we're moving towards a military confrontation.
Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at MIT. He is the author of over 30 political books dissecting U.S. interventionism in the developing world, the political economy of human rights and the propaganda role of corporate media.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Karzai: All private security firms must close
From time to time Karzai choses to show some backbone and not just do what the US says to do. Until Nov. 2005 Karzai used to be guarded by US Dyncorp corporation guards. He was strongly advised to get rid of them. They often were aggressive and offensive. Now he is going further and going after all private security firms. Dyncorp is still training the National Police Force. I doubt that they will be let go. There must be quite a few security firms linked up with ISAF and Enduring Freedom. I wonder what will happen with them. I suppose if they are associated with ISAF that will be under the rubric of the UN so they will be OK.
All private security firms must close: Afghanistan
1 day ago
KABUL (AFP) — Authorities in Afghanistan want to close down all private security firms operating in the country, many of them illegally, President Hamid Karzai's office said.
About nine unlicensed companies have already been shut down in a crackdown that has been under way in Kabul for weeks, according to city police.
Under the constitution "only the Afghan government has the right of having and handling weapons, so private companies are against the constitution," the president's spokesman Siamak Hirawi told AFP late Wednesday.
A cabinet meeting Monday argued that the dozens of private security firms were illegal and a source of criminality.
"The session decided that in the long term all private companies should be shut down," he said.
"But for the time being a small number of private companies which can prepare themselves to meet the regulations put in place by the ministry of interior will be allowed temporary licences."
Only a "handful" of such companies would be allowed to operate mainly for the use of international organisations and the United Nations, he said.
"In the long run, when Afghan security forces have the capacity to replace them, they will be replaced by government security personnel, police."
Insecurity in Afghanistan has sharply increased because of a rise in crime and an insurgency led by the extremist Taliban who held power until 2001.
A range of security companies are operating in Afghanistan, from US-based Blackwater to smaller Afghan firm, some of them linked to militias or former warlords.
They guard embassies and other premises or act as bodyguards, while some, like the US-based DynCorp, also train Afghan police.
A report released this month by the Swisspeace research institute said that while about 90 firms could be identified by name, only 35 had registered with the government.
Some are alleged to be involved in extortion, kidnapping and the smuggling of drugs, it said.
All private security firms must close: Afghanistan
1 day ago
KABUL (AFP) — Authorities in Afghanistan want to close down all private security firms operating in the country, many of them illegally, President Hamid Karzai's office said.
About nine unlicensed companies have already been shut down in a crackdown that has been under way in Kabul for weeks, according to city police.
Under the constitution "only the Afghan government has the right of having and handling weapons, so private companies are against the constitution," the president's spokesman Siamak Hirawi told AFP late Wednesday.
A cabinet meeting Monday argued that the dozens of private security firms were illegal and a source of criminality.
"The session decided that in the long term all private companies should be shut down," he said.
"But for the time being a small number of private companies which can prepare themselves to meet the regulations put in place by the ministry of interior will be allowed temporary licences."
Only a "handful" of such companies would be allowed to operate mainly for the use of international organisations and the United Nations, he said.
"In the long run, when Afghan security forces have the capacity to replace them, they will be replaced by government security personnel, police."
Insecurity in Afghanistan has sharply increased because of a rise in crime and an insurgency led by the extremist Taliban who held power until 2001.
A range of security companies are operating in Afghanistan, from US-based Blackwater to smaller Afghan firm, some of them linked to militias or former warlords.
They guard embassies and other premises or act as bodyguards, while some, like the US-based DynCorp, also train Afghan police.
A report released this month by the Swisspeace research institute said that while about 90 firms could be identified by name, only 35 had registered with the government.
Some are alleged to be involved in extortion, kidnapping and the smuggling of drugs, it said.
A plan to attack Iran swiftly and from above.
There seems to have been a little cooling down of the war of words between Tehran and Washington the last little while but this article points out that preparations are well under way for an attack. This is just part of the article at the Globe and Mail. The author mentions a supposed attack on nuclear facilities in Syria. This is nothing more than rumor and speculation. As has been shown by critics the satellite photos show no fence nor guards. Imagine a nuclear facility sitting in the wide open spaces with no fence nor guards!
Of course there is not a hint that a US attack might violate international law. International law is of no concern when the hegemon is involved. It counts only when enemies of the hegemon are involved.
A plan to attack Iran swiftly and from above
A bombing campaign has been in the works for months - a blistering air war that would last anywhere from one day to two weeks
PAUL KORING
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
November 22, 2007 at 5:11 AM EST
WASHINGTON — Massive, devastating air strikes, a full dose of "shock and awe" with hundreds of bunker-busting bombs slicing through concrete at more than a dozen nuclear sites across Iran is no longer just the idle musing of military planners and uber-hawks.
Although air strikes don't seem imminent as the U.S.-Iranian drama unfolds, planning for a bombing campaign and preparing for the geopolitical blowback has preoccupied military and political councils for months.
No one is predicting a full-blown ground war with Iran. The likeliest scenario, a blistering air war that could last as little as one night or as long as two weeks, would be designed to avoid the quagmire of invasion and regime change that now characterizes Iraq. But skepticism remains about whether any amount of bombing can substantially delay Iran's entry into the nuclear-weapons club.
Attacking Iran has gone far beyond the twilight musings of a lame-duck president. Almost all of those jockeying to succeed U.S. President George W. Bush are similarly bellicose. Both front-runners, Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani, have said that Iran's ruling mullahs can't be allowed to go nuclear. "Iran would be very sure if I were president of the United States that I would not allow them to become nuclear," said Mr. Giuliani. Ms. Clinton is equally hard-line.
Nor does the threat come just from the United States. As hopes fade that sanctions and common sense might avert a military confrontation with Tehran - as they appear to have done with North Korea - other Western leaders are openly warning that bombing may be needed.
Unless Tehran scraps its clandestine and suspicious nuclear program and its quest for weapons-grade uranium (it already has the missiles capable of delivering an atomic warhead), the world will be "faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran," French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned.
Bombing Iran would be relatively easy. Its antiquated air force and Russian air-defence missiles would be easy pickings for the U.S. warplanes.
But effectively destroying Iran's widely scattered and deeply buried nuclear facilities would be far harder, although achievable, according to air-power experts. But the fallout, especially the anger sown across much of the Muslim world by another U.S.-led attack in the Middle East, would be impossible to calculate.
Israel has twice launched pre-emptive air strikes ostensibly to cripple nuclear programs. In both instances, against Iraq in 1981 and Syria two months ago, the targeted regimes howled but did nothing.
The single-strike Israeli attacks would seem like pinpricks, compared with the rain of destruction U.S. warplanes would need to kneecap Iran's far larger nuclear network.
Of course there is not a hint that a US attack might violate international law. International law is of no concern when the hegemon is involved. It counts only when enemies of the hegemon are involved.
A plan to attack Iran swiftly and from above
A bombing campaign has been in the works for months - a blistering air war that would last anywhere from one day to two weeks
PAUL KORING
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
November 22, 2007 at 5:11 AM EST
WASHINGTON — Massive, devastating air strikes, a full dose of "shock and awe" with hundreds of bunker-busting bombs slicing through concrete at more than a dozen nuclear sites across Iran is no longer just the idle musing of military planners and uber-hawks.
Although air strikes don't seem imminent as the U.S.-Iranian drama unfolds, planning for a bombing campaign and preparing for the geopolitical blowback has preoccupied military and political councils for months.
No one is predicting a full-blown ground war with Iran. The likeliest scenario, a blistering air war that could last as little as one night or as long as two weeks, would be designed to avoid the quagmire of invasion and regime change that now characterizes Iraq. But skepticism remains about whether any amount of bombing can substantially delay Iran's entry into the nuclear-weapons club.
Attacking Iran has gone far beyond the twilight musings of a lame-duck president. Almost all of those jockeying to succeed U.S. President George W. Bush are similarly bellicose. Both front-runners, Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani, have said that Iran's ruling mullahs can't be allowed to go nuclear. "Iran would be very sure if I were president of the United States that I would not allow them to become nuclear," said Mr. Giuliani. Ms. Clinton is equally hard-line.
Nor does the threat come just from the United States. As hopes fade that sanctions and common sense might avert a military confrontation with Tehran - as they appear to have done with North Korea - other Western leaders are openly warning that bombing may be needed.
Unless Tehran scraps its clandestine and suspicious nuclear program and its quest for weapons-grade uranium (it already has the missiles capable of delivering an atomic warhead), the world will be "faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran," French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned.
Bombing Iran would be relatively easy. Its antiquated air force and Russian air-defence missiles would be easy pickings for the U.S. warplanes.
But effectively destroying Iran's widely scattered and deeply buried nuclear facilities would be far harder, although achievable, according to air-power experts. But the fallout, especially the anger sown across much of the Muslim world by another U.S.-led attack in the Middle East, would be impossible to calculate.
Israel has twice launched pre-emptive air strikes ostensibly to cripple nuclear programs. In both instances, against Iraq in 1981 and Syria two months ago, the targeted regimes howled but did nothing.
The single-strike Israeli attacks would seem like pinpricks, compared with the rain of destruction U.S. warplanes would need to kneecap Iran's far larger nuclear network.
Taliban leaders open to talks
I just wonder whether these are splinter groups or the main leaders of the insurgency. I doubt that the main group will negotiate unless there is some agreement that the foreign troops withdraw but who knows what sort of deal Karzai and they might be cooking up. What is so laughable about all this is that the US and other western government always cry out against negotiating with terrorists while Karzai is willing to take them into his government. Anyway it is probably a step up from some of the warlords that are already part of his government.
Taliban leaders open to talks
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
This is from the canoe site.
KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Thursday that his government has had increasing contact with Taliban insurgents this year, including several talks this week with militant leaders living in exile.
Karzai said militants in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan have increasingly approached the government in the last eight months, even as the country goes through its most violent phase since the ouster of the Taliban after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.
"Only this week I've had more than five or six major contacts, approaches, by the leadership of the Taliban trying to find out if they can come back to Afghanistan," Karzai told reporters in Kabul after meeting NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
Karzai did not specify which leaders he had spoken to or where the discussions took place.
"We are willing to talk. Those of the Taliban who are not part of al-Qaida or the terrorist networks, who do not want to be violent against the Afghan people ... those elements are welcome," he said.
In the past Karzai has offered to hold talks with Taliban leader Mullah Omar and to give militants a position in government in exchange for peace. Omar rejected those offers.
Afghan and Western officials believe many Taliban and al-Qaida leaders are living and organizing militant activities from across the border in the lawless tribal regions of Pakistan. Pakistan denies the allegation and says its doing its best to quell the insurgency.
More than 6,000 people have been killed in insurgency-related violence in 2007, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Western and Afghan officials.
Taliban leaders open to talks
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
This is from the canoe site.
KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Thursday that his government has had increasing contact with Taliban insurgents this year, including several talks this week with militant leaders living in exile.
Karzai said militants in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan have increasingly approached the government in the last eight months, even as the country goes through its most violent phase since the ouster of the Taliban after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.
"Only this week I've had more than five or six major contacts, approaches, by the leadership of the Taliban trying to find out if they can come back to Afghanistan," Karzai told reporters in Kabul after meeting NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
Karzai did not specify which leaders he had spoken to or where the discussions took place.
"We are willing to talk. Those of the Taliban who are not part of al-Qaida or the terrorist networks, who do not want to be violent against the Afghan people ... those elements are welcome," he said.
In the past Karzai has offered to hold talks with Taliban leader Mullah Omar and to give militants a position in government in exchange for peace. Omar rejected those offers.
Afghan and Western officials believe many Taliban and al-Qaida leaders are living and organizing militant activities from across the border in the lawless tribal regions of Pakistan. Pakistan denies the allegation and says its doing its best to quell the insurgency.
More than 6,000 people have been killed in insurgency-related violence in 2007, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Western and Afghan officials.
Another Mall blast in the Philippines
This is from this site. Any malls that I have visited have security guards at entrances who will inspect bags. This package was left in a baggage check area on the outside of the mall where there might not be such checks. Given the location I just wonder if the person who was killed was actually the target of the device. While terrorists such as the Abu Sayyaf are often indiscriminate , they try to kill as many as they can. Given where this device was placed it was unlikely to cause that many casualties.
One dead, four injured in Philippines mall blast
(AFP)
22 November 2007
COTABATO, Philippines - An explosion ripped through a shopping mall in the southern Philippines on Thursday, killing one person and injuring four others, officials said.
The blast killed an 18 year-old man working at the baggage check-in counter of the KMCC mall in Kidapawan city on Mindanao island, said Chief Superintendent Leo Ajero, the city police chief.
Four other people were injured, he added.
“It’s most probably an improvised explosive device,” provincial governor Manuel Pinol told local radio in a telephone interview.
“They left it at the baggage counter,” he said. “It exploded, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to several others.”
Police were investigating whether the blast was linked to a scheduled visit to the area by President Gloria Arroyo next week, Pinol said.
A powerful bomb killed four people including Wahab Akbar, a congressman in the southern Philippines, at the House of Representatives in Manila last week. The authorities are investigating possible political rivalry as the motive.
One dead, four injured in Philippines mall blast
(AFP)
22 November 2007
COTABATO, Philippines - An explosion ripped through a shopping mall in the southern Philippines on Thursday, killing one person and injuring four others, officials said.
The blast killed an 18 year-old man working at the baggage check-in counter of the KMCC mall in Kidapawan city on Mindanao island, said Chief Superintendent Leo Ajero, the city police chief.
Four other people were injured, he added.
“It’s most probably an improvised explosive device,” provincial governor Manuel Pinol told local radio in a telephone interview.
“They left it at the baggage counter,” he said. “It exploded, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to several others.”
Police were investigating whether the blast was linked to a scheduled visit to the area by President Gloria Arroyo next week, Pinol said.
A powerful bomb killed four people including Wahab Akbar, a congressman in the southern Philippines, at the House of Representatives in Manila last week. The authorities are investigating possible political rivalry as the motive.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Most polls predict Labor win in Australia
I wonder how "objective" the polling organisations are when they seem to vary a considerable amount. Overall the polls would indicate a clear Labor victory. Rudd is not all that different in many policies although he will withdraw troops from Iraq. The Australian labor party has swung quite far to the right. Almost every social democratic and labor party has opted for some variation of the third way so that there really is no sharp choice between right and left. This should be called the law of the exclusive middle!
Two out of three polls back a Labor win
Friday Nov 23 09:43 AEDT
Two out of three polls released on the eve of the federal election predict a clear win for Labor, but a third shows John Howard still in with a chance.
The latest Galaxy poll has Prime Minister John Howard in with a chance, while a Nielsen poll has the coalition facing annihilation, and a Morgan poll says the ALP will win in a close contest despite a swing towards the coalition.
The telephone poll conducted by Roy Morgan research on November 21 and 22 showed that on a two-party preferred, support for the coalition had risen one point to 45.5 per cent, while support for the ALP had dropped one point to 54.5 per cent.
This represented a swing of 7.2 points to the ALP since the 2004 Federal election, spokesman Gary Morgan said.
However, in 22 key coalition marginal seats, where Labor needed to grabbed 16 seats to win government, the swing was less at 5.2 points to the ALP, he said.
Sixty-three per cent of voters polled thought the ALP would win Saturday's federal election, compared to 22.5 per cent who backed the coalition to win, while 14.5 per cent were undecided.
"With a day to go, the ALP is set to win the federal election," Mr Morgan said.
"Marginal seat polling in 22 coalition seats finds the ALP three per cent ahead: 51.5 per cent compared to (the coalition's) 48.5 per cent," he said.
"This suggests an ALP gain of between 14 and 20 seats even with the likelihood of Labor losing a seat in Western Australia."
The latest Galaxy poll of 1,200 voters was taken on Tuesday and Wednesday for News Ltd - before the revelations of a bogus leaflet scandal that threatens to hand a key marginal Sydney seat to Labor.
It found the coalition stands at 48 per cent with Labor on 52 per cent on a two-party preferred basis, with both parties even in the primary vote stakes on 42.5 per cent.
But the poll conflicts with the Nielsen poll of 2,071 voters taken between Monday and Wednesday for Fairfax's Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age newspapers.
It found Labor leads the primary vote by 48 per cent to 40 per cent, giving it a two-party preferred lead of 57 per cent to 43 per cent.
The figures represent a 10-point swing to Labor since the 2004 election, more than twice what Labor needs to win the 16 seats it must pick up to form government.
According to the Galaxy poll, 62 per cent of voters expect a Labor victory compared to 25 per cent who expect the coalition to win.
Labor leader Kevin Rudd was preferred prime minister on 51 per cent of the vote, compared to Mr Howard on 43 per cent.
Mr Rudd was also judged to have been the best on the campaign trail by 57 per cent of voters, with just a 27 per cent support for Mr Howard.
The poll also found half of voters questioned said they were better off than three years ago, 29 per cent said they were worse off and 44 per cent said they were under financial stress.
©AAP 2007
Two out of three polls back a Labor win
Friday Nov 23 09:43 AEDT
Two out of three polls released on the eve of the federal election predict a clear win for Labor, but a third shows John Howard still in with a chance.
The latest Galaxy poll has Prime Minister John Howard in with a chance, while a Nielsen poll has the coalition facing annihilation, and a Morgan poll says the ALP will win in a close contest despite a swing towards the coalition.
The telephone poll conducted by Roy Morgan research on November 21 and 22 showed that on a two-party preferred, support for the coalition had risen one point to 45.5 per cent, while support for the ALP had dropped one point to 54.5 per cent.
This represented a swing of 7.2 points to the ALP since the 2004 Federal election, spokesman Gary Morgan said.
However, in 22 key coalition marginal seats, where Labor needed to grabbed 16 seats to win government, the swing was less at 5.2 points to the ALP, he said.
Sixty-three per cent of voters polled thought the ALP would win Saturday's federal election, compared to 22.5 per cent who backed the coalition to win, while 14.5 per cent were undecided.
"With a day to go, the ALP is set to win the federal election," Mr Morgan said.
"Marginal seat polling in 22 coalition seats finds the ALP three per cent ahead: 51.5 per cent compared to (the coalition's) 48.5 per cent," he said.
"This suggests an ALP gain of between 14 and 20 seats even with the likelihood of Labor losing a seat in Western Australia."
The latest Galaxy poll of 1,200 voters was taken on Tuesday and Wednesday for News Ltd - before the revelations of a bogus leaflet scandal that threatens to hand a key marginal Sydney seat to Labor.
It found the coalition stands at 48 per cent with Labor on 52 per cent on a two-party preferred basis, with both parties even in the primary vote stakes on 42.5 per cent.
But the poll conflicts with the Nielsen poll of 2,071 voters taken between Monday and Wednesday for Fairfax's Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age newspapers.
It found Labor leads the primary vote by 48 per cent to 40 per cent, giving it a two-party preferred lead of 57 per cent to 43 per cent.
The figures represent a 10-point swing to Labor since the 2004 election, more than twice what Labor needs to win the 16 seats it must pick up to form government.
According to the Galaxy poll, 62 per cent of voters expect a Labor victory compared to 25 per cent who expect the coalition to win.
Labor leader Kevin Rudd was preferred prime minister on 51 per cent of the vote, compared to Mr Howard on 43 per cent.
Mr Rudd was also judged to have been the best on the campaign trail by 57 per cent of voters, with just a 27 per cent support for Mr Howard.
The poll also found half of voters questioned said they were better off than three years ago, 29 per cent said they were worse off and 44 per cent said they were under financial stress.
©AAP 2007
Pakistan top judge still retained
Musharaf seems to be confident of control. Even to leave the country he must have felt that there would be no move to toss him out. Significantly the chief justice is still under house arrest even though judges have been released. The chief justice has always been a thorn in the side of Musharraf. The spotlight seems to be off Bhutto for the moment. The US would be happy if Musharraf would make another deal with her but it doesn't seem likely given Bhutto's recent comments on Musharraf.
Pakistan top judge still detained
Pakistan's ousted chief justice remains under arrest, a day after officials said judges detained under emergency rule could move around freely.
Iftikhar Chaudhry tried to leave his Islamabad residence but was stopped from doing so by security forces.
Meanwhile, President Musharraf has amended the constitution to prevent future legal challenges to his actions.
His government has urged the Commonwealth to delay a decision on suspending Pakistan from its meetings.
Gen Musharraf imposed emergency rule on 3 November, saying the measure was needed to rein in the judiciary and fight extremists.
He is under pressure to end the state of emergency ahead of general elections promised for 8 January.
Judge held
Former Chief Justice Chaudhry was removed from his post on 3 November and has been under house arrest ever since.
On Tuesday, the government announced it had released more than 3,000 people jailed under emergency rule.
Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said judges would also be "free to go home if they so wish or desire".
"They are living in the judges colony of their own accord - they can leave if they want to," he said.
Mr Chaudhry tried to leave his residence on Wednesday but was stopped from going to the Supreme Court by large numbers of security forces ringing his residence.
Another judge, former presidential candidate Wajihuddin Ahmed, tried to visit Mr Chaudhry and was briefly detained along with a lawyer.
The release of political opponents has been a key demand of opposition parties who are threatening to boycott the January vote.
A number of leading political figures are still being held.
Late on Tuesday, about 170 journalists detained earlier in the day in the southern city of Karachi were freed.
Commonwealth talks
On Wednesday, President Musharraf flew back to Pakistan from talks in Saudi Arabia.
His visit had encouraged rumours that he would hold contacts with former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif or seek to prolong his exile there.
A presidential spokesman said Gen Musharraf had met King Abdullah and other officials but had had no contact with Mr Sharif.
Mr Sharif's party, meanwhile, was adamant he would not hold negotiations "with a military dictator".
On his return to Pakistan, Gen Musharraf issued an amendment to the constitution which says his declaration of the state of emergency cannot be over-ruled in court.
Analysts say the general's move is an another attempt to protect himself after he relinquishes the post of army chief, which he may do shortly.
Later on Wednesday, Pakistan announced it had asked the Commonwealth for "a short postponement" of its decision on whether to suspend it from its meetings.
Foreign ministers of the 53-nation grouping, mainly made up of former British colonies, are meeting in Uganda. Gen Musharraf has been given until Thursday to lift emergency rule.
Suspension would be seen as largely symbolic, observers say.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7105923.stm
Published: 2007/11/21 15:22:13 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Pakistan top judge still detained
Pakistan's ousted chief justice remains under arrest, a day after officials said judges detained under emergency rule could move around freely.
Iftikhar Chaudhry tried to leave his Islamabad residence but was stopped from doing so by security forces.
Meanwhile, President Musharraf has amended the constitution to prevent future legal challenges to his actions.
His government has urged the Commonwealth to delay a decision on suspending Pakistan from its meetings.
Gen Musharraf imposed emergency rule on 3 November, saying the measure was needed to rein in the judiciary and fight extremists.
He is under pressure to end the state of emergency ahead of general elections promised for 8 January.
Judge held
Former Chief Justice Chaudhry was removed from his post on 3 November and has been under house arrest ever since.
On Tuesday, the government announced it had released more than 3,000 people jailed under emergency rule.
Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said judges would also be "free to go home if they so wish or desire".
"They are living in the judges colony of their own accord - they can leave if they want to," he said.
Mr Chaudhry tried to leave his residence on Wednesday but was stopped from going to the Supreme Court by large numbers of security forces ringing his residence.
Another judge, former presidential candidate Wajihuddin Ahmed, tried to visit Mr Chaudhry and was briefly detained along with a lawyer.
The release of political opponents has been a key demand of opposition parties who are threatening to boycott the January vote.
A number of leading political figures are still being held.
Late on Tuesday, about 170 journalists detained earlier in the day in the southern city of Karachi were freed.
Commonwealth talks
On Wednesday, President Musharraf flew back to Pakistan from talks in Saudi Arabia.
His visit had encouraged rumours that he would hold contacts with former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif or seek to prolong his exile there.
A presidential spokesman said Gen Musharraf had met King Abdullah and other officials but had had no contact with Mr Sharif.
Mr Sharif's party, meanwhile, was adamant he would not hold negotiations "with a military dictator".
On his return to Pakistan, Gen Musharraf issued an amendment to the constitution which says his declaration of the state of emergency cannot be over-ruled in court.
Analysts say the general's move is an another attempt to protect himself after he relinquishes the post of army chief, which he may do shortly.
Later on Wednesday, Pakistan announced it had asked the Commonwealth for "a short postponement" of its decision on whether to suspend it from its meetings.
Foreign ministers of the 53-nation grouping, mainly made up of former British colonies, are meeting in Uganda. Gen Musharraf has been given until Thursday to lift emergency rule.
Suspension would be seen as largely symbolic, observers say.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7105923.stm
Published: 2007/11/21 15:22:13 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Philippines: Mitag grows into a typhoon
This could be quite bad. My wife has a house in Legazpi. It will probably be flooded again as it was last year. The recent rains and the huge amount of volcanic ash on Mayon will produce gigantic mudslides. There are always some people who refuse to relocate. After these typhoons it is often weeks and weeks before power gets back. My sister in law is in a low area of Legaspi so they will probably have to retreat to the second floor for a while or wade around in the kitchen! Lets hope there is little or no loss of life.
Mitag grows into a typhoon as it tracks toward the Philippines
Last Updated: Thursday, November 22, 2007 | 7:43 AM ET
The Associated Press
A tropical storm gained strength and developed into a typhoon Thursday as it headed toward an eastern Philippine region ravaged last year by flash floods and volcanic mudslides that killed more than 1,000 people, officials said.
A little girl sits with merchandise protected by an umbrella on a pushcart in Manila as typhoon Mitag approches the Philippines on Thursday.
(Pat Roque/Associated Press)
Typhoon Mitag was packing 120-km/h winds with gusts of up to 150 km/h as it blew westward from the Philippine Sea toward the Bicol region around midday, chief government forecaster Nathaniel Cruz said.
It could become a "super typhoon," with winds of more than 222 km/h, by the time it makes landfall, expected this weekend, he said.
Recent rains have already saturated the ground around Mayon volcano in Bicol, and President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, worried about a repeat of last year's disaster, ordered mass evacuations in the typhoon's expected path and cut short her trip to Singapore, where she was attending an Asian summit.
Continue Article
"It's been raining for many days in some areas, and these are ripe for landslides," said Glenn Rabonza, administrator of the Office of Civil Defence.
Disaster officials said about 4,000 people already have moved to temporary shelters in four towns in Albay province and one town in nearby Sorsogon province, both of which are in Bicol.
Cedric Daep, executive officer of Albay's provincial disaster office, said full evacuation of the most threatened communities along the coastline and in the foothills of the Mayon volcano will begin Thursday afternoon.
Rabonza warned that storm surges from a powerful typhoon could generate waves three to nine metres high that could wreak havoc on coastal villages.
Cruz said if the typhoon doesn't change direction, it will make landfall in Bicol by Saturday morning. But the storm could also veer northwest and hit Quezon province, north of Bicol, the next day.
Officials estimate up to 200,000 people may have to be evacuated from Albay, which last year bore the brunt of typhoon Durian that triggered flash floods and unleashed tons of volcanic debris, wiping out entire communities and killing more than 1,000 people.
About the same number of people died in 2004 in Quezon when it was hit by successive storms and typhoons.
Albay Gov. Joey Salceda has suspended classes so some schools can be used as temporary shelters.
Vietnam also braced for tropical storm Hagibis, expected to hit the country's southern region Saturday, the government said.
© The
Mitag grows into a typhoon as it tracks toward the Philippines
Last Updated: Thursday, November 22, 2007 | 7:43 AM ET
The Associated Press
A tropical storm gained strength and developed into a typhoon Thursday as it headed toward an eastern Philippine region ravaged last year by flash floods and volcanic mudslides that killed more than 1,000 people, officials said.
A little girl sits with merchandise protected by an umbrella on a pushcart in Manila as typhoon Mitag approches the Philippines on Thursday.
(Pat Roque/Associated Press)
Typhoon Mitag was packing 120-km/h winds with gusts of up to 150 km/h as it blew westward from the Philippine Sea toward the Bicol region around midday, chief government forecaster Nathaniel Cruz said.
It could become a "super typhoon," with winds of more than 222 km/h, by the time it makes landfall, expected this weekend, he said.
Recent rains have already saturated the ground around Mayon volcano in Bicol, and President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, worried about a repeat of last year's disaster, ordered mass evacuations in the typhoon's expected path and cut short her trip to Singapore, where she was attending an Asian summit.
Continue Article
"It's been raining for many days in some areas, and these are ripe for landslides," said Glenn Rabonza, administrator of the Office of Civil Defence.
Disaster officials said about 4,000 people already have moved to temporary shelters in four towns in Albay province and one town in nearby Sorsogon province, both of which are in Bicol.
Cedric Daep, executive officer of Albay's provincial disaster office, said full evacuation of the most threatened communities along the coastline and in the foothills of the Mayon volcano will begin Thursday afternoon.
Rabonza warned that storm surges from a powerful typhoon could generate waves three to nine metres high that could wreak havoc on coastal villages.
Cruz said if the typhoon doesn't change direction, it will make landfall in Bicol by Saturday morning. But the storm could also veer northwest and hit Quezon province, north of Bicol, the next day.
Officials estimate up to 200,000 people may have to be evacuated from Albay, which last year bore the brunt of typhoon Durian that triggered flash floods and unleashed tons of volcanic debris, wiping out entire communities and killing more than 1,000 people.
About the same number of people died in 2004 in Quezon when it was hit by successive storms and typhoons.
Albay Gov. Joey Salceda has suspended classes so some schools can be used as temporary shelters.
Vietnam also braced for tropical storm Hagibis, expected to hit the country's southern region Saturday, the government said.
© The
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Guards fire on civilians after Afghan blast
This article of which I just excerpt a small bit gives a glimpse into the problems within the Karzai government. It also shows that there are the same problems with private security contractors as in Iraq. Private contractors even provide security for Karzai himself.
The article also shows that it will be some time before the Afghan police will ever be able to provide security effectively on their own. It may also show that there are plots within the Karzai govt. to kill opposition politicians. The Taliban have claimed they are not responsible for the blast. They are usually not shy about these matters.
Karzai has been described as increasingly frustrated by the poor performance of the Afghan police, based in the Interior Ministry, and he has publicly accused the ministry of corruption and incompetence. He has also expressed exasperation at the tendency of foreign donors to bypass his government and deal directly with private contractors.
A particular source of complaint has been the dozens of private security companies that operate in Kabul and other cities with little oversight, often employing former Afghan guerrilla fighters. The Karzai government has raided several of these firms in recent weeks, seizing equipment and weapons.
"This bodyguard culture is killing Afghanistan, and we have to remove it," Karzai said in the interview.
A new report prepared for the United Nations by the group Swisspeace found that Afghan and foreign security firms in Afghanistan employ 18,500 to 28,000 men. It said that although the companies may provide security for their clients, they are viewed by the public as creating a "sense of distrust and insecurity." Reasons include their ties to local militia bosses, their heavily armed presence, their rudeness toward civilians and their alleged ties to crime.
In Baghlan, the security personnel at the scene of the bombing included a mix of local police and teams of bodyguards for each legislator and other officials; former militia commanders were among those in the crowd. When the blast occurred, witnesses said, gunfire erupted in many directions and lasted several minutes. When it was over, bodies were strewn across the scenic, tree-lined driveway and field surrounding the mill.
The protracted absence of a satisfactory official explanation of the incident has bred numerous rumors of political plots and counterplots. Many center on the most prominent victim, Sayed Mustafa Kazimi, 48, a member of parliament and former commerce minister who had recently become the spokesman for the main coalition opposing Karzai.
Kazimi was a rising political star from the country's long-suffering
The article also shows that it will be some time before the Afghan police will ever be able to provide security effectively on their own. It may also show that there are plots within the Karzai govt. to kill opposition politicians. The Taliban have claimed they are not responsible for the blast. They are usually not shy about these matters.
Karzai has been described as increasingly frustrated by the poor performance of the Afghan police, based in the Interior Ministry, and he has publicly accused the ministry of corruption and incompetence. He has also expressed exasperation at the tendency of foreign donors to bypass his government and deal directly with private contractors.
A particular source of complaint has been the dozens of private security companies that operate in Kabul and other cities with little oversight, often employing former Afghan guerrilla fighters. The Karzai government has raided several of these firms in recent weeks, seizing equipment and weapons.
"This bodyguard culture is killing Afghanistan, and we have to remove it," Karzai said in the interview.
A new report prepared for the United Nations by the group Swisspeace found that Afghan and foreign security firms in Afghanistan employ 18,500 to 28,000 men. It said that although the companies may provide security for their clients, they are viewed by the public as creating a "sense of distrust and insecurity." Reasons include their ties to local militia bosses, their heavily armed presence, their rudeness toward civilians and their alleged ties to crime.
In Baghlan, the security personnel at the scene of the bombing included a mix of local police and teams of bodyguards for each legislator and other officials; former militia commanders were among those in the crowd. When the blast occurred, witnesses said, gunfire erupted in many directions and lasted several minutes. When it was over, bodies were strewn across the scenic, tree-lined driveway and field surrounding the mill.
The protracted absence of a satisfactory official explanation of the incident has bred numerous rumors of political plots and counterplots. Many center on the most prominent victim, Sayed Mustafa Kazimi, 48, a member of parliament and former commerce minister who had recently become the spokesman for the main coalition opposing Karzai.
Kazimi was a rising political star from the country's long-suffering
"One million" homeless in Somalia
This is from the BBC.
This conflict is a direct result of the US use of Ethiopian proxy troops to overthrow the Union of Islamic Courts. Ever since there has been conflict between Islamic insurgents and the provisional government in effect the Ethiopian invaders who prop up the government. There was some semblance of security during the reign of the Islamic Courts and it was supported by many because whatever its faults it was better than feuding warlords and the provisional govt. However, it was not acceptable to the US so it had to go.
'One million' homeless in Somalia
Some 600,000 have left Mogadishu this year
One million people are now living rough in Somalia, the UN refugee agency says.
The figure includes 60% of Mogadishu residents who have fled their homes - 200,000 in the past two weeks - leaving many districts empty, says UNHCR.
People have been forced out by renewed conflict between Islamist insurgents and Ethiopian-backed government forces.
Kenya's government has been strongly criticised for deporting 18 failed Somali asylum-seekers. "They are being sent to die," a rights worker said.
Meanwhile, the UN Security Council says it will continue to plan for a peacekeeping mission to Somalia, despite the secretary-general's opposition.
Ban Ki-moon said earlier this month that it was too dangerous to send troops to the war-torn country.
He instead urged countries to help the existing African Union mission.
On Saturday, Islamist insurgents armed with machine guns and grenades attacked the AU base in Mogadishu. Only Uganda has sent troops to the AU force.
'Against the law'
UNHCR says those who have fled to the Afgooye area, 30km from Mogadishu, are living in desperate conditions.
They are using plastic bags and rags to patch up their flimsy mud and straw huts.
Uganda has some 1,700 soldiers in Somalia as part of the AU mission
UNHCR says landowners are charging them $1.5 a month for a tiny plot of land to erect their shelters.
The refugee agency says 600,000 people have fled Mogadishu this year - on top of 400,000 displaced by earlier rounds of fighting.
A Kenyan human rights group has strenuously condemned the deportation of 18 failed asylum-seekers back to Mogadishu.
Alamin Kimanthi, who heads the Muslim Human Rights Forum, said police forced the women and children into a plane destined to Mogadishu, despite their protests.
They are part of a group of 50, whose requests for refugee status were rejected in Uganda.
The other 32 are being held at Nairobi's Jomo Kenyatta airport.
"We condemn the decision to deport these people to Somalia because it is clear that they are just being sent to die," Mr Kimanthi told the BBC News website after visiting the airport.
"It is against the law and we call on the international community to act on this situation."
'Heart-breaking'
After discussing Mr Ban's report, the Security Council "underlined the need to continue to actively develop contingency plans for the possible deployment of a peacekeeping force as part of an enhanced UN integrated strategy in Somalia", said its president, Marty Natalegawa from Indonesia.
South Africa's UN ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said the situation in Somalia was "heart-breaking".
"The UN has to find a way to go in there," he said, according to the AP news agency.
"The [UN] Charter says maintain international peace and security everywhere," he said. "It doesn't say except in Somalia."
Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991.
Violence has intensified this year after Ethiopia helped the government oust the Union of Islamic Courts last December.
In Mogadishu, Ethiopian and government troops conducted door-to-door searches for insurgents in the capital over the past week, sparking deadly clashes.
The United Nations says some 170,000 people fled the violence last week and hundreds of others have been injured in the crossfire.
This conflict is a direct result of the US use of Ethiopian proxy troops to overthrow the Union of Islamic Courts. Ever since there has been conflict between Islamic insurgents and the provisional government in effect the Ethiopian invaders who prop up the government. There was some semblance of security during the reign of the Islamic Courts and it was supported by many because whatever its faults it was better than feuding warlords and the provisional govt. However, it was not acceptable to the US so it had to go.
'One million' homeless in Somalia
Some 600,000 have left Mogadishu this year
One million people are now living rough in Somalia, the UN refugee agency says.
The figure includes 60% of Mogadishu residents who have fled their homes - 200,000 in the past two weeks - leaving many districts empty, says UNHCR.
People have been forced out by renewed conflict between Islamist insurgents and Ethiopian-backed government forces.
Kenya's government has been strongly criticised for deporting 18 failed Somali asylum-seekers. "They are being sent to die," a rights worker said.
Meanwhile, the UN Security Council says it will continue to plan for a peacekeeping mission to Somalia, despite the secretary-general's opposition.
Ban Ki-moon said earlier this month that it was too dangerous to send troops to the war-torn country.
He instead urged countries to help the existing African Union mission.
On Saturday, Islamist insurgents armed with machine guns and grenades attacked the AU base in Mogadishu. Only Uganda has sent troops to the AU force.
'Against the law'
UNHCR says those who have fled to the Afgooye area, 30km from Mogadishu, are living in desperate conditions.
They are using plastic bags and rags to patch up their flimsy mud and straw huts.
Uganda has some 1,700 soldiers in Somalia as part of the AU mission
UNHCR says landowners are charging them $1.5 a month for a tiny plot of land to erect their shelters.
The refugee agency says 600,000 people have fled Mogadishu this year - on top of 400,000 displaced by earlier rounds of fighting.
A Kenyan human rights group has strenuously condemned the deportation of 18 failed asylum-seekers back to Mogadishu.
Alamin Kimanthi, who heads the Muslim Human Rights Forum, said police forced the women and children into a plane destined to Mogadishu, despite their protests.
They are part of a group of 50, whose requests for refugee status were rejected in Uganda.
The other 32 are being held at Nairobi's Jomo Kenyatta airport.
"We condemn the decision to deport these people to Somalia because it is clear that they are just being sent to die," Mr Kimanthi told the BBC News website after visiting the airport.
"It is against the law and we call on the international community to act on this situation."
'Heart-breaking'
After discussing Mr Ban's report, the Security Council "underlined the need to continue to actively develop contingency plans for the possible deployment of a peacekeeping force as part of an enhanced UN integrated strategy in Somalia", said its president, Marty Natalegawa from Indonesia.
South Africa's UN ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said the situation in Somalia was "heart-breaking".
"The UN has to find a way to go in there," he said, according to the AP news agency.
"The [UN] Charter says maintain international peace and security everywhere," he said. "It doesn't say except in Somalia."
Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991.
Violence has intensified this year after Ethiopia helped the government oust the Union of Islamic Courts last December.
In Mogadishu, Ethiopian and government troops conducted door-to-door searches for insurgents in the capital over the past week, sparking deadly clashes.
The United Nations says some 170,000 people fled the violence last week and hundreds of others have been injured in the crossfire.
Just 12 per cent of Poles favor troops in Iraq
The new Polish government has pledged to withdraw the troops by next year. With this type of poll they will probably be withdrawn sooner rather than later. The Law and Justice party which lost the recent election was probably not helped by its close connections with Bush.
Only 12 percent of Poles favor troops in Iraq
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
WARSAW: Almost four-fifths of Poles want their country's troops out of Iraq, and a similar proportion hope Polish forces will be withdrawn from Afghanistan, according to a survey published Tuesday. The poll conducted by the ARC institute for the Polska newspaper found that 85 percent of respondents opposed Poland's deployment of 900 troops in Iraq, while only 12.1 percent were in favor of sticking with the US-led coalition. Poland has been one of Washington's most loyal allies over Iraq. Around 2,600 Polish troops took part in the 2003 invasion, a move which sparked a bitter verbal tussle with anti-war fellow members of the EU, notably France. US-Polish ties strengthened after the election in 2005 of Poland's previous conservative government of the Law and Justice party. But Law and Justice lost office in a snap election last month to the liberal Civic Platform, which has pledged to withdraw the Polish contingent from Iraq next year. A total of 22 Polish soldiers have been killed in Iraq since 2003. The poll also found that 84.3 percent of respondents opposed the Polish deployment in Afghanistan, where 1,200 troops are serving with NATO's 36,000-strong International Security Assistance Force which is battling a Taliban-led insurgency. Only 13.2 percent of respondents were in favor of the mission. Polish troops have been in Afghanistan since March 2002, and suffered their first fatality this year. The Afghanistan mission has also made headlines after Polish military prosecutors on November 14 charged six soldiers with murdering Afghan civilians during an incident in August. The poll of 802 people was carried out on November 16-18. - AFP
Only 12 percent of Poles favor troops in Iraq
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
WARSAW: Almost four-fifths of Poles want their country's troops out of Iraq, and a similar proportion hope Polish forces will be withdrawn from Afghanistan, according to a survey published Tuesday. The poll conducted by the ARC institute for the Polska newspaper found that 85 percent of respondents opposed Poland's deployment of 900 troops in Iraq, while only 12.1 percent were in favor of sticking with the US-led coalition. Poland has been one of Washington's most loyal allies over Iraq. Around 2,600 Polish troops took part in the 2003 invasion, a move which sparked a bitter verbal tussle with anti-war fellow members of the EU, notably France. US-Polish ties strengthened after the election in 2005 of Poland's previous conservative government of the Law and Justice party. But Law and Justice lost office in a snap election last month to the liberal Civic Platform, which has pledged to withdraw the Polish contingent from Iraq next year. A total of 22 Polish soldiers have been killed in Iraq since 2003. The poll also found that 84.3 percent of respondents opposed the Polish deployment in Afghanistan, where 1,200 troops are serving with NATO's 36,000-strong International Security Assistance Force which is battling a Taliban-led insurgency. Only 13.2 percent of respondents were in favor of the mission. Polish troops have been in Afghanistan since March 2002, and suffered their first fatality this year. The Afghanistan mission has also made headlines after Polish military prosecutors on November 14 charged six soldiers with murdering Afghan civilians during an incident in August. The poll of 802 people was carried out on November 16-18. - AFP
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Putin: Control of oil reserves among Iraq war goals.
This is from this Russian site. It is not surprising that Putin should say this but it is a little surprising that he should agree with Bush that the US should stay as long as the security situation requires it. Of course Putin along with many others think that the US should set a withdrawal date. The two positions are a bit contradictory unless the withdrawal date is just a motivator!
Control of oil reserves among Iraq war goals - Putin
16:53 | 18/ 10/ 2007
MOSCOW, October 18 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was mainly aimed at controlling the Gulf state's oil reserves.
During his annual televised question-and-answer session, the president responded to a request for his appraisal of the Iraq war by stating that, "One of the goals, in my opinion, was to establish control over the country's crude reserves."
He also said that the U.S. should fix a date for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq.
"If the Iraqi authorities know the exact U.S. troop withdrawal date, they will work hard and consistently to enhance the country's own armed forces," Putin said, adding that they would otherwise remain inactive, feeling secure and protected "under the U.S. umbrella".
On the other hand, the president said he agreed with U.S. President George W. Bush that U.S. forces should remain in Iraq as long as their assistance is needed to ensure security.
"The U.S. contingent should only be withdrawn when the Iraqi leadership is capable of maintaining security and stability in the region," Putin said.
He called Iraq "a small country, which holds enormous oil reserves, but is hardly capable of protecting itself."
Putin also said that, "Some hotheads have come up with the idea of getting access to Russian oil reserves, particularly in east Siberia." He did not specify further.
Asked by a Siberian mechanic to comment on a statement, allegedly made several years ago by former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright, to the effect that Siberia had too many natural resources to belong to one country, the president replied that "Russia has sufficient strength and means to protect its interests on its territory and in other regions of the world."
Control of oil reserves among Iraq war goals - Putin
16:53 | 18/ 10/ 2007
MOSCOW, October 18 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was mainly aimed at controlling the Gulf state's oil reserves.
During his annual televised question-and-answer session, the president responded to a request for his appraisal of the Iraq war by stating that, "One of the goals, in my opinion, was to establish control over the country's crude reserves."
He also said that the U.S. should fix a date for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq.
"If the Iraqi authorities know the exact U.S. troop withdrawal date, they will work hard and consistently to enhance the country's own armed forces," Putin said, adding that they would otherwise remain inactive, feeling secure and protected "under the U.S. umbrella".
On the other hand, the president said he agreed with U.S. President George W. Bush that U.S. forces should remain in Iraq as long as their assistance is needed to ensure security.
"The U.S. contingent should only be withdrawn when the Iraqi leadership is capable of maintaining security and stability in the region," Putin said.
He called Iraq "a small country, which holds enormous oil reserves, but is hardly capable of protecting itself."
Putin also said that, "Some hotheads have come up with the idea of getting access to Russian oil reserves, particularly in east Siberia." He did not specify further.
Asked by a Siberian mechanic to comment on a statement, allegedly made several years ago by former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright, to the effect that Siberia had too many natural resources to belong to one country, the president replied that "Russia has sufficient strength and means to protect its interests on its territory and in other regions of the world."
Pakistan releases 3,400 jailed under emergency rule
I imagine that the former chief justice is also still behind bars. It is interesting that Bhutto has never been put in jail. Even when her house is under siege she still manages news conferences!
I am a bit surprised that Musharraf would leave to visit Saudi Arabia during this time period. He must either feel that there is no danger of a takeover while he is gone or else he knows there is a takeover coming and has arranged a nice soft landing and retirement abroad.
Pakistan releases 3,400 jailed under emergency rule
Last Updated: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 | 8:44 AM ET
CBC News
More than 3,400 people jailed in Pakistan under the broadened powers of emergency rule have been released in recent days, the country's Interior Ministry said Tuesday.
Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said 3,416 prisoners have been released, while 2,000 still remain behind bars.
Many of those detained since President Gen. Pervez Musharraf imposed a state of emergency on Nov. 3 were lawyers, human rights activists and political opponents who were arrested for defying a ban on public demonstrations.
Among those still detained are a number of high-ranking opposition party members and leaders, including former cricket star Imran Khan, who began a hunger strike Monday to protest emergency rule.
Under increasing international and domestic pressure, Musharraf has been rolling back some of his most unpopular measures.
Continue Article
The prisoner release came hours after Musharraf's hand-picked Supreme Court judges dismissed legal challenges to his disputed re-election as president while still holding his post as army chief.
The U.S. has repeatedly demanded that Musharraf end emergency rule, step down as army chief, end media restrictions and release opposition members.
Opponents have accused the military ruler of cracking down on dissidents rather than Islamic extremists, the reason he said he enacted an emergency state.
He has also been accused of imposing emergency rule and purging the Supreme Court ahead of a decision that was likely to find his presidency illegal.
Musharraf left for a visit to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday for talks with King Abdullah.
The Pakistan president often visits Saudi Arabia, a close ally.
Some had speculated Musharraf might reach out to his staunchest opponent, Nawaz Sharif, while visiting Saudi Arabia.
Sharif was deposed by the general in the 1999 bloodless coup and then exiled.
The two have no plans to meet, Sharif was quoted as saying in Pakistan's Dawn newspaper on Tuesday.
I am a bit surprised that Musharraf would leave to visit Saudi Arabia during this time period. He must either feel that there is no danger of a takeover while he is gone or else he knows there is a takeover coming and has arranged a nice soft landing and retirement abroad.
Pakistan releases 3,400 jailed under emergency rule
Last Updated: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 | 8:44 AM ET
CBC News
More than 3,400 people jailed in Pakistan under the broadened powers of emergency rule have been released in recent days, the country's Interior Ministry said Tuesday.
Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said 3,416 prisoners have been released, while 2,000 still remain behind bars.
Many of those detained since President Gen. Pervez Musharraf imposed a state of emergency on Nov. 3 were lawyers, human rights activists and political opponents who were arrested for defying a ban on public demonstrations.
Among those still detained are a number of high-ranking opposition party members and leaders, including former cricket star Imran Khan, who began a hunger strike Monday to protest emergency rule.
Under increasing international and domestic pressure, Musharraf has been rolling back some of his most unpopular measures.
Continue Article
The prisoner release came hours after Musharraf's hand-picked Supreme Court judges dismissed legal challenges to his disputed re-election as president while still holding his post as army chief.
The U.S. has repeatedly demanded that Musharraf end emergency rule, step down as army chief, end media restrictions and release opposition members.
Opponents have accused the military ruler of cracking down on dissidents rather than Islamic extremists, the reason he said he enacted an emergency state.
He has also been accused of imposing emergency rule and purging the Supreme Court ahead of a decision that was likely to find his presidency illegal.
Musharraf left for a visit to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday for talks with King Abdullah.
The Pakistan president often visits Saudi Arabia, a close ally.
Some had speculated Musharraf might reach out to his staunchest opponent, Nawaz Sharif, while visiting Saudi Arabia.
Sharif was deposed by the general in the 1999 bloodless coup and then exiled.
The two have no plans to meet, Sharif was quoted as saying in Pakistan's Dawn newspaper on Tuesday.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Philippines: Quick end to investigation leads to frame-up speculation
This is from the Manila Tribune. There is a great distrust of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the National Police, and politicians in the Philippines. In fact of the three the politicians though widely distrusted are ranked third of the three in level of distrust in a poll published a couple of years ago.
Even though the National Police account seems at least to me an outsider perfectly reasonable--after all the Sayaff group have every reason to target the congressman--many people think the investigation was all a frame-up. The National police are just not trusted as independent investigators but are thought to frame the evidence to conclude what they want to conclude. Of course this mode of investigation may not just be confined to the Philippines!! They seem to have exported it to many other countries as well!!
Swift end to Batasan attack probe raises frame-up posit
11/18/2007
The unusually swift resolution of investigations into the bombing at the Batasan Complex, which was uncharacteristic of previous police investigations, had fed doubts that the capture of supposed Abu Sayyaf members was made up by the police to bolster the angle of a kill plot on Basilan Rep. Wahab Akbar.
Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., short of expressing doubts over the quick end to police investigations over the bombing incident that happened last Tuesday, called the raid on the suspected Abu Sayyaf lair in Payatas “spectacular.”
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) spokesman Ka Roger Rosal, in a press statement sent to local dailies noted the “all-too-perfect coincidences” in the recovery of the deed of sale of the motorcycle used in the bombing, a number 8 vehicle plate reserved for vehicles of House of Representatives’ members and Congress staff T-shirts in the Payatas raid.
“According to the PNP (Philippine National Police) itself, the raid was carried out originally for an earlier unrelated case,” Rosal said.
Rosal said deep and widespread suspicions about the cover-up of the Arroyo regime’s hand behind the Glorietta mall blast carry over to similar suspicions of another cover-up of the Batasan bombing.
“There is widespread doubt that the ‘evidence’ was actually in the possession of the military and police and planted to mislead the public and hide the hand of the real bombers,” Rosal said.
“From the start, the PNP has been insisting that the Batasan bombing targeted only Congressman Wahab Akbar, one of four people killed, and was motivated by mere political rivalry or vengeance,” added Rosal.
“There now seems to be a dogged and concerted effort by Malacanang and Camp Aguinaldo to prove that the bombing targeted only Akbar in order to dismiss assertions that it was actually carried out to target some progressive members of Congress or was carried out with the general political aim of terrorizing the people,” he said.
The police, meanwhile, said the three suspected Abu Sayyaf members captured in the Payatas raid in Quezon City last Thursday were “very cooperative” and were providing investigators vital information on the deadly explosion at the Batasan Complex last Tuesday.
PNP chief Director General Avelino Razon Jr said the information provided by the three supported a police theory that the attack targeted Akbar.
Akbar was one of four people killed in the blast at the Batasan complex in Quezon City last Tuesday that also injured 13, including Representatives Luzviminda Ilagan and Henry Teves.
Information were taken from them. They (the Abu Sayyaf suspects) have been very cooperative,” Razon said in a radio interview.
Razon said police investigators are now relating the statements from the suspects with the physical evidence gathered from the House of Representative’s south wing entrance where the explosion happened.
The three suspected Abu Sayyaf members, Khaidar Awnal, Ikram Indama and Adham Kusain, were supposedly captured last Thursday after a shootout. Three other alleged Abu Sayyaf members were killed in the incident.
Police said that Redwan Indama was a former member of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and former municipal councilor of Tipo-Tipo, Basilan.
Hataman also confirmed seeing Ikram Indama as driver of Salapuddin, a former commander of MNLF, during his stint as congressman of Basilan in the 13th Congress.
Ikram Indama’s identification card was recovered by the policemen during the raid. It stated that he was detailed with Salapuddin.
Aside from Ikram Indama, two other suspected Abu Sayyaf rebels, Khaidar Awnal and Adham Kusain, were also arrested.
In the same raid, Redwan Indama, his wife Saing, and Abu Jandal alias Bong were killed.
CPP’s Rosal said those killed and arrested were fallguys who used to work as government agents.
“People are highly suspicious that the police raid of a supposed Abu Sayyaf hide-out in Payatas, Quezon City was actually a setup, those killed and arrested mere scapegoats or actually fallguys who worked as agents of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),” Rosal said.
Ka Rosal’s view that the attack may have been directed against left-wing partylist House members were shared Ilagan, who is a representative for partylist Gabriela.
Razon said investigators have so far not gathered any evidence to bolster Ilagan’s claim that she was the target of the blast because she supported an impeachment complaint against President Gloria Arroyo.
“We have not found any evidence to support Ilagan’s assertion,” Razon said on radio.
Batasan complex security guards, meanwhile, identified two of three suspected Abu Sayyaf members, Indama and Kusain, as being in the area when the blast occurred. Indama was a former driver of former Basilan Rep. Gerry Salapuddin.
Salapuddin, former House deputy speaker for Mindanao, however, denied having a hand in the Batasan complex bombing.
He voluntarily appeared yesterday before the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) to clear his name.
Salapuddin was dragged into the Batasan bombing investigations after his driver, along with two other suspected members of the Abu Sayyaf, was captured in Payatas.
Salapuddin admitted to knowing two of the three men who were captured, Ikram Indama and Adham Kusain. He, however, said that while Indama was his former driver, it does not mean that he has knowledge of their activities, the report said.
The former congressman also said that his driver has relatives who are Abu Sayyaf members who may have prodded Indama to commit to a plot against Akbar who allegedly founded the group.
Authorities earlier said that while investigators have established the link between Indama and Salapuddin, the former Basilan congressman has not been named a suspect in the explosion.
“I don’t deny that he (Ikram Indama) worked for me as a driver. But after my term, I don’t know what happened to him,” Salapuddin said.
Salapuddin lost to Basilan Governor Jum Akbar, one of the four widows of the late Basilan Representative Wahab Akbar.
Despite their political difference, Salapuddin said a grieving person’s normal instinct is to suspect a political rival as the killer. But my electoral protest was not against Wahab Akbar. My protest was against his wife.
Razon said the Philippine National Police (PNP) is now considering to persuade one of those arrested to become a state witness.
De Venecia said the reward money put up by President Gloria Arroyo and members of the House have led to the spectacular breakthrough in the Batasan bombing investigation of the police.
During a breakfast meeting at Malacañang Friday, de Venecia thanked the President for putting up P5 million in reward money, as police sifting through the debris found clues that may have established a link to three Abu Sayyaf suspects shot dead by police operatives.
Quezon City second district Representative Annie Susano offered another P2 million and House members, following a resolution filed by Manila Representative Benny Abante, contributed a total of P1.2 million for the early resolution of the attack that police theorized could have been meant for Akbar.
President Arroyo, meanwhile, ordered the Philippine National Police (PNP) to strictly enforce existing laws on the possession of explosives following the Batasan complex blast.
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said the President also called for an end to speculations on who the mastermind was and the motives behind the attack, adding that the public should wait for the PNP to issue its final report.
Bunye said Arroyo has commended the Armed Forces and the PNP for the raid in Payatas, which resulted in the death of three alleged members of the Abu Sayyaf and the seizure of equipment similar to those used in the Batasan bombing.
The President said the raid “provided a significant breakthrough in the Batasan blast investigation.”
Islamic leaders, meanwhile, are protesting insinuations implicating some Muslim personalities in the Nov. 13 bombing of the House of Representatives.
“Find first evidence supporting this claim before implicating such persons,” Philippine Muslim Council for Islam and Democracy (PMCID) lead convenor and ex-senator Amina Rasul said at the Kapihan sa Sulo forum.
She and PMCID co-convenor Nasser Marohomsalic made the call after former Mindanao Deputy Speaker Gerry Salappudin of Basilan province and Anak Mindanao partylist representative Mujiv Hataman were linked to the blast.
Rasul is concerned about such development as she noted there were leaks to media implicating both even if probe on this matter isn’t over yet.
“Normally, you don’t yet release such information especially if it’s politically sensitive,” she stressed.
Authorities are focusing on the theory Akhbar could have been the blast’s target allegedly for helping government’s anti-insurgency drive in Basilan where the rebel Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) he was once linked to operated.
Rasul said authorities must pursue other possible leads as well, however.
“They should perhaps study if a different group wants Akhbar out of the picture and if others were the blast’s real targets,” she said.
She also said authorities must look into whether the explosion was meant instead to trigger widespread fear among people.
Talks surfaced about Salappudin’s possible involvement after authorities said a witness identified Ikram Indama, an alleged ASG member who once worked for this solon, as among two motorcycle-riding persons who entered the Batasan Pambansa compound just hours before explosion hit the House’s south wing entrance.
Rasul said linking Salappudin to the blast defies logic because he will unlikely tarnish his reputation by helping mastermind such carnage, however.
“Why will someone of his stature be involved in this dastardly act perpetrated in a public place within the institution he once belonged to?” she asked.
Marohomsalic also expressed dismay Hataman’s name is being dragged into the controversy.
“I know him personally,” Marohomsalic said. “He’s ideological and neither a terrorist nor an anarchist. I don’t think he placed his fellow in danger. He knows he needs them. It’s out of character for Muslim leaders like him to do so.”
Marohomsalic also dismissed talks linking the blast to alleged political bickerings in Basilan, province of Salappudin and Akhbar.
“Basilan is the least prone to political violence and has no history of such,” he said.
He likewise pointed out it is unlikely for Salappudin and Akhbar to engage in violence since both belong to the Yakan tribe which is among Mindanao’s most peaceful groups.
Linking Muslims to violence merely because there’s strife in Mindanao is wrong, he continued.
To help promote a more thorough probe of the blast, Marohomsalic said an independent commission must be formed to undertake the work.
He said multi-sector representatives and multi-denominational religious leaders must comprise this commission since it’s unlikely they’ll allow a whitewashed probe. Tribune wires
Even though the National Police account seems at least to me an outsider perfectly reasonable--after all the Sayaff group have every reason to target the congressman--many people think the investigation was all a frame-up. The National police are just not trusted as independent investigators but are thought to frame the evidence to conclude what they want to conclude. Of course this mode of investigation may not just be confined to the Philippines!! They seem to have exported it to many other countries as well!!
Swift end to Batasan attack probe raises frame-up posit
11/18/2007
The unusually swift resolution of investigations into the bombing at the Batasan Complex, which was uncharacteristic of previous police investigations, had fed doubts that the capture of supposed Abu Sayyaf members was made up by the police to bolster the angle of a kill plot on Basilan Rep. Wahab Akbar.
Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., short of expressing doubts over the quick end to police investigations over the bombing incident that happened last Tuesday, called the raid on the suspected Abu Sayyaf lair in Payatas “spectacular.”
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) spokesman Ka Roger Rosal, in a press statement sent to local dailies noted the “all-too-perfect coincidences” in the recovery of the deed of sale of the motorcycle used in the bombing, a number 8 vehicle plate reserved for vehicles of House of Representatives’ members and Congress staff T-shirts in the Payatas raid.
“According to the PNP (Philippine National Police) itself, the raid was carried out originally for an earlier unrelated case,” Rosal said.
Rosal said deep and widespread suspicions about the cover-up of the Arroyo regime’s hand behind the Glorietta mall blast carry over to similar suspicions of another cover-up of the Batasan bombing.
“There is widespread doubt that the ‘evidence’ was actually in the possession of the military and police and planted to mislead the public and hide the hand of the real bombers,” Rosal said.
“From the start, the PNP has been insisting that the Batasan bombing targeted only Congressman Wahab Akbar, one of four people killed, and was motivated by mere political rivalry or vengeance,” added Rosal.
“There now seems to be a dogged and concerted effort by Malacanang and Camp Aguinaldo to prove that the bombing targeted only Akbar in order to dismiss assertions that it was actually carried out to target some progressive members of Congress or was carried out with the general political aim of terrorizing the people,” he said.
The police, meanwhile, said the three suspected Abu Sayyaf members captured in the Payatas raid in Quezon City last Thursday were “very cooperative” and were providing investigators vital information on the deadly explosion at the Batasan Complex last Tuesday.
PNP chief Director General Avelino Razon Jr said the information provided by the three supported a police theory that the attack targeted Akbar.
Akbar was one of four people killed in the blast at the Batasan complex in Quezon City last Tuesday that also injured 13, including Representatives Luzviminda Ilagan and Henry Teves.
Information were taken from them. They (the Abu Sayyaf suspects) have been very cooperative,” Razon said in a radio interview.
Razon said police investigators are now relating the statements from the suspects with the physical evidence gathered from the House of Representative’s south wing entrance where the explosion happened.
The three suspected Abu Sayyaf members, Khaidar Awnal, Ikram Indama and Adham Kusain, were supposedly captured last Thursday after a shootout. Three other alleged Abu Sayyaf members were killed in the incident.
Police said that Redwan Indama was a former member of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and former municipal councilor of Tipo-Tipo, Basilan.
Hataman also confirmed seeing Ikram Indama as driver of Salapuddin, a former commander of MNLF, during his stint as congressman of Basilan in the 13th Congress.
Ikram Indama’s identification card was recovered by the policemen during the raid. It stated that he was detailed with Salapuddin.
Aside from Ikram Indama, two other suspected Abu Sayyaf rebels, Khaidar Awnal and Adham Kusain, were also arrested.
In the same raid, Redwan Indama, his wife Saing, and Abu Jandal alias Bong were killed.
CPP’s Rosal said those killed and arrested were fallguys who used to work as government agents.
“People are highly suspicious that the police raid of a supposed Abu Sayyaf hide-out in Payatas, Quezon City was actually a setup, those killed and arrested mere scapegoats or actually fallguys who worked as agents of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),” Rosal said.
Ka Rosal’s view that the attack may have been directed against left-wing partylist House members were shared Ilagan, who is a representative for partylist Gabriela.
Razon said investigators have so far not gathered any evidence to bolster Ilagan’s claim that she was the target of the blast because she supported an impeachment complaint against President Gloria Arroyo.
“We have not found any evidence to support Ilagan’s assertion,” Razon said on radio.
Batasan complex security guards, meanwhile, identified two of three suspected Abu Sayyaf members, Indama and Kusain, as being in the area when the blast occurred. Indama was a former driver of former Basilan Rep. Gerry Salapuddin.
Salapuddin, former House deputy speaker for Mindanao, however, denied having a hand in the Batasan complex bombing.
He voluntarily appeared yesterday before the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) to clear his name.
Salapuddin was dragged into the Batasan bombing investigations after his driver, along with two other suspected members of the Abu Sayyaf, was captured in Payatas.
Salapuddin admitted to knowing two of the three men who were captured, Ikram Indama and Adham Kusain. He, however, said that while Indama was his former driver, it does not mean that he has knowledge of their activities, the report said.
The former congressman also said that his driver has relatives who are Abu Sayyaf members who may have prodded Indama to commit to a plot against Akbar who allegedly founded the group.
Authorities earlier said that while investigators have established the link between Indama and Salapuddin, the former Basilan congressman has not been named a suspect in the explosion.
“I don’t deny that he (Ikram Indama) worked for me as a driver. But after my term, I don’t know what happened to him,” Salapuddin said.
Salapuddin lost to Basilan Governor Jum Akbar, one of the four widows of the late Basilan Representative Wahab Akbar.
Despite their political difference, Salapuddin said a grieving person’s normal instinct is to suspect a political rival as the killer. But my electoral protest was not against Wahab Akbar. My protest was against his wife.
Razon said the Philippine National Police (PNP) is now considering to persuade one of those arrested to become a state witness.
De Venecia said the reward money put up by President Gloria Arroyo and members of the House have led to the spectacular breakthrough in the Batasan bombing investigation of the police.
During a breakfast meeting at Malacañang Friday, de Venecia thanked the President for putting up P5 million in reward money, as police sifting through the debris found clues that may have established a link to three Abu Sayyaf suspects shot dead by police operatives.
Quezon City second district Representative Annie Susano offered another P2 million and House members, following a resolution filed by Manila Representative Benny Abante, contributed a total of P1.2 million for the early resolution of the attack that police theorized could have been meant for Akbar.
President Arroyo, meanwhile, ordered the Philippine National Police (PNP) to strictly enforce existing laws on the possession of explosives following the Batasan complex blast.
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said the President also called for an end to speculations on who the mastermind was and the motives behind the attack, adding that the public should wait for the PNP to issue its final report.
Bunye said Arroyo has commended the Armed Forces and the PNP for the raid in Payatas, which resulted in the death of three alleged members of the Abu Sayyaf and the seizure of equipment similar to those used in the Batasan bombing.
The President said the raid “provided a significant breakthrough in the Batasan blast investigation.”
Islamic leaders, meanwhile, are protesting insinuations implicating some Muslim personalities in the Nov. 13 bombing of the House of Representatives.
“Find first evidence supporting this claim before implicating such persons,” Philippine Muslim Council for Islam and Democracy (PMCID) lead convenor and ex-senator Amina Rasul said at the Kapihan sa Sulo forum.
She and PMCID co-convenor Nasser Marohomsalic made the call after former Mindanao Deputy Speaker Gerry Salappudin of Basilan province and Anak Mindanao partylist representative Mujiv Hataman were linked to the blast.
Rasul is concerned about such development as she noted there were leaks to media implicating both even if probe on this matter isn’t over yet.
“Normally, you don’t yet release such information especially if it’s politically sensitive,” she stressed.
Authorities are focusing on the theory Akhbar could have been the blast’s target allegedly for helping government’s anti-insurgency drive in Basilan where the rebel Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) he was once linked to operated.
Rasul said authorities must pursue other possible leads as well, however.
“They should perhaps study if a different group wants Akhbar out of the picture and if others were the blast’s real targets,” she said.
She also said authorities must look into whether the explosion was meant instead to trigger widespread fear among people.
Talks surfaced about Salappudin’s possible involvement after authorities said a witness identified Ikram Indama, an alleged ASG member who once worked for this solon, as among two motorcycle-riding persons who entered the Batasan Pambansa compound just hours before explosion hit the House’s south wing entrance.
Rasul said linking Salappudin to the blast defies logic because he will unlikely tarnish his reputation by helping mastermind such carnage, however.
“Why will someone of his stature be involved in this dastardly act perpetrated in a public place within the institution he once belonged to?” she asked.
Marohomsalic also expressed dismay Hataman’s name is being dragged into the controversy.
“I know him personally,” Marohomsalic said. “He’s ideological and neither a terrorist nor an anarchist. I don’t think he placed his fellow in danger. He knows he needs them. It’s out of character for Muslim leaders like him to do so.”
Marohomsalic also dismissed talks linking the blast to alleged political bickerings in Basilan, province of Salappudin and Akhbar.
“Basilan is the least prone to political violence and has no history of such,” he said.
He likewise pointed out it is unlikely for Salappudin and Akhbar to engage in violence since both belong to the Yakan tribe which is among Mindanao’s most peaceful groups.
Linking Muslims to violence merely because there’s strife in Mindanao is wrong, he continued.
To help promote a more thorough probe of the blast, Marohomsalic said an independent commission must be formed to undertake the work.
He said multi-sector representatives and multi-denominational religious leaders must comprise this commission since it’s unlikely they’ll allow a whitewashed probe. Tribune wires
US monetary crisis
This article details the manner in which the dollar props up US hegemony in the world. With the weakening dollar many countries are reducing their dollar holdings and buying other currencies such as the Euro. Of course many people are also buying precious metals such as gold. The article has an interesting and lengthy analysis of the situation. It is at countercurrents.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
US peace organisations support Czech protests against US radar in Czech republic
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The majority of Czechs are against building the facilities but that seems to make no difference. Most Americans support withdrawal from Irag too but that seems not to have much effect either. The immediate response was the surge! The whole idea of the missile defence system being directed at Iran or North Korea seems ludicrous and but an excuse to confront Russia. Russia certainly sees it that way.
November 16, 2007
Contact:
Joanne Landy (212) 666-4001, cell (646) 207-5203
LEADERS OF U.S. PEACE ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT MAJOR CZECH DEMONSTRATIONS
AGAINST
U.S. RADAR IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Activists Meet with Czech Ambassador to the U.N. to Urge Rejection of
New U.S. Military Base
NEW YORK, N.Y., November 16, 2007 - Leaders of several U.S. peace
organizations met at 9:30am today with Czech Ambassador Martin Palous
at
the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations,
1109-1111 Madison Avenue, near 83rd Street in Manhattan. The U.S. peace
groups support demonstrations planned for Saturday, November 17 in
Prague
and Brno protesting the plans of the Czech government to host the radar
for
a U.S. anti-missile system. These demonstrations are organized by the
Czech
group No Bases Initiative (Iniciativa Ne základnám).
The delegation of U.S. peace leaders was convened by the New York-based
Campaign for Peace and Democracy in response to an appeal for
international
solidarity by the No Bases Initiative. A statement of support for the
Czech
movement against the U.S. radar was signed by members of the delegation
and
a number of individuals who were unable to participate because of prior
commitments. This statement is below.
The writer Ariel Dorfman sent the following message, "I deeply regret
that
I cannot join your delegation today. It is time for another Prague
spring,
this time so there can be peace to go along with the freedom already
conquered, the freedom and liberation we so applauded and celebrated."
* * * * * * * * * * * *
SOLIDARITY WITH OPPONENTS
OF PROPOSED U.S. MILITARY BASE IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
A Statement from U.S. Peace Organizations Delivered to
Ambassador Martin Palous
Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations
November 16, 2007
We are here today to declare our solidarity with tomorrow’s
protest by the No Bases Initiative in the Czech Republic, where
demonstrations will take place against the plans of the Czech
government to
host the radar for a U.S. anti-missile system.
The No Bases Initiative chose the date of November 17 because,
in
their words, this date “has come to symbolize the overthrow of the
undemocratic regime in the former Czechoslovakia and the return of
representative democracy. This change came about because of the protest
of
hundreds of thousands of people in the streets of Prague eighteen years
ago.” In the view of these Czech activists, resistance to the
introduction
of new foreign military bases is the most fitting way to commemorate
that
anniversary.
Polls have shown that a significant majority of the people in
the
Czech Republic oppose the U.S. military facilities, but the Czech
government is flagrantly ignoring public opinion. As the No Bases
Initiative notes, "Politicians had known for a number of years of U.S.
plans to install a military base on Czech territory but had kept this
information from the public. They didn't consider it important to tell
voters before last year’s parliamentary elections either." This
Saturday,
Czech protestors will be calling for a popular referendum to vote on
this
critical issue.
The proposed new U.S. base in the Czech Republic and related
interceptor
missiles to be based in Poland mark a dangerous escalation. As
activists
from the Czech Republic and Poland, as well as from Hungary, Belgium,
Greece, France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom have stated,
“The
realisation of the US plan will not lead to enhanced security. On the
contrary - it will lead to new dangers and insecurities. Although it is
described as 'defensive,' in reality it will allow the United States to
attack other countries without fear of retaliation. It will also put
'host'
countries on the front line in future US wars.” (Prague Declaration,
"Peace
Doesn't Need New Missiles -We say no to the US missile defense system
in
Europe" May 2007)
Indeed, the announcement of the plans for military bases in the Czech
Republic and Poland has already produced an ominous response from
Russia.
The projected U.S. radar in the Czech Republic and 10 missile
interceptors
in Poland don’t constitute an immediate threat to Russia’s nuclear
deterrent, with its thousands of warheads, but as the New York Times
pointed out on October 10 of this year, “Kremlin officials are
believed to
fear that the system in Central Europe will lead to a more advanced
missile
defense that could blunt the Russian nuclear force… Russian officials
have
threatened to direct their missiles toward Europe if the United States
proceeds with the system. They also have said they will suspend
participation in a separate treaty limiting the deployment of
conventional
forces in Europe.” This is an unjustified reaction, endangering
innocent
populations, but is part of the crazy logic of superpower confrontation
that the U.S. move exacerbates.
Washington claims that the new facilities in Poland and the
Czech
Republic are designed to respond to a missile threat from Iran, but
there
is no credible evidence that such a threat exists today. And the
militaristic stance of the United States, far from protecting the U.S.
or
Europe from such a threat in the future, only enhances its likelihood.
We
need only to look at the example of North Korea, where years of
military
threats from the United States provided a strong inducement to seek
nuclear
weapons for their defense.
We do not believe that any nation should develop nuclear
weapons,
which by their nature are weapons of vast and indiscriminate mass
destruction. The United States and other nuclear powers can best reduce
the
danger of nuclear warfare by taking major steps toward both nuclear and
conventional disarmament and refraining from waging or threatening
“preventive” war -- not by expanding the nuclear threat. Such steps
by the
existing nuclear powers would create a political context that would
powerfully discourage new countries from developing their own nuclear
weapons.
As Americans, we have a particular moral responsibility to
speak
out. U.S. bases threaten the world. According to respected foreign
policy
analyst Chalmers Johnson, in 2004 the U.S. had 737 overseas military
bases,
not counting garrisons in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel,
Kyrgyzstan,
Qatar, and Uzbekistan, nor U.S. military and espionage installations in
the
UK. This vast network of overseas bases supports a foreign policy of
military interventions and global intimidation.
We are dismayed that the Czech Republic, rather than standing
as a
beacon for peace, is cooperating with the expansion of the Pentagon and
allowing a military base to be imposed on the country. We are further
dismayed by the fact that the Czech Republic recently opposed a UN
resolution highlighting concerns over the military use of depleted
uranium.
It was one of only six countries to oppose the resolution that was
supported by 122 nations. With such actions, the Czech government is
doing
a disservice both to its own real security, by making the Czech
Republic a
target, and to the prospects for peace and the spirit of November 17.
We are inspired by the principled actions of the people in the
Czech Republic who are taking to the streets to resist the steps toward
a
new Cold War being pursued by elites unresponsive to public opinion. We
join with them in a commitment to bring together the people of all
countries in building an international movement for peace, democracy
and
social justice.
The statement above was delivered to Ambassador Martin Palous by a
delegation consisting of the following:
1. Joanne Landy, Campaign for Peace and Democracy
2. Margaret W. Crane, Trinity Lutheran Church, Manhattan
3. Cathey Falvo, MD, President, Physicians for Social
Responsibility/NYC
4. Leslie Kielson, Coordinator, NYC-United for Peace and Justice
5. Jesse Lemisch, professor emeritus of History, John Jay College
of
Criminal Justice, City University of New York
6. Rosemarie Pace, Director, Pax Christi Metro New York
7. Stephen R. Shalom, Montclair Campaign for Peace and Justice
8. Barbara Webster, New Jersey Coalition to Bring the Troops Home
Now
9. Cheryl Wertz, Executive Director, Peace Action New York State
(three additional people joined the delegation: one from the Raging
Grannies, another grannies activist, and a videographer.)
The following individuals were unable to attend the meeting with
Ambassador
Palous. They asked to have their names added to the above statement.
1. Thomas Harrison, Co-Director, Campaign for Peace and Democracy
2. Jennifer Scarlott, Co-Director, Campaign for Peace and
Democracy
3. Ariel Dorfman, writer
4. Carolyn Eisenberg, Brooklyn for Peace
5. Daniel Ellsberg, Truth-Telling Project
6. Joseph Gerson, Director, Peace & Economic Security Program,
American Friends Service Committee
7. Charlotte Phillips, M.D., Chairperson, Brooklyn For Peace
(formerly
Brooklyn Parents for Peace)
8. Ethan Vesely-Flad, Communications Co-Coordinator, Fellowship of
Reconciliation and Editor, Fellowship magazine
For further information contact Joanne Landy, Thomas Harrison, and
Jennifer
Scarlott, Co-Directors, Campaign for Peace and Democracy, 2790
Broadway,
#12, NY, NY 10025. Tel (212) 666-4001, Cell (646) 207-5203, Fax (212)
866-5847. Email: cpd@igc.org Web: www.cpdweb.org
The majority of Czechs are against building the facilities but that seems to make no difference. Most Americans support withdrawal from Irag too but that seems not to have much effect either. The immediate response was the surge! The whole idea of the missile defence system being directed at Iran or North Korea seems ludicrous and but an excuse to confront Russia. Russia certainly sees it that way.
November 16, 2007
Contact:
Joanne Landy (212) 666-4001, cell (646) 207-5203
LEADERS OF U.S. PEACE ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT MAJOR CZECH DEMONSTRATIONS
AGAINST
U.S. RADAR IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Activists Meet with Czech Ambassador to the U.N. to Urge Rejection of
New U.S. Military Base
NEW YORK, N.Y., November 16, 2007 - Leaders of several U.S. peace
organizations met at 9:30am today with Czech Ambassador Martin Palous
at
the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations,
1109-1111 Madison Avenue, near 83rd Street in Manhattan. The U.S. peace
groups support demonstrations planned for Saturday, November 17 in
Prague
and Brno protesting the plans of the Czech government to host the radar
for
a U.S. anti-missile system. These demonstrations are organized by the
Czech
group No Bases Initiative (Iniciativa Ne základnám).
The delegation of U.S. peace leaders was convened by the New York-based
Campaign for Peace and Democracy in response to an appeal for
international
solidarity by the No Bases Initiative. A statement of support for the
Czech
movement against the U.S. radar was signed by members of the delegation
and
a number of individuals who were unable to participate because of prior
commitments. This statement is below.
The writer Ariel Dorfman sent the following message, "I deeply regret
that
I cannot join your delegation today. It is time for another Prague
spring,
this time so there can be peace to go along with the freedom already
conquered, the freedom and liberation we so applauded and celebrated."
* * * * * * * * * * * *
SOLIDARITY WITH OPPONENTS
OF PROPOSED U.S. MILITARY BASE IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
A Statement from U.S. Peace Organizations Delivered to
Ambassador Martin Palous
Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations
November 16, 2007
We are here today to declare our solidarity with tomorrow’s
protest by the No Bases Initiative in the Czech Republic, where
demonstrations will take place against the plans of the Czech
government to
host the radar for a U.S. anti-missile system.
The No Bases Initiative chose the date of November 17 because,
in
their words, this date “has come to symbolize the overthrow of the
undemocratic regime in the former Czechoslovakia and the return of
representative democracy. This change came about because of the protest
of
hundreds of thousands of people in the streets of Prague eighteen years
ago.” In the view of these Czech activists, resistance to the
introduction
of new foreign military bases is the most fitting way to commemorate
that
anniversary.
Polls have shown that a significant majority of the people in
the
Czech Republic oppose the U.S. military facilities, but the Czech
government is flagrantly ignoring public opinion. As the No Bases
Initiative notes, "Politicians had known for a number of years of U.S.
plans to install a military base on Czech territory but had kept this
information from the public. They didn't consider it important to tell
voters before last year’s parliamentary elections either." This
Saturday,
Czech protestors will be calling for a popular referendum to vote on
this
critical issue.
The proposed new U.S. base in the Czech Republic and related
interceptor
missiles to be based in Poland mark a dangerous escalation. As
activists
from the Czech Republic and Poland, as well as from Hungary, Belgium,
Greece, France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom have stated,
“The
realisation of the US plan will not lead to enhanced security. On the
contrary - it will lead to new dangers and insecurities. Although it is
described as 'defensive,' in reality it will allow the United States to
attack other countries without fear of retaliation. It will also put
'host'
countries on the front line in future US wars.” (Prague Declaration,
"Peace
Doesn't Need New Missiles -We say no to the US missile defense system
in
Europe" May 2007)
Indeed, the announcement of the plans for military bases in the Czech
Republic and Poland has already produced an ominous response from
Russia.
The projected U.S. radar in the Czech Republic and 10 missile
interceptors
in Poland don’t constitute an immediate threat to Russia’s nuclear
deterrent, with its thousands of warheads, but as the New York Times
pointed out on October 10 of this year, “Kremlin officials are
believed to
fear that the system in Central Europe will lead to a more advanced
missile
defense that could blunt the Russian nuclear force… Russian officials
have
threatened to direct their missiles toward Europe if the United States
proceeds with the system. They also have said they will suspend
participation in a separate treaty limiting the deployment of
conventional
forces in Europe.” This is an unjustified reaction, endangering
innocent
populations, but is part of the crazy logic of superpower confrontation
that the U.S. move exacerbates.
Washington claims that the new facilities in Poland and the
Czech
Republic are designed to respond to a missile threat from Iran, but
there
is no credible evidence that such a threat exists today. And the
militaristic stance of the United States, far from protecting the U.S.
or
Europe from such a threat in the future, only enhances its likelihood.
We
need only to look at the example of North Korea, where years of
military
threats from the United States provided a strong inducement to seek
nuclear
weapons for their defense.
We do not believe that any nation should develop nuclear
weapons,
which by their nature are weapons of vast and indiscriminate mass
destruction. The United States and other nuclear powers can best reduce
the
danger of nuclear warfare by taking major steps toward both nuclear and
conventional disarmament and refraining from waging or threatening
“preventive” war -- not by expanding the nuclear threat. Such steps
by the
existing nuclear powers would create a political context that would
powerfully discourage new countries from developing their own nuclear
weapons.
As Americans, we have a particular moral responsibility to
speak
out. U.S. bases threaten the world. According to respected foreign
policy
analyst Chalmers Johnson, in 2004 the U.S. had 737 overseas military
bases,
not counting garrisons in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel,
Kyrgyzstan,
Qatar, and Uzbekistan, nor U.S. military and espionage installations in
the
UK. This vast network of overseas bases supports a foreign policy of
military interventions and global intimidation.
We are dismayed that the Czech Republic, rather than standing
as a
beacon for peace, is cooperating with the expansion of the Pentagon and
allowing a military base to be imposed on the country. We are further
dismayed by the fact that the Czech Republic recently opposed a UN
resolution highlighting concerns over the military use of depleted
uranium.
It was one of only six countries to oppose the resolution that was
supported by 122 nations. With such actions, the Czech government is
doing
a disservice both to its own real security, by making the Czech
Republic a
target, and to the prospects for peace and the spirit of November 17.
We are inspired by the principled actions of the people in the
Czech Republic who are taking to the streets to resist the steps toward
a
new Cold War being pursued by elites unresponsive to public opinion. We
join with them in a commitment to bring together the people of all
countries in building an international movement for peace, democracy
and
social justice.
The statement above was delivered to Ambassador Martin Palous by a
delegation consisting of the following:
1. Joanne Landy, Campaign for Peace and Democracy
2. Margaret W. Crane, Trinity Lutheran Church, Manhattan
3. Cathey Falvo, MD, President, Physicians for Social
Responsibility/NYC
4. Leslie Kielson, Coordinator, NYC-United for Peace and Justice
5. Jesse Lemisch, professor emeritus of History, John Jay College
of
Criminal Justice, City University of New York
6. Rosemarie Pace, Director, Pax Christi Metro New York
7. Stephen R. Shalom, Montclair Campaign for Peace and Justice
8. Barbara Webster, New Jersey Coalition to Bring the Troops Home
Now
9. Cheryl Wertz, Executive Director, Peace Action New York State
(three additional people joined the delegation: one from the Raging
Grannies, another grannies activist, and a videographer.)
The following individuals were unable to attend the meeting with
Ambassador
Palous. They asked to have their names added to the above statement.
1. Thomas Harrison, Co-Director, Campaign for Peace and Democracy
2. Jennifer Scarlott, Co-Director, Campaign for Peace and
Democracy
3. Ariel Dorfman, writer
4. Carolyn Eisenberg, Brooklyn for Peace
5. Daniel Ellsberg, Truth-Telling Project
6. Joseph Gerson, Director, Peace & Economic Security Program,
American Friends Service Committee
7. Charlotte Phillips, M.D., Chairperson, Brooklyn For Peace
(formerly
Brooklyn Parents for Peace)
8. Ethan Vesely-Flad, Communications Co-Coordinator, Fellowship of
Reconciliation and Editor, Fellowship magazine
For further information contact Joanne Landy, Thomas Harrison, and
Jennifer
Scarlott, Co-Directors, Campaign for Peace and Democracy, 2790
Broadway,
#12, NY, NY 10025. Tel (212) 666-4001, Cell (646) 207-5203, Fax (212)
866-5847. Email: cpd@igc.org Web: www.cpdweb.org
US falls to # 15 in Average Worker Income
More than anything else this article shows that rankings depend as much upon what is being measured and how rather than the numbers themselves. However, the article also points out that the large increases in incomes at the top end of the scale distorts some averages.
U.S. Falls to No. 15 in Average Worker Income
By David Francis, Christian Science Monitor. Posted November 13, 2007.
That ranking would surprise most Americans, who likely consider their nation the most prosperous in the world. Tools
"Comparisons are odious," that is, hateful, according to a popular phrase about seven centuries old. Comparison, however, is one of the tasks assigned to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, an international body of 30 of the richest countries. It tries to compare its members' economic and social data, a difficult, perhaps even odious, job.
Sometime back it broadened statistically (for comparison purposes) the definition of the average workers in its member nations while trying to examine relative tax burdens. The result was "monumental," reckons Jacob Kirkegaard, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The OECD ranked the after-tax income of the average worker in the United States as 15th among its member nations. The richest middle class, if measured in terms of the purchasing power of their income, was Britain.
That ranking would surprise most Americans, who likely consider their nation the most prosperous in the world.
In one fell swoop, OECD statisticians lowered the estimated income of the average American worker by more than 10 percent and raised average incomes of other rich nations by as much as 30 percent, notes Mr. Kirkegaard.
It may well be that the comparative US standard of living is slipping. The price of oil has risen more dramatically in the United States than in other nations because of the dollar's large devaluation.
The reason for the drop is also statistical. In the past, the OECD had been using a proxy for the middle class based on the "average production worker." This concept focused on full-time workers in the relatively declining manufacturing sector, which tends to be unionized in the US and better paid on average. The OECD's new measure is based on the "average worker," which captures all sorts of private-sector jobs including mining, utilities, construction, retail, hotel/restaurants, financial services, real estate, and other areas.
So this new system ought to provide a fairer comparison.
But 15th place?
Not likely, figures David Grubb, an OECD economist in Paris. He points out that the US and Canada included in the statistics that it sent to Paris the wages of nonsupervisory workers, and not those of higher paid supervisory workers and salaried professionals. When that statistical difference is corrected, the rank of the American middle class would move up from 15th. How far is uncertain.
In the newest OECD Economic Outlook, the average annual wage in the total economy of the US was $45,563 for 2005. That's exceeded only by Luxembourg, a wealthy banking duchy, with $50,634. Britain, Ireland, and Australia, are not far behind the US with incomes above $40,000.
The problem is that this is a measure of total wages, not just the middle class, and it includes the richest Americans whose incomes have risen enormously in recent years. Outside of Hungary, the US has the most extreme income inequality in the OECD.
Kirkegaard figures middle- and lower-income Americans are being squeezed by the flood of money going to the superwealthy. Democrats in Congress have the same view, and their tax proposals would shift the tax burden up the income ladder.
After the early 1990s, the incomes of "very well-off Americans increased much faster than those of both the middle class and the poor," figures Gary Burtless, an expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington. For example, top corporate officers got pay increases of 9.5 percent a year in the 1990s, on top of high levels to start with.
This doesn't mean that Middle America incomes have been entirely flat. An analysis by Terry Fitzgerald, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, concludes that a "broad swath of Middle America experienced notable hourly wage gains" since 1975. In other words, children can still assume they have a better living standard, on average, than their parents did. [Editor's note: The original version misidentified the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis economist.]
To reach that conclusion, Mr. Fitzgerald had to disentangle a "confusing web of data." Two data series on individual hourly wage rates showed little, or even negative, growth over the past 30 years. But labor income for the entire national economy was shown to have grown 39 percent in that time span.
To square this apparent contradiction, Fitzgerald applied to the two wage series a broader price index (personal consumption expenditures), which covers the basket of final goods and services that people consume each year. The new result: Average hourly earnings rose 10 percent, rather than declining 4 percent, from 1975 to 2005. Median hourly wages also rose 20 percent rather than 12 percent. Then he factored fringe benefits into the wage calculation, since they have become increasingly expensive and "contribute to workers' well-being."
That combination accounted for 28 percent of the 39 percent growth of total labor income. "This does not contradict the claim that wage inequality increased over this period - it did," writes Fitzgerald in a bank publication. In other words, the rich are still getting proportionately richer.
U.S. Falls to No. 15 in Average Worker Income
By David Francis, Christian Science Monitor. Posted November 13, 2007.
That ranking would surprise most Americans, who likely consider their nation the most prosperous in the world. Tools
"Comparisons are odious," that is, hateful, according to a popular phrase about seven centuries old. Comparison, however, is one of the tasks assigned to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, an international body of 30 of the richest countries. It tries to compare its members' economic and social data, a difficult, perhaps even odious, job.
Sometime back it broadened statistically (for comparison purposes) the definition of the average workers in its member nations while trying to examine relative tax burdens. The result was "monumental," reckons Jacob Kirkegaard, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The OECD ranked the after-tax income of the average worker in the United States as 15th among its member nations. The richest middle class, if measured in terms of the purchasing power of their income, was Britain.
That ranking would surprise most Americans, who likely consider their nation the most prosperous in the world.
In one fell swoop, OECD statisticians lowered the estimated income of the average American worker by more than 10 percent and raised average incomes of other rich nations by as much as 30 percent, notes Mr. Kirkegaard.
It may well be that the comparative US standard of living is slipping. The price of oil has risen more dramatically in the United States than in other nations because of the dollar's large devaluation.
The reason for the drop is also statistical. In the past, the OECD had been using a proxy for the middle class based on the "average production worker." This concept focused on full-time workers in the relatively declining manufacturing sector, which tends to be unionized in the US and better paid on average. The OECD's new measure is based on the "average worker," which captures all sorts of private-sector jobs including mining, utilities, construction, retail, hotel/restaurants, financial services, real estate, and other areas.
So this new system ought to provide a fairer comparison.
But 15th place?
Not likely, figures David Grubb, an OECD economist in Paris. He points out that the US and Canada included in the statistics that it sent to Paris the wages of nonsupervisory workers, and not those of higher paid supervisory workers and salaried professionals. When that statistical difference is corrected, the rank of the American middle class would move up from 15th. How far is uncertain.
In the newest OECD Economic Outlook, the average annual wage in the total economy of the US was $45,563 for 2005. That's exceeded only by Luxembourg, a wealthy banking duchy, with $50,634. Britain, Ireland, and Australia, are not far behind the US with incomes above $40,000.
The problem is that this is a measure of total wages, not just the middle class, and it includes the richest Americans whose incomes have risen enormously in recent years. Outside of Hungary, the US has the most extreme income inequality in the OECD.
Kirkegaard figures middle- and lower-income Americans are being squeezed by the flood of money going to the superwealthy. Democrats in Congress have the same view, and their tax proposals would shift the tax burden up the income ladder.
After the early 1990s, the incomes of "very well-off Americans increased much faster than those of both the middle class and the poor," figures Gary Burtless, an expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington. For example, top corporate officers got pay increases of 9.5 percent a year in the 1990s, on top of high levels to start with.
This doesn't mean that Middle America incomes have been entirely flat. An analysis by Terry Fitzgerald, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, concludes that a "broad swath of Middle America experienced notable hourly wage gains" since 1975. In other words, children can still assume they have a better living standard, on average, than their parents did. [Editor's note: The original version misidentified the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis economist.]
To reach that conclusion, Mr. Fitzgerald had to disentangle a "confusing web of data." Two data series on individual hourly wage rates showed little, or even negative, growth over the past 30 years. But labor income for the entire national economy was shown to have grown 39 percent in that time span.
To square this apparent contradiction, Fitzgerald applied to the two wage series a broader price index (personal consumption expenditures), which covers the basket of final goods and services that people consume each year. The new result: Average hourly earnings rose 10 percent, rather than declining 4 percent, from 1975 to 2005. Median hourly wages also rose 20 percent rather than 12 percent. Then he factored fringe benefits into the wage calculation, since they have become increasingly expensive and "contribute to workers' well-being."
That combination accounted for 28 percent of the 39 percent growth of total labor income. "This does not contradict the claim that wage inequality increased over this period - it did," writes Fitzgerald in a bank publication. In other words, the rich are still getting proportionately richer.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Australian Election: Labor to win over Howard?
This is from the Times of India. Howard was a big supporter of Bush. Labor will sign the Kyoto agreement as opposed to Howard. The election is Nov. 24.
Poll shows Australian PM heading for defeat
17 Nov 2007,
SYDNEY: Prime Minister John Howard will enter the final week of Australia's election campaign well behind his opposition rival Kevin Rudd, according to an opinion poll published on Saturday.
A news poll published in the Australian newspaper covering the 18 most marginal seats held by Howard's conservative government showed Rudd's centre-left Labour party ahead 54 percent to 46.
The newspaper said if the results of the poll were duplicated in next Saturday's election, Labour would win between 18 and 25 seats, comfortably ahead of the 16 it needs to gain power.
It said one of the seats to fall to Labour under such a scenario would be Howard's own electorate of Bennelong in Sydney's suburbs.
Labour's 54-46 lead in the poll of 3,600 voters is identical to the findings of a separate survey published on Friday in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The Australian newspaper said in an editorial that it appeared Howard's Liberal-National coalition was headed for defeat on November 24 after almost 12 years in office.
"After four terms, the coalition appears to have run out of luck and lost the attention of voters," it said.
But Howard told the newspaper that he did not detect a "visceral hostility" towards him or his government among the public.
"I think there are a lot of people who are quite undecided and I think this election is anybody's at this present time, that's my strong view," he said.
Poll shows Australian PM heading for defeat
17 Nov 2007,
SYDNEY: Prime Minister John Howard will enter the final week of Australia's election campaign well behind his opposition rival Kevin Rudd, according to an opinion poll published on Saturday.
A news poll published in the Australian newspaper covering the 18 most marginal seats held by Howard's conservative government showed Rudd's centre-left Labour party ahead 54 percent to 46.
The newspaper said if the results of the poll were duplicated in next Saturday's election, Labour would win between 18 and 25 seats, comfortably ahead of the 16 it needs to gain power.
It said one of the seats to fall to Labour under such a scenario would be Howard's own electorate of Bennelong in Sydney's suburbs.
Labour's 54-46 lead in the poll of 3,600 voters is identical to the findings of a separate survey published on Friday in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The Australian newspaper said in an editorial that it appeared Howard's Liberal-National coalition was headed for defeat on November 24 after almost 12 years in office.
"After four terms, the coalition appears to have run out of luck and lost the attention of voters," it said.
But Howard told the newspaper that he did not detect a "visceral hostility" towards him or his government among the public.
"I think there are a lot of people who are quite undecided and I think this election is anybody's at this present time, that's my strong view," he said.
US trying to revive Musharraf-Bhutto deal
From interviews I have seen on TV with Bhutto she is adamantly opposed to any renewal of the agreement with Musharraf. Perhaps she thinks Musharraf is finished. He has left the door open. While other opposition leaders especially the lawyers languish in jail Bhutto is placed under house arrest but has daily press conferences which the jailbirds never have of course.
It is interesting that the US is intervening so clearly and transparently in the political process in Pakistan. This could kill Bhutto's chances of going anywhere but to the grave.
U.S. seen trying to revive Musharraf-Bhutto deal
Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:27 AM EST
By Simon Cameron-Moore
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - U.S. envoy John Negroponte met President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday to exert pressure on him to revoke two-week-old emergency rule and make peace with opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
Fearful of undermining a crucial ally at a time when al Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan's tribal lands, Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte was expected to try to revive a deal between Bhutto and Musharraf, despite the antipathy between their camps.
"The Americans are nervous about not having Musharraf in charge of Pakistan," an official in the Pakistani presidency said. "They were told that the situation is very, very fluid."
Soon after arriving in Islamabad Negroponte spoke by telephone with Bhutto in the eastern city of Lahore, where she was released after being held for three days under house arrest to stop her leading a protest.
Negroponte also met Tariq Aziz, Secretary of the National Security Council and a close aide of Musharraf, on Friday.
Consultations have also been held by telephone with U.S. National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, and the U.S. administration is anxious that anyone who replaced Musharraf would be unable to deliver as much support in the war against terrorism, the Pakistani official said.
While Musharraf has said a general election will be held before January 9 and he expects to step down as army chief and be sworn in as a civilian president beforehand, both Bhutto and the United States want more.
Musharraf is upset at the bad press he has been getting from the international and domestic media after resorting to emergency powers, despite his liberal, western-friendly leanings, and blamed judges and rivals for derailing the political process.
"Did I go mad? Or suddenly, my personality changed? Am I Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?" Musharraf asked the British Broadcasting Service in an interview.
On Saturday he persuaded the United Arab Emirates to block satellite channel Geo News, Pakistan's top Urdu-language independent news channel and broadcast from Dubai, because of its critical coverage.
"SPANNERS IN THE WORKS"
Negroponte is expected to push for the release of thousands of lawyers, opposition and rights activists and an end of emergency rule as a pre-requisite for a "free and fair" election.
On Friday, Musharraf swore in a caretaker government, made up of people seen as friendly to his allies in the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), after the National Assembly was dissolved following the completion of its five-year term a day earlier.
Bhutto doesn't trust Musharraf to let her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) get a clear run, and wants the Election Commissioner replaced and the caretaker government disbanded and replaced with a mutually agreed figures to oversee the run-up to polls.
Earlier this week she said Musharraf should quit, and ruled out any chance of serving as prime minister under his presidency, although the United States had earlier helped broker an understanding for them to share power following an election.
Speaking to America's Public Broadcasting Service television's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," Bhutto said Negroponte should seek an orderly transition of power from Musharraf.
"I believe engaging with General Musharraf is just to set myself up for failure again," she said.
"He's not a bad man... He must think of Pakistan now and if it's in Pakistan's best interest, he must quit. If he doesn't, I'm afraid the instability will continue."
Musharraf's camp still wants the support of Bhutto's PPP, the opposition party with the strongest national support base.
But it is unclear whether it would go back to holding out the prospect of the PPP getting the post of prime minister.
While the president's side formerly had been willing to countenance a PPP prime minister, it had never committed to accepting Bhutto as prime minister.
She has alienated Musharraf and his political allies in the PML by going on the offensive as soon as he allowed her to return last month from eight years of living abroad without fear of prosecution in old corruption cases.
Sources in the presidency say that aside from accusing members of the establishment of conspiring to kill her and of being secretly allied to militant and Islamist forces, she had also sought to reach out to chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.
Musharraf's decision to invoke an emergency on November3 was principally aimed at purging Supreme Court judges, including Chaudhry, before they could rule his October 6 re-election null and void because he contested while still army chief.
"The chief justice had thrown a spanner in the works, then Bhutto threw another spanner in," the Pakistani official said.
(Additional reporting by Sheree Sardar; Editing by David Fox)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Close This Window
It is interesting that the US is intervening so clearly and transparently in the political process in Pakistan. This could kill Bhutto's chances of going anywhere but to the grave.
U.S. seen trying to revive Musharraf-Bhutto deal
Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:27 AM EST
By Simon Cameron-Moore
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - U.S. envoy John Negroponte met President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday to exert pressure on him to revoke two-week-old emergency rule and make peace with opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
Fearful of undermining a crucial ally at a time when al Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan's tribal lands, Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte was expected to try to revive a deal between Bhutto and Musharraf, despite the antipathy between their camps.
"The Americans are nervous about not having Musharraf in charge of Pakistan," an official in the Pakistani presidency said. "They were told that the situation is very, very fluid."
Soon after arriving in Islamabad Negroponte spoke by telephone with Bhutto in the eastern city of Lahore, where she was released after being held for three days under house arrest to stop her leading a protest.
Negroponte also met Tariq Aziz, Secretary of the National Security Council and a close aide of Musharraf, on Friday.
Consultations have also been held by telephone with U.S. National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, and the U.S. administration is anxious that anyone who replaced Musharraf would be unable to deliver as much support in the war against terrorism, the Pakistani official said.
While Musharraf has said a general election will be held before January 9 and he expects to step down as army chief and be sworn in as a civilian president beforehand, both Bhutto and the United States want more.
Musharraf is upset at the bad press he has been getting from the international and domestic media after resorting to emergency powers, despite his liberal, western-friendly leanings, and blamed judges and rivals for derailing the political process.
"Did I go mad? Or suddenly, my personality changed? Am I Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?" Musharraf asked the British Broadcasting Service in an interview.
On Saturday he persuaded the United Arab Emirates to block satellite channel Geo News, Pakistan's top Urdu-language independent news channel and broadcast from Dubai, because of its critical coverage.
"SPANNERS IN THE WORKS"
Negroponte is expected to push for the release of thousands of lawyers, opposition and rights activists and an end of emergency rule as a pre-requisite for a "free and fair" election.
On Friday, Musharraf swore in a caretaker government, made up of people seen as friendly to his allies in the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), after the National Assembly was dissolved following the completion of its five-year term a day earlier.
Bhutto doesn't trust Musharraf to let her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) get a clear run, and wants the Election Commissioner replaced and the caretaker government disbanded and replaced with a mutually agreed figures to oversee the run-up to polls.
Earlier this week she said Musharraf should quit, and ruled out any chance of serving as prime minister under his presidency, although the United States had earlier helped broker an understanding for them to share power following an election.
Speaking to America's Public Broadcasting Service television's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," Bhutto said Negroponte should seek an orderly transition of power from Musharraf.
"I believe engaging with General Musharraf is just to set myself up for failure again," she said.
"He's not a bad man... He must think of Pakistan now and if it's in Pakistan's best interest, he must quit. If he doesn't, I'm afraid the instability will continue."
Musharraf's camp still wants the support of Bhutto's PPP, the opposition party with the strongest national support base.
But it is unclear whether it would go back to holding out the prospect of the PPP getting the post of prime minister.
While the president's side formerly had been willing to countenance a PPP prime minister, it had never committed to accepting Bhutto as prime minister.
She has alienated Musharraf and his political allies in the PML by going on the offensive as soon as he allowed her to return last month from eight years of living abroad without fear of prosecution in old corruption cases.
Sources in the presidency say that aside from accusing members of the establishment of conspiring to kill her and of being secretly allied to militant and Islamist forces, she had also sought to reach out to chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.
Musharraf's decision to invoke an emergency on November3 was principally aimed at purging Supreme Court judges, including Chaudhry, before they could rule his October 6 re-election null and void because he contested while still army chief.
"The chief justice had thrown a spanner in the works, then Bhutto threw another spanner in," the Pakistani official said.
(Additional reporting by Sheree Sardar; Editing by David Fox)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Close This Window
Poppy production growing in Afghanistan
The warlords and Afghan officials as well as farmers also profit from growing poppies. Given that so many people profit, not just the Taliban, that it is very difficult to reverse the trend. During the reign of the Taliban the US paid the Taliban leadership to reduce production drastically and that was successful but Karzai depends upon drug lords and corrupt officials who profit from the trade.
One partial solution is to use the opium for legal medical purposes.
MIL-UN-AFGHANISTAN-POPPY
Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan increased by 17 pct. -- UN
BRUSSELS, Nov 16 (KUNA) In 2007, Afghanistan cultivated 193,000 hectares of opium poppies , a 17 percent increase over last year.
In its final Afghan Opium Survey for 2007, which was issued Friday, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) showed that opium was now equivalent to 53 percent of the country's licit gross domestic product (GDP). Speaking at a conference in Brussels on the future of Afghanistan, hosted by Princeton University, the Executive Director of UNODC Antonio Maria Costa announced that the total export value of opiates produced in and trafficked from Afghanistan in 2007 was about USD 4 billion, a 29 percent increase over 2006.
Considering that more than 660 tons of heroin and morphine were being exported from Afghanistan in 2007 or have been stored for future export, "the potential windfall for criminals, insurgents and terrorists is staggering and runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars," warned Costa. He urged NATO to take a more active role in counter-narcotics. "Since drugs are funding the insurgency, NATO has a self-interest in supporting Afghan forces in destroying drug labs, markets and convoys. Destroy the drug trade and you cut off the Taliban's main funding source", said Costa.
"Time is not on our side. Either we sow the seeds of security and development now, or the Taliban will reap its deadly harvest in the future," warned. Costa.
Meanwhile, a 3-day conference titled "State, Security and Economy in Afghanistan" kicked off here Friday with the participation of government officials , diplomats and analysts from Afghanistan , Iran, Pakistan, the US and Europe.(end) nk.
ayh
One partial solution is to use the opium for legal medical purposes.
MIL-UN-AFGHANISTAN-POPPY
Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan increased by 17 pct. -- UN
BRUSSELS, Nov 16 (KUNA) In 2007, Afghanistan cultivated 193,000 hectares of opium poppies , a 17 percent increase over last year.
In its final Afghan Opium Survey for 2007, which was issued Friday, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) showed that opium was now equivalent to 53 percent of the country's licit gross domestic product (GDP). Speaking at a conference in Brussels on the future of Afghanistan, hosted by Princeton University, the Executive Director of UNODC Antonio Maria Costa announced that the total export value of opiates produced in and trafficked from Afghanistan in 2007 was about USD 4 billion, a 29 percent increase over 2006.
Considering that more than 660 tons of heroin and morphine were being exported from Afghanistan in 2007 or have been stored for future export, "the potential windfall for criminals, insurgents and terrorists is staggering and runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars," warned Costa. He urged NATO to take a more active role in counter-narcotics. "Since drugs are funding the insurgency, NATO has a self-interest in supporting Afghan forces in destroying drug labs, markets and convoys. Destroy the drug trade and you cut off the Taliban's main funding source", said Costa.
"Time is not on our side. Either we sow the seeds of security and development now, or the Taliban will reap its deadly harvest in the future," warned. Costa.
Meanwhile, a 3-day conference titled "State, Security and Economy in Afghanistan" kicked off here Friday with the participation of government officials , diplomats and analysts from Afghanistan , Iran, Pakistan, the US and Europe.(end) nk.
ayh
Friday, November 16, 2007
To have and have not: Economic growth and wealth distribution
How a flat tax is supposed to narrow the inequality gap is beyond me. The flat tax is an alternative to a progressive income tax, the latter does reduce inequality to some extent. If free markets lessen inequality it is difficult to explain how China has increased income inequality markedly since adopting a market system and integrating into the world economy.
This is the typical sort of ideological claptrap that goes by the name of economics at prestigious universities such as Harvard where Rogoff is a prof.This comes from the following website.
To have and to have not
Fundamental tax reforms and open markets are needed to balance the global distribution of wealth. It doesn't look likely in our lifetime.
Kenneth Rogoff
Lately, I have been trying to explain to my 11-year-old son Gabriel the astronomical differences between people's income.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates first penetrated Gabriel's consciousness a couple of years ago, when his father served as a warm-up act to Gates at a large conference sponsored by the Danish government. Ever since, Gabriel has been fascinated by the seemingly infinite possibilities of having $60bn.
For example, whenever I tell Gabriel that something is unbelievably valuable (even, say, a great painting in a museum), he invariably says, "But Bill Gates could buy it, right?" Yes, Gates could buy the whole museum. But then he would just turn around and give it back so everyone else can see it, so there is no point. Gabriel is not entirely convinced.
Gabriel has decided that if he can't become a professional basketball player when he grows up, then he'd like to buy a team. As an economics professor, I cannot help but ask him if he knows that it costs $300-500m to buy a National Basketball Association team. "But Bill Gates could do it. He could buy all the teams in the league, right?" Yes, I say. But if Bill Gates were to own the entire NBA, how would he decide which team to root for? Gabriel concedes the point, but I can tell that again he is not convinced.
Gates is not the only one who can easily buy teams and paintings. The latest Forbes list of America's wealthiest individuals showed that last year's highest nine earners, whose ranks include New York City's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, managed to increase their wealth by $5-9bn last year. Yes, that is just the annual increase in their wealth. Collectively, their $55bn in earnings outstripped the entire national income of more than 100 countries.
To put these astronomical numbers in perspective, I had Gabriel try to confirm that to be among the top nine earners in the US, you had to pull in at least $150 per second, including time spent eating and sleeping. That is $9,000 per minute, or $540,000 per hour.
How much do America's highest income earners make compared to the world's billion poorest individuals? Well, if the top nine donated their earnings, it would be the equivalent of about three months' income for the bottom billion. (Gabriel knows, of course, that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have donated tens of billions already.)
As for the other nine months, given that the US accounts for only 25% of world income, it is a fair guess that there are some very wealthy individuals elsewhere who might be able to kick in. (Mexican telephone magnate Carlos Slim, for example, is a close competitor to Gates for the title of the world's richest man.)
Mind you, the idea that the ultra-rich could easily solve poverty is stupefyingly naive. Most serious academic research strongly supports the view that rich countries can best help poor regions like Africa by opening their markets, and by providing assistance in building physical and institutional infrastructures.
The greatest successes in fighting global poverty have come from China and India, two countries that have largely pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. But this seems too complicated to explain to Gabriel just yet. So I retreat to the simplistic rock star/UN view of how great it would be if we could give more money.
Are massive income and wealth differences an inevitable outcome of fast growth? By and large, the answer from history is "yes". China, whose growth performance since 1970 has now broken every record, is well on its way to having the world's most unequal income distribution. Indeed, China has passed the US and is nearing Latin American levels of inequality.
Policy solutions are not easy. Many super-earners are also super-creative and bring enormous value. Places like the UK actively court wealthy foreign nationals through extraordinary preferential treatment of their investment income. The ultra-rich are an ultra-mobile group, too. If you are earning $540,000 an hour, it does not take too long to save up to buy an apartment, even in London.
Anyway, there are limits to how much tax pressure the political system can apply to the ultra-rich. Consider that any of the top nine American earners make more in two days than leading US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton raises for her campaign in a good quarter of the year.
Rather than punitively taxing wealth, globalisation strengthens the case for shifting to a flat tax on income (or better yet consumption) with a moderately high exemption. Aside from the usual efficiency arguments, it is just going to become increasingly difficult and costly to maintain complex and idiosyncratic national tax arrangements.
Unfortunately, movements towards fundamental tax reform are on the back burner in most countries. One can only hope that our children's generation will grow up to live in a world that does a better job of balancing efficiency and equity than we do. Gabriel says he is going to think about it.
This is the typical sort of ideological claptrap that goes by the name of economics at prestigious universities such as Harvard where Rogoff is a prof.This comes from the following website.
To have and to have not
Fundamental tax reforms and open markets are needed to balance the global distribution of wealth. It doesn't look likely in our lifetime.
Kenneth Rogoff
Lately, I have been trying to explain to my 11-year-old son Gabriel the astronomical differences between people's income.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates first penetrated Gabriel's consciousness a couple of years ago, when his father served as a warm-up act to Gates at a large conference sponsored by the Danish government. Ever since, Gabriel has been fascinated by the seemingly infinite possibilities of having $60bn.
For example, whenever I tell Gabriel that something is unbelievably valuable (even, say, a great painting in a museum), he invariably says, "But Bill Gates could buy it, right?" Yes, Gates could buy the whole museum. But then he would just turn around and give it back so everyone else can see it, so there is no point. Gabriel is not entirely convinced.
Gabriel has decided that if he can't become a professional basketball player when he grows up, then he'd like to buy a team. As an economics professor, I cannot help but ask him if he knows that it costs $300-500m to buy a National Basketball Association team. "But Bill Gates could do it. He could buy all the teams in the league, right?" Yes, I say. But if Bill Gates were to own the entire NBA, how would he decide which team to root for? Gabriel concedes the point, but I can tell that again he is not convinced.
Gates is not the only one who can easily buy teams and paintings. The latest Forbes list of America's wealthiest individuals showed that last year's highest nine earners, whose ranks include New York City's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, managed to increase their wealth by $5-9bn last year. Yes, that is just the annual increase in their wealth. Collectively, their $55bn in earnings outstripped the entire national income of more than 100 countries.
To put these astronomical numbers in perspective, I had Gabriel try to confirm that to be among the top nine earners in the US, you had to pull in at least $150 per second, including time spent eating and sleeping. That is $9,000 per minute, or $540,000 per hour.
How much do America's highest income earners make compared to the world's billion poorest individuals? Well, if the top nine donated their earnings, it would be the equivalent of about three months' income for the bottom billion. (Gabriel knows, of course, that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have donated tens of billions already.)
As for the other nine months, given that the US accounts for only 25% of world income, it is a fair guess that there are some very wealthy individuals elsewhere who might be able to kick in. (Mexican telephone magnate Carlos Slim, for example, is a close competitor to Gates for the title of the world's richest man.)
Mind you, the idea that the ultra-rich could easily solve poverty is stupefyingly naive. Most serious academic research strongly supports the view that rich countries can best help poor regions like Africa by opening their markets, and by providing assistance in building physical and institutional infrastructures.
The greatest successes in fighting global poverty have come from China and India, two countries that have largely pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. But this seems too complicated to explain to Gabriel just yet. So I retreat to the simplistic rock star/UN view of how great it would be if we could give more money.
Are massive income and wealth differences an inevitable outcome of fast growth? By and large, the answer from history is "yes". China, whose growth performance since 1970 has now broken every record, is well on its way to having the world's most unequal income distribution. Indeed, China has passed the US and is nearing Latin American levels of inequality.
Policy solutions are not easy. Many super-earners are also super-creative and bring enormous value. Places like the UK actively court wealthy foreign nationals through extraordinary preferential treatment of their investment income. The ultra-rich are an ultra-mobile group, too. If you are earning $540,000 an hour, it does not take too long to save up to buy an apartment, even in London.
Anyway, there are limits to how much tax pressure the political system can apply to the ultra-rich. Consider that any of the top nine American earners make more in two days than leading US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton raises for her campaign in a good quarter of the year.
Rather than punitively taxing wealth, globalisation strengthens the case for shifting to a flat tax on income (or better yet consumption) with a moderately high exemption. Aside from the usual efficiency arguments, it is just going to become increasingly difficult and costly to maintain complex and idiosyncratic national tax arrangements.
Unfortunately, movements towards fundamental tax reform are on the back burner in most countries. One can only hope that our children's generation will grow up to live in a world that does a better job of balancing efficiency and equity than we do. Gabriel says he is going to think about it.
Reckoning: The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
This is just a small sample of a much longer article in Vanity Fair. Stiglitz' article points out a host of economic problems that the Bush administration will leave for the next administration. No doubt some of the problems are partly due to circumstances beyond the administration's control but many others are a result of Bush sanctioned policies.
Reckoning
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz December 2007 The American economy can take a lot of abuse, but no economy is invincible. Illustration by Edward Sorel.
When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.
I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance.
And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this president, the United States is less prepared than ever to face the future. We have not been educating enough engineers and scientists, people with the skills we will need to compete with China and India. We have not been investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the technological powerhouse of the late 20th century. And although the president now understands—or so he says—that we must begin to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch become more deeply dependent on both.
Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.
Remember the Surplus?
The world was a very different place, economically speaking, when George W. Bush took office, in January 2001. During the Roaring 90s, many had believed that the Internet would transform everything. Productivity gains, which had averaged about 1.5 percent a year from the early 1970s through the early 90s, now approached 3 percent. During Bill Clinton’s second term, gains in manufacturing productivity sometimes even surpassed 6 percent. The Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, spoke of a New Economy marked by continued productivity gains as the Internet buried the old ways of doing business. Others went so far as to predict an end to the business cycle. Greenspan worried aloud about how he’d ever be able to manage monetary policy once the nation’s debt was fully paid off.
This tremendous confidence took the Dow Jones index higher and higher. The rich did well, but so did the not-so-rich and even the downright poor. The Clinton years were not an economic Nirvana; as chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers during part of this time, I’m all too aware of mistakes and lost opportunities. The global-trade agreements we pushed through were often unfair to developing countries. We should have invested more in infrastructure, tightened regulation of the securities markets, and taken additional steps to promote energy conservation. We fell short because of politics and lack of money—and also, frankly, because special interests sometimes shaped the agenda more than they should have. But these boom years were the first time since Jimmy Carter that the deficit was under control. And they were the first time since the 1970s that incomes at the bottom grew faster than those at the top—a benchmark worth celebrating.
By the time George W. Bush was sworn in, parts of this bright picture had begun to dim. The tech boom was over. The nasdaq fell 15 percent in the single month of April 2000, and no one knew for sure what effect the collapse of the Internet bubble would have on the real economy. It was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit. Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to pursue such policies. Remember the presidential debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and how the two men argued over how to spend America’s anticipated $2.2 trillion budget surplus? The country could well have afforded to ramp up domestic investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have staved off recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run.
But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000—more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American. The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in 2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an average of $162,000.
Reckoning
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz December 2007 The American economy can take a lot of abuse, but no economy is invincible. Illustration by Edward Sorel.
When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.
I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance.
And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this president, the United States is less prepared than ever to face the future. We have not been educating enough engineers and scientists, people with the skills we will need to compete with China and India. We have not been investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the technological powerhouse of the late 20th century. And although the president now understands—or so he says—that we must begin to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch become more deeply dependent on both.
Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.
Remember the Surplus?
The world was a very different place, economically speaking, when George W. Bush took office, in January 2001. During the Roaring 90s, many had believed that the Internet would transform everything. Productivity gains, which had averaged about 1.5 percent a year from the early 1970s through the early 90s, now approached 3 percent. During Bill Clinton’s second term, gains in manufacturing productivity sometimes even surpassed 6 percent. The Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, spoke of a New Economy marked by continued productivity gains as the Internet buried the old ways of doing business. Others went so far as to predict an end to the business cycle. Greenspan worried aloud about how he’d ever be able to manage monetary policy once the nation’s debt was fully paid off.
This tremendous confidence took the Dow Jones index higher and higher. The rich did well, but so did the not-so-rich and even the downright poor. The Clinton years were not an economic Nirvana; as chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers during part of this time, I’m all too aware of mistakes and lost opportunities. The global-trade agreements we pushed through were often unfair to developing countries. We should have invested more in infrastructure, tightened regulation of the securities markets, and taken additional steps to promote energy conservation. We fell short because of politics and lack of money—and also, frankly, because special interests sometimes shaped the agenda more than they should have. But these boom years were the first time since Jimmy Carter that the deficit was under control. And they were the first time since the 1970s that incomes at the bottom grew faster than those at the top—a benchmark worth celebrating.
By the time George W. Bush was sworn in, parts of this bright picture had begun to dim. The tech boom was over. The nasdaq fell 15 percent in the single month of April 2000, and no one knew for sure what effect the collapse of the Internet bubble would have on the real economy. It was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit. Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to pursue such policies. Remember the presidential debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and how the two men argued over how to spend America’s anticipated $2.2 trillion budget surplus? The country could well have afforded to ramp up domestic investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have staved off recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run.
But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000—more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American. The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in 2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an average of $162,000.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The Israeli attack on Syria.
The US and Israel have refused to co-operate with the UN invetigative body that is attempting to find out if the Syrian facility attacked was a nuclear reactor under construction. It is not surprising since as this article in Raw Story the nuclear reactor story is likely a concoction of Cheney et al. Critics have pointed out that the satellite photo shows that there are not even any fences around the facility and no guards. This is surely an unlikely situation. The article lists quite a few of the fanciful speculations about the nature and purpose of the attack but very little has been established as fact.
Aunt Benazir's False Promises
Much in the western media is very pro-Bhutto. The link between Bhutto and US policy in Pakistan and US involvement in arranging a deal between Musharaff and Bhutto is also downplayed. This article by a relative shows a side to Bhutto that is studiously ignored in the West by most mainstream media. The article is from this site.
Aunt Benazir's false promises
Bhutto's return bodes poorly for Pakistan -- and for democracy there.
By Fatima Bhutto
November 14, 2007
KARACHI — We Pakistanis live in uncertain times. Emergency rule has been imposed for the 13th time in our short 60-year history. Thousands of lawyers have been arrested, some charged with sedition and treason; the chief justice has been deposed; and a draconian media law -- shutting down all private news channels -- has been drafted.
Perhaps the most bizarre part of this circus has been the hijacking of the democratic cause by my aunt, the twice-disgraced former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. While she was hashing out a deal to share power with Gen. Pervez Musharraf last month, she repeatedly insisted that without her, democracy in Pakistan would be a lost cause. Now that the situation has changed, she's saying that she wants Musharraf to step down and that she'd like to make a deal with his opponents -- but still, she says, she's the savior of democracy.
The reality, however, is that there is no one better placed to benefit from emergency rule than she is. Along with the leaders of prominent Islamic parties, she has been spared the violent retributions of emergency law. Yes, she now appears to be facing seven days of house arrest, but what does that really mean? While she was supposedly under house arrest at her Islamabad residence last week, 50 or so of her party members were comfortably allowed to join her. She addressed the media twice from her garden, protected by police given to her by the state, and was not reprimanded for holding a news conference. (By contrast, the very suggestion that they might hold a news conference has placed hundreds of other political activists under real arrest, in real jails.)
Ms. Bhutto's political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to take part in Musharraf's regime have signaled once and for all to the growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is just a guise for dictatorship.
It is widely believed that Ms. Bhutto lost both her governments on grounds of massive corruption. She and her husband, a man who came to be known in Pakistan as "Mr. 10%," have been accused of stealing more than $1 billion from Pakistan's treasury. She is appealing a money-laundering conviction by the Swiss courts involving about $11 million. Corruption cases in Britain and Spain are ongoing.
It was particularly unappealing of Ms. Bhutto to ask Musharraf to bypass the courts and drop the many corruption cases that still face her in Pakistan. He agreed, creating the odiously titled National Reconciliation Ordinance in order to do so. Her collaboration with him was so unsubtle that people on the streets are now calling her party, the Pakistan People's Party, the Pervez People's Party. Now she might like to distance herself, but it's too late.
Why did Ms. Bhutto and her party cronies demand that her corruption cases be dropped, but not demand that the cases of activists jailed during the brutal regime of dictator Zia ul-Haq (from 1977 to 1988) not be quashed? What about the sanctity of the law? When her brother Mir Murtaza Bhutto -- my father -- returned to Pakistan in 1993, he faced 99 cases against him that had been brought by Zia's military government. The cases all carried the death penalty. Yet even though his sister was serving as prime minister, he did not ask her to drop the cases. He returned, was arrested at the airport and spent the remaining years of his life clearing his name, legally and with confidence, in the courts of Pakistan.
Ms. Bhutto's repeated promises to end fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan strain credulity because, after all, the Taliban government that ran Afghanistan was recognized by Pakistan under her last government -- making Pakistan one of only three governments in the world to do so.
And I am suspicious of her talk of ensuring peace. My father was a member of Parliament and a vocal critic of his sister's politics. He was killed outside our home in 1996 in a carefully planned police assassination while she was prime minister. There were 70 to 100 policemen at the scene, all the streetlights had been shut off and the roads were cordoned off. Six men were killed with my father. They were shot at point-blank range, suffered multiple bullet wounds and were left to bleed on the streets.
My father was Benazir's younger brother. To this day, her role in his assassination has never been adequately answered, although the tribunal convened after his death under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could not have taken place without approval from a "much higher" political authority.
I have personal reasons to fear the danger that Ms. Bhutto's presence in Pakistan brings, but I am not alone. The Islamists are waiting at the gate. They have been waiting for confirmation that the reforms for which the Pakistani people have been struggling have been a farce, propped up by the White House. Since Musharraf seized power in 1999, there has been an earnest grass-roots movement for democratic reform. The last thing we need is to be tied to a neocon agenda through a puppet "democrat" like Ms. Bhutto.
By supporting Ms. Bhutto, who talks of democracy while asking to be brought to power by a military dictator, the only thing that will be accomplished is the death of the nascent secular democratic movement in my country. Democratization will forever be de-legitimized, and our progress in enacting true reforms will be quashed. We Pakistanis are certain of this.
Fatima Bhutto is a Pakistani poet and writer. She is the daughter of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, who was killed in 1996 in Karachi when his sister, Benazir, was prime minister.
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
Aunt Benazir's false promises
Bhutto's return bodes poorly for Pakistan -- and for democracy there.
By Fatima Bhutto
November 14, 2007
KARACHI — We Pakistanis live in uncertain times. Emergency rule has been imposed for the 13th time in our short 60-year history. Thousands of lawyers have been arrested, some charged with sedition and treason; the chief justice has been deposed; and a draconian media law -- shutting down all private news channels -- has been drafted.
Perhaps the most bizarre part of this circus has been the hijacking of the democratic cause by my aunt, the twice-disgraced former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. While she was hashing out a deal to share power with Gen. Pervez Musharraf last month, she repeatedly insisted that without her, democracy in Pakistan would be a lost cause. Now that the situation has changed, she's saying that she wants Musharraf to step down and that she'd like to make a deal with his opponents -- but still, she says, she's the savior of democracy.
The reality, however, is that there is no one better placed to benefit from emergency rule than she is. Along with the leaders of prominent Islamic parties, she has been spared the violent retributions of emergency law. Yes, she now appears to be facing seven days of house arrest, but what does that really mean? While she was supposedly under house arrest at her Islamabad residence last week, 50 or so of her party members were comfortably allowed to join her. She addressed the media twice from her garden, protected by police given to her by the state, and was not reprimanded for holding a news conference. (By contrast, the very suggestion that they might hold a news conference has placed hundreds of other political activists under real arrest, in real jails.)
Ms. Bhutto's political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to take part in Musharraf's regime have signaled once and for all to the growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is just a guise for dictatorship.
It is widely believed that Ms. Bhutto lost both her governments on grounds of massive corruption. She and her husband, a man who came to be known in Pakistan as "Mr. 10%," have been accused of stealing more than $1 billion from Pakistan's treasury. She is appealing a money-laundering conviction by the Swiss courts involving about $11 million. Corruption cases in Britain and Spain are ongoing.
It was particularly unappealing of Ms. Bhutto to ask Musharraf to bypass the courts and drop the many corruption cases that still face her in Pakistan. He agreed, creating the odiously titled National Reconciliation Ordinance in order to do so. Her collaboration with him was so unsubtle that people on the streets are now calling her party, the Pakistan People's Party, the Pervez People's Party. Now she might like to distance herself, but it's too late.
Why did Ms. Bhutto and her party cronies demand that her corruption cases be dropped, but not demand that the cases of activists jailed during the brutal regime of dictator Zia ul-Haq (from 1977 to 1988) not be quashed? What about the sanctity of the law? When her brother Mir Murtaza Bhutto -- my father -- returned to Pakistan in 1993, he faced 99 cases against him that had been brought by Zia's military government. The cases all carried the death penalty. Yet even though his sister was serving as prime minister, he did not ask her to drop the cases. He returned, was arrested at the airport and spent the remaining years of his life clearing his name, legally and with confidence, in the courts of Pakistan.
Ms. Bhutto's repeated promises to end fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan strain credulity because, after all, the Taliban government that ran Afghanistan was recognized by Pakistan under her last government -- making Pakistan one of only three governments in the world to do so.
And I am suspicious of her talk of ensuring peace. My father was a member of Parliament and a vocal critic of his sister's politics. He was killed outside our home in 1996 in a carefully planned police assassination while she was prime minister. There were 70 to 100 policemen at the scene, all the streetlights had been shut off and the roads were cordoned off. Six men were killed with my father. They were shot at point-blank range, suffered multiple bullet wounds and were left to bleed on the streets.
My father was Benazir's younger brother. To this day, her role in his assassination has never been adequately answered, although the tribunal convened after his death under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could not have taken place without approval from a "much higher" political authority.
I have personal reasons to fear the danger that Ms. Bhutto's presence in Pakistan brings, but I am not alone. The Islamists are waiting at the gate. They have been waiting for confirmation that the reforms for which the Pakistani people have been struggling have been a farce, propped up by the White House. Since Musharraf seized power in 1999, there has been an earnest grass-roots movement for democratic reform. The last thing we need is to be tied to a neocon agenda through a puppet "democrat" like Ms. Bhutto.
By supporting Ms. Bhutto, who talks of democracy while asking to be brought to power by a military dictator, the only thing that will be accomplished is the death of the nascent secular democratic movement in my country. Democratization will forever be de-legitimized, and our progress in enacting true reforms will be quashed. We Pakistanis are certain of this.
Fatima Bhutto is a Pakistani poet and writer. She is the daughter of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, who was killed in 1996 in Karachi when his sister, Benazir, was prime minister.
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
US British and Australian Forces build oil protection base in Iraq
This article shows how important oil is in terms of the Iraqi occupation. The press is virtually silent about the important construction projects going on at crucial oil export facilities. This is from the World Socialist Web Site.
US, British and Australian forces build oil-protection base in Iraq
By Patrick Martin
13 November 2007
The US Navy, with the assistance of British and Australian commandos, is building a permanent base to guard two oil-export platforms in Iraqi waters at the northern end of the Persian Gulf, according to a report Monday in the Wall Street Journal.
Troops from all three occupying countries are now stationed at the Khawr al Amaya oil terminal, protecting it and the neighboring Al Basrah oil terminal, facilities critical for any significant expansion of tanker shipments of Iraqi oil to the world market..
The Journal reported, “While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn’t shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country’s oil industry.”
The military mission goes far beyond the patrols which US warships have conducted in the Persian Gulf for the past 30 years, in the name of keeping oil shipping lanes open. The Journal noted, “the Navy finds itself with an additional, much more specific role: playing security guard to Iraq’s offshore oil infrastructure.”
The current focus of military construction is a command-and-control facility located on top of the Khawr facility, the smaller of the two.
While the Pentagon claims that the new oil-terminal base is not a permanent US facility and that it will be turned over to Iraqi forces eventually, the Journal explains, “Iraqi forces are a long way from being able to take over the mission.” Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of US naval forces in the Gulf, told the newspaper, “They are going to need help for years to come.”
US, British and Australian military officers will control Iraq’s oil export shipping for the indefinite future. US sailors live on both the Khawr and Al Basrah terminals behind chain-link fences that keep out all Iraqis except the oil workers who actually operate the facilities, and a handful of Iraqi Marines who work as guards under the direction of an Australian commodore, the overall commander of the facility.
The Journal account also notes that the oil-export installation could play a role in forthcoming US moves against Iran: “The new outpost also offers a convenient perch from which to monitor Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps... The naval component of the Revolutionary Guards Corps operates from a partially submerged barge and crane visible on clear days.”
The British sailors captured earlier this year by Iranian forces were among those participating in the oil-protection mission—a fact that was suppressed in the media accounts at the time. That incident ended when the British prisoners made statements admitting they had crossed into Iranian waters and then were sent home. A similar episode involving American soldiers could well provide a pretext for a full-scale US military strike against Iran.
The oil-terminal operation is only one part of a much larger program, costing an estimated $277 million, in which US forces are deployed to protect Iraqi oilfields. The terminal facilities are the only ones where US military personnel are actually stationed inside production or shipping installations.
The Khawr and Al Basrah facilities combined, if working at their capacity, could load nearly two million barrels a day, about 2.4 percent of current world requirements.
Vice Admiral Cosgriff told the Journal, “As a contributor to an increasingly inelastic supply, that is a significant percentage. That isn’t just an Iraq issue, that’s a global economic-stability issue.”
This comment underscores the geopolitical economic interests at the heart of the US conquest of Iraq. US policymakers, from the military leaders on the spot right up to the White House, are acutely aware that, as former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said last month, the war in Iraq is “all about oil.”
Nonetheless, the White House, the congressional Democrats and the American news media alike seek to downplay or suppress the role of oil, claiming that the war is being waged to fight “terrorism” and establish democracy in Iraq, when its major purpose is to rob the Iraqi people of their country’s principal natural resource, and give US and British multinationals first crack at the world’s third largest oil reserves.
The struggle for control and development of these resources is becoming increasingly public, despite the official effort to deny the predatory character of the American military occupation.
Iraq’s former oil minister, Thamir Ghadhban, who still advises the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on energy issues, told a US audience Friday that Iraq planned to nearly triple oil production over the next eight years, from the present 2.2 million barrels a day to six million barrels per day.
Speaking at Stanford University, Ghadhban said, “Iraq is one of the least-explored countries among the major oil producers,” citing plans to explore for oil in the western desert (Anbar province) as well as the traditional oil-producing regions in the north and south. Iraq has 112 billion barrels in proven oil reserves, but UN estimates have placed its probable but as yet unproven reserves at 214 billion barrels, perhaps the world’s largest pool of untapped oil.
The oil ministry reported last week that daily crude oil production in October hit a three-year high of 2.7 million barrels a day, of which 1.8 million barrels were exported. Hussein al-Shahristani, the oil minister, said that crude production should reach 3 million barrels daily by the end of the year.
The carve-up of oil territory continues within the country. The national government signed a short-term contract November 8 with the Turkish refiner Tupras to take 60,000 barrels a day from the Kirkuk oil fields, shipped by pipeline through the Turkish port of Ceyhan. It was the first new contract for Kirkuk crude in more than three years. The state oil ministry has invited 16 European and American oil companies to bid for three-month contracts to lift crude from Kirkuk, and some bids have already been received.
The Kurdistan regional government announced another round of production-sharing contracts, including one with Reliance Industries, an Indian firm, which paid a signing bonus of $15.5 million to $17.5 million for exploration contracts for two sites in the Kurdish-ruled provinces in the north of Iraq.
The federal Iraqi government has denounced the Kurdish deals as violations of national sovereignty. The mounting conflict between Baghdad and the Kurdistan regional government is facing multiple flashpoints, including a referendum, due to be held by the end of 2007, to decide whether the city of Kirkuk, at the center of one of the world’s largest oilfields, should be attached to the Kurdish-controlled region.
The city and province of Kirkuk have a mixed population of Kurds, Sunni and Shiite Arabs and Turkomen, but the Kurdish parties have been resettling Kurds there in an effort to create a majority, a mirror reversal of the policy pursued by Saddam Hussein, who pushed Kurds out and sought “Arabization” of the province.
Perhaps the most provocative action taken in the tense region came in September, when Ray Hunt, CEO of Hunt Oil and a longtime Texas confidant of the Bush family, flew into Kurdistan and signed an oil exploration agreement with the regional government, without informing Baghdad.
According to a report in the Dallas Morning News, the hill of Jebel Semroot, near the village of Assyan, where Hunt Oil expects to begin drilling next year, is not even in the territory of the three Kurdish provinces ruled by the regional government. It lies across the border in Nineveh, another province with a mixed population of Kurds, Turkomen and Arabs, in which the Kurds are a distinct minority.
“Trouble is, Jebel Semroot isn’t in Kurdish territory,” the News reported. “If Hunt Oil drills in these rocks, the company will be helping the Kurds absorb lands in Nineveh province that were historically Kurdish but are still claimed by Iraq’s Arab Sunnis
US, British and Australian forces build oil-protection base in Iraq
By Patrick Martin
13 November 2007
The US Navy, with the assistance of British and Australian commandos, is building a permanent base to guard two oil-export platforms in Iraqi waters at the northern end of the Persian Gulf, according to a report Monday in the Wall Street Journal.
Troops from all three occupying countries are now stationed at the Khawr al Amaya oil terminal, protecting it and the neighboring Al Basrah oil terminal, facilities critical for any significant expansion of tanker shipments of Iraqi oil to the world market..
The Journal reported, “While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn’t shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country’s oil industry.”
The military mission goes far beyond the patrols which US warships have conducted in the Persian Gulf for the past 30 years, in the name of keeping oil shipping lanes open. The Journal noted, “the Navy finds itself with an additional, much more specific role: playing security guard to Iraq’s offshore oil infrastructure.”
The current focus of military construction is a command-and-control facility located on top of the Khawr facility, the smaller of the two.
While the Pentagon claims that the new oil-terminal base is not a permanent US facility and that it will be turned over to Iraqi forces eventually, the Journal explains, “Iraqi forces are a long way from being able to take over the mission.” Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of US naval forces in the Gulf, told the newspaper, “They are going to need help for years to come.”
US, British and Australian military officers will control Iraq’s oil export shipping for the indefinite future. US sailors live on both the Khawr and Al Basrah terminals behind chain-link fences that keep out all Iraqis except the oil workers who actually operate the facilities, and a handful of Iraqi Marines who work as guards under the direction of an Australian commodore, the overall commander of the facility.
The Journal account also notes that the oil-export installation could play a role in forthcoming US moves against Iran: “The new outpost also offers a convenient perch from which to monitor Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps... The naval component of the Revolutionary Guards Corps operates from a partially submerged barge and crane visible on clear days.”
The British sailors captured earlier this year by Iranian forces were among those participating in the oil-protection mission—a fact that was suppressed in the media accounts at the time. That incident ended when the British prisoners made statements admitting they had crossed into Iranian waters and then were sent home. A similar episode involving American soldiers could well provide a pretext for a full-scale US military strike against Iran.
The oil-terminal operation is only one part of a much larger program, costing an estimated $277 million, in which US forces are deployed to protect Iraqi oilfields. The terminal facilities are the only ones where US military personnel are actually stationed inside production or shipping installations.
The Khawr and Al Basrah facilities combined, if working at their capacity, could load nearly two million barrels a day, about 2.4 percent of current world requirements.
Vice Admiral Cosgriff told the Journal, “As a contributor to an increasingly inelastic supply, that is a significant percentage. That isn’t just an Iraq issue, that’s a global economic-stability issue.”
This comment underscores the geopolitical economic interests at the heart of the US conquest of Iraq. US policymakers, from the military leaders on the spot right up to the White House, are acutely aware that, as former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said last month, the war in Iraq is “all about oil.”
Nonetheless, the White House, the congressional Democrats and the American news media alike seek to downplay or suppress the role of oil, claiming that the war is being waged to fight “terrorism” and establish democracy in Iraq, when its major purpose is to rob the Iraqi people of their country’s principal natural resource, and give US and British multinationals first crack at the world’s third largest oil reserves.
The struggle for control and development of these resources is becoming increasingly public, despite the official effort to deny the predatory character of the American military occupation.
Iraq’s former oil minister, Thamir Ghadhban, who still advises the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on energy issues, told a US audience Friday that Iraq planned to nearly triple oil production over the next eight years, from the present 2.2 million barrels a day to six million barrels per day.
Speaking at Stanford University, Ghadhban said, “Iraq is one of the least-explored countries among the major oil producers,” citing plans to explore for oil in the western desert (Anbar province) as well as the traditional oil-producing regions in the north and south. Iraq has 112 billion barrels in proven oil reserves, but UN estimates have placed its probable but as yet unproven reserves at 214 billion barrels, perhaps the world’s largest pool of untapped oil.
The oil ministry reported last week that daily crude oil production in October hit a three-year high of 2.7 million barrels a day, of which 1.8 million barrels were exported. Hussein al-Shahristani, the oil minister, said that crude production should reach 3 million barrels daily by the end of the year.
The carve-up of oil territory continues within the country. The national government signed a short-term contract November 8 with the Turkish refiner Tupras to take 60,000 barrels a day from the Kirkuk oil fields, shipped by pipeline through the Turkish port of Ceyhan. It was the first new contract for Kirkuk crude in more than three years. The state oil ministry has invited 16 European and American oil companies to bid for three-month contracts to lift crude from Kirkuk, and some bids have already been received.
The Kurdistan regional government announced another round of production-sharing contracts, including one with Reliance Industries, an Indian firm, which paid a signing bonus of $15.5 million to $17.5 million for exploration contracts for two sites in the Kurdish-ruled provinces in the north of Iraq.
The federal Iraqi government has denounced the Kurdish deals as violations of national sovereignty. The mounting conflict between Baghdad and the Kurdistan regional government is facing multiple flashpoints, including a referendum, due to be held by the end of 2007, to decide whether the city of Kirkuk, at the center of one of the world’s largest oilfields, should be attached to the Kurdish-controlled region.
The city and province of Kirkuk have a mixed population of Kurds, Sunni and Shiite Arabs and Turkomen, but the Kurdish parties have been resettling Kurds there in an effort to create a majority, a mirror reversal of the policy pursued by Saddam Hussein, who pushed Kurds out and sought “Arabization” of the province.
Perhaps the most provocative action taken in the tense region came in September, when Ray Hunt, CEO of Hunt Oil and a longtime Texas confidant of the Bush family, flew into Kurdistan and signed an oil exploration agreement with the regional government, without informing Baghdad.
According to a report in the Dallas Morning News, the hill of Jebel Semroot, near the village of Assyan, where Hunt Oil expects to begin drilling next year, is not even in the territory of the three Kurdish provinces ruled by the regional government. It lies across the border in Nineveh, another province with a mixed population of Kurds, Turkomen and Arabs, in which the Kurds are a distinct minority.
“Trouble is, Jebel Semroot isn’t in Kurdish territory,” the News reported. “If Hunt Oil drills in these rocks, the company will be helping the Kurds absorb lands in Nineveh province that were historically Kurdish but are still claimed by Iraq’s Arab Sunnis
Anti-American Islamic Nationalism is Behind Pakistan Crisis
This is from the following site. Fuller is formerly involved with the CIA so he should know what he is talking about. His analysis is not intended to spin things in the way much that passes for analyses these days in the mass media. To me what he says makes a lot of sense. The situation in Pakistan is not that favorable for the US. As the author mentions it is not really possible for Musharraf to eliminate the Taliban in the territories or elsewhere in Pakistan. The US has always expected more of Musharaff than he could deliver. Perhaps the US hopes that somehow Bhutto will come to power. More likely she will come to be assassinated.
ANTI-AMERICAN ISLAMIC NATIONALISM IS BEHIND PAKISTAN CRISIS
Graham E. Fuller, a former vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA, is currently an adjunct professor of history at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the author of "The Future of Political Islam."
By Graham E. Fuller
WASHINGTON — Washington is now confronted with an essentially no-win situation in Pakistan. We are witnessing the culmination of many years of ad hoc American policies based on an abiding faith in the power of U.S. military force coupled with ignorance of the strategic, cultural and psychological realities of the region. At heart is an incompatibility of American strategic interests with those of Pakistan, particularly as perceived by the country’s strategic elite. Powerful popular forces of Pakistani and Islamic nationalism intensify this divide.
Washington wants what Pakistan will not deliver, or cannot deliver except to a modest degree. Bush wants to destroy al-Qaida in the Pak-Afghan region, a goal shared by Gen. Pervez Musharraf. But while al-Qaida lacks native roots in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden is still the object of sympathy by huge numbers in Pakistan and beyond. Humbled Muslim societies everywhere see bin Laden as one of the few figures in the Muslim world willing to stand up with honor and bravery to the American colossus and defy its imperial ambitions. That makes bin Laden more popular than Bush or Musharraf, even if most of the population does not share bin Laden’s vision of violent global jihadi struggle.
But Washington’s demands cut still closer to the Pakistani bone. Bush wants Pakistan to cut off cross-border contact between Pakistan and Afghanistan, to deny Pakistan as a safe haven for the Afghan Taliban.
Musharraf and his generals will pay lip service to this goal, but they will not ultimately do it. The reasons are not complex. As distasteful a symbol of primitive Islamic practice as the Taliban have been, today they represent essentially the major vehicle for Pashtun nationalism in Afghanistan, the single biggest ethnic group and much under-represented in the U.S.-backed Karzai government. More important, there are twice as many ethnic Pashtuns in Pakistan itself as there are in Afghanistan. The cross-border ties are inextricable: clan, family, history, culture, language, religion. This ethnic organism will not be sundered by the arbitrary and unpopular borders between the two countries. Pashtuns can, do and will casually ignore this artificial divide. Indeed, the Taliban as a political and ideological movement is growing more powerful within Pakistan itself.
Pakistan already has one powerful enemy on its eastern flank — India. It cannot afford to have a hostile Afghanistan on its western side. Every Pakistani strategic thinker knows this. Yet under the Karzai government in Afghanistan, the enemies of Pakistan — the anti-Pashtun Northern Alliance, and a strong Indian political and intelligence presence — have grown strong. Pakistan’s primary voice and influence inside Afghanistan comes mainly via the Taliban, supported behind the scenes by the Pakistani military on strategic grounds. Washington may rail at this, but it cannot change these facts on the ground.
Pakistan’s government is meanwhile still heavily influenced by powerful feudal rural landholders with regressive social and economic policies.
The country desperately needs agricultural and social reform. But reform will undercut the powerful feudalists, a key pillar of power. Benazir Bhutto, for all her Western polish, herself represents those very landowning powers in her native Sindh region. The kind of deep social reform required is not in the offing, neither with Musharraf nor with Bhutto. She has been tested — twice — and found wanting.
Washington wants a compliant Pakistan that will dutifully play its assigned role in the U.S. regional hegemonic vision. Washington will take it any way it can get it, with or without democracy. So U.S. calls for democracy are now issued in panic and ring hollow after six years of support for the Musharraf dictatorship. Pakistani liberals condemn the U.S. for supporting the Pakistani military dictatorship for so long in the name of an unpopular “war against terror” and perceive U.S. confrontationalism as only serving to inflame the militant jihadists.
Nor can the crisis in Pakistan be viewed in isolation. It is of a piece with the war in Afghanistan, and is inextricably linked as well to broader convulsions across the Middle East. Islamic “nationalism” is a growing force as activists push back against American “boots on the ground” — a Pentagon term more revealing than the Pentagon realizes. It is the U.S. military presence and strategy across the region that is seen to rob Muslims of their dignity and sovereignty, in what increasingly is understood as an American war against Islam — bolstered in Washington by neo-con calls for a “World War IV against Islamofascism.” U.S. policies have helped forge a unity of vision across a Muslim world that under more normal circumstances would be far more focused on distinctive local concerns.
The military remains the single most important force in Pakistan. It will most likely ensure that the country does not fall apart. Yet it incorporates many who sympathize with the Islamist agenda and the need to protect the country against outside domination. As radical Islamist power grows across the country, the military will not likely confront it directly; it will seek to divert it, placate some of it, accommodate large elements into the system where possible. We may even witness some bloodshed as militants clash with the military. But the military knows these forces cannot basically be destroyed by force. Meanwhile, the center of gravity is shifting toward the many Islamists who have joined hands with a few liberals against Musharraf. Any new political accommodation will likely be far less congenial to Washington.
Today the U.S. military presence is perhaps the single most inflammatory element in politics across the region. The American military response to this regional challenge only serves to exacerbate it. Sadly, Pakistan is now swift on the heels of Iraq and Afghanistan in heading toward increased civil strife and bitter anti-American emotions.
A “made in Washington” settlement in Afghanistan — the heart of the problem — is not going to work. It only generates increasing hostility as thousands more Lilliputians swarm the helpless Gulliver, drawing hostile Pakistani Islamists more deeply into the equation as well. In this sense bin Laden is winning. The region will only calm down following a withdrawal of U.S. forces from its confrontation with “Islam” and the development of a regional approach to the Afghan issue — one that acknowledges the deep interests of the main regional players who also seek stability in the region: Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China and India. Yet this reality is anathema to the hegemonic global strategy of the Bush administration.
And so the arc of Islamic crisis continues to swell.
GLOBAL VIEWPOINT, DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES (NOV. 8, 2007)
ANTI-AMERICAN ISLAMIC NATIONALISM IS BEHIND PAKISTAN CRISIS
Graham E. Fuller, a former vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA, is currently an adjunct professor of history at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the author of "The Future of Political Islam."
By Graham E. Fuller
WASHINGTON — Washington is now confronted with an essentially no-win situation in Pakistan. We are witnessing the culmination of many years of ad hoc American policies based on an abiding faith in the power of U.S. military force coupled with ignorance of the strategic, cultural and psychological realities of the region. At heart is an incompatibility of American strategic interests with those of Pakistan, particularly as perceived by the country’s strategic elite. Powerful popular forces of Pakistani and Islamic nationalism intensify this divide.
Washington wants what Pakistan will not deliver, or cannot deliver except to a modest degree. Bush wants to destroy al-Qaida in the Pak-Afghan region, a goal shared by Gen. Pervez Musharraf. But while al-Qaida lacks native roots in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden is still the object of sympathy by huge numbers in Pakistan and beyond. Humbled Muslim societies everywhere see bin Laden as one of the few figures in the Muslim world willing to stand up with honor and bravery to the American colossus and defy its imperial ambitions. That makes bin Laden more popular than Bush or Musharraf, even if most of the population does not share bin Laden’s vision of violent global jihadi struggle.
But Washington’s demands cut still closer to the Pakistani bone. Bush wants Pakistan to cut off cross-border contact between Pakistan and Afghanistan, to deny Pakistan as a safe haven for the Afghan Taliban.
Musharraf and his generals will pay lip service to this goal, but they will not ultimately do it. The reasons are not complex. As distasteful a symbol of primitive Islamic practice as the Taliban have been, today they represent essentially the major vehicle for Pashtun nationalism in Afghanistan, the single biggest ethnic group and much under-represented in the U.S.-backed Karzai government. More important, there are twice as many ethnic Pashtuns in Pakistan itself as there are in Afghanistan. The cross-border ties are inextricable: clan, family, history, culture, language, religion. This ethnic organism will not be sundered by the arbitrary and unpopular borders between the two countries. Pashtuns can, do and will casually ignore this artificial divide. Indeed, the Taliban as a political and ideological movement is growing more powerful within Pakistan itself.
Pakistan already has one powerful enemy on its eastern flank — India. It cannot afford to have a hostile Afghanistan on its western side. Every Pakistani strategic thinker knows this. Yet under the Karzai government in Afghanistan, the enemies of Pakistan — the anti-Pashtun Northern Alliance, and a strong Indian political and intelligence presence — have grown strong. Pakistan’s primary voice and influence inside Afghanistan comes mainly via the Taliban, supported behind the scenes by the Pakistani military on strategic grounds. Washington may rail at this, but it cannot change these facts on the ground.
Pakistan’s government is meanwhile still heavily influenced by powerful feudal rural landholders with regressive social and economic policies.
The country desperately needs agricultural and social reform. But reform will undercut the powerful feudalists, a key pillar of power. Benazir Bhutto, for all her Western polish, herself represents those very landowning powers in her native Sindh region. The kind of deep social reform required is not in the offing, neither with Musharraf nor with Bhutto. She has been tested — twice — and found wanting.
Washington wants a compliant Pakistan that will dutifully play its assigned role in the U.S. regional hegemonic vision. Washington will take it any way it can get it, with or without democracy. So U.S. calls for democracy are now issued in panic and ring hollow after six years of support for the Musharraf dictatorship. Pakistani liberals condemn the U.S. for supporting the Pakistani military dictatorship for so long in the name of an unpopular “war against terror” and perceive U.S. confrontationalism as only serving to inflame the militant jihadists.
Nor can the crisis in Pakistan be viewed in isolation. It is of a piece with the war in Afghanistan, and is inextricably linked as well to broader convulsions across the Middle East. Islamic “nationalism” is a growing force as activists push back against American “boots on the ground” — a Pentagon term more revealing than the Pentagon realizes. It is the U.S. military presence and strategy across the region that is seen to rob Muslims of their dignity and sovereignty, in what increasingly is understood as an American war against Islam — bolstered in Washington by neo-con calls for a “World War IV against Islamofascism.” U.S. policies have helped forge a unity of vision across a Muslim world that under more normal circumstances would be far more focused on distinctive local concerns.
The military remains the single most important force in Pakistan. It will most likely ensure that the country does not fall apart. Yet it incorporates many who sympathize with the Islamist agenda and the need to protect the country against outside domination. As radical Islamist power grows across the country, the military will not likely confront it directly; it will seek to divert it, placate some of it, accommodate large elements into the system where possible. We may even witness some bloodshed as militants clash with the military. But the military knows these forces cannot basically be destroyed by force. Meanwhile, the center of gravity is shifting toward the many Islamists who have joined hands with a few liberals against Musharraf. Any new political accommodation will likely be far less congenial to Washington.
Today the U.S. military presence is perhaps the single most inflammatory element in politics across the region. The American military response to this regional challenge only serves to exacerbate it. Sadly, Pakistan is now swift on the heels of Iraq and Afghanistan in heading toward increased civil strife and bitter anti-American emotions.
A “made in Washington” settlement in Afghanistan — the heart of the problem — is not going to work. It only generates increasing hostility as thousands more Lilliputians swarm the helpless Gulliver, drawing hostile Pakistani Islamists more deeply into the equation as well. In this sense bin Laden is winning. The region will only calm down following a withdrawal of U.S. forces from its confrontation with “Islam” and the development of a regional approach to the Afghan issue — one that acknowledges the deep interests of the main regional players who also seek stability in the region: Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China and India. Yet this reality is anathema to the hegemonic global strategy of the Bush administration.
And so the arc of Islamic crisis continues to swell.
GLOBAL VIEWPOINT, DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES (NOV. 8, 2007)
Philippine Congressman Assassinated
This is from Al Jazeera. This is not the typical way of assassinating someone. Often in the Philippines a person will just be shot. Instead of blowing up the motorcyle someone would have driven by on it with an accomplice and gunned down Akbar but who knows. I find it a bit surprising that the blast was not blamed on Abu Sayyaf group. They are the usual culprits named by the AFP and PNP because they have in the past been responsible for several incidents. They also have reason to hate Akbar for being part of a peace agreement with the government.
As the article notes people are very suspicious of the Arroyo government and some no doubt see the blast as an engineered diverson from the impeachment process and the reports of wrongdoing within the Arroyo government. It doesn't seem to matter that Akbar was an ally of Arroyo!
The article makes it sound as if Akbar still has ties to the Abu Sayyaf. I should think that is doubtful. His actions are quite to the contrary, pro-US and pro-Arroyo.
Even the cause of the last big blast at the Gloria Mall is still not completely settled. Although the govt. investigators are "almost" sure it was an accident a gas explosion the owners of the mall claim their experts say it could not have been methane gas.
Philippine congressman assassinated
A Muslim congressman who was a close ally of the president and suspected of having ties to the Abu Sayyaf, has been killed in a blast that ripped through a section of the Philippine House of Representatives.
Wahab Akbar, who represented southern Basilan island, died of his injuries in hospital on Tuesday.
The blast killed two other people.
Al Jazeera's Marga Ortigas, reporting from the scene in Manila, said investigators were not calling the blast a terror attack but an assassination.
Geary Barias, Manila's police chief, said: "From what we saw, it looks like congressman Akbar was the target of the attack."
He said a parked motorcycle found in the rubble had a bomb on it.
Ronaldo Puno, the interior secretary, also said the target appeared to be Akbar.
He sought to downplay the possible involvement of Muslim fighters, saying the investigation is "pointing away from terrorist attack and more of a directed assault on a certain individual".
Suspected Abu Sayyaf links
Akbar, 47, was a member of the Moro National Liberation Front, a Muslim separatist group that dropped its secessionist goal and signed a peace accord with the government in September 1996.
He was suspected of knowing the leaders of the Basilan-based Abu Sayyaf and later having a falling out with the group's commanders.
As governor of southern Basilan province, he had supported US-backed military operations on the island targeting the group.
The government calls the Abu Sayyaf "terrorists" and has blamed them for many bombings in the country.
Tuesday's explosion ripped through one entrance of congress just minutes after its evening session ended around 8pm (1200 GMT), sending debris flying across the parking lot.
The driver of another legislator and a congress employee were also killed in the blast which tore the roof off the southern entrance of the building.
Seven people, including at least two congresswomen, were injured.
Joel Villanueva, a congressman, said less than 50 of the 275 members of the house were inside when the bomb exploded.
"It was a very huge explosion," Villanueva said. "We are stunned."
'Diversion tactics'
Gloria Arroyo, the president, was to face a new impeachment complaint set to be debated in congress on Wednesday morning.
Ortigas said many Filipinos, long suspicious of the Arroyo administration, felt the government was involved in many tactics to divert attention from allegations of corruption against the president and some felt the blast may be another such tactic.
Arroyo, facing her third impeachment complaint in as many years, said while police investigated and bolstered security, "we're making a call against rumours, accusations that create confusion, fear and conflict".
The Philippine capital has been jittery since a blast tore through a shopping mall in Manila's financial district last month, leaving 11 people dead and injuring over 100.
Police initially thought a bomb was to blame, but later said the explosion was an industrial accident.
The owners of the mall disputed that finding and a red alert is up over the city once again.
As the article notes people are very suspicious of the Arroyo government and some no doubt see the blast as an engineered diverson from the impeachment process and the reports of wrongdoing within the Arroyo government. It doesn't seem to matter that Akbar was an ally of Arroyo!
The article makes it sound as if Akbar still has ties to the Abu Sayyaf. I should think that is doubtful. His actions are quite to the contrary, pro-US and pro-Arroyo.
Even the cause of the last big blast at the Gloria Mall is still not completely settled. Although the govt. investigators are "almost" sure it was an accident a gas explosion the owners of the mall claim their experts say it could not have been methane gas.
Philippine congressman assassinated
A Muslim congressman who was a close ally of the president and suspected of having ties to the Abu Sayyaf, has been killed in a blast that ripped through a section of the Philippine House of Representatives.
Wahab Akbar, who represented southern Basilan island, died of his injuries in hospital on Tuesday.
The blast killed two other people.
Al Jazeera's Marga Ortigas, reporting from the scene in Manila, said investigators were not calling the blast a terror attack but an assassination.
Geary Barias, Manila's police chief, said: "From what we saw, it looks like congressman Akbar was the target of the attack."
He said a parked motorcycle found in the rubble had a bomb on it.
Ronaldo Puno, the interior secretary, also said the target appeared to be Akbar.
He sought to downplay the possible involvement of Muslim fighters, saying the investigation is "pointing away from terrorist attack and more of a directed assault on a certain individual".
Suspected Abu Sayyaf links
Akbar, 47, was a member of the Moro National Liberation Front, a Muslim separatist group that dropped its secessionist goal and signed a peace accord with the government in September 1996.
He was suspected of knowing the leaders of the Basilan-based Abu Sayyaf and later having a falling out with the group's commanders.
As governor of southern Basilan province, he had supported US-backed military operations on the island targeting the group.
The government calls the Abu Sayyaf "terrorists" and has blamed them for many bombings in the country.
Tuesday's explosion ripped through one entrance of congress just minutes after its evening session ended around 8pm (1200 GMT), sending debris flying across the parking lot.
The driver of another legislator and a congress employee were also killed in the blast which tore the roof off the southern entrance of the building.
Seven people, including at least two congresswomen, were injured.
Joel Villanueva, a congressman, said less than 50 of the 275 members of the house were inside when the bomb exploded.
"It was a very huge explosion," Villanueva said. "We are stunned."
'Diversion tactics'
Gloria Arroyo, the president, was to face a new impeachment complaint set to be debated in congress on Wednesday morning.
Ortigas said many Filipinos, long suspicious of the Arroyo administration, felt the government was involved in many tactics to divert attention from allegations of corruption against the president and some felt the blast may be another such tactic.
Arroyo, facing her third impeachment complaint in as many years, said while police investigated and bolstered security, "we're making a call against rumours, accusations that create confusion, fear and conflict".
The Philippine capital has been jittery since a blast tore through a shopping mall in Manila's financial district last month, leaving 11 people dead and injuring over 100.
Police initially thought a bomb was to blame, but later said the explosion was an industrial accident.
The owners of the mall disputed that finding and a red alert is up over the city once again.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Opportunity costs of the Iraq war
This is not a too brilliant collection of alternative uses for Iraq war monies but at least it gives some idea of the opportunity costs involved. It is from this site.
'Boston Globe' Web Site Calculates Other Uses For $611 Billion Spent on Iraq
By Joe Strupp
Published: November 12, 2007 11:10 PM ET
NEW YORK Boston.com, the Web site of The Boston Globe, has again taken a unique view of the latest Iraq War funding request, offering a look at what the $611.5 billion that would be spent so far on the war could buy if it was not used for the military operation.
The Web site provided a similar assessment in May when the price tag had reached $456 billion. Now with the latest appropriation request set to hike the cost to $611.5 billion, the Web staff has found a new list of would-be uses.
Dave Beard, editor of Boston.com, noted in an e-mail that the posting had remained the most popular news item on the Web site for the past two days.
"If the Bush administration succeeds in its latest request for funding for the war in Iraq, the total cost would rise to $611.5 billion, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research group," the staff stated in an online introduction. "The amount got us wondering: What would $611 billion buy?"
Among the findings, from college tuition to free gasoline -- each posted with an accompanying photo -- staffers revealed the following:
• "U.S. drivers consume approximately 384.7 million gallons of gasoline a day. Retail prices averaged $3.00 a gallon in early November. Breaking it down, $611 billion could buy gasoline for everybody in the United States, for about 530 days."
• "In fiscal 2008, Medicare benefits will total $454 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation summary. The $611 billion in war costs is 17 times the amount vetoed by the president for a $35 billion health."
• "According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of primary education for every child on earth. At the upper range of those estimates, the $611 billion cost of the war could have fed and educated the world's poor for seven years."
• "At almost $15 billion, Boston's Central Artery project has been held up as the nation's most expensive public works project. Now multiply that by 40 and you're getting close to US taxpayers’ commitment to democracy in Iraq – so far."
• "At published rates for this year, $611 billion translates into almost 14 million free rides for a year at Harvard University. Tuition and fees at the University of Massachusetts-Boston could be paid for over 53 million years."
Of course, nothing in Boston is done without at least a slight connection to the Red Sox, so staffers added: "The Red Sox and Daisuke Matsuzaka agreed on a six-year, $52 million contract. The war cost could be enough to have Dice-K mania for more than 70,000-some years at this year's rate."
The presentation can be found here
The comparison has also prompted dozens of comments, which range from anti-Globe sentiment such as, "I would buy a newspaper which doesn't show its leftist bias in all aspects of its operation, from editorial page, to articles, to message boards" to attacks on the Bush administration: "(It is) almost enough to buy the net worth of Bush and Cheney after 8 years in the White House!"
***
'Boston Globe' Web Site Calculates Other Uses For $611 Billion Spent on Iraq
By Joe Strupp
Published: November 12, 2007 11:10 PM ET
NEW YORK Boston.com, the Web site of The Boston Globe, has again taken a unique view of the latest Iraq War funding request, offering a look at what the $611.5 billion that would be spent so far on the war could buy if it was not used for the military operation.
The Web site provided a similar assessment in May when the price tag had reached $456 billion. Now with the latest appropriation request set to hike the cost to $611.5 billion, the Web staff has found a new list of would-be uses.
Dave Beard, editor of Boston.com, noted in an e-mail that the posting had remained the most popular news item on the Web site for the past two days.
"If the Bush administration succeeds in its latest request for funding for the war in Iraq, the total cost would rise to $611.5 billion, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research group," the staff stated in an online introduction. "The amount got us wondering: What would $611 billion buy?"
Among the findings, from college tuition to free gasoline -- each posted with an accompanying photo -- staffers revealed the following:
• "U.S. drivers consume approximately 384.7 million gallons of gasoline a day. Retail prices averaged $3.00 a gallon in early November. Breaking it down, $611 billion could buy gasoline for everybody in the United States, for about 530 days."
• "In fiscal 2008, Medicare benefits will total $454 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation summary. The $611 billion in war costs is 17 times the amount vetoed by the president for a $35 billion health."
• "According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of primary education for every child on earth. At the upper range of those estimates, the $611 billion cost of the war could have fed and educated the world's poor for seven years."
• "At almost $15 billion, Boston's Central Artery project has been held up as the nation's most expensive public works project. Now multiply that by 40 and you're getting close to US taxpayers’ commitment to democracy in Iraq – so far."
• "At published rates for this year, $611 billion translates into almost 14 million free rides for a year at Harvard University. Tuition and fees at the University of Massachusetts-Boston could be paid for over 53 million years."
Of course, nothing in Boston is done without at least a slight connection to the Red Sox, so staffers added: "The Red Sox and Daisuke Matsuzaka agreed on a six-year, $52 million contract. The war cost could be enough to have Dice-K mania for more than 70,000-some years at this year's rate."
The presentation can be found here
The comparison has also prompted dozens of comments, which range from anti-Globe sentiment such as, "I would buy a newspaper which doesn't show its leftist bias in all aspects of its operation, from editorial page, to articles, to message boards" to attacks on the Bush administration: "(It is) almost enough to buy the net worth of Bush and Cheney after 8 years in the White House!"
***
Iraq: Call an air strike
This is from the Information Clearing House.Escobar shows that in spite of the fact that there is less violence of some types in Iraq the situation is really not much improved if at all.
He correctly notes that one way of avoiding casualties is having less forays outside of bases and calling in air strikes whenever there fired upon, a tactic that increases civilian casualties.
Iraq: Call an air strike
By Pepe Escobar
"... the literature on counter-insurgency is so enormous that, had it been put aboard the Titanic, it would have sunk that ship without any help from the iceberg. However, the outstanding fact is that almost all of it has been written by the losers." - Martin van Creveld, in The Changing Face Of War, 2006
11/09/07 "Asia Times" -- -- Amid the George W Bush administration's relentless campaign to "change the subject" from Iraq to Iran, how to "win" the war against the Iraqi resistance, Sunni or Shi'ite, now means - according to counter-insurgency messiah General David Petraeus - calling an air strike.
On a parallel level, the Pentagon has practically finished a base in southern Iraq less than 10 kilometers from the border with Iran called Combat Outpost Shocker. The Pentagon maintains this is for the US to prevent Iranian weapons from being smuggled into Iraq. Rather, it's to control a rash of US covert, sabotage operations across the border targeting Iran's Khuzestan province.
With the looming Turkish threat of invading Iraqi Kurdistan and President General President Musharraf's new "let's jail all the lawyers" coup within a coup in Pakistan, the bloody war in the plains of Mesopotamia is lower down in the news cycle - not to mention the interminable 2008 US presidential soap opera. Rosy spinning, though, still rules unchecked.
The Pentagon - via Major General Joseph Fil, commander of US forces in Baghdad - is relentlessly spinning there's now less violence in the capital, a "sustainable" trend. This is rubbish.
Fil cannot even admit to the basic fact that Baghdad has been reduced to a collection of blast-walled, isolated ghettos in search of a city. Baghdad, from being 65% Sunni, is now at least 75% Shi'ite, and counting. Sunni and Shi'ite residents alike confirm sectarian violence has died down because there are virtually no more neighborhoods to be ethnically cleansed.
When Fil says the Iraqi forces are "much, much more effective", what he means is they are much more ferocious. Terrified middle class, secular Shi'ite residents have told Asia Times Online these guards - Shi'ites themselves - roaming Baghdad with their machine guns pointing to the sidewalks are "worse than the Americans".
Violence has also (relatively) decreased because the bulk of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is still lying low, following his strict orders, even though they are being targeted by constant US air strikes on Sadr City.
The falling numbers of US deaths have also been subjected to merciless spinning. Yet already more US troops have been killed in Iraq in 2007 than in all of 2006. This temporary fall is not caused by a burst of Sunni Iraqi resistance good will - even though an array of groups has taken some time out to concentrate forces in these past few months on unifying their struggle (See It's the resistance, stupid Asia Times Online, October 17, 2007.)
Once again, Baghdad residents, who daily have to negotiate life in hell, reveal what's going on. Lately, as a Shi'ite businessman says, "We have not seen the Americans. They used to come to my neighborhood almost every day at night, with Humvees and Bradleys. They stopped at the end of September." This means less US-conducted dangerous "missions" in the Baghdad wasteland - with less exposure to snipers and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) - and more time spent in ultra-fortified bases.
The Pentagon even had to admit that sniper attacks, conducted by real pros, have quadrupled during the past year and could "potentially inflict even more casualties than IEDs". The US Department of Defense's Defense Advance Research Projects Agency had to rush a program using lasers to identify snipers before they shoot.
Anyway, whenever there is a mission in Baghdad now it inevitably means an air strike. Mega-slum Sadr City residents confirm the US keeps attacking alleged Mahdi Army "terrorist" haunts - but mostly from the air.
With the US corporate media operating virtually like a Pentagon information agency, the only news fit to print is that as of early this week there were 3,855 American dead in Iraq. But most of all - and never mentioned - there were 28,451 wounded in combat. And as of October 1, there were no less than 30,294 military victims of accidents and diseases so serious they had to be medically sent out of Iraq.
When in doubt, 'liberate' from the air
Brigadier General Qasim Atta, spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, revealed this week Iraq's security forces have set up 250 spy cameras across Baghdad - presumably to track the Sunni resistance, the Mahdi Army and remaining al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers operatives. Atta has argued "the terrorists are now forced to resort to kidnappings and planting roadside bombs because our security plan is working". That's more rubbish.
Kidnapping is an established industry in Baghdad; with the exodus of the middle classes to Jordan, Syria and beyond, now there's virtually no one flush enough to be kidnapped. IEDs continue to follow wherever American convoys roam. And since they are not roaming - they stick to base - fewer IEDs are exploding. As for al-Qaeda, it has relocated from Baghdad neighborhoods such as Dora - but it will be back.
With fewer missions on the ground, the Pentagon could not but launch four times more air strikes on Iraqis in 2007 - the year of Bush's "surge" - than in the whole of 2006. Up to the end of September, there had been 1,140 air strikes. Last month, there were more air strikes than during the siege that devastated Fallujah in November 2004.
Even discounting the criminal absurdity of an occupation routinely dropping the bomb on packed neighborhoods of a city it already occupies, civilians are the inevitable "collateral damage" of these attacks - families, women, children, assorted "non-combatants". The US Air Force does not even take responsibility - claiming the air strikes are ordered by scared-to-death convoys of Humvees patrolling, say, the mean streets of Sadr City.
The Pentagon talk of "precision strikes" and "reducing collateral damage" means nothing in this context. This appalling human-rights disaster has to be attributed to counter-insurgency messiah Petraeus, the "loser", according to Martin van Creveld, who wrote the latest book on the matter, The Changing Face Of War.
But for public relations purposes inside the US, Petraeus' "by his book" approach works wonders. The Pentagon can spin to oblivion to a cowered media that US deaths are falling. Who cares what the Nuri al-Maliki "sovereign" Iraqi government says? Maliki is nothing but the mayor of the Green Zone anyway. Who cares what the "fish" - who support the "sea" of the resistance, Sunni or Shi'ite - feel? 80% of them are unemployed anyway - and they merely struggle to survive as second-class citizens in their own land.
There's hardly any electricity, fuel or food in Baghdad - everything is rationed - for anyone who's not aligned with a militia-protected faction. The only other option is to flee. With at least a staggering 4.4 million, according to the United Nations, either refugees or internally displaced, options are dwindling fast. There may be as many as 2 million Iraqi refugees in Syria alone. Damascus, in despair, has tightened its visa rules: only academics and businessmen are now entitled. No less than 14% of the entire Iraqi population has been displaced - courtesy of the Bush administration.
Oh, but the Bush administration is "winning" the war, of course. Counter-insurgency doctrine rules that the enemy must be controlled with social, political, ideological and psychological weapons, and risks have to be taken so civilians can be protected.
The surging Petraeus turned that upside down. Or maybe not - he's just providing his own scholarly follow-up to the indiscriminate bombings of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 1960s and 1970s. Petraeus, His master's voice, might as well call an air strike over the whole of Mesopotamia and then call it "victory".
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.
He correctly notes that one way of avoiding casualties is having less forays outside of bases and calling in air strikes whenever there fired upon, a tactic that increases civilian casualties.
Iraq: Call an air strike
By Pepe Escobar
"... the literature on counter-insurgency is so enormous that, had it been put aboard the Titanic, it would have sunk that ship without any help from the iceberg. However, the outstanding fact is that almost all of it has been written by the losers." - Martin van Creveld, in The Changing Face Of War, 2006
11/09/07 "Asia Times" -- -- Amid the George W Bush administration's relentless campaign to "change the subject" from Iraq to Iran, how to "win" the war against the Iraqi resistance, Sunni or Shi'ite, now means - according to counter-insurgency messiah General David Petraeus - calling an air strike.
On a parallel level, the Pentagon has practically finished a base in southern Iraq less than 10 kilometers from the border with Iran called Combat Outpost Shocker. The Pentagon maintains this is for the US to prevent Iranian weapons from being smuggled into Iraq. Rather, it's to control a rash of US covert, sabotage operations across the border targeting Iran's Khuzestan province.
With the looming Turkish threat of invading Iraqi Kurdistan and President General President Musharraf's new "let's jail all the lawyers" coup within a coup in Pakistan, the bloody war in the plains of Mesopotamia is lower down in the news cycle - not to mention the interminable 2008 US presidential soap opera. Rosy spinning, though, still rules unchecked.
The Pentagon - via Major General Joseph Fil, commander of US forces in Baghdad - is relentlessly spinning there's now less violence in the capital, a "sustainable" trend. This is rubbish.
Fil cannot even admit to the basic fact that Baghdad has been reduced to a collection of blast-walled, isolated ghettos in search of a city. Baghdad, from being 65% Sunni, is now at least 75% Shi'ite, and counting. Sunni and Shi'ite residents alike confirm sectarian violence has died down because there are virtually no more neighborhoods to be ethnically cleansed.
When Fil says the Iraqi forces are "much, much more effective", what he means is they are much more ferocious. Terrified middle class, secular Shi'ite residents have told Asia Times Online these guards - Shi'ites themselves - roaming Baghdad with their machine guns pointing to the sidewalks are "worse than the Americans".
Violence has also (relatively) decreased because the bulk of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is still lying low, following his strict orders, even though they are being targeted by constant US air strikes on Sadr City.
The falling numbers of US deaths have also been subjected to merciless spinning. Yet already more US troops have been killed in Iraq in 2007 than in all of 2006. This temporary fall is not caused by a burst of Sunni Iraqi resistance good will - even though an array of groups has taken some time out to concentrate forces in these past few months on unifying their struggle (See It's the resistance, stupid Asia Times Online, October 17, 2007.)
Once again, Baghdad residents, who daily have to negotiate life in hell, reveal what's going on. Lately, as a Shi'ite businessman says, "We have not seen the Americans. They used to come to my neighborhood almost every day at night, with Humvees and Bradleys. They stopped at the end of September." This means less US-conducted dangerous "missions" in the Baghdad wasteland - with less exposure to snipers and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) - and more time spent in ultra-fortified bases.
The Pentagon even had to admit that sniper attacks, conducted by real pros, have quadrupled during the past year and could "potentially inflict even more casualties than IEDs". The US Department of Defense's Defense Advance Research Projects Agency had to rush a program using lasers to identify snipers before they shoot.
Anyway, whenever there is a mission in Baghdad now it inevitably means an air strike. Mega-slum Sadr City residents confirm the US keeps attacking alleged Mahdi Army "terrorist" haunts - but mostly from the air.
With the US corporate media operating virtually like a Pentagon information agency, the only news fit to print is that as of early this week there were 3,855 American dead in Iraq. But most of all - and never mentioned - there were 28,451 wounded in combat. And as of October 1, there were no less than 30,294 military victims of accidents and diseases so serious they had to be medically sent out of Iraq.
When in doubt, 'liberate' from the air
Brigadier General Qasim Atta, spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, revealed this week Iraq's security forces have set up 250 spy cameras across Baghdad - presumably to track the Sunni resistance, the Mahdi Army and remaining al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers operatives. Atta has argued "the terrorists are now forced to resort to kidnappings and planting roadside bombs because our security plan is working". That's more rubbish.
Kidnapping is an established industry in Baghdad; with the exodus of the middle classes to Jordan, Syria and beyond, now there's virtually no one flush enough to be kidnapped. IEDs continue to follow wherever American convoys roam. And since they are not roaming - they stick to base - fewer IEDs are exploding. As for al-Qaeda, it has relocated from Baghdad neighborhoods such as Dora - but it will be back.
With fewer missions on the ground, the Pentagon could not but launch four times more air strikes on Iraqis in 2007 - the year of Bush's "surge" - than in the whole of 2006. Up to the end of September, there had been 1,140 air strikes. Last month, there were more air strikes than during the siege that devastated Fallujah in November 2004.
Even discounting the criminal absurdity of an occupation routinely dropping the bomb on packed neighborhoods of a city it already occupies, civilians are the inevitable "collateral damage" of these attacks - families, women, children, assorted "non-combatants". The US Air Force does not even take responsibility - claiming the air strikes are ordered by scared-to-death convoys of Humvees patrolling, say, the mean streets of Sadr City.
The Pentagon talk of "precision strikes" and "reducing collateral damage" means nothing in this context. This appalling human-rights disaster has to be attributed to counter-insurgency messiah Petraeus, the "loser", according to Martin van Creveld, who wrote the latest book on the matter, The Changing Face Of War.
But for public relations purposes inside the US, Petraeus' "by his book" approach works wonders. The Pentagon can spin to oblivion to a cowered media that US deaths are falling. Who cares what the Nuri al-Maliki "sovereign" Iraqi government says? Maliki is nothing but the mayor of the Green Zone anyway. Who cares what the "fish" - who support the "sea" of the resistance, Sunni or Shi'ite - feel? 80% of them are unemployed anyway - and they merely struggle to survive as second-class citizens in their own land.
There's hardly any electricity, fuel or food in Baghdad - everything is rationed - for anyone who's not aligned with a militia-protected faction. The only other option is to flee. With at least a staggering 4.4 million, according to the United Nations, either refugees or internally displaced, options are dwindling fast. There may be as many as 2 million Iraqi refugees in Syria alone. Damascus, in despair, has tightened its visa rules: only academics and businessmen are now entitled. No less than 14% of the entire Iraqi population has been displaced - courtesy of the Bush administration.
Oh, but the Bush administration is "winning" the war, of course. Counter-insurgency doctrine rules that the enemy must be controlled with social, political, ideological and psychological weapons, and risks have to be taken so civilians can be protected.
The surging Petraeus turned that upside down. Or maybe not - he's just providing his own scholarly follow-up to the indiscriminate bombings of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 1960s and 1970s. Petraeus, His master's voice, might as well call an air strike over the whole of Mesopotamia and then call it "victory".
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.
Black Roses: Georgia's Reformers Fall Out
THis is from Mark Almond's blog. The article is very long. I have posted only a small portion. The article shows how events in Georgia have been manipulated in the West and how people power is in effect promoted by western interests and often involves leaders who are quite corrupt. Now the leaders are at each other's throats. Georgia as a great success story hardly fits the reality.
Black Roses: Georgia’s Reformers Fall Out -
Georgia’s Transition from ‘People Power’ to Caucasian Cockpit
by
Mark Almond
Introduction:
“Georgia has made stunning progress in carrying out substantial economic, judicial and state reforms… that should allow Georgia to become a prosperous liberal market economy and a fully-fledged democracy governed by human rights and the rule of law. Georgia has set an example for the whole region and beyond.”
Council of Europe rapporteurs Matyas Eorsi & Kastriot Islami
(13 September 2007)[1]
“The style of Saakashvili’s governance … has made dishonesty, injustice and oppression a way of life. Everyday repression, demolition of houses and churches, robbery, ‘kulakization’, and
murders, I would stress, murders, have become common practice for the authorities.”
Ex-Defence Minister Irakli Okruashvili
(25th September, 2007)[2]
On Friday 2nd November, 2007, the centre of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, was occupied a huge crowd demanding the resignation of President Mikheil Saakashvili.[3] It was exactly four years since Saakashvili had cried foul about Georgia’s parliamentary elections and set in train the protests which brought him to power on 23rd November, 2003. While Western media have largely ignored the tail-spin in the popularity of Georgia’s arch-populist, the waves of criticism and protest denouncing the erstwhile hero of the so-called “Rose Revolution” take place against the sensitive geo-strategic backdrop of Georgia’s dispute with Russia over the status of its breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Whether the protests peter out or achieve their stated goal of forcing early elections, the myth of People Power has been tarnished once more by the reality of the power struggles and back-stabbing among yesteryear’s “reformers”.
The current crisis in Georgia began when the two leading figures in the “Rose Revolution”, Mikheil Saakashvili and Irakli Okruashvili had a spectacular falling out. Having served as Prosecutor-General purging supporters of the ousted president Eduard Shevardnadze and then as Defence Minister, Irakli Okruashvili, dramatically left Saakashvili’s government in November, 2006. After ten months of public silence, on 25th September, 2007, Mr Okruashvili announced he was launching a “Movement for a United Georgia”.
At the press conference launching his challenge to President Saakashvili, Okruashvili declared, “I want to tell you… recent developments in the country, the fascist tendencies and the steps taken by the authorities against the Georgian state, have made us [the new political party] come together before the public in this team…” Then he declared, “The style of Saakashvili’s governance, which has gone beyond the limits, has made dishonesty, injustice and oppression a way of life. Everyday repression, demolition of houses and churches, robbery, ‘kulakization’, and murders, I would stress, murders, have become common practice for the authorities.”[4]
Such as the shock effect that it was only two days later, after launching his new opposition party with this litany of charges against his former long-time political ally and personal friend, President Mikheil Saakashvili, that Irakli Okruashvili was arrested and taken to Tbilisi’s notorious Isolator Number 7, the scene of well-documented torture of political prisoners since 1991. After he had recanted his charges against the President but confessed to his own crimes in a video session with interrogators but without his lawyer present, Mr Okruashvili posted bail of US$6 million and was released.[5]
At the same time as the former top two of Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” in 2003 were at each others’ throats making blood curdling threats and accusations, events in Burma were being reported with same kind of naïve enthusiasm for “People Power” which has left a bitter taste in the mouths of impoverished and oppressed Georgians. They have twice experienced coups d’etat (in 1991 and 2003) lauded in the West as expressions of the will of the people. Even as Okruashvili and Saakashvili traded accusations of murder and treason in Tbilisi, Georgia’s revolution in 2003 was actually been cited as a model by Western media for the saffron-robed monks of Burma protesting against the military government there.[6]
Only people bewitched by the myth of “People Power” could think that given Georgia’s disillusionment any good come from another coloured-coded revolution endorsed by the same journalists and “human rights” activists who have praised Georgia as a model for change. Many of the Western groups who funded and trained the so-called “rose revolutionaries” in Georgia in 2003 have been behind the scenes of the “saffron revolution” in Burma. If Burma’s military rulers should go the way of Eduard Shevardnadze will Burma fall through the floor into the same politics of corruption, drugs smuggling and backstabbing which have pock-marked Georgia’s tragic post-Soviet history.
Proponents of “People Power” from the Caucasus to South-East Asia ignore the poverty, oppression, disease and death which have followed events like the “Rose Revolution.” Western media like The Economist and so-called human rights watchdogs like the Council of Europe have a lamentable record of fellow travelling with successive corrupt and cruel regimes in Tbilisi since 1991. It is not too much to say that there isn’t any bad situation which the nexus of Western intelligence agencies, media and human rights agencies cannot make worse, while singing their own praises as the proponents of a new dawn of human happiness.
The infighting and mutual accusations of crime, corruption and killings among the Rose Revolutionaries is the starkest case yet of the reality of a post-People Power country contrasting with the myth peddled abroad in the Western media. No journalists who painted a rosy picture of the new rulers of Georgia has yet come forward to correct, let alone apologise for their myth-making under the guise of reporting.
When friends fall out: Mikheil Sakashvili & Irakli Okruashvili
“Georgia has produced strong leaders. Stalin, Beria, Gamsakhurdia. Even Shevardnadze, before he got addicted to power. They looked beyond Georgia. My husband does the same;
he fits in the tradition. This country needs a strong hand. It is incredibly important that
respect for authority returns... I think my husband is the right person to frighten people.”
Sandra Roeloffs aka Mrs. Mikheil Saakashvili[7]
“After the revolution, the spring cleaning… Every week has brought fresh arrests of the great and not so good… The whole country is being treated to this televised humiliation, directed personally by the new prosecutor-general… He is also planning further arrests.”
Tim Whewell, “Newsnight”, BBC2 (8th April, 2004)
“This is what official Tbilisi is like nowadays: American workaholic management, West-orientated management, no political unpredictability so typical of the Kremlin”!
Anna Politvkovskaya[8]
They were buddies. Blood brothers. Soul-mates in the fight for democracy against corruption. Every authoritative voice – The Economist, New York Times, the BBC, even the martyred Anna Politkovskaya – assured us that Mikheil Saakashvili and Irakli Okruashvili were the best and brightest hopes for an end to the post-Soviet quagmire of corruption and political in-fighting. So how did it all go wrong?
Readers can be forgiven not knowing that it has all gone wrong. For instance, the BBC reporters who filed successive upbeat stories about the Saakashvili-Okruashvili double have fallen strangely silent when it comes to accounting for their spectacular bust-up.
BBC2’s Newsnight’s Tim Whewell used never to tire of telling us about Irakli Okruashvili’s dynamism as prosecutor: “another day, more arrests” which “doesn’t leave the chief corruption buster with much time for his wife and daughter.” Considering the prosecutor and the president , he assured viewers less than four years ago – admittedly an age ago in media memory – they were “the youngest, most photogenic government in the world…” Apparently photogenic equalled public spirited in Whewell-speak.[9]
In America, too, regime-friendly journalists emphasised the new order’s youth as if it equalled a moral quality. Saakashvili’s regime was a kind of Camelot in the Caucasus according to the Washington Post’s Peter Baker who gushed about the new class ruling Georgia in 2004: “Saakashvili has built the former Soviet Union's first generation of leaders outside the historically Western-oriented Baltic republics, a team whose members look like him -- in their thirties, Western-educated, untainted by the old system.” Taking his argument from Saakashvili himself, Baker quoted the new President , "Absence of experience is an asset in itself. Because what kind of experience was it? Experience at being corrupt. Experience at being part of the old system that didn't work."[10] Georgians have a long history of gulling gullible journalists. After all fellow traveling was invented by hacks hanging on Stalin’s every word, but any anthropologist or sociologist would point out that young people are the most socialised to the dominant system. It is all they have known. In this case it is all their parents and grandparents knew and served. Far from representing an automatic break with Soviet behavioural norms in Georgia, Saakashvili and his generation exemplified the way Sovietised Georgians operated within a patronage system dominated by a distant all-powerful boss. Shevardnadze saw the sun rise in Moscow “where Lenin lies”, Saakashvili sees the sun rise in the West in Washington. Both Shevardnadze and his erstwhile apprentice know how to utter the slogans of the patron while running their satrapy as usual. Sadly, Georgians expect that, and are certainly adapted to mouthing grand principles while doing dirty deals.
Black Roses: Georgia’s Reformers Fall Out -
Georgia’s Transition from ‘People Power’ to Caucasian Cockpit
by
Mark Almond
Introduction:
“Georgia has made stunning progress in carrying out substantial economic, judicial and state reforms… that should allow Georgia to become a prosperous liberal market economy and a fully-fledged democracy governed by human rights and the rule of law. Georgia has set an example for the whole region and beyond.”
Council of Europe rapporteurs Matyas Eorsi & Kastriot Islami
(13 September 2007)[1]
“The style of Saakashvili’s governance … has made dishonesty, injustice and oppression a way of life. Everyday repression, demolition of houses and churches, robbery, ‘kulakization’, and
murders, I would stress, murders, have become common practice for the authorities.”
Ex-Defence Minister Irakli Okruashvili
(25th September, 2007)[2]
On Friday 2nd November, 2007, the centre of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, was occupied a huge crowd demanding the resignation of President Mikheil Saakashvili.[3] It was exactly four years since Saakashvili had cried foul about Georgia’s parliamentary elections and set in train the protests which brought him to power on 23rd November, 2003. While Western media have largely ignored the tail-spin in the popularity of Georgia’s arch-populist, the waves of criticism and protest denouncing the erstwhile hero of the so-called “Rose Revolution” take place against the sensitive geo-strategic backdrop of Georgia’s dispute with Russia over the status of its breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Whether the protests peter out or achieve their stated goal of forcing early elections, the myth of People Power has been tarnished once more by the reality of the power struggles and back-stabbing among yesteryear’s “reformers”.
The current crisis in Georgia began when the two leading figures in the “Rose Revolution”, Mikheil Saakashvili and Irakli Okruashvili had a spectacular falling out. Having served as Prosecutor-General purging supporters of the ousted president Eduard Shevardnadze and then as Defence Minister, Irakli Okruashvili, dramatically left Saakashvili’s government in November, 2006. After ten months of public silence, on 25th September, 2007, Mr Okruashvili announced he was launching a “Movement for a United Georgia”.
At the press conference launching his challenge to President Saakashvili, Okruashvili declared, “I want to tell you… recent developments in the country, the fascist tendencies and the steps taken by the authorities against the Georgian state, have made us [the new political party] come together before the public in this team…” Then he declared, “The style of Saakashvili’s governance, which has gone beyond the limits, has made dishonesty, injustice and oppression a way of life. Everyday repression, demolition of houses and churches, robbery, ‘kulakization’, and murders, I would stress, murders, have become common practice for the authorities.”[4]
Such as the shock effect that it was only two days later, after launching his new opposition party with this litany of charges against his former long-time political ally and personal friend, President Mikheil Saakashvili, that Irakli Okruashvili was arrested and taken to Tbilisi’s notorious Isolator Number 7, the scene of well-documented torture of political prisoners since 1991. After he had recanted his charges against the President but confessed to his own crimes in a video session with interrogators but without his lawyer present, Mr Okruashvili posted bail of US$6 million and was released.[5]
At the same time as the former top two of Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” in 2003 were at each others’ throats making blood curdling threats and accusations, events in Burma were being reported with same kind of naïve enthusiasm for “People Power” which has left a bitter taste in the mouths of impoverished and oppressed Georgians. They have twice experienced coups d’etat (in 1991 and 2003) lauded in the West as expressions of the will of the people. Even as Okruashvili and Saakashvili traded accusations of murder and treason in Tbilisi, Georgia’s revolution in 2003 was actually been cited as a model by Western media for the saffron-robed monks of Burma protesting against the military government there.[6]
Only people bewitched by the myth of “People Power” could think that given Georgia’s disillusionment any good come from another coloured-coded revolution endorsed by the same journalists and “human rights” activists who have praised Georgia as a model for change. Many of the Western groups who funded and trained the so-called “rose revolutionaries” in Georgia in 2003 have been behind the scenes of the “saffron revolution” in Burma. If Burma’s military rulers should go the way of Eduard Shevardnadze will Burma fall through the floor into the same politics of corruption, drugs smuggling and backstabbing which have pock-marked Georgia’s tragic post-Soviet history.
Proponents of “People Power” from the Caucasus to South-East Asia ignore the poverty, oppression, disease and death which have followed events like the “Rose Revolution.” Western media like The Economist and so-called human rights watchdogs like the Council of Europe have a lamentable record of fellow travelling with successive corrupt and cruel regimes in Tbilisi since 1991. It is not too much to say that there isn’t any bad situation which the nexus of Western intelligence agencies, media and human rights agencies cannot make worse, while singing their own praises as the proponents of a new dawn of human happiness.
The infighting and mutual accusations of crime, corruption and killings among the Rose Revolutionaries is the starkest case yet of the reality of a post-People Power country contrasting with the myth peddled abroad in the Western media. No journalists who painted a rosy picture of the new rulers of Georgia has yet come forward to correct, let alone apologise for their myth-making under the guise of reporting.
When friends fall out: Mikheil Sakashvili & Irakli Okruashvili
“Georgia has produced strong leaders. Stalin, Beria, Gamsakhurdia. Even Shevardnadze, before he got addicted to power. They looked beyond Georgia. My husband does the same;
he fits in the tradition. This country needs a strong hand. It is incredibly important that
respect for authority returns... I think my husband is the right person to frighten people.”
Sandra Roeloffs aka Mrs. Mikheil Saakashvili[7]
“After the revolution, the spring cleaning… Every week has brought fresh arrests of the great and not so good… The whole country is being treated to this televised humiliation, directed personally by the new prosecutor-general… He is also planning further arrests.”
Tim Whewell, “Newsnight”, BBC2 (8th April, 2004)
“This is what official Tbilisi is like nowadays: American workaholic management, West-orientated management, no political unpredictability so typical of the Kremlin”!
Anna Politvkovskaya[8]
They were buddies. Blood brothers. Soul-mates in the fight for democracy against corruption. Every authoritative voice – The Economist, New York Times, the BBC, even the martyred Anna Politkovskaya – assured us that Mikheil Saakashvili and Irakli Okruashvili were the best and brightest hopes for an end to the post-Soviet quagmire of corruption and political in-fighting. So how did it all go wrong?
Readers can be forgiven not knowing that it has all gone wrong. For instance, the BBC reporters who filed successive upbeat stories about the Saakashvili-Okruashvili double have fallen strangely silent when it comes to accounting for their spectacular bust-up.
BBC2’s Newsnight’s Tim Whewell used never to tire of telling us about Irakli Okruashvili’s dynamism as prosecutor: “another day, more arrests” which “doesn’t leave the chief corruption buster with much time for his wife and daughter.” Considering the prosecutor and the president , he assured viewers less than four years ago – admittedly an age ago in media memory – they were “the youngest, most photogenic government in the world…” Apparently photogenic equalled public spirited in Whewell-speak.[9]
In America, too, regime-friendly journalists emphasised the new order’s youth as if it equalled a moral quality. Saakashvili’s regime was a kind of Camelot in the Caucasus according to the Washington Post’s Peter Baker who gushed about the new class ruling Georgia in 2004: “Saakashvili has built the former Soviet Union's first generation of leaders outside the historically Western-oriented Baltic republics, a team whose members look like him -- in their thirties, Western-educated, untainted by the old system.” Taking his argument from Saakashvili himself, Baker quoted the new President , "Absence of experience is an asset in itself. Because what kind of experience was it? Experience at being corrupt. Experience at being part of the old system that didn't work."[10] Georgians have a long history of gulling gullible journalists. After all fellow traveling was invented by hacks hanging on Stalin’s every word, but any anthropologist or sociologist would point out that young people are the most socialised to the dominant system. It is all they have known. In this case it is all their parents and grandparents knew and served. Far from representing an automatic break with Soviet behavioural norms in Georgia, Saakashvili and his generation exemplified the way Sovietised Georgians operated within a patronage system dominated by a distant all-powerful boss. Shevardnadze saw the sun rise in Moscow “where Lenin lies”, Saakashvili sees the sun rise in the West in Washington. Both Shevardnadze and his erstwhile apprentice know how to utter the slogans of the patron while running their satrapy as usual. Sadly, Georgians expect that, and are certainly adapted to mouthing grand principles while doing dirty deals.
The Third Oil Shock
This is a view of the shock of high oil prices from the Philippines, Manila Times.
Because the Philippines is dependent on imported oil it is particularly hard hit when oil prices rise.
VIRTUAL REALITY
By Tony Lopez
The third oil shock
The world is headed to its third energy shock in 30 years. This is symbolized by oil prices reaching the threshold $100 per barrel which will happen in the next few weeks.
On Sunday, Nov. 11, the Oil-Price.Net quoted crude at $96.20 per barrel, down slightly from the peak of $98.62. A month ago, it was a little above $80. On Aug. 25, 2006, oil prices hit what was then a record $68 a barrel. From one record price to another in a little over a year, oil prices have increased 44 percent. Oil price has more than quadrupled since 2001.
The forecast is that within a year, oil will reach $125.06 per barrel.
To be sure, oil has yet to reach its historic inflation-adjusted high of $101.70, reached April 1980 in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution. Also, oil is still cheaper than your bottled water and, for that matter, your cup of Starbucks coffee, which is atrociously priced at P110 and yet cannot run your car or your gas stove.
This oil shock will hurt poor countries badly and the poorest Filipinos the most.
This early, industrialist Raul Concepcion is suggesting rationing of food—to enable the poor to cope, and more transparency in the way domestic oil price increases is approved, to enable the rich and the middle class to cope. There is no sense or science to the way local oil prices are adjusted. Even if an oil company wants to reduce its prices, it has to get government approval. Why? Blame the Oil Deregulation Law.
The two previous oil shocks were driven by supply interruptions from the Middle East. This third shock is driven by demand for oil by huge energy users like China, India, the United States and the Middle East. Oil demand next year is projected at 88 million barrels, up 2.4 percent from 2007.
On the supply side, being blamed are refinery bottlenecks in the US, a weak dollar (which is down eight percent against the euro), geopolitical threats in the Middle East, the war in Iraq, violence in oil producer Nigeria, and attempts by Venezuela and Russia to increasingly control their oil resource, driving away foreign oil investment.
The International Energy Agency predicts that the world’s energy needs will rise more than 50 percent in 2030 over today. China and India together will account for 45 percent of this increase. Net oil imports of China and India combined will rise from 5.4 million barrels per day in 2005 to 19.1 mbpd in 2030—more than the combined imports of the US and Japan today.
The US is the biggest oil consumer. Second is China which is shifting away from bicycles and mass transit towards automobiles. By 2010, China will have 90 times more cars than it had in 1990. Automobile sales are rising at 19 percent per year. By 2030, China oil imports will equal that of the US.
The IEA warns that although new oil fields will increase production over the next five years “it is very uncertain whether it will be sufficient to compensate for the decline in output of existing fields and meet the projected increase in demand.” A supply crunch in 2015, involving an abrupt escalation in oil prices “cannot be ruled out.”
In China and India in the past ten years, 300 million Chinese and 100 million Indians crossed the poverty line to middle class. China has been growing 10 percent per year for ten years. Combined oil demand by China and India will double in 20 years.
China’s biggest oil producer last week became the world’s most valuable company. Its IPO made it a $1 trillion company. China has acquired interest in oil exploration and production in Russia, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Canada. China gets 58 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East.
The New York Times says, “at the root of the stunning rise in the price of oil, up 56 percent this year and 365 percent in a decade, is a positive development: an unprecedented boom in the world economy.”
In China, demand for oil has been so huge shortages, rationing and long lines became a daily occurrence. The government had to increase domestic pump prices by 10 percent last Oct. 31.
Japan shows the way to wean away from heavy reliance on oil. Though it imports almost all of its oil needs, it now imports 16 percent less oil than it did in 1973, estimates The Washington Post. But it more than doubled the size of its economy. Japan now accounts for nearly half of total world solar power generation. The US share is just 15 percent. The adoption rate for the less energy-consuming fluorescent light bulbs is 80 percent. The US is six percent.
Brazil is another country that shows the way to adapting to the oil crisis. About 80 percent of its gasoline is ethanol-based. The shift to sugar-based ethanol transport fuel made Brazil a net oil exporter for the first time.
biznewsasia@gmail.com.
Sponsored Links
Because the Philippines is dependent on imported oil it is particularly hard hit when oil prices rise.
VIRTUAL REALITY
By Tony Lopez
The third oil shock
The world is headed to its third energy shock in 30 years. This is symbolized by oil prices reaching the threshold $100 per barrel which will happen in the next few weeks.
On Sunday, Nov. 11, the Oil-Price.Net quoted crude at $96.20 per barrel, down slightly from the peak of $98.62. A month ago, it was a little above $80. On Aug. 25, 2006, oil prices hit what was then a record $68 a barrel. From one record price to another in a little over a year, oil prices have increased 44 percent. Oil price has more than quadrupled since 2001.
The forecast is that within a year, oil will reach $125.06 per barrel.
To be sure, oil has yet to reach its historic inflation-adjusted high of $101.70, reached April 1980 in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution. Also, oil is still cheaper than your bottled water and, for that matter, your cup of Starbucks coffee, which is atrociously priced at P110 and yet cannot run your car or your gas stove.
This oil shock will hurt poor countries badly and the poorest Filipinos the most.
This early, industrialist Raul Concepcion is suggesting rationing of food—to enable the poor to cope, and more transparency in the way domestic oil price increases is approved, to enable the rich and the middle class to cope. There is no sense or science to the way local oil prices are adjusted. Even if an oil company wants to reduce its prices, it has to get government approval. Why? Blame the Oil Deregulation Law.
The two previous oil shocks were driven by supply interruptions from the Middle East. This third shock is driven by demand for oil by huge energy users like China, India, the United States and the Middle East. Oil demand next year is projected at 88 million barrels, up 2.4 percent from 2007.
On the supply side, being blamed are refinery bottlenecks in the US, a weak dollar (which is down eight percent against the euro), geopolitical threats in the Middle East, the war in Iraq, violence in oil producer Nigeria, and attempts by Venezuela and Russia to increasingly control their oil resource, driving away foreign oil investment.
The International Energy Agency predicts that the world’s energy needs will rise more than 50 percent in 2030 over today. China and India together will account for 45 percent of this increase. Net oil imports of China and India combined will rise from 5.4 million barrels per day in 2005 to 19.1 mbpd in 2030—more than the combined imports of the US and Japan today.
The US is the biggest oil consumer. Second is China which is shifting away from bicycles and mass transit towards automobiles. By 2010, China will have 90 times more cars than it had in 1990. Automobile sales are rising at 19 percent per year. By 2030, China oil imports will equal that of the US.
The IEA warns that although new oil fields will increase production over the next five years “it is very uncertain whether it will be sufficient to compensate for the decline in output of existing fields and meet the projected increase in demand.” A supply crunch in 2015, involving an abrupt escalation in oil prices “cannot be ruled out.”
In China and India in the past ten years, 300 million Chinese and 100 million Indians crossed the poverty line to middle class. China has been growing 10 percent per year for ten years. Combined oil demand by China and India will double in 20 years.
China’s biggest oil producer last week became the world’s most valuable company. Its IPO made it a $1 trillion company. China has acquired interest in oil exploration and production in Russia, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Canada. China gets 58 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East.
The New York Times says, “at the root of the stunning rise in the price of oil, up 56 percent this year and 365 percent in a decade, is a positive development: an unprecedented boom in the world economy.”
In China, demand for oil has been so huge shortages, rationing and long lines became a daily occurrence. The government had to increase domestic pump prices by 10 percent last Oct. 31.
Japan shows the way to wean away from heavy reliance on oil. Though it imports almost all of its oil needs, it now imports 16 percent less oil than it did in 1973, estimates The Washington Post. But it more than doubled the size of its economy. Japan now accounts for nearly half of total world solar power generation. The US share is just 15 percent. The adoption rate for the less energy-consuming fluorescent light bulbs is 80 percent. The US is six percent.
Brazil is another country that shows the way to adapting to the oil crisis. About 80 percent of its gasoline is ethanol-based. The shift to sugar-based ethanol transport fuel made Brazil a net oil exporter for the first time.
biznewsasia@gmail.com.
Sponsored Links
Blast Kills One at Philippine Parliament
This blast is probably a terrorist act although no one has claimed responsibility as yet that I have heard. The Glorietta Mall blast turned out to be an accident as I had suspected might be the case. Unless some known group takes responsibility there will probably be all sorts of speculation about who did it! This is from the Manila Tribune.
Batasan blast kills 1, hurts 20
By Gerry Baldo and Charlie Manalo
11/14/2007
An explosion tore through the south wing lobby of the legislative Batasan Pambansa building in Quezon City, killing one person and hurting at least two congressmen and six others, witnesses told reporters at press time.
Reported killed in the blast was Marcial Talvo, supposedly the driver of Gabriela Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan, while injured were Negros Oriental Rep. Pryde Henry Teves and Basilan Rep. Wahab Akbar.
House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. told a radio interview the blast came from a bomb that exploded in the south wing of the Batasan complex.
A staff of Teves, a certain Maan, was in critical condition, according to a staff of Teves.
Witnesses said the explosion was so strong that a blackout occured at the legislative complex after the explosion.
The explosion happened right after Congress adjourned and when people were already leaving the building, according to witnesses.
Unconfirmed reports said Ilagan was also hurt in the blast and was rushed to Malvar Hospital along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City. The report supposedly came from a public information officer of Gabriela.
National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) chief Director
Geary Barias said Teves was seriously hurt from the explosion that happened around 8:07 p.m. yesterday.
At press time, police and government rescue units were trying to extricate Baldo from the Toyota Hi Ace that absorbed the blast impact.
Among those injured were also two members of Teves’ staff. Firemen arrived about 8:20 p.m. Authorities from the Quezon City Police Station 6 also arrived in the area.
Rep. Joel Villanueva of the Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption said on radio he was at the south lobby when he heard a “very loud explosion” inside the premises of House of Representatives. He said he saw at least four hurt, who were brought to the clinic inside the building.
Teves and his two other staff were brought to the New Era General Hospital. The report said the three sustained injuries to their faces, hands and feet.
The gate of the legislative complex was immediately closed to the public after the explosion. Firemen arrived about 8:20 p.m while elements from the Quezon City Police Station 6 also arrived and cordoned off the area from the public shortly afterwards.
Villanueva said he heard the explosion minutes after a House session ended. Witnesses said they saw a Toyota Lite Ace van and another one or two vehicles burning.
Noel Albano, House deputy secretary general for Public Relations and Information, in a radio interview said the explosion came from the ceiling of the south wing. He said the ceiling was partly destroyed.
Another radio report said police officials led by Barrias could not yet determine the kind of device that exploded in the area.
Batasan blast kills 1, hurts 20
By Gerry Baldo and Charlie Manalo
11/14/2007
An explosion tore through the south wing lobby of the legislative Batasan Pambansa building in Quezon City, killing one person and hurting at least two congressmen and six others, witnesses told reporters at press time.
Reported killed in the blast was Marcial Talvo, supposedly the driver of Gabriela Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan, while injured were Negros Oriental Rep. Pryde Henry Teves and Basilan Rep. Wahab Akbar.
House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. told a radio interview the blast came from a bomb that exploded in the south wing of the Batasan complex.
A staff of Teves, a certain Maan, was in critical condition, according to a staff of Teves.
Witnesses said the explosion was so strong that a blackout occured at the legislative complex after the explosion.
The explosion happened right after Congress adjourned and when people were already leaving the building, according to witnesses.
Unconfirmed reports said Ilagan was also hurt in the blast and was rushed to Malvar Hospital along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City. The report supposedly came from a public information officer of Gabriela.
National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) chief Director
Geary Barias said Teves was seriously hurt from the explosion that happened around 8:07 p.m. yesterday.
At press time, police and government rescue units were trying to extricate Baldo from the Toyota Hi Ace that absorbed the blast impact.
Among those injured were also two members of Teves’ staff. Firemen arrived about 8:20 p.m. Authorities from the Quezon City Police Station 6 also arrived in the area.
Rep. Joel Villanueva of the Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption said on radio he was at the south lobby when he heard a “very loud explosion” inside the premises of House of Representatives. He said he saw at least four hurt, who were brought to the clinic inside the building.
Teves and his two other staff were brought to the New Era General Hospital. The report said the three sustained injuries to their faces, hands and feet.
The gate of the legislative complex was immediately closed to the public after the explosion. Firemen arrived about 8:20 p.m while elements from the Quezon City Police Station 6 also arrived and cordoned off the area from the public shortly afterwards.
Villanueva said he heard the explosion minutes after a House session ended. Witnesses said they saw a Toyota Lite Ace van and another one or two vehicles burning.
Noel Albano, House deputy secretary general for Public Relations and Information, in a radio interview said the explosion came from the ceiling of the south wing. He said the ceiling was partly destroyed.
Another radio report said police officials led by Barrias could not yet determine the kind of device that exploded in the area.
Musharraf's target is independent judiciary
Pakistan on the brink
This article points out that it is the judiciary that Musharaff is targetting for the most part. Note that it was lawyers who were at the forefront of protests.
Astute observers will recognize that the real target of Musharraf's emergency measures is Pakistan's independent judiciary. He also makes what seems to be a correct observation that western governments have not made demands to re-instate the chief justice. Musharaff probably intended to pre-empt the justice's decision that the election of Musharaff was invalid as long as he was army chief.
>by Mohammed Khan
November 12, 2007
The pretext for the recent declaration of a state of emergency by Pakistani President/General Pervez Musharraf was curbing lawlessness and violence by Islamist militants.
Astute observers, however, will recognize that the real target of Musharraf's emergency measures is Pakistan's independent judiciary.
It is heartening that Western governments have at least mildly rebuked the General and called on him to hasten the return to democracy, and relinquish his role as Army Chief. Yet at the end of the day, no Western government is explicitly calling for the reinstatement of the sacked judges of the Pakistani Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who remain under house arrest. It is only the lawyers and judges of Pakistan that have forcefully put forward this demand.
It is important to examine why this is the case. Who benefits from this arrangement? Why should we care? To be sure, Pakistan's independent minded judiciary, with its increasingly brazen Chief Justice, has been a thorn in the government's side.
Let's take a moment to chronicle their alleged misdemeanours.
Strike 1: Standing up for public accountability. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled against the government in the case of the controversial sale of the state-owned Pakistan Steel Mills to a business group with links to the current Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
Indeed, it is common knowledge that Pakistani politicians have and continue to use their positions in a questionable manner when it comes to the privatization of state enterprises and in the public procurement process. By contrast, Pakistan's judiciary in recent years has served as the main institutional bulwark against rampant corruption amongst public officials. The generally weak public oversight is part of the reason why Transparency International has consistently listed Pakistan high on its Global Corruption Index.
Incidentally, many suspect that former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari, also made hefty commissions off government contracts and tenders during their terms in office. Mr. Zardari's is more commonly known in Pakistan as "Mr. Ten Percent," a reference to the 10% commission he is alleged to have extorted from various businesses during his time in the Pakistan People's Party government.
Court cases initiated by the Pakistani government against Mr. Zardari are still pending in the United Kingdom. Criminal investigations are ongoing in Poland, France and the Middle East. But a conviction has already been rendered against the couple on money laundering charges in Switzerland. Were it not for the amnesty granted her by Musharraf as part of the power-sharing deal brokered by the Anglo-American alliance, Ms. Bhutto would herself be before the Pakistani courts facing corruption charges. Given that a legal challenge of this grant of amnesty was forthcoming, it is no wonder that Ms. Bhutto has been conspicuously silent on the question of reinstating the fired judges. If re-elected, Ms. Bhutto stands to once again benefit handsomely from the weak public oversight that comes with a compliant judiciary.
Strike 2: Standing up for the principle of habeas corpus. Since his reinstatement in July, Justice Chaudhry has called on the Director-General of Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency, Tariq Pervez, to produce before the court ghost detainee Hafiz Abdul Basit. When Mr. Pervez alleged that Mr. Basit went off to fight jihad in Afghanistan, Justice Chaudhry threatened to throw him in jail if the detainee was not produced immediately.
Needless to say, this exercise was embarrassing for the government. No wonder Musharraf told foreign ambassadors following the declaration of emergency that he had no choice but to take decisive steps against a court system that limited his powers and "paralyzed various organs of the state and created impediments in the fight against terrorism."
Yet balancing the competing interests of security and human rights is precisely the role of the courts, especially when law enforcement and intelligence agencies run afoul of constitutional protections.
Strike 3: Standing up for the separation of powers. The straw that broke the camel's back was the Supreme Court's review of the legality of President Musharraf's recent re-election while still holding onto his uniform as head of Pakistan's Armed Forces. Many insiders suspected that the outcome of this review was going to be unfavourable for Musharraf, hence the timing of the emergency declaration and the unwarranted charge of judicial activism.
Justice Chaudhry's more recent call on the Pakistani lawyers and judges to oppose the police and defy the declaration of emergency rule might be characterized as overstepping the bounds of judicial restraint. But, given the circumstances, he may be forgiven.
The reality is that Musharraf is unwilling to relinquish power. And if this means orchestrating an emergency in order to re-stack the judiciary in his favour, so be it. To hell with lofty concepts such as the rule of law!
Now just imagine if Prime Minister Harper had demanded that the judges of our Supreme Court take an oath of allegiance to him as a condition of their appointment, as President Musharraf has just done with the remaining four Pakistani Supreme Court justices, after dismissing the seven non-compliant ones. We would be up in arms, and rightly so.
In the end, it is a virtual certainty that the new hand picked Supreme Court bench will rubber stamp Musharraf's recent re-election. The General has indicated that once his re-election is confirmed, he intends to remove his uniform.
In times like these, one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. What we can say with confidence is that in the absence of an independent judiciary to hear cases of illegal interference with the election process, the credibility of the February elections will be questionable. That is assuming the elections are not postponed under yet another fabricated pretext.
Mohammed Khan has a M.A. in History & South Asian Studies, and is currently a LL.B. Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School
This article points out that it is the judiciary that Musharaff is targetting for the most part. Note that it was lawyers who were at the forefront of protests.
Astute observers will recognize that the real target of Musharraf's emergency measures is Pakistan's independent judiciary. He also makes what seems to be a correct observation that western governments have not made demands to re-instate the chief justice. Musharaff probably intended to pre-empt the justice's decision that the election of Musharaff was invalid as long as he was army chief.
>by Mohammed Khan
November 12, 2007
The pretext for the recent declaration of a state of emergency by Pakistani President/General Pervez Musharraf was curbing lawlessness and violence by Islamist militants.
Astute observers, however, will recognize that the real target of Musharraf's emergency measures is Pakistan's independent judiciary.
It is heartening that Western governments have at least mildly rebuked the General and called on him to hasten the return to democracy, and relinquish his role as Army Chief. Yet at the end of the day, no Western government is explicitly calling for the reinstatement of the sacked judges of the Pakistani Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who remain under house arrest. It is only the lawyers and judges of Pakistan that have forcefully put forward this demand.
It is important to examine why this is the case. Who benefits from this arrangement? Why should we care? To be sure, Pakistan's independent minded judiciary, with its increasingly brazen Chief Justice, has been a thorn in the government's side.
Let's take a moment to chronicle their alleged misdemeanours.
Strike 1: Standing up for public accountability. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled against the government in the case of the controversial sale of the state-owned Pakistan Steel Mills to a business group with links to the current Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
Indeed, it is common knowledge that Pakistani politicians have and continue to use their positions in a questionable manner when it comes to the privatization of state enterprises and in the public procurement process. By contrast, Pakistan's judiciary in recent years has served as the main institutional bulwark against rampant corruption amongst public officials. The generally weak public oversight is part of the reason why Transparency International has consistently listed Pakistan high on its Global Corruption Index.
Incidentally, many suspect that former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari, also made hefty commissions off government contracts and tenders during their terms in office. Mr. Zardari's is more commonly known in Pakistan as "Mr. Ten Percent," a reference to the 10% commission he is alleged to have extorted from various businesses during his time in the Pakistan People's Party government.
Court cases initiated by the Pakistani government against Mr. Zardari are still pending in the United Kingdom. Criminal investigations are ongoing in Poland, France and the Middle East. But a conviction has already been rendered against the couple on money laundering charges in Switzerland. Were it not for the amnesty granted her by Musharraf as part of the power-sharing deal brokered by the Anglo-American alliance, Ms. Bhutto would herself be before the Pakistani courts facing corruption charges. Given that a legal challenge of this grant of amnesty was forthcoming, it is no wonder that Ms. Bhutto has been conspicuously silent on the question of reinstating the fired judges. If re-elected, Ms. Bhutto stands to once again benefit handsomely from the weak public oversight that comes with a compliant judiciary.
Strike 2: Standing up for the principle of habeas corpus. Since his reinstatement in July, Justice Chaudhry has called on the Director-General of Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency, Tariq Pervez, to produce before the court ghost detainee Hafiz Abdul Basit. When Mr. Pervez alleged that Mr. Basit went off to fight jihad in Afghanistan, Justice Chaudhry threatened to throw him in jail if the detainee was not produced immediately.
Needless to say, this exercise was embarrassing for the government. No wonder Musharraf told foreign ambassadors following the declaration of emergency that he had no choice but to take decisive steps against a court system that limited his powers and "paralyzed various organs of the state and created impediments in the fight against terrorism."
Yet balancing the competing interests of security and human rights is precisely the role of the courts, especially when law enforcement and intelligence agencies run afoul of constitutional protections.
Strike 3: Standing up for the separation of powers. The straw that broke the camel's back was the Supreme Court's review of the legality of President Musharraf's recent re-election while still holding onto his uniform as head of Pakistan's Armed Forces. Many insiders suspected that the outcome of this review was going to be unfavourable for Musharraf, hence the timing of the emergency declaration and the unwarranted charge of judicial activism.
Justice Chaudhry's more recent call on the Pakistani lawyers and judges to oppose the police and defy the declaration of emergency rule might be characterized as overstepping the bounds of judicial restraint. But, given the circumstances, he may be forgiven.
The reality is that Musharraf is unwilling to relinquish power. And if this means orchestrating an emergency in order to re-stack the judiciary in his favour, so be it. To hell with lofty concepts such as the rule of law!
Now just imagine if Prime Minister Harper had demanded that the judges of our Supreme Court take an oath of allegiance to him as a condition of their appointment, as President Musharraf has just done with the remaining four Pakistani Supreme Court justices, after dismissing the seven non-compliant ones. We would be up in arms, and rightly so.
In the end, it is a virtual certainty that the new hand picked Supreme Court bench will rubber stamp Musharraf's recent re-election. The General has indicated that once his re-election is confirmed, he intends to remove his uniform.
In times like these, one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. What we can say with confidence is that in the absence of an independent judiciary to hear cases of illegal interference with the election process, the credibility of the February elections will be questionable. That is assuming the elections are not postponed under yet another fabricated pretext.
Mohammed Khan has a M.A. in History & South Asian Studies, and is currently a LL.B. Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School
Monday, November 12, 2007
Iraqi leaders still can't agree on oil law.
This is from Reuters UK
This oil law was supposed to be in place ages ago but it is still stalled because of objections. The Kurds have gone ahead with their own law and have even signed new contracts that are not cleared by the central government. Of course the Kurds do not even fly the Iraqi flag!
Iraq's leaders still can't agree on new oil law-PM
... BAGHDAD, Nov 11 (Reuters) - Iraq's political leaders are in intensive talks to resolve lingering disputes over a draft law that will decide control of the world's third-largest oil reserves, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Sunday.
"Everyone agrees that this law should be passed. There is positive progress and understanding between the parties. I believe talks in the coming days will be intensive to resolve the disputes," he told reporters in Baghdad.
The oil law is seen as vital to securing foreign investment to boost Iraq's oil output and rebuild its shattered economy. Most of Iraq's proven oil reserves are in the Shi'ite south and in the Kurdish north.
The cabinet agreed on a draft in February and sent it to parliament for approval, despite disagreement over the rights of regions to negotiate contracts with foreign oil companies and whether the federal or regional governments would control the oil fields.
Maliki said the bill, which will provide a legal framework for foreign firms to do business in Iraq, had since been sent back to cabinet for more talks to iron out the disputes.
The prime minister said there was still disagreement over the exploration of undeveloped fields and production-sharing agreements, as well as contracts that had already been signed with some foreign companies.
Iraq's Kurdish region said last week it had signed seven new oil and gas contracts with international firms.
The Kurds say the draft law's annexes are unconstitutional, objecting to a proposal that would wrest oilfields from regions and place them under the control of a new state oil company.
Maliki said some parties in the negotiations wanted the annexes separated from the draft law to ease its passage through parliament.
"These disputes, some of them are based on the interests of the whole country and others are based on specific provinces," Maliki said, without referring to Kurdistan by name. (Reporting by Waleed Ibrahim, writing by Ross Colvin; Editing by Matthew Jones)
© Reuters2007All rights reserved.
This oil law was supposed to be in place ages ago but it is still stalled because of objections. The Kurds have gone ahead with their own law and have even signed new contracts that are not cleared by the central government. Of course the Kurds do not even fly the Iraqi flag!
Iraq's leaders still can't agree on new oil law-PM
... BAGHDAD, Nov 11 (Reuters) - Iraq's political leaders are in intensive talks to resolve lingering disputes over a draft law that will decide control of the world's third-largest oil reserves, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Sunday.
"Everyone agrees that this law should be passed. There is positive progress and understanding between the parties. I believe talks in the coming days will be intensive to resolve the disputes," he told reporters in Baghdad.
The oil law is seen as vital to securing foreign investment to boost Iraq's oil output and rebuild its shattered economy. Most of Iraq's proven oil reserves are in the Shi'ite south and in the Kurdish north.
The cabinet agreed on a draft in February and sent it to parliament for approval, despite disagreement over the rights of regions to negotiate contracts with foreign oil companies and whether the federal or regional governments would control the oil fields.
Maliki said the bill, which will provide a legal framework for foreign firms to do business in Iraq, had since been sent back to cabinet for more talks to iron out the disputes.
The prime minister said there was still disagreement over the exploration of undeveloped fields and production-sharing agreements, as well as contracts that had already been signed with some foreign companies.
Iraq's Kurdish region said last week it had signed seven new oil and gas contracts with international firms.
The Kurds say the draft law's annexes are unconstitutional, objecting to a proposal that would wrest oilfields from regions and place them under the control of a new state oil company.
Maliki said some parties in the negotiations wanted the annexes separated from the draft law to ease its passage through parliament.
"These disputes, some of them are based on the interests of the whole country and others are based on specific provinces," Maliki said, without referring to Kurdistan by name. (Reporting by Waleed Ibrahim, writing by Ross Colvin; Editing by Matthew Jones)
© Reuters2007All rights reserved.
Howard splurges to close poll gap.
It seems that worldwide regardless of party the same strategy of buying votes with goodies is favored when a ruling party is in difficulty. Fortunately, it doesn't always work and probably will not save Howard from being defeated by his Labor opponent.
Prime Minister splurges to close poll gap
Michelle Grattan, Brisbane
November 13, 2007
THE Howard Government has promised a rebate for the education costs — including private school fees — of all Australian children, in a $9.4 billion bid for re-election as it desperately tries to close the persisting gulf in the opinion polls.
The rebate of up to $800 for secondary students and $400 for primary school children, including those in their preschool year, would be available to all parents regardless of their income.
Worth $6.3 billion over four years and starting in January, it would cover costs including uniforms, camps and excursions, tuition fees, laptops, textbooks, stationery, extra-curricular music and sports activities.
More than 2.1 million families would be able to claim, for more than 3.6 million children.
The scheme is a contrast to Labor's more modest $2.3 billion rebate plan, which covers laptop computers, other IT equipment and textbooks, but not private school fees.
The education rebate was the biggest spending item in a Coalition package also offering tax breaks, worth about $1.6 billion over four years, to encourage saving for first homes, $652 million for enhanced child care and $158 million to support carers.
In a speech to a packed audience of Liberal supporters in Brisbane lasting just over 42 minutes, Mr Howard's pledges amounted to spending at a rate of $3.7 million a second.
The big-spending launch — bringing total Coalition promises to more than $60 billion — came despite the latest warning from the Reserve Bank that excessive spending in the economy is fuelling inflation and increasing the risk of further interest rate rises.
Delivering what will be — win or lose — his last campaign launch speech, Mr Howard made a personal pitch on "why I want to be prime minister of this country again", listing reasons including building an even stronger Australia and pursuing full employment.
He warned against the "huge risk" of wall-to-wall Labor governments in Canberra and the states, and said Australia's prosperity would be "seriously compromised" if the economy was badly managed.
Condemning Labor as "hollow", he described Mr Rudd as "a man whose core beliefs are obscure and unknown to the Australian public and perhaps to … himself".
Mr Rudd hit back, saying Mr Howard was increasingly stuck in the past, and that his campaign launch had failed to lay out a positive plan for Australia.
Mr Howard also came under fire from others for his latest pledges, with claims that both the housing plan and the education rebates involved excessive handouts to the wealthy.
But independent school groups backed the education rebate plan, and Labor stopped short of criticising its coverage of private school fees.
Like the education rebates, the Government's first-home savings scheme had a strong element of "me-tooism" as Mr Howard tries to counter Labor in areas it has claimed as its own.
Starting in the 2008-09 financial year, it would allow contributions up to $1000 a year to the home-saver accounts to be tax deductible. Contribution limits would be indexed annually, and all interest and earnings would be tax free.
A home savings account for children would be available for people under 18 to which parents, grandparents and the account holder could contribute up to a combined total of $1000 a year. Contributions would be tax deductible and the savings could be used to buy a first home once the account holder turned 18.
Adults between 18 and 39 would be able to set up tax-free home savings accounts, to which up to $10,000 annually could be contributed. Account holders would be able to claim a tax deduction of up to $1000 for their contributions. Among other measures to address the housing affordability crisis, the Government would remove capital gains tax for people who share equity in a family member's first home.
Mr Howard also announced measures to relieve the supply problems of housing affordability, including expediting the disposal of 961 hectares of Commonwealth land in NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and the ACT.
The Government would give $500 million over three years to help fund community infrastructure — including community halls, libraries and sporting grounds — for new housing developments and urban consolidation.
Countering Labor's initiatives on child care, Mr Howard said a re-elected Coalition government would cut the amount that parents have to pay upfront each week by 30 per cent. It would pay the child care tax rebate directly to child care services so they could pass it onto parents at once. This would help about 500,000 families from April.
The Government would also provide capital funding of up to $1 million to local governments to build or extend up to 35 child care centres in parts of Australia where places are short.
The Government says its commitment to pay the rebate up-front will save $23.25 a week for a family on $35,000 with one child in full time care. Families on $60,000 would save $37.40 a week.
Mr Rudd, during a visit to Townsville, blasted the speech as lacking a positive plan for the country, and intensified his attack over the proposed leadership transition from Mr Howard to Peter Costello, saying voters could not trust the Prime Minister to deliver on his promises because he will not serve a full term.
He said the key elements of the Liberal campaign launch failed to adequately address major policy challenges, and declared Labor had a better plan for working families.
With KATHARINE MURPHY
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/12/1194766590319.html
Prime Minister splurges to close poll gap
Michelle Grattan, Brisbane
November 13, 2007
THE Howard Government has promised a rebate for the education costs — including private school fees — of all Australian children, in a $9.4 billion bid for re-election as it desperately tries to close the persisting gulf in the opinion polls.
The rebate of up to $800 for secondary students and $400 for primary school children, including those in their preschool year, would be available to all parents regardless of their income.
Worth $6.3 billion over four years and starting in January, it would cover costs including uniforms, camps and excursions, tuition fees, laptops, textbooks, stationery, extra-curricular music and sports activities.
More than 2.1 million families would be able to claim, for more than 3.6 million children.
The scheme is a contrast to Labor's more modest $2.3 billion rebate plan, which covers laptop computers, other IT equipment and textbooks, but not private school fees.
The education rebate was the biggest spending item in a Coalition package also offering tax breaks, worth about $1.6 billion over four years, to encourage saving for first homes, $652 million for enhanced child care and $158 million to support carers.
In a speech to a packed audience of Liberal supporters in Brisbane lasting just over 42 minutes, Mr Howard's pledges amounted to spending at a rate of $3.7 million a second.
The big-spending launch — bringing total Coalition promises to more than $60 billion — came despite the latest warning from the Reserve Bank that excessive spending in the economy is fuelling inflation and increasing the risk of further interest rate rises.
Delivering what will be — win or lose — his last campaign launch speech, Mr Howard made a personal pitch on "why I want to be prime minister of this country again", listing reasons including building an even stronger Australia and pursuing full employment.
He warned against the "huge risk" of wall-to-wall Labor governments in Canberra and the states, and said Australia's prosperity would be "seriously compromised" if the economy was badly managed.
Condemning Labor as "hollow", he described Mr Rudd as "a man whose core beliefs are obscure and unknown to the Australian public and perhaps to … himself".
Mr Rudd hit back, saying Mr Howard was increasingly stuck in the past, and that his campaign launch had failed to lay out a positive plan for Australia.
Mr Howard also came under fire from others for his latest pledges, with claims that both the housing plan and the education rebates involved excessive handouts to the wealthy.
But independent school groups backed the education rebate plan, and Labor stopped short of criticising its coverage of private school fees.
Like the education rebates, the Government's first-home savings scheme had a strong element of "me-tooism" as Mr Howard tries to counter Labor in areas it has claimed as its own.
Starting in the 2008-09 financial year, it would allow contributions up to $1000 a year to the home-saver accounts to be tax deductible. Contribution limits would be indexed annually, and all interest and earnings would be tax free.
A home savings account for children would be available for people under 18 to which parents, grandparents and the account holder could contribute up to a combined total of $1000 a year. Contributions would be tax deductible and the savings could be used to buy a first home once the account holder turned 18.
Adults between 18 and 39 would be able to set up tax-free home savings accounts, to which up to $10,000 annually could be contributed. Account holders would be able to claim a tax deduction of up to $1000 for their contributions. Among other measures to address the housing affordability crisis, the Government would remove capital gains tax for people who share equity in a family member's first home.
Mr Howard also announced measures to relieve the supply problems of housing affordability, including expediting the disposal of 961 hectares of Commonwealth land in NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and the ACT.
The Government would give $500 million over three years to help fund community infrastructure — including community halls, libraries and sporting grounds — for new housing developments and urban consolidation.
Countering Labor's initiatives on child care, Mr Howard said a re-elected Coalition government would cut the amount that parents have to pay upfront each week by 30 per cent. It would pay the child care tax rebate directly to child care services so they could pass it onto parents at once. This would help about 500,000 families from April.
The Government would also provide capital funding of up to $1 million to local governments to build or extend up to 35 child care centres in parts of Australia where places are short.
The Government says its commitment to pay the rebate up-front will save $23.25 a week for a family on $35,000 with one child in full time care. Families on $60,000 would save $37.40 a week.
Mr Rudd, during a visit to Townsville, blasted the speech as lacking a positive plan for the country, and intensified his attack over the proposed leadership transition from Mr Howard to Peter Costello, saying voters could not trust the Prime Minister to deliver on his promises because he will not serve a full term.
He said the key elements of the Liberal campaign launch failed to adequately address major policy challenges, and declared Labor had a better plan for working families.
With KATHARINE MURPHY
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/12/1194766590319.html
Musharraf's Gambit
This is from the Star.
Bhutto may actually be fortunate if Musharraf manages to stop her protest march. Any mass gathering will be a perfect target for Islamic extremists (and others) who want Bhutto dead. Maybe Bhutto is counting on being stopped. She may end up with another deal with Musharraf yet. Other opposition parties are not buying
the elections under emergency rule and the lawyers of course want the chief justice and others in their suits and ties to be released! Strange to see a whole street full of mostly men in suits shirts and ties being rounded up and roughed up by police.
Musharraf’s gambit
LAHORE, Pakistan–Chanting supporters welcomed Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto to the city of Lahore yesterday, ahead of a mass protest she plans against President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's emergency rule.
Waving the black, red and green flags of her Pakistan People's Party, hundreds of activists shouted "Benazir Prime Minister!" and "Long live Bhutto," thrusting their arms in the air and making V for victory signs.
Bhutto intends to lead a procession of marchers and vehicles to Islamabad tomorrow to demand Musharraf quit as army chief, end the emergency rule he imposed Nov. 3, restore the constitution and free thousands of detained lawyers and foes.
Police have vowed to block the protest, just as they stifled a planned rally in the city of Rawalpindi on Friday – when Bhutto was held under house arrest for most of the day.
"I am here for democracy," the former prime minister said on arrival at Lahore airport, where several hundred party activists and supporters managed to negotiate their way past barricades manned by police in riot vests wielding batons and shields.
Bhutto said she welcomed Musharraf's announcement yesterday that elections would be held Jan. 9, but it wasn't enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters News Agency
Nov 12, 2007 04:30 AM
Mitch Potter
TORONTO STAR
ISLAMABAD–It is a Pakistani crisis featuring Pakistani politicians, all of whom are angling to harden their hold on the reins of this volatile, nuclear-armed nation in a way that will not provoke the Pakistani people to rise up against them.
Why then, when beleaguered President Gen. Pervez Musharraf finally broke silence yesterday on the emergency rule he imposed eight days before – and to announce elections in January – did he explain his behaviour entirely in English?
One theory holds that if the president had chosen his native Urdu tongue, his words would have ebbed away like the sound of one hand clapping, given that so much of the Pakistani media have been silenced by Musharraf's crackdown there is now little left to convey them.
The truth, foreign diplomats here say, is not quite so deliciously ironic. After a weeklong drubbing in the global media, Musharraf pushed back against his critics over the heads of the Pakistani people with a message carefully calculated to quell the world's worry.
"I found myself between a rock and a hard surface," Musharraf said, caught between the choice "to preserve this nation, to safeguard it and to risk myself, or to let it go, hoping that the nation may improve later in the turmoil that one leaves."
But some observers say what is most telling isn't simply Musharraf's choice of words.
"The fact that his first public address since the imposition of emergency rule was given in English to a room full of foreign media says it all, really," one Western diplomatic source told the Toronto Star last night.
"You would think the average Pakistani would be quite incensed. Nevertheless, the meaning is clear. Musharraf has calculated – perhaps incorrectly – that his biggest worry is the external crisis, the international pressure. He has calculated that he still will be able to manage the internal crisis, so long as he retains two critical ingredients – the support of his army and the support of the American government."
Musharraf's headline announcement – a pledge to hold parliamentary elections by Jan. 9 – won warm welcome abroad, but only lukewarm praise within.
Opposition leader and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto said the promise fell short, given the president's refusal to set a date for the repeal of emergency rule, restoration of the constitution and the reinstatement of deposed judges.
"It is not correct to say these steps defuse the situation," she said last night in Lahore, where she renewed a vow to lead a 300-kilometre protest march to the capital Islamabad tomorrow in what is expected to be a full mobilization of her Pakistan People's Party faithful.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was heartened by the election promise, but acknowledged the need for more concessions from Musharraf.
"It's not a perfect situation and nobody would suggest that it is," Rice told reporters in Washington.
"Obviously we are encouraging that the state of emergency has got to be lifted, and lifted as soon as possible."
The United States, which values Musharraf as an ally in its war on terror, has been increasing pressure on Musharraf to quit the army and become a civilian leader.
Pakistani journalist and author Zahid Hussein characterized Musharraf's address as "a move forward, no doubt. Finally the ambiguity is gone and we have a clear deadline for elections, which at least will defuse much of the international outcry.
"But when he turns around and looks back at Pakistan, he still has multiple crises on his hands rather than just a single crisis. Beneath this open-ended state of emergency, there is the growing militancy on the northern frontier with terrorists expanding their base of control. And on the other side, the opposition parties who simply will not accept the terms he described," said Hussein, author of the recently published Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle With Militant Islam.
"I think Musharraf's camp estimates that once these elections get going, they will serve as a distraction to all the other very difficult problems. I'm not sure they are right. And the other question is how can fair elections happen under emergency rule?"
During his news briefing, Musharraf, who seized power in a coup in 1999, said he would order the release of detained opposition party members for the upcoming elections, adding that international observers would be invited to "ensure absolutely fair and transparent elections.
He also insisted the state of emergency was necessary.
"Certainly, the emergency is required to ensure peace in Pakistan, to ensure an environment conducive for elections," Musharraf said.
"It was the most difficult decision I have ever taken in my life," he told the news conference.
"I could have preserved myself, but then it would have damaged the nation ... I have no personal ego and ambitions to guard. I have the national interest foremost."
The Pakistani government says 2,500 people have been detained during the emergency.
Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, however, insists more than 5,000 of its activists have been rounded up.
Musharraf refused to set a time limit for the state of emergency, claiming it was essential for fighting terrorism and ensuring a free and fair vote.
"The emergency contributes towards better law and order and a better fight against terrorism, and, therefore, all I can say is I do understand the emergency has to be lifted, but I cannot give a date for it," he said.
Musharraf, who addressed the news conference wearing a dark blue blazer instead of his military uniform, was exceptionally obstinate on the question of restoring the deposed Supreme Court, which had been expected to challenge his victory in Oct. 6 presidential elections when it was dismissed.
A newly formed court is expected to take up the question and validate Musharraf's re-election as president. He declared yesterday he would then give up his uniform.
Bhutto may actually be fortunate if Musharraf manages to stop her protest march. Any mass gathering will be a perfect target for Islamic extremists (and others) who want Bhutto dead. Maybe Bhutto is counting on being stopped. She may end up with another deal with Musharraf yet. Other opposition parties are not buying
the elections under emergency rule and the lawyers of course want the chief justice and others in their suits and ties to be released! Strange to see a whole street full of mostly men in suits shirts and ties being rounded up and roughed up by police.
Musharraf’s gambit
LAHORE, Pakistan–Chanting supporters welcomed Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto to the city of Lahore yesterday, ahead of a mass protest she plans against President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's emergency rule.
Waving the black, red and green flags of her Pakistan People's Party, hundreds of activists shouted "Benazir Prime Minister!" and "Long live Bhutto," thrusting their arms in the air and making V for victory signs.
Bhutto intends to lead a procession of marchers and vehicles to Islamabad tomorrow to demand Musharraf quit as army chief, end the emergency rule he imposed Nov. 3, restore the constitution and free thousands of detained lawyers and foes.
Police have vowed to block the protest, just as they stifled a planned rally in the city of Rawalpindi on Friday – when Bhutto was held under house arrest for most of the day.
"I am here for democracy," the former prime minister said on arrival at Lahore airport, where several hundred party activists and supporters managed to negotiate their way past barricades manned by police in riot vests wielding batons and shields.
Bhutto said she welcomed Musharraf's announcement yesterday that elections would be held Jan. 9, but it wasn't enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters News Agency
Nov 12, 2007 04:30 AM
Mitch Potter
TORONTO STAR
ISLAMABAD–It is a Pakistani crisis featuring Pakistani politicians, all of whom are angling to harden their hold on the reins of this volatile, nuclear-armed nation in a way that will not provoke the Pakistani people to rise up against them.
Why then, when beleaguered President Gen. Pervez Musharraf finally broke silence yesterday on the emergency rule he imposed eight days before – and to announce elections in January – did he explain his behaviour entirely in English?
One theory holds that if the president had chosen his native Urdu tongue, his words would have ebbed away like the sound of one hand clapping, given that so much of the Pakistani media have been silenced by Musharraf's crackdown there is now little left to convey them.
The truth, foreign diplomats here say, is not quite so deliciously ironic. After a weeklong drubbing in the global media, Musharraf pushed back against his critics over the heads of the Pakistani people with a message carefully calculated to quell the world's worry.
"I found myself between a rock and a hard surface," Musharraf said, caught between the choice "to preserve this nation, to safeguard it and to risk myself, or to let it go, hoping that the nation may improve later in the turmoil that one leaves."
But some observers say what is most telling isn't simply Musharraf's choice of words.
"The fact that his first public address since the imposition of emergency rule was given in English to a room full of foreign media says it all, really," one Western diplomatic source told the Toronto Star last night.
"You would think the average Pakistani would be quite incensed. Nevertheless, the meaning is clear. Musharraf has calculated – perhaps incorrectly – that his biggest worry is the external crisis, the international pressure. He has calculated that he still will be able to manage the internal crisis, so long as he retains two critical ingredients – the support of his army and the support of the American government."
Musharraf's headline announcement – a pledge to hold parliamentary elections by Jan. 9 – won warm welcome abroad, but only lukewarm praise within.
Opposition leader and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto said the promise fell short, given the president's refusal to set a date for the repeal of emergency rule, restoration of the constitution and the reinstatement of deposed judges.
"It is not correct to say these steps defuse the situation," she said last night in Lahore, where she renewed a vow to lead a 300-kilometre protest march to the capital Islamabad tomorrow in what is expected to be a full mobilization of her Pakistan People's Party faithful.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was heartened by the election promise, but acknowledged the need for more concessions from Musharraf.
"It's not a perfect situation and nobody would suggest that it is," Rice told reporters in Washington.
"Obviously we are encouraging that the state of emergency has got to be lifted, and lifted as soon as possible."
The United States, which values Musharraf as an ally in its war on terror, has been increasing pressure on Musharraf to quit the army and become a civilian leader.
Pakistani journalist and author Zahid Hussein characterized Musharraf's address as "a move forward, no doubt. Finally the ambiguity is gone and we have a clear deadline for elections, which at least will defuse much of the international outcry.
"But when he turns around and looks back at Pakistan, he still has multiple crises on his hands rather than just a single crisis. Beneath this open-ended state of emergency, there is the growing militancy on the northern frontier with terrorists expanding their base of control. And on the other side, the opposition parties who simply will not accept the terms he described," said Hussein, author of the recently published Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle With Militant Islam.
"I think Musharraf's camp estimates that once these elections get going, they will serve as a distraction to all the other very difficult problems. I'm not sure they are right. And the other question is how can fair elections happen under emergency rule?"
During his news briefing, Musharraf, who seized power in a coup in 1999, said he would order the release of detained opposition party members for the upcoming elections, adding that international observers would be invited to "ensure absolutely fair and transparent elections.
He also insisted the state of emergency was necessary.
"Certainly, the emergency is required to ensure peace in Pakistan, to ensure an environment conducive for elections," Musharraf said.
"It was the most difficult decision I have ever taken in my life," he told the news conference.
"I could have preserved myself, but then it would have damaged the nation ... I have no personal ego and ambitions to guard. I have the national interest foremost."
The Pakistani government says 2,500 people have been detained during the emergency.
Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, however, insists more than 5,000 of its activists have been rounded up.
Musharraf refused to set a time limit for the state of emergency, claiming it was essential for fighting terrorism and ensuring a free and fair vote.
"The emergency contributes towards better law and order and a better fight against terrorism, and, therefore, all I can say is I do understand the emergency has to be lifted, but I cannot give a date for it," he said.
Musharraf, who addressed the news conference wearing a dark blue blazer instead of his military uniform, was exceptionally obstinate on the question of restoring the deposed Supreme Court, which had been expected to challenge his victory in Oct. 6 presidential elections when it was dismissed.
A newly formed court is expected to take up the question and validate Musharraf's re-election as president. He declared yesterday he would then give up his uniform.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Philippines: Arroyo clamps gag order on officials
Corruption charges continually dog the Arroyo administration but they never seem to lead to her downfall. Arroyo is a hugely successful pork barrel politician. Ordering officials not to testify is a standard tack that she takes when someone might open their mouth too wide! There is also an impeachment process going on at the same time. This is from the Manila Times.
Palace-poised gag of execs in Senate probe of ‘bribes’ hit
11/12/2007
A senator yesterday said President Arroyo should allow the members of her Cabinet, her aides, as well as congressmen and governors allied or not with the administration, to testify at the Senate inquiry into the distribution of “cash gifts” in Malacañang last Oct. 11 if it wants the truth behind the incident to come out, or it could be suspected of hedging it for some sordid reason.
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said this as he assailed the Palace for stating that it will not cooperate with the upper chamber’s probe into the issue and instead will impose a gag order on Cabinet officials and local executive officials who will be invited and summoned to the hearings by the concerned Senate panel.
“If it is true as Malacañang insists, that the money distributed during the Palace meeting, ranging from P200,000 to P500,000 to each congressman and governor, did not come from the government and President Arroyo did not have anything to do with the alleged payoff, let them prove their claim by not preventing the appearance of administration personalities who will be invited to the Senate probe,” Pimentel said.
He said the Senate, in conducting the inquiry, is merely discharging its mandated function to check the appropriateness of the moves of the Executive branch.
Should Malacañag block the inquiry by not granting permission to invited officials of the Executive branch, Pimentel said this will instantly create the impression that the Palace is trying to hide the truth behind the matter.
He also said this will lend credence to suspicion that Mrs. Arroyo knew, or had a hand in the distribution of the largesse.
On the participation of the congressmen in the Senate probe to start on Wednesday, Pimentel said they can be asked to testify without violating the inter-chamber courtesy rule between the Senate and House of Representatives.
“There will be no breach of the inter-chamber courtesy if they will accept the Senate invitation or voluntarily appear at the hearing,” he said.
He said there have been a number of instances in the past when congressmen honored the invitation of the Senate to testify in its investigation on matters where they are involved or have knowledge for the sake of truth and the public interest.
Pimentel said the inquiry intends to determine the purpose for which the monies were distributed, where it came from, and who received it.
If the money came from the public coffers, he said it is very important that the actual source of funds, the government agencies and the public officials who facilitated the disbursement involved should be known.
“But whether the money came from the government or private sources, the persons involved in their distribution will be in deep trouble. For if it is taxpayers’ money, they may be liable for malversation.
“Meanwhile, if it came from private corporations or individuals, it may constitute lobby or bribe money. Meaning, it is being given in consideration of certain government favors,” Pimentel said.
Palace-poised gag of execs in Senate probe of ‘bribes’ hit
11/12/2007
A senator yesterday said President Arroyo should allow the members of her Cabinet, her aides, as well as congressmen and governors allied or not with the administration, to testify at the Senate inquiry into the distribution of “cash gifts” in Malacañang last Oct. 11 if it wants the truth behind the incident to come out, or it could be suspected of hedging it for some sordid reason.
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said this as he assailed the Palace for stating that it will not cooperate with the upper chamber’s probe into the issue and instead will impose a gag order on Cabinet officials and local executive officials who will be invited and summoned to the hearings by the concerned Senate panel.
“If it is true as Malacañang insists, that the money distributed during the Palace meeting, ranging from P200,000 to P500,000 to each congressman and governor, did not come from the government and President Arroyo did not have anything to do with the alleged payoff, let them prove their claim by not preventing the appearance of administration personalities who will be invited to the Senate probe,” Pimentel said.
He said the Senate, in conducting the inquiry, is merely discharging its mandated function to check the appropriateness of the moves of the Executive branch.
Should Malacañag block the inquiry by not granting permission to invited officials of the Executive branch, Pimentel said this will instantly create the impression that the Palace is trying to hide the truth behind the matter.
He also said this will lend credence to suspicion that Mrs. Arroyo knew, or had a hand in the distribution of the largesse.
On the participation of the congressmen in the Senate probe to start on Wednesday, Pimentel said they can be asked to testify without violating the inter-chamber courtesy rule between the Senate and House of Representatives.
“There will be no breach of the inter-chamber courtesy if they will accept the Senate invitation or voluntarily appear at the hearing,” he said.
He said there have been a number of instances in the past when congressmen honored the invitation of the Senate to testify in its investigation on matters where they are involved or have knowledge for the sake of truth and the public interest.
Pimentel said the inquiry intends to determine the purpose for which the monies were distributed, where it came from, and who received it.
If the money came from the public coffers, he said it is very important that the actual source of funds, the government agencies and the public officials who facilitated the disbursement involved should be known.
“But whether the money came from the government or private sources, the persons involved in their distribution will be in deep trouble. For if it is taxpayers’ money, they may be liable for malversation.
“Meanwhile, if it came from private corporations or individuals, it may constitute lobby or bribe money. Meaning, it is being given in consideration of certain government favors,” Pimentel said.
Wanted: Any enemy with oil
It is good to see that there are still some out there in America that take a quite jaundiced view of the US role on the global stage. This person is not some leftist radical intellectual writing from the ivory tower but a farmer. He manages to say a lot and back it up in a short article. This is from this newspaper. I don't think that it is just any enemy with oil only ones without nuclear deterrents. Russia isn't about to be invaded.
Wanted: Any enemy with oil
By Greg Rendahl
.
As the United States increasingly threatens war against Iran, let’s look at some of the relevant facts.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are worrisome, but legal. They do support the economic underdogs, their fellow Shia in Lebanon, through Hezbollah and they support the downtrodden Palestinians when almost no one else does.
In July the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, said there was no evidence of Iranian involvement in violence in Iraq. Iran has not invaded another nation in more than 250 years.
In contrast, America has invaded many countries. To name but a few, we invaded Mexico (1846, 1914), Cuba (1898), Hawaii (1898), the Philippines (1899), Morocco (1904), Panama (1904, 1989), Dominican Republic, Haiti and Nicaragua (many times), Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, etc. Why do we invade so many other nations? Is it to bring
freedom and democracy to their people?
Two recent examples prove that this is not the case.
When Venezuela’s popular and democratically elected leader was removed temporarily in a military coup in 2002, Bush immediately recognized the coup leaders as the new government.
When Hamas won the last elections in Palestine, the United States refused to accept the democratic view of that nation.
Also, don’t forget, we destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953 because the Iranians wanted greater control of their oil.
Do we care about democracy in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, for instance? Apparently not, and isn’t it interesting that these two nations produced the hijackers who attacked us on Sept.11, 2001?
These hijackers then gave our neo-conservatives their fondest wish — a chance to whip up frenzy over al-Qaeda, Islamic terrorists and all related boogiemen.
By the way, isn’t it funny that America’s leaders quit flying on commercial aircraft in the summer of 2001 and that America was so incredibly unprepared for the Sept. 11 attacks?
For the neo-cons, their other great accomplishment has been to clamp down on freedom in America with their Patriot acts, free-speech-zones, targeting opposition with the word “traitor,” and mutating the Department of Justice into the Department of Detention.
Iran’s president, who has very limited power in their nation, plays to his rather small base of followers with his tough talk against the United States and Israel. Bush and Cheney play to their small base of followers, but let’s not leave out most other Republicans and a large number of Democrats who push to see their corporate sponsors gain a measure of control over Iran’s vast energy wealth.
Alan Greenspan and former CENTCOM commander Gen. John Abizaid both have said Iraq was basically about oil. Were Iraq and Afghanistan “stepping stones” to surround Iran and assume a degree of control over this energy-rich area?
It appears that “peak oil” is basically here now. If America continues current policies, we will look for one “evil leader” after another who has meaningful energy resources or good pipeline routes.
The goal is continued corporate domination with wealth moving from you and I to compliant oil-rich nations, and the corporate interests involved with oil production and war-related industries.
Rendahl is a farmer who subscribes to the idea that politics and prostitution are the oldest professions.
.
Wanted: Any enemy with oil
By Greg Rendahl
.
As the United States increasingly threatens war against Iran, let’s look at some of the relevant facts.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are worrisome, but legal. They do support the economic underdogs, their fellow Shia in Lebanon, through Hezbollah and they support the downtrodden Palestinians when almost no one else does.
In July the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, said there was no evidence of Iranian involvement in violence in Iraq. Iran has not invaded another nation in more than 250 years.
In contrast, America has invaded many countries. To name but a few, we invaded Mexico (1846, 1914), Cuba (1898), Hawaii (1898), the Philippines (1899), Morocco (1904), Panama (1904, 1989), Dominican Republic, Haiti and Nicaragua (many times), Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, etc. Why do we invade so many other nations? Is it to bring
freedom and democracy to their people?
Two recent examples prove that this is not the case.
When Venezuela’s popular and democratically elected leader was removed temporarily in a military coup in 2002, Bush immediately recognized the coup leaders as the new government.
When Hamas won the last elections in Palestine, the United States refused to accept the democratic view of that nation.
Also, don’t forget, we destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953 because the Iranians wanted greater control of their oil.
Do we care about democracy in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, for instance? Apparently not, and isn’t it interesting that these two nations produced the hijackers who attacked us on Sept.11, 2001?
These hijackers then gave our neo-conservatives their fondest wish — a chance to whip up frenzy over al-Qaeda, Islamic terrorists and all related boogiemen.
By the way, isn’t it funny that America’s leaders quit flying on commercial aircraft in the summer of 2001 and that America was so incredibly unprepared for the Sept. 11 attacks?
For the neo-cons, their other great accomplishment has been to clamp down on freedom in America with their Patriot acts, free-speech-zones, targeting opposition with the word “traitor,” and mutating the Department of Justice into the Department of Detention.
Iran’s president, who has very limited power in their nation, plays to his rather small base of followers with his tough talk against the United States and Israel. Bush and Cheney play to their small base of followers, but let’s not leave out most other Republicans and a large number of Democrats who push to see their corporate sponsors gain a measure of control over Iran’s vast energy wealth.
Alan Greenspan and former CENTCOM commander Gen. John Abizaid both have said Iraq was basically about oil. Were Iraq and Afghanistan “stepping stones” to surround Iran and assume a degree of control over this energy-rich area?
It appears that “peak oil” is basically here now. If America continues current policies, we will look for one “evil leader” after another who has meaningful energy resources or good pipeline routes.
The goal is continued corporate domination with wealth moving from you and I to compliant oil-rich nations, and the corporate interests involved with oil production and war-related industries.
Rendahl is a farmer who subscribes to the idea that politics and prostitution are the oldest professions.
.
Iraq voids Russian Oil Contract with US support.
This is from the NYtimes. It is not surprising that the US lawyer would advise the Iraq govt. to void the contract. The Russian govt. in turn though may decide not to forgive Iraqi debts!
Iraq, With U.S. Support, Voids a Russian Oil Contract
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: November 4, 2007
BAGHDAD, Oct. 29 — Guided by American legal advisers, the Iraqi government has canceled a controversial development contract with the Russian company Lukoil for a vast oil field in Iraq’s southern desert, freeing it up for potential international investment in the future.
In response, Russian authorities have threatened to revoke a 2004 deal under the Paris Club of creditor nations to forgive $13 billion in Iraqi debt, a senior Iraqi official said.
The field, West Qurna, has estimated reserves of 11 billion barrels, the equivalent of the worldwide proven oil reserves of Exxon Mobil, America’s largest oil company. Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi oil minister, said in an interview that the field would be opened to new bidders, perhaps as early as next year.
The contract, which had been signed and later canceled by the Saddam Hussein government, had been in legal limbo since the American invasion. But the Kremlin remained hopeful it could be salvaged until this September, when Mr. Shahristani traveled to Moscow to inform officials there that the decision to cancel it was final, he said.
The Russian government, newly emboldened in international affairs by its expanding oil wealth, is still backing Lukoil’s claim and protesting what it considers selective enforcement of contracts in Iraq.
“We will defend our interests,” Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “It is the government’s obligation to defend the interests of our companies in foreign countries.”
One Iraqi official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing a confidential diplomatic exchange, described Russia’s response as, “If you do the deal, we can muster the political muscle to forgive the debt.”
West Qurna, mapped by Soviet geologists in the 1980s but mostly untapped, is one of a dozen or so supergiant oil fields in the world. They are known in the industry as “elephants,” fields so large they can tip the fortunes of companies or countries.
The field will produce one million barrels of oil a day after four to five years of development, according to both Iraqi oil officials and Lukoil; that is the approximate equivalent of the current output of the North Slope in Alaska.
In Lukoil’s 1997 production-sharing agreement, Saddam Hussein’s government awarded the company development rights to the 11 billion barrels of oil for a paltry signing bonus of $10 million. The deal, concluded when Iraq was seeking Russian support in a failed effort to lift United Nations sanctions, allotted 9.6 percent of the output to Lukoil.
The contract presented a quandary for the United States, which has been accused by some critics of invading Iraq for its oil. There is little evidence to date that the war effort has given American oil companies an inside track to Iraq’s reserves, and the Lukoil deal is the only one involving a major oil company to be reversed since the start of the war.
But as a cornerstone of its foreign policy, the United States has argued vigorously for countries to honor petroleum contracts. In that light, condoning the cancellation of the Lukoil contract could be seen in some quarters as evidence of a double standard.
“From the Russian government perspective, Iraq is seen as occupied and its administration directed by Washington, particularly when it comes to oil,” Vladimir I. Tikhomirov, chief economist at the Russian bank UralSib, said in a telephone interview.
“The Russians see the cancellation of their contract in Iraq as part of the U.S. drive to keep control over the major oil fields there,” he said.
The Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, has raised the issue with President Bush several times since the 2003 invasion. In an interview with the BBC in June 2003, Mr. Putin said Mr. Bush had gone as far as offering assurances.
“At our last meeting,” Mr. Putin said, “Bush directly and clearly said, ‘We do not have any goals of pressuring Russian companies out of Iraq and we are ready to create the conditions for working together there.’ I have no reason not to believe him.”
The legality of the Lukoil contract remains murky. It is Iraq’s stated policy, as laid out in a draft oil law now before Parliament, to honor contracts signed by the Saddam Hussein government. It is doing just that with contracts with Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesian and Indian oil companies.
But the Iraqis note that it was the Saddam Hussein government that canceled the Lukoil contract. The government’s spokesman, Tariq Aziz, said at the time that the government believed the Russians were negotiating with the Americans to secure the contract in event of an invasion.
Early in the American occupation, the question arose whether the Hussein government’s decision was valid, said Michael Stinson, the former chief adviser to the Iraqi Oil Ministry. The answer was supplied by the principal American legal adviser to the ministry at the time, Robert Maguire, who Mr. Stinson said was then working for the Defense Department. Mr. Maguire drew on pre-Hussein-era law to justify the cancellation, Mr. Stinson said.
James Glanz contributed reporting.
More Articles in International »
Iraq, With U.S. Support, Voids a Russian Oil Contract
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: November 4, 2007
BAGHDAD, Oct. 29 — Guided by American legal advisers, the Iraqi government has canceled a controversial development contract with the Russian company Lukoil for a vast oil field in Iraq’s southern desert, freeing it up for potential international investment in the future.
In response, Russian authorities have threatened to revoke a 2004 deal under the Paris Club of creditor nations to forgive $13 billion in Iraqi debt, a senior Iraqi official said.
The field, West Qurna, has estimated reserves of 11 billion barrels, the equivalent of the worldwide proven oil reserves of Exxon Mobil, America’s largest oil company. Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi oil minister, said in an interview that the field would be opened to new bidders, perhaps as early as next year.
The contract, which had been signed and later canceled by the Saddam Hussein government, had been in legal limbo since the American invasion. But the Kremlin remained hopeful it could be salvaged until this September, when Mr. Shahristani traveled to Moscow to inform officials there that the decision to cancel it was final, he said.
The Russian government, newly emboldened in international affairs by its expanding oil wealth, is still backing Lukoil’s claim and protesting what it considers selective enforcement of contracts in Iraq.
“We will defend our interests,” Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “It is the government’s obligation to defend the interests of our companies in foreign countries.”
One Iraqi official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing a confidential diplomatic exchange, described Russia’s response as, “If you do the deal, we can muster the political muscle to forgive the debt.”
West Qurna, mapped by Soviet geologists in the 1980s but mostly untapped, is one of a dozen or so supergiant oil fields in the world. They are known in the industry as “elephants,” fields so large they can tip the fortunes of companies or countries.
The field will produce one million barrels of oil a day after four to five years of development, according to both Iraqi oil officials and Lukoil; that is the approximate equivalent of the current output of the North Slope in Alaska.
In Lukoil’s 1997 production-sharing agreement, Saddam Hussein’s government awarded the company development rights to the 11 billion barrels of oil for a paltry signing bonus of $10 million. The deal, concluded when Iraq was seeking Russian support in a failed effort to lift United Nations sanctions, allotted 9.6 percent of the output to Lukoil.
The contract presented a quandary for the United States, which has been accused by some critics of invading Iraq for its oil. There is little evidence to date that the war effort has given American oil companies an inside track to Iraq’s reserves, and the Lukoil deal is the only one involving a major oil company to be reversed since the start of the war.
But as a cornerstone of its foreign policy, the United States has argued vigorously for countries to honor petroleum contracts. In that light, condoning the cancellation of the Lukoil contract could be seen in some quarters as evidence of a double standard.
“From the Russian government perspective, Iraq is seen as occupied and its administration directed by Washington, particularly when it comes to oil,” Vladimir I. Tikhomirov, chief economist at the Russian bank UralSib, said in a telephone interview.
“The Russians see the cancellation of their contract in Iraq as part of the U.S. drive to keep control over the major oil fields there,” he said.
The Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, has raised the issue with President Bush several times since the 2003 invasion. In an interview with the BBC in June 2003, Mr. Putin said Mr. Bush had gone as far as offering assurances.
“At our last meeting,” Mr. Putin said, “Bush directly and clearly said, ‘We do not have any goals of pressuring Russian companies out of Iraq and we are ready to create the conditions for working together there.’ I have no reason not to believe him.”
The legality of the Lukoil contract remains murky. It is Iraq’s stated policy, as laid out in a draft oil law now before Parliament, to honor contracts signed by the Saddam Hussein government. It is doing just that with contracts with Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesian and Indian oil companies.
But the Iraqis note that it was the Saddam Hussein government that canceled the Lukoil contract. The government’s spokesman, Tariq Aziz, said at the time that the government believed the Russians were negotiating with the Americans to secure the contract in event of an invasion.
Early in the American occupation, the question arose whether the Hussein government’s decision was valid, said Michael Stinson, the former chief adviser to the Iraqi Oil Ministry. The answer was supplied by the principal American legal adviser to the ministry at the time, Robert Maguire, who Mr. Stinson said was then working for the Defense Department. Mr. Maguire drew on pre-Hussein-era law to justify the cancellation, Mr. Stinson said.
James Glanz contributed reporting.
More Articles in International »
Iraq parliament does not want UN to extend occupation mandate
This is from Information Clearing House. So I wonder if O'Reilly or any of the other pundits that pass for commentators on US TV will say anything about this? Probably not. The UN authorisation of extension of the occupation gets extended without the approval of the Iraqi legislature, only the cabinet. Some of this article is a bit tendentious. Some polls have shown that at least quite a few Iraqis do not favor immediate withdrawal of troops fearing what would happen. I do not know the number though offhand. I think that the article perhaps overestimates the nationalist strength. Many of those opposed to the occupation may be so for other than nationalist reasons.
Iraqi Government to UN:
'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation'
By Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar
11/09/07 "AlterNet" -- - The United Nations Security Council, with support from the British and American delegations, is poised to cut the Iraqi parliament out of one of the most significant decisions the young government will make: when foreign troops will depart. It's an ugly and unconstitutional move, designed solely to avoid asking an Iraqi legislature for a blank check for an endless military occupation that it's in no mood to give, and it will make a mockery of Iraq's nascent democracy (which needs all the legitimacy it can get).
While the Bush administration frequently invokes sunny visions of spreading democracy and "freedom" around the world, the fact remains that democracy is incompatible with its goals in Iraq. The fact remains that the biggest headache supporters of the occupation of Iraq have to deal with is the fact of the occupation itself. As far back as the middle of 2004, more than nine out of 10 Iraqis said the U.S.-led forces were "occupiers," and only 2 percent called them "liberators." Things have only gone downhill since then, and any government that represents the will of the Iraqi people would have no choice but to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. This fact poses an enormous problem, as the great triumph of the Bush administration and its supporters has been in their ability to convince a much of the Americans population that Iraqi interests and Washington's interests are in harmony, even when they're diametrically opposed.
Crucial to this fiction is a U.N. mandate that confers legal cover on the so-called "multinational" forces in Iraq. The mandate is now coming up for renewal, and a majority of Iraqi legislators oppose its renewal unless conditions are placed on it, conditions that may include a demand for a timetable for the departure of American troops.
The process of renewing the mandate is highlighting the political rift that's divided the country and fueled most of the violence that's plagued the new state. That's the rift between nationalists -- those Iraqis who, like most of their countrymen, oppose the presence of foreign troops on the ground, the wholesale privatization of Iraq's natural resources and the division of their country into ethnic and sectarian fiefdoms, and Iraqi separatists who at least tolerate the occupation -- if not support it -- and favor a loose sectarian/ethnic-based federation of semiautonomous states held together by a minimal central government in Baghdad.
In the United States, the commercial media has largely ignored this story, focusing almost exclusively on sectarian violence and doing a poor job giving their readers and viewers a sense of what's driving Iraq's political crisis. An understanding of the tensions between nationalists and separatists is necessary to appreciate the import of the parliament being cut out of the legislative process and the degree to which doing so hurts the prospect of real political reconciliation among Iraq's many political factions. (We've discussed this dynamic in greater detail in an earlier article.)
The key ingredient to understand is this: The Iraqi executive branch -- the cabinet and the presidency -- are completely controlled by separatists (including Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and secular politicians). But the parliament is controlled by nationalists -- nationalists from every major ethnic and sectarian group in the country -- who enjoy a small but crucially important majority in the only elected body in the Iraqi government.
In 2006, Maliki's office requested the renewal of the U.N. mandate without consulting the legislature, a process that many lawmakers maintained was a violation of Iraqi law. The problem was that Maliki didn't have the authority to make the request under the Iraqi constitution. Article 58, Section 4 says that the Council of Representatives (the parliament) has to ratify "international treaties and agreements" negotiated by the Council of Ministers (the cabinet). Specifically, it reads: "A law shall regulate the ratification of international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives."
Prime Minister Maliki had claimed that the constitution didn't refer to the U.N. mandate. A senior Iraqi lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of the assertion: "If we are asked to approve a trade agreement concerning olive oil, should we not have the right to pass on an agreement concerning the stationing of foreign military forces in our national soil?"
In June, we reported that the parliament had passed a binding resolution that would force Maliki to go to the parliament and give Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the mandate. It was signed by the majority of the 275-seat legislature, then sent to the president. According to the Iraqi constitution, the president has 15 days to veto it by sending it back to the parliament; otherwise it automatically becomes a ratified law. The 15 days passed without a veto, so, according to the terms of the constitution, the Iraqi parliament's resolution became a law in mid-June 2007.
Something happened, however, between the passage of that law and the latest report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. According to Moon's latest report to the Security Council (PDF), dated Oct. 15, the law that had been passed by the duly elected legislature of Iraq became nothing more than a "nonbinding resolution":
The Council of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution on 5 June obligating the cabinet to request parliament's approval on future extensions of the mandate governing the multinational force in Iraq and to include a timetable for the departure of the force from Iraq.
One might have believed that the disconnect was a simple mistake, if not for the fact that members of the Iraqi parliament, still fuming over being cut out of the process the year before, sent a letter to the U.N.'s special envoy for Iraq back in April clarifying the situation in very clear terms. According to an English translation provide by the Global Policy Forum, it says: "The Iraqi Cabinet has unilaterally requested a renewal of the U.N. mandate keeping the occupation troops (MNF) in Iraq" despite the fact that "such a request issued by the Iraqi cabinet without the Iraqi parliament's approval is unconstitutional." It continues: "The Iraqi parliament, as the elected representatives of the Iraqi people, has the exclusive right to approve and ratify international treaties and agreements, including those signed with the United Nations Security Council."
According to sources within the Iraqi delegation to the United Nations, the letter, signed by 144 MPs --more than half of Iraq's legislators -- was received in good order by the special envoy, Ashraf Qazi, but never distributed to the Security Council members, as is required under the U.N. resolution that governs the mandate. The parliament, and indeed the majority of the Iraqi population, had been cleanly excised from the legislative process.
The important thing to understand is that the run-around goes beyond the issue of the mandate itself. Iraq is not in the midst of an incomprehensible religious war over some obscure theological differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims but is deeply and profoundly divided over fundamental questions about the future of the country. In cutting the nationalist majority in the parliament out of the process of governing, the Maliki administration, Bush administration and, apparently, the U.N. secretary-general are making political reconciliation much more difficult. History has offered the lesson time and time again: Deny people the right to participate in deciding their own destiny in a peaceful political process, and they'll try to do so with guns and bombs. The United Nations, like the administration and its supporters, and like Sen. Joe Biden and those who favor his plan for partitioning the country, is taking sides in a political battle that should be exclusively for Iraqis to decide.
If there were some similarities between the current Iraqi-Iraqi conflict and the U.S. civil war it is in having one side that wants to keep the country united, and another side planning to secede. All of the foreign forces that are intervening in Iraq's affairs -- whether led by the United States, Iran or Al-Qaeda -- are on the side of a minority of Iraqis who want to secede against the majority's will.
This U.N. mandate issue is not occurring in a vacuum. When it comes to the nascent Iraqi government, supporters of the occupation have long had their cake and eaten it too. On the one hand, they deny that the U.S.-led military force is an occupying army at all, maintaining that all those foreign troops are there at the "request" of the Iraqi government. That's an important legal nicety -- occupying forces have a host of responsibilities under international law and acknowledging the reality of the occupation would result in more legal responsibilities for the administration to ignore. At the same time, when the only people who all those purple-fingered Iraqi voters actually elected to office try to attach some conditions to the U.N. mandate, demand a timetable for withdrawal or come out against privatizing Iraq's natural resources, and then somehow magically disappear, their hopes and aspirations are discarded as if they never existed.
It's time to force the issue: The Iraqi parliament, the only body elected by the Iraqi people, wants some say over the continuing presence of foreign troops on its soil, and a majority of its lawmakers, like a majority of both Americans and Iraqis, wants a timetable for ending the occupation.
Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer. Raed Jarrar is Iraq consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle.
Iraqi Government to UN:
'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation'
By Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar
11/09/07 "AlterNet" -- - The United Nations Security Council, with support from the British and American delegations, is poised to cut the Iraqi parliament out of one of the most significant decisions the young government will make: when foreign troops will depart. It's an ugly and unconstitutional move, designed solely to avoid asking an Iraqi legislature for a blank check for an endless military occupation that it's in no mood to give, and it will make a mockery of Iraq's nascent democracy (which needs all the legitimacy it can get).
While the Bush administration frequently invokes sunny visions of spreading democracy and "freedom" around the world, the fact remains that democracy is incompatible with its goals in Iraq. The fact remains that the biggest headache supporters of the occupation of Iraq have to deal with is the fact of the occupation itself. As far back as the middle of 2004, more than nine out of 10 Iraqis said the U.S.-led forces were "occupiers," and only 2 percent called them "liberators." Things have only gone downhill since then, and any government that represents the will of the Iraqi people would have no choice but to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. This fact poses an enormous problem, as the great triumph of the Bush administration and its supporters has been in their ability to convince a much of the Americans population that Iraqi interests and Washington's interests are in harmony, even when they're diametrically opposed.
Crucial to this fiction is a U.N. mandate that confers legal cover on the so-called "multinational" forces in Iraq. The mandate is now coming up for renewal, and a majority of Iraqi legislators oppose its renewal unless conditions are placed on it, conditions that may include a demand for a timetable for the departure of American troops.
The process of renewing the mandate is highlighting the political rift that's divided the country and fueled most of the violence that's plagued the new state. That's the rift between nationalists -- those Iraqis who, like most of their countrymen, oppose the presence of foreign troops on the ground, the wholesale privatization of Iraq's natural resources and the division of their country into ethnic and sectarian fiefdoms, and Iraqi separatists who at least tolerate the occupation -- if not support it -- and favor a loose sectarian/ethnic-based federation of semiautonomous states held together by a minimal central government in Baghdad.
In the United States, the commercial media has largely ignored this story, focusing almost exclusively on sectarian violence and doing a poor job giving their readers and viewers a sense of what's driving Iraq's political crisis. An understanding of the tensions between nationalists and separatists is necessary to appreciate the import of the parliament being cut out of the legislative process and the degree to which doing so hurts the prospect of real political reconciliation among Iraq's many political factions. (We've discussed this dynamic in greater detail in an earlier article.)
The key ingredient to understand is this: The Iraqi executive branch -- the cabinet and the presidency -- are completely controlled by separatists (including Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and secular politicians). But the parliament is controlled by nationalists -- nationalists from every major ethnic and sectarian group in the country -- who enjoy a small but crucially important majority in the only elected body in the Iraqi government.
In 2006, Maliki's office requested the renewal of the U.N. mandate without consulting the legislature, a process that many lawmakers maintained was a violation of Iraqi law. The problem was that Maliki didn't have the authority to make the request under the Iraqi constitution. Article 58, Section 4 says that the Council of Representatives (the parliament) has to ratify "international treaties and agreements" negotiated by the Council of Ministers (the cabinet). Specifically, it reads: "A law shall regulate the ratification of international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives."
Prime Minister Maliki had claimed that the constitution didn't refer to the U.N. mandate. A senior Iraqi lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of the assertion: "If we are asked to approve a trade agreement concerning olive oil, should we not have the right to pass on an agreement concerning the stationing of foreign military forces in our national soil?"
In June, we reported that the parliament had passed a binding resolution that would force Maliki to go to the parliament and give Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the mandate. It was signed by the majority of the 275-seat legislature, then sent to the president. According to the Iraqi constitution, the president has 15 days to veto it by sending it back to the parliament; otherwise it automatically becomes a ratified law. The 15 days passed without a veto, so, according to the terms of the constitution, the Iraqi parliament's resolution became a law in mid-June 2007.
Something happened, however, between the passage of that law and the latest report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. According to Moon's latest report to the Security Council (PDF), dated Oct. 15, the law that had been passed by the duly elected legislature of Iraq became nothing more than a "nonbinding resolution":
The Council of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution on 5 June obligating the cabinet to request parliament's approval on future extensions of the mandate governing the multinational force in Iraq and to include a timetable for the departure of the force from Iraq.
One might have believed that the disconnect was a simple mistake, if not for the fact that members of the Iraqi parliament, still fuming over being cut out of the process the year before, sent a letter to the U.N.'s special envoy for Iraq back in April clarifying the situation in very clear terms. According to an English translation provide by the Global Policy Forum, it says: "The Iraqi Cabinet has unilaterally requested a renewal of the U.N. mandate keeping the occupation troops (MNF) in Iraq" despite the fact that "such a request issued by the Iraqi cabinet without the Iraqi parliament's approval is unconstitutional." It continues: "The Iraqi parliament, as the elected representatives of the Iraqi people, has the exclusive right to approve and ratify international treaties and agreements, including those signed with the United Nations Security Council."
According to sources within the Iraqi delegation to the United Nations, the letter, signed by 144 MPs --more than half of Iraq's legislators -- was received in good order by the special envoy, Ashraf Qazi, but never distributed to the Security Council members, as is required under the U.N. resolution that governs the mandate. The parliament, and indeed the majority of the Iraqi population, had been cleanly excised from the legislative process.
The important thing to understand is that the run-around goes beyond the issue of the mandate itself. Iraq is not in the midst of an incomprehensible religious war over some obscure theological differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims but is deeply and profoundly divided over fundamental questions about the future of the country. In cutting the nationalist majority in the parliament out of the process of governing, the Maliki administration, Bush administration and, apparently, the U.N. secretary-general are making political reconciliation much more difficult. History has offered the lesson time and time again: Deny people the right to participate in deciding their own destiny in a peaceful political process, and they'll try to do so with guns and bombs. The United Nations, like the administration and its supporters, and like Sen. Joe Biden and those who favor his plan for partitioning the country, is taking sides in a political battle that should be exclusively for Iraqis to decide.
If there were some similarities between the current Iraqi-Iraqi conflict and the U.S. civil war it is in having one side that wants to keep the country united, and another side planning to secede. All of the foreign forces that are intervening in Iraq's affairs -- whether led by the United States, Iran or Al-Qaeda -- are on the side of a minority of Iraqis who want to secede against the majority's will.
This U.N. mandate issue is not occurring in a vacuum. When it comes to the nascent Iraqi government, supporters of the occupation have long had their cake and eaten it too. On the one hand, they deny that the U.S.-led military force is an occupying army at all, maintaining that all those foreign troops are there at the "request" of the Iraqi government. That's an important legal nicety -- occupying forces have a host of responsibilities under international law and acknowledging the reality of the occupation would result in more legal responsibilities for the administration to ignore. At the same time, when the only people who all those purple-fingered Iraqi voters actually elected to office try to attach some conditions to the U.N. mandate, demand a timetable for withdrawal or come out against privatizing Iraq's natural resources, and then somehow magically disappear, their hopes and aspirations are discarded as if they never existed.
It's time to force the issue: The Iraqi parliament, the only body elected by the Iraqi people, wants some say over the continuing presence of foreign troops on its soil, and a majority of its lawmakers, like a majority of both Americans and Iraqis, wants a timetable for ending the occupation.
Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer. Raed Jarrar is Iraq consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle.
Bhutto's persona raises distrust, as well as hope.
This is from the NY Times. This a bit unusual for a prominent Western mainstream news outlet. Usually articles are very much pro-Bhutto. One thing you cannot fault her with and that is lacking courage. In fact if anything she is lacking in caution. Musharaff is not just making up the fact that she may face suicide attacks against her and her supporters.
Bhutto’s Persona Raises Distrust, as Well as Hope
David Guttenfelder/Associated Press
The Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, above, climbed into her vehicle after joining a protest Saturday in Islamabad.
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink
By JANE PERLEZ
Published: November 11, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 10 — A day after she was barricaded in her home, surrounded by police officers and barbed wire, the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was quickly back to a world to which she is more accustomed on Saturday.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Closely Watched, Bhutto Is Allowed to Move (November 11, 2007)
Times Topics:
Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto
By the evening Ms. Bhutto was guest of honor at a high-flying diplomatic reception in the Parliament building here, greeting ambassadors and exchanging nods before television cameras, even as anxieties about the future of Pakistan, now entering its second week of de facto martial law, intensified at home and abroad.
If the sudden turnabout seemed incongruous with the troubles that have befallen her nation, it was telling of just how fluid the crisis here remains — and of how easily Ms. Bhutto moves from rallying her supporters on the streets to soaking up the trappings of power and ceremony with which she has long been familiar.
Such paradoxes have only added to the skepticism that swirls around her here, less than a month after her return from eight years in exile to avoid corruption charges. And it has added to the speculation that, tense as the situation remains, she and her old nemesis, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, may yet have enough ambition in common to run Pakistan together.
Ms. Bhutto, 54, returned to Pakistan to present herself as the answer to the nation’s troubles: a tribune of democracy in a state that has been under military rule for eight years, and the leader of the country’s largest opposition political party, founded by her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, one of Pakistan’s most flamboyant and democratically inclined prime ministers.
But her record in power, and the dance of veils she has deftly performed since her return — one moment standing up to General Musharraf, then next seeming to accommodate him, and never quite revealing her actual intentions — has stirred as much distrust as hope among Pakistanis.
A graduate of Harvard and Oxford, she brings the backing of Washington and London, where she impresses with her political lineage, her considerable charm and her persona as a female Muslim leader.
But with these accomplishments, Ms. Bhutto also brings controversy, and a legacy among Pakistanis as a polarizing figure who during her two turbulent tenures as prime minister, first from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996, often acted imperiously and impulsively.
She also faces deep questions about her personal probity in public office, which have resulted in corruption cases against her in Switzerland, Spain and Britain, as well as in Pakistan.
Ms. Bhutto has long seen herself as the inheritor of her father’s mantle, her colleagues say, and she has talked often about how he encouraged her to study the lives of legendary female leaders ranging from Indira Gandhi to Joan of Arc.
Following the idea of big ambition, Ms. Bhutto calls herself chairperson for life of the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party, a seemingly odd title in an organization based on democratic ideals and one she has acknowledged quarreling over with her mother, Nusrat Bhutto, in the early 1990s.
Saturday night at the diplomatic reception, Ms. Bhutto showed how she could aggrandize. Three million people came out to greet her in Karachi on her return last month, she said, calling it Pakistan’s “most historic” rally. In fact, crowd estimates were closer to 200,000, many of them provincial party members who had received small amounts of money to make the trip.
It is such flourishes that lead to questioning in Pakistan about the strength of her democratic ideals in practice, and a certain distrust, particularly amid signs of back-room deal-making with General Musharraf, the military ruler she is said to oppose.
“She believes she is the chosen one, that she is the daughter of Bhutto and everything else is secondary,” said Feisal Naqvi, a corporate lawyer in Lahore who knows Ms. Bhutto.
When Ms. Bhutto was re-elected to a second term as Prime Minister, her style of government combined both the traditional and the modern, said Zafar Rathore, a senior civil servant at the time.
But her view of the role of government differed little from the classic notion in Pakistan that the state was the preserve of the ruler who dished out favors to constituents and colleagues, he recalled.
As secretary of interior, responsible for the Pakistani police force, Mr. Rathore, who is now retired, said he tried to get an appointment with Ms. Bhutto to explain the need for accountability in the force. He was always rebuffed, he said.
Finally, when he was seated next to her in a small meeting, he said to her, “I’ve been waiting to see you,” he recounted. “Instantaneously, she said: ‘I am very busy, what do you want. I’ll order it right now.’“
She could not understand that a civil servant might want to talk about policies, he said. Instead, he said, “she understood that when all civil servants have access to the sovereign, they want to ask for something.”
Today Ms. Bhutto still rules the party with an iron hand, jealously guarding her position, even while leading the party in absentia for nearly a decade.
While Ms. Bhutto has managed to maintain much of her freedom of movement this week, her biggest rival in the party, Aitzaz Ahsan, the leader of the lawyers’ movement against General Musharraf, was jailed on the first night of the emergency rule.
Mr. Ahsan is a Cambridge University-educated lawyer who served in her father’s cabinet, and then hers, and he defended Ms. Bhutto in a series of corruption cases in the early 1990s.
But in an illustration of Ms. Bhutto’s attitude to competition, he was quickly frozen out by Ms. Bhutto after he was introduced around Washington last year as a possible counterbalance to General Musharraf, senior members of the party said.
Mr. Ahsan’s wife, Bushra Ahsan, said Ms. Bhutto, a frequent e-mailer who is addicted to her Blackberry, failed to congratulate her husband when he won the case to reinstate the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, in July.
Both men have spearheaded the resistance to General Musharraf’s military rule this year at great personal risk.
When Mr. Ahsan won election as the leader of the Supreme Court Bar Association this month, again he heard nothing from Ms. Bhutto, Ms. Ahsan said. “She has not shown any approval of my husband,” Ms. Ahsan said.
Members of her party who have rallied around Ms. Bhutto on her return argue that she has attributes in Pakistan’s sparse political landscape that make her the best choice against General Musharraf. Chief among them, they say, is sheer determination.
“I’ve tried to suggest to her that Musharraf is not willing to share power,” said Syeda Abida Hussain, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington. “If he can dodge the world, why can’t he dodge you?” Ms. Hussain said she asked Ms. Bhutto.
But in returning to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto believed that it was possible to join General Musharraf in some kind of transition to democracy, she said.
Of Ms. Bhutto’s personal qualities, Ms. Hussain said: “I see her as a vulnerable, hurt person. She’s a chilly, imperial person. She’s firm.”
In the last few months, as she has prepared her comeback, Ms. Bhutto has attended a swirl of public and private events, including a black-tie dinner for 150 at the Royal Air Force Club in London, and she has sought to bring her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, back into the public fold.
Ms. Bhutto’s marriage to Mr. Zardari was arranged by her mother, a fact that Ms. Bhutto has often said was easily explained, even for a modern, highly educated Pakistani woman.
To be acceptable to the Pakistani public as a politician she could not be a single woman, and what was the difference, she has asked, between such a marriage and computer dating?
Ms. Hussain, the former ambassador, described Mr. Zardari as “a warm-hearted fool,” who lacked Ms. Bhutto’s education. He is known for his love of polo and other perquisites of the good life like fine clothes, expensive restaurants, homes in Dubai and London, and an apartment in New York.
He was minister of investment in Ms. Bhutto’s second government. And it was from that perch that he made many of the deals that have haunted the couple in the courts, said a former prosecutor general at the National Accountability Court, Farooq Adam Khan, who in 2000 headed the body set up to investigate corruption among public officials.
In an interview, he said the court believed the couple had illegally taken $1.5 billion from the state. It is a figure that Ms. Bhutto has vigorously contested.
Indeed, one of Ms. Bhutto’s main objectives in seeking to return to power is to restore the reputation of her husband, who was jailed for eight years in Pakistan, said Abdullah Riar, a former senator in the Pakistani Parliament and a former colleague of Ms. Bhutto’s.
“She told me, ‘Time will prove he is the Nelson Mandela of Pakistan,’” Mr. Riar said.
One of Ms. Bhutto’s informal advisers is a longtime friend, Peter W. Galbraith, a former senior staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a former American ambassador to Croatia.
Mr. Galbraith said he and Ms. Bhutto believed they first met in 1962 when they were children: he the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, the American ambassador to India; she the daughter of the future Pakistani prime minister. Mr. Galbraith’s father was accompanying Jacqueline Kennedy to a horse show in Lahore.
They met again at Harvard, where Mr. Galbraith remembers Ms. Bhutto arriving as a prim 16-year-old fresh from a Karachi convent who liked to bake cakes.
Cohabitation — with Ms. Bhutto as prime minister and General Musharraf as president — made a lot of sense for Ms. Bhutto and the Bush administration before last week, Mr. Galbraith said.
As prime minister, Ms. Bhutto would not be able to control the military, the institution that mattered most in Pakistan, he said. But she would confer legitimacy to a government that has seen its authority steadily erode under General Musharraf.
By this weekend, with General Musharraf giving little sign of when he would let up on his emergency powers, Ms. Bhutto was straddling a fine line, Mr. Galbraith said.
“Now,” he said, “Benazir can only cohabit with him at great cost to her legitimacy.”
Bhutto’s Persona Raises Distrust, as Well as Hope
David Guttenfelder/Associated Press
The Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, above, climbed into her vehicle after joining a protest Saturday in Islamabad.
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink
By JANE PERLEZ
Published: November 11, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 10 — A day after she was barricaded in her home, surrounded by police officers and barbed wire, the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was quickly back to a world to which she is more accustomed on Saturday.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Closely Watched, Bhutto Is Allowed to Move (November 11, 2007)
Times Topics:
Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto
By the evening Ms. Bhutto was guest of honor at a high-flying diplomatic reception in the Parliament building here, greeting ambassadors and exchanging nods before television cameras, even as anxieties about the future of Pakistan, now entering its second week of de facto martial law, intensified at home and abroad.
If the sudden turnabout seemed incongruous with the troubles that have befallen her nation, it was telling of just how fluid the crisis here remains — and of how easily Ms. Bhutto moves from rallying her supporters on the streets to soaking up the trappings of power and ceremony with which she has long been familiar.
Such paradoxes have only added to the skepticism that swirls around her here, less than a month after her return from eight years in exile to avoid corruption charges. And it has added to the speculation that, tense as the situation remains, she and her old nemesis, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, may yet have enough ambition in common to run Pakistan together.
Ms. Bhutto, 54, returned to Pakistan to present herself as the answer to the nation’s troubles: a tribune of democracy in a state that has been under military rule for eight years, and the leader of the country’s largest opposition political party, founded by her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, one of Pakistan’s most flamboyant and democratically inclined prime ministers.
But her record in power, and the dance of veils she has deftly performed since her return — one moment standing up to General Musharraf, then next seeming to accommodate him, and never quite revealing her actual intentions — has stirred as much distrust as hope among Pakistanis.
A graduate of Harvard and Oxford, she brings the backing of Washington and London, where she impresses with her political lineage, her considerable charm and her persona as a female Muslim leader.
But with these accomplishments, Ms. Bhutto also brings controversy, and a legacy among Pakistanis as a polarizing figure who during her two turbulent tenures as prime minister, first from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996, often acted imperiously and impulsively.
She also faces deep questions about her personal probity in public office, which have resulted in corruption cases against her in Switzerland, Spain and Britain, as well as in Pakistan.
Ms. Bhutto has long seen herself as the inheritor of her father’s mantle, her colleagues say, and she has talked often about how he encouraged her to study the lives of legendary female leaders ranging from Indira Gandhi to Joan of Arc.
Following the idea of big ambition, Ms. Bhutto calls herself chairperson for life of the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party, a seemingly odd title in an organization based on democratic ideals and one she has acknowledged quarreling over with her mother, Nusrat Bhutto, in the early 1990s.
Saturday night at the diplomatic reception, Ms. Bhutto showed how she could aggrandize. Three million people came out to greet her in Karachi on her return last month, she said, calling it Pakistan’s “most historic” rally. In fact, crowd estimates were closer to 200,000, many of them provincial party members who had received small amounts of money to make the trip.
It is such flourishes that lead to questioning in Pakistan about the strength of her democratic ideals in practice, and a certain distrust, particularly amid signs of back-room deal-making with General Musharraf, the military ruler she is said to oppose.
“She believes she is the chosen one, that she is the daughter of Bhutto and everything else is secondary,” said Feisal Naqvi, a corporate lawyer in Lahore who knows Ms. Bhutto.
When Ms. Bhutto was re-elected to a second term as Prime Minister, her style of government combined both the traditional and the modern, said Zafar Rathore, a senior civil servant at the time.
But her view of the role of government differed little from the classic notion in Pakistan that the state was the preserve of the ruler who dished out favors to constituents and colleagues, he recalled.
As secretary of interior, responsible for the Pakistani police force, Mr. Rathore, who is now retired, said he tried to get an appointment with Ms. Bhutto to explain the need for accountability in the force. He was always rebuffed, he said.
Finally, when he was seated next to her in a small meeting, he said to her, “I’ve been waiting to see you,” he recounted. “Instantaneously, she said: ‘I am very busy, what do you want. I’ll order it right now.’“
She could not understand that a civil servant might want to talk about policies, he said. Instead, he said, “she understood that when all civil servants have access to the sovereign, they want to ask for something.”
Today Ms. Bhutto still rules the party with an iron hand, jealously guarding her position, even while leading the party in absentia for nearly a decade.
While Ms. Bhutto has managed to maintain much of her freedom of movement this week, her biggest rival in the party, Aitzaz Ahsan, the leader of the lawyers’ movement against General Musharraf, was jailed on the first night of the emergency rule.
Mr. Ahsan is a Cambridge University-educated lawyer who served in her father’s cabinet, and then hers, and he defended Ms. Bhutto in a series of corruption cases in the early 1990s.
But in an illustration of Ms. Bhutto’s attitude to competition, he was quickly frozen out by Ms. Bhutto after he was introduced around Washington last year as a possible counterbalance to General Musharraf, senior members of the party said.
Mr. Ahsan’s wife, Bushra Ahsan, said Ms. Bhutto, a frequent e-mailer who is addicted to her Blackberry, failed to congratulate her husband when he won the case to reinstate the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, in July.
Both men have spearheaded the resistance to General Musharraf’s military rule this year at great personal risk.
When Mr. Ahsan won election as the leader of the Supreme Court Bar Association this month, again he heard nothing from Ms. Bhutto, Ms. Ahsan said. “She has not shown any approval of my husband,” Ms. Ahsan said.
Members of her party who have rallied around Ms. Bhutto on her return argue that she has attributes in Pakistan’s sparse political landscape that make her the best choice against General Musharraf. Chief among them, they say, is sheer determination.
“I’ve tried to suggest to her that Musharraf is not willing to share power,” said Syeda Abida Hussain, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington. “If he can dodge the world, why can’t he dodge you?” Ms. Hussain said she asked Ms. Bhutto.
But in returning to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto believed that it was possible to join General Musharraf in some kind of transition to democracy, she said.
Of Ms. Bhutto’s personal qualities, Ms. Hussain said: “I see her as a vulnerable, hurt person. She’s a chilly, imperial person. She’s firm.”
In the last few months, as she has prepared her comeback, Ms. Bhutto has attended a swirl of public and private events, including a black-tie dinner for 150 at the Royal Air Force Club in London, and she has sought to bring her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, back into the public fold.
Ms. Bhutto’s marriage to Mr. Zardari was arranged by her mother, a fact that Ms. Bhutto has often said was easily explained, even for a modern, highly educated Pakistani woman.
To be acceptable to the Pakistani public as a politician she could not be a single woman, and what was the difference, she has asked, between such a marriage and computer dating?
Ms. Hussain, the former ambassador, described Mr. Zardari as “a warm-hearted fool,” who lacked Ms. Bhutto’s education. He is known for his love of polo and other perquisites of the good life like fine clothes, expensive restaurants, homes in Dubai and London, and an apartment in New York.
He was minister of investment in Ms. Bhutto’s second government. And it was from that perch that he made many of the deals that have haunted the couple in the courts, said a former prosecutor general at the National Accountability Court, Farooq Adam Khan, who in 2000 headed the body set up to investigate corruption among public officials.
In an interview, he said the court believed the couple had illegally taken $1.5 billion from the state. It is a figure that Ms. Bhutto has vigorously contested.
Indeed, one of Ms. Bhutto’s main objectives in seeking to return to power is to restore the reputation of her husband, who was jailed for eight years in Pakistan, said Abdullah Riar, a former senator in the Pakistani Parliament and a former colleague of Ms. Bhutto’s.
“She told me, ‘Time will prove he is the Nelson Mandela of Pakistan,’” Mr. Riar said.
One of Ms. Bhutto’s informal advisers is a longtime friend, Peter W. Galbraith, a former senior staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a former American ambassador to Croatia.
Mr. Galbraith said he and Ms. Bhutto believed they first met in 1962 when they were children: he the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, the American ambassador to India; she the daughter of the future Pakistani prime minister. Mr. Galbraith’s father was accompanying Jacqueline Kennedy to a horse show in Lahore.
They met again at Harvard, where Mr. Galbraith remembers Ms. Bhutto arriving as a prim 16-year-old fresh from a Karachi convent who liked to bake cakes.
Cohabitation — with Ms. Bhutto as prime minister and General Musharraf as president — made a lot of sense for Ms. Bhutto and the Bush administration before last week, Mr. Galbraith said.
As prime minister, Ms. Bhutto would not be able to control the military, the institution that mattered most in Pakistan, he said. But she would confer legitimacy to a government that has seen its authority steadily erode under General Musharraf.
By this weekend, with General Musharraf giving little sign of when he would let up on his emergency powers, Ms. Bhutto was straddling a fine line, Mr. Galbraith said.
“Now,” he said, “Benazir can only cohabit with him at great cost to her legitimacy.”
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Thousands flee fighting in Mogadishu.
This is from middle east on-line. The Ethiopians are proxies for US troops. Since the overthrow of the Islamist government, a government the US could not tolerate, there has been no stability. The UN recognised government has never really ruled the country and depends upon the Ethiopians for most of the power they have.
Thousands flee fighting in Somali capital
Death toll from fighting in Mogadishu climbs to 59 as locals slam Ethiopians shooting civilians.
MOGADISHU - The toll from some of the worst fighting in Somalia's war-wracked capital climbed to 59 on Saturday, as thousands fled the city fearing more clashes between Ethiopian forces and rebels, witnesses said.
Sixteen bodies, including one of an Ethiopian soldier, were recovered on Saturday in and around Mogadishu's Black Sea district, where rival sides pounded each other with artillery fire since Thursday, witnesses said.
According to figures compiled by AFP, fighting in the city since Thursday has claimed 59 lives.
"It was a very gruesome scene. They indiscriminately shot innocent civilians who were fleeing the fighting," said local elder Ali Muse Mohamed, referring to the Ethiopian soldiers.
Residents recovered bullet-riven bodies, ripped limps and shattered skulls on the blood-streaked streets and in bombed-out houses. They said women and children were also targetted by the Ethiopian troops battling rebels.
"They shot any moving creature around the neighbourhood ... They also killed children," lamented Hassan Sugule, another elder.
"The Ethiopians are killing even the women let alone the men, so we have no option of staying. We are looking for safety," said Ali Mohamed Barqad, adding that his neighbourhood was deserted.
A tense calm prevailed in the battered city Saturday, but rival sides dug into their positions girding up for fresh combat.
Meanwhile, thousands of residents fled Mogadishu, many on foot and others aboard trucks and on donkey, heading for the calmer outskirts already choked by hundreds of thousands who left their homes earlier, witnesses said.
Two weeks of clashes in Mogadishu had already displaced at least 90,000, according to the United Nations, worsening the humanitarian crisis that has blighted the nation for 16 years.
The Ethiopian army came to the rescue of the feeble transitional government last year to help it oust the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) that had controlled large parts of the country.
The ICU was defeated earlier this year, but its remnants and allied militants have since waged a guerrilla war aiming to destroy all pro-government targets.
Meanwhile panic reigned supreme in the city.
"We are unable to flee to far areas because we do not have enough money," said Nur Adan Mohamed, loading stuff onto a cart.
"Some of my family members are still trapped in Suqaholaha," said Muhubo Shilis, a mother of five who could only manage to escape with three of her children from her neighbourhood.
"We ask God to have mercy on us because nobody cares about our predicament," she added.
Another fleeing resident Hindiya Sugow Nur said she only left three goats in her house, saying: "I don't want to see my family members killed," she added.
Intense fighting erupted Thursday, killing several people and frenzied civilians dragged the body of an Ethiopian soldier on the streets, in a scene reminiscent of 1993, when the bodies of US special forces taking part in a doomed operation were torn to pieces and displayed in the streets.
An attempt by Ethiopian troops to recover the body, worsened clashes that continued into Friday, leaving a trail of fatalities and destruction of property.
The Ethiopian army crackdown in Mogadishu has blown the lid off decades of complex ethnic, social and political hatred between the two nations which have fought two wars in the past decades.
The New York-based Human Rights Watch meanwhile accused both sides of sweeping violations.
The world "should condemn these attacks and hold combatants accountable for violations of humanitarian law, including mutilating captured combatants and executing detainees," said Peter Takirambudde, the group's director for Africa.
In his quarterly report on Somalia, released Thursday, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said deploying UN troops was not a "realistic and viable option".
Thousands flee fighting in Somali capital
Death toll from fighting in Mogadishu climbs to 59 as locals slam Ethiopians shooting civilians.
MOGADISHU - The toll from some of the worst fighting in Somalia's war-wracked capital climbed to 59 on Saturday, as thousands fled the city fearing more clashes between Ethiopian forces and rebels, witnesses said.
Sixteen bodies, including one of an Ethiopian soldier, were recovered on Saturday in and around Mogadishu's Black Sea district, where rival sides pounded each other with artillery fire since Thursday, witnesses said.
According to figures compiled by AFP, fighting in the city since Thursday has claimed 59 lives.
"It was a very gruesome scene. They indiscriminately shot innocent civilians who were fleeing the fighting," said local elder Ali Muse Mohamed, referring to the Ethiopian soldiers.
Residents recovered bullet-riven bodies, ripped limps and shattered skulls on the blood-streaked streets and in bombed-out houses. They said women and children were also targetted by the Ethiopian troops battling rebels.
"They shot any moving creature around the neighbourhood ... They also killed children," lamented Hassan Sugule, another elder.
"The Ethiopians are killing even the women let alone the men, so we have no option of staying. We are looking for safety," said Ali Mohamed Barqad, adding that his neighbourhood was deserted.
A tense calm prevailed in the battered city Saturday, but rival sides dug into their positions girding up for fresh combat.
Meanwhile, thousands of residents fled Mogadishu, many on foot and others aboard trucks and on donkey, heading for the calmer outskirts already choked by hundreds of thousands who left their homes earlier, witnesses said.
Two weeks of clashes in Mogadishu had already displaced at least 90,000, according to the United Nations, worsening the humanitarian crisis that has blighted the nation for 16 years.
The Ethiopian army came to the rescue of the feeble transitional government last year to help it oust the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) that had controlled large parts of the country.
The ICU was defeated earlier this year, but its remnants and allied militants have since waged a guerrilla war aiming to destroy all pro-government targets.
Meanwhile panic reigned supreme in the city.
"We are unable to flee to far areas because we do not have enough money," said Nur Adan Mohamed, loading stuff onto a cart.
"Some of my family members are still trapped in Suqaholaha," said Muhubo Shilis, a mother of five who could only manage to escape with three of her children from her neighbourhood.
"We ask God to have mercy on us because nobody cares about our predicament," she added.
Another fleeing resident Hindiya Sugow Nur said she only left three goats in her house, saying: "I don't want to see my family members killed," she added.
Intense fighting erupted Thursday, killing several people and frenzied civilians dragged the body of an Ethiopian soldier on the streets, in a scene reminiscent of 1993, when the bodies of US special forces taking part in a doomed operation were torn to pieces and displayed in the streets.
An attempt by Ethiopian troops to recover the body, worsened clashes that continued into Friday, leaving a trail of fatalities and destruction of property.
The Ethiopian army crackdown in Mogadishu has blown the lid off decades of complex ethnic, social and political hatred between the two nations which have fought two wars in the past decades.
The New York-based Human Rights Watch meanwhile accused both sides of sweeping violations.
The world "should condemn these attacks and hold combatants accountable for violations of humanitarian law, including mutilating captured combatants and executing detainees," said Peter Takirambudde, the group's director for Africa.
In his quarterly report on Somalia, released Thursday, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said deploying UN troops was not a "realistic and viable option".
Friday, November 9, 2007
US worries over Pakistan crackdown.
Given the desire of so many to assasinate Bhutto she may be just as well off not going to large demonstrations. They missed her last time but next time she may not be so lucky. The more mayhem and chaos the better the radical Islamists will like it.
Given Musharaff's treatment of the lawyers they are not likely to want to negotiate with him right now. There could be just more violence unless the opposition cools down. They are playing into the hands of the Islamists as it is now.
Strange the perspective reporters have, as if it is what the US thinks that is important and only that perhaps!
US worries rise over Pakistan crackdown
Staff and agencies
09 November, 2007
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan quickly ended house arrest for opposition leader Benazir Bhutto on Friday as President Gen. Pervez Musharraf came under new U.S. pressure to end a crackdown that Washington fears is hurting the fight against Islamic extremism.
The action was a new blow to hopes the two U.S.-friendly leaders could form an alliance against militants — a rising threat underlined by a suicide bombing in northwest Pakistan that targeted the home of a Cabinet minister, who escaped without injury.
In Rawalpindi, the nearby garrison town where she had hoped to stage the rally, police fired tear gas at hundreds of Bhutto loyalists who staged wildcat protests and hurled stones. More than 100 were arrested.
In Washington, where some lawmakers are calling for aid to Pakistan to be curtailed, U.S. officials again criticized Musharraf‘s crackdown.
As Musharraf‘s chief international backer, the Bush administration is deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation of 160 million people that is on the front lines of the U.S.-led campaign against terrorist groups.
Musharraf cited the gains by extremists in the frontier region as one of the main reasons for his emergency decree, saying political unrest was undermining the fight against militants.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the turmoil could undermine the battle against Pakistani insurgents.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon again expressed concern over Musharraf‘s emergency rule and urged the immediate release of all those detained, the lifting of restrictions on the media and a return to democratic rule, U.N. associate spokesman Farhan Haq said.
The discontent could leave Islamic militants even stronger, analysts said.
Bhutto‘s detention, if only for a day, showed Musharraf has no intention of easing the crackdown despite saying Thursday that parliamentary elections would be held by mid-February, just a month later than originally planned. The announcement came after intense pressure from the U.S.
The move against Bhutto further harmed prospects for a Bhutto-Musharraf alliance that Washington has been pushing for.
"I worked out a road map with Gen. Musharraf for a peaceful transition to democracy and I‘m very disappointed that though there is a peaceful way, he chose the nonpolitical path," Bhutto told a few dozen supporters after her second foiled attempt to get out of her villa.
Dozens of police, some in riot gear, kept a wary eye on her supporters, who repeatedly tried to remove the barbed wire and steel and concrete barriers ringing Bhutto‘s house. At least 30 of her loyalists were arrested, including a woman carrying flowers.
Dressed in a blue tunic and her trademark white head scarf, Bhutto twice tried to leave for Rawalpindi inside a white Landcruiser with tinted windows, surrounded by about 50 supporters, including several lawmakers.
After being turned back the second time, her way blocked by an armored vehicle, she got out of the car and joined her supporters, who chanted "Go, Musharraf, go!"
"I want to tell you to have courage because this battle is against dictatorship and it will be won by the people," Bhutto said as police stood guard nearby.
Her supporters said they would only be further emboldened by Friday‘s clampdown.
"We will not go away. Our party activists have been mobilized to move out and take to the streets," said Abida Hussain, a former ambassador to the United States.
Authorities appeared determined to stop them. Bhutto‘s party claimed Friday that 5,000 of its supporters had been arrested over the preceding three days across the eastern province of Punjab. Security officials said 1,100 had been detained.
In Rawalpindi, the normally bustling city near Islamabad where Bhutto had planned to hold her rally Friday, hundreds of police kept a tight grip on the largely empty streets and moved quickly against any hint of protest.
Small bands of protesters threw stones and set piles of garbage and tires on fire, while police fired tear gas shells from an armored personnel carrier.
There were also scattered protests in Peshawar and Karachi, where opposition supporters blocked some roads with burning tires.
___
Associated Press writers Zarar Khan and Stephen Graham in Rawalpindi, Riaz Khan in Peshawar and Munir Ahmad in Islamabad contributed to this report.
38
Given Musharaff's treatment of the lawyers they are not likely to want to negotiate with him right now. There could be just more violence unless the opposition cools down. They are playing into the hands of the Islamists as it is now.
Strange the perspective reporters have, as if it is what the US thinks that is important and only that perhaps!
US worries rise over Pakistan crackdown
Staff and agencies
09 November, 2007
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan quickly ended house arrest for opposition leader Benazir Bhutto on Friday as President Gen. Pervez Musharraf came under new U.S. pressure to end a crackdown that Washington fears is hurting the fight against Islamic extremism.
The action was a new blow to hopes the two U.S.-friendly leaders could form an alliance against militants — a rising threat underlined by a suicide bombing in northwest Pakistan that targeted the home of a Cabinet minister, who escaped without injury.
In Rawalpindi, the nearby garrison town where she had hoped to stage the rally, police fired tear gas at hundreds of Bhutto loyalists who staged wildcat protests and hurled stones. More than 100 were arrested.
In Washington, where some lawmakers are calling for aid to Pakistan to be curtailed, U.S. officials again criticized Musharraf‘s crackdown.
As Musharraf‘s chief international backer, the Bush administration is deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation of 160 million people that is on the front lines of the U.S.-led campaign against terrorist groups.
Musharraf cited the gains by extremists in the frontier region as one of the main reasons for his emergency decree, saying political unrest was undermining the fight against militants.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the turmoil could undermine the battle against Pakistani insurgents.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon again expressed concern over Musharraf‘s emergency rule and urged the immediate release of all those detained, the lifting of restrictions on the media and a return to democratic rule, U.N. associate spokesman Farhan Haq said.
The discontent could leave Islamic militants even stronger, analysts said.
Bhutto‘s detention, if only for a day, showed Musharraf has no intention of easing the crackdown despite saying Thursday that parliamentary elections would be held by mid-February, just a month later than originally planned. The announcement came after intense pressure from the U.S.
The move against Bhutto further harmed prospects for a Bhutto-Musharraf alliance that Washington has been pushing for.
"I worked out a road map with Gen. Musharraf for a peaceful transition to democracy and I‘m very disappointed that though there is a peaceful way, he chose the nonpolitical path," Bhutto told a few dozen supporters after her second foiled attempt to get out of her villa.
Dozens of police, some in riot gear, kept a wary eye on her supporters, who repeatedly tried to remove the barbed wire and steel and concrete barriers ringing Bhutto‘s house. At least 30 of her loyalists were arrested, including a woman carrying flowers.
Dressed in a blue tunic and her trademark white head scarf, Bhutto twice tried to leave for Rawalpindi inside a white Landcruiser with tinted windows, surrounded by about 50 supporters, including several lawmakers.
After being turned back the second time, her way blocked by an armored vehicle, she got out of the car and joined her supporters, who chanted "Go, Musharraf, go!"
"I want to tell you to have courage because this battle is against dictatorship and it will be won by the people," Bhutto said as police stood guard nearby.
Her supporters said they would only be further emboldened by Friday‘s clampdown.
"We will not go away. Our party activists have been mobilized to move out and take to the streets," said Abida Hussain, a former ambassador to the United States.
Authorities appeared determined to stop them. Bhutto‘s party claimed Friday that 5,000 of its supporters had been arrested over the preceding three days across the eastern province of Punjab. Security officials said 1,100 had been detained.
In Rawalpindi, the normally bustling city near Islamabad where Bhutto had planned to hold her rally Friday, hundreds of police kept a tight grip on the largely empty streets and moved quickly against any hint of protest.
Small bands of protesters threw stones and set piles of garbage and tires on fire, while police fired tear gas shells from an armored personnel carrier.
There were also scattered protests in Peshawar and Karachi, where opposition supporters blocked some roads with burning tires.
___
Associated Press writers Zarar Khan and Stephen Graham in Rawalpindi, Riaz Khan in Peshawar and Munir Ahmad in Islamabad contributed to this report.
38
500 Iraqis freed from US jails in Iraq
Obviously one reason for the release is that the US facilities are no doubt overflowing! Imagine that the occupiers have 25,000 in custody. Also, interesting is the last remark that 17 gang members are to be executed, just like that! Capital punishment with a vengeance.
500 Iraqis Freed From Crowded U.S. Detention Center
By CARA BUCKLEY
Published: November 9, 2007
BAGHDAD, Nov. 8 — Nearly 500 Iraqi detainees were released at a ceremony at a sprawling United States detention center in western Baghdad early Thursday, where they were urged by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to “start a new life, a different life from months ago.”
The ceremony, at Camp Victory in the dusty morning heat, marked one of the largest releases of Iraqi prisoners from American detention centers, which have become increasingly overcrowded since the American military buildup began in February.
In an interview, Mr. Maliki said he was also considering a general amnesty for most detainees.
“We are working on such a project,” he said moments after delivering a speech to rows of newly released detainees seated before him. “We are thinking of having a general amnesty except for those who have committed direct crimes against Iraqis, and against our infrastructure.”
The number of Iraqi detainees held by the American-led military forces has jumped to 25,800, from 16,000 in February, said Lt. Cmdr. K.C. Marshall, a detention operations officer.
Thousands more people are still detained in Iraqi prisons.
At Camp Victory on Thursday, several former detainees said that while they relished their release, they resented having been held at all. “I was detained in March 2007 for no reason,” said Tariq Jabbar, 25, a taxi driver from Zafaraniya, a neighborhood in southeast Baghdad.
Mr. Jabbar said he had been accused of attacking coalition forces with guns and improvised bombs, but insisted on his innocence, saying no weapons or the like had been found in his home. He said he had been treated well but had not been allowed to contact his wife or four children.
In a news release, the American-led forces said they were increasing the tempo of the releases to foster good will, but there is also pressure to free up space in the overcrowded prisons. About 6,300 detainees have been released so far this year, and the coalition forces say they have been releasing an average of 50 a day.
Commander Marshall said each of the released detainees had been screened by a review board and had to pledge to an Iraqi judge to uphold peace and behave well.
Also on Thursday, an American soldier died after being wounded Wednesday by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad, according to the military. The soldier’s name was not released.
In Baghdad, an Iraqi policeman was killed during an ambush, according to a hospital worker, and four unidentified bodies were found throughout the city, according to an official with the Interior Ministry.
In Mosul, north of Baghdad, a car bomb exploded, killing the driver and a woman nearby, a police official said. In Baquba, a city in troubled Diyala Province, American and Iraq forces found the remains of seven people in a house.
In Diwaniya, a city south of Baghdad, the security commissioner, Sheik Hussein al-Badri, announced that 17 gang members, some of them Iraqi policemen, had been sentenced to death for their role in an unspecified number of civilian and security force deaths.
Mudhafer al-Husaini contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Baquba, Diwaniya, Diyala and Mosul.
500 Iraqis Freed From Crowded U.S. Detention Center
By CARA BUCKLEY
Published: November 9, 2007
BAGHDAD, Nov. 8 — Nearly 500 Iraqi detainees were released at a ceremony at a sprawling United States detention center in western Baghdad early Thursday, where they were urged by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to “start a new life, a different life from months ago.”
The ceremony, at Camp Victory in the dusty morning heat, marked one of the largest releases of Iraqi prisoners from American detention centers, which have become increasingly overcrowded since the American military buildup began in February.
In an interview, Mr. Maliki said he was also considering a general amnesty for most detainees.
“We are working on such a project,” he said moments after delivering a speech to rows of newly released detainees seated before him. “We are thinking of having a general amnesty except for those who have committed direct crimes against Iraqis, and against our infrastructure.”
The number of Iraqi detainees held by the American-led military forces has jumped to 25,800, from 16,000 in February, said Lt. Cmdr. K.C. Marshall, a detention operations officer.
Thousands more people are still detained in Iraqi prisons.
At Camp Victory on Thursday, several former detainees said that while they relished their release, they resented having been held at all. “I was detained in March 2007 for no reason,” said Tariq Jabbar, 25, a taxi driver from Zafaraniya, a neighborhood in southeast Baghdad.
Mr. Jabbar said he had been accused of attacking coalition forces with guns and improvised bombs, but insisted on his innocence, saying no weapons or the like had been found in his home. He said he had been treated well but had not been allowed to contact his wife or four children.
In a news release, the American-led forces said they were increasing the tempo of the releases to foster good will, but there is also pressure to free up space in the overcrowded prisons. About 6,300 detainees have been released so far this year, and the coalition forces say they have been releasing an average of 50 a day.
Commander Marshall said each of the released detainees had been screened by a review board and had to pledge to an Iraqi judge to uphold peace and behave well.
Also on Thursday, an American soldier died after being wounded Wednesday by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad, according to the military. The soldier’s name was not released.
In Baghdad, an Iraqi policeman was killed during an ambush, according to a hospital worker, and four unidentified bodies were found throughout the city, according to an official with the Interior Ministry.
In Mosul, north of Baghdad, a car bomb exploded, killing the driver and a woman nearby, a police official said. In Baquba, a city in troubled Diyala Province, American and Iraq forces found the remains of seven people in a house.
In Diwaniya, a city south of Baghdad, the security commissioner, Sheik Hussein al-Badri, announced that 17 gang members, some of them Iraqi policemen, had been sentenced to death for their role in an unspecified number of civilian and security force deaths.
Mudhafer al-Husaini contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Baquba, Diwaniya, Diyala and Mosul.
Storming the Caspian: In Washington's Cross Hairs
This is from Moscow News. I expect Americans are generally clueless about what is going on in this area. The Americans got all upset when the USSR was using Cuba as a base but the US is using Caspian nations as a base for extending their influence throughout the area and perhaps to attack Iran but also to counter Russian influence. The Russians are certainly aware of what is going on and of how Washington's moves are related to oil supplies.
Storming the Caspian
>
As thse five Caspian states - Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan - are trying, with little success, to come to terms on the legal status of Caspian Sea, the region is gradually emerging as one of the most explosive parts of the world. Experts believe that tensions there could come to a head soon.
In Washington's Cross Hairs
The Caspian region is turning from a zone of diplomatic games into a military test site. The coastal states are actively building up their military presence: in the past decade, the number of warships on the Caspian has almost doubled, while coastal infrastructure is also being rapidly reinforced. Furthermore, "non-Caspian" countries, in particular the United States, have started demonstrating their interest and flexing their muscle in the area.
Washington's foreign policy line in the Caspian region is geared toward several goals. Priority is given to creating conditions where Moscow would be unable to exercise control over U.S. energy projects. The United States is currently trying to justify its plan to increase its influence on the Caspian with the pressing need to boost security along the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. There has been increasing talk in the West about the need for NATO's military presence in the Caspian region.
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is considering the possibility of providing security for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline," said Robert Simmons, the NATO secretary general's special representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia. "The Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline runs to Turkey, a NATO country, and passes through the territory of Azerbaijan, a NATO partner. The protection of energy infrastructure includes the security of this oil pipeline in addition to other energy infrastructure facilities." He said that terrorism is the biggest threat to the pipeline.
Washington is also seriously concerned by the prospect of a full blown war breaking out between Turkey and ethnic Kurds based in the north of Iraq. The White House is no longer attempting to hide its fear of bomb attacks against the oil pipelines leading from rebellious Kurdistan. Furthermore, the Americans do not rule out that possible terrorist attacks could be carried out on orders from Tehran, while Washington is on the verge of war with it.
The Iran problem is yet another plausible excuse for the U.S. to strengthen its military presence in the Caspian: the Pentagon needs logistic bases in the region should it decide to use force against Tehran. The Americans intend to use Azerbaijan's territory in an anti-Iran campaign. Washington has already provided $30 million to beef up the country's coast guard. Now the United States has earmarked $135 million as part of the Caspian Guard Initiative, a framework program designed to coordinate activities in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan with those of U.S. Central Command and other U.S. government agencies to enhance Caspian security. The program assists the two countries in improving their ability to prevent and, if needed, respond to terrorism, nuclear proliferation, drug and human trafficking, and other transnational treats in the Caspian region. According to some reports, the Pentagon has already built two radar stations, as well as command and control facilities in Azerbaijan. In addition to that, as part of Baku's partnership plan with Brussels, Azerbaijan's Navy and Border Service will be provided with advanced, state of the art military hardware and equipment.
NATO has also finalized a long term program to provide military support for all pipelines along the Caspian-Turkey-Balkans route. A NATO contingent is already present in the region, in particular at former Soviet military bases in the Azerbaijani towns of Kurdamir, Nasosnoye and Gulli: "temporary mobile forces" have been deployed there since the spring of 2006. Their strength, according to different estimates, varies between 750 and 1,300 troops, but is expected to double in the foreseeable future. This force is also designed for "strategic missions" in Georgia, its principal function being to "protect" the Azerbaijani-Georgian section of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
The Stakes
It is noteworthy that the Caspian "Group of Five" have different views on Western military presence in the oil region.
Like Iran, Russia has long been opposed to any interference by "third party countries" in regional affairs. At their recent summit in Tehran, the "Group of Five" adopted a declaration prohibiting the presence of "non-Caspian" armed forces in the region or any use of force in resolving regional problems. The Caspian was declared "a sea of peace."
The Kremlin is convinced that Washington's military plans in the Caspian region are not only aimed against Tehran: they also jeopardize Russia's security and sovereignty. Furthermore, Moscow is evidently attempting to neutralize the West's efforts to strengthen its presence in the Caspian region, not least through large scale energy projects. Analysts believe that one of Russia's priorities today is to thwart the construction of the Nabucco trans-Caspian natural gas pipeline to Europe bypassing Russia. The provisions of the Tehran agreements signed by the five Caspian nations can easily freeze this project skirting Russia.
However, many experts are skeptical about the Tehran documents, stressing that they are but a declaration of intent. Indeed, it is rather unlikely that Azerbaijan will deny the Americans the use of its soil. After all, Baku, which has already clashed with Tehran over disputed oil fields, is well served by U.S. military presence, especially in the event of new friction with the Iranian side.
For their part, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, which were unable to bow out of participation in the Trans-Caspian project lobbied for by the West, are also unlikely to adopt a tough stance on U.S. military presence in the Caspian, especially considering that Washington is actively helping these republics in protecting their oil and gas deposits and is ready to invest heavily in developing sections of the Kazakh and Turkmen shelves in the Caspian Sea.
It seems that only China could show complete solidarity with Russia and Iran in their anti-U.S. stance. Analysts believe that China could soon become an additional center of influence in the region. Beijing, which is building a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, will somehow or other have to protect its oil and gas interests. So it is quite possible that unless a convention on the legal status of the sea (lake) is signed, Chinese flagged ships could appear in the Caspian waters.
Incidentally, experts believe that Tehran, which owns two percent of global oil reserves, nevertheless, regards Moscow as a potential competitor and does not rule out the possibility of clashes with the Russian side and could use Beijing as a counterweight not only against the United States, but also against Russia. And it looks like Iran is ready to bet on the new Caspian player. Meanwhile, the stakes in the Caspian game are very high: according to various estimates, this body of water contains between four and 10 percent of the world's hydrocarbon reserves.
As for Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, thus far, they are only building up their military capability on the Caspian to protect their own natural resources. But given the disparity of the geo-political interests of the Caspian states and the lack of serious agreements in the realm of regional security, today, they can be seen as potential adversaries in a possible war. True, to date, there have been no scenarios for a military conflict in this landlocked sea: the military doctrines of the coastal states do not even use the term "border threats."
By Vasilina Vasilyeva
back to main page
Storming the Caspian
>
As thse five Caspian states - Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan - are trying, with little success, to come to terms on the legal status of Caspian Sea, the region is gradually emerging as one of the most explosive parts of the world. Experts believe that tensions there could come to a head soon.
In Washington's Cross Hairs
The Caspian region is turning from a zone of diplomatic games into a military test site. The coastal states are actively building up their military presence: in the past decade, the number of warships on the Caspian has almost doubled, while coastal infrastructure is also being rapidly reinforced. Furthermore, "non-Caspian" countries, in particular the United States, have started demonstrating their interest and flexing their muscle in the area.
Washington's foreign policy line in the Caspian region is geared toward several goals. Priority is given to creating conditions where Moscow would be unable to exercise control over U.S. energy projects. The United States is currently trying to justify its plan to increase its influence on the Caspian with the pressing need to boost security along the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. There has been increasing talk in the West about the need for NATO's military presence in the Caspian region.
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is considering the possibility of providing security for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline," said Robert Simmons, the NATO secretary general's special representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia. "The Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline runs to Turkey, a NATO country, and passes through the territory of Azerbaijan, a NATO partner. The protection of energy infrastructure includes the security of this oil pipeline in addition to other energy infrastructure facilities." He said that terrorism is the biggest threat to the pipeline.
Washington is also seriously concerned by the prospect of a full blown war breaking out between Turkey and ethnic Kurds based in the north of Iraq. The White House is no longer attempting to hide its fear of bomb attacks against the oil pipelines leading from rebellious Kurdistan. Furthermore, the Americans do not rule out that possible terrorist attacks could be carried out on orders from Tehran, while Washington is on the verge of war with it.
The Iran problem is yet another plausible excuse for the U.S. to strengthen its military presence in the Caspian: the Pentagon needs logistic bases in the region should it decide to use force against Tehran. The Americans intend to use Azerbaijan's territory in an anti-Iran campaign. Washington has already provided $30 million to beef up the country's coast guard. Now the United States has earmarked $135 million as part of the Caspian Guard Initiative, a framework program designed to coordinate activities in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan with those of U.S. Central Command and other U.S. government agencies to enhance Caspian security. The program assists the two countries in improving their ability to prevent and, if needed, respond to terrorism, nuclear proliferation, drug and human trafficking, and other transnational treats in the Caspian region. According to some reports, the Pentagon has already built two radar stations, as well as command and control facilities in Azerbaijan. In addition to that, as part of Baku's partnership plan with Brussels, Azerbaijan's Navy and Border Service will be provided with advanced, state of the art military hardware and equipment.
NATO has also finalized a long term program to provide military support for all pipelines along the Caspian-Turkey-Balkans route. A NATO contingent is already present in the region, in particular at former Soviet military bases in the Azerbaijani towns of Kurdamir, Nasosnoye and Gulli: "temporary mobile forces" have been deployed there since the spring of 2006. Their strength, according to different estimates, varies between 750 and 1,300 troops, but is expected to double in the foreseeable future. This force is also designed for "strategic missions" in Georgia, its principal function being to "protect" the Azerbaijani-Georgian section of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
The Stakes
It is noteworthy that the Caspian "Group of Five" have different views on Western military presence in the oil region.
Like Iran, Russia has long been opposed to any interference by "third party countries" in regional affairs. At their recent summit in Tehran, the "Group of Five" adopted a declaration prohibiting the presence of "non-Caspian" armed forces in the region or any use of force in resolving regional problems. The Caspian was declared "a sea of peace."
The Kremlin is convinced that Washington's military plans in the Caspian region are not only aimed against Tehran: they also jeopardize Russia's security and sovereignty. Furthermore, Moscow is evidently attempting to neutralize the West's efforts to strengthen its presence in the Caspian region, not least through large scale energy projects. Analysts believe that one of Russia's priorities today is to thwart the construction of the Nabucco trans-Caspian natural gas pipeline to Europe bypassing Russia. The provisions of the Tehran agreements signed by the five Caspian nations can easily freeze this project skirting Russia.
However, many experts are skeptical about the Tehran documents, stressing that they are but a declaration of intent. Indeed, it is rather unlikely that Azerbaijan will deny the Americans the use of its soil. After all, Baku, which has already clashed with Tehran over disputed oil fields, is well served by U.S. military presence, especially in the event of new friction with the Iranian side.
For their part, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, which were unable to bow out of participation in the Trans-Caspian project lobbied for by the West, are also unlikely to adopt a tough stance on U.S. military presence in the Caspian, especially considering that Washington is actively helping these republics in protecting their oil and gas deposits and is ready to invest heavily in developing sections of the Kazakh and Turkmen shelves in the Caspian Sea.
It seems that only China could show complete solidarity with Russia and Iran in their anti-U.S. stance. Analysts believe that China could soon become an additional center of influence in the region. Beijing, which is building a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, will somehow or other have to protect its oil and gas interests. So it is quite possible that unless a convention on the legal status of the sea (lake) is signed, Chinese flagged ships could appear in the Caspian waters.
Incidentally, experts believe that Tehran, which owns two percent of global oil reserves, nevertheless, regards Moscow as a potential competitor and does not rule out the possibility of clashes with the Russian side and could use Beijing as a counterweight not only against the United States, but also against Russia. And it looks like Iran is ready to bet on the new Caspian player. Meanwhile, the stakes in the Caspian game are very high: according to various estimates, this body of water contains between four and 10 percent of the world's hydrocarbon reserves.
As for Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, thus far, they are only building up their military capability on the Caspian to protect their own natural resources. But given the disparity of the geo-political interests of the Caspian states and the lack of serious agreements in the realm of regional security, today, they can be seen as potential adversaries in a possible war. True, to date, there have been no scenarios for a military conflict in this landlocked sea: the military doctrines of the coastal states do not even use the term "border threats."
By Vasilina Vasilyeva
back to main page
Bhutto placed under house arrest
The story is at MSNBC. among other places. Apparently Bhutto has decided not to deal with Musharaff for the present. I am surprised that Musharaff ever let her fly back in to Pakistan twice. He must have been counting on some sort of deal with her but her decision to join demonstrations has quashed that for now. Bhutto tried to leave her house earlier but was blocked.
The US is a strong backer of Bhutto because she is keen on attacking the tribal zones. I would not be surprised if she is assasinated soon not only the Islamists but many within the military and intelligence service oppose her.
The US is a strong backer of Bhutto because she is keen on attacking the tribal zones. I would not be surprised if she is assasinated soon not only the Islamists but many within the military and intelligence service oppose her.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
The Long Fall: A market without parachutes
This is perhaps rather pessimistic but the article does point out some of the difficulties that the US economy is facing. It seems that the dollar is being abandoned. If the US thinks that it can continue to spend billions and billions on wars as if there is an endless supply of money it had better think again. Also, the continual lending of money to purchase houses to clients who cannot afford to pay for them is now backfiring not just on the US but everyone who has bought securities based upon those loans.
China has little interest in the financial ruin of the US at this stage. If the US goes into deep recession that is one large market gone and instability could spread to other markets as well. Capitalist economies are globally interrelated.
The Long Fall
A Market Without Parachutes
By Mike Whitney
11/08/07 "ICH" -- -- America is finished, washed up, kaput. Foreign investors and central banks around the world have lost confidence in US markets and are headed for the exits. The dollar is sinking, the country is insolvent, and its leaders are barking mad. That’s bad for business. Investors are voting with their feet. They’ve had enough. Capital is flowing to China and the Far East in a torrent. It’s "sayonara" Manhattan and “Hello” Tiananmen Square.
Want some advice? Learn Mandarin.
The dollar fell another 2% last night, gold soared to $840 per ounce, oil topped $98 per barrel, General motors reported a $39 billion loss after the market closed on Tuesday, the real estate market continued its downward slide, and the major investment banks are marching in lock-step towards bankruptcy.
The news is all bad. The nation’s economic foundation is in shambles. US credibility is shot. Bush and Greenspan have put us on the road to ruin. Now their work is done. We’re flat broke.
The catalogue of fiscal ailments now facing the country is too long to list. We’d need a ledger the size of a small encyclopedia. There’s been a stampede away from the dollar even though it’s already lost over 60% of its value since Bush took office and even though central banks around the world will lose their shirts if it collapses. They don’t care. They’re getting out while they can.
Cheng Siwei, the vice chairman of China’s National People’s Congress, announced yesterday that China would continue to diversify its $1.4 trillion reserves away from the dollar to “stronger currencies” like the euro. “Strong currencies”; isn’t that Paulson’s line? Siwei’s comments ignited a firestorm in the currency markets triggering a big blow-off of the greenback. The poor dollar has no place to go now but down, and it’s on a greased pole to the bottom. With consumer spending paralyzed by the decline in home equity and frozen wages, and the banks “stuffed to the gills” with over a trillion dollars of mortgage-backed sludge; the prognosis for the hobbled dollar is looking grimmer by the day. The bulging trade deficits and dwindling foreign inflows haven’t helped either. The greenback has suddenly become the global pariah; all it needs is a leper’s rattle and a tin cup.
The news is no better in the real estate industry either, where the nation’s biggest builders are reporting record losses and inventory is backed-up 11 months. Sales are off 22% in one year alone. Foreclosures are skyrocketing, jumbo loans (over $417,000) are impossible to get regardless of one’s credit history, 40% of all mortgages (subprime, Alt-A, piggyback, reverse amortization, interest-only) have been eliminated, and entire projects in Florida, Arizona, Las Vegas, and California’s Central Valley have stopped building altogether. Tens of thousands of unoccupied homes across the Southwest have been reduced to ghost towns. Nothing is selling. The building boom, that began when Alan Greenspan ginned-up the Fed’s printing presses in 2002, has turned into the biggest housing bust in American history.
On top of that, the banks are tightening lending standards and shunning potential buyers just when the economy needs a boost in demand. Loan originations are down and bankers are spooked by the gathering storm in the credit markets. That means that home sales will continue to be sluggish, prices will correct more quickly, and the anticipated “soft landing” will turn into a full-blown crash.
New home construction has accounted for 2 out of every 5 new jobs created in the last 5 years. Most of those workers are either delivering pizzas, cleaning bed pans or are lining up at the soup kitchen. The BLS’s numbers on employment are bogus. It's just more government bunkum. They're predicated on a “birth-death” model that creates millions of fictitious jobs out of whole cloth. In truth, unemployment is soaring and the most vulnerable and impoverished among us are taking a beating from housing debacle.
According to the Mortgage Bankers Association of Washington, the total of mortgage loans outstanding in 2006 was $10.9 trillion; $6 trillion of which were transformed into securities. (CDOs, MBSs) About $1.5 trillion of those securities are subprime; another $1 trillion Alt-A (nearly as risky) and at least another $1.5 trillion in adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) At least 20% of these shaky liabilities/securities will default, and yet, no one really knows who is holding them on their books. All of the major financial institutions—the insurance companies, foreign banks, hedge funds, investment banks---have purchased these CDO “roadside bombs” and mixed them in with their other performing loans and hard assets. The projected explosions have already begun to take their toll on the financial giants---Citigroup and Merrill Lynch are just the latest victims; others will follow. The problem can’t be fixed with Bernanke’s low interest rates. The bad debts are everywhere and must accounted for and written down. That puts us on the threshold of a jarring market-downturn triggered by an unprecedented number of defaults that will rumble through the entire system. Bankruptcies will pop up everywhere at random. It is a blueprint for economic chaos. And it is unavoidable.
The global markets have never seen a financial typhoon of this magnitude before. Mortgage lenders, homeowners, banks, hedge funds, bond insurers, etc. will all either go under or feel the sting of a slumping market.
Many of the major investment banks are already broke; it’s clear from their own reporting. Charles Hugh Smith sums it up like this in his recent article “Empire of Debt: The Great Unraveling”:
“If their bad bets were marked to market, Citicorp and Merrill Lynch would be declared insolvent. Why? Because they are insolvent--right now. The meaning of insolvency is straightforward: their losses exceed their capital. Recall that these firms list assets of $100 billion (or whatever) but their actual net capital is on the order of 2.5% to 5%---a mere sliver of their stated assets. In other words: a 5% loss of their stated assets wipes them out…..The game is now over, and the players shuffling losses can only last a few more days or weeks.”
Up to this point, the banks have been able to place a sizeable portion of their "hard-to-value" assets in a Level 3 grab bag, which allowed company accountants to assign a value to those assets according to their own judgment. No more. The new FASB 157 regulation will force the banks to use “market prices” to determine the true value of their holdings. Some analysts believe that these new disclosure rules may result in $200 billion write-downs on assets and require that the over-leveraged banks to increase their capital reserves. That will slow down lending and put a wrinkle in the banks' bottom line. In any event, once the law is enacted; we’ll see who’s "faking" the value of their assets or as Warren Buffet says, “Who’s swimming with their clothes off.”
Professor Nouriel Roubini summed it up like this:
“The amount of losses that financial institutions have already recognized - $20 billion – is just the very tip of the iceberg of much larger losses that will end up in the hundreds of billions of dollars….Calling this crisis a sub-prime meltdown is ludicrous as by now the contagion has seriously spread to near prime and prime mortgages…And it is spreading to every corner of the securitized financial system that is either frozen or on the way to freeze….The reality is that most financial institutions have barely started to recognize the lower “fair value” of their impaired securities….The credit crunch is getting worse and its financial and real fallout will be severe.” (Nouriel Roubini blog)
The constant drumbeat of bad news is having a numbing affect on Wall Street. Traders’ are tight-lipped and downcast. Spirits are sagging. No one likes loosing money, and yet, the credit storm shows no signs of letting up anytime soon. Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial’s took another 360-point pounding before the bell rang. Another day, another bloodbath. The subprime virus has now infected the broader markets leaving the once-brawny financial giants bruised and reeling like Joe Frazier in the Thrilla in Manila. A few more down-days like yesterday and they’ll be carrying out hedge funds feet first. The stock market is looking more and more like a glass pitcher propped up on the edge of a bookshelf. One little bump, and down she goes.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
China has little interest in the financial ruin of the US at this stage. If the US goes into deep recession that is one large market gone and instability could spread to other markets as well. Capitalist economies are globally interrelated.
The Long Fall
A Market Without Parachutes
By Mike Whitney
11/08/07 "ICH" -- -- America is finished, washed up, kaput. Foreign investors and central banks around the world have lost confidence in US markets and are headed for the exits. The dollar is sinking, the country is insolvent, and its leaders are barking mad. That’s bad for business. Investors are voting with their feet. They’ve had enough. Capital is flowing to China and the Far East in a torrent. It’s "sayonara" Manhattan and “Hello” Tiananmen Square.
Want some advice? Learn Mandarin.
The dollar fell another 2% last night, gold soared to $840 per ounce, oil topped $98 per barrel, General motors reported a $39 billion loss after the market closed on Tuesday, the real estate market continued its downward slide, and the major investment banks are marching in lock-step towards bankruptcy.
The news is all bad. The nation’s economic foundation is in shambles. US credibility is shot. Bush and Greenspan have put us on the road to ruin. Now their work is done. We’re flat broke.
The catalogue of fiscal ailments now facing the country is too long to list. We’d need a ledger the size of a small encyclopedia. There’s been a stampede away from the dollar even though it’s already lost over 60% of its value since Bush took office and even though central banks around the world will lose their shirts if it collapses. They don’t care. They’re getting out while they can.
Cheng Siwei, the vice chairman of China’s National People’s Congress, announced yesterday that China would continue to diversify its $1.4 trillion reserves away from the dollar to “stronger currencies” like the euro. “Strong currencies”; isn’t that Paulson’s line? Siwei’s comments ignited a firestorm in the currency markets triggering a big blow-off of the greenback. The poor dollar has no place to go now but down, and it’s on a greased pole to the bottom. With consumer spending paralyzed by the decline in home equity and frozen wages, and the banks “stuffed to the gills” with over a trillion dollars of mortgage-backed sludge; the prognosis for the hobbled dollar is looking grimmer by the day. The bulging trade deficits and dwindling foreign inflows haven’t helped either. The greenback has suddenly become the global pariah; all it needs is a leper’s rattle and a tin cup.
The news is no better in the real estate industry either, where the nation’s biggest builders are reporting record losses and inventory is backed-up 11 months. Sales are off 22% in one year alone. Foreclosures are skyrocketing, jumbo loans (over $417,000) are impossible to get regardless of one’s credit history, 40% of all mortgages (subprime, Alt-A, piggyback, reverse amortization, interest-only) have been eliminated, and entire projects in Florida, Arizona, Las Vegas, and California’s Central Valley have stopped building altogether. Tens of thousands of unoccupied homes across the Southwest have been reduced to ghost towns. Nothing is selling. The building boom, that began when Alan Greenspan ginned-up the Fed’s printing presses in 2002, has turned into the biggest housing bust in American history.
On top of that, the banks are tightening lending standards and shunning potential buyers just when the economy needs a boost in demand. Loan originations are down and bankers are spooked by the gathering storm in the credit markets. That means that home sales will continue to be sluggish, prices will correct more quickly, and the anticipated “soft landing” will turn into a full-blown crash.
New home construction has accounted for 2 out of every 5 new jobs created in the last 5 years. Most of those workers are either delivering pizzas, cleaning bed pans or are lining up at the soup kitchen. The BLS’s numbers on employment are bogus. It's just more government bunkum. They're predicated on a “birth-death” model that creates millions of fictitious jobs out of whole cloth. In truth, unemployment is soaring and the most vulnerable and impoverished among us are taking a beating from housing debacle.
According to the Mortgage Bankers Association of Washington, the total of mortgage loans outstanding in 2006 was $10.9 trillion; $6 trillion of which were transformed into securities. (CDOs, MBSs) About $1.5 trillion of those securities are subprime; another $1 trillion Alt-A (nearly as risky) and at least another $1.5 trillion in adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) At least 20% of these shaky liabilities/securities will default, and yet, no one really knows who is holding them on their books. All of the major financial institutions—the insurance companies, foreign banks, hedge funds, investment banks---have purchased these CDO “roadside bombs” and mixed them in with their other performing loans and hard assets. The projected explosions have already begun to take their toll on the financial giants---Citigroup and Merrill Lynch are just the latest victims; others will follow. The problem can’t be fixed with Bernanke’s low interest rates. The bad debts are everywhere and must accounted for and written down. That puts us on the threshold of a jarring market-downturn triggered by an unprecedented number of defaults that will rumble through the entire system. Bankruptcies will pop up everywhere at random. It is a blueprint for economic chaos. And it is unavoidable.
The global markets have never seen a financial typhoon of this magnitude before. Mortgage lenders, homeowners, banks, hedge funds, bond insurers, etc. will all either go under or feel the sting of a slumping market.
Many of the major investment banks are already broke; it’s clear from their own reporting. Charles Hugh Smith sums it up like this in his recent article “Empire of Debt: The Great Unraveling”:
“If their bad bets were marked to market, Citicorp and Merrill Lynch would be declared insolvent. Why? Because they are insolvent--right now. The meaning of insolvency is straightforward: their losses exceed their capital. Recall that these firms list assets of $100 billion (or whatever) but their actual net capital is on the order of 2.5% to 5%---a mere sliver of their stated assets. In other words: a 5% loss of their stated assets wipes them out…..The game is now over, and the players shuffling losses can only last a few more days or weeks.”
Up to this point, the banks have been able to place a sizeable portion of their "hard-to-value" assets in a Level 3 grab bag, which allowed company accountants to assign a value to those assets according to their own judgment. No more. The new FASB 157 regulation will force the banks to use “market prices” to determine the true value of their holdings. Some analysts believe that these new disclosure rules may result in $200 billion write-downs on assets and require that the over-leveraged banks to increase their capital reserves. That will slow down lending and put a wrinkle in the banks' bottom line. In any event, once the law is enacted; we’ll see who’s "faking" the value of their assets or as Warren Buffet says, “Who’s swimming with their clothes off.”
Professor Nouriel Roubini summed it up like this:
“The amount of losses that financial institutions have already recognized - $20 billion – is just the very tip of the iceberg of much larger losses that will end up in the hundreds of billions of dollars….Calling this crisis a sub-prime meltdown is ludicrous as by now the contagion has seriously spread to near prime and prime mortgages…And it is spreading to every corner of the securitized financial system that is either frozen or on the way to freeze….The reality is that most financial institutions have barely started to recognize the lower “fair value” of their impaired securities….The credit crunch is getting worse and its financial and real fallout will be severe.” (Nouriel Roubini blog)
The constant drumbeat of bad news is having a numbing affect on Wall Street. Traders’ are tight-lipped and downcast. Spirits are sagging. No one likes loosing money, and yet, the credit storm shows no signs of letting up anytime soon. Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial’s took another 360-point pounding before the bell rang. Another day, another bloodbath. The subprime virus has now infected the broader markets leaving the once-brawny financial giants bruised and reeling like Joe Frazier in the Thrilla in Manila. A few more down-days like yesterday and they’ll be carrying out hedge funds feet first. The stock market is looking more and more like a glass pitcher propped up on the edge of a bookshelf. One little bump, and down she goes.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Armed Northern Militias complicate Afghan security
Dostum was one of the worst of the warlords and now he is chief of staff of the Afghan army. No doubt Karzai put him there to neutralise him so to speak. Dostum is infamous for his human rights record. The warlords just moved from the battlefield into parliament but now are reforming their militias. This article also reveals that the occupying forces are using the same technique in the south as in Anbar in Iraq. They are using local militias to fight the Taliban.
Armed northern militias complicate Afghan security
Warlords, druglords in Parliament seek to carve out their own fiefdoms.
Dateline: Monday, November 05, 2007
by Ron Synovitz
Much of the world's attention on Afghanistan is now focused on the country's Pashtun-dominated south and east, where Taliban fighters are battling NATO troops and US-led coalition forces. But there is a different kind of tension in northern Afghanistan.
Illegal ethnic-Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara militias in the north appear to be using the threat of a resurgent Taliban as an excuse to hoard weapons and more forcefully protect their interests, such as ruling over land they have controlled since the Taliban's collapse or defending drug export routes that are a major source of income.
"What is happening in the north is the growing Balkanization of the country."
Experts say the entrenchment of the militias, who once fought together against the Taliban, reflects divisions and mistrust among regional commanders of different ethnicities which — if left unchecked — could exacerbate tensions in the country at a time when its security situation is already on a razor's edge.
"Obviously, what is happening in the north is really the growing Balkanization of the country," said Sam Zia-Zarifi, a spokesman for Human Rights Watch and field researcher in Afghanistan who has monitored programs by the United Nations and Afghan government to disarm the militias.
"It's been an ongoing trend in Afghanistan for warlords who are ostensibly allied with the government to entrench themselves even more fully," Zia-Zarifi told this reporter. "A lot of them are now swollen with the narcotics trade — profits from the sale of poppy and heroin. They have a lot of political clout because many of them have allies in the parliament, if they are not directly members of the parliament. And the next step is to openly flex their military muscle."
Attempts to demobilize the patchwork of rival militias across Afghanistan were once trumpeted as a necessary step toward peace and the creation of a functioning democracy. But UN officials have acknowledged that their initial voluntary disarmament program failed to reach its targets.
Militia leaders in the north still command the loyalty of thousands of fighters who can be mobilized quickly in the event of a local dispute or crisis.
Brigadier General Abdulmanan Abed, an Afghan Defense Ministry official involved the country's ongoing disarmament program, says there is an "environment of mistrust" in the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif about the Kabul government's ability to prevent Taliban infiltrations.
The commander who holds sway in Mazar-e Sharif is Abdul Rashid Dostum, a powerful general whom Afghan President Hamid Karzai appointed as chief of staff for the Afghan National Army.
Dostum is enormously popular among his fellow ethnic Uzbeks in the north. According to the London-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), Dostum also is one of several regional commanders who appear to be exploiting Kabul's preoccupation with the violence-ridden south and east in order to stake claims on their old fiefdoms.
In May, when Dostum's supporters staged protests against a controversial governor of the northern province of Jowzjan, the demonstrations turned violent — leaving at least 10 people dead and more than 40 injured.
Armed supporters of Dostum also clashed with authorities in Faryab Province in May, forcing Kabul to send in troops to quell the violence.
Provincial authorities in Jowzjan accuse Dostum's political faction, Junbish-e Melli, of rearming its supporters in the north. But Junbish representatives have repeatedly denied those accusations, telling Radio Free Europe's Radio Free Afghanistan that they are only a political group and have no weapons.
Another powerful commander accused not fully disarming and demobilizing his factional militia fighters is Mohammad Qasim Fahim.
Fahim commanded ethnic Tajik fighters from the Panjshir Valley in the former United Front — also known as the former Northern Alliance. The US-backed alliance also had included Dostum's fighters. But the former United Front disintegrated as the rival militias raced to stake out territory after the collapse of the Taliban regime.
It was Fahim's fighters who, against the pleas of the international community, seized control of Kabul when the Taliban fled Kabul in late 2001. And Fahim's Islamist political faction — Jam'iat-e Islami-yi — used its de facto control of Kabul as a negotiating position at the Bonn Conference in December of 2001.
That initially gave Jam'iat-e Islami-yi commanders control of some of the most powerful posts in Karzai's post-Taliban transitional administration — heading the ministries of Defense, the Interior, and Foreign Affairs as well as the Afghan intelligence services.
Fahim himself was Defense Minister from late 2001 thru most of 2004. But he was removed from the post in December 2004 after being accused of illegally occupying land in Kabul.
Commanders of other factional militia also have accused Fahim of hoarding weapons for his own militia fighters at a time when, as Defense Minister, he was in charge of the government demobilization efforts.
Christopher Langton, an expert on conflict and defense diplomacy at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, says that amid a perceived spread of the Taliban-led insurgency during the last two years, as well as disturbances further north and heavy fighting in the south, some former United Front commanders have decided unilaterally that they may need weapons in the future.
"Some are quite senior, some close to the government and in politics," Langton said. "And they don't see why they should have to disarm whereas groups in the south remain armed — and some of the groups in the south have actually been armed by international forces in order to fight on the side of the [Afghan] government."
Other independent experts say the lack of detailed information about local militia command structures has compromised the effectiveness of disarmament efforts.
The International Crisis Group says it is not formal militia structures, but rather, the informal structures that must be understood in order to identify commanders at the village level responsible for calling into action the militia fighters who have stashed away their weapons.
After decades of war, Langton describes the nature of Afghanistan as "a country based around armed groups." He says it is naive for anybody to think such a situation could be changed by a voluntary program to disarm and disband militia.
"If, at the beginning, there wasn't the threat of Taliban coming back [to the north], there were other reasons for retaining weapons," Langton told RFE/RL. "Self-protection in a place like Afghanistan is one reason.
"The possibility of having to guard opium convoys or heroin consignments going abroad is another reason," he said. "And the other reason is commercial — selling armed guards to local authorities to guard their properties. What I think the so-called resurgent Taliban does is to give some perceived legitimacy to [the hoarding of weapons]."
Langton says fears among non-Pashtun commanders in the north have been heightened by recent overtures in Kabul about bringing moderate Taliban into the government — an issue he says is closer to reality now than ever before.
"It does strengthen the belief amongst the former Northern [Alliance] groups that they may have to be prepared to stand up to some kind of Pashtun-dominated government," Langton said. "The United Afghan National Front opposition group, which was given birth last year, came together as a political opposition to the government largely because the people in the party feared that there might be a need to be united once again. And, of course, these are the former Northern Alliance commanders.
"The formation of this political group is an indication that there is a retention of weapons because there is a fear of increasing Taliban involvement both, possibly, in legitimate government and as a force which is encroaching further north illegally," Langton said.
Still, Langton and other experts conclude that the Afghan government is not about to face an armed insurrection by commanders from the former United Front.
They say such a development would require a degree of unity among northern militia that doesn't appear to exist. And they say the political coalition formed last year by northern commanders does not translate into an armed alliance — except at local levels where militia commanders are trying to protect their personal and vested interests.
Ron Synovitz covers Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq as well as economic transition and human rights issues. He reported on the US Army's advance from Kuwait to Baghdad as an embedded journalist (March-April 2003). Since joining RFE/RL in 1995, he also has covered the Balkans extensively — including Kosovo (1999), Macedonia's ethnic Albanian insurgency (2001), Bulgaria, and Romania. He has a master's degree in journalism from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.
Copyright (c) 2007. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N. W. Washington DC 20036.
Related addresses:
URL 1: www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/11/ffca5de1-b96c-4cdf-810b-831bec1b...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armed northern militias complicate Afghan security
Warlords, druglords in Parliament seek to carve out their own fiefdoms.
Dateline: Monday, November 05, 2007
by Ron Synovitz
Much of the world's attention on Afghanistan is now focused on the country's Pashtun-dominated south and east, where Taliban fighters are battling NATO troops and US-led coalition forces. But there is a different kind of tension in northern Afghanistan.
Illegal ethnic-Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara militias in the north appear to be using the threat of a resurgent Taliban as an excuse to hoard weapons and more forcefully protect their interests, such as ruling over land they have controlled since the Taliban's collapse or defending drug export routes that are a major source of income.
"What is happening in the north is the growing Balkanization of the country."
Experts say the entrenchment of the militias, who once fought together against the Taliban, reflects divisions and mistrust among regional commanders of different ethnicities which — if left unchecked — could exacerbate tensions in the country at a time when its security situation is already on a razor's edge.
"Obviously, what is happening in the north is really the growing Balkanization of the country," said Sam Zia-Zarifi, a spokesman for Human Rights Watch and field researcher in Afghanistan who has monitored programs by the United Nations and Afghan government to disarm the militias.
"It's been an ongoing trend in Afghanistan for warlords who are ostensibly allied with the government to entrench themselves even more fully," Zia-Zarifi told this reporter. "A lot of them are now swollen with the narcotics trade — profits from the sale of poppy and heroin. They have a lot of political clout because many of them have allies in the parliament, if they are not directly members of the parliament. And the next step is to openly flex their military muscle."
Attempts to demobilize the patchwork of rival militias across Afghanistan were once trumpeted as a necessary step toward peace and the creation of a functioning democracy. But UN officials have acknowledged that their initial voluntary disarmament program failed to reach its targets.
Militia leaders in the north still command the loyalty of thousands of fighters who can be mobilized quickly in the event of a local dispute or crisis.
Brigadier General Abdulmanan Abed, an Afghan Defense Ministry official involved the country's ongoing disarmament program, says there is an "environment of mistrust" in the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif about the Kabul government's ability to prevent Taliban infiltrations.
The commander who holds sway in Mazar-e Sharif is Abdul Rashid Dostum, a powerful general whom Afghan President Hamid Karzai appointed as chief of staff for the Afghan National Army.
Dostum is enormously popular among his fellow ethnic Uzbeks in the north. According to the London-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), Dostum also is one of several regional commanders who appear to be exploiting Kabul's preoccupation with the violence-ridden south and east in order to stake claims on their old fiefdoms.
In May, when Dostum's supporters staged protests against a controversial governor of the northern province of Jowzjan, the demonstrations turned violent — leaving at least 10 people dead and more than 40 injured.
Armed supporters of Dostum also clashed with authorities in Faryab Province in May, forcing Kabul to send in troops to quell the violence.
Provincial authorities in Jowzjan accuse Dostum's political faction, Junbish-e Melli, of rearming its supporters in the north. But Junbish representatives have repeatedly denied those accusations, telling Radio Free Europe's Radio Free Afghanistan that they are only a political group and have no weapons.
Another powerful commander accused not fully disarming and demobilizing his factional militia fighters is Mohammad Qasim Fahim.
Fahim commanded ethnic Tajik fighters from the Panjshir Valley in the former United Front — also known as the former Northern Alliance. The US-backed alliance also had included Dostum's fighters. But the former United Front disintegrated as the rival militias raced to stake out territory after the collapse of the Taliban regime.
It was Fahim's fighters who, against the pleas of the international community, seized control of Kabul when the Taliban fled Kabul in late 2001. And Fahim's Islamist political faction — Jam'iat-e Islami-yi — used its de facto control of Kabul as a negotiating position at the Bonn Conference in December of 2001.
That initially gave Jam'iat-e Islami-yi commanders control of some of the most powerful posts in Karzai's post-Taliban transitional administration — heading the ministries of Defense, the Interior, and Foreign Affairs as well as the Afghan intelligence services.
Fahim himself was Defense Minister from late 2001 thru most of 2004. But he was removed from the post in December 2004 after being accused of illegally occupying land in Kabul.
Commanders of other factional militia also have accused Fahim of hoarding weapons for his own militia fighters at a time when, as Defense Minister, he was in charge of the government demobilization efforts.
Christopher Langton, an expert on conflict and defense diplomacy at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, says that amid a perceived spread of the Taliban-led insurgency during the last two years, as well as disturbances further north and heavy fighting in the south, some former United Front commanders have decided unilaterally that they may need weapons in the future.
"Some are quite senior, some close to the government and in politics," Langton said. "And they don't see why they should have to disarm whereas groups in the south remain armed — and some of the groups in the south have actually been armed by international forces in order to fight on the side of the [Afghan] government."
Other independent experts say the lack of detailed information about local militia command structures has compromised the effectiveness of disarmament efforts.
The International Crisis Group says it is not formal militia structures, but rather, the informal structures that must be understood in order to identify commanders at the village level responsible for calling into action the militia fighters who have stashed away their weapons.
After decades of war, Langton describes the nature of Afghanistan as "a country based around armed groups." He says it is naive for anybody to think such a situation could be changed by a voluntary program to disarm and disband militia.
"If, at the beginning, there wasn't the threat of Taliban coming back [to the north], there were other reasons for retaining weapons," Langton told RFE/RL. "Self-protection in a place like Afghanistan is one reason.
"The possibility of having to guard opium convoys or heroin consignments going abroad is another reason," he said. "And the other reason is commercial — selling armed guards to local authorities to guard their properties. What I think the so-called resurgent Taliban does is to give some perceived legitimacy to [the hoarding of weapons]."
Langton says fears among non-Pashtun commanders in the north have been heightened by recent overtures in Kabul about bringing moderate Taliban into the government — an issue he says is closer to reality now than ever before.
"It does strengthen the belief amongst the former Northern [Alliance] groups that they may have to be prepared to stand up to some kind of Pashtun-dominated government," Langton said. "The United Afghan National Front opposition group, which was given birth last year, came together as a political opposition to the government largely because the people in the party feared that there might be a need to be united once again. And, of course, these are the former Northern Alliance commanders.
"The formation of this political group is an indication that there is a retention of weapons because there is a fear of increasing Taliban involvement both, possibly, in legitimate government and as a force which is encroaching further north illegally," Langton said.
Still, Langton and other experts conclude that the Afghan government is not about to face an armed insurrection by commanders from the former United Front.
They say such a development would require a degree of unity among northern militia that doesn't appear to exist. And they say the political coalition formed last year by northern commanders does not translate into an armed alliance — except at local levels where militia commanders are trying to protect their personal and vested interests.
Ron Synovitz covers Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq as well as economic transition and human rights issues. He reported on the US Army's advance from Kuwait to Baghdad as an embedded journalist (March-April 2003). Since joining RFE/RL in 1995, he also has covered the Balkans extensively — including Kosovo (1999), Macedonia's ethnic Albanian insurgency (2001), Bulgaria, and Romania. He has a master's degree in journalism from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.
Copyright (c) 2007. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N. W. Washington DC 20036.
Related addresses:
URL 1: www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/11/ffca5de1-b96c-4cdf-810b-831bec1b...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satellite photos don't lie.
It is strange that most reports do not mention that the area has no fence and no guards! The whole episode does sound fishy with all sorts of wild speculation and unverified accusations.
Satellite photos don’t lie
*Details of Syria ‘nuke site bombing’ emanate familiar scent of
political spin *
B. Michael
Published: 11.07.07, 20:04 / Israel Opinion
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3468755,00.html
The story known as “the operation in Syria” (according to foreign
sources: an Israeli bombing of a Syrian target) continues to stir the
imagination of journalists across the world. Not a week goes by without
yet another hair-raising twist being reported regarding this
mythological incident.
Last week we saw Aviation Week, a respectable magazine by all means,
join the ranks of storytellers. It told its readers that Israeli
satellite Ofek 7, which was launched to space in June 2007, directed
the
first accusatory finger at the site suspected of being a nuclear
reactor.
Meanwhile, al-Jazeera went as far as taking the Israeli Air Force out
of
the story, attributed the mission to the American Air Force, and
informed its viewers that the site was hit by a “tactical nuclear
bomb.”
No less.
As we recall, the Sunday Times reported that the IDF’s elite Sayeret
Matkal unit was part of the celebration and told its readers how those
guys infiltrated the Syrian desert in the middle of the night and
marked
the target with lasers. The newspaper did not detail whether only Jean
Claude Van Damme took part in the operation, or Tom Cruise as well.
Each legend of this sort is marketed enthusiastically, read
passionately, and then spreads from one newspaper to another, from one
channel to another, and from one website to another, as if it was some
kind of contagious virus immune to doubts.
Yet the questions, doubts, and bewilderment refuse to go away. Here is
a
hint below:
* Initially, the 2007 satellite images were published, as if the
suspicious structure was only discovered this year (see the
abovementioned Aviation Week report.) However, soon after that,
images from September 2003 surfaced, and it turned out that the
American intelligence community has been familiar with this
structure for four years. Why then did persistent leaks to
newspapers claim that Israel was the one that relayed the
information to the Americans? Isn’t it more logical that it was
the other way around?
* Any child with a personal computer can view (even now) the
“reactor” using Google Earth. The coordinates are as follows:
35.42’24.68 – North; 39.49’56.44 – East. Those who do
this will
realize quickly that this story is even more ancient than
thought.
The main structure in Google can be seen clearly and sharply, but
the other two structures are completely absent from the images
–
the “pumping station” on the riverbank and the rectangular
building a bit north of the “reactor.” In the images from
2003, we
can already see some of the rectangular structure, but the
“pumping station” is still absent. One does not need to be a
genius to realize that Google’s satellite images were shot even
before September 2003. That is, this “reactor’ was at least
five-years-old. Perhaps more. So what exactly happened that made
the operation so urgent and essential?
* Close scrutiny of Google Earth elicits an almost grotesque
finding. This “reactor” is not surrounded by any fence. There
is
no wall there either, no watchtowers, no residential structures,
no patrol roads, no anti-aircraft positions, and no
barracks…nothing. Just like that, on the riverbank, between two
civilian roads, lies a nuclear reactor, and we don’t even see a
guard post in the periphery. Does this sound serious? Recently,
so
it seems, someone directed Israel’s attention to this
embarrassing
inconsistency. Quickly, a wonderful excuse was found: this
facility was so secretive that even the Syrian army didn’t know
about it, and therefore it was unguarded. It appears that it’s
much likelier to assume that this reactor was so secretive that
nobody in Syria knew about its existence. Only the Israelis knew.
* One must completely lack a sense of smell in order not to sense
the heavy familiar scent emanating from this story: The scent of
a
political-intelligence spin incredibly similar to the pre-Iraq
War
spin. A sequence of circular and manipulative intelligence
schemes, piles of nonsense premised on tidbits of information,
and
the exploitation of this entire mess for the sake of political
objectives of various leaders and their camps, both here and in
the United States.
As we excitedly read the Sunday Times legends and eagerly go over
Aviation Week’s tales, we should dedicate a few minutes of thought to
the abovementioned option as well.
___________________________________
Satellite photos don’t lie
*Details of Syria ‘nuke site bombing’ emanate familiar scent of
political spin *
B. Michael
Published: 11.07.07, 20:04 / Israel Opinion
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3468755,00.html
The story known as “the operation in Syria” (according to foreign
sources: an Israeli bombing of a Syrian target) continues to stir the
imagination of journalists across the world. Not a week goes by without
yet another hair-raising twist being reported regarding this
mythological incident.
Last week we saw Aviation Week, a respectable magazine by all means,
join the ranks of storytellers. It told its readers that Israeli
satellite Ofek 7, which was launched to space in June 2007, directed
the
first accusatory finger at the site suspected of being a nuclear
reactor.
Meanwhile, al-Jazeera went as far as taking the Israeli Air Force out
of
the story, attributed the mission to the American Air Force, and
informed its viewers that the site was hit by a “tactical nuclear
bomb.”
No less.
As we recall, the Sunday Times reported that the IDF’s elite Sayeret
Matkal unit was part of the celebration and told its readers how those
guys infiltrated the Syrian desert in the middle of the night and
marked
the target with lasers. The newspaper did not detail whether only Jean
Claude Van Damme took part in the operation, or Tom Cruise as well.
Each legend of this sort is marketed enthusiastically, read
passionately, and then spreads from one newspaper to another, from one
channel to another, and from one website to another, as if it was some
kind of contagious virus immune to doubts.
Yet the questions, doubts, and bewilderment refuse to go away. Here is
a
hint below:
* Initially, the 2007 satellite images were published, as if the
suspicious structure was only discovered this year (see the
abovementioned Aviation Week report.) However, soon after that,
images from September 2003 surfaced, and it turned out that the
American intelligence community has been familiar with this
structure for four years. Why then did persistent leaks to
newspapers claim that Israel was the one that relayed the
information to the Americans? Isn’t it more logical that it was
the other way around?
* Any child with a personal computer can view (even now) the
“reactor” using Google Earth. The coordinates are as follows:
35.42’24.68 – North; 39.49’56.44 – East. Those who do
this will
realize quickly that this story is even more ancient than
thought.
The main structure in Google can be seen clearly and sharply, but
the other two structures are completely absent from the images
–
the “pumping station” on the riverbank and the rectangular
building a bit north of the “reactor.” In the images from
2003, we
can already see some of the rectangular structure, but the
“pumping station” is still absent. One does not need to be a
genius to realize that Google’s satellite images were shot even
before September 2003. That is, this “reactor’ was at least
five-years-old. Perhaps more. So what exactly happened that made
the operation so urgent and essential?
* Close scrutiny of Google Earth elicits an almost grotesque
finding. This “reactor” is not surrounded by any fence. There
is
no wall there either, no watchtowers, no residential structures,
no patrol roads, no anti-aircraft positions, and no
barracks…nothing. Just like that, on the riverbank, between two
civilian roads, lies a nuclear reactor, and we don’t even see a
guard post in the periphery. Does this sound serious? Recently,
so
it seems, someone directed Israel’s attention to this
embarrassing
inconsistency. Quickly, a wonderful excuse was found: this
facility was so secretive that even the Syrian army didn’t know
about it, and therefore it was unguarded. It appears that it’s
much likelier to assume that this reactor was so secretive that
nobody in Syria knew about its existence. Only the Israelis knew.
* One must completely lack a sense of smell in order not to sense
the heavy familiar scent emanating from this story: The scent of
a
political-intelligence spin incredibly similar to the pre-Iraq
War
spin. A sequence of circular and manipulative intelligence
schemes, piles of nonsense premised on tidbits of information,
and
the exploitation of this entire mess for the sake of political
objectives of various leaders and their camps, both here and in
the United States.
As we excitedly read the Sunday Times legends and eagerly go over
Aviation Week’s tales, we should dedicate a few minutes of thought to
the abovementioned option as well.
___________________________________
China's Billionaires
Chairman Mao must be turning over in his grave. The handful of capitalist roaders are now firmly in control. Socialism with Chines characteristics means catching up and surpassing the US in numbers of billionaires. A role model is an entrepreneur who works from 8AM to 2AM to make money and has no time to enjoy what it can buy! This is the new way to serve the Maoist slogan: Serve the people!
Little-Known Entrepreneurs Putting China Near Top of Billionaires’
List
By DAVID BARBOZA
New York Times
November 7, 2007
SHANGHAI, Nov. 6 — The United States has more billionaires than any
other
country: 415 by the last count of Forbes magazine.
No. 2, and closing fast? China.
A year ago, there were 15 billionaires in China. Now, there are more
than
100, according to the widely watched Hurun Report. Forbes has
documented 66.
Unlike America’s rich, China’s are hardly famous, even here. Bill
Gates and
Warren E. Buffett are known around the world. But Yang Huiyan and Robin
Li?
Yet, who they are, and what they decide to do — or are allowed to do
— with
their money and newfound influence will have political and economic
consequences in China and probably far beyond, analysts say.
“They could start buying companies in the U.S.,” Chang Chun, an
economist at
the China Europe International Business School in Shanghai, said.
“They have
so much influence.”
Thanks to the capitalist stock mania sweeping the Communist mainland,
Chinese private and state-owned companies issuing stock for the first
time
are becoming the most valuable companies in the world — at least on
paper —
often overnight.
On Tuesday, Alibaba.com, one of China’s biggest Internet companies,
had a
blockbuster stock offering, raising nearly as much as Google and
soaring 193
percent on its first day of trading.
That came after the debut on Monday of the state-owned energy company
PetroChina on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Its market valuation ran up
to
more than $1 trillion, topping that of any company in history.
Analysts are skeptical about the way China’s stocks are valued,
particularly
those like PetroChina with huge amounts of untradable government
shares. But
on paper it has dethroned Exxon Mobil as the most valuable company in
the
world.
Similarly, China Mobile is the world’s most valuable
telecommunications
company. The state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which
was
nearly insolvent a decade ago, is worth more than Citigroup.
And when Country Garden, a southern China real estate company, went
public
in April, its initial public offering was bigger than Google’s.
But many analysts argue that there is nothing underlying the
skyrocketing
values, or that the obscure finances of the companies make it
impossible to
know their true value. And if China’s stock market is a bubble, the
new
billionaires will disappear as quickly as they rose.
“A lot of people are surprised at how fast this has happened,” said
Jing
Ulrich, an analyst at JPMorgan. “But this is the power of the capital
markets. A lot of people’s wealth is based on newly listed
companies.”
After a nearly decade-long bear market for Chinese stocks, investors
here
are in party mode. The Shanghai Stock Market is up nearly 400 percent
in two
years. The Hong Kong Stock Exchange is shattering records.
The emergence of the superwealthy is a dramatic turnaround in a country
that
once branded enemies of the state “capitalist roaders.”
But in the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping broke with Maoist dogma by saying,
“to get
rich is glorious,” setting off a wild scramble that has produced a
generation of hungry entrepreneurs.
Many analysts believe the Chinese are so new to this type of money that
they
themselves do not know what they will do with it, assuming it lasts.
As much as the bounty of billionaires is a source of pride, it is also
a
potential cause for concern in a nominally Communist country. Per
capita
income in China is less than $1,000 a year.
“One issue is social stability,” says Emmanuel Saez, a professor of
economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “In Latin
America you
had such a concentration that revolutionaries wanted to redistribute
it.”
Perhaps for that reason, many wealthy Chinese entrepreneurs fight to
stay
off the rich lists. Plus, the early lists of wealthy often led to
unwanted
scrutiny, including investigations and jail for some on tax evasion or
corruption charges.
But times have changed.
With the economy of China roaring and entrepreneurs sensing a golden
age of
stock riches, everyone seems to be mouthing the words “shang shi,”
Chinese
for initial public offering.
Among the most celebrated are the young Internet tycoons. Robin Li, the
38-year-old founder of Baidu, which is called China’s Google, is now
worth
about $2.4 billion, making him richer than Jerry Yang of Yahoo. Ma
Huateng,
36, of Tencent, another Internet giant, is worth $1.9 billion. And
Jason N.
Jiang, the 34-year-old founder of Focus Media, is worth $1.1 billion.
Mr. Jiang grew up in Shanghai, and studied literature before turning
his
focus to business while in college. He says he started out selling
advertising in Shanghai and then, in 1997, formed what is now Focus
Media
with the idea of placing video monitors broadcasting advertisements in
elevators, apartment complexes, supermarkets, and even on street
corners.
With the help of Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse, Focus Media went
public in
2005 on the Nasdaq — and its shares have jumped about 800 percent in
two
years.
But it may be ambition more than money, at least so far, that motivates
him.
“I want this company to be the greatest media group — the greatest
media
company in the world,” he said in an interview. “I want Focus Media
in every
part of the world.”
He says he works 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., and does not feel tired. He also
says he
has no time for anything else, including spending his enormous wealth.
He
has upgraded to a nicer home in recent years, he says, but has little
time
for sports or anything else. He is single and works through lunch at
his
desk, buying a $2.50 take-out meal nearly every day.
“I think this is typical,” he says of successful entrepreneurs in
China.
Experts call entrepreneurs like Mr. Jiang the country’s best hope for
innovation.
“These young 30-something-year-old entrepreneurs have become
billionaires,
and they’ve become role models for others,” says Chen Zhiwu, a
professor of
finance at Yale University. “They have totally energized Chinese
entrepreneurs.”
In fact, after Forbes and the Hurun Report, which tracks the wealthy,
published their rich lists this fall, the government in Hunan Province,
Mao’s
birthplace in central China, seemed to complain that the province was
not
accurately represented.
The Hunan provincial government posted its own rich list on its
provincial
Web site, as if to say: people from Hunan are great entrepreneurs, too.
While Forbes this year estimates that there are 66 billionaires in
China,
Rupert Hoogewerf, publisher of The Hurun Report, has already found more
than
100, and there could be many more, he says.
Mr. Hoogewerf also says that 6 of the 10 richest self-made women in the
world are from China, including Zhang Yin, the founder of Nine Dragons
Paper, which collects recycled paper from the United States and turns
it
into boxes in China.
The richest person in China, since last April, is also a woman: Yang
Huiyan
of Country Garden, the real estate company.
Ms. Yang, 26, who did not grant an interview, is No. 1 on both rich
lists,
and easily the richest woman in Asia. A graduate of Ohio State
University,
she is worth about $16 billion, making her richer than George Soros,
Rupert
Murdoch and Steven P. Jobs.
Her father, a real estate developer in southern China, gave her most of
the
family’s fortune in stock, just before Country Garden’s blockbuster
Hong
Kong initial public offering.
In keeping with their reputation for discretion, of about 15
billionaires
contacted recently, only one, Mr. Jiang, agreed to an interview. They
tend
to hide their billions, friends say, sometimes with offshore purchases.
Some
even boast that they still get a $2 haircut.
Their stories, though, are remarkable. Huang Guangyu, 38, grew up in a
poor
village in southern China, where he and his brother sold plastic
bottles and
newspapers. Now, he controls Gome, one of the country’s most popular
electronics stores.
Li Ning won three gymnastics gold medals at the 1984 Olympics in Los
Angeles. Later, he founded a sporting goods company, took it public and
signed Shaquille O’Neal to a sneaker contract. Now, Mr. Li is richer
than
Tiger Woods.
The rise of the Chinese billionaire is remarkable not just because of
the
speed with which it has happened — the country only opened up to
capitalism
25 years ago — but because it happened without the help of a single
global
brand, no Sony or Toyota. (Japan has only 24 billionaires.)
Indeed, China’s wealthiest, largely real estate tycoons (35) and
manufacturers, appear singularly focused on making it inside China, not
outside.
That is the next challenge of the billionaires. And some are already
embracing it.
Shi Zhengrong studied physics and solar energy in Australia before
returning
to China in 2001 to start up Suntech Power. Six years later, Mr.
Shi’s solar
energy company is valued at $9 billion, its stock price up over 300
percent
since the public stock offering in December 2005.
In an interview earlier this year at his Shanghai headquarters, Mr. Shi
insisted that solar power will play a role in China’s development.
And as he
finished the meeting, he smiled and said, “Some day, this company
will be as
big as Microsoft.”
___________________________________
Little-Known Entrepreneurs Putting China Near Top of Billionaires’
List
By DAVID BARBOZA
New York Times
November 7, 2007
SHANGHAI, Nov. 6 — The United States has more billionaires than any
other
country: 415 by the last count of Forbes magazine.
No. 2, and closing fast? China.
A year ago, there were 15 billionaires in China. Now, there are more
than
100, according to the widely watched Hurun Report. Forbes has
documented 66.
Unlike America’s rich, China’s are hardly famous, even here. Bill
Gates and
Warren E. Buffett are known around the world. But Yang Huiyan and Robin
Li?
Yet, who they are, and what they decide to do — or are allowed to do
— with
their money and newfound influence will have political and economic
consequences in China and probably far beyond, analysts say.
“They could start buying companies in the U.S.,” Chang Chun, an
economist at
the China Europe International Business School in Shanghai, said.
“They have
so much influence.”
Thanks to the capitalist stock mania sweeping the Communist mainland,
Chinese private and state-owned companies issuing stock for the first
time
are becoming the most valuable companies in the world — at least on
paper —
often overnight.
On Tuesday, Alibaba.com, one of China’s biggest Internet companies,
had a
blockbuster stock offering, raising nearly as much as Google and
soaring 193
percent on its first day of trading.
That came after the debut on Monday of the state-owned energy company
PetroChina on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Its market valuation ran up
to
more than $1 trillion, topping that of any company in history.
Analysts are skeptical about the way China’s stocks are valued,
particularly
those like PetroChina with huge amounts of untradable government
shares. But
on paper it has dethroned Exxon Mobil as the most valuable company in
the
world.
Similarly, China Mobile is the world’s most valuable
telecommunications
company. The state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which
was
nearly insolvent a decade ago, is worth more than Citigroup.
And when Country Garden, a southern China real estate company, went
public
in April, its initial public offering was bigger than Google’s.
But many analysts argue that there is nothing underlying the
skyrocketing
values, or that the obscure finances of the companies make it
impossible to
know their true value. And if China’s stock market is a bubble, the
new
billionaires will disappear as quickly as they rose.
“A lot of people are surprised at how fast this has happened,” said
Jing
Ulrich, an analyst at JPMorgan. “But this is the power of the capital
markets. A lot of people’s wealth is based on newly listed
companies.”
After a nearly decade-long bear market for Chinese stocks, investors
here
are in party mode. The Shanghai Stock Market is up nearly 400 percent
in two
years. The Hong Kong Stock Exchange is shattering records.
The emergence of the superwealthy is a dramatic turnaround in a country
that
once branded enemies of the state “capitalist roaders.”
But in the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping broke with Maoist dogma by saying,
“to get
rich is glorious,” setting off a wild scramble that has produced a
generation of hungry entrepreneurs.
Many analysts believe the Chinese are so new to this type of money that
they
themselves do not know what they will do with it, assuming it lasts.
As much as the bounty of billionaires is a source of pride, it is also
a
potential cause for concern in a nominally Communist country. Per
capita
income in China is less than $1,000 a year.
“One issue is social stability,” says Emmanuel Saez, a professor of
economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “In Latin
America you
had such a concentration that revolutionaries wanted to redistribute
it.”
Perhaps for that reason, many wealthy Chinese entrepreneurs fight to
stay
off the rich lists. Plus, the early lists of wealthy often led to
unwanted
scrutiny, including investigations and jail for some on tax evasion or
corruption charges.
But times have changed.
With the economy of China roaring and entrepreneurs sensing a golden
age of
stock riches, everyone seems to be mouthing the words “shang shi,”
Chinese
for initial public offering.
Among the most celebrated are the young Internet tycoons. Robin Li, the
38-year-old founder of Baidu, which is called China’s Google, is now
worth
about $2.4 billion, making him richer than Jerry Yang of Yahoo. Ma
Huateng,
36, of Tencent, another Internet giant, is worth $1.9 billion. And
Jason N.
Jiang, the 34-year-old founder of Focus Media, is worth $1.1 billion.
Mr. Jiang grew up in Shanghai, and studied literature before turning
his
focus to business while in college. He says he started out selling
advertising in Shanghai and then, in 1997, formed what is now Focus
Media
with the idea of placing video monitors broadcasting advertisements in
elevators, apartment complexes, supermarkets, and even on street
corners.
With the help of Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse, Focus Media went
public in
2005 on the Nasdaq — and its shares have jumped about 800 percent in
two
years.
But it may be ambition more than money, at least so far, that motivates
him.
“I want this company to be the greatest media group — the greatest
media
company in the world,” he said in an interview. “I want Focus Media
in every
part of the world.”
He says he works 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., and does not feel tired. He also
says he
has no time for anything else, including spending his enormous wealth.
He
has upgraded to a nicer home in recent years, he says, but has little
time
for sports or anything else. He is single and works through lunch at
his
desk, buying a $2.50 take-out meal nearly every day.
“I think this is typical,” he says of successful entrepreneurs in
China.
Experts call entrepreneurs like Mr. Jiang the country’s best hope for
innovation.
“These young 30-something-year-old entrepreneurs have become
billionaires,
and they’ve become role models for others,” says Chen Zhiwu, a
professor of
finance at Yale University. “They have totally energized Chinese
entrepreneurs.”
In fact, after Forbes and the Hurun Report, which tracks the wealthy,
published their rich lists this fall, the government in Hunan Province,
Mao’s
birthplace in central China, seemed to complain that the province was
not
accurately represented.
The Hunan provincial government posted its own rich list on its
provincial
Web site, as if to say: people from Hunan are great entrepreneurs, too.
While Forbes this year estimates that there are 66 billionaires in
China,
Rupert Hoogewerf, publisher of The Hurun Report, has already found more
than
100, and there could be many more, he says.
Mr. Hoogewerf also says that 6 of the 10 richest self-made women in the
world are from China, including Zhang Yin, the founder of Nine Dragons
Paper, which collects recycled paper from the United States and turns
it
into boxes in China.
The richest person in China, since last April, is also a woman: Yang
Huiyan
of Country Garden, the real estate company.
Ms. Yang, 26, who did not grant an interview, is No. 1 on both rich
lists,
and easily the richest woman in Asia. A graduate of Ohio State
University,
she is worth about $16 billion, making her richer than George Soros,
Rupert
Murdoch and Steven P. Jobs.
Her father, a real estate developer in southern China, gave her most of
the
family’s fortune in stock, just before Country Garden’s blockbuster
Hong
Kong initial public offering.
In keeping with their reputation for discretion, of about 15
billionaires
contacted recently, only one, Mr. Jiang, agreed to an interview. They
tend
to hide their billions, friends say, sometimes with offshore purchases.
Some
even boast that they still get a $2 haircut.
Their stories, though, are remarkable. Huang Guangyu, 38, grew up in a
poor
village in southern China, where he and his brother sold plastic
bottles and
newspapers. Now, he controls Gome, one of the country’s most popular
electronics stores.
Li Ning won three gymnastics gold medals at the 1984 Olympics in Los
Angeles. Later, he founded a sporting goods company, took it public and
signed Shaquille O’Neal to a sneaker contract. Now, Mr. Li is richer
than
Tiger Woods.
The rise of the Chinese billionaire is remarkable not just because of
the
speed with which it has happened — the country only opened up to
capitalism
25 years ago — but because it happened without the help of a single
global
brand, no Sony or Toyota. (Japan has only 24 billionaires.)
Indeed, China’s wealthiest, largely real estate tycoons (35) and
manufacturers, appear singularly focused on making it inside China, not
outside.
That is the next challenge of the billionaires. And some are already
embracing it.
Shi Zhengrong studied physics and solar energy in Australia before
returning
to China in 2001 to start up Suntech Power. Six years later, Mr.
Shi’s solar
energy company is valued at $9 billion, its stock price up over 300
percent
since the public stock offering in December 2005.
In an interview earlier this year at his Shanghai headquarters, Mr. Shi
insisted that solar power will play a role in China’s development.
And as he
finished the meeting, he smiled and said, “Some day, this company
will be as
big as Microsoft.”
___________________________________
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
US to release Iranians in Iraq
Finally they are to be released after ignoring Iraqi demands since January. No apology, no charges, nothing. Kurdish authorities are obviously not intent on conflict with Iran but developing closer relationships. I wonder why 'to release' is in scare quotes. Were they not really being held!! This is from the BBC a news service which is trying to become FOX news over the pond at least sometimes.
US 'to release' Iranians in Iraq
Iran and Kurdish leaders have been trying to improve relations
The US military in Iraq says it intends to release nine Iranians being held there, including two detained on suspicion of helping Shia militias.
They were among five Iranians who Tehran insists are diplomats seized in the Kurdish city of Irbil in January.
The announcement came as Iran opened two consulates in northern Iraq to improve ties with the Kurdish region.
Iran's ambassador said the detention of the five men was an "illegal act against Iraqi sovereignty".
The Iranian consulate in Irbil was located in the same building that was raided by the US forces in January.
A US military spokesman said the individuals being released were of "no continuing value, nor do they pose a further threat to Iraqi security".
No details were given about the other seven that the spokesman, Rear Admiral Greg Smith, said would be released "in the near future".
Separately, Rear Adm Smith said five US soldiers were killed in two roadside bomb attacks in Iraq on Monday.
Washington accuses Tehran of training and supplying Shia militias with weapons and military training used against US soldiers in Iraq.
Iran denies the charge and blames continued violence on the US-led invasion of the country in 2003 and the presence of US troops.
Also on Monday, the US military said a mass grave had been discovered north-west of Baghdad, containing 22 bodies.
The grave was found by Iraqi troops on Saturday in the Lake Thar Thar region, during an operation targeting al-Qaeda militants.
The Iraqi authorities are trying to establish the identities of those found in the grave, and the causes of their deaths.
US 'to release' Iranians in Iraq
Iran and Kurdish leaders have been trying to improve relations
The US military in Iraq says it intends to release nine Iranians being held there, including two detained on suspicion of helping Shia militias.
They were among five Iranians who Tehran insists are diplomats seized in the Kurdish city of Irbil in January.
The announcement came as Iran opened two consulates in northern Iraq to improve ties with the Kurdish region.
Iran's ambassador said the detention of the five men was an "illegal act against Iraqi sovereignty".
The Iranian consulate in Irbil was located in the same building that was raided by the US forces in January.
A US military spokesman said the individuals being released were of "no continuing value, nor do they pose a further threat to Iraqi security".
No details were given about the other seven that the spokesman, Rear Admiral Greg Smith, said would be released "in the near future".
Separately, Rear Adm Smith said five US soldiers were killed in two roadside bomb attacks in Iraq on Monday.
Washington accuses Tehran of training and supplying Shia militias with weapons and military training used against US soldiers in Iraq.
Iran denies the charge and blames continued violence on the US-led invasion of the country in 2003 and the presence of US troops.
Also on Monday, the US military said a mass grave had been discovered north-west of Baghdad, containing 22 bodies.
The grave was found by Iraqi troops on Saturday in the Lake Thar Thar region, during an operation targeting al-Qaeda militants.
The Iraqi authorities are trying to establish the identities of those found in the grave, and the causes of their deaths.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Pakistan says to hold election by January
Apparently Musharaff changed his mind after the US complained about the election being postponed. So far Bhutto and her supporters are not being arrested. It remains to be seen if this will last. Bhutto has claimed that she may have her supporters join demonstrations.
Pakistan says to hold election by January
Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:07 PM EST
By Kamran Haider and Augustine Anthony
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan said it would hold a national election by mid-January and President Pervez Musharraf pledged to quit the military after criticism from the United States for imposing emergency rule.
Musharraf has detained hundreds of lawyers and opposition politicians since taking emergency powers on Saturday, a move seen as designed to pre-empt a Supreme Court ruling on his re-election as president last month.
U.S. President George W. Bush, who values Musharraf as an ally in his battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban, urged Pakistan's president to lift the state of emergency, hold elections and quit his military post.
Police used teargas against stone-throwing lawyers in the eastern city of Lahore, and wielded batons to break up another protest by dozens outside the High Court in Karachi.
It had been unclear whether parliamentary elections would go ahead in January as scheduled.
But Attorney General Malik Abdul Qayyum told Reuters there would be no delay and national and provincial assemblies would be dissolved by November 15 ahead of the vote that is supposed to transform Pakistan into a civilian-led democracy.
There was no indication of when Musharraf would lift emergency rule, which he justified by citing a hostile judiciary and rising militancy. However he said on Monday he planned to give up his military role in nuclear-armed Pakistan.
"I am determined to execute this third stage of transition fully and I'm determined to remove my uniform once we correct these pillars in judiciary and the executive and the parliament," he said on state-run Pakistan Television.
Musharraf, who seized power in 1999 and had been waiting for the Supreme Court to decide if his re-election as president while still army chief was valid, had to dismiss rumors sweeping the country that he had been put under house arrest.
"WE WANT A FREE ELECTION"
Since Pakistan was formed in 1947 by the partition of India after British colonial rule, it has reeled from one crisis to another and spent half its 60 years ruled by generals.
Security has deteriorated since July, when commandos stormed Islamabad's Red Mosque to crush an armed Islamist movement. Since then nearly 800 people have been killed in militant-linked violence, half of them by suicide attacks.
The United States has put future aid to Pakistan under review, having provided $10 billion in the past five years, and postponed defense talks with Pakistan due this week.
"We expect there to be elections as soon as possible and that the president should remove his military uniform," Bush said in Washington.
But softening his remarks, Bush said Musharraf "has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals ... After all they tried to kill him three or four times."
In Islamabad, several hundred lawyers, chanting "Go Musharraf Go!" and "The dictator is unacceptable!," protested outside courts until police broke them up by force.
Several judges were held incommunicado at their homes after refusing to back emergency rule. Among them was dismissed chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who became a symbol of resistance to Musharraf's rule after defying pressure to quit in March.
"It is the duty of all citizens of the country and lawyers in particular to continue their struggle for the supremacy of the constitution, rule of law, independence of judiciary and real democracy," Chaudhry said in a statement.
There have also been mass detentions of political activists.
(Additional reporting by Sahar Ahmed, Ovais Subhani in Karachi, Zeeshan Haider, Kamran Haider and Sheree Sardar in Islamabad)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2007.
Pakistan says to hold election by January
Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:07 PM EST
By Kamran Haider and Augustine Anthony
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan said it would hold a national election by mid-January and President Pervez Musharraf pledged to quit the military after criticism from the United States for imposing emergency rule.
Musharraf has detained hundreds of lawyers and opposition politicians since taking emergency powers on Saturday, a move seen as designed to pre-empt a Supreme Court ruling on his re-election as president last month.
U.S. President George W. Bush, who values Musharraf as an ally in his battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban, urged Pakistan's president to lift the state of emergency, hold elections and quit his military post.
Police used teargas against stone-throwing lawyers in the eastern city of Lahore, and wielded batons to break up another protest by dozens outside the High Court in Karachi.
It had been unclear whether parliamentary elections would go ahead in January as scheduled.
But Attorney General Malik Abdul Qayyum told Reuters there would be no delay and national and provincial assemblies would be dissolved by November 15 ahead of the vote that is supposed to transform Pakistan into a civilian-led democracy.
There was no indication of when Musharraf would lift emergency rule, which he justified by citing a hostile judiciary and rising militancy. However he said on Monday he planned to give up his military role in nuclear-armed Pakistan.
"I am determined to execute this third stage of transition fully and I'm determined to remove my uniform once we correct these pillars in judiciary and the executive and the parliament," he said on state-run Pakistan Television.
Musharraf, who seized power in 1999 and had been waiting for the Supreme Court to decide if his re-election as president while still army chief was valid, had to dismiss rumors sweeping the country that he had been put under house arrest.
"WE WANT A FREE ELECTION"
Since Pakistan was formed in 1947 by the partition of India after British colonial rule, it has reeled from one crisis to another and spent half its 60 years ruled by generals.
Security has deteriorated since July, when commandos stormed Islamabad's Red Mosque to crush an armed Islamist movement. Since then nearly 800 people have been killed in militant-linked violence, half of them by suicide attacks.
The United States has put future aid to Pakistan under review, having provided $10 billion in the past five years, and postponed defense talks with Pakistan due this week.
"We expect there to be elections as soon as possible and that the president should remove his military uniform," Bush said in Washington.
But softening his remarks, Bush said Musharraf "has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals ... After all they tried to kill him three or four times."
In Islamabad, several hundred lawyers, chanting "Go Musharraf Go!" and "The dictator is unacceptable!," protested outside courts until police broke them up by force.
Several judges were held incommunicado at their homes after refusing to back emergency rule. Among them was dismissed chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who became a symbol of resistance to Musharraf's rule after defying pressure to quit in March.
"It is the duty of all citizens of the country and lawyers in particular to continue their struggle for the supremacy of the constitution, rule of law, independence of judiciary and real democracy," Chaudhry said in a statement.
There have also been mass detentions of political activists.
(Additional reporting by Sahar Ahmed, Ovais Subhani in Karachi, Zeeshan Haider, Kamran Haider and Sheree Sardar in Islamabad)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2007.
Former leader of Kurd rebels reveals retreat into Iran
This is from the Independent. It seems that the PKK are transforming into good terrorists by going into Iran and stepping up attacks there. The US may even be providing them weapons as they apprently do for the PJAK the Iranian branch of the PKK. In many news reports the PJAK will not even be mentioned though they are close to the PKK and even share facilties.
Former leader of Kurd rebels reveals retreat into Iran
By Patrick Cockburnin Arbil
Published: 05 November 2007
Turkish Kurd guerrillas are leaving Iraqi Kurdistan for Iran in order to avoid an attack by the Turkish army according to a former leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK.
Osman Ocalan, brother of the imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, said: "the PKK has decreased its forces in Iraqi Kurdistan and they are moving to Iran. It is part of PKK tactics that when they feel pressure in one country they move to another."
President George Bush and the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, are to meet today in Washington to discuss what can be done about the PKK in Iraqi Kurdistan, from which it has been staging attacks on Turkish army units.
The news that the PKK is moving its mobile fighters into Iranian Kurdistan – where they have escalated attacks on Iranian government forces – further complicates any action against the guerrillas.
Mr Ocalan was at the top of Turkey's most wanted list until he left the PKK because he had fallen in love with a woman who was a fellow PKK fighter. PKK rules forbade relationships between guerrillas, so they fled the mountains in 2004, where he had lived for 18 years, in order to marry.
As a founder member of the PKK and the brother of its revered leader, Mr Ocalan is well informed about the actions and intentions of the organisation. In an interview in Arbil he estimated the total strength of the PKK guerrillas at just under 7,000. "There are 2,750 fighters in Turkey," he said. "A further 2,500 are in the border areas of Iraq and 1,500 are in Iran." It is the PKK's war in Iran, where there is a Kurdish minority of four million, that is escalating. "In the last six months the PKK has started a war against Iran."
"There are more and more fighters in Iranian Kurdistan and the Iranian Kurds support the PKK strongly." The shift of part of the PKK into Iran to evade a Turkish military operations and to attack Iranian forces faces the US with a problem. America condemns the PKK when it is killing Turkish soldiers in Turkey as "terrorists", but has not similarly denounced the section of the PKK, known as PJAK, which has killed as many as 150 Iranian soldiers and police in Iran. Iran claims that the PKK receives covert support from the US.
The PKK is skilful in exploiting the fact that the 25 million Kurds in the Middle East have no state of their own, but are spread across eastern Turkey (where they number 15 million), northern Iraq (five million), Iran (four million) and Syria (one million). "In this instance the partition of Kurdistan works in our interests," Mr Ocalan said.
One reason for the intensification of PKK attacks on the Turkish army is the movement's concern about the health of its leader, Abdullah Ocalan, imprisoned on the Turkish island of Imrali in the Sea of Marmara. "The Turks want to kill Apu [Abdullah's nickname]," he said of his brother. "He can't breathe very well."
Former leader of Kurd rebels reveals retreat into Iran
By Patrick Cockburnin Arbil
Published: 05 November 2007
Turkish Kurd guerrillas are leaving Iraqi Kurdistan for Iran in order to avoid an attack by the Turkish army according to a former leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK.
Osman Ocalan, brother of the imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, said: "the PKK has decreased its forces in Iraqi Kurdistan and they are moving to Iran. It is part of PKK tactics that when they feel pressure in one country they move to another."
President George Bush and the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, are to meet today in Washington to discuss what can be done about the PKK in Iraqi Kurdistan, from which it has been staging attacks on Turkish army units.
The news that the PKK is moving its mobile fighters into Iranian Kurdistan – where they have escalated attacks on Iranian government forces – further complicates any action against the guerrillas.
Mr Ocalan was at the top of Turkey's most wanted list until he left the PKK because he had fallen in love with a woman who was a fellow PKK fighter. PKK rules forbade relationships between guerrillas, so they fled the mountains in 2004, where he had lived for 18 years, in order to marry.
As a founder member of the PKK and the brother of its revered leader, Mr Ocalan is well informed about the actions and intentions of the organisation. In an interview in Arbil he estimated the total strength of the PKK guerrillas at just under 7,000. "There are 2,750 fighters in Turkey," he said. "A further 2,500 are in the border areas of Iraq and 1,500 are in Iran." It is the PKK's war in Iran, where there is a Kurdish minority of four million, that is escalating. "In the last six months the PKK has started a war against Iran."
"There are more and more fighters in Iranian Kurdistan and the Iranian Kurds support the PKK strongly." The shift of part of the PKK into Iran to evade a Turkish military operations and to attack Iranian forces faces the US with a problem. America condemns the PKK when it is killing Turkish soldiers in Turkey as "terrorists", but has not similarly denounced the section of the PKK, known as PJAK, which has killed as many as 150 Iranian soldiers and police in Iran. Iran claims that the PKK receives covert support from the US.
The PKK is skilful in exploiting the fact that the 25 million Kurds in the Middle East have no state of their own, but are spread across eastern Turkey (where they number 15 million), northern Iraq (five million), Iran (four million) and Syria (one million). "In this instance the partition of Kurdistan works in our interests," Mr Ocalan said.
One reason for the intensification of PKK attacks on the Turkish army is the movement's concern about the health of its leader, Abdullah Ocalan, imprisoned on the Turkish island of Imrali in the Sea of Marmara. "The Turks want to kill Apu [Abdullah's nickname]," he said of his brother. "He can't breathe very well."
Turkey demands military deal with Bush re PKK
The PKK must be getting a bit worried if they return prisoners. There is no mention of the PJAK the group that attacks Iran as usual. The US even arms that group it seems. PJAK and PKK have close relations and the PJAK even uses PKK facilities at times.
Turkey demands military deal with President Bush as price for holding back troopsDeborah Haynes in Irbil and Tom Baldwin in Washington
President Bush will hold crisis talks today in Washington where he hopes to stave off the prospect of a new and perilous front of fighting in Iraq.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, has delayed a final decision on whether to take military action against Kurdish rebels across the border with Iraq until he hears what Mr Bush has to say in their talks today.
Although public opinion in Turkey is pressing for the use of ground troops, diplomatic sources in Washington say that Mr Erdogan’s preferred option – if he decides to take action – would be for airstrikes on Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) targets inside northern Iraq. He has made plain that he wants US cooperation as the price for exercising restraint, saying of his meeting with Mr Bush in Washington: “I am expecting that this trip will result with the United States taking solid steps.”
The much-anticipated meeting comes as eight Turkish soldiers, captured by the PKK a fortnight ago, were enjoying their first full day of freedom after being released by their captors. Iraqi Kurdish officials said that the freeing of the troops, seized in an ambush in which a further 12 soldiers were killed, showed their desire to help Turkey in its fight against the PKK. The outlawed group, meanwhile, said that the release signalled its willingness to resolve the stand-off with Ankara peacefully.
Related Links
Rice: US will help Turkey stop Kurds
Iraq signals hope for compromise over Kurds
Baghdad and Washington are keen to avoid any military operations that could destabilise the only prosperous region in Iraq, while the largely autonomous Kurdish regional government has said that any Turkish challenge to Iraqi sovereignty would be regarded as an act of war.
“I think the meeting is important and a kind of turning point,” said Falah Mustafa Bakir, head of foreign relations for the Kurdish north.
Any incursion would turn “the only secure part of Iraq into something different at a time when we are focusing on reconstruction and rebuilding; trying to focus on education, on health, on improving our economy,” he said.
“Everyone is waiting to see what happens but we are trying our best to communicate to everybody that the best option is the diplomatic and peaceful political option.”
In a welcome development in the lead-up to the meeting, the hostage release yesterday followed an intense period of secret talks by Iraqi Kurdish officials, nongovernmental organisations and other go-betweens.
Handed over at dawn, the eight soldiers were received by Iraqi officials, who delivered them to US military personnel for transfer to Turkish authorities.
Fatma Kurtulan, one of three Turkish Kurd lawmakers who travelled to northern Iraq to help to negotiate the release, said that the men were extremely grateful to be free from the mountainous terrain where they had been held since the ambush on October 21 inside Turkish territory.
Within hours of being freed the soldiers were flown out of Iraq, eagerly phoning relatives once they touched down on Turkish soil. Fouad Hussain, head of the office of Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish region, said that Iraqi Kurdish leaders helped in releasing the soldiers. “This issue proved one thing, that the Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi leadership are part of the solution. And they want to have a good relationship with Turkish people,” Mr Hussain said.
The PKK was also keen to make the most of the moment, noting that the “prisoners of war” had been well treated and released without conditions. “This is the proof that we do not want war, we want to solve the problem peacefully through dialogue,” said Abdul Rahman Chaderchi, a spokesman. “We hope that the meeting between Mr Erdogan and Mr Bush will take into consideration our actions, what we did, releasing the hostages. They must answer our needs and demands,” he told The Times.
The outlawed group is fighting to secure better rights for Kurds living in Turkey. It also wants its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, to be freed from a Turkish prison where he is serving a life sentence. “We hope that the release of the hostages will be the beginning of the peaceful way to solve these problems,” Mr Chaderchi said.
Iraqi Kurdish officials have voiced concern that Ankara is using the PKK as an excuse to threaten the growing prosperity and independence that Kurds are enjoying in northern Iraq.
The United States applauded the efforts of the Iraqi Government to secure the release of the soldiers. Sean McCormack, US State Department spokesman, also urged “continued, deepened, and immediate cooperation between Iraq and Turkey in combating the PKK”.
Turkey demands military deal with President Bush as price for holding back troopsDeborah Haynes in Irbil and Tom Baldwin in Washington
President Bush will hold crisis talks today in Washington where he hopes to stave off the prospect of a new and perilous front of fighting in Iraq.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, has delayed a final decision on whether to take military action against Kurdish rebels across the border with Iraq until he hears what Mr Bush has to say in their talks today.
Although public opinion in Turkey is pressing for the use of ground troops, diplomatic sources in Washington say that Mr Erdogan’s preferred option – if he decides to take action – would be for airstrikes on Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) targets inside northern Iraq. He has made plain that he wants US cooperation as the price for exercising restraint, saying of his meeting with Mr Bush in Washington: “I am expecting that this trip will result with the United States taking solid steps.”
The much-anticipated meeting comes as eight Turkish soldiers, captured by the PKK a fortnight ago, were enjoying their first full day of freedom after being released by their captors. Iraqi Kurdish officials said that the freeing of the troops, seized in an ambush in which a further 12 soldiers were killed, showed their desire to help Turkey in its fight against the PKK. The outlawed group, meanwhile, said that the release signalled its willingness to resolve the stand-off with Ankara peacefully.
Related Links
Rice: US will help Turkey stop Kurds
Iraq signals hope for compromise over Kurds
Baghdad and Washington are keen to avoid any military operations that could destabilise the only prosperous region in Iraq, while the largely autonomous Kurdish regional government has said that any Turkish challenge to Iraqi sovereignty would be regarded as an act of war.
“I think the meeting is important and a kind of turning point,” said Falah Mustafa Bakir, head of foreign relations for the Kurdish north.
Any incursion would turn “the only secure part of Iraq into something different at a time when we are focusing on reconstruction and rebuilding; trying to focus on education, on health, on improving our economy,” he said.
“Everyone is waiting to see what happens but we are trying our best to communicate to everybody that the best option is the diplomatic and peaceful political option.”
In a welcome development in the lead-up to the meeting, the hostage release yesterday followed an intense period of secret talks by Iraqi Kurdish officials, nongovernmental organisations and other go-betweens.
Handed over at dawn, the eight soldiers were received by Iraqi officials, who delivered them to US military personnel for transfer to Turkish authorities.
Fatma Kurtulan, one of three Turkish Kurd lawmakers who travelled to northern Iraq to help to negotiate the release, said that the men were extremely grateful to be free from the mountainous terrain where they had been held since the ambush on October 21 inside Turkish territory.
Within hours of being freed the soldiers were flown out of Iraq, eagerly phoning relatives once they touched down on Turkish soil. Fouad Hussain, head of the office of Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish region, said that Iraqi Kurdish leaders helped in releasing the soldiers. “This issue proved one thing, that the Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi leadership are part of the solution. And they want to have a good relationship with Turkish people,” Mr Hussain said.
The PKK was also keen to make the most of the moment, noting that the “prisoners of war” had been well treated and released without conditions. “This is the proof that we do not want war, we want to solve the problem peacefully through dialogue,” said Abdul Rahman Chaderchi, a spokesman. “We hope that the meeting between Mr Erdogan and Mr Bush will take into consideration our actions, what we did, releasing the hostages. They must answer our needs and demands,” he told The Times.
The outlawed group is fighting to secure better rights for Kurds living in Turkey. It also wants its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, to be freed from a Turkish prison where he is serving a life sentence. “We hope that the release of the hostages will be the beginning of the peaceful way to solve these problems,” Mr Chaderchi said.
Iraqi Kurdish officials have voiced concern that Ankara is using the PKK as an excuse to threaten the growing prosperity and independence that Kurds are enjoying in northern Iraq.
The United States applauded the efforts of the Iraqi Government to secure the release of the soldiers. Sean McCormack, US State Department spokesman, also urged “continued, deepened, and immediate cooperation between Iraq and Turkey in combating the PKK”.
Bad debts claim Citigroup boss
So for a disastrous performance Prince is paid 25 million. I wonder how much he got on resigning for pension etc. If he had been a janitor he would have just got a pink slip. At the executive level there is often a disconnect between performance and compensation.
Bad debts claim Citigroup boss
Last Updated: Monday, November 5, 2007 | 8:18 AM ET
The Associated Press
Citigroup Inc. said Sunday chairman and chief executive Charles Prince, beset by the company's billions of dollars in losses from investing in bad debt, has retired and is being replaced as chairman by former treasury secretary Robert Rubin.
Rubin, a former co-chairman of Goldman, Sachs & Co., has served as the chair of Citi's executive committee.
In an announcement following an emergency meeting of its board, the largest U.S. banking company also said Sir Win Bischoff, chairman of Citi Europe and a member of the Citi management and operating committees, would serve as interim CEO.
Prince's resignation, which was secured at an emergency meeting of the Citi board Sunday, was expected after the nation's largest banking company revealed it had to write down billions of dollars in bad debt.
He joined former Merrill Lynch & Co. CEO Stan O'Neal, who resigned from the investment bank last month, as the highest-profile casualties of the debt crisis that has cost billions at other financial institutions as well.
In a separate statement, Citi said it would take an additional $8 billion US to $11 billion US in writedowns. It has already said it was writing down $6.5 billion US in assets.
Prince, 57, became chief executive of Citigroup in October 2003.
Continue Article
Stock fell during Prince's tenure
Many shareholders criticized him openly for much of his tenure, as Citigroup's stock lagged its peers while Prince executed what was called an umbrella model of corporate organization, with several separate lines of business.
The company's shares closed Friday at $37.73 US, about 20 per cent below where they were when Prince became CEO.
Prince's position looked especially shaky after the company estimated that third-quarter profit would decline about 60 per cent to some $2.2 billion US after seeing nearly $6 billion US in credit costs and write-downs of overly leveraged corporate debt and souring home mortgages.
At that time, Prince said the bank's earnings would return to normal in the fourth quarter.
But when Citigroup released its third-quarter results two weeks later, the write-downs and credit costs exceeded $6 billion US, and chief financial officer Gary Crittenden indicated the outlook going forward wasn't as upbeat as Prince had predicted.
Citigroup wasn't alone in its third-quarter turmoil. When borrowers with poor credit stopped paying their mortgages, many banks not only had to take losses on those subprime mortgages, they also saw instruments in their portfolios backed by mortgages plummet in value.
But Citigroup's stumbles were particularly grievous, given the bank's size, history and CEO, who had been telling shareholders for years to give his strategy a chance. Even in October, Prince said in a call to analysts: "I think any fair-minded person would say that strategic plan is working."
The anger toward Prince was so intense that during a conference call last month, Deutsche Bank analyst Mike Mayo told Prince that investors wanted a significant change in management.
His supporters, though, argued that he was dealt a tough hand when his predecessor Weill gave him the reins, and that matching the hefty profit gains Citigroup saw in the 1990s would be difficult for any CEO.
Prince made nearly $25M US in 2006
Prince, whose compensation came to nearly $25 million US last year, is leaving under a much darker cloud.
It was not known whether Bischoff was in the running to replace Prince as CEO. Before Sunday's meeting, industry watchers floated many names as Prince's replacement.
Citigroup did a minor reshuffing in early October, combining its investment banking and alternative investments businesses into one unit.
At the time, Rubin and Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — Citigroup's biggest individual shareholder and once a critic of Prince — expressed their support for the bank's embattled CEO.
Bad debts claim Citigroup boss
Last Updated: Monday, November 5, 2007 | 8:18 AM ET
The Associated Press
Citigroup Inc. said Sunday chairman and chief executive Charles Prince, beset by the company's billions of dollars in losses from investing in bad debt, has retired and is being replaced as chairman by former treasury secretary Robert Rubin.
Rubin, a former co-chairman of Goldman, Sachs & Co., has served as the chair of Citi's executive committee.
In an announcement following an emergency meeting of its board, the largest U.S. banking company also said Sir Win Bischoff, chairman of Citi Europe and a member of the Citi management and operating committees, would serve as interim CEO.
Prince's resignation, which was secured at an emergency meeting of the Citi board Sunday, was expected after the nation's largest banking company revealed it had to write down billions of dollars in bad debt.
He joined former Merrill Lynch & Co. CEO Stan O'Neal, who resigned from the investment bank last month, as the highest-profile casualties of the debt crisis that has cost billions at other financial institutions as well.
In a separate statement, Citi said it would take an additional $8 billion US to $11 billion US in writedowns. It has already said it was writing down $6.5 billion US in assets.
Prince, 57, became chief executive of Citigroup in October 2003.
Continue Article
Stock fell during Prince's tenure
Many shareholders criticized him openly for much of his tenure, as Citigroup's stock lagged its peers while Prince executed what was called an umbrella model of corporate organization, with several separate lines of business.
The company's shares closed Friday at $37.73 US, about 20 per cent below where they were when Prince became CEO.
Prince's position looked especially shaky after the company estimated that third-quarter profit would decline about 60 per cent to some $2.2 billion US after seeing nearly $6 billion US in credit costs and write-downs of overly leveraged corporate debt and souring home mortgages.
At that time, Prince said the bank's earnings would return to normal in the fourth quarter.
But when Citigroup released its third-quarter results two weeks later, the write-downs and credit costs exceeded $6 billion US, and chief financial officer Gary Crittenden indicated the outlook going forward wasn't as upbeat as Prince had predicted.
Citigroup wasn't alone in its third-quarter turmoil. When borrowers with poor credit stopped paying their mortgages, many banks not only had to take losses on those subprime mortgages, they also saw instruments in their portfolios backed by mortgages plummet in value.
But Citigroup's stumbles were particularly grievous, given the bank's size, history and CEO, who had been telling shareholders for years to give his strategy a chance. Even in October, Prince said in a call to analysts: "I think any fair-minded person would say that strategic plan is working."
The anger toward Prince was so intense that during a conference call last month, Deutsche Bank analyst Mike Mayo told Prince that investors wanted a significant change in management.
His supporters, though, argued that he was dealt a tough hand when his predecessor Weill gave him the reins, and that matching the hefty profit gains Citigroup saw in the 1990s would be difficult for any CEO.
Prince made nearly $25M US in 2006
Prince, whose compensation came to nearly $25 million US last year, is leaving under a much darker cloud.
It was not known whether Bischoff was in the running to replace Prince as CEO. Before Sunday's meeting, industry watchers floated many names as Prince's replacement.
Citigroup did a minor reshuffing in early October, combining its investment banking and alternative investments businesses into one unit.
At the time, Rubin and Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — Citigroup's biggest individual shareholder and once a critic of Prince — expressed their support for the bank's embattled CEO.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Iran presents plan to resolve Iraq crisis
This is from the Tehran Times. I doubt that Iran will get a timetable for foreing troop withdrawal! No doubt everyone will agree with reconstruction efforts but I doubt that the US will be sending any Blackwater employees to the International Court of Justice. It does not recognise the court. I expect that Iraq doesn't either or it would not getting aid from the US.
Iran presents plan to resolve Iraq crisis
Istanbul conference pledges support for Iraqi government
ISTANBUL (Agencies) -- Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki here on Saturday presented Iranian plan to help resolve Iraqi crisis, IRNA reported.
In his address to the international conference on Iraq's stability and security, Mottaki said the Iraqi crisis has three aspects: security, political and economic.
Mottaki said that the security aspect should be resolved through setting a timetable for withdrawal of occupiers by the United Nations.
He said that the Iraqi government should be empowered to administer state affairs and any military missions should require a request from the Iraqi government to that effect.
Mottaki said that Iraqi national security forces must undertake military missions since they have proved in practice that they can conduct such missions carefully averting civilian losses.
""Provinces where Iraqi security forces have undertaken the task enjoy tranquility. We believe that the Iraqi government should be free as an independent state to buy arms to equip its armed forces and the police seriously,"" Mottaki said.
He pointed to organized crimes perpetrated by terrorist groups as the main cause of tension between Iraq and its neighbors.
He said that the Iraqi people suffer from wrongdoings of private security companies and many innocent civilians have fallen victims to their attacks calling for expelling Blackwater security company and the International Criminal Court (ICC) take legal action those involved in killing Iraqi civilians.
Mottaki said that the political aspect of the Iraqi crisis needs collective assistance of regional states and reopen their embassies in Iraq as quickly as possible.
""Iraqi Constitution should be respected and the political concerns which created divisions among the Iraqi nation, such as fair distribution of oil wealth and the subject of Kirkuk, should be put off for two years.""
The Iranian foreign minister said that in order to deal with Iraqi economic crisis, the international community must help Iraqi reconstruction efforts and deal with plight of the Iraqi refugees by helping their repatriation.
He said that Iraq's neighboring states are expected to help Iraqi government overcome shortages in electricity and gas supplies and oil derivatives.
Mottaki said that four major states in the region -- Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Turkey along with the United Nations are expected to help implement Iranian plan on Iraq.
Istanbul conference pledges support for Baghdad government
The international conference on Iraq closed Saturday with two dozen nations and organizations pledging to support the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad and help take action against terrorism, AP said.
In a final declaration adopted by the conference, Iraq's neighbors and regional trading partners along with representatives from the European Union, the Group of Eight industrialized nations and the UN Security Council's permanent members also vowed to help prevent the passage of illegal arms into Iraq, and ensure tighter control of borders with Iraq.
The final statement called for further talks on issues of security, energy and displaced persons.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon cited the ethnic conflict in Iraq and a growing refugee problem.
“Iraq today is faced with an extremely complicated web of overlapping, ethnic conflicts,” Ban said. “An increased level of displacement is already causing humanitarian crisis.”
According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, more than 2 million Iraqis have fled their country. They include 1.2 million in Syria, 750,000 in Jordan, 100,000 in Egypt, 54,000 in Iran, 40,000 in Lebanon and 10,000 in Turkey.
Ban said September and October saw the lowest number of killed civilians in Iraq. He urged the government to take advantage of this trend to “transform political and military development to a broader national reconciliation” between Iraq's ethnic groups.
Iraq leader vows clampdown on Kurd rebels
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki vowed on Saturday to clamp down on Kurdish rebels based in his country as the threat of a Turkish cross-border military strike overshadowed international talks on efforts to stabilize Iraq.
Maliki's government said specific measures had been ordered against the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and a regional official told AFP the Kurdish administration in northern Iraq on Saturday began closing the offices of a political group linked to the PKK.
Turkey has massed troops along its frontier with Iraq, and the Istanbul gathering of Western powers and Iraq's neighbors has focused on heading off military action.
Turkey's threat to launch a cross-border operation was at the center of talks on the sidelines of the conference between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Turkey's Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, and his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari.
In his speech to the conference, Maliki backed efforts to prevent ""the infiltration of terrorists"" across the border.
""We place great importance on our relations with our brother Turkey... We are aware of the scale of the threat,"" he said.
""We have made a definite decision to close down the offices of the PKK in Iraq. We are taking strong measures,"" he said.
A senior official in Iraqi Kurdistan said authorities there had closed the offices of Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party which he said ""sympathizes with the PKK.""
Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said new ""security measures"" to curb the PKK and cut off its logistical support had started Saturday.
Turkey has demanded the arrest and extradition of PKK leaders and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan again called for tough action in his speech to the conference.
""The fact that terrorist organizations based in certain regions of Iraq cause harm to neighboring countries is a matter... that requires urgent and substantial measures,"" he said.
""It is of vital importance for Iraq as well as its neighbors that Iraq establishes internal security and stability while also maintaining its territorial integrity.""
He said neighboring countries must help Iraq end its strife. But he warned: ""No one can feel safe unless everybody feels safe.""
UN secretary general told the conference that it was ""unacceptable"" for the PKK to use Iraq as a springboard for attacks inside Turkey.
He called for cooperation between Ankara and Baghdad to secure their common frontier to prevent infiltration by PKK rebels.
""The need to secure borders cannot be overemphasized,"" he said. ""It is clearly unacceptable that Iraqi territory is used to mount attacks (in Turkey) and we understand the concerns of Turkey.""
Ankara has acknowledged that Maliki is trying to help Turkey, but his embattled government has little authority in northern Iraq, where the Iraqi Kurds run an autonomous administration.
Ankara accuses the Iraqi Kurdish leadership of harboring and aiding the PKK, listed as a terrorist group by Ankara and much of the international community.
The dispute has dominated Maliki's attempts to attract greater international backing for his efforts to bring peace throughout Iraq.
But Maliki sought to reassure the international community.
""Ethnic violence is decreasing... The civil war that Al-Qaeda wanted to spark has been prevented,"" he told the conference.
""Iraq has overcome the period of danger and is stronger and more experienced today,"" he said.
Maliki asked for more international support for his government's efforts at economic reconstruction and at quashing daily violence.
The Istanbul conference is the second in a bid to help Iraq find ways of resolving its energy crisis and address the plight of four million Iraqis who are either displaced internally or have fled to Jordan and Syria
Iran presents plan to resolve Iraq crisis
Istanbul conference pledges support for Iraqi government
ISTANBUL (Agencies) -- Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki here on Saturday presented Iranian plan to help resolve Iraqi crisis, IRNA reported.
In his address to the international conference on Iraq's stability and security, Mottaki said the Iraqi crisis has three aspects: security, political and economic.
Mottaki said that the security aspect should be resolved through setting a timetable for withdrawal of occupiers by the United Nations.
He said that the Iraqi government should be empowered to administer state affairs and any military missions should require a request from the Iraqi government to that effect.
Mottaki said that Iraqi national security forces must undertake military missions since they have proved in practice that they can conduct such missions carefully averting civilian losses.
""Provinces where Iraqi security forces have undertaken the task enjoy tranquility. We believe that the Iraqi government should be free as an independent state to buy arms to equip its armed forces and the police seriously,"" Mottaki said.
He pointed to organized crimes perpetrated by terrorist groups as the main cause of tension between Iraq and its neighbors.
He said that the Iraqi people suffer from wrongdoings of private security companies and many innocent civilians have fallen victims to their attacks calling for expelling Blackwater security company and the International Criminal Court (ICC) take legal action those involved in killing Iraqi civilians.
Mottaki said that the political aspect of the Iraqi crisis needs collective assistance of regional states and reopen their embassies in Iraq as quickly as possible.
""Iraqi Constitution should be respected and the political concerns which created divisions among the Iraqi nation, such as fair distribution of oil wealth and the subject of Kirkuk, should be put off for two years.""
The Iranian foreign minister said that in order to deal with Iraqi economic crisis, the international community must help Iraqi reconstruction efforts and deal with plight of the Iraqi refugees by helping their repatriation.
He said that Iraq's neighboring states are expected to help Iraqi government overcome shortages in electricity and gas supplies and oil derivatives.
Mottaki said that four major states in the region -- Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Turkey along with the United Nations are expected to help implement Iranian plan on Iraq.
Istanbul conference pledges support for Baghdad government
The international conference on Iraq closed Saturday with two dozen nations and organizations pledging to support the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad and help take action against terrorism, AP said.
In a final declaration adopted by the conference, Iraq's neighbors and regional trading partners along with representatives from the European Union, the Group of Eight industrialized nations and the UN Security Council's permanent members also vowed to help prevent the passage of illegal arms into Iraq, and ensure tighter control of borders with Iraq.
The final statement called for further talks on issues of security, energy and displaced persons.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon cited the ethnic conflict in Iraq and a growing refugee problem.
“Iraq today is faced with an extremely complicated web of overlapping, ethnic conflicts,” Ban said. “An increased level of displacement is already causing humanitarian crisis.”
According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, more than 2 million Iraqis have fled their country. They include 1.2 million in Syria, 750,000 in Jordan, 100,000 in Egypt, 54,000 in Iran, 40,000 in Lebanon and 10,000 in Turkey.
Ban said September and October saw the lowest number of killed civilians in Iraq. He urged the government to take advantage of this trend to “transform political and military development to a broader national reconciliation” between Iraq's ethnic groups.
Iraq leader vows clampdown on Kurd rebels
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki vowed on Saturday to clamp down on Kurdish rebels based in his country as the threat of a Turkish cross-border military strike overshadowed international talks on efforts to stabilize Iraq.
Maliki's government said specific measures had been ordered against the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and a regional official told AFP the Kurdish administration in northern Iraq on Saturday began closing the offices of a political group linked to the PKK.
Turkey has massed troops along its frontier with Iraq, and the Istanbul gathering of Western powers and Iraq's neighbors has focused on heading off military action.
Turkey's threat to launch a cross-border operation was at the center of talks on the sidelines of the conference between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Turkey's Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, and his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari.
In his speech to the conference, Maliki backed efforts to prevent ""the infiltration of terrorists"" across the border.
""We place great importance on our relations with our brother Turkey... We are aware of the scale of the threat,"" he said.
""We have made a definite decision to close down the offices of the PKK in Iraq. We are taking strong measures,"" he said.
A senior official in Iraqi Kurdistan said authorities there had closed the offices of Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party which he said ""sympathizes with the PKK.""
Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said new ""security measures"" to curb the PKK and cut off its logistical support had started Saturday.
Turkey has demanded the arrest and extradition of PKK leaders and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan again called for tough action in his speech to the conference.
""The fact that terrorist organizations based in certain regions of Iraq cause harm to neighboring countries is a matter... that requires urgent and substantial measures,"" he said.
""It is of vital importance for Iraq as well as its neighbors that Iraq establishes internal security and stability while also maintaining its territorial integrity.""
He said neighboring countries must help Iraq end its strife. But he warned: ""No one can feel safe unless everybody feels safe.""
UN secretary general told the conference that it was ""unacceptable"" for the PKK to use Iraq as a springboard for attacks inside Turkey.
He called for cooperation between Ankara and Baghdad to secure their common frontier to prevent infiltration by PKK rebels.
""The need to secure borders cannot be overemphasized,"" he said. ""It is clearly unacceptable that Iraqi territory is used to mount attacks (in Turkey) and we understand the concerns of Turkey.""
Ankara has acknowledged that Maliki is trying to help Turkey, but his embattled government has little authority in northern Iraq, where the Iraqi Kurds run an autonomous administration.
Ankara accuses the Iraqi Kurdish leadership of harboring and aiding the PKK, listed as a terrorist group by Ankara and much of the international community.
The dispute has dominated Maliki's attempts to attract greater international backing for his efforts to bring peace throughout Iraq.
But Maliki sought to reassure the international community.
""Ethnic violence is decreasing... The civil war that Al-Qaeda wanted to spark has been prevented,"" he told the conference.
""Iraq has overcome the period of danger and is stronger and more experienced today,"" he said.
Maliki asked for more international support for his government's efforts at economic reconstruction and at quashing daily violence.
The Istanbul conference is the second in a bid to help Iraq find ways of resolving its energy crisis and address the plight of four million Iraqis who are either displaced internally or have fled to Jordan and Syria
Philippines: Renewable Energy Bill
The Philippines depends upon imported fuel and when prices go up it causes great difficulties especially for jeepney drivers and the like whose fares are regulated and the government is often reluctant to raise fares because of public outcry but not raising them causes jeepney strikes!
This bill sounds quite good. I am not sure that the Philippines has done much on wind energy.
Reyes, Zubiri want early passage of Renewable Energy Bill
Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes and Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri on Saturday called for the early passage of the Renewal Energy bill in Congress as world oil prices continue to surge to record levels.
Reyes said the passage of the bill would expedite the development of the country’s vast reserves of renewable energy such as geothermal, hydro, wind and solar power as well as biomass.
"I’m certain that the members of Congress are acutely aware of the importance of this bill and that’s why I’m certain that efforts will be done to rush it," said Reyes.
Zubiri for his part said he will push for the quick passage of the Renewable Energy bill at the Senate in light of increasing oil prices in the world market.
We are trying to push for a December approval of the Renewable Energy bill at least on second reading. We will try, it’s going to be difficult," said Zubiri who was the principal author of the bill in the Senate even as others were still skeptical of its need.
"I was telling people that there will be a time that gas will go high, our opponents say it will never happen and now it is happening," said the neophyte senator.
To underscore the need to increase energy independence, President Arroyo is pushing for the speedy passage of the bill.
The chief executive made the call in her speech during the recent inauguration of Shell group’s compressed natural gas (CNG) pilot project which is also considered as part of the government’s program to promote the use of renewable energy sources, not only in power but also in the transport sector.
"Two years from now, all fossil gasoline fuel actually sold and distributed by every oil company in the Philippines shall contain a minimum of five percent bio-ethanol blend. And now, especially that we have this pilot on natural gas, we call on Congress to pass urgent legislation on the development and promotion of renewable energy sources with a Renewable Energy Bill," Arroyo said.
In a similar note, Reyes, during the recently-concluded National Conference on Climate Change Adaptation in Legazpi City in Albay, said the initiative to mitigate climate change could also hinge on the ability of the country to utilize more renewable energy sources.
"The passage of a renewable energy bill in Congress would be a strategic impetus to raise the share of renewable energy sources to 20 percent of the overall portfolio," he said.
The bill, currently pending in Congress, aims to accelerate the development of the country’s vast reserves of renewable energy such as geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, and biomass by providing, among others, attractive fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to encourage clean energy projects and mechanisms to ensure the priority use of power generated from these resources.
Under the 13th Congress, which ended in June 2007, the bill was passed in third reading by the House of Representatives but only reached committee level approval at the Senate, despite having been certified as urgent by Malacañang in February 2007.
In the recently-opened 14th Congress, 16 versions of the bill have been filed. The bill has been included among 28 priority bills agreed upon by the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) in a meeting in Malacañang last Aug. 7.
Malacañang: Beyond our control
Malacañang on Friday reiterated calls to the public to conserve energy, adding that skyrocketing fuel prices is beyond its control.
"The runaway price of oil is beyond the government's control. This serves as a continuing wake up call for all sectors that there are more things to attend to other than relentless politics of personal destruction. More than ever, now is the time to pool our collective patriotic efforts to intensify the search and development of alternative energy sources, as well as provide the appropriate legal environment to accelerate such initiatives," Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said in a statement.
"This also serves as a call to conserve energy in any way we can. Our resilient economy gives us some consolation. Had we still been in a situation where our peso is 56 to a dollar the price of our imports would by now be hitting the roof," he added.
This bill sounds quite good. I am not sure that the Philippines has done much on wind energy.
Reyes, Zubiri want early passage of Renewable Energy Bill
Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes and Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri on Saturday called for the early passage of the Renewal Energy bill in Congress as world oil prices continue to surge to record levels.
Reyes said the passage of the bill would expedite the development of the country’s vast reserves of renewable energy such as geothermal, hydro, wind and solar power as well as biomass.
"I’m certain that the members of Congress are acutely aware of the importance of this bill and that’s why I’m certain that efforts will be done to rush it," said Reyes.
Zubiri for his part said he will push for the quick passage of the Renewable Energy bill at the Senate in light of increasing oil prices in the world market.
We are trying to push for a December approval of the Renewable Energy bill at least on second reading. We will try, it’s going to be difficult," said Zubiri who was the principal author of the bill in the Senate even as others were still skeptical of its need.
"I was telling people that there will be a time that gas will go high, our opponents say it will never happen and now it is happening," said the neophyte senator.
To underscore the need to increase energy independence, President Arroyo is pushing for the speedy passage of the bill.
The chief executive made the call in her speech during the recent inauguration of Shell group’s compressed natural gas (CNG) pilot project which is also considered as part of the government’s program to promote the use of renewable energy sources, not only in power but also in the transport sector.
"Two years from now, all fossil gasoline fuel actually sold and distributed by every oil company in the Philippines shall contain a minimum of five percent bio-ethanol blend. And now, especially that we have this pilot on natural gas, we call on Congress to pass urgent legislation on the development and promotion of renewable energy sources with a Renewable Energy Bill," Arroyo said.
In a similar note, Reyes, during the recently-concluded National Conference on Climate Change Adaptation in Legazpi City in Albay, said the initiative to mitigate climate change could also hinge on the ability of the country to utilize more renewable energy sources.
"The passage of a renewable energy bill in Congress would be a strategic impetus to raise the share of renewable energy sources to 20 percent of the overall portfolio," he said.
The bill, currently pending in Congress, aims to accelerate the development of the country’s vast reserves of renewable energy such as geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, and biomass by providing, among others, attractive fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to encourage clean energy projects and mechanisms to ensure the priority use of power generated from these resources.
Under the 13th Congress, which ended in June 2007, the bill was passed in third reading by the House of Representatives but only reached committee level approval at the Senate, despite having been certified as urgent by Malacañang in February 2007.
In the recently-opened 14th Congress, 16 versions of the bill have been filed. The bill has been included among 28 priority bills agreed upon by the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) in a meeting in Malacañang last Aug. 7.
Malacañang: Beyond our control
Malacañang on Friday reiterated calls to the public to conserve energy, adding that skyrocketing fuel prices is beyond its control.
"The runaway price of oil is beyond the government's control. This serves as a continuing wake up call for all sectors that there are more things to attend to other than relentless politics of personal destruction. More than ever, now is the time to pool our collective patriotic efforts to intensify the search and development of alternative energy sources, as well as provide the appropriate legal environment to accelerate such initiatives," Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said in a statement.
"This also serves as a call to conserve energy in any way we can. Our resilient economy gives us some consolation. Had we still been in a situation where our peso is 56 to a dollar the price of our imports would by now be hitting the roof," he added.
Pakistan militants seize police stations
THis is from Yahoo.
The militants are obviously trying to gain sympathy among troops by releasing some. The Musharaff government is asking for trouble by taking on the tribal areas. The US will probably insist that he does but it is not the US that is taking casualties and about to suffer civil war perhaps.
Pakistan militants seize police stations By RIAZ KHAN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Nov 3, 7:15 AM ET
SWAT, Pakistan - Militants said Saturday they captured two police stations and 120 security forces in a mountainous region of northwest Pakistan that has increasingly fallen under the control of Taliban and al-Qaida-linked extremists, bringing further embarrassment to President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's government.
A flag was hoisted over one of the buildings after it was abandoned by officers in the scenic Swat valley, once a popular tourist destination now plagued by fighting between paramilitary forces and Islamic militants, said Sirajuddin, who goes by one name, speaking on behalf of the insurgents.
Hours later, militants took control of another police post six miles to the north, said Mian Rasool Shah, a Taliban commander, claiming his men had convinced 60 officers to leave and then locked the doors to prevent the looting of weapons.
No government official was immediately available to comment on the claims, which came a day after extremists paraded dozens of men described as surrendered government troops before journalists. They — like the 120 security forces who allegedly defected after being surrounded by militants overnight — were later released, Sirajuddin said.
The rising violence and political turmoil have fueled fears that Musharraf might extend his military rule by imposing a state of emergency or martial law, jeopardizing a promised transition to democracy. The Bush administration and European allies have urged against such moves, a Western diplomat in Islamabad said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Elements in Pakistan's ruling party were pushing the U.S.-backed leader to impose emergency measures in case the Supreme Court disqualifies his Oct. 6 presidential victory because he did not first give up his position as army chief, the diplomat said. A verdict is due before his current term expires Nov. 15, after which Pakistan is due to hold parliamentary elections.
Adm. William Fallon, the chief of the U.S. Central Command, met with Musharraf and other top generals on Friday to discuss the security situation in the northwest, where Islamic militants have expanded their reach beyond traditional tribal regions. Washington backs Musharraf as a bulwark in its war on terrorism.
But a spokesman for Pakistan's army angrily denied newspaper reports suggesting Fallon had offered to provide U.S. troops to help tackle the insurgency in Swat, where a hard-line cleric is trying to enforce Taliban-style rule. Several policemen have been decapitated in the region in recent weeks, their heads later displayed to the public.
Some residents in Swat, which up until recently drew tourists from all over the country because of its sweeping scenic views and snowcapped mountains, said while they supported efforts to impose Islamic law in the valley, they abhorred the bloodshed.
"We don't know what will happen here," said Abdul Majeed, a local shopkeeper, adding vendors in his bustling market were worried about the future of their businesses. "The bazar is open and people are buying goods, but we are constantly worried about the fighting."
The militants are obviously trying to gain sympathy among troops by releasing some. The Musharaff government is asking for trouble by taking on the tribal areas. The US will probably insist that he does but it is not the US that is taking casualties and about to suffer civil war perhaps.
Pakistan militants seize police stations By RIAZ KHAN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Nov 3, 7:15 AM ET
SWAT, Pakistan - Militants said Saturday they captured two police stations and 120 security forces in a mountainous region of northwest Pakistan that has increasingly fallen under the control of Taliban and al-Qaida-linked extremists, bringing further embarrassment to President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's government.
A flag was hoisted over one of the buildings after it was abandoned by officers in the scenic Swat valley, once a popular tourist destination now plagued by fighting between paramilitary forces and Islamic militants, said Sirajuddin, who goes by one name, speaking on behalf of the insurgents.
Hours later, militants took control of another police post six miles to the north, said Mian Rasool Shah, a Taliban commander, claiming his men had convinced 60 officers to leave and then locked the doors to prevent the looting of weapons.
No government official was immediately available to comment on the claims, which came a day after extremists paraded dozens of men described as surrendered government troops before journalists. They — like the 120 security forces who allegedly defected after being surrounded by militants overnight — were later released, Sirajuddin said.
The rising violence and political turmoil have fueled fears that Musharraf might extend his military rule by imposing a state of emergency or martial law, jeopardizing a promised transition to democracy. The Bush administration and European allies have urged against such moves, a Western diplomat in Islamabad said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Elements in Pakistan's ruling party were pushing the U.S.-backed leader to impose emergency measures in case the Supreme Court disqualifies his Oct. 6 presidential victory because he did not first give up his position as army chief, the diplomat said. A verdict is due before his current term expires Nov. 15, after which Pakistan is due to hold parliamentary elections.
Adm. William Fallon, the chief of the U.S. Central Command, met with Musharraf and other top generals on Friday to discuss the security situation in the northwest, where Islamic militants have expanded their reach beyond traditional tribal regions. Washington backs Musharraf as a bulwark in its war on terrorism.
But a spokesman for Pakistan's army angrily denied newspaper reports suggesting Fallon had offered to provide U.S. troops to help tackle the insurgency in Swat, where a hard-line cleric is trying to enforce Taliban-style rule. Several policemen have been decapitated in the region in recent weeks, their heads later displayed to the public.
Some residents in Swat, which up until recently drew tourists from all over the country because of its sweeping scenic views and snowcapped mountains, said while they supported efforts to impose Islamic law in the valley, they abhorred the bloodshed.
"We don't know what will happen here," said Abdul Majeed, a local shopkeeper, adding vendors in his bustling market were worried about the future of their businesses. "The bazar is open and people are buying goods, but we are constantly worried about the fighting."
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Musharaff fires top judge, Bhutto back
Bhutto is certainly one brave lady whatever else you might say about her. She could have stayed safe in Dubai. In fact I thought that she went there knowing what was going to happen but I guess not. It is significant though that she has not been arrested yet but some other opposition politicians have been. Maybe she will still be able to make some sort of deal with Musharaff along with other politicians.
I just hope there is not a lot more violence but it could very well be heading in that direction.
Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report
President says judiciary was interfering with his fight against militants
Last Updated: Saturday, November 3, 2007 | 9:11 PM ET
CBC News
Pakistani police arrested opposition politicians, including the leader of exiled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's party, as part a crackdown following President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency, Reuters reported Sunday.
In a move that sparked outcries from political opponents and the international community on Saturday, Musharraf also replaced the chief justice of the country's Supreme Court and had authorities round up opposition figues, cut phone lines in the capital Islamabad and took all but state television off the air.
The order effectively suspends the country's constitution before a crucial Supreme Court ruling on Musharraf's future as president. The high court has been hearing constitutional arguments against his re-election last month.
In September, Sharif was deported only hours after he returned to his home country after seven years of exile after being ousted by Musharraf in a 1999 coup.
"Musharraf's days are numbered. Time has come to end the political role of the army," Reuters quoted Javed Hashmi, acting president of Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League, as telling reporters before being whisked away by police in the central city of Multan.
In a national address Saturday, Musharraf insisted his actions were necessary to curb a rise in extremism in Pakistan, as well as judicial paralysis.
"I suspect that Pakistan's sovereignty is in danger unless timely action is taken," said Musharraf, who was wearing civilian clothes and spoke firmly and calmly.
"Pakistan is on the verge of destabilization … Inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan and I cannot allow this country to commit suicide."
Musharraf 'turning the clock back': Bhutto
In an interview with CBC News late Saturday from Karachi, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto accused Musharraf of taking Pakistan away from democracy and "turning the clock back towards dictatorship."
"If you really want to get rid of extremism, you have to get rid of dictatorship," Bhutto said. "It's an unfortunate day in our country's history."
Bhutto, who was in Dubai when Musharraf issued the order, recently ended eight years in exile and has been in talks with Musharraf's camp about countering Islamic extremism by coming together to form a possible pro-Western alliance after parliamentary elections, which were slated for January.
It is not known whether the state of emergency will delay or cancel the elections.
Another opposition politician, former cricketer Imran Khan, told the BBC he had been placed under house arrest.
Bhutto, who held a press conference at her residence in Karachi after her arrival in Pakistan, said she would hold talks with other opposition parties to "build the domestic pressure" against Musharraf to reverse the decision and hold the elections on schedule.
Measures take Pakistan 'away from path of democracy': Rice
The order also drew swift complaints from the United States and Britain — Musharraf's main Western allies.
"The U.S. has made clear it does not support extraconstitutional measures because those measures take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.
However, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Musharraf's declaration does not affect U.S. military support of Pakistan, which Morrell called "a very important ally in the war on terror."
Meanwhile, Ottawa officially condemned the crackdown urged its government to reinstate judges and allow free elections.
In a statement released Saturday, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier called for all sides to refrain from violence and respect human rights. The Foreign Affairs Department also issued an official travel warning advising Canadians against all travel to Pakistan.
Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, seen here at a news conference Saturday at her residence in Karachi, condemned the measures.
(Associated Press)
Seven of the 18 Supreme Court judges immediately condemned the emergency measures.
"Under the constitutional order, judges will have to swear allegiance to the emergency powers," freelance journalist Graham Usher told CBC News. "Any judge who does not do that can be dismissed."
Justice Hameed Dogar replaced Iftekhar Chaudhry as the country's chief justice. Musharraf tried to remove Chaudhry from the bench in March over alleged abuse of authority, but the court declared the suspension illegal and reinstated him in July after a series of street protests.
Chaudhry has been outspoken in defending the independence of the judiciary.
With files from the Associated Press
I just hope there is not a lot more violence but it could very well be heading in that direction.
Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report
President says judiciary was interfering with his fight against militants
Last Updated: Saturday, November 3, 2007 | 9:11 PM ET
CBC News
Pakistani police arrested opposition politicians, including the leader of exiled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's party, as part a crackdown following President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency, Reuters reported Sunday.
In a move that sparked outcries from political opponents and the international community on Saturday, Musharraf also replaced the chief justice of the country's Supreme Court and had authorities round up opposition figues, cut phone lines in the capital Islamabad and took all but state television off the air.
The order effectively suspends the country's constitution before a crucial Supreme Court ruling on Musharraf's future as president. The high court has been hearing constitutional arguments against his re-election last month.
In September, Sharif was deported only hours after he returned to his home country after seven years of exile after being ousted by Musharraf in a 1999 coup.
"Musharraf's days are numbered. Time has come to end the political role of the army," Reuters quoted Javed Hashmi, acting president of Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League, as telling reporters before being whisked away by police in the central city of Multan.
In a national address Saturday, Musharraf insisted his actions were necessary to curb a rise in extremism in Pakistan, as well as judicial paralysis.
"I suspect that Pakistan's sovereignty is in danger unless timely action is taken," said Musharraf, who was wearing civilian clothes and spoke firmly and calmly.
"Pakistan is on the verge of destabilization … Inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan and I cannot allow this country to commit suicide."
Musharraf 'turning the clock back': Bhutto
In an interview with CBC News late Saturday from Karachi, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto accused Musharraf of taking Pakistan away from democracy and "turning the clock back towards dictatorship."
"If you really want to get rid of extremism, you have to get rid of dictatorship," Bhutto said. "It's an unfortunate day in our country's history."
Bhutto, who was in Dubai when Musharraf issued the order, recently ended eight years in exile and has been in talks with Musharraf's camp about countering Islamic extremism by coming together to form a possible pro-Western alliance after parliamentary elections, which were slated for January.
It is not known whether the state of emergency will delay or cancel the elections.
Another opposition politician, former cricketer Imran Khan, told the BBC he had been placed under house arrest.
Bhutto, who held a press conference at her residence in Karachi after her arrival in Pakistan, said she would hold talks with other opposition parties to "build the domestic pressure" against Musharraf to reverse the decision and hold the elections on schedule.
Measures take Pakistan 'away from path of democracy': Rice
The order also drew swift complaints from the United States and Britain — Musharraf's main Western allies.
"The U.S. has made clear it does not support extraconstitutional measures because those measures take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.
However, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Musharraf's declaration does not affect U.S. military support of Pakistan, which Morrell called "a very important ally in the war on terror."
Meanwhile, Ottawa officially condemned the crackdown urged its government to reinstate judges and allow free elections.
In a statement released Saturday, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier called for all sides to refrain from violence and respect human rights. The Foreign Affairs Department also issued an official travel warning advising Canadians against all travel to Pakistan.
Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, seen here at a news conference Saturday at her residence in Karachi, condemned the measures.
(Associated Press)
Seven of the 18 Supreme Court judges immediately condemned the emergency measures.
"Under the constitutional order, judges will have to swear allegiance to the emergency powers," freelance journalist Graham Usher told CBC News. "Any judge who does not do that can be dismissed."
Justice Hameed Dogar replaced Iftekhar Chaudhry as the country's chief justice. Musharraf tried to remove Chaudhry from the bench in March over alleged abuse of authority, but the court declared the suspension illegal and reinstated him in July after a series of street protests.
Chaudhry has been outspoken in defending the independence of the judiciary.
With files from the Associated Press
Things are coming unglued for Washington in Middle East
Saturday » November 3 » 2007
Since this has been posted there has been further ungluing with Musharaff declaring a state of emergency. This perhaps explains why Bhutto decided to visit her family in Dubai at this particular time!
The hypocrisy of the US over the PJAK is transparent. There are bad (Al Qaeda), neutral (PKK) and good (PJAK) terrorists. The distinction is based not upon their terrorist actions but on their relationship to US policy.
Things are coming unglued for Washington in Middle East
Jonathan Manthorpe
Vancouver Sun
Friday, November 02, 2007
The signs are everywhere that a new, unpredictable and dangerous phase is beginning in Washington's "war on terror" and the fallout from the invasion of Iraq.
In the Middle East, much of the carefully balanced structure of alliances and loyalties has been thrown into confusion by NATO member Turkey's political imperative to confront Kurdish separatist terrorists operating out of northern Iraq.
The outcome, which could see an alliance between U.S. ally Turkey and Washington's "axis of evil" enemy Iran to battle their common irritant, the Kurds, will depend on a meeting between President George W. Bush and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Monday.
If Bush cannot give Erdogan an absolute commitment that American troops in northern Iraq will hand over the 150 or so key leaders of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) who have been sending terror teams over the border in recent weeks, the Turkish leader has a mandate from parliament to go after them himself, and he has the troops to do it.
Washington has tried this week to dilute its refusal to hand over PKK leaders -- despite labelling them "terrorists" -- by giving Ankara intelligence information about the disposition of the PKK camps.
But Washington is in a fix because the Kurdish region of northern Iraq is the only part of the country that is relatively secure.
Yet hypocrisy blossoms even here. At the same time as Washington considers the PKK "terrorists" it is arming and supporting another Kurdish separatist group, the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK).
In Washington's eyes the PJAK are freedom fighters, not terrorists, because they are seeking autonomy for the Kurdish regions in northern Iran, America's enemy.
So it is hardly surprising the Turkish foreign minister flew to Tehran this week to lay the groundwork for an alliance with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad is at the top of his game of sowing dissent and confusion, even as the Bush administration makes increasingly feeble-sounding threats of war to prevent Tehran developing the capacity to make nuclear weapons.
Russia and China have criticized as unhelpful a new raft of unilateral sanctions by the Bush administration against the Iranian leadership. And the director of the International Atomic Energy Authority, Mohamed ElBaradei, has told the White House to cool its rhetoric about an impending "World War III" because Iran is nowhere near being able to make a bomb.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, whose return from exile two weeks ago was meant to herald a new era of stable democracy, has fled back to her family in Dubai.
Her hasty departure on Thursday follows the opening up of a new front by the Taliban.
About 700 people have died in suicide bomb attacks in Pakistan's cities since July when, at Washington's urging, government forces began concerted attacks on Taliban bases in the vast and inhospitable tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
The Taliban, like their supporters in Pakistan and Afghanistan where Canadian forces are battling them around Kandahar, are largely ethnic Pashtun, though they continue to attract hundreds of would-be jihadists from Muslim countries elsewhere.
One result of the Pakistani government military operations has been to solidify Pashtun ethnic loyalties and provoke the Taliban into taking the suicide bomb war into the heartland of the country.
At least 123 people were killed at a rally marking Bhutto's return on Oct. 19. On Wednesday seven
Since this has been posted there has been further ungluing with Musharaff declaring a state of emergency. This perhaps explains why Bhutto decided to visit her family in Dubai at this particular time!
The hypocrisy of the US over the PJAK is transparent. There are bad (Al Qaeda), neutral (PKK) and good (PJAK) terrorists. The distinction is based not upon their terrorist actions but on their relationship to US policy.
Things are coming unglued for Washington in Middle East
Jonathan Manthorpe
Vancouver Sun
Friday, November 02, 2007
The signs are everywhere that a new, unpredictable and dangerous phase is beginning in Washington's "war on terror" and the fallout from the invasion of Iraq.
In the Middle East, much of the carefully balanced structure of alliances and loyalties has been thrown into confusion by NATO member Turkey's political imperative to confront Kurdish separatist terrorists operating out of northern Iraq.
The outcome, which could see an alliance between U.S. ally Turkey and Washington's "axis of evil" enemy Iran to battle their common irritant, the Kurds, will depend on a meeting between President George W. Bush and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Monday.
If Bush cannot give Erdogan an absolute commitment that American troops in northern Iraq will hand over the 150 or so key leaders of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) who have been sending terror teams over the border in recent weeks, the Turkish leader has a mandate from parliament to go after them himself, and he has the troops to do it.
Washington has tried this week to dilute its refusal to hand over PKK leaders -- despite labelling them "terrorists" -- by giving Ankara intelligence information about the disposition of the PKK camps.
But Washington is in a fix because the Kurdish region of northern Iraq is the only part of the country that is relatively secure.
Yet hypocrisy blossoms even here. At the same time as Washington considers the PKK "terrorists" it is arming and supporting another Kurdish separatist group, the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK).
In Washington's eyes the PJAK are freedom fighters, not terrorists, because they are seeking autonomy for the Kurdish regions in northern Iran, America's enemy.
So it is hardly surprising the Turkish foreign minister flew to Tehran this week to lay the groundwork for an alliance with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad is at the top of his game of sowing dissent and confusion, even as the Bush administration makes increasingly feeble-sounding threats of war to prevent Tehran developing the capacity to make nuclear weapons.
Russia and China have criticized as unhelpful a new raft of unilateral sanctions by the Bush administration against the Iranian leadership. And the director of the International Atomic Energy Authority, Mohamed ElBaradei, has told the White House to cool its rhetoric about an impending "World War III" because Iran is nowhere near being able to make a bomb.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, whose return from exile two weeks ago was meant to herald a new era of stable democracy, has fled back to her family in Dubai.
Her hasty departure on Thursday follows the opening up of a new front by the Taliban.
About 700 people have died in suicide bomb attacks in Pakistan's cities since July when, at Washington's urging, government forces began concerted attacks on Taliban bases in the vast and inhospitable tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
The Taliban, like their supporters in Pakistan and Afghanistan where Canadian forces are battling them around Kandahar, are largely ethnic Pashtun, though they continue to attract hundreds of would-be jihadists from Muslim countries elsewhere.
One result of the Pakistani government military operations has been to solidify Pashtun ethnic loyalties and provoke the Taliban into taking the suicide bomb war into the heartland of the country.
At least 123 people were killed at a rally marking Bhutto's return on Oct. 19. On Wednesday seven