This is from AP. Mugabe simply refuses to admit defeat. What I find rather surprising is that the recount confirms the opposition won in most cases. This shows that there is enough independence in the counting process that Mugabe cannot control events. This must be the case with the presidential vote as well and is the reason the results have not been announced. While Bush is certainly correct in his criticism of the situation in Zimbabwe it is probably counterproductive. Mugabe stock in trade is to explain problems in terms of foreign intervention and in supporting the opposition Bush and others just give Mugabe more ammunition.
Nearly 200 Zimbabwe opposition supporters released
By ANGUS SHAW – 1 hour ago
HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) — Police on Tuesday released nearly 200 people who were arrested last week in a raid at opposition headquarters, while President Bush called on Zimbabwe's neighbors to step up the pressure on longtime leader Robert Mugabe.
Many of the 215 people arrested on Friday had fled to Harare to escape mounting violence and intimidation in rural areas that used to be ruling party strongholds but turned against Mugabe in the March 29 elections.
Twenty-nine people, mainly women and children, were released almost immediately. The rest were freed from various police stations in the capital Tuesday in accordance with a High Court order issued Monday, opposition defense lawyer Alec Muchadehama said.
One month after the vote, results from the presidential election still have not been released.
Independent observers say that opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai defeated Mugabe, but did not secure an outright majority necessary to avoid a runoff. Tsvangirai insists he did, while Mugabe has stayed silent.
Bush said at a news conference Tuesday that "Mr. Mugabe has failed the country."
"The violence and the intimidation is simply unacceptable. The government is intent upon and is intimidating the people there," he said.
He stopped short of saying that Mugabe had lost the election, but said it was clear that the country had voted for change. He also said "it's really incumbent on the nations in the neighborhood to step up and lead."
Tendai Biti, the second-in-command in Tsvangirai's opposition party, said Tuesday that he hoped United Nations would send a special envoy to Zimbabwe to assess the situation and help solve the crisis.
He was at U.N. headquarters in hopes of making his appeal to the Security Council. But the council met without him behind closed doors, and Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon had not yet decided whether to send an envoy.
"The secretary-general has not decided if it's necessary, or if there's anything that we should be doing at this point," said U.N. political chief B. Lynn Pascoe.
The standoff was frustrating to Biti, secretary-general of the Movement for Democratic Change.
"There is a humanitarian concern. There's the violence, the fascism that is taking place there, the state of emergency. There is a massive food shortage and the use of food as a political weapon," he said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"Those are clearly not regional and sub-regional issues. Those are U.N. issues, and the (U.N.) Charter is very clear on that."
On Monday, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission concluded the re-count of 23 disputed parliamentary seats, the state-run Herald newspaper reported. The commission would thereafter "invite presidential candidates or their election agents for the verification and collation of the results," the Herald said Tuesday.
State radio reported that the verification process would take at least three more days.
Despite fears of vote-rigging during the parliamentary recount, the published results confirmed that the opposition held a majority of seats for the first time in Zimbabwe's history.
Tsvangirai addressed a joint news conference Monday with Arthur Mutambara, the head of a breakaway faction, to say they had healed their divisions and were now united against Mugabe.
"Old man, go and have an honorable exit," Tsvangirai said in a message to the 84-year-old autocrat who has ruled since independence from Britain in 1980.
"In a parliamentary democracy, the majority rule," Tsvangirai said alongside Mutambara at the news conference. "He should concede that ... he cannot be president."
Human Rights Watch said the ruling party, police and army have "sharply intensified a brutal campaign of organized terror and torture against perceived opposition supporters that threatens the general population."
But the Herald newspaper, a government mouthpiece, accused the opposition of fomenting violence. It said that some Tsvangirai supporters "attacked soldiers and the general public" in Manicaland province. It said one person had been killed and two injured.
It said police suspected that perpetrators of the violence were being given refuge at opposition headquarters.
Associated Press Writer Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Review of Klein's "Shock Doctrine"
This is a review by Doug Henwood in the leftbusinessobserver. I haven't read Klein's book as yet. Henwood's critical analysis seems cogent as far as my knowledge of Klein is concerned. However, Klein's book has a wealth of useful detail about the ravages of capitalism in recent times. Whatever its faults Klein's book has certainly captured the attention of a mass audience and is good antidote to the paeans to the free market capitalism that are standard fare.. However, Klein's analytical framework is certainly lacking and Klein does not even advance a socialist alternative---except that discourse is now so debased that her kinder welfare capitalism would be regarded now as some sort of radical socialism in many quarters! Henwood does a good job of showing how many supposed leftists such as Blair in the UK and Douglas in New Zealand helped destroy the welfare state and pave the way for Neoliberalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article appeared in Left Business Observer #117, March 2008. Copyright 2008, Left Business Observer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awe, shocks!
Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Metropolitan Books, 558 pp., $28.
Naomi Klein made herself deservedly famous with No Logo, whose official U.S. publication date of January 15, 2000, was just weeks after the popular hijacking of the WTO summit in Seattle. Not only was it well-timed, it was notable for moving beyond the usual critiques of consumption that had been staples of what was then called the antiglobalization movement and into the neglected world of production. It was a comprehensive look at the economic world of the time that helped energize a movement and deepen its understanding of the world.
Seven years later comes The Shock Doctrine, an even more ambitious book that aims to provide, in blurber Arundhati Roy’s words, “nothing less than the secret history of what we call the ‘free market.’” Although one should never look to jacket blurbs for measured evaluations, there’s really little that’s secret about this history, and Klein’s organizing “shock” metaphor explains nowhere near as much of the world we live in as she thinks it does.
Crushing cousins
The Shock Doctrine is organized around a conceit: “shock” and its cousin “disaster” explain the political economy of the last several decades. One ur-figure is Dr. Ewen Cameron, a ghoulish psychiatrist who worked under contract with the CIA during the 1950s, devising methods to extract information and remake personalities through the use of drugs and torture. His information-extraction techniques became the templates for Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, and the personality renovation became the psycho-political template for the neoliberal restructuring of much of the globe. And the other ur-figure is Milton Friedman, the University of Chicago economist who wrote the playbook for the policy innovations themselves. The two came together in Chile, via Gen. Augusto Pinochet, when a whole society was remade, in no small part through literal torture techniques, in accordance with the Chicago School’s radical free-market dogma. Modern capitalism, says Klein, was born in the Southern Cone, and Pinochet was its midwife.
From there, the model spread around the world, though the exact nature of the shock and disaster varies. Bolivia experienced an early episode of shock therapy, under the guidance of Jeffrey Sachs, in the mid-1980s. That episode relied more on tight money than torture cells. The same can be said of Sachs’s work in Poland and Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s: the idea was to turn these formerly socialist countries into capitalist ones nearly overnight. In the U.S., there was the shock of 9/11, and the regional disaster of Hurricane Katrina. The invasion of Iraq provided an opportunity for a great economic experiment in that unfortunate country. In Sri Lanka, a tsunami provided the impetus for an economic restructuring.
Clearly, there’s some truth here, but the list of instances is so varied that they don’t always merit a single theory. Even if you limit the theory to the idea that there’s nothing “free” about the free market, it’s strange to see that notion presented as the revelation of a secret history. What is called the “free market” has always been inseparable from state coercion; there was never anything spontaneous about it at all. This has been true at least since the enclosure movement in England privatized previously common lands starting in the sixteenth century, give or take a century or two. In more modern times, the role of U.S. imperial power in promoting the so-called free market has long been a central theme of Noam Chomsky, a writer who doesn’t lack for readers.
Starting the clock
For a book this long, there’s little history from before 1970. Klein cites Stephen Kinzer’s history of U.S. interventions—often based on tight government links to corporate interests—going back to 1893, but she quickly returns to the rapidly fading present of Bush and Cheney. There’s little doubt that there’s something different about this gang—a little more primitive in thought and style—but there’s one prominent missing case: Lyndon Johnson, who engineered the killing of something like a million Indochinese.
Poor LBJ is woefully underrepresented in the book; he doesn’t even merit an index entry. Klein writes at length about Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), which from 1998 to 2007 was a subsidiary of Cheney’s notorious plaything Halliburton. KBR’s predecessor, Brown & Root (B&R), was practically created by federal contracts steered its way by Johnson, from his days in Congress to his days in the White House. B&R returned the favor by financing LBJ’s campaigns for higher office. B&R got fat contracts to build the war infrastructure in Vietnam, complete with scandalous overcharges. (GIs in Vietnam called the company “Burn & Loot.”) B&R built the infamous tiger cages used to torture Vietcong prisoners. It was the first time the U.S. military had contracted out for services formerly performed by soldiers. In other words, George Bush has many predecessors—some of them Democrats even.
The effect of setting the starting clock on history so recently is to make the present seem far more extraordinary than it is. Compounding that problem is the central role that “shock” and “disaster” play in the narrative. By so emphasizing “shock”—and so much of that shock being extreme repression and torture—Klein skirts the difficult question of how the right developed enough popular consent and legitimation to win election and re-election, sometimes in landslides. The Morning in America election of 1984 was about an exhilarating boom. Though the boom was uneven and crazy, and came after a deep recession, it was real enough to be believed by enough people to keep the story going.
The shock of 9/11 had little effect on U.S. economic policy; sure, military contractors have made a bundle of Bush’s buildup, but that’s a story at least as old as Eisenhower’s military–industrial complex speech, and it’s hardly become the driving force of the U.S. economy. She cites contracts of $150 billion handed out over five years, but at $30 billion a year that’s the equivalent of three or four days worth of retail sales.
The voters speak
Klein explains Thatcher’s re-election in 1983 as a result of a nationalist mania after the Falklands War, but that was only a small part of the reason. As Stuart Hall wrote during the early days of Thatcherism, she was able to tap into genuine popular resentment of union “excesses” and gain support for a huge anti-working class offensive. (If you doubt that a critique of the intrusiveness and tedium of the welfare state had popular resonance in Britain, listen to some Kinks songs from the 1970s.) Ditto talk about crime, standards, national prestige, discipline, family values—many of them irrelevant or even antithetical to her radical market agenda—the standard fare of what Hall called “authoritarian populism.”
Neoliberalism, a word that Klein uses a lot, has consistently gained electoral victories in the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India. Not all the practitioners belonged to right-wing parties: names like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Paul Keating, and Roger Douglas come to mind. Clinton and Blair barely appear in the book, and Keating and Douglas not at all.
Both Keating and Douglas enginered the neoliberal restructuring of their countries while serving as finance ministers during the 1980s—Keating in Australia and Douglas in New Zeland—as members of Labor Parties. New Zealand’s transformation is widely regarded as one of the most radical in the world. Douglas travelled the world advising anyone who’d listen on the necessity of creating a “crisis” to promote the free-marketeers’ agenda. But this is an ancient principle of statecraft; one of Klein’s chapter epigraphs is a 500-year-old gem from Machiavelli: “For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less.”
Nostalgias
As do many partisans of the global justice movement, Klein exhibits a nostalgia for the Keyensian welfare state model that prevailed in many rich countries in the decades following World War II. That model had a counterpart, roughly over the same period, in Latin America in the import-substitution model, in which tariffs and other import restrictions were used to protect local industries in the hope they’d develop.
Import substitution had its successes, for sure, but they were fairly limited. The regimes that practiced it were often corrupt and repressive, with deep ties between protected industrialists and their political patrons, and the products of these coddled industries were often shoddy and expensive. There’s no doubt that successful development requires some kinds of “protection,” but it’s hard to do it deftly.
And the victims of Pinochet and Argentine junta were rebels against that very model of capitalism. At first, the military dictatorships of Latin America weren’t trying to impose neoliberalism—they were trying to defend the system of private property against a variety of populists, socialists, and communists.
Using words like “Friedmanite” and “neoliberalism” is a way to avoid talking about capitalism in any systemic fashion. When Klein does address systemic issues, she professes that she’s not anticapitalist, but prefers a form of managed or welfare capitalism. It would be sectarian to say that managed or welfare capitalism isn’t better than what we’ve got now; it most certainly would be, especially in the U.S., where a single-payer healthcare system seems almost like a revolutionary impossibility. But it would be naive to think that we could get there without a political upsurge demanding an even more radical renovation, and evasive to deny that exploitation wouldn’t still exist under a regulated capitalism.
Pinochet, meet Procrustes
As is often the case with arguments organized around a conceit, Klein works hard to squeeze events into her model’s form. There’s the problem mentioned above—that Cameron and Pinochet cannot explain Ronald Reagan’s 59-41 victory over Walter Mondale in 1984. But there are also problems with many of Klein’s case studies.
In her chapter on post-apartheid South Africa, Klein notes how the hope generated by the ANC’s taking power was dashed by the orthodox economic policy the party pursued once in power. She explains that the country was “outnegotiated” by the World Bank and IMF. That is not how many on the South African left see the problem. Their analysis is that the ANC was never anti-capitalist, and was quite eager to join the world system and get its own piece of the action. As no less than Mandela himself put it: “The ANC has never...advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure of the country, nor has it...ever condemned capitalist society.”
She also asserts that Israel is in the midst of a Chinese-style boom, which has been occurring because, not in spite of, the country’s constant state of war. The boom, she asserts, is being driven by the production and export of military and surveillance equipment. But in fact Israel’s economy isn’t booming, the military share of GDP is way down from its 1970s peaks and has been flat in recent years, and arms represent only a fraction of Israeli exports. Israel’s per capita GDP has been growing at about a quarter of the Chinese rate over the last couple of years; over the last seven years, it’s more like a tenth the Chinese rate. Electronics, including military–surveillance goods, have been declining as a share of Israeli exports, while that of drugs and chemicals has been rising. Israel’s share of the world’s arms trade is just over 1%, behind Sweden’s.
For Klein, the invasion of Iraq wasn’t a geopolitical adventure so much as an economically rational attempt to complete the Chicago-school counterrevolution that began in Chile in 1973: to bring the “Friedmanite” model to the Middle East. “The ‘fiasco’ of Iraq is one created by a careful and faithful application of unrestrained Chicago School ideology.” It was, in a phrase she likes, “Friedmanite to the core.” Among the problems with this reading are that things haven’t worked out as planned—Iraq barely has an economy to impose any policy on, though privatization decrees were certainly issued—and that Friedman himself opposed the invasion of Iraq. He told the Wall Street Journal’s Tunku Varadarajan in July 2006: “What's really killed the Republican Party isn't spending, it's Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression.”
Miltie
Klein’s use of a one-dimensional caricature of Friedman as an all-purpose whipping boy may play to the choir, but he deserves more serious attention than this. His economics was in many ways wrong and vile, but over the course of a fifty-year career, he helped reshape not only his discipline, but the way politicians and regular people think and talk about the economy. He was an extremely effective popular writer; if only the left could have produced a book as persuasive as Capitalism and Freedom, the world might be a better place. (Yes, yes, his argument was nicely aligned with the needs of capital in the 1970s, but on the other hand, capital also needed some degree of popular assent, which Friedman helped produce—and, on the third hand, polemic doesn’t count for nothing, and material interest isn’t everything.)
One reason that Friedman became popular both within his own profession and in the larger world was that there were real economic problems in the 1970s. In the richer countries, Keynesian/welfare-state capitalism was in crisis because of stagflation. According to the economic consensus of the time, weak growth was supposed to mean low inflation—but weak growth coexisted with persistently high inflation throughout the 1970s. Friedman offered an explanation for that: monetary stimulus beyond a certain point results in inflation, not additional growth. Growth was being held back by unions and regulations, which were interfering with the magic self-adjusting powers of the market. The solution was tight money and deregulation. It worked, at least for a while, on its own terms, though at great human cost.
But there’s a radical way of expressing the insights of Friedman and the others who came to power and influence in the late 1970s. Capitalism simply cannot live with low unemployment rates. Workers gain confidence, resist the direction of the boss, and wages are forced up. Add to that a welfare state, which cushions workers against the risk of job loss, and things are even worse from the bosses’ point of view. Their plight was evident in the depressed profit rates of the leisure-suit decade.
Sure enough, the application of the Friedman agenda raised profit rates and ended the great inflation—though it put the working class into a semipermanent state of anxiety, which was part of the point. That does suggest a permanent shock strategy is part of the system’s normal operating procedure, not an extraordinary event.
Limits and beyond
An honest evaluation of this history would have to recognize that the Keynesian model in the northern hemisphere had reached an impasse in the 1970s. Either things had to break in the Friedmanite direction or a more anticapitalist direction. And in the southern hemisphere, import substitution was running into similar problems: rising inflation and low levels of productivity. Many governments borrowed heavily abroad in an attempt to keep things going, laying the groundwork for the debt crisis of the 1980s. Obviously Friedman, Pinochet, and Reagan do not represent the full range of possibilities, but something had to give, and the left worldwide was too weak to win the battle.
Though the analysis may be problematic, Klein’s closing chapter does inspire hope even in a skeptical reader. Shocks wear off, and some of the most inspiring agitation is coming from the region that suffered some of the worst abuses of the 1970s and 1980s, Latin America. The word “socialism” is even being dusted off in Venezuela and Bolivia. But the emphasis on shock as the organizing principle of the book even constrains the inspiration. Those recovering from shock, whether in the Southern Cone or in New Orleans, see themselves as “repair people, taking what’s there and fixing it, reinforcing it, making it better and more equal. Most of all, they are building in resistance—for when the next shock hits.” These are the concluding words of the book. Is this really all we can do? Tinker while the weather’s fair, and get ready to duck and cover on a moment’s notice?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Mail Articles Stats/current Supplements Subscriptions Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article appeared in Left Business Observer #117, March 2008. Copyright 2008, Left Business Observer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awe, shocks!
Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Metropolitan Books, 558 pp., $28.
Naomi Klein made herself deservedly famous with No Logo, whose official U.S. publication date of January 15, 2000, was just weeks after the popular hijacking of the WTO summit in Seattle. Not only was it well-timed, it was notable for moving beyond the usual critiques of consumption that had been staples of what was then called the antiglobalization movement and into the neglected world of production. It was a comprehensive look at the economic world of the time that helped energize a movement and deepen its understanding of the world.
Seven years later comes The Shock Doctrine, an even more ambitious book that aims to provide, in blurber Arundhati Roy’s words, “nothing less than the secret history of what we call the ‘free market.’” Although one should never look to jacket blurbs for measured evaluations, there’s really little that’s secret about this history, and Klein’s organizing “shock” metaphor explains nowhere near as much of the world we live in as she thinks it does.
Crushing cousins
The Shock Doctrine is organized around a conceit: “shock” and its cousin “disaster” explain the political economy of the last several decades. One ur-figure is Dr. Ewen Cameron, a ghoulish psychiatrist who worked under contract with the CIA during the 1950s, devising methods to extract information and remake personalities through the use of drugs and torture. His information-extraction techniques became the templates for Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, and the personality renovation became the psycho-political template for the neoliberal restructuring of much of the globe. And the other ur-figure is Milton Friedman, the University of Chicago economist who wrote the playbook for the policy innovations themselves. The two came together in Chile, via Gen. Augusto Pinochet, when a whole society was remade, in no small part through literal torture techniques, in accordance with the Chicago School’s radical free-market dogma. Modern capitalism, says Klein, was born in the Southern Cone, and Pinochet was its midwife.
From there, the model spread around the world, though the exact nature of the shock and disaster varies. Bolivia experienced an early episode of shock therapy, under the guidance of Jeffrey Sachs, in the mid-1980s. That episode relied more on tight money than torture cells. The same can be said of Sachs’s work in Poland and Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s: the idea was to turn these formerly socialist countries into capitalist ones nearly overnight. In the U.S., there was the shock of 9/11, and the regional disaster of Hurricane Katrina. The invasion of Iraq provided an opportunity for a great economic experiment in that unfortunate country. In Sri Lanka, a tsunami provided the impetus for an economic restructuring.
Clearly, there’s some truth here, but the list of instances is so varied that they don’t always merit a single theory. Even if you limit the theory to the idea that there’s nothing “free” about the free market, it’s strange to see that notion presented as the revelation of a secret history. What is called the “free market” has always been inseparable from state coercion; there was never anything spontaneous about it at all. This has been true at least since the enclosure movement in England privatized previously common lands starting in the sixteenth century, give or take a century or two. In more modern times, the role of U.S. imperial power in promoting the so-called free market has long been a central theme of Noam Chomsky, a writer who doesn’t lack for readers.
Starting the clock
For a book this long, there’s little history from before 1970. Klein cites Stephen Kinzer’s history of U.S. interventions—often based on tight government links to corporate interests—going back to 1893, but she quickly returns to the rapidly fading present of Bush and Cheney. There’s little doubt that there’s something different about this gang—a little more primitive in thought and style—but there’s one prominent missing case: Lyndon Johnson, who engineered the killing of something like a million Indochinese.
Poor LBJ is woefully underrepresented in the book; he doesn’t even merit an index entry. Klein writes at length about Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), which from 1998 to 2007 was a subsidiary of Cheney’s notorious plaything Halliburton. KBR’s predecessor, Brown & Root (B&R), was practically created by federal contracts steered its way by Johnson, from his days in Congress to his days in the White House. B&R returned the favor by financing LBJ’s campaigns for higher office. B&R got fat contracts to build the war infrastructure in Vietnam, complete with scandalous overcharges. (GIs in Vietnam called the company “Burn & Loot.”) B&R built the infamous tiger cages used to torture Vietcong prisoners. It was the first time the U.S. military had contracted out for services formerly performed by soldiers. In other words, George Bush has many predecessors—some of them Democrats even.
The effect of setting the starting clock on history so recently is to make the present seem far more extraordinary than it is. Compounding that problem is the central role that “shock” and “disaster” play in the narrative. By so emphasizing “shock”—and so much of that shock being extreme repression and torture—Klein skirts the difficult question of how the right developed enough popular consent and legitimation to win election and re-election, sometimes in landslides. The Morning in America election of 1984 was about an exhilarating boom. Though the boom was uneven and crazy, and came after a deep recession, it was real enough to be believed by enough people to keep the story going.
The shock of 9/11 had little effect on U.S. economic policy; sure, military contractors have made a bundle of Bush’s buildup, but that’s a story at least as old as Eisenhower’s military–industrial complex speech, and it’s hardly become the driving force of the U.S. economy. She cites contracts of $150 billion handed out over five years, but at $30 billion a year that’s the equivalent of three or four days worth of retail sales.
The voters speak
Klein explains Thatcher’s re-election in 1983 as a result of a nationalist mania after the Falklands War, but that was only a small part of the reason. As Stuart Hall wrote during the early days of Thatcherism, she was able to tap into genuine popular resentment of union “excesses” and gain support for a huge anti-working class offensive. (If you doubt that a critique of the intrusiveness and tedium of the welfare state had popular resonance in Britain, listen to some Kinks songs from the 1970s.) Ditto talk about crime, standards, national prestige, discipline, family values—many of them irrelevant or even antithetical to her radical market agenda—the standard fare of what Hall called “authoritarian populism.”
Neoliberalism, a word that Klein uses a lot, has consistently gained electoral victories in the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India. Not all the practitioners belonged to right-wing parties: names like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Paul Keating, and Roger Douglas come to mind. Clinton and Blair barely appear in the book, and Keating and Douglas not at all.
Both Keating and Douglas enginered the neoliberal restructuring of their countries while serving as finance ministers during the 1980s—Keating in Australia and Douglas in New Zeland—as members of Labor Parties. New Zealand’s transformation is widely regarded as one of the most radical in the world. Douglas travelled the world advising anyone who’d listen on the necessity of creating a “crisis” to promote the free-marketeers’ agenda. But this is an ancient principle of statecraft; one of Klein’s chapter epigraphs is a 500-year-old gem from Machiavelli: “For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less.”
Nostalgias
As do many partisans of the global justice movement, Klein exhibits a nostalgia for the Keyensian welfare state model that prevailed in many rich countries in the decades following World War II. That model had a counterpart, roughly over the same period, in Latin America in the import-substitution model, in which tariffs and other import restrictions were used to protect local industries in the hope they’d develop.
Import substitution had its successes, for sure, but they were fairly limited. The regimes that practiced it were often corrupt and repressive, with deep ties between protected industrialists and their political patrons, and the products of these coddled industries were often shoddy and expensive. There’s no doubt that successful development requires some kinds of “protection,” but it’s hard to do it deftly.
And the victims of Pinochet and Argentine junta were rebels against that very model of capitalism. At first, the military dictatorships of Latin America weren’t trying to impose neoliberalism—they were trying to defend the system of private property against a variety of populists, socialists, and communists.
Using words like “Friedmanite” and “neoliberalism” is a way to avoid talking about capitalism in any systemic fashion. When Klein does address systemic issues, she professes that she’s not anticapitalist, but prefers a form of managed or welfare capitalism. It would be sectarian to say that managed or welfare capitalism isn’t better than what we’ve got now; it most certainly would be, especially in the U.S., where a single-payer healthcare system seems almost like a revolutionary impossibility. But it would be naive to think that we could get there without a political upsurge demanding an even more radical renovation, and evasive to deny that exploitation wouldn’t still exist under a regulated capitalism.
Pinochet, meet Procrustes
As is often the case with arguments organized around a conceit, Klein works hard to squeeze events into her model’s form. There’s the problem mentioned above—that Cameron and Pinochet cannot explain Ronald Reagan’s 59-41 victory over Walter Mondale in 1984. But there are also problems with many of Klein’s case studies.
In her chapter on post-apartheid South Africa, Klein notes how the hope generated by the ANC’s taking power was dashed by the orthodox economic policy the party pursued once in power. She explains that the country was “outnegotiated” by the World Bank and IMF. That is not how many on the South African left see the problem. Their analysis is that the ANC was never anti-capitalist, and was quite eager to join the world system and get its own piece of the action. As no less than Mandela himself put it: “The ANC has never...advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure of the country, nor has it...ever condemned capitalist society.”
She also asserts that Israel is in the midst of a Chinese-style boom, which has been occurring because, not in spite of, the country’s constant state of war. The boom, she asserts, is being driven by the production and export of military and surveillance equipment. But in fact Israel’s economy isn’t booming, the military share of GDP is way down from its 1970s peaks and has been flat in recent years, and arms represent only a fraction of Israeli exports. Israel’s per capita GDP has been growing at about a quarter of the Chinese rate over the last couple of years; over the last seven years, it’s more like a tenth the Chinese rate. Electronics, including military–surveillance goods, have been declining as a share of Israeli exports, while that of drugs and chemicals has been rising. Israel’s share of the world’s arms trade is just over 1%, behind Sweden’s.
For Klein, the invasion of Iraq wasn’t a geopolitical adventure so much as an economically rational attempt to complete the Chicago-school counterrevolution that began in Chile in 1973: to bring the “Friedmanite” model to the Middle East. “The ‘fiasco’ of Iraq is one created by a careful and faithful application of unrestrained Chicago School ideology.” It was, in a phrase she likes, “Friedmanite to the core.” Among the problems with this reading are that things haven’t worked out as planned—Iraq barely has an economy to impose any policy on, though privatization decrees were certainly issued—and that Friedman himself opposed the invasion of Iraq. He told the Wall Street Journal’s Tunku Varadarajan in July 2006: “What's really killed the Republican Party isn't spending, it's Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression.”
Miltie
Klein’s use of a one-dimensional caricature of Friedman as an all-purpose whipping boy may play to the choir, but he deserves more serious attention than this. His economics was in many ways wrong and vile, but over the course of a fifty-year career, he helped reshape not only his discipline, but the way politicians and regular people think and talk about the economy. He was an extremely effective popular writer; if only the left could have produced a book as persuasive as Capitalism and Freedom, the world might be a better place. (Yes, yes, his argument was nicely aligned with the needs of capital in the 1970s, but on the other hand, capital also needed some degree of popular assent, which Friedman helped produce—and, on the third hand, polemic doesn’t count for nothing, and material interest isn’t everything.)
One reason that Friedman became popular both within his own profession and in the larger world was that there were real economic problems in the 1970s. In the richer countries, Keynesian/welfare-state capitalism was in crisis because of stagflation. According to the economic consensus of the time, weak growth was supposed to mean low inflation—but weak growth coexisted with persistently high inflation throughout the 1970s. Friedman offered an explanation for that: monetary stimulus beyond a certain point results in inflation, not additional growth. Growth was being held back by unions and regulations, which were interfering with the magic self-adjusting powers of the market. The solution was tight money and deregulation. It worked, at least for a while, on its own terms, though at great human cost.
But there’s a radical way of expressing the insights of Friedman and the others who came to power and influence in the late 1970s. Capitalism simply cannot live with low unemployment rates. Workers gain confidence, resist the direction of the boss, and wages are forced up. Add to that a welfare state, which cushions workers against the risk of job loss, and things are even worse from the bosses’ point of view. Their plight was evident in the depressed profit rates of the leisure-suit decade.
Sure enough, the application of the Friedman agenda raised profit rates and ended the great inflation—though it put the working class into a semipermanent state of anxiety, which was part of the point. That does suggest a permanent shock strategy is part of the system’s normal operating procedure, not an extraordinary event.
Limits and beyond
An honest evaluation of this history would have to recognize that the Keynesian model in the northern hemisphere had reached an impasse in the 1970s. Either things had to break in the Friedmanite direction or a more anticapitalist direction. And in the southern hemisphere, import substitution was running into similar problems: rising inflation and low levels of productivity. Many governments borrowed heavily abroad in an attempt to keep things going, laying the groundwork for the debt crisis of the 1980s. Obviously Friedman, Pinochet, and Reagan do not represent the full range of possibilities, but something had to give, and the left worldwide was too weak to win the battle.
Though the analysis may be problematic, Klein’s closing chapter does inspire hope even in a skeptical reader. Shocks wear off, and some of the most inspiring agitation is coming from the region that suffered some of the worst abuses of the 1970s and 1980s, Latin America. The word “socialism” is even being dusted off in Venezuela and Bolivia. But the emphasis on shock as the organizing principle of the book even constrains the inspiration. Those recovering from shock, whether in the Southern Cone or in New Orleans, see themselves as “repair people, taking what’s there and fixing it, reinforcing it, making it better and more equal. Most of all, they are building in resistance—for when the next shock hits.” These are the concluding words of the book. Is this really all we can do? Tinker while the weather’s fair, and get ready to duck and cover on a moment’s notice?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Mail Articles Stats/current Supplements Subscriptions Radio
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Philippines: Bitter Medicine..
Compared to some of the swindles in Iraq this is probably small potatoes. One wonders if the fraud was all on the Philippine side. As the article mentions the claims are filed on behalf of 9,000 U.S. servicemen retired in the Philippines although they probably were not involved but were just the vehicle for the inflated claims. In most hospitals medical costs are far below that in the U.S. Perhaps the claims seemed reasonable at the Pentagon!
Bitter medicine
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:17:00 04/28/2008
MANILA, Philippines - The stunning news filtered out through the wires last Thursday. An elaborate scam based in the Philippines had swindled the Pentagon out of billions of pesos in fraudulent health care claims. The exact amount of the total fraud is still undetermined, but it has been reported that one health care provider in the Philippines, Health Visions Corp., allegedly defrauded the US Defense Department’s Tricare program of almost $100 million between 1998 and 2004. It has also been reported that one Filipino doctor already arrested by US agents had by himself or with others swindled the Tricare program of $2 million in false or padded claims.
US government agencies have thrown the blame at one another. The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, criticized Tricare management for waiting an inordinately long time before suspending Health Visions. A former official of the Defense Department, meanwhile, took the Inspector General to task, for refusing his requests to send additional investigators to the Philippines.
There was certainly something to investigate. According to the Associated Press, the health insurance claims filed by some 9,000 retired American servicemen living in the Philippines ballooned from $3 million in 1998 to more than $60 million in 2003.
There is also, certainly, enough blame to go around. US authorities seemed to take their time, despite evidence gathered years ago. But at least the US government has started to crack the whip. The Arroyo administration must do the same.
Our impression is that Philippine government officials are either still in denial or are substituting talk for action. National Bureau of Investigation agent Claro de Castro Jr., for example, doubts whether the total cost of the scam to the US government could reach a hundred million dollars. “That’s too much,” he said. He pointed to one case that involved only $40,000—but in fact the investigation in the United States has gathered evidence of a systematic effort to defraud the health insurance system. Add enough similar cases, and the total will undoubtedly be substantial.
Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, who oversees the work of the NBI, declared that the country would cooperate with the US government—but in the next breath almost seemed to promise the exact opposite. “The downside [to the requests to extradite certain individuals to the United States] would be whatever legal maneuvers their lawyers will do. If the court will issue writs, for example, we have to comply until we can have them resolved.”
Coming from a lawyer famous for his damn-the-torpedoes approach to legal requirements, this is saying something. Indeed, the AP quoted a US government lawyer to the effect that about 20 of the 37 suspects already charged were still at large, many of them because of the failure of the extradition requests.
It is in our national interest to cooperate as fully as we can, because the reputation of our doctors and nurses are at stake. Yes, we must also consider the rather unusual timing of the release of pertinent information—at the exact time the US Senate deliberated on a bill granting a pension to Filipino veterans who served in the US armed services during World War II. (The bill passed, and must now hurdle the US House of Representatives.)
But the damage this unconscionable scam does to the reputation of our medical community—even if it were proven that Filipino medical personnel involved were merely accomplices, not masterminds, in an elaborate scheme—will be more lasting than a stray and frivolous comment about the quality of Philippine medical schools in “Desperate Housewives.”
Here we have the possibility of Filipino doctors and nurses, in Philippine hospitals and clinics, knowingly taking part in a giant fraud. This is terrible news, given the encouraging growth in medical tourism and the continuing demand abroad for Filipino medical personnel. What are we doing taking our time?
In an AP story, a Tricare spokesperson “said the fraud has been hard to prove because of language barriers, a lack of cooperation from providers and limited law enforcement resources.” Surely the Philippine government can help, on at least two of these three factors. It’s bitter but necessary medicine.
Bitter medicine
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:17:00 04/28/2008
MANILA, Philippines - The stunning news filtered out through the wires last Thursday. An elaborate scam based in the Philippines had swindled the Pentagon out of billions of pesos in fraudulent health care claims. The exact amount of the total fraud is still undetermined, but it has been reported that one health care provider in the Philippines, Health Visions Corp., allegedly defrauded the US Defense Department’s Tricare program of almost $100 million between 1998 and 2004. It has also been reported that one Filipino doctor already arrested by US agents had by himself or with others swindled the Tricare program of $2 million in false or padded claims.
US government agencies have thrown the blame at one another. The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, criticized Tricare management for waiting an inordinately long time before suspending Health Visions. A former official of the Defense Department, meanwhile, took the Inspector General to task, for refusing his requests to send additional investigators to the Philippines.
There was certainly something to investigate. According to the Associated Press, the health insurance claims filed by some 9,000 retired American servicemen living in the Philippines ballooned from $3 million in 1998 to more than $60 million in 2003.
There is also, certainly, enough blame to go around. US authorities seemed to take their time, despite evidence gathered years ago. But at least the US government has started to crack the whip. The Arroyo administration must do the same.
Our impression is that Philippine government officials are either still in denial or are substituting talk for action. National Bureau of Investigation agent Claro de Castro Jr., for example, doubts whether the total cost of the scam to the US government could reach a hundred million dollars. “That’s too much,” he said. He pointed to one case that involved only $40,000—but in fact the investigation in the United States has gathered evidence of a systematic effort to defraud the health insurance system. Add enough similar cases, and the total will undoubtedly be substantial.
Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, who oversees the work of the NBI, declared that the country would cooperate with the US government—but in the next breath almost seemed to promise the exact opposite. “The downside [to the requests to extradite certain individuals to the United States] would be whatever legal maneuvers their lawyers will do. If the court will issue writs, for example, we have to comply until we can have them resolved.”
Coming from a lawyer famous for his damn-the-torpedoes approach to legal requirements, this is saying something. Indeed, the AP quoted a US government lawyer to the effect that about 20 of the 37 suspects already charged were still at large, many of them because of the failure of the extradition requests.
It is in our national interest to cooperate as fully as we can, because the reputation of our doctors and nurses are at stake. Yes, we must also consider the rather unusual timing of the release of pertinent information—at the exact time the US Senate deliberated on a bill granting a pension to Filipino veterans who served in the US armed services during World War II. (The bill passed, and must now hurdle the US House of Representatives.)
But the damage this unconscionable scam does to the reputation of our medical community—even if it were proven that Filipino medical personnel involved were merely accomplices, not masterminds, in an elaborate scheme—will be more lasting than a stray and frivolous comment about the quality of Philippine medical schools in “Desperate Housewives.”
Here we have the possibility of Filipino doctors and nurses, in Philippine hospitals and clinics, knowingly taking part in a giant fraud. This is terrible news, given the encouraging growth in medical tourism and the continuing demand abroad for Filipino medical personnel. What are we doing taking our time?
In an AP story, a Tricare spokesperson “said the fraud has been hard to prove because of language barriers, a lack of cooperation from providers and limited law enforcement resources.” Surely the Philippine government can help, on at least two of these three factors. It’s bitter but necessary medicine.
Pakistan Taliban chief pulls out of peace talks
This is from wiredispatch.
Obviously the U.S. has put pressure on the Pakistani govt. not to negotiate with terrorists. I can't understand why a Taliban chief should pussyfoot around with phrases such as "foreign forces" when he means the U.S. Maybe the Taliban are just garden variety politicians who can't call a spade a spade.
The fact that negotiations have broken down does not mean that there will be renewed conflict between Pakistan forces and the Taliban. A ceasefire may hold.
Pakistani Taliban chief pulls out of peace talks
Zeeshan Haider
Reuters North American News Service
Apr 28, 2008 07:34 EST
ISLAMABAD, April 28 (Reuters) - A Pakistani Taliban commander pulled out of a peace deal with the government after it refused to withdraw the army from tribal lands on the Afghan border, the militant's spokesman said on Monday.
Tribal elders in Pakistan's South Waziristan region have been trying to broker a peace deal between the government and Baitullah Mehsud, an al Qaeda ally who leads the Taliban in Pakistan.
Mehsud has been accused of being behind a wave of suicide attacks that have rocked Pakistan since mid-2007, including one that killed former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in December.
"Our chief Baitullah Mehsud has announced the end of the dialogue process about an hour ago after tribal elders informed us that government is unwilling to pull out troops from Waziristan and other areas," Maulvi Omar, a spokesman for the Tehrik-e-Taliban (Movement of Taliban), told Reuters by telephone.
Government spokesmen were not immediately available for comment.
Mehsud last week announced a ceasefire after authorities expressed optimism that a peace deal would be finalised in a few days.
Omar said Taliban fighters would hold their fire if government forces did not attack them.
"We don't want war and can resume talks if the government is ready. But if they launch a military operation against us or attack our men, then we will respond, we will take revenge," he said.
Omar said "hidden hands" in Pakistani intelligence agencies were acting under the influence of "foreign forces" to subvert the peace process.
"The new government needs to get rid of these hidden hands if it wants peace in Waziristan and other tribal areas," Omar said.
Pakistan's new coalition government, led by Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP), has said it wants to open talks with the militants in a bid to break with the policies of President Pervez Musharraf.
Mehsud has denied involvement in Bhutto's assassination. While the previous government and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have said there was evidence against Mehsud, the PPP leadership appears less sure and plans to ask for a U.N. investigation.
Musharraf's support for the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism is deeply unpopular, particularly among the fiercely independent Pashtun tribes living on the Afghan border.
Musharraf has tried everything from military offensives to appeasement to tackle militancy, and critics say the new government will end up trying all the same strategies.
The government has made pacts with the militants in Waziristan before.
Critics say the deals led to a lull in fighting in Pakistan but gave militants breathing space to regroup and intensify cross-border attacks in Afghanistan.
Three people, including a policeman, were killed and more than 20 were wounded in a car bomb outside a police station in the northwestern town of Mardan on Friday.
Omar said the Taliban carried out the attack to avenge a killing of one of their fighters by the police. (Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore and John Chalmers)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Obviously the U.S. has put pressure on the Pakistani govt. not to negotiate with terrorists. I can't understand why a Taliban chief should pussyfoot around with phrases such as "foreign forces" when he means the U.S. Maybe the Taliban are just garden variety politicians who can't call a spade a spade.
The fact that negotiations have broken down does not mean that there will be renewed conflict between Pakistan forces and the Taliban. A ceasefire may hold.
Pakistani Taliban chief pulls out of peace talks
Zeeshan Haider
Reuters North American News Service
Apr 28, 2008 07:34 EST
ISLAMABAD, April 28 (Reuters) - A Pakistani Taliban commander pulled out of a peace deal with the government after it refused to withdraw the army from tribal lands on the Afghan border, the militant's spokesman said on Monday.
Tribal elders in Pakistan's South Waziristan region have been trying to broker a peace deal between the government and Baitullah Mehsud, an al Qaeda ally who leads the Taliban in Pakistan.
Mehsud has been accused of being behind a wave of suicide attacks that have rocked Pakistan since mid-2007, including one that killed former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in December.
"Our chief Baitullah Mehsud has announced the end of the dialogue process about an hour ago after tribal elders informed us that government is unwilling to pull out troops from Waziristan and other areas," Maulvi Omar, a spokesman for the Tehrik-e-Taliban (Movement of Taliban), told Reuters by telephone.
Government spokesmen were not immediately available for comment.
Mehsud last week announced a ceasefire after authorities expressed optimism that a peace deal would be finalised in a few days.
Omar said Taliban fighters would hold their fire if government forces did not attack them.
"We don't want war and can resume talks if the government is ready. But if they launch a military operation against us or attack our men, then we will respond, we will take revenge," he said.
Omar said "hidden hands" in Pakistani intelligence agencies were acting under the influence of "foreign forces" to subvert the peace process.
"The new government needs to get rid of these hidden hands if it wants peace in Waziristan and other tribal areas," Omar said.
Pakistan's new coalition government, led by Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP), has said it wants to open talks with the militants in a bid to break with the policies of President Pervez Musharraf.
Mehsud has denied involvement in Bhutto's assassination. While the previous government and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have said there was evidence against Mehsud, the PPP leadership appears less sure and plans to ask for a U.N. investigation.
Musharraf's support for the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism is deeply unpopular, particularly among the fiercely independent Pashtun tribes living on the Afghan border.
Musharraf has tried everything from military offensives to appeasement to tackle militancy, and critics say the new government will end up trying all the same strategies.
The government has made pacts with the militants in Waziristan before.
Critics say the deals led to a lull in fighting in Pakistan but gave militants breathing space to regroup and intensify cross-border attacks in Afghanistan.
Three people, including a policeman, were killed and more than 20 were wounded in a car bomb outside a police station in the northwestern town of Mardan on Friday.
Omar said the Taliban carried out the attack to avenge a killing of one of their fighters by the police. (Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore and John Chalmers)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Monday, April 28, 2008
U.S. air strikes kill 6 in Sadr City despite truce..
This is from wiredispatch. This sort of attack will not likely even register in the U.S. mainstream news. Yet as the article shows it registers among the families of victims. You can expect more attacks against Americans. Actually Sadr is trying hard to maintain a truce but for some reason the U.S. is forging ahead. Even the Iraqi govt. has condemned the attacks but the Iraqi govt. has no control over the U.S. forces. The occupying forces do as they like.
WRAPUP 1-U.S. air strikes kill 6 in Sadr City despite truce
Wisam Mohammed
Reuters North American News Service
Apr 27, 2008 09:50 EST
BAGHDAD, April 27 (Reuters) - U.S. forces said on Sunday they killed six militants in air strikes overnight in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, despite a call by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr for his fighters to observe a truce which seems to have reined them in.
In a sign of progress towards reconciling Iraq's main sects, Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Sunni Arab Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi to discuss the eventual return of the main Sunni Arab bloc to Maliki's government.
Ten people were killed and more than 40 wounded overnight in Sadr City, where Sadr's fighters have battled U.S. and Iraqi troops for a month, Iraqi police and hospital sources said.
U.S. forces, who have launched several air strikes a day from Apache helicopters and remote-controlled drones, said they spotted three groups of militants at night and hit them from the air with Hellfire missiles, killing five gunmen.
A sixth fighter was killed by a helicopter strike in the morning and a seventh died in a shootout.
"I would like to emphasise that these are not 'violent' clashes, at least not in our definition. They are not protracted gunfights," said U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover. "While attacks continue there have been less."
Abu Jassim, a Mehdi Army street commander, said Sadr's fighters were abiding by the ceasefire call and reducing their activities. They had orders not to shoot at Americans inside Sadr City to avoid clashes that would hurt civilians.
"This morning, the Americans entered on foot from the Jamila area. We could have hit them, but we have orders to defend the city against the occupiers but not inside the city," he said.
The black-masked fighters of Sadr's Mehdi Army could no longer be seen prowling Sadr City's streets as they had just days ago, a Reuters correspondent said.
CRACKDOWN
The government's confrontation with Sadr's fighters began a month ago with a crackdown launched by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in the southern city of Basra.
Despite initial setbacks, the Basra campaign has since proved largely a success, with government troops taking control of neighbourhoods once regarded as militia strongholds and fighters disappearing from the southern city's streets.
In Sadr City, the cleric's main Baghdad stronghold, U.S. forces have advanced only into a small portion of the slum to put most of the Mehdi Army's missiles and mortars out of range of the capital's Green Zone government and diplomatic compound.
More than 700 missiles and mortars have been fired, mainly from Sadr City, over the past month. Fighting and air strikes in the slum have killed hundreds.
Food prices have skyrocketted and residents say they feel under siege. Many schools have shut.
Major-General Qasim Moussawi, Iraqi government spokesman for security in the capital, acknowledged civilian casualties were inevitable in fighting in a crowded slum.
"The area of this (Sadr) city is around 25 square kilometres (10 square miles) with an estimated population of 3 million. This means if a bullet is shot, it will hit a person," he said.
Um Aziz is an elderly woman whose three daughters and a son were killed when the roof of her house collapsed because of the force of an explosion nearby. She cursed the U.S. forces.
"I don't want any reparations from the government. I want my revenge from God," she said outside her ruined home, wearing bandages from her own injuries and a broken leg.
"Let the Americans listen: If they kill all the men, we will fight them. We: the women and the children. And if they take our weapons we will fight them with stones and knives."
Abu Issam, a government employee and Sadr City resident, said his two-year-old daughter has become so used to nightly bombardment that she can no longer sleep unless she hears it.
"Every night when she hears the mosque loudspeaker say 'Allahu Akbar' (God is greatest), she says to me: 'Papa papa, the Americans are coming!'"
Despite the clashes in Shi'ite areas over the past month, U.S. commanders say violence along Iraq's main sectarian divide between Sunni Arabs and Shi'ites has remained much lower after falling dramatically last year.
Maliki's government is hoping for a breakthrough soon that would lead to the Sunni Arab Accordance Front returning to Maliki's Shi'ite-led government, which the Front quit last year.
Maliki's office said this week the Front had lifted its objections to returning. Sunday's meeting between Maliki and Hashemi, the only senior Front member with an official position, was aimed at resolving the standoff, Hashemi's office said. (Additional reporting by Peter Graff; Waleed Ibrahim and Aws Qusay; writing by Peter Graff, editing by Tim Cocks and Robert Woodward)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Additional links from Reuters North American News Service
WRAPUP 1-U.S. air strikes kill 6 in Sadr City despite truce
Wisam Mohammed
Reuters North American News Service
Apr 27, 2008 09:50 EST
BAGHDAD, April 27 (Reuters) - U.S. forces said on Sunday they killed six militants in air strikes overnight in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, despite a call by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr for his fighters to observe a truce which seems to have reined them in.
In a sign of progress towards reconciling Iraq's main sects, Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Sunni Arab Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi to discuss the eventual return of the main Sunni Arab bloc to Maliki's government.
Ten people were killed and more than 40 wounded overnight in Sadr City, where Sadr's fighters have battled U.S. and Iraqi troops for a month, Iraqi police and hospital sources said.
U.S. forces, who have launched several air strikes a day from Apache helicopters and remote-controlled drones, said they spotted three groups of militants at night and hit them from the air with Hellfire missiles, killing five gunmen.
A sixth fighter was killed by a helicopter strike in the morning and a seventh died in a shootout.
"I would like to emphasise that these are not 'violent' clashes, at least not in our definition. They are not protracted gunfights," said U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover. "While attacks continue there have been less."
Abu Jassim, a Mehdi Army street commander, said Sadr's fighters were abiding by the ceasefire call and reducing their activities. They had orders not to shoot at Americans inside Sadr City to avoid clashes that would hurt civilians.
"This morning, the Americans entered on foot from the Jamila area. We could have hit them, but we have orders to defend the city against the occupiers but not inside the city," he said.
The black-masked fighters of Sadr's Mehdi Army could no longer be seen prowling Sadr City's streets as they had just days ago, a Reuters correspondent said.
CRACKDOWN
The government's confrontation with Sadr's fighters began a month ago with a crackdown launched by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in the southern city of Basra.
Despite initial setbacks, the Basra campaign has since proved largely a success, with government troops taking control of neighbourhoods once regarded as militia strongholds and fighters disappearing from the southern city's streets.
In Sadr City, the cleric's main Baghdad stronghold, U.S. forces have advanced only into a small portion of the slum to put most of the Mehdi Army's missiles and mortars out of range of the capital's Green Zone government and diplomatic compound.
More than 700 missiles and mortars have been fired, mainly from Sadr City, over the past month. Fighting and air strikes in the slum have killed hundreds.
Food prices have skyrocketted and residents say they feel under siege. Many schools have shut.
Major-General Qasim Moussawi, Iraqi government spokesman for security in the capital, acknowledged civilian casualties were inevitable in fighting in a crowded slum.
"The area of this (Sadr) city is around 25 square kilometres (10 square miles) with an estimated population of 3 million. This means if a bullet is shot, it will hit a person," he said.
Um Aziz is an elderly woman whose three daughters and a son were killed when the roof of her house collapsed because of the force of an explosion nearby. She cursed the U.S. forces.
"I don't want any reparations from the government. I want my revenge from God," she said outside her ruined home, wearing bandages from her own injuries and a broken leg.
"Let the Americans listen: If they kill all the men, we will fight them. We: the women and the children. And if they take our weapons we will fight them with stones and knives."
Abu Issam, a government employee and Sadr City resident, said his two-year-old daughter has become so used to nightly bombardment that she can no longer sleep unless she hears it.
"Every night when she hears the mosque loudspeaker say 'Allahu Akbar' (God is greatest), she says to me: 'Papa papa, the Americans are coming!'"
Despite the clashes in Shi'ite areas over the past month, U.S. commanders say violence along Iraq's main sectarian divide between Sunni Arabs and Shi'ites has remained much lower after falling dramatically last year.
Maliki's government is hoping for a breakthrough soon that would lead to the Sunni Arab Accordance Front returning to Maliki's Shi'ite-led government, which the Front quit last year.
Maliki's office said this week the Front had lifted its objections to returning. Sunday's meeting between Maliki and Hashemi, the only senior Front member with an official position, was aimed at resolving the standoff, Hashemi's office said. (Additional reporting by Peter Graff; Waleed Ibrahim and Aws Qusay; writing by Peter Graff, editing by Tim Cocks and Robert Woodward)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Additional links from Reuters North American News Service
More Americans Decry Decision to Invade Iraq
The "success" of the surge is not translating into any support for the war. In spite of the anti-war surge the Democrats seem not to be capable of doing anything to stop Bush. Actually there is bi-partisan agreement for the huge U.S. military expenditures and aggressive foreign policy. The Democrats seem to compete with the Republicans to see who can hate Iran most while both they and the Republicans support Maliki who is supported by Iran!
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
More Americans Decry Decision to Invade Iraq
April 27, 2008
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States are dissatisfied with their government’s decision to launch the coalition effort, according to a poll by Gallup released by USA Today. 63 per cent of respondents think the U.S. made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, up six points since December.
The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 4,051 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and 29,800 troops have been wounded in action.
In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.
In September 2007, commander of the Multi-National Force - Iraq David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador in Iraq Ryan Crocker provided a comprehensive assessment of the situation in Iraq to the U.S. Congress. In addition, U.S. president George W. Bush said U.S. forces in Iraq would be reduced by 5,700 troops in December. After July 2008, all troop withdrawals from Iraq will be suspended.
On Apr. 25, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for an end to the hostilities between his Mahdi Army militia and Iraq’s security forces, declaring, "When we threatened an open war, it was meant against the occupation and not against our peoples. There will be no war between Sadrists and Iraqi brothers from any groups."
Polling Data
In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?
Apr. 2008
Dec. 2007
Jun. 2007
Made a mistake
63%
57%
56%
Did not make a mistake
36%
41%
40%
Unsure
1%
2%
4%
Source: Gallup / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,016 American adults, conducted from Apr. 18 to Apr. 20, 2008. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
More Americans Decry Decision to Invade Iraq
April 27, 2008
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States are dissatisfied with their government’s decision to launch the coalition effort, according to a poll by Gallup released by USA Today. 63 per cent of respondents think the U.S. made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, up six points since December.
The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 4,051 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and 29,800 troops have been wounded in action.
In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.
In September 2007, commander of the Multi-National Force - Iraq David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador in Iraq Ryan Crocker provided a comprehensive assessment of the situation in Iraq to the U.S. Congress. In addition, U.S. president George W. Bush said U.S. forces in Iraq would be reduced by 5,700 troops in December. After July 2008, all troop withdrawals from Iraq will be suspended.
On Apr. 25, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for an end to the hostilities between his Mahdi Army militia and Iraq’s security forces, declaring, "When we threatened an open war, it was meant against the occupation and not against our peoples. There will be no war between Sadrists and Iraqi brothers from any groups."
Polling Data
In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?
Apr. 2008
Dec. 2007
Jun. 2007
Made a mistake
63%
57%
56%
Did not make a mistake
36%
41%
40%
Unsure
1%
2%
4%
Source: Gallup / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,016 American adults, conducted from Apr. 18 to Apr. 20, 2008. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
The neoconning of a nation...
This is from the Toronto Sun. This article repeats the claim that one aim of revealing "intelligence" about the Syrian reactor at this stage is to sabotage nuclear talks with North Korea that the neocons oppose. But the article also reveals another motive and that is to prevent accomodation between Israel and Syria. Perhaps Margolis is correct that the neo-cons want a confrontation with Iran before the next election because they think that this will get McCain elected. Perhaps the neocons are right but given the public opinion polls on the Iraq war and the state of the U.S. economy a new war may not be that popular.
April 27, 2008
The neoconning of a nation
Vice-President, shilling troupe of retired generals, deliver fantastic tales for their cause
By ERIC MARGOLIS
PARIS -- U.S. intelligence released a dramatic video last Thursday, supposedly taken by an Israeli spy, that purportedly showed North Korean technicians helping build a nuclear reactor in Syria.
The reactor was destroyed seven months ago by Israeli warplanes.
Until now Israel and the U.S. have remained silent about the attack. Syria claimed a warehouse was hit, but curiously said nothing more about what was an act of war. Washington offered no proof the reactor, if it was one, would have produced weapons rather than electric power. U.S. and Israeli intelligence have long stated Syria had no nuclear weapons capabilities.
Vice-President Dick Cheney and fellow neocons forced the CIA to release the James Bondish video in an effort to sabotage an impending six-nation agreement to end North Korea's nuclear program. They bitterly oppose the deal for being too soft on Pyongyang. Neocons long have worried the possibility of North Korea selling nuclear technology to Arab states posed a potential threat to Israel.
This mysterious imbroglio also is being used by Israel's rightwing Likud Party, a close ally of U.S. neocons, to attack political rival Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Kadima Party.
BACK-CHANNEL TALKS
Olmert has been involved in Turkish-brokered, back-channel peace talks with Syria for years. Likud and its U.S. allies are determined to sabotage any deal with Damascus that would return the Golan Heights, which Israel conquered in the 1967 war, to Syria. The Likudniks also sought to derail efforts by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter to encourage the Israeli-Syrian talks, and get Israel and the militant Palestinian movement, Hamas, to talk.
Under the purported deal, Israel would return the Golan Heights in exchange for Damascus' agreement to sever its close links with Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and Hamas. Syria also would grant Israel important water rights. The fate of up to 250,000 Syrian inhabitants driven from Golan remains uncertain.
Israel, backed by the Bush administration, certainly has been using the carrot of a return of Golan to entice Syria away from Iran. But there is also a big stick: Ever-stronger threats of a U.S.-Israeli attack on Syria. Israel's September attack on Syria was a clear warning.
Cheney and fellow militarists are pushing hard for attacks on Syria, Lebanon and Iran before President George W. Bush leaves office. Neocons have flocked to Sen. John McCain's banner -- in spite of Hillary Clinton's vow to "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. They believe U.S. attacks on Arab states and/or Iran would prove decisive in winning the presidency for McCain this November. A U.S. attack on Syria could well be the first step of a broader air war against Lebanon and Iran.
SYRIAN REACTOR
Meanwhile, Cheney and allies in Congress and the media are also using the Syrian reactor hubbub to undermine efforts by the U.S. state department, a primary hate object for neocons, to implement the nuclear weapons freeze with North Korea. State department boss Condoleezza Rice has run for cover, leaving her chief negotiator with North Korea to twist in the wind.
As the latest furor builds over the nefarious North Korean, we should remember that this scare story comes from the same Washington fib factory that manufactured all the alarms and "evidence" about Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida.
North Koreans are pretty scary, but their nuclear capabilities and the threat they supposedly pose have been exaggerated. South Korea and European intelligence agencies, for example, are cautious about Washington's claims about North Korea and Syria.
The New York Times revealed last week what this column has long said: The Pentagon has duped Americans and Canadians by organizing a bunch of retired U.S. generals -- mislabelled "independent military experts" -- to shill for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Watch these rent-a-generals again prostitute themselves on TV by promoting the administration's party line about the great Syrian nuclear menace.
April 27, 2008
The neoconning of a nation
Vice-President, shilling troupe of retired generals, deliver fantastic tales for their cause
By ERIC MARGOLIS
PARIS -- U.S. intelligence released a dramatic video last Thursday, supposedly taken by an Israeli spy, that purportedly showed North Korean technicians helping build a nuclear reactor in Syria.
The reactor was destroyed seven months ago by Israeli warplanes.
Until now Israel and the U.S. have remained silent about the attack. Syria claimed a warehouse was hit, but curiously said nothing more about what was an act of war. Washington offered no proof the reactor, if it was one, would have produced weapons rather than electric power. U.S. and Israeli intelligence have long stated Syria had no nuclear weapons capabilities.
Vice-President Dick Cheney and fellow neocons forced the CIA to release the James Bondish video in an effort to sabotage an impending six-nation agreement to end North Korea's nuclear program. They bitterly oppose the deal for being too soft on Pyongyang. Neocons long have worried the possibility of North Korea selling nuclear technology to Arab states posed a potential threat to Israel.
This mysterious imbroglio also is being used by Israel's rightwing Likud Party, a close ally of U.S. neocons, to attack political rival Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Kadima Party.
BACK-CHANNEL TALKS
Olmert has been involved in Turkish-brokered, back-channel peace talks with Syria for years. Likud and its U.S. allies are determined to sabotage any deal with Damascus that would return the Golan Heights, which Israel conquered in the 1967 war, to Syria. The Likudniks also sought to derail efforts by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter to encourage the Israeli-Syrian talks, and get Israel and the militant Palestinian movement, Hamas, to talk.
Under the purported deal, Israel would return the Golan Heights in exchange for Damascus' agreement to sever its close links with Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and Hamas. Syria also would grant Israel important water rights. The fate of up to 250,000 Syrian inhabitants driven from Golan remains uncertain.
Israel, backed by the Bush administration, certainly has been using the carrot of a return of Golan to entice Syria away from Iran. But there is also a big stick: Ever-stronger threats of a U.S.-Israeli attack on Syria. Israel's September attack on Syria was a clear warning.
Cheney and fellow militarists are pushing hard for attacks on Syria, Lebanon and Iran before President George W. Bush leaves office. Neocons have flocked to Sen. John McCain's banner -- in spite of Hillary Clinton's vow to "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. They believe U.S. attacks on Arab states and/or Iran would prove decisive in winning the presidency for McCain this November. A U.S. attack on Syria could well be the first step of a broader air war against Lebanon and Iran.
SYRIAN REACTOR
Meanwhile, Cheney and allies in Congress and the media are also using the Syrian reactor hubbub to undermine efforts by the U.S. state department, a primary hate object for neocons, to implement the nuclear weapons freeze with North Korea. State department boss Condoleezza Rice has run for cover, leaving her chief negotiator with North Korea to twist in the wind.
As the latest furor builds over the nefarious North Korean, we should remember that this scare story comes from the same Washington fib factory that manufactured all the alarms and "evidence" about Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida.
North Koreans are pretty scary, but their nuclear capabilities and the threat they supposedly pose have been exaggerated. South Korea and European intelligence agencies, for example, are cautious about Washington's claims about North Korea and Syria.
The New York Times revealed last week what this column has long said: The Pentagon has duped Americans and Canadians by organizing a bunch of retired U.S. generals -- mislabelled "independent military experts" -- to shill for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Watch these rent-a-generals again prostitute themselves on TV by promoting the administration's party line about the great Syrian nuclear menace.
Redefining Iran as the Enemy in Iraq.
This is from consortiumnews.comconsortiumnews.com. As this article points out the emphasis upon Al Qaeda in Iraq is now being very much downplayed by the administration. This is possible because the U.S. is financing former insurgent Sunnis through the awakening movement directed against Al Qaeda. This has hurt Al Qaeda in some areas. The enemy now is Al Sadr and Iran which to some degree supports his Mahdi Army. However, other militias such as the Badr brigades that support Maliki are supported even more by Iran. The contradiictory nature of U.S. policy re Iran is simply ignored by mainstream media. Both Iran and the U.S. support the Maliki government. Maliki has good relations with Iran much to the chagrin of the U.S. You would think that a few reporters would take a bit more interest in the fact that Maliki has very good relations with the country that the U.S. now defines as the main enemy of Iraq!
Redefining Iran as the Enemy in Iraq
By Ivan Eland
April 26, 2008
Editor’s Note: In Washington and Tel Aviv, war drums are beating again regarding Iran, as the Bush administration and Israel’s Olmert government see the window closing on the time frame for confronting Teheran with George W. Bush in the White House.
In this guest essay, the Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland looks at how – in support of this political need – the ever-shifting enemy in Iraq has become Iran:
According to General David H. Petraeus’s progress report to Congress on Iraq, the latest worst threat to the shaky U.S. position is Iranian-backed “special groups.”
This label refers to parts of Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his security forces ham-handedly sought to confront and undermine in Basra before the fall local elections.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is so passé.
This repeated allegation during the congressional hearings and the firing of Admiral William Fallon as commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East, who was an opponent of any attack on Iran, should again raise worries to war-weary Americans about a cowboy attack on Iran before the Bush administration leaves office.
On cue, administration surrogates, such as former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, repeated Petraeus’s charges: “...despite undeniable progress against Sunni radicalism [read: al-Qaeda], events in Iraq are still inseparable from the actions and attitudes of Shiite militias armed and directed by Iran—an influence that America failed to confront for many years.”
Not only has America failed to confront these Shiite militias, the Bush administration has been enabling them.
The congressional hearings failed to bring out, because of administration intention and Democratic ignorance, that Maliki’s security forces are infested with Shiite Badr Brigade militias that Iran prefers over the Iraqi nationalist Mahdi Army.
The confused milieu of Iraq, an administration with no coherent strategy to improve the conditions in that country, has always tried to downplay that the U.S.-backed Shiite government and its associated militias are the same ones backed by its archenemy, Iran.
But the hearings once again confirmed that the administration, always better at politics than at governing, does have a strategy: hold the lid on violence in Iraq until the Bush administration leaves office, and then blame any subsequent deterioration or loss in Iraq on the next administration.
This tack will be similar to the ludicrous argument that Henry Kissinger, who has been advising both the administration and presidential candidate John McCain, still uses about the Vietnam War: we were winning until the Democrats cut off funding for the war.
This explains Bush’s acceptance of Petraeus’s troop-withdrawal pause, which will undoubtedly continue until January of 2009. Of course, retaining a high level of U.S. forces, and the troop surge that preceded it, really has just been an insurance policy and a macho way to mask the real U.S. strategy of paying off the Sunni and Mahdi Army enemies.
This libertarian strategy ordinarily might be smart, except that bolstering these militias will, in the long run, exacerbate any civil war when they again begin to fight each other.
At the congressional hearings, however, there were signs that the latest botched Iraqi government offensive in Basra, the most important city in Iraq because it’s in a region containing 60 percent of the country’s oil and has Iraq’s only access to the Persian Gulf to ship that oil (why the U.S. let less capable British forces try to secure this city has been an unexplored administration blunder), was beginning to flip a few Republicans against the war.
This movement was indicated by some Republicans adopting the Democrats’ argument that Iraqis were failing to do enough to become democratic.
Although it is grossly unfair to invade a country, destroy its social fabric and economy, and then expect people who have had no experience in democracy to quickly become democrats, if it takes those rhetorical gymnastics to justify a more rapid U.S. withdrawal, then I guess it’s an improvement.
But unfortunately, as the hearings showed, progress toward a U.S. exit is very slow indeed.
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His books include The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.
Back to Home Page
Redefining Iran as the Enemy in Iraq
By Ivan Eland
April 26, 2008
Editor’s Note: In Washington and Tel Aviv, war drums are beating again regarding Iran, as the Bush administration and Israel’s Olmert government see the window closing on the time frame for confronting Teheran with George W. Bush in the White House.
In this guest essay, the Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland looks at how – in support of this political need – the ever-shifting enemy in Iraq has become Iran:
According to General David H. Petraeus’s progress report to Congress on Iraq, the latest worst threat to the shaky U.S. position is Iranian-backed “special groups.”
This label refers to parts of Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his security forces ham-handedly sought to confront and undermine in Basra before the fall local elections.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is so passé.
This repeated allegation during the congressional hearings and the firing of Admiral William Fallon as commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East, who was an opponent of any attack on Iran, should again raise worries to war-weary Americans about a cowboy attack on Iran before the Bush administration leaves office.
On cue, administration surrogates, such as former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, repeated Petraeus’s charges: “...despite undeniable progress against Sunni radicalism [read: al-Qaeda], events in Iraq are still inseparable from the actions and attitudes of Shiite militias armed and directed by Iran—an influence that America failed to confront for many years.”
Not only has America failed to confront these Shiite militias, the Bush administration has been enabling them.
The congressional hearings failed to bring out, because of administration intention and Democratic ignorance, that Maliki’s security forces are infested with Shiite Badr Brigade militias that Iran prefers over the Iraqi nationalist Mahdi Army.
The confused milieu of Iraq, an administration with no coherent strategy to improve the conditions in that country, has always tried to downplay that the U.S.-backed Shiite government and its associated militias are the same ones backed by its archenemy, Iran.
But the hearings once again confirmed that the administration, always better at politics than at governing, does have a strategy: hold the lid on violence in Iraq until the Bush administration leaves office, and then blame any subsequent deterioration or loss in Iraq on the next administration.
This tack will be similar to the ludicrous argument that Henry Kissinger, who has been advising both the administration and presidential candidate John McCain, still uses about the Vietnam War: we were winning until the Democrats cut off funding for the war.
This explains Bush’s acceptance of Petraeus’s troop-withdrawal pause, which will undoubtedly continue until January of 2009. Of course, retaining a high level of U.S. forces, and the troop surge that preceded it, really has just been an insurance policy and a macho way to mask the real U.S. strategy of paying off the Sunni and Mahdi Army enemies.
This libertarian strategy ordinarily might be smart, except that bolstering these militias will, in the long run, exacerbate any civil war when they again begin to fight each other.
At the congressional hearings, however, there were signs that the latest botched Iraqi government offensive in Basra, the most important city in Iraq because it’s in a region containing 60 percent of the country’s oil and has Iraq’s only access to the Persian Gulf to ship that oil (why the U.S. let less capable British forces try to secure this city has been an unexplored administration blunder), was beginning to flip a few Republicans against the war.
This movement was indicated by some Republicans adopting the Democrats’ argument that Iraqis were failing to do enough to become democratic.
Although it is grossly unfair to invade a country, destroy its social fabric and economy, and then expect people who have had no experience in democracy to quickly become democrats, if it takes those rhetorical gymnastics to justify a more rapid U.S. withdrawal, then I guess it’s an improvement.
But unfortunately, as the hearings showed, progress toward a U.S. exit is very slow indeed.
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His books include The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.
Back to Home Page
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Cheney camp 'behind Syrian reactor claim'.
This is from ABC (Australia) This article gives a motive as to why the U.S. might want to play up North Korea's alleged role in building a reactor in Syria. This could derail negotiations with North Korea if they are not already on the rails.
Of course the U.S. always takes every opportunity it can to blacken the reputation of Syria. No one notices that attacking the reactor was a clear violation of international law and the UN charter. Israeli (and US) violations of international law or the UN charter don't count. They are the good guys after all.
Cheney camp 'behind Syrian reactor claim'
Posted Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:04pm AEST
Updated Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:26pm AEST
'Out to scupper diplomacy': Dick Cheney (File photo) (Getty Images: Win McNamee)
Video: US Govt outlines allegations (ABC News) Audio: US says Israel destroyed suspected nuclear reactor in Syria (AM) Related Story: N Korea helped Syria build bombed reactor: US US Government allegations that North Korea helped Syria build a nuclear reactor have been greeted with scepticism because of their timing.
Israeli jets bombed the alleged site in Syria's eastern desert last September.
Today, after months of whispers, the White House publicly claimed that the target of the strike was a nuclear reactor.
It said the reactor was being built with North Korean help and was not intended for peaceful purposes.
US intelligence officials said the reactor had been close to becoming operational when it was destroyed.
But Mike Chinoy, from the Pacific Council on International Policy, says the claim needs to be taken in its political context, as North Korea's denuclearisation reaches a critical stage.
"Everything I'm hearing from my own sources in Washington is that what you have now is a kind of push back by Vice-President [Dick] Cheney and his office and other hardliners who are opposed to diplomatic dealings with North Korea," he said.
"[They are] hoping that by making public these allegations of nuclear cooperation it will torpedo the diplomatic process."
Earlier White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the US would be continuing its six-country talks with North Korea.
Of course the U.S. always takes every opportunity it can to blacken the reputation of Syria. No one notices that attacking the reactor was a clear violation of international law and the UN charter. Israeli (and US) violations of international law or the UN charter don't count. They are the good guys after all.
Cheney camp 'behind Syrian reactor claim'
Posted Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:04pm AEST
Updated Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:26pm AEST
'Out to scupper diplomacy': Dick Cheney (File photo) (Getty Images: Win McNamee)
Video: US Govt outlines allegations (ABC News) Audio: US says Israel destroyed suspected nuclear reactor in Syria (AM) Related Story: N Korea helped Syria build bombed reactor: US US Government allegations that North Korea helped Syria build a nuclear reactor have been greeted with scepticism because of their timing.
Israeli jets bombed the alleged site in Syria's eastern desert last September.
Today, after months of whispers, the White House publicly claimed that the target of the strike was a nuclear reactor.
It said the reactor was being built with North Korean help and was not intended for peaceful purposes.
US intelligence officials said the reactor had been close to becoming operational when it was destroyed.
But Mike Chinoy, from the Pacific Council on International Policy, says the claim needs to be taken in its political context, as North Korea's denuclearisation reaches a critical stage.
"Everything I'm hearing from my own sources in Washington is that what you have now is a kind of push back by Vice-President [Dick] Cheney and his office and other hardliners who are opposed to diplomatic dealings with North Korea," he said.
"[They are] hoping that by making public these allegations of nuclear cooperation it will torpedo the diplomatic process."
Earlier White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the US would be continuing its six-country talks with North Korea.
Scepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea.
This is from Salon.
The hand of Cheny should be visible behind all this. There does not seem to be much critical acumen in most of the mainstream press. Plenty of space is given for regurgiitating official accounts but little to critical analysis of the validity of them. This article shows some of the reasons for scepticism.
Glenn Greenwald
Friday April 25, 2008 07:12 EDT
Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea
(updated below - Update II)
There are multiple reasons why substantial skepticism is warranted concerning the Bush administration's claims that the structure which Israeli jets destroyed inside Syria last September was a nuclear reactor Syria was developing with the aid of North Korea. Such skepticism, however, is difficult to find in most (though not all) American press accounts, which do little other than repeat Government claims without challenge.
This Associated Press article, for instance, is 32 paragraphs long, yet it contains little other than unchallenged assertions by the Bush administration, using the now-familiar media conventions for disseminating government claims -- i.e., quoting administration accusations without challenge and then granting completely unwarranted anonymity to "intelligence officials" to echo those accusations:
The White House said Thursday that North Korea did secret work on a nuclear reactor with Syria . . .
Seven months after Israel bombed the site, the White House broke its silence and said North Korea assisted Syria in a secret nuclear program. . . .
While calling North Korea's nuclear assistance to Syria a "dangerous manifestation" of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program and its proliferation activities, the White House said. . . .
The United States became aware North Korea was helping Syria with a nuclear project in 2003, said intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity . . .
The critical intelligence that cemented that conclusion, they said, came last year: dozens of photographs taken from ground level over a period of time, showing the construction both inside and outside the building. . . .
The Israeli strike on Sept. 6, 2007, ripped open the structure and revealed even more evidence to spy satellites: reinforced concrete walls that echoed the design of the Yongbyon reactor. . . .
The alleged Syrian nuclear reactor was within weeks or months of being functional, a top U.S. official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. . . .
But the U.S. official said the reactor was similar in design to a North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, which has produced small amounts of plutonium, the material needed to make powerful nuclear weapons. . . .
The White House also used its statement as an opportunity to denounce the nuclear activities of Iran, which it says is a threat to the stability of the Middle East.
The article contains cursory denials by the Syrian government, as well as complaints from various members of Congress that they should have been shown this evidence earlier. But there is scarcely a skeptical word in the article about the veracity of the administration's accusations against Syria and North Korea. The same is essentially true for articles by The Washington Post and Reuters, although this Financial Times piece at least notes:
While US and Israeli intelligence suggests Syria was close to completing the physical reactor, they have no evidence that Syria had obtained plutonium to feed into the reactor. "The US does not have any indication of how Syria would fuel this reactor, and no information that North Korea had already, or intended, to provide the reactor's fuel," said David Albright, a nuclear expert at the The Institute for Science and International Security.
Beyond the lack of evidence supporting the Israeli and American claims that "Syria was close to completing the physical reactor," there are multiple other reasons for skepticism. This article by David Sanger in The New York Times references several of them, including the fact that "senior intelligence officials acknowledged that the evidence had left them with no more than 'low confidence' that Syria was preparing to build a nuclear weapon" and some of the photographs in the video presentation 'seemed to go back to before 2002.'"
There are all sorts of reasons beyond those for extreme skepticism here. After flamboyantly announcing that they had actual video of North Korean nuclear scientists inside the Syrian building, it turned out that the "video" was merely a compilation of rather unrevealing still photographs patched together, in Colin-Powell-at-the-UN fashion, with ominous narration making accusations with a level of certainty completely unmatched by the "evidence" itself. The one "smoking gun" photograph from the video -- the alleged North Korean head of that country's reactor fuel plant standing in Syria (in a sweat suit) posing next to the head of the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission -- seems to raise more questions than it resolves:
If two countries are engaged in a highly covert and nefarious program to build nuclear weapons, are their leading nuclear officials really going to pose together outdoors for a smiling, casual, tourist-like photograph? At the very least, that photograph -- touted as the most direct evidence -- hardly constitutes compelling or even minimally convincing evidence of the administration's accusations. To the contrary, the whole episode reminds one of Howard Dean's prescient reaction to the Colin Powell U.N. slideshow, which Dean delivered in a speech on Febraury 17, 2003 at Drake University:
Secretary Powell's recent presentation at the UN showed the extent to which we have Iraq under an audio and visual microscope. Given that, I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness.
Beyond all of this, there are all sorts of motives for the administration to exaggerate or outright fabricate these accusations. There have long been, and still are, influential neoconservative factions eager for confrontation with Syria. Similar factions want to derail talks with North Korea. And the administration's reflexive support for anything Israel does -- particularly when it comes to acts of military aggression -- along with its possible approval of or even active support for the air strike, provide obvious incentive to justify the destruction of this building.
That the administration is voicing these accusations is, of course, news, and the accusations ought to be reported. And even though it seems unlikely for numerous reasons, it's at least theoretically possible that the Syrians are attempting to develop a nuclear reactor for non-civilian purposes with the help of a cash-strapped North Korea. But there is no value -- and much potential harm -- in having media outlets simply amplify Government accusations with little or no critical scrutiny.
Worse still -- though completely unsurprising -- is the almost complete lack of challenge to the underlying premises. We just accept uncritically the idea that it is the expression of Ultimate Evil for Syria (or Iran) even to pursue nuclear power in accordance with their obligations under the NPT, let alone develop a nuclear weapon, even while Israel stockpiles enormous amounts of nuclear weapons and refuses to be a party to that treaty. Virtually nobody questions the right of Israel simply to attack its neighbors whenever it wants (imagine the reaction if Syria or Iran had unilaterally bombed a facility inside Israel which it claimed was used to develop destructive weapons). And all of that is underscored by recent claims by the Israeli Government that President Bush himself expressly approved of Israeli plans to expand settlement activities in the West Bank at a time when he was pretending to support a halt to that expansion.
As the recent Democratic debate conclusively proved -- in which both candidates (Clinton far more extensively than Obama) vowed that the U.S. would consider an attack on Israel to be an attack on the U.S. -- our extremely consequential policy of reflexive support for Israel, no matter what it does, remains the least debatable issue in American political life. But even within those restrictive parameters, extreme skepticism is obviously warranted when the U.S., in defense of Israeli military action, begins making rather extraordinary and potentially quite provocative accusations against one of Israel's prime Middle Eastern enemies.
UPDATE: As Jim White notes, the IAEA is condemning both Israel and the U.S. -- Israel for the unilateral attack on Syria without even asking the IAEA to inspect the facility (an inspection Syria would have been required by the NPT to allow), and the U.S. for withholding from the IAEA its claimed evidence of Syrian nuclear activities. But as is well known, international obligations of that sort are just like the word "Terrorism" -- they don't apply to the U.S. or Israel. They're only to be cited when it comes time to "justify" military action by those two countries against others.
UPDATE II: To see how a real reporter examines claims from the U.S. (and Israeli) Government regarding this attack on Syria, see this lengthy and very balanced article in the February 11 issue of The New Yorker, by Seymour Hersh. Hersh clearly doesn't discount the possibility that what the Israelis destroyed was a nuclear facility -- remaining open to the question while refusing to assume the Truth of official statements is, after all, what "skepticism" means -- but he offers extensive evidence and informed speculation as to why these claims are unconvincing. In doing so, he recounts this:
In mid-1998, American reconnaissance satellites photographed imagery of a major underground construction project at Kumchang-ri, twenty-five miles northwest of Yongbyon. "We were briefed that, without a doubt, this was a nuclear-related facility, and there was signals intelligence linking the construction brigade at Kumchang-ri to the nuclear complex at Yongbyon," the former State Department intelligence expert recalled.
Charles Kartman, who was President Bill Clinton’s special envoy for peace talks with Korea, told me that the intelligence was considered a slam dunk by analysts in the Defense Intelligence Agency, even though other agencies disagreed. "We had a debate going on inside the community, but the D.I.A. unilaterally took it to Capitol Hill," Kartman said, forcing the issue and leading to a front-page Times story.
After months of negotiations, Kartman recalled, the North Koreans agreed, under diplomatic pressure, to grant access to Kumchang-ri. In return, they received aid, including assistance with a new potato-production program. Inspectors found little besides a series of empty tunnels. Robert Carlin, an expert on North Korea who retired in 2005 after serving more than thirty years with the C.I.A. and the State Department's intelligence bureau, told me that the Kumchang-ri incident highlighted "an endemic weakness" in the American intelligence community. "People think they know the ending and then they go back and find the evidence that fits their story," he said. "And then you get groupthink -- and people reinforce each other."
Additionally, Hersh offers several possible motives for the Israeli attack, including:
"The silence from all parties has been deafening," David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post, "but the message to Iran" -- which the Administration had long suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapon -- "is clear: America and Israel can identify nuclear targets and penetrate air defenses to destroy them" . . . .
Shortly after the bombing, a Chinese envoy and one of the Bush Administration's senior national-security officials met in Washington. The Chinese envoy had just returned from a visit to Tehran, a person familiar with the discussion told me, and he wanted the White House to know that there were moderates there who were interested in talks. The [Bush] national-security official rejected that possibility and told the envoy, as the person familiar with the discussion recalled, "The Israelis are extremely serious about Iran and its nuclear program, and I believe that, if the United States government is unsuccessful in its diplomatic dealings with Iran, the Israelis will take it out militarily." He then told the envoy that he wanted him to convey this to his government -- that the Israelis were serious.
"He was telling the Chinese leadership that they'd better warn Iran that we can't hold back Israel, and that the Iranians should look at Syria and see what's coming next if diplomacy fails," the person familiar with the discussion said. "His message was that the Syrian attack was in part aimed at Iran."
And:
In Tel Aviv, the senior Israeli official pointedly told me, "Syria still thinks Hezbollah won the war in Lebanon" -- referring to the summer, 2006, fight between Israel and the Shiite organization headed by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. "Nasrallah knows how much that war cost—one-third of his fighters were killed, infrastructure was bombed, and ninety-five per cent of his strategic weapons were wiped out," the Israeli official said. "But Assad has a Nasrallah complex and thinks Hezbollah won. And, 'If he did it, I can do it.' This led to an adventurous mood in Damascus. Today, they are more sober."
That notion was echoed by the ambassador of an Israeli ally who is posted in Tel Aviv. "The truth is not important," the ambassador told me. "Israel was able to restore its credibility as a deterrent. That is the whole thing. No one will know what the real story is."
That's what real reporting looks like. As always, it's striking how completely it's missing from the vast majority of American media accounts on this matter, which do almost nothing other than uncritically repeat Government claims.
The hand of Cheny should be visible behind all this. There does not seem to be much critical acumen in most of the mainstream press. Plenty of space is given for regurgiitating official accounts but little to critical analysis of the validity of them. This article shows some of the reasons for scepticism.
Glenn Greenwald
Friday April 25, 2008 07:12 EDT
Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea
(updated below - Update II)
There are multiple reasons why substantial skepticism is warranted concerning the Bush administration's claims that the structure which Israeli jets destroyed inside Syria last September was a nuclear reactor Syria was developing with the aid of North Korea. Such skepticism, however, is difficult to find in most (though not all) American press accounts, which do little other than repeat Government claims without challenge.
This Associated Press article, for instance, is 32 paragraphs long, yet it contains little other than unchallenged assertions by the Bush administration, using the now-familiar media conventions for disseminating government claims -- i.e., quoting administration accusations without challenge and then granting completely unwarranted anonymity to "intelligence officials" to echo those accusations:
The White House said Thursday that North Korea did secret work on a nuclear reactor with Syria . . .
Seven months after Israel bombed the site, the White House broke its silence and said North Korea assisted Syria in a secret nuclear program. . . .
While calling North Korea's nuclear assistance to Syria a "dangerous manifestation" of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program and its proliferation activities, the White House said. . . .
The United States became aware North Korea was helping Syria with a nuclear project in 2003, said intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity . . .
The critical intelligence that cemented that conclusion, they said, came last year: dozens of photographs taken from ground level over a period of time, showing the construction both inside and outside the building. . . .
The Israeli strike on Sept. 6, 2007, ripped open the structure and revealed even more evidence to spy satellites: reinforced concrete walls that echoed the design of the Yongbyon reactor. . . .
The alleged Syrian nuclear reactor was within weeks or months of being functional, a top U.S. official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. . . .
But the U.S. official said the reactor was similar in design to a North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, which has produced small amounts of plutonium, the material needed to make powerful nuclear weapons. . . .
The White House also used its statement as an opportunity to denounce the nuclear activities of Iran, which it says is a threat to the stability of the Middle East.
The article contains cursory denials by the Syrian government, as well as complaints from various members of Congress that they should have been shown this evidence earlier. But there is scarcely a skeptical word in the article about the veracity of the administration's accusations against Syria and North Korea. The same is essentially true for articles by The Washington Post and Reuters, although this Financial Times piece at least notes:
While US and Israeli intelligence suggests Syria was close to completing the physical reactor, they have no evidence that Syria had obtained plutonium to feed into the reactor. "The US does not have any indication of how Syria would fuel this reactor, and no information that North Korea had already, or intended, to provide the reactor's fuel," said David Albright, a nuclear expert at the The Institute for Science and International Security.
Beyond the lack of evidence supporting the Israeli and American claims that "Syria was close to completing the physical reactor," there are multiple other reasons for skepticism. This article by David Sanger in The New York Times references several of them, including the fact that "senior intelligence officials acknowledged that the evidence had left them with no more than 'low confidence' that Syria was preparing to build a nuclear weapon" and some of the photographs in the video presentation 'seemed to go back to before 2002.'"
There are all sorts of reasons beyond those for extreme skepticism here. After flamboyantly announcing that they had actual video of North Korean nuclear scientists inside the Syrian building, it turned out that the "video" was merely a compilation of rather unrevealing still photographs patched together, in Colin-Powell-at-the-UN fashion, with ominous narration making accusations with a level of certainty completely unmatched by the "evidence" itself. The one "smoking gun" photograph from the video -- the alleged North Korean head of that country's reactor fuel plant standing in Syria (in a sweat suit) posing next to the head of the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission -- seems to raise more questions than it resolves:
If two countries are engaged in a highly covert and nefarious program to build nuclear weapons, are their leading nuclear officials really going to pose together outdoors for a smiling, casual, tourist-like photograph? At the very least, that photograph -- touted as the most direct evidence -- hardly constitutes compelling or even minimally convincing evidence of the administration's accusations. To the contrary, the whole episode reminds one of Howard Dean's prescient reaction to the Colin Powell U.N. slideshow, which Dean delivered in a speech on Febraury 17, 2003 at Drake University:
Secretary Powell's recent presentation at the UN showed the extent to which we have Iraq under an audio and visual microscope. Given that, I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness.
Beyond all of this, there are all sorts of motives for the administration to exaggerate or outright fabricate these accusations. There have long been, and still are, influential neoconservative factions eager for confrontation with Syria. Similar factions want to derail talks with North Korea. And the administration's reflexive support for anything Israel does -- particularly when it comes to acts of military aggression -- along with its possible approval of or even active support for the air strike, provide obvious incentive to justify the destruction of this building.
That the administration is voicing these accusations is, of course, news, and the accusations ought to be reported. And even though it seems unlikely for numerous reasons, it's at least theoretically possible that the Syrians are attempting to develop a nuclear reactor for non-civilian purposes with the help of a cash-strapped North Korea. But there is no value -- and much potential harm -- in having media outlets simply amplify Government accusations with little or no critical scrutiny.
Worse still -- though completely unsurprising -- is the almost complete lack of challenge to the underlying premises. We just accept uncritically the idea that it is the expression of Ultimate Evil for Syria (or Iran) even to pursue nuclear power in accordance with their obligations under the NPT, let alone develop a nuclear weapon, even while Israel stockpiles enormous amounts of nuclear weapons and refuses to be a party to that treaty. Virtually nobody questions the right of Israel simply to attack its neighbors whenever it wants (imagine the reaction if Syria or Iran had unilaterally bombed a facility inside Israel which it claimed was used to develop destructive weapons). And all of that is underscored by recent claims by the Israeli Government that President Bush himself expressly approved of Israeli plans to expand settlement activities in the West Bank at a time when he was pretending to support a halt to that expansion.
As the recent Democratic debate conclusively proved -- in which both candidates (Clinton far more extensively than Obama) vowed that the U.S. would consider an attack on Israel to be an attack on the U.S. -- our extremely consequential policy of reflexive support for Israel, no matter what it does, remains the least debatable issue in American political life. But even within those restrictive parameters, extreme skepticism is obviously warranted when the U.S., in defense of Israeli military action, begins making rather extraordinary and potentially quite provocative accusations against one of Israel's prime Middle Eastern enemies.
UPDATE: As Jim White notes, the IAEA is condemning both Israel and the U.S. -- Israel for the unilateral attack on Syria without even asking the IAEA to inspect the facility (an inspection Syria would have been required by the NPT to allow), and the U.S. for withholding from the IAEA its claimed evidence of Syrian nuclear activities. But as is well known, international obligations of that sort are just like the word "Terrorism" -- they don't apply to the U.S. or Israel. They're only to be cited when it comes time to "justify" military action by those two countries against others.
UPDATE II: To see how a real reporter examines claims from the U.S. (and Israeli) Government regarding this attack on Syria, see this lengthy and very balanced article in the February 11 issue of The New Yorker, by Seymour Hersh. Hersh clearly doesn't discount the possibility that what the Israelis destroyed was a nuclear facility -- remaining open to the question while refusing to assume the Truth of official statements is, after all, what "skepticism" means -- but he offers extensive evidence and informed speculation as to why these claims are unconvincing. In doing so, he recounts this:
In mid-1998, American reconnaissance satellites photographed imagery of a major underground construction project at Kumchang-ri, twenty-five miles northwest of Yongbyon. "We were briefed that, without a doubt, this was a nuclear-related facility, and there was signals intelligence linking the construction brigade at Kumchang-ri to the nuclear complex at Yongbyon," the former State Department intelligence expert recalled.
Charles Kartman, who was President Bill Clinton’s special envoy for peace talks with Korea, told me that the intelligence was considered a slam dunk by analysts in the Defense Intelligence Agency, even though other agencies disagreed. "We had a debate going on inside the community, but the D.I.A. unilaterally took it to Capitol Hill," Kartman said, forcing the issue and leading to a front-page Times story.
After months of negotiations, Kartman recalled, the North Koreans agreed, under diplomatic pressure, to grant access to Kumchang-ri. In return, they received aid, including assistance with a new potato-production program. Inspectors found little besides a series of empty tunnels. Robert Carlin, an expert on North Korea who retired in 2005 after serving more than thirty years with the C.I.A. and the State Department's intelligence bureau, told me that the Kumchang-ri incident highlighted "an endemic weakness" in the American intelligence community. "People think they know the ending and then they go back and find the evidence that fits their story," he said. "And then you get groupthink -- and people reinforce each other."
Additionally, Hersh offers several possible motives for the Israeli attack, including:
"The silence from all parties has been deafening," David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post, "but the message to Iran" -- which the Administration had long suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapon -- "is clear: America and Israel can identify nuclear targets and penetrate air defenses to destroy them" . . . .
Shortly after the bombing, a Chinese envoy and one of the Bush Administration's senior national-security officials met in Washington. The Chinese envoy had just returned from a visit to Tehran, a person familiar with the discussion told me, and he wanted the White House to know that there were moderates there who were interested in talks. The [Bush] national-security official rejected that possibility and told the envoy, as the person familiar with the discussion recalled, "The Israelis are extremely serious about Iran and its nuclear program, and I believe that, if the United States government is unsuccessful in its diplomatic dealings with Iran, the Israelis will take it out militarily." He then told the envoy that he wanted him to convey this to his government -- that the Israelis were serious.
"He was telling the Chinese leadership that they'd better warn Iran that we can't hold back Israel, and that the Iranians should look at Syria and see what's coming next if diplomacy fails," the person familiar with the discussion said. "His message was that the Syrian attack was in part aimed at Iran."
And:
In Tel Aviv, the senior Israeli official pointedly told me, "Syria still thinks Hezbollah won the war in Lebanon" -- referring to the summer, 2006, fight between Israel and the Shiite organization headed by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. "Nasrallah knows how much that war cost—one-third of his fighters were killed, infrastructure was bombed, and ninety-five per cent of his strategic weapons were wiped out," the Israeli official said. "But Assad has a Nasrallah complex and thinks Hezbollah won. And, 'If he did it, I can do it.' This led to an adventurous mood in Damascus. Today, they are more sober."
That notion was echoed by the ambassador of an Israeli ally who is posted in Tel Aviv. "The truth is not important," the ambassador told me. "Israel was able to restore its credibility as a deterrent. That is the whole thing. No one will know what the real story is."
That's what real reporting looks like. As always, it's striking how completely it's missing from the vast majority of American media accounts on this matter, which do almost nothing other than uncritically repeat Government claims.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Socialists slam Sarkozy over new benefit for poor.
This is distributing wealth from the poor to the poor, but I guess that is an improvement from distributing wealth from the poor to the rich. Maybe the point is that misery should be distributed more equally among the poor. France has always had an egalitarian streak! This is from IHT.
Socialists slam Sarkozy over new benefit for poor
By Thierry Leveque
Reuters
Friday, April 25, 2008
PARIS: France's opposition Socialists accused President Nicolas Sarkozy of helping some poor people by penalising others on Friday after he said he would fund a new state benefit by cutting tax breaks for low income workers.
The new "active solidarity revenue" of 1,000 to 2,000 euros (787-1,573 pounds) per person per month is intended to help poor single parents and long-term unemployed people. It is expected to benefit 1.9 million people.
Sarkozy said it would cost the state 1.5 billion euros in new funding. Extra money would come from savings obtained by cutting tax breaks for low income workers that currently benefit 8-9 million people and cost 4 billion euros a year.
"He is redistributing money from the poor to the poor instead of taking it back from the rich," said Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate who lost last year's presidential election to Sarkozy.
The new scheme, now being trialled in 34 of France's 100 local government areas, aims to give the poor an incentive to take a job rather than remain on welfare. As things stand, people automatically lose certain state benefits when they take a job and in some cases their income decreases.
In the only major domestic policy announcement of a prime-time interview on Thursday night, aimed at boosting his low popularity ratings, Sarkozy said he would extend the scheme to the whole country next year.
SOCIALIST PROTEST
The Socialists, who introduced the tax breaks for low earners when they were in government in 2001, say Sarkozy has largely helped the rich with his own 15 billion euro tax cut package, introduced shortly after he took office.
A Socialist party statement said French families in the lower income bracket would lose some of their purchasing power. It said the tax breaks for such families should be increased by 50 percent, not reduced.
But Martin Hirsch, a former charity head recruited into the government by Sarkozy to look for ways of reducing poverty, defended the plan, which was his brainchild.
"This is really excellent news for all of those who are facing difficulties and who can't escape from poverty ... I think this is going to bring about significant social progress," Hirsch told France Info radio.
A public finances watchdog had said in a 2006 report that the tax breaks were not effective because they were spread too thinly, making little impact on individual households' income or on job creation.
(Writing by Estelle Shirbon, editing by Mark Trevelyan)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
Socialists slam Sarkozy over new benefit for poor
By Thierry Leveque
Reuters
Friday, April 25, 2008
PARIS: France's opposition Socialists accused President Nicolas Sarkozy of helping some poor people by penalising others on Friday after he said he would fund a new state benefit by cutting tax breaks for low income workers.
The new "active solidarity revenue" of 1,000 to 2,000 euros (787-1,573 pounds) per person per month is intended to help poor single parents and long-term unemployed people. It is expected to benefit 1.9 million people.
Sarkozy said it would cost the state 1.5 billion euros in new funding. Extra money would come from savings obtained by cutting tax breaks for low income workers that currently benefit 8-9 million people and cost 4 billion euros a year.
"He is redistributing money from the poor to the poor instead of taking it back from the rich," said Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate who lost last year's presidential election to Sarkozy.
The new scheme, now being trialled in 34 of France's 100 local government areas, aims to give the poor an incentive to take a job rather than remain on welfare. As things stand, people automatically lose certain state benefits when they take a job and in some cases their income decreases.
In the only major domestic policy announcement of a prime-time interview on Thursday night, aimed at boosting his low popularity ratings, Sarkozy said he would extend the scheme to the whole country next year.
SOCIALIST PROTEST
The Socialists, who introduced the tax breaks for low earners when they were in government in 2001, say Sarkozy has largely helped the rich with his own 15 billion euro tax cut package, introduced shortly after he took office.
A Socialist party statement said French families in the lower income bracket would lose some of their purchasing power. It said the tax breaks for such families should be increased by 50 percent, not reduced.
But Martin Hirsch, a former charity head recruited into the government by Sarkozy to look for ways of reducing poverty, defended the plan, which was his brainchild.
"This is really excellent news for all of those who are facing difficulties and who can't escape from poverty ... I think this is going to bring about significant social progress," Hirsch told France Info radio.
A public finances watchdog had said in a 2006 report that the tax breaks were not effective because they were spread too thinly, making little impact on individual households' income or on job creation.
(Writing by Estelle Shirbon, editing by Mark Trevelyan)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
UN probes US Syria reactor claim
This is from the BBC. There is nothing but contempt for the IAEA on the part of the U.S. and Israel. The US and Israel have their own agendas. Israel's raid is a clear violation of the UN charter and international law but no one ever bothers with that aspect of the situation. Both Israel and the U.S. hid intelligence from the IAEA which they were duty bound to provide. The IAEA of course had no chance to investigate before the Israelis bombed the site.
Seymour Hersch had written earlier about the nuclear claim. As his article points out it is certainly rather weird that there seems no evidence of security around what is supposed to be a place where a reactor is being built:
"Much of what one would expect to see around a secret nuclear site was lacking at the target, a former State Department intelligence expert who now deals with proliferation issues for the Congress said. “There is no security around the building,” he said. “No barracks for the Army or the workers. No associated complex.” Jeffrey Lewis, who heads the non-proliferation program at the New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington, told me that, even if the width and the length of the building were similar to the Korean site, its height was simply not sufficient to contain a Yongbyon-size reactor and also have enough room to extract the control rods, an essential step in the operation of the reactor; nor was there evidence in the published imagery of major underground construction. “All you could see was a box,” Lewis said. “You couldn’t see enough to know how big it will be or what it will do. It’s just a box.”
A former senior U.S. intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, said, “We don’t have any proof of a reactor—no signals intelligence, no human intelligence, no satellite intelligence.” Some well-informed defense consultants and former intelligence officials asked why, if there was compelling evidence of nuclear cheating involving North Korea, a member of the President’s axis of evil, and Syria, which the U.S. considers a state sponsor of terrorism, the Bush Administration would not insist on making it public."
UN probes US Syria reactor claim
The UN's nuclear watchdog has said it will investigate US claims that Syria was building a secret nuclear reactor with North Korean help.
The International Atomic Energy Agency criticised the US for withholding its intelligence until seven months after Israel bombed the site.
The US said the alleged Syrian reactor "was not for peaceful purposes".
Syria has said the US claim is "ridiculous" and has denied any nuclear links to North Korea.
The site of the alleged reactor, said to be like one in North Korea, was bombed by Israel in 2007.
'Unused military site'
The director general of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, has now been briefed by the US on their claims but "deplores" the delay, a statement from the agency said.
"The agency will treat this information with the seriousness it deserves and will investigate the veracity of the information," the statement said.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
6 Sept 2007: Israel bombs site in Syria
1 Oct: Syria's President Assad tells BBC site was military
24 Oct: New satellite images taken show site bulldozed clear
24 April 2008: US claims Syrian site was nuclear reactor
The agency was critical of both the US delay in releasing the information and of Israel's bombing of the site before the IAEA could inspect it.
"The director general views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the non-proliferation regime," the statement said.
The statement is a clear indication that Mr ElBaradei is not accepting the US claims at face value and wants his own first-hand information, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall.
Syrian officials have said the site that was bombed by Israel on 6 September 2007 was an unused military facility under construction. Building on the site had stopped some time before the air strike, the Syrians said.
On Thursday, American security officials showed members of Congress evidence they said proved Syria was building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance.
Among the evidence they displayed were pictures - said to have been obtained by Israel - allegedly taken inside the facility showing the reactor core being built.
The images showed striking similarities between the Syrian facility and the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, the US said.
However, the facility was not yet operational and there was no fuel for the reactor, officials said.
US concern
The White House said Syria's "cover-up" operation after the Israeli air strike reinforced its belief that the alleged reactor "was not intended for peaceful activities".
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Images released by the CIA- footage courtesy of US Government video
In late October 2007, an independent American research organisation, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), released pre- and post-strike satellite images of the site which indicated it had been bulldozed flat after the bombing.
"Until 6 September, 2007, the Syrian regime was building a covert nuclear reactor in its eastern desert capable of producing plutonium," the White House statement said.
"The Syrian regime must come clean before the world regarding its illicit nuclear activities."
The statement added that the US had long been "seriously concerned about North Korea's nuclear weapons programme and its proliferation activities".
'Ridiculous allegations'
Syrian officials have denied any North Korean involvement in their country.
"These allegations are ridiculous," Syria's ambassador to the UK, Sami Khiyami, told the BBC.
"We are used to such allegations now, since the day the United States has invaded Iraq - you remember all the theatrical presentations concerning the WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq."
Mr Khiyami said the facility was a deserted military building that had "nothing to do with a reactor".
Syria is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which gives it the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under inspection from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
North Korea has previously denied transferring nuclear technology to Syria.
Ulterior motive?
The White House insists it is committed to the ongoing six-nation diplomacy, between North Korea and the US, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia that led to a landmark deal with Pyongyang, in February 2007.
North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in return for aid and its removal from a blacklist of state sponsors of terrorism. But the US has accused Pyongyang of missing the deadline to make a full nuclear declaration as promised.
The CIA briefing and statement coincided with the end of a two-day meeting between US and North Korean officials on Pyongyang's nuclear programme, which both sides say went well - fuelling speculation that a deal may be imminent.
But questions are being asked whether the reactor claim is designed to reinforce those diplomatic efforts or an attempt by some in the administration to undermine them.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7366658.stm
Seymour Hersch had written earlier about the nuclear claim. As his article points out it is certainly rather weird that there seems no evidence of security around what is supposed to be a place where a reactor is being built:
"Much of what one would expect to see around a secret nuclear site was lacking at the target, a former State Department intelligence expert who now deals with proliferation issues for the Congress said. “There is no security around the building,” he said. “No barracks for the Army or the workers. No associated complex.” Jeffrey Lewis, who heads the non-proliferation program at the New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington, told me that, even if the width and the length of the building were similar to the Korean site, its height was simply not sufficient to contain a Yongbyon-size reactor and also have enough room to extract the control rods, an essential step in the operation of the reactor; nor was there evidence in the published imagery of major underground construction. “All you could see was a box,” Lewis said. “You couldn’t see enough to know how big it will be or what it will do. It’s just a box.”
A former senior U.S. intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, said, “We don’t have any proof of a reactor—no signals intelligence, no human intelligence, no satellite intelligence.” Some well-informed defense consultants and former intelligence officials asked why, if there was compelling evidence of nuclear cheating involving North Korea, a member of the President’s axis of evil, and Syria, which the U.S. considers a state sponsor of terrorism, the Bush Administration would not insist on making it public."
UN probes US Syria reactor claim
The UN's nuclear watchdog has said it will investigate US claims that Syria was building a secret nuclear reactor with North Korean help.
The International Atomic Energy Agency criticised the US for withholding its intelligence until seven months after Israel bombed the site.
The US said the alleged Syrian reactor "was not for peaceful purposes".
Syria has said the US claim is "ridiculous" and has denied any nuclear links to North Korea.
The site of the alleged reactor, said to be like one in North Korea, was bombed by Israel in 2007.
'Unused military site'
The director general of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, has now been briefed by the US on their claims but "deplores" the delay, a statement from the agency said.
"The agency will treat this information with the seriousness it deserves and will investigate the veracity of the information," the statement said.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
6 Sept 2007: Israel bombs site in Syria
1 Oct: Syria's President Assad tells BBC site was military
24 Oct: New satellite images taken show site bulldozed clear
24 April 2008: US claims Syrian site was nuclear reactor
The agency was critical of both the US delay in releasing the information and of Israel's bombing of the site before the IAEA could inspect it.
"The director general views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the non-proliferation regime," the statement said.
The statement is a clear indication that Mr ElBaradei is not accepting the US claims at face value and wants his own first-hand information, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall.
Syrian officials have said the site that was bombed by Israel on 6 September 2007 was an unused military facility under construction. Building on the site had stopped some time before the air strike, the Syrians said.
On Thursday, American security officials showed members of Congress evidence they said proved Syria was building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance.
Among the evidence they displayed were pictures - said to have been obtained by Israel - allegedly taken inside the facility showing the reactor core being built.
The images showed striking similarities between the Syrian facility and the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, the US said.
However, the facility was not yet operational and there was no fuel for the reactor, officials said.
US concern
The White House said Syria's "cover-up" operation after the Israeli air strike reinforced its belief that the alleged reactor "was not intended for peaceful activities".
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Images released by the CIA- footage courtesy of US Government video
In late October 2007, an independent American research organisation, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), released pre- and post-strike satellite images of the site which indicated it had been bulldozed flat after the bombing.
"Until 6 September, 2007, the Syrian regime was building a covert nuclear reactor in its eastern desert capable of producing plutonium," the White House statement said.
"The Syrian regime must come clean before the world regarding its illicit nuclear activities."
The statement added that the US had long been "seriously concerned about North Korea's nuclear weapons programme and its proliferation activities".
'Ridiculous allegations'
Syrian officials have denied any North Korean involvement in their country.
"These allegations are ridiculous," Syria's ambassador to the UK, Sami Khiyami, told the BBC.
"We are used to such allegations now, since the day the United States has invaded Iraq - you remember all the theatrical presentations concerning the WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq."
Mr Khiyami said the facility was a deserted military building that had "nothing to do with a reactor".
Syria is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which gives it the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under inspection from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
North Korea has previously denied transferring nuclear technology to Syria.
Ulterior motive?
The White House insists it is committed to the ongoing six-nation diplomacy, between North Korea and the US, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia that led to a landmark deal with Pyongyang, in February 2007.
North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in return for aid and its removal from a blacklist of state sponsors of terrorism. But the US has accused Pyongyang of missing the deadline to make a full nuclear declaration as promised.
The CIA briefing and statement coincided with the end of a two-day meeting between US and North Korean officials on Pyongyang's nuclear programme, which both sides say went well - fuelling speculation that a deal may be imminent.
But questions are being asked whether the reactor claim is designed to reinforce those diplomatic efforts or an attempt by some in the administration to undermine them.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7366658.stm
Pakistan fury at NATO border raid
Anti-American and anti-NATO feelings in Pakistan run high. Even the party of Bhutto is reacting against U.S. policy and seeking peace with the Taliban. At the same time NATO carries on an operation such as this. Of course drone attacks have been rather common as well.
Sometimes I wonder if U.S. foreign policy makes any sense at all or if it is run by different people on different days of the week!
Pakistan fury at Nato border raid
Pakistan's foreign ministry has said it has lodged a "strong protest" with Nato and the Afghan military after a border skirmish left a Pakistani soldier dead.
At least eight Taleban militants were also killed during the clashes which began when an Afghan border post was attacked before dawn on Wednesday.
During the battle, Nato forces fired shells and carried out an incursion into the Bajaur tribal region, it said.
Nato has not been granted permission to pursue militants over the frontier.
The Pakistani government warned earlier this year that unauthorised incursions by foreign troops would be treated as an invasion.
At a news conference, Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq said Nato and Afghanistan had insisted their troops had only deliberately targeted the militants who initiated the attack. .
We emphasised that military action on Pakistan side is the exclusive responsibility of Pakistani forces
Mohammad Sadiq
Pakistan Foreign Ministry
"We have lodged a strong protest with the Afghan and Isaf (Nato-led International Security Assistance Force) side and told them in clear terms that such incidents must not be repeated," he said.
"We emphasised that military action on Pakistan side is the exclusive responsibility of Pakistani forces," he added.
The US military has in the past, however, launched several missiles targeting Islamist militants based in Pakistan.
A senior al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, is believed to have been killed in a such a strike in North Waziristan in January.
Sometimes I wonder if U.S. foreign policy makes any sense at all or if it is run by different people on different days of the week!
Pakistan fury at Nato border raid
Pakistan's foreign ministry has said it has lodged a "strong protest" with Nato and the Afghan military after a border skirmish left a Pakistani soldier dead.
At least eight Taleban militants were also killed during the clashes which began when an Afghan border post was attacked before dawn on Wednesday.
During the battle, Nato forces fired shells and carried out an incursion into the Bajaur tribal region, it said.
Nato has not been granted permission to pursue militants over the frontier.
The Pakistani government warned earlier this year that unauthorised incursions by foreign troops would be treated as an invasion.
At a news conference, Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq said Nato and Afghanistan had insisted their troops had only deliberately targeted the militants who initiated the attack. .
We emphasised that military action on Pakistan side is the exclusive responsibility of Pakistani forces
Mohammad Sadiq
Pakistan Foreign Ministry
"We have lodged a strong protest with the Afghan and Isaf (Nato-led International Security Assistance Force) side and told them in clear terms that such incidents must not be repeated," he said.
"We emphasised that military action on Pakistan side is the exclusive responsibility of Pakistani forces," he added.
The US military has in the past, however, launched several missiles targeting Islamist militants based in Pakistan.
A senior al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, is believed to have been killed in a such a strike in North Waziristan in January.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Pakistan Taliban leader orders militants to halt attacks
This is from the CBC. The new Pakistani government is undercutting U.S. policy completely. The U.S. is gungho for battle with the Taliban and was urging Musharraf to battle them even more than he was. Now, the Pakistani government and the Taliban are in effect declaring a truce. This will indeed enable the Taliban to regroup and to solidify their control of the tribal areas. No doubt there will be more infiltration of militants into Afghanistan.
Taliban leader orders militants to halt attacks
Last Updated: Thursday, April 24, 2008 | 8:58 AM ET Comments59Recommend55CBC News
A senior Taliban commander in Pakistan has ordered his followers to stop all attacks along the Afghanistan border, threatening those who disobey him with severe consequences.
Baitullah Mehsud, an al-Qaeda-linked Pakistani warlord whom authorities said was behind the killing of Benazir Bhutto, warned those who don't abide by the command will be publicly hanged upside down.
The order is final and there will be no leniency, the leaflet says.
The previous, pro-Musharraf government accused Mehsud in the December assassination of Bhutto. But Mehsud has reportedly denied involvement, and Bhutto's party has not repeated the assertion.
The leaflet was distributed a day after Pakistan's new government drafted a peace agreement with the Taliban in the tribal belt.
It also follows the release earlier this week of pro-Taliban cleric Sufi Muhammad.
The government of the North West Frontier Province said Muhammad's group signed a pact renouncing violence in return for being allowed to peacefully campaign for Islamic law in the Swat Valley and neighbouring areas.
But critics have said these deals give militants the ability to regroup and intensify their attacks.
On Wednesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the Bush administration has "been concerned about these types of approaches, because we don't think they work."
"What we encourage them to do," Perino said, "is to continue to fight against the terrorists and to not disrupt any security or military operations that are ongoing in order to help prevent a safe haven for terrorists there."
With files from the Associated Press
Taliban leader orders militants to halt attacks
Last Updated: Thursday, April 24, 2008 | 8:58 AM ET Comments59Recommend55CBC News
A senior Taliban commander in Pakistan has ordered his followers to stop all attacks along the Afghanistan border, threatening those who disobey him with severe consequences.
Baitullah Mehsud, an al-Qaeda-linked Pakistani warlord whom authorities said was behind the killing of Benazir Bhutto, warned those who don't abide by the command will be publicly hanged upside down.
The order is final and there will be no leniency, the leaflet says.
The previous, pro-Musharraf government accused Mehsud in the December assassination of Bhutto. But Mehsud has reportedly denied involvement, and Bhutto's party has not repeated the assertion.
The leaflet was distributed a day after Pakistan's new government drafted a peace agreement with the Taliban in the tribal belt.
It also follows the release earlier this week of pro-Taliban cleric Sufi Muhammad.
The government of the North West Frontier Province said Muhammad's group signed a pact renouncing violence in return for being allowed to peacefully campaign for Islamic law in the Swat Valley and neighbouring areas.
But critics have said these deals give militants the ability to regroup and intensify their attacks.
On Wednesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the Bush administration has "been concerned about these types of approaches, because we don't think they work."
"What we encourage them to do," Perino said, "is to continue to fight against the terrorists and to not disrupt any security or military operations that are ongoing in order to help prevent a safe haven for terrorists there."
With files from the Associated Press
Maoists conciliatory after election victory in Nepal
This is from the Guardian. Fortunately it seems as if the monarchy hasn't the power to strike back unlike Mugabe in Zimbabwe who refuses to accept electoral defeat. The Maoists did far better than predicted and other opposition parties including another communist party did poorly. However the Maoists will need to reach out to others to form a majority.
A constitution has still to be drawn up but so far there has been no return to civil war.
Former rebels conciliatory after election victory in NepalRandeep Ramesh, South Asia correspondent The Guardian, Thursday April 24 2008 Article historyAbout this articleClose This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday April 24 2008 on p22 of the International section. It was last updated at 00:11 on April 24 2008. Nepal's former Maoist rebels emerged triumphant as the largest party in the country's new parliament last night, signalling they would work with the traditional politicians who have been routed.
The Communist party of Nepal (Maoist) will end up with a shade fewer than 220 seats in the 601-member assembly, winning half the 240 constituencies and a third of the 335 seats allocated under proportional representation.
The cabinet will nominate a further 26 members of the assembly, which will write a new constitution and end the 240-year-old monarchy. The Nepali Congress (NC) party, which currently heads the ruling coalition, and the mainstream communists known as the UML (Unified Marxist-Leninist) will each have 100 seats.
The Maoist party's stunning success appears to be founded on its use of identity politics - and a campaign of intimidation. Analysts say the former rebels directly elected 21 women, compared with one female NC assembly member.
"The dalits [untouchables] of Nepal voted solidly for them. That is 14%of the population. These people have been outcasts in Nepali society for decades and finally they felt they could teach the older parties who were seen as corrupt a lesson," said CK Lal, a columnist. "In a number of ways [Maoists] have shown themselves to be much more inclusive."
The party's chairman, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, a charismatic former guerrilla known as Prachanda, is likely to become prime minister.
Although the Maoists will be dominant, they cannot rule alone, and talks have begun to bring the established parties into government. The leadership met the country's business community yesterday to assuage fears that they would embark on a programme of nationalisation. They appear also to be quietly shelving their election pledge to abolish Gurkha recruitment in the British and Indian armies.
There are 3,500 Gurkha soldiers in the British army, which recruits 250 men a year from villages in Nepal. The Maoist manifesto describes Gurkha soldiers fighting under a foreign flag as "mercenaries". "[It] was in the manifesto but the immediate concern is forming a government. We have other things to do," said Dinanath Sharma, a spokesman for the Maoist party.
More pressing is the ending of the monarchy and integrating the 25,000 members of the People's Liberation Army into Nepal's armed forces.
The party is positioning itself as a champion of social justice, with its student wing taking to the streets to demand free education until the age of 15.
"What the Maoists want is control of health, education, control of village development - the stuff that has immediate impact on ordinary people," said a diplomat in Kathmandu. "They want to show that they can manage a peaceful transition, end up as revolutionaries in the land of Buddha. But how long it lasts, who knows?"
A constitution has still to be drawn up but so far there has been no return to civil war.
Former rebels conciliatory after election victory in NepalRandeep Ramesh, South Asia correspondent The Guardian, Thursday April 24 2008 Article historyAbout this articleClose This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday April 24 2008 on p22 of the International section. It was last updated at 00:11 on April 24 2008. Nepal's former Maoist rebels emerged triumphant as the largest party in the country's new parliament last night, signalling they would work with the traditional politicians who have been routed.
The Communist party of Nepal (Maoist) will end up with a shade fewer than 220 seats in the 601-member assembly, winning half the 240 constituencies and a third of the 335 seats allocated under proportional representation.
The cabinet will nominate a further 26 members of the assembly, which will write a new constitution and end the 240-year-old monarchy. The Nepali Congress (NC) party, which currently heads the ruling coalition, and the mainstream communists known as the UML (Unified Marxist-Leninist) will each have 100 seats.
The Maoist party's stunning success appears to be founded on its use of identity politics - and a campaign of intimidation. Analysts say the former rebels directly elected 21 women, compared with one female NC assembly member.
"The dalits [untouchables] of Nepal voted solidly for them. That is 14%of the population. These people have been outcasts in Nepali society for decades and finally they felt they could teach the older parties who were seen as corrupt a lesson," said CK Lal, a columnist. "In a number of ways [Maoists] have shown themselves to be much more inclusive."
The party's chairman, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, a charismatic former guerrilla known as Prachanda, is likely to become prime minister.
Although the Maoists will be dominant, they cannot rule alone, and talks have begun to bring the established parties into government. The leadership met the country's business community yesterday to assuage fears that they would embark on a programme of nationalisation. They appear also to be quietly shelving their election pledge to abolish Gurkha recruitment in the British and Indian armies.
There are 3,500 Gurkha soldiers in the British army, which recruits 250 men a year from villages in Nepal. The Maoist manifesto describes Gurkha soldiers fighting under a foreign flag as "mercenaries". "[It] was in the manifesto but the immediate concern is forming a government. We have other things to do," said Dinanath Sharma, a spokesman for the Maoist party.
More pressing is the ending of the monarchy and integrating the 25,000 members of the People's Liberation Army into Nepal's armed forces.
The party is positioning itself as a champion of social justice, with its student wing taking to the streets to demand free education until the age of 15.
"What the Maoists want is control of health, education, control of village development - the stuff that has immediate impact on ordinary people," said a diplomat in Kathmandu. "They want to show that they can manage a peaceful transition, end up as revolutionaries in the land of Buddha. But how long it lasts, who knows?"
Oil Underlies Darfur Tragedy
This is an old article but it serves to remind us that Darfur is not just a humanitarian tragedy. The roots of the crisis are not only in Christian, Muslim conflict and tribal conflicts but also in struggles to control oil involving numerous interests including China and the US that are outside Sudan itself. The article is from Zaman Daily.
Published on Monday, July 5, 2004 by Zaman Daily
Oil Underlies Darfur Tragedy
By Cumali Onal
The fighting in Sudan's Darfur region, which is being reported in the world press as 'ethnic cleansing' and a 'humanitarian crisis', reportedly stems from attempts to gain control over the oil resources in the region, claim Arab sources.
These Arab sources find it interesting that such skirmishes occurred when a peace agreement that would have brought an end to 21 years of north-south conflict was about to be signed. The sources point out that oil fields have recently been discovered in Darfur.
So far at least 10,000 people have lost their lives as a result of the fighting between Arab residents and locals in Darfur, while over a million have fled their homes.
The Sudanese government claims that there is a serious humanitarian crisis in the region. However, the Khartoum administration adds that some countries and groups, primarily Western humanitarian aid foundations and media institutions, are playing up the incidents in an attempt to make Sudan appear unstable and in need of foreign intervention.
The Sudanese government announced yesterday that the African Union would meet in Ethiopia at the end of the month to find a peaceful resolution to the Darfur crisis. Sudan agreed to send more military forces to the region after the visits of US Secretary of State Colin Powell and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Khartoum also declared that it would attempt to disarm the Janjaweed since they are believed to be behind the attacks.
In Sudan, Africa's largest country with more than 2.5 million square meters of land, more than 30 armed groups fight against the central administration.
Khartoum reached an agreement with one of these groups, Sudanese People Liberation Army (SPLA), to end the 21-year long conflict that has caused the deaths of over 2 million people. Issues such as how the authority will be shared and the region's autonomy are being discussed in the peace negotiations taking place in Kenya.
Nearly all of the groups fighting against the Sudanese government are supported by neighboring countries; however, there are reports that some of the groups are supported by Israel, European countries, and the US.
It is claimed that the American administration has given at least 20 million dollars worth of aid to the SPLA and other armed groups allied with this organization. Arab sources point to the involvement of the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) in the Darfur incidents as the primary piece of evidence that the struggle is based on oil. SLA has close relations with SPLA, led by John Garang, and it is demanding oil form the government. Arab sources indicate that an oil agreement between the Sudanese government and SPLA could make the armed militias stronger.
According to the agreement, the SPLA has a stake in a large portion of the oil income from the south. It is claimed that significant amount of that money is probably dispersed to the other armed groups. Experts state that a 3 billion dollar project sponsored by Western countries to open the oil in the region to the world markets through the Mombassa Port of Kenya would speed Sudan's disintegration.
Another group involved in the Darfur clashes, the Justice and Equality Movement, is known for its closeness to Hasan Turabi, who is the ideologist of the regime in Sudan.
According to the agreement reached between the SPLA and the government last year, the southern part of the country will be ruled by an autonomous structure and a referendum will be held for independence. These tribes, most of them believing in local religions, will most likely clash with each other if the region were to become independent. However, since some of these tribes are Christians, Western countries -primarily the US- might intervene in the region in order to provide stability.
It is stated that all of the neighboring countries except Egypt have direct relations with the armed groups in Sudan.
Chad, which has close relations with the armed groups in Darfur, favors Sudan's territorial integrity. This is an abrupt shift from the Chad's previous policy.
It is known that Ethiopia is one of the most active countries in the 21-year long north-south war. Reportedly, it had role in conveying the aid from Israel and the US to SPLA. It also reportedly provided logistical support to these groups.
Eritrea is suspected of having supported the Beja separatist movements in the northeastern part of Sudan.
Uganda, which claims that Khartoum supports the God's Resistance Army that fights against the Ugandan administration, is reportedly among the countries that help the opposition groups in Sudan.
Darfur Constitutes Backbone of Sudanese Army
There are more than 80 ethnic/religious groups among the 7 million inhabitants of Darfur. Some groups have kin relationships with neighboring country, Chad.
Chad President Idris Deby is a member of the Zaghawa tribe in Darfur. It is stated that three presidents, who held power in Chad, directed their fights from Darfur.
People in Darfur, many of whom are Muslim, also constitute 50 percent of Sudanese army. However, these people are generally prevented from promoting to higher ranks.
Article found at :
http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=925
Original article :
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20040706&hn=10130
Published on Monday, July 5, 2004 by Zaman Daily
Oil Underlies Darfur Tragedy
By Cumali Onal
The fighting in Sudan's Darfur region, which is being reported in the world press as 'ethnic cleansing' and a 'humanitarian crisis', reportedly stems from attempts to gain control over the oil resources in the region, claim Arab sources.
These Arab sources find it interesting that such skirmishes occurred when a peace agreement that would have brought an end to 21 years of north-south conflict was about to be signed. The sources point out that oil fields have recently been discovered in Darfur.
So far at least 10,000 people have lost their lives as a result of the fighting between Arab residents and locals in Darfur, while over a million have fled their homes.
The Sudanese government claims that there is a serious humanitarian crisis in the region. However, the Khartoum administration adds that some countries and groups, primarily Western humanitarian aid foundations and media institutions, are playing up the incidents in an attempt to make Sudan appear unstable and in need of foreign intervention.
The Sudanese government announced yesterday that the African Union would meet in Ethiopia at the end of the month to find a peaceful resolution to the Darfur crisis. Sudan agreed to send more military forces to the region after the visits of US Secretary of State Colin Powell and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Khartoum also declared that it would attempt to disarm the Janjaweed since they are believed to be behind the attacks.
In Sudan, Africa's largest country with more than 2.5 million square meters of land, more than 30 armed groups fight against the central administration.
Khartoum reached an agreement with one of these groups, Sudanese People Liberation Army (SPLA), to end the 21-year long conflict that has caused the deaths of over 2 million people. Issues such as how the authority will be shared and the region's autonomy are being discussed in the peace negotiations taking place in Kenya.
Nearly all of the groups fighting against the Sudanese government are supported by neighboring countries; however, there are reports that some of the groups are supported by Israel, European countries, and the US.
It is claimed that the American administration has given at least 20 million dollars worth of aid to the SPLA and other armed groups allied with this organization. Arab sources point to the involvement of the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) in the Darfur incidents as the primary piece of evidence that the struggle is based on oil. SLA has close relations with SPLA, led by John Garang, and it is demanding oil form the government. Arab sources indicate that an oil agreement between the Sudanese government and SPLA could make the armed militias stronger.
According to the agreement, the SPLA has a stake in a large portion of the oil income from the south. It is claimed that significant amount of that money is probably dispersed to the other armed groups. Experts state that a 3 billion dollar project sponsored by Western countries to open the oil in the region to the world markets through the Mombassa Port of Kenya would speed Sudan's disintegration.
Another group involved in the Darfur clashes, the Justice and Equality Movement, is known for its closeness to Hasan Turabi, who is the ideologist of the regime in Sudan.
According to the agreement reached between the SPLA and the government last year, the southern part of the country will be ruled by an autonomous structure and a referendum will be held for independence. These tribes, most of them believing in local religions, will most likely clash with each other if the region were to become independent. However, since some of these tribes are Christians, Western countries -primarily the US- might intervene in the region in order to provide stability.
It is stated that all of the neighboring countries except Egypt have direct relations with the armed groups in Sudan.
Chad, which has close relations with the armed groups in Darfur, favors Sudan's territorial integrity. This is an abrupt shift from the Chad's previous policy.
It is known that Ethiopia is one of the most active countries in the 21-year long north-south war. Reportedly, it had role in conveying the aid from Israel and the US to SPLA. It also reportedly provided logistical support to these groups.
Eritrea is suspected of having supported the Beja separatist movements in the northeastern part of Sudan.
Uganda, which claims that Khartoum supports the God's Resistance Army that fights against the Ugandan administration, is reportedly among the countries that help the opposition groups in Sudan.
Darfur Constitutes Backbone of Sudanese Army
There are more than 80 ethnic/religious groups among the 7 million inhabitants of Darfur. Some groups have kin relationships with neighboring country, Chad.
Chad President Idris Deby is a member of the Zaghawa tribe in Darfur. It is stated that three presidents, who held power in Chad, directed their fights from Darfur.
People in Darfur, many of whom are Muslim, also constitute 50 percent of Sudanese army. However, these people are generally prevented from promoting to higher ranks.
Article found at :
http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=925
Original article :
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20040706&hn=10130
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Assessing the global food crisis.
This is from the BBC.
There is always funding for the war on terror but always a lack of funding for the war on hunger or poverty. As a result the poorest will be secure. Secure and starving to death. But the war on terror does not even produce security just as the war on poverty does not produce security from poverty.
Assessing the global food crisis
By Emily Buchanan
BBC News
"A silent tsunami which knows no borders sweeping the world".
That is how the head of the UN World Food Programme (WFP) summed up the global food shortages.
It is certainly a storm that has hit with little warning and has plunged an extra 100 million people into poverty.
The crisis has triggered riots in Haiti, Cameroon, Indonesia and Egypt and is deemed a dangerous threat to stability.
It is not so much famine that is the worry, it is widespread misery and malnutrition.
The WFP's biggest concern is for the people living on 50 cents a day who have nothing to fall back on.
Budget shortfall
Amongst these are the 70 million people the organisation helps with food aid.
The costs of that aid have risen so sharply the WFP is now facing a $750m (£377m) shortfall in its budget.
It means some of their programmes may have to be cut and rations reduced.
So why have food prices soared?
The rises are due to a lethal combination of high fuel costs, bad weather in key food producing countries, the increase in land allocated to bio-fuels, and a surge in demand - much of it from the rising middle classes of China and India.
Agriculture stopped being sexy, it was all about unglamorous logistics
Amy Barry
Oxfam
The problem is that once the price of rice or wheat has risen, other factors kick in which make things worse.
There is panic and people start hoarding, speculators buy up supply, and food producing countries impose export controls to try and preserve food for their own people.
This then means less is available to be exported to countries which rely on food imports.
What can be done to solve the crisis?
On an optimistic note, WFP head Josette Sheeran said she was confident the world could produce the food it needed, it was just a question of riding this difficult period and getting enough resources to invest.
Planting less
But it is not going to be a quick fix.
She used the example of Kenya's Rift Valley where farmers even now are planting a third less of the land than last year.
This is because fertiliser has more than doubled in price.
"Soaring food prices should be a wake-up call for the world to make long term investment in the food supply chain," she said.
Small farmers are unable to deliver more food without that investment.
It is their plight, struggling with poor land, inadequate tools and lack of transport, that has made it so difficult for them to come out of poverty.
Amy Barry from Oxfam feels agriculture has been badly neglected.
"Agriculture stopped being sexy, it was all about unglamorous logistics," she said.
"The focus was more on delivering health and education services. That has to change."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has long put a high priority on helping the poor in developing countries.
In London on Tuesday he convened a meeting of food experts to try to come up with solutions.
He has called for a global review of bio-fuels policy and offered $900 million in extra aid.
Mr Brown said rising food prices posed as great a threat to world prosperity as the global credit crisis and warned that they threatened to reverse progress made to alleviate poverty.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/in_depth/7361945.stm
Published: 2008/04/22 22:06:42 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
There is always funding for the war on terror but always a lack of funding for the war on hunger or poverty. As a result the poorest will be secure. Secure and starving to death. But the war on terror does not even produce security just as the war on poverty does not produce security from poverty.
Assessing the global food crisis
By Emily Buchanan
BBC News
"A silent tsunami which knows no borders sweeping the world".
That is how the head of the UN World Food Programme (WFP) summed up the global food shortages.
It is certainly a storm that has hit with little warning and has plunged an extra 100 million people into poverty.
The crisis has triggered riots in Haiti, Cameroon, Indonesia and Egypt and is deemed a dangerous threat to stability.
It is not so much famine that is the worry, it is widespread misery and malnutrition.
The WFP's biggest concern is for the people living on 50 cents a day who have nothing to fall back on.
Budget shortfall
Amongst these are the 70 million people the organisation helps with food aid.
The costs of that aid have risen so sharply the WFP is now facing a $750m (£377m) shortfall in its budget.
It means some of their programmes may have to be cut and rations reduced.
So why have food prices soared?
The rises are due to a lethal combination of high fuel costs, bad weather in key food producing countries, the increase in land allocated to bio-fuels, and a surge in demand - much of it from the rising middle classes of China and India.
Agriculture stopped being sexy, it was all about unglamorous logistics
Amy Barry
Oxfam
The problem is that once the price of rice or wheat has risen, other factors kick in which make things worse.
There is panic and people start hoarding, speculators buy up supply, and food producing countries impose export controls to try and preserve food for their own people.
This then means less is available to be exported to countries which rely on food imports.
What can be done to solve the crisis?
On an optimistic note, WFP head Josette Sheeran said she was confident the world could produce the food it needed, it was just a question of riding this difficult period and getting enough resources to invest.
Planting less
But it is not going to be a quick fix.
She used the example of Kenya's Rift Valley where farmers even now are planting a third less of the land than last year.
This is because fertiliser has more than doubled in price.
"Soaring food prices should be a wake-up call for the world to make long term investment in the food supply chain," she said.
Small farmers are unable to deliver more food without that investment.
It is their plight, struggling with poor land, inadequate tools and lack of transport, that has made it so difficult for them to come out of poverty.
Amy Barry from Oxfam feels agriculture has been badly neglected.
"Agriculture stopped being sexy, it was all about unglamorous logistics," she said.
"The focus was more on delivering health and education services. That has to change."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has long put a high priority on helping the poor in developing countries.
In London on Tuesday he convened a meeting of food experts to try to come up with solutions.
He has called for a global review of bio-fuels policy and offered $900 million in extra aid.
Mr Brown said rising food prices posed as great a threat to world prosperity as the global credit crisis and warned that they threatened to reverse progress made to alleviate poverty.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/in_depth/7361945.stm
Published: 2008/04/22 22:06:42 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Philippines rejects bids for 2011bonds at auction
From the Economic Times (India) Obviously authorities think that the Philippines is less of a risk than bond purchasers. Authorities usually have an unrealistic optimistic view of their country's condition!
Philippines rejects bids for 2011 bond at auction
22 Apr, 2008, 1138 hrs IST, AGENCIES
MANILA: The Philippines' Bureau of Treasury rejected all bids at an auction of 2011 domestic bonds on Tuesday after the average rate offered was deemed too high. The Treasury had put seven billion pesos of the bond, originally issued as five-year paper in 2006, on sale.
The bond has a remaining life of three years and six months. Only 2.98 billion pesos of bids were recorded with the average rate at 7.711 percent. The closest comparison is the average rate of the 4-year bond at the last successful auction on Dec 11, which was at 5.876 percent.
Copyright © 2008 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For reprint rights: Times Syndication Service
Philippines rejects bids for 2011 bond at auction
22 Apr, 2008, 1138 hrs IST, AGENCIES
MANILA: The Philippines' Bureau of Treasury rejected all bids at an auction of 2011 domestic bonds on Tuesday after the average rate offered was deemed too high. The Treasury had put seven billion pesos of the bond, originally issued as five-year paper in 2006, on sale.
The bond has a remaining life of three years and six months. Only 2.98 billion pesos of bids were recorded with the average rate at 7.711 percent. The closest comparison is the average rate of the 4-year bond at the last successful auction on Dec 11, which was at 5.876 percent.
Copyright © 2008 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For reprint rights: Times Syndication Service
Rents continue to rise during housing slump..
At first blush it would seem that lower house prices would mean lower rents. However, homeowners who lose their homes enter the rental market and hence rents continue to rise because of increased demand.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rent5apr05,1,2701897.story
Rents continue to rise in housing slump
From Bloomberg News
April 5, 2008
The average asking rent for U.S. apartments rose 1% in the first
three months of 2008, the 24th consecutive quarterly gain, as the
U.S. housing slump deterred people from buying homes, according to
real estate research firm Reis Inc.
San Francisco had the most rapid rent growth at 11.1%, followed by
San Jose at 8.9%, New York at 8.8% and Seattle at 7.8%, New
York-based Reis said.
The U.S. housing slump has entered its third year with plunging sales
and prices and rising foreclosures. Prices fell in 21 cities in
January, real estate data company Radar Logic Inc. reported this
week, and foreclosures rose to a record at the end of 2007, the
Mortgage Bankers Assn. said last month.
"People see a potential for prices to fall further, credit standards
are tighter and they have to make a larger down payment," said Sam
Chandan, chief economist at Reis. "People don't feel confident timing
the bottom of this thing."
A deteriorating housing market beset by stricter loan terms and
falling home prices is the "dominant driver" pushing people to rent
apartments, Chandan said.
The last time rents fell was the first quarter of 2002, when they
declined 0.2%, according to Reis.
New York had the highest average rent at $2,790 a month, followed by
San Francisco at $1,801, Fairfield County, Conn., at $1,759 and
Boston at $1,620, Reis said. In the Los Angeles apartment market, the
average asking rent was $1,425, compared with $1,036 in the top 79
markets.
New York also had the lowest U.S. vacancy rate at 2.2%, followed by
Long Island at 2.8%, central New Jersey at 3.2% and San Jose at 3.5%,
according to Reis. Los Angeles ranked seventh at 3.5%.
"Sunbelt cities" such as Jacksonville, Palm Beach and Miami in
Florida and Phoenix and Las Vegas had higher vacancy rates because
condominiums built for home ownership are being leased instead to
renters, Chandan said.
___________________________________
Rents continue to rise in housing slump
From Bloomberg News
April 5, 2008
The average asking rent for U.S. apartments rose 1% in the first
three months of 2008, the 24th consecutive quarterly gain, as the
U.S. housing slump deterred people from buying homes, according to
real estate research firm Reis Inc.
San Francisco had the most rapid rent growth at 11.1%, followed by
San Jose at 8.9%, New York at 8.8% and Seattle at 7.8%, New
York-based Reis said.
The U.S. housing slump has entered its third year with plunging sales
and prices and rising foreclosures. Prices fell in 21 cities in
January, real estate data company Radar Logic Inc. reported this
week, and foreclosures rose to a record at the end of 2007, the
Mortgage Bankers Assn. said last month.
"People see a potential for prices to fall further, credit standards
are tighter and they have to make a larger down payment," said Sam
Chandan, chief economist at Reis. "People don't feel confident timing
the bottom of this thing."
A deteriorating housing market beset by stricter loan terms and
falling home prices is the "dominant driver" pushing people to rent
apartments, Chandan said.
The last time rents fell was the first quarter of 2002, when they
declined 0.2%, according to Reis.
New York had the highest average rent at $2,790 a month, followed by
San Francisco at $1,801, Fairfield County, Conn., at $1,759 and
Boston at $1,620, Reis said. In the Los Angeles apartment market, the
average asking rent was $1,425, compared with $1,036 in the top 79
markets.
New York also had the lowest U.S. vacancy rate at 2.2%, followed by
Long Island at 2.8%, central New Jersey at 3.2% and San Jose at 3.5%,
according to Reis. Los Angeles ranked seventh at 3.5%.
"Sunbelt cities" such as Jacksonville, Palm Beach and Miami in
Florida and Phoenix and Las Vegas had higher vacancy rates because
condominiums built for home ownership are being leased instead to
renters, Chandan said.
___________________________________
Running out of planet to exploit
For the world's poor there never have been good times. The quality of life in advanced capitalist countries that depends upon unsustainable resource use is bound to change. It is not clear that the change will be a challenge to capitalism. Green capitalism is a nascent reality. In fact the growth in industries specialising in solar energy, windpower, organic agricultural production, recycling, etc. is likely to be quite high. Most environmentalists fail to address class issues or ownership of the means of production except to badmouth big agriculture and giant corporations.
NY Times, April 21, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Running Out of Planet to Exploit
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Nine years ago The Economist ran a big story on oil, which was then
selling for $10 a barrel. The magazine warned that this might not last.
Instead, it suggested, oil might well fall to $5 a barrel.
In any case, The Economist asserted, the world faced “the prospect of
cheap, plentiful oil for the foreseeable future.”
Last week, oil hit $117.
It’s not just oil that has defied the complacency of a few years
back.
Food prices have also soared, as have the prices of basic metals. And
the global surge in commodity prices is reviving a question we
haven’t
heard much since the 1970s: Will limited supplies of natural resources
pose an obstacle to future world economic growth?
How you answer this question depends largely on what you believe is
driving the rise in resource prices. Broadly speaking, there are three
competing views.
The first is that it’s mainly speculation — that investors, looking
for
high returns at a time of low interest rates, have piled into commodity
futures, driving up prices. On this view, someday soon the bubble will
burst and high resource prices will go the way of Pets.com.
The second view is that soaring resource prices do, in fact, have a
basis in fundamentals — especially rapidly growing demand from newly
meat-eating, car-driving Chinese — but that given time we’ll drill
more
wells, plant more acres, and increased supply will push prices right
back down again.
The third view is that the era of cheap resources is over for good —
that we’re running out of oil, running out of land to expand food
production and generally running out of planet to exploit.
I find myself somewhere between the second and third views.
There are some very smart people — not least, George Soros — who
believe
that we’re in a commodities bubble (although Mr. Soros says that the
bubble is still in its “growth phase”). My problem with this view,
however, is this: Where are the inventories?
Normally, speculation drives up commodity prices by promoting hoarding.
Yet there’s no sign of resource hoarding in the data: inventories of
food and metals are at or near historic lows, while oil inventories are
only normal.
The best argument for the second view, that the resource crunch is real
but temporary, is the strong resemblance between what we’re seeing
now
and the resource crisis of the 1970s.
What Americans mostly remember about the 1970s are soaring oil prices
and lines at gas stations. But there was also a severe global food
crisis, which caused a lot of pain at the supermarket checkout line —
I
remember 1974 as the year of Hamburger Helper — and, much more
important, helped cause devastating famines in poorer countries.
In retrospect, the commodity boom of 1972-75 was probably the result of
rapid world economic growth that outpaced supplies, combined with the
effects of bad weather and Middle Eastern conflict. Eventually, the bad
luck came to an end, new land was placed under cultivation, new sources
of oil were found in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, and
resources
got cheap again.
But this time may be different: concerns about what happens when an
ever-growing world economy pushes up against the limits of a finite
planet ring truer now than they did in the 1970s.
For one thing, I don’t expect growth in China to slow sharply anytime
soon. That’s a big contrast with what happened in the 1970s, when
growth
in Japan and Europe, the emerging economies of the time, downshifted
—
and thereby took a lot of pressure off the world’s resources.
Meanwhile, resources are getting harder to find. Big oil discoveries,
in
particular, have become few and far between, and in the last few years
oil production from new sources has been barely enough to offset
declining production from established sources.
And the bad weather hitting agricultural production this time is
starting to look more fundamental and permanent than El Niño and La
Niña, which disrupted crops 35 years ago. Australia, in particular, is
now in the 10th year of a drought that looks more and more like a
long-term manifestation of climate change.
Suppose that we really are running up against global limits. What does
it mean?
Even if it turns out that we’re really at or near peak world oil
production, that doesn’t mean that one day we’ll say, “Oh my God!
We
just ran out of oil!” and watch civilization collapse into “Mad
Max”
anarchy.
But rich countries will face steady pressure on their economies from
rising resource prices, making it harder to raise their standard of
living. And some poor countries will find themselves living dangerously
close to the edge — or over it.
Don’t look now, but the good times may have just stopped rolling.
_______________________________________________
NY Times, April 21, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Running Out of Planet to Exploit
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Nine years ago The Economist ran a big story on oil, which was then
selling for $10 a barrel. The magazine warned that this might not last.
Instead, it suggested, oil might well fall to $5 a barrel.
In any case, The Economist asserted, the world faced “the prospect of
cheap, plentiful oil for the foreseeable future.”
Last week, oil hit $117.
It’s not just oil that has defied the complacency of a few years
back.
Food prices have also soared, as have the prices of basic metals. And
the global surge in commodity prices is reviving a question we
haven’t
heard much since the 1970s: Will limited supplies of natural resources
pose an obstacle to future world economic growth?
How you answer this question depends largely on what you believe is
driving the rise in resource prices. Broadly speaking, there are three
competing views.
The first is that it’s mainly speculation — that investors, looking
for
high returns at a time of low interest rates, have piled into commodity
futures, driving up prices. On this view, someday soon the bubble will
burst and high resource prices will go the way of Pets.com.
The second view is that soaring resource prices do, in fact, have a
basis in fundamentals — especially rapidly growing demand from newly
meat-eating, car-driving Chinese — but that given time we’ll drill
more
wells, plant more acres, and increased supply will push prices right
back down again.
The third view is that the era of cheap resources is over for good —
that we’re running out of oil, running out of land to expand food
production and generally running out of planet to exploit.
I find myself somewhere between the second and third views.
There are some very smart people — not least, George Soros — who
believe
that we’re in a commodities bubble (although Mr. Soros says that the
bubble is still in its “growth phase”). My problem with this view,
however, is this: Where are the inventories?
Normally, speculation drives up commodity prices by promoting hoarding.
Yet there’s no sign of resource hoarding in the data: inventories of
food and metals are at or near historic lows, while oil inventories are
only normal.
The best argument for the second view, that the resource crunch is real
but temporary, is the strong resemblance between what we’re seeing
now
and the resource crisis of the 1970s.
What Americans mostly remember about the 1970s are soaring oil prices
and lines at gas stations. But there was also a severe global food
crisis, which caused a lot of pain at the supermarket checkout line —
I
remember 1974 as the year of Hamburger Helper — and, much more
important, helped cause devastating famines in poorer countries.
In retrospect, the commodity boom of 1972-75 was probably the result of
rapid world economic growth that outpaced supplies, combined with the
effects of bad weather and Middle Eastern conflict. Eventually, the bad
luck came to an end, new land was placed under cultivation, new sources
of oil were found in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, and
resources
got cheap again.
But this time may be different: concerns about what happens when an
ever-growing world economy pushes up against the limits of a finite
planet ring truer now than they did in the 1970s.
For one thing, I don’t expect growth in China to slow sharply anytime
soon. That’s a big contrast with what happened in the 1970s, when
growth
in Japan and Europe, the emerging economies of the time, downshifted
—
and thereby took a lot of pressure off the world’s resources.
Meanwhile, resources are getting harder to find. Big oil discoveries,
in
particular, have become few and far between, and in the last few years
oil production from new sources has been barely enough to offset
declining production from established sources.
And the bad weather hitting agricultural production this time is
starting to look more fundamental and permanent than El Niño and La
Niña, which disrupted crops 35 years ago. Australia, in particular, is
now in the 10th year of a drought that looks more and more like a
long-term manifestation of climate change.
Suppose that we really are running up against global limits. What does
it mean?
Even if it turns out that we’re really at or near peak world oil
production, that doesn’t mean that one day we’ll say, “Oh my God!
We
just ran out of oil!” and watch civilization collapse into “Mad
Max”
anarchy.
But rich countries will face steady pressure on their economies from
rising resource prices, making it harder to raise their standard of
living. And some poor countries will find themselves living dangerously
close to the edge — or over it.
Don’t look now, but the good times may have just stopped rolling.
_______________________________________________
Pakistan frees Pro-Taliban leader and makes peace with group.
This is from wiredispatch. The U.S. would like Pakistan to increase combat against pro-Taliban groups in the territories but with Musharraf out of power now the new civilian government is opting for dialogue rather than provoke more unrest. The U.S. will just have to bide its time and hope that peace agreements fail. No doubt the U.S. will chime in about how the peace agreement increases infiltration of militants into Afghanistan.
Pakistan frees pro-Taliban leader, makes peace with group
Pakistan frees pro-Taliban leader and signs peace deal with his militant group
RIAZ KHANAP News
Apr 21, 2008 14:27 EST
Pakistan freed a pro-Taliban cleric and quickly signed an accord with his hard-line group Monday, the first major step by the new government to talk peace with Islamic militants and break with President Pervez Musharraf's policy of using force.
The day's developments began with the release of Sufi Muhammad, who is believed in his 70s, after more than five years in custody following his dispatch of thousands of followers to fight in Afghanistan.
A few hours later, the government of North West Frontier Province said Muhammad's group signed a pact renouncing violence in return for being allowed to peacefully campaign for Islamic law. Security forces have the right to "act against" any extremists who attack the government.
Analysts cautioned it would take time to judge the new approach, noting Musharraf also struck truces with some groups that U.S. officials have complained gave Pakistani militants as well as Taliban and al-Qaida fighters a chance to build up their strength.
The anti-government sentiments in the region affected by Monday's deal are seen as less intractable than those held by Taliban sympathizers in the tribal regions of Waziristan, where U.S. officials believe Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders are hiding.
Provincial government spokesman Faridullah Khan said the pact covers the Swat Valley and neighboring districts in this area along the Afghan frontier.
It was not clear if the deal was accepted by Muhammad's son-in-law, Mualana Fazlullah, whose fighters seized control of the Swat Valley last year, prompting a bloody army offensive.
Fazlullah's spokesman could not be reached for comment late Monday. Fazlullah is reportedly at odds with Muhammad, and experts expressed doubts the younger militant would change.
"I think Maulana Fazlullah will continue with whatever he is doing," said Mehmood Shah, former security chief for Pakistan's tribal areas.
Talat Masood, a retired general and security analyst, said the deal with Muhammad demonstrated the new government's willingness to try dialogue with militants and could increase pressure on Fazlullah and others to lay down their arms.
"But it's a long way before you can make any judgment as to whether this is a success," he said, citing the previous failed peace efforts with pro-Taliban militants.
"We have to see ... to what extent both parties are going to abide by the agreement and whether the militants use this period to consolidate," he said.
Pakistan's national government, led by the party of assassinated Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, wants to use dialogue and development to curb militancy in the tribal region. The North West Frontier provincial government, which is led by a Pashtun nationalist party, has joined the effort.
It is a major shift from the more aggressive approach that Musharraf's military regime took with U.S. support after Pakistan joined the war on terror following the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Western nations have voiced support for dialogue if Pakistan's militants renounce violence, but the release of Muhammad could cause some unease. Officials at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad could not be reached for comment late Monday.
Pakistan frees pro-Taliban leader, makes peace with group
Pakistan frees pro-Taliban leader and signs peace deal with his militant group
RIAZ KHANAP News
Apr 21, 2008 14:27 EST
Pakistan freed a pro-Taliban cleric and quickly signed an accord with his hard-line group Monday, the first major step by the new government to talk peace with Islamic militants and break with President Pervez Musharraf's policy of using force.
The day's developments began with the release of Sufi Muhammad, who is believed in his 70s, after more than five years in custody following his dispatch of thousands of followers to fight in Afghanistan.
A few hours later, the government of North West Frontier Province said Muhammad's group signed a pact renouncing violence in return for being allowed to peacefully campaign for Islamic law. Security forces have the right to "act against" any extremists who attack the government.
Analysts cautioned it would take time to judge the new approach, noting Musharraf also struck truces with some groups that U.S. officials have complained gave Pakistani militants as well as Taliban and al-Qaida fighters a chance to build up their strength.
The anti-government sentiments in the region affected by Monday's deal are seen as less intractable than those held by Taliban sympathizers in the tribal regions of Waziristan, where U.S. officials believe Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders are hiding.
Provincial government spokesman Faridullah Khan said the pact covers the Swat Valley and neighboring districts in this area along the Afghan frontier.
It was not clear if the deal was accepted by Muhammad's son-in-law, Mualana Fazlullah, whose fighters seized control of the Swat Valley last year, prompting a bloody army offensive.
Fazlullah's spokesman could not be reached for comment late Monday. Fazlullah is reportedly at odds with Muhammad, and experts expressed doubts the younger militant would change.
"I think Maulana Fazlullah will continue with whatever he is doing," said Mehmood Shah, former security chief for Pakistan's tribal areas.
Talat Masood, a retired general and security analyst, said the deal with Muhammad demonstrated the new government's willingness to try dialogue with militants and could increase pressure on Fazlullah and others to lay down their arms.
"But it's a long way before you can make any judgment as to whether this is a success," he said, citing the previous failed peace efforts with pro-Taliban militants.
"We have to see ... to what extent both parties are going to abide by the agreement and whether the militants use this period to consolidate," he said.
Pakistan's national government, led by the party of assassinated Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, wants to use dialogue and development to curb militancy in the tribal region. The North West Frontier provincial government, which is led by a Pashtun nationalist party, has joined the effort.
It is a major shift from the more aggressive approach that Musharraf's military regime took with U.S. support after Pakistan joined the war on terror following the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Western nations have voiced support for dialogue if Pakistan's militants renounce violence, but the release of Muhammad could cause some unease. Officials at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad could not be reached for comment late Monday.
Rice Frames Al-Sadr as Coward in Iran.
This is from the Washington Times. It is difficult to see the sense in this type of provocation. Sadr is an opportunist and a savvy strategist. He is not about to respond to this except rhetorically. Sadr would rather have peace because this will allow him to concentrate on building up political support for elections later this year. However, if Maliki and the U.S. continue attacks against the Mahdi militia he will be forced to respond. Perhaps the Republicans want the situation to worsen in Iraq so that they can claim that they are the "war party" and that no further moves to reduce forces should be made. There are bound to be more U.S. casualties if the Sadr truce breaks down completely. The question is whether this will cause even more anti-war feeling or cause people to rally around the flag to "support the troops". I have always found it odd that "supporting the troops" always means putting them in harms way and ensuring that more get killed.
Article published Apr 21, 2008Rice frames al-Sadr as coward in Iran
April 21, 2008 By Anne Gearan - BAGHDAD (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward yesterday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers. Miss Rice, in the Iraqi capital to tout security gains and what she calls an emerging political consensus, said Sheik al-Sadr is content to issue threats and edicts from the safety of Iran, where he is studying. Sheik al-Sadr heads an unruly militia that was the main target of an Iraqi government assault in the oil-rich city of Basra last month, and his future role as a spoiler is an open question. "I know he's sitting in Iran," Miss Rice said dismissively, when asked about Sheik al-Sadr's latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him," Miss Rice said. "I guess that's the message; his followers can go to their deaths and he's in Iran." In a statement on his official Web site, Sheik al-Sadr said, "We denounce the visit of U.S. secretary, asking the government to ban the entrance of the terrorists' occupiers to our pure land." The statement asked Iraqis to express their opposition to the visit through peaceful means. A full-blown uprising by Sheik al-Sadr, who led two rebellions against U.S.-led forces in 2004, could lead to a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq at a time when the Sunni extremist group al Qaeda in Iraq appears poised for new attacks after suffering severe blows last year. In a warning posted Saturday on his Web site, Sheik al-Sadr said he tried to defuse tensions by declaring the truce in August, only to see the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki respond by closing his offices and "resorting to assassinations." He accused the government of selling out to the Americans and branding his followers as criminals. "So I am giving my final warning ... to the Iraqi government ... to take the path of peace and abandon violence against its people," Sheik al-Sadr said. "If the government does not refrain ... we will declare an open war until liberation." Miss Rice praised Mr. al-Maliki for confronting Sheik al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which had a choke hold on Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. The assault was Mr. al-Maliki's most-decisive act by far against Sheik al-Sadr, a fellow Shi'ite and once a political patron. Kurdish and Sunni politicians, including a chief rival, have since rallied to Mr. al-Maliki, and the Bush administration argues he could emerge stronger from what had appeared to be a military blunder. During five days of heavy fighting last month, Iraqi troops struggled against militiamen, particularly the Mahdi Army. The ill-prepared Iraqi military was plagued by desertions and poor organization and U.S. troops had to take over in some instances. The offensive was inconclusive, with Iran helping mediate a truce.
Article published Apr 21, 2008Rice frames al-Sadr as coward in Iran
April 21, 2008 By Anne Gearan - BAGHDAD (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward yesterday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers. Miss Rice, in the Iraqi capital to tout security gains and what she calls an emerging political consensus, said Sheik al-Sadr is content to issue threats and edicts from the safety of Iran, where he is studying. Sheik al-Sadr heads an unruly militia that was the main target of an Iraqi government assault in the oil-rich city of Basra last month, and his future role as a spoiler is an open question. "I know he's sitting in Iran," Miss Rice said dismissively, when asked about Sheik al-Sadr's latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him," Miss Rice said. "I guess that's the message; his followers can go to their deaths and he's in Iran." In a statement on his official Web site, Sheik al-Sadr said, "We denounce the visit of U.S. secretary, asking the government to ban the entrance of the terrorists' occupiers to our pure land." The statement asked Iraqis to express their opposition to the visit through peaceful means. A full-blown uprising by Sheik al-Sadr, who led two rebellions against U.S.-led forces in 2004, could lead to a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq at a time when the Sunni extremist group al Qaeda in Iraq appears poised for new attacks after suffering severe blows last year. In a warning posted Saturday on his Web site, Sheik al-Sadr said he tried to defuse tensions by declaring the truce in August, only to see the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki respond by closing his offices and "resorting to assassinations." He accused the government of selling out to the Americans and branding his followers as criminals. "So I am giving my final warning ... to the Iraqi government ... to take the path of peace and abandon violence against its people," Sheik al-Sadr said. "If the government does not refrain ... we will declare an open war until liberation." Miss Rice praised Mr. al-Maliki for confronting Sheik al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which had a choke hold on Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. The assault was Mr. al-Maliki's most-decisive act by far against Sheik al-Sadr, a fellow Shi'ite and once a political patron. Kurdish and Sunni politicians, including a chief rival, have since rallied to Mr. al-Maliki, and the Bush administration argues he could emerge stronger from what had appeared to be a military blunder. During five days of heavy fighting last month, Iraqi troops struggled against militiamen, particularly the Mahdi Army. The ill-prepared Iraqi military was plagued by desertions and poor organization and U.S. troops had to take over in some instances. The offensive was inconclusive, with Iran helping mediate a truce.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Russia 'shot down Georgia drone'
This is from the BBC. The drone is Israeli made although perhaps it may have been bought with U.S. aid. The U.S. has been intervening in Georgia for some time. Russia supports independence movements in Abkazia and South Ossetia. As Putin's remarks indicate the drone was over Abkazian territory and the Abkazian authorities claim their own plane shot down the drone.
The U.S. provides military aid to both Georgia and that great democracy Uzbekistan with military aid.
This is from corpwatch.
Georgia: US Privatizes Military Aid by Nick Paton Walsh, Guardian (London)June 6th, 2003
The Pentagon is to privatise its military presence in Georgia by contracting a team of retired US military officers to equip and advise the former Soviet republic's crumbling military, embellishing an eastward expansion that has enraged Moscow.
After a Georgian appeal for support to the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, during a visit last month, a team of 20-30 private defence consultants are already in Tbilisi. Their employer, a Washington security firm, Cubic, has a three-year $15m contract with the Pentagon to support all aspects of the Georgian ministry of defence.
More money for the military-industrial complex. And her is another snippet from In These Times.
Georgia has also been buying weapons and military hardware from the United States—a total of $21.9 million between 1999 and 2003. Georgia started slowly, taking delivery of $19,000 in military equipment in 1999. But, that was just the beginning. Georgia took delivery of $9.8 million of weaponry and hardware in 2003, the last year for which Pentagon data is available
If Georgia joins NATO the US will be required to intervene to defend Georgia if Abkazia or South Ossetia is liberated with the help of Russia!
Russia 'shot down Georgia drone'
A Russian fighter jet has shot down an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft over the breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazia, Georgian authorities say.
Georgia's defence ministry has released video showing what appears to be a Russian MiG-29 shooting down the unarmed Georgian drone on Sunday.
A Russian air force spokesman said the claim was "nonsense" while Abkhaz rebels said they had downed the drone.
Russia's leader asked why a drone had been present in a "conflict zone".
Georgia was exercising [its] sovereign right to monitor a situation on its own territory Mikhail Saakashvili Georgian president
President Vladimir Putin expressed his concern in a phone call to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, the Kremlin reported.
Mr Saakashvili himself went on Georgian TV to say he had "categorically demanded [of Mr Putin]... that these aggressive attacks on Georgia be stopped immediately".
Tensions are high between the two neighbours over Russian support for Abkhazia and another breakaway Georgian region, South Ossetia.
Russian and UN peacekeepers have been deployed in the two regions since the early 1990s, when violence erupted as they broke free from Georgian control.
Tbilisi believes Moscow is fuelling the separatist conflict in Abkhazia to maintain Russian influence in the region and to damage Georgia's hopes of joining Nato, the BBC's Matthew Collin reports from Georgia.
'Absolutely illegal'
The video, shot from the drone moments before impact, shows a jet launching a missile over what appears to be the Black Sea.
"It's absolutely illegal for a Russian MiG-29 to be there," said Col David Nairashvili, the air force commander.
"Russian military aircraft intruded into Georgian airspace above Abkhazia, Georgia," said President Saakashvili on television.
"This aircraft attacked and destroyed a Georgian UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle]. Once again, Georgia was exercising [its] sovereign right to monitor a situation on its own territory."
Abkhazia's separatist administration has said its own forces shot down the drone because it was violating Abkhaz airspace and breaching ceasefire agreements.
According to Russian reports from Sukhumi, the Abkhaz capital, the authorities there have put on display fragments of the drone.
Garry Kupalba, deputy defence minister of the unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia, told reporters the drone had been shot down by an "L-39 aircraft of the Abkhaz Air Force".
He also identified the drone as an Israeli-made Hermes 450.
'Destabilising'
President Putin viewed the presence of the drone as a "destabilising factor escalating tension", the Kremlin said.
"During an examination of the incident with the Georgian unmanned plane, Vladimir Putin expressed his perplexity over the fact that the Georgian side is organising military flights over a conflict zone," it added.
A Russian air force spokesman said: "What would a Russian jet fighter be doing over Georgian territory?"
Last week, Georgia accused Russia of trying to annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia by deciding to seek closer ties with them.
Russia has said its proposal is aimed at protecting the rights and legal interests of Russian citizens, who make up the majority of the population in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Earlier this month, Nato decided not to grant Georgia's request to join its Membership Action Plan but promised it would eventually become a member of the alliance.
The U.S. provides military aid to both Georgia and that great democracy Uzbekistan with military aid.
This is from corpwatch.
Georgia: US Privatizes Military Aid by Nick Paton Walsh, Guardian (London)June 6th, 2003
The Pentagon is to privatise its military presence in Georgia by contracting a team of retired US military officers to equip and advise the former Soviet republic's crumbling military, embellishing an eastward expansion that has enraged Moscow.
After a Georgian appeal for support to the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, during a visit last month, a team of 20-30 private defence consultants are already in Tbilisi. Their employer, a Washington security firm, Cubic, has a three-year $15m contract with the Pentagon to support all aspects of the Georgian ministry of defence.
More money for the military-industrial complex. And her is another snippet from In These Times.
Georgia has also been buying weapons and military hardware from the United States—a total of $21.9 million between 1999 and 2003. Georgia started slowly, taking delivery of $19,000 in military equipment in 1999. But, that was just the beginning. Georgia took delivery of $9.8 million of weaponry and hardware in 2003, the last year for which Pentagon data is available
If Georgia joins NATO the US will be required to intervene to defend Georgia if Abkazia or South Ossetia is liberated with the help of Russia!
Russia 'shot down Georgia drone'
A Russian fighter jet has shot down an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft over the breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazia, Georgian authorities say.
Georgia's defence ministry has released video showing what appears to be a Russian MiG-29 shooting down the unarmed Georgian drone on Sunday.
A Russian air force spokesman said the claim was "nonsense" while Abkhaz rebels said they had downed the drone.
Russia's leader asked why a drone had been present in a "conflict zone".
Georgia was exercising [its] sovereign right to monitor a situation on its own territory Mikhail Saakashvili Georgian president
President Vladimir Putin expressed his concern in a phone call to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, the Kremlin reported.
Mr Saakashvili himself went on Georgian TV to say he had "categorically demanded [of Mr Putin]... that these aggressive attacks on Georgia be stopped immediately".
Tensions are high between the two neighbours over Russian support for Abkhazia and another breakaway Georgian region, South Ossetia.
Russian and UN peacekeepers have been deployed in the two regions since the early 1990s, when violence erupted as they broke free from Georgian control.
Tbilisi believes Moscow is fuelling the separatist conflict in Abkhazia to maintain Russian influence in the region and to damage Georgia's hopes of joining Nato, the BBC's Matthew Collin reports from Georgia.
'Absolutely illegal'
The video, shot from the drone moments before impact, shows a jet launching a missile over what appears to be the Black Sea.
"It's absolutely illegal for a Russian MiG-29 to be there," said Col David Nairashvili, the air force commander.
"Russian military aircraft intruded into Georgian airspace above Abkhazia, Georgia," said President Saakashvili on television.
"This aircraft attacked and destroyed a Georgian UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle]. Once again, Georgia was exercising [its] sovereign right to monitor a situation on its own territory."
Abkhazia's separatist administration has said its own forces shot down the drone because it was violating Abkhaz airspace and breaching ceasefire agreements.
According to Russian reports from Sukhumi, the Abkhaz capital, the authorities there have put on display fragments of the drone.
Garry Kupalba, deputy defence minister of the unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia, told reporters the drone had been shot down by an "L-39 aircraft of the Abkhaz Air Force".
He also identified the drone as an Israeli-made Hermes 450.
'Destabilising'
President Putin viewed the presence of the drone as a "destabilising factor escalating tension", the Kremlin said.
"During an examination of the incident with the Georgian unmanned plane, Vladimir Putin expressed his perplexity over the fact that the Georgian side is organising military flights over a conflict zone," it added.
A Russian air force spokesman said: "What would a Russian jet fighter be doing over Georgian territory?"
Last week, Georgia accused Russia of trying to annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia by deciding to seek closer ties with them.
Russia has said its proposal is aimed at protecting the rights and legal interests of Russian citizens, who make up the majority of the population in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Earlier this month, Nato decided not to grant Georgia's request to join its Membership Action Plan but promised it would eventually become a member of the alliance.
The Rice Maliki gamble.
Rice supports Maliki,s drive against Sadr,s militia. Maliki obviously believes that together with the U.S. he can defeat Sadr as a political force in Iraq and stop him from making big gains in the next elections. Rice is going along even though this is bound to create more casualties for the U.S. as it will be called upon to should much of the burden for the attacks. In effect if Sadr calls off his truce as he is threatening to do unless Maliki desists there will be civil war in parts of Iraq. Many commetators fail to notice that it is only the Sadr,s militia that is a target. Maliki,s Badr brigades are not touched and many of them are already integrated into the Iraqi forces or police.
Shia Schism: A new struggle is beginning in Iraq.
This is from Counterpunch. This is a long interesting analytical article by Patrick Cockburn from inside Iraq. The article shows how the struggle in Iraq is now shifting away from the Sunni insurgency to factional struggles within the Shia community. It should be noted that the ruling Shia faction is actually more closely allied with Iran than Al Sadr. Iran for its part is hedging its bets by giving some support to Sadr as well. Of course the U.S. picks up on Iranian support for Sadr but ignores support for the Badr brigades, typical cherry-picking of facts. Actually, Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist and as such very wary of the Iranians while being strongly anti-American. As the Americans have noted Maliki does not complain about the Iranians and seems to be on good terms with them! The U.S. stress on Iranian influence plays well in the U.S.
Shia Schism
A New Struggle is Beginning in Iraq
By PATRICK COCKBURN
The old war was primarily between the Sunni community -- which contested the American occupation -- and an Iraqi government dominated by the Shia in alliance with the Kurds. That conflict has not ended. But the most important battles likely to be waged in Iraq this year will be within the Shia community. They pit the US-backed Iraqi government against the supporters of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who represents the impoverished Shia masses of Iraq. ‘The Shia are the majority in Iraq and the Sadrists are a majority of this majority,’ a former Shia minister told me. ‘They make up 30 to 40 per cent of the total Iraqi population.’ The population of Iraq is 27 million: on this ex-minister’s calculation, up to ten million of them support Muqtada.
The result of underestimating the fighting power and popular support of the Sadrists was demonstrated at the end of March in the battle for Basra, which was unexpectedly launched by Nouri al-Maliki with his sudden announcement that he was going to end militia rule in the city, Iraq’s second largest. He left the Green Zone in Baghdad to take command, provoking derisive references among Iraqi politicians to ‘General Maliki’. He demanded that militiamen hand over their weapons in three days and promise to reject violence for good; he threatened to crush them if they did not. George Bush called it ‘a defining moment’ for the new Iraq.
For once Bush may be right; though, as when he stood beneath the triumphant slogan ‘Mission Accomplished’ in 2003, he may not understand the seriousness of the fight he is getting into. The Shia community is splitting apart after five years of solidarity. It is a split not just between the government and the militias but between rich and poor. Maliki’s main supporters -- his own Dawa party has a small base -- are the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and its Badr militia. ISCI draws its support primarily from the established Shia clergy, the merchants and the Shia middle class. But ever since ISCI was founded in Iran in 1982 at an early stage in the Iraq-Iran war the party has always lacked popular backing. It won an unsavory reputation for interrogating and torturing Iraqi prisoners: this did not stop it becoming a firm ally of the US occupation after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Muqtada has long tried to avoid an all-out military confrontation with his Shia rivals while they still have the support of the US. On April 7 he even said he would dissolve the Mehdi Army if asked to do so by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other leading Shia clerics in Iran. There is less to this promise than meets the eye. It is easy enough for Iraqi militias to disband, take their weapons with them, and reassemble the following morning.
The new conflict has another aspect: it is also a proxy struggle between the US and Iran. This has been going on ever since the American invasion. But, for all Washington’s attempts to prove otherwise, the Sunni insurgency was primarily supported by the Sunni Arab states to the west of Iraq. The Sadrists have traditionally been highly suspicious of the Iranians. From the beginning, Muqtada was the only Shia leader who has always opposed the US occupation. His militiamen fought two furious battles with US Marines for the Shia holy city of Najaf in April and August 2004. They suffered heavy casualties, but survived; and Muqtada became politically stronger. In public he said he was shifting from military to political resistance. But, in confronting the US, he is forced to look to Iranian political and military support. ‘The Iranians cannot afford to see Muqtada eliminated or seriously weakened,’ says Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi political scientist. In Iran’s battle with the US for influence over the Iraqi Shia, Muqtada plays too important a role for Iran to see him crushed.
Confrontation, and even war, with Iran is politically easier to sell in the US than support for the continuing war inside Iraq. The Democratic Party may want to withdraw troops from Iraq but its leaders try to outdo each other in condemning Iran. General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, has been blaming Iran as the hidden hand behind the latest fighting in Baghdad and Basra. He dID the same when he appeared before Congress on April 8 to give evidence about why, over the last few months, Iraq has become more and not less violent. He had a lot of explaining to do. With US television showing armed men in the streets, burned-out vehicles and smoke rising over Baghdad and Basra, his claims about the success of the ‘surge’ looked much less convincing than they did at the end of last year.Petraeus says that the number of American soldiers in Iraq should not be reduced below the level they were at before the surge started -- which makes his claims of military success look dubious. The 3.2 million Iraqis, one in nine of the population, who fled to Syria, Jordan and elsewhere in Iraq, have not been coming home because they think it is too dangerous for them to do so; they are right.
I drove around central Baghdad just before the latest round of fighting between the Americans and the Iraqi army against the Mehdi Army. It was a little easier to travel than a year earlier. In the mixed Yarmouk district of the city on the west bank of the Tigris River, the hospital used to be run by the Mehdi Army; Sunni were terrified to go there. Now the militiaman have left and Sunni are going to the hospital again. At an intersection half a mile away there used to be a Sunni-controlled checkpoint: any Shia who was detected at it was killed on the spot and their bodies left lying beside the road. Now the checkpoint has gone. I visited al-Kindi Street, full of doctors’ offices and coffee shops: now, once more, there are people in the street.
But the revival of city life is never necessarily lasting: things, I thought, could change within hours. I remembered Beirut during the Lebanese civil wars in the 1970s and 1980s: there would be lulls in the fighting for weeks or months on end and Hamra Street in the centre of Ras Beirut would once again be filled with bustling shoppers and the beaches would be crowded. The Lebanese would say dolefully that nothing was solved and the fighting would begin sooner or later: they were always right. In the case of Baghdad this March the lull ended sooner than expected. I had taken a look at the luxury shops in the al-Mansur district -- many were open -- but a few days later a friend was walking there when several four-wheel drives with darkened windows appeared. He assumed they were carrying senior government officials -- but then the windows were rolled down and Mehdi Army militiamen opened fire, killing one policeman and wounding two others.
I spent a night in al-Khadamiyah, an ancient Shia district centred on a Shia shrine surrounded by shops selling gold jewellery and cheap restaurants for pilgrims. Some Shia friends suggested I come with them to the shrine; if anybody asked who I was, they advised me to say I was a Turk. This seemed a dangerous idea: we gave it up as we approached the shrine and saw the tight security. We went to see Ayatollah Hussein al-Sadr, a relative of Muqtada of moderate views, who was giving his blessings to Shia dignitaries, and we spent the night in a hotel which is, in effect, his guesthouse. There were plenty of soldiers and police in the streets but I would not have stayed if I had not been under the protection of the Ayatollah. Again the appearance of calm was deceptive. Two weeks later American helicopters were bombarding Mehdi Army positions in al-Khadamiyah.
Fighting between ISCI and the Sadrists has been increasing over the past year but local turf wars had never previously spilled over into all of Shia Iraq. As the Iraqi army started to advance in Basra at the end of March it became clear that Maliki’s offensive was targeted solely against the Mehdi Army. It did not touch the other two main militias in Basra, the Badr Organisation and Fadhila, a Sadrist splinter group powerful in the oilfields. Iraqis were not persuaded by Maliki’s argument that his aim was to eliminate criminal gangs in Basra. Banditry is obviously rife: a businessman friend told me that, to move a container from Umm Qasr port near Basra to Arbil in northern Iraq, he had recently paid $500 in transport fees and $3000 in bribes. Given that government officials in Baghdad seldom do anything without a bribe, Maliki’s claim that he would end criminality in Basra was never going to be convincing.
That air of fantasy surrounded all Maliki’s demands. The government had about 15,000 troops and the same number of policemen in Basra, but they were never going to penetrate the narrow alleyways in the sprawling slums in the north and west of the city. In most cases they did not even try. Muqtada’s forces responded, as they have in the past when facing a single attack, by spreading the battle to Baghdad and every other Shia city and town where their forces are strong. Local Sadrists were soon telling Iraqi police and soldiers at checkpoints in and around Sadr City -- often referred to as a district of Baghdad though in reality a twin city with a population of two million -- to get out and go home. Instead of militiamen handing over their weapons to the Iraqi security forces, Iraqis found they were watching television pictures of Iraqi police surrendering their weapons -- and receiving a sprig of olive and a Koran in return -- from clerics supporting Muqtada.
There were other humiliations for the government. For months the main Iraqi spokesman for the surge -- its official Iraqi name is the Baghdad Security Plan -- has been Tahsin al-Shaikhly. He regularly appeared on television to claim that security was improving, electricity supplies becoming more plentiful and life in Baghdad generally getting easier. Two days after Maliki’s offensive began, al-Shaikhly was kidnapped. According to eyewitnesses, the kidnappers -- al-Shaikhly himself tells a slightly different story -- were uniformed Iraqi police commandos driving a dozen Toyota Land Cruisers. They shot dead al-Shaikhly’s three bodyguards, set fire to his house and took him to a safe house from which he was allowed to telephone a television station in order to call on Maliki not to attack the Mehdi Army.
Why did the Iraqi army fail? Training a new army has been at the centre of British and American policy for the last four years. At checkpoints in Baghdad these days, Iraqi soldiers now look better armed; they use modern communications equipment and wear bullet-proof vests. A few years ago Iraqi soldiers were driving around Baghdad in ageing white pick-up trucks that were previously used to carry cabbages and cauliflowers to market; now they have second-hand American Humvees. Well-paid by Iraqi standards, and backed up by US air power, the army was expected to give a better account of itself. Yet, in gun battles in towns and cities across southern Iraq, the army either failed to fight or was driven back by the militiamen. Four days into Maliki’s offensive, the Mehdi Army controlled three-quarters of Basra and half of Baghdad. To prevent a complete rout, American helicopters and attack aircraft started to take an increasing part in the fighting. The isolated British soldiers at Basra airport -- 4,100 were stationed there -- fired their artillery in support of beleaguered Iraqi army units. A curfew in Baghdad caused resentment because people had been taken by surprise by the outbreak and had not, as they usually do when they see a crisis coming, stocked up on food and supplies.
As the Iraqi army began to fail the Americans moved quickly to prop it up. Air controllers to marshal air strikes were sent to Iraqi army units. A team of senior American advisers was sent to Basra. This may explain why Muqtada agreed to a ceasefire. The Mehdi Army had already shown it could fight off the Iraqi army and police, but the Americans might be a different matter. Even so, the short war between Muqtada and the government was revealing as to who really holds power in Iraq. A delegation of Shia leaders went to Iran. They talked to Muqtada in the holy city of Qom, and to General Qassem Sulaymani, the head of the Quds Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who oversees Iranian involvement in Iraq. He has long been an American bête noir and last year US special forces tried to kidnap him during an official visit to the Kurdish president. Maliki seems to have been told of the agreement only after it was reached, but its terms were that the Mehdi Army would not give up its arms, the government offensive would stop and militia members would no longer be arrested without warrants. The Americans, who normally react furiously to any sign of Iranian interference in Iraq, said nothing about the fact that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards were negotiating peace terms between the government and its enemies.
The Americans said nothing because the abortive attack on Basra was, for them, a nightmare. The claim that the surge was the first step in restoring peace to Iraq was exposed as a myth. American military casualties might be down -- but some two thousand Iraqis were killed in March. American politicians ran for cover. While I was in Baghdad in March, Senator John McCain visited, at the same time as Vice-President Dick Cheney. Both expressed confidence that security was improving. McCain happily told CNN that Muqtada’s ‘influence has been on the wane for a long time’. Three weeks later, McCain was denying he had ever said such a thing; what he had said, he insisted, was that ‘he was still a major player and his influence is going to have to be reduced and gradually eliminated.’ Given that Muqtada is the most powerful Shia leader, and that his militiamen had just shown they could defeat the Iraqi army, this would mean that McCain, if elected president, would fight a war with Iraq’s 17 million Shia.
By this time, American generals and politicians were saying that they had known nothing about Maliki’s disastrous offensive until the last minute -- conveniently forgetting that the Americans had been urging Iraqi prime ministers to attack the Mehdi Army since 2004. It was the failure of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the previous Iraqi prime minister, to initiate such an attack that turned the Americans against him. Four years ago, Paul Bremer, the US viceroy in Iraq, was demanding that Iraqi ministers refer to the Mehdi Army as ‘Muqtada’s militia’. Bremer called him an Iraqi Hitler in the making and made a disastrous attempt to eliminate him in April 2004, an attempt that was similar in many ways to Maliki’s offensive on Basra last month. Bremer too grossly underestimated Muqtada: his supporters took over most of southern Iraq in a few days.
The Iraqi government, ISCI, the Kurds and the Americans all felt threatened by Muqtada’s men. The Green Zone was coming under daily fire from Sadr City. ISCI in particular wants to defeat the Sadrists before the provincial elections in October, in which it is expected to do badly and the Sadrists well. The government dismissed soldiers who had refused to fight in the March campaign and is reported to have recruited 25,000 tribal levies. The Americans have long been hoping to repeat their triumph in Anbar province in 2007, when Sunni tribal leaders allied themselves with the US against al-Qaida in Iraq. Maliki’s advisers felt that if the Iranians had not interfered then the army might have given a better account of itself. But from the Sadrist point of view the humiliation of the government was almost too complete. The Sadrists admitted that they were becoming isolated. ‘A decision has been taken,’ Maliki said in early April. The Sadrists will ‘no longer have a right to participate in the political process, or take part in the upcoming election, unless they end the Mehdi Army’.
The statement was hypocritical: the Kurdish peshmerga and ISCI’s Badr Organisation are both militias that have been effectively incorporated into the Iraqi army and police. But the Sadrists were in a difficult position. Shia solidarity was breaking down. Muqtada has always been good tactician. He called a million person demonstration for 9 April, the fifth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein, to demand an end to the occupation. ‘He needs,’ an Iraqi observer said, ‘to show that his movement’s popularity is still as great as its military strength.’
Patrick Cockburn is the Ihe author of "Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq."
Shia Schism
A New Struggle is Beginning in Iraq
By PATRICK COCKBURN
The old war was primarily between the Sunni community -- which contested the American occupation -- and an Iraqi government dominated by the Shia in alliance with the Kurds. That conflict has not ended. But the most important battles likely to be waged in Iraq this year will be within the Shia community. They pit the US-backed Iraqi government against the supporters of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who represents the impoverished Shia masses of Iraq. ‘The Shia are the majority in Iraq and the Sadrists are a majority of this majority,’ a former Shia minister told me. ‘They make up 30 to 40 per cent of the total Iraqi population.’ The population of Iraq is 27 million: on this ex-minister’s calculation, up to ten million of them support Muqtada.
The result of underestimating the fighting power and popular support of the Sadrists was demonstrated at the end of March in the battle for Basra, which was unexpectedly launched by Nouri al-Maliki with his sudden announcement that he was going to end militia rule in the city, Iraq’s second largest. He left the Green Zone in Baghdad to take command, provoking derisive references among Iraqi politicians to ‘General Maliki’. He demanded that militiamen hand over their weapons in three days and promise to reject violence for good; he threatened to crush them if they did not. George Bush called it ‘a defining moment’ for the new Iraq.
For once Bush may be right; though, as when he stood beneath the triumphant slogan ‘Mission Accomplished’ in 2003, he may not understand the seriousness of the fight he is getting into. The Shia community is splitting apart after five years of solidarity. It is a split not just between the government and the militias but between rich and poor. Maliki’s main supporters -- his own Dawa party has a small base -- are the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and its Badr militia. ISCI draws its support primarily from the established Shia clergy, the merchants and the Shia middle class. But ever since ISCI was founded in Iran in 1982 at an early stage in the Iraq-Iran war the party has always lacked popular backing. It won an unsavory reputation for interrogating and torturing Iraqi prisoners: this did not stop it becoming a firm ally of the US occupation after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Muqtada has long tried to avoid an all-out military confrontation with his Shia rivals while they still have the support of the US. On April 7 he even said he would dissolve the Mehdi Army if asked to do so by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other leading Shia clerics in Iran. There is less to this promise than meets the eye. It is easy enough for Iraqi militias to disband, take their weapons with them, and reassemble the following morning.
The new conflict has another aspect: it is also a proxy struggle between the US and Iran. This has been going on ever since the American invasion. But, for all Washington’s attempts to prove otherwise, the Sunni insurgency was primarily supported by the Sunni Arab states to the west of Iraq. The Sadrists have traditionally been highly suspicious of the Iranians. From the beginning, Muqtada was the only Shia leader who has always opposed the US occupation. His militiamen fought two furious battles with US Marines for the Shia holy city of Najaf in April and August 2004. They suffered heavy casualties, but survived; and Muqtada became politically stronger. In public he said he was shifting from military to political resistance. But, in confronting the US, he is forced to look to Iranian political and military support. ‘The Iranians cannot afford to see Muqtada eliminated or seriously weakened,’ says Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi political scientist. In Iran’s battle with the US for influence over the Iraqi Shia, Muqtada plays too important a role for Iran to see him crushed.
Confrontation, and even war, with Iran is politically easier to sell in the US than support for the continuing war inside Iraq. The Democratic Party may want to withdraw troops from Iraq but its leaders try to outdo each other in condemning Iran. General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, has been blaming Iran as the hidden hand behind the latest fighting in Baghdad and Basra. He dID the same when he appeared before Congress on April 8 to give evidence about why, over the last few months, Iraq has become more and not less violent. He had a lot of explaining to do. With US television showing armed men in the streets, burned-out vehicles and smoke rising over Baghdad and Basra, his claims about the success of the ‘surge’ looked much less convincing than they did at the end of last year.Petraeus says that the number of American soldiers in Iraq should not be reduced below the level they were at before the surge started -- which makes his claims of military success look dubious. The 3.2 million Iraqis, one in nine of the population, who fled to Syria, Jordan and elsewhere in Iraq, have not been coming home because they think it is too dangerous for them to do so; they are right.
I drove around central Baghdad just before the latest round of fighting between the Americans and the Iraqi army against the Mehdi Army. It was a little easier to travel than a year earlier. In the mixed Yarmouk district of the city on the west bank of the Tigris River, the hospital used to be run by the Mehdi Army; Sunni were terrified to go there. Now the militiaman have left and Sunni are going to the hospital again. At an intersection half a mile away there used to be a Sunni-controlled checkpoint: any Shia who was detected at it was killed on the spot and their bodies left lying beside the road. Now the checkpoint has gone. I visited al-Kindi Street, full of doctors’ offices and coffee shops: now, once more, there are people in the street.
But the revival of city life is never necessarily lasting: things, I thought, could change within hours. I remembered Beirut during the Lebanese civil wars in the 1970s and 1980s: there would be lulls in the fighting for weeks or months on end and Hamra Street in the centre of Ras Beirut would once again be filled with bustling shoppers and the beaches would be crowded. The Lebanese would say dolefully that nothing was solved and the fighting would begin sooner or later: they were always right. In the case of Baghdad this March the lull ended sooner than expected. I had taken a look at the luxury shops in the al-Mansur district -- many were open -- but a few days later a friend was walking there when several four-wheel drives with darkened windows appeared. He assumed they were carrying senior government officials -- but then the windows were rolled down and Mehdi Army militiamen opened fire, killing one policeman and wounding two others.
I spent a night in al-Khadamiyah, an ancient Shia district centred on a Shia shrine surrounded by shops selling gold jewellery and cheap restaurants for pilgrims. Some Shia friends suggested I come with them to the shrine; if anybody asked who I was, they advised me to say I was a Turk. This seemed a dangerous idea: we gave it up as we approached the shrine and saw the tight security. We went to see Ayatollah Hussein al-Sadr, a relative of Muqtada of moderate views, who was giving his blessings to Shia dignitaries, and we spent the night in a hotel which is, in effect, his guesthouse. There were plenty of soldiers and police in the streets but I would not have stayed if I had not been under the protection of the Ayatollah. Again the appearance of calm was deceptive. Two weeks later American helicopters were bombarding Mehdi Army positions in al-Khadamiyah.
Fighting between ISCI and the Sadrists has been increasing over the past year but local turf wars had never previously spilled over into all of Shia Iraq. As the Iraqi army started to advance in Basra at the end of March it became clear that Maliki’s offensive was targeted solely against the Mehdi Army. It did not touch the other two main militias in Basra, the Badr Organisation and Fadhila, a Sadrist splinter group powerful in the oilfields. Iraqis were not persuaded by Maliki’s argument that his aim was to eliminate criminal gangs in Basra. Banditry is obviously rife: a businessman friend told me that, to move a container from Umm Qasr port near Basra to Arbil in northern Iraq, he had recently paid $500 in transport fees and $3000 in bribes. Given that government officials in Baghdad seldom do anything without a bribe, Maliki’s claim that he would end criminality in Basra was never going to be convincing.
That air of fantasy surrounded all Maliki’s demands. The government had about 15,000 troops and the same number of policemen in Basra, but they were never going to penetrate the narrow alleyways in the sprawling slums in the north and west of the city. In most cases they did not even try. Muqtada’s forces responded, as they have in the past when facing a single attack, by spreading the battle to Baghdad and every other Shia city and town where their forces are strong. Local Sadrists were soon telling Iraqi police and soldiers at checkpoints in and around Sadr City -- often referred to as a district of Baghdad though in reality a twin city with a population of two million -- to get out and go home. Instead of militiamen handing over their weapons to the Iraqi security forces, Iraqis found they were watching television pictures of Iraqi police surrendering their weapons -- and receiving a sprig of olive and a Koran in return -- from clerics supporting Muqtada.
There were other humiliations for the government. For months the main Iraqi spokesman for the surge -- its official Iraqi name is the Baghdad Security Plan -- has been Tahsin al-Shaikhly. He regularly appeared on television to claim that security was improving, electricity supplies becoming more plentiful and life in Baghdad generally getting easier. Two days after Maliki’s offensive began, al-Shaikhly was kidnapped. According to eyewitnesses, the kidnappers -- al-Shaikhly himself tells a slightly different story -- were uniformed Iraqi police commandos driving a dozen Toyota Land Cruisers. They shot dead al-Shaikhly’s three bodyguards, set fire to his house and took him to a safe house from which he was allowed to telephone a television station in order to call on Maliki not to attack the Mehdi Army.
Why did the Iraqi army fail? Training a new army has been at the centre of British and American policy for the last four years. At checkpoints in Baghdad these days, Iraqi soldiers now look better armed; they use modern communications equipment and wear bullet-proof vests. A few years ago Iraqi soldiers were driving around Baghdad in ageing white pick-up trucks that were previously used to carry cabbages and cauliflowers to market; now they have second-hand American Humvees. Well-paid by Iraqi standards, and backed up by US air power, the army was expected to give a better account of itself. Yet, in gun battles in towns and cities across southern Iraq, the army either failed to fight or was driven back by the militiamen. Four days into Maliki’s offensive, the Mehdi Army controlled three-quarters of Basra and half of Baghdad. To prevent a complete rout, American helicopters and attack aircraft started to take an increasing part in the fighting. The isolated British soldiers at Basra airport -- 4,100 were stationed there -- fired their artillery in support of beleaguered Iraqi army units. A curfew in Baghdad caused resentment because people had been taken by surprise by the outbreak and had not, as they usually do when they see a crisis coming, stocked up on food and supplies.
As the Iraqi army began to fail the Americans moved quickly to prop it up. Air controllers to marshal air strikes were sent to Iraqi army units. A team of senior American advisers was sent to Basra. This may explain why Muqtada agreed to a ceasefire. The Mehdi Army had already shown it could fight off the Iraqi army and police, but the Americans might be a different matter. Even so, the short war between Muqtada and the government was revealing as to who really holds power in Iraq. A delegation of Shia leaders went to Iran. They talked to Muqtada in the holy city of Qom, and to General Qassem Sulaymani, the head of the Quds Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who oversees Iranian involvement in Iraq. He has long been an American bête noir and last year US special forces tried to kidnap him during an official visit to the Kurdish president. Maliki seems to have been told of the agreement only after it was reached, but its terms were that the Mehdi Army would not give up its arms, the government offensive would stop and militia members would no longer be arrested without warrants. The Americans, who normally react furiously to any sign of Iranian interference in Iraq, said nothing about the fact that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards were negotiating peace terms between the government and its enemies.
The Americans said nothing because the abortive attack on Basra was, for them, a nightmare. The claim that the surge was the first step in restoring peace to Iraq was exposed as a myth. American military casualties might be down -- but some two thousand Iraqis were killed in March. American politicians ran for cover. While I was in Baghdad in March, Senator John McCain visited, at the same time as Vice-President Dick Cheney. Both expressed confidence that security was improving. McCain happily told CNN that Muqtada’s ‘influence has been on the wane for a long time’. Three weeks later, McCain was denying he had ever said such a thing; what he had said, he insisted, was that ‘he was still a major player and his influence is going to have to be reduced and gradually eliminated.’ Given that Muqtada is the most powerful Shia leader, and that his militiamen had just shown they could defeat the Iraqi army, this would mean that McCain, if elected president, would fight a war with Iraq’s 17 million Shia.
By this time, American generals and politicians were saying that they had known nothing about Maliki’s disastrous offensive until the last minute -- conveniently forgetting that the Americans had been urging Iraqi prime ministers to attack the Mehdi Army since 2004. It was the failure of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the previous Iraqi prime minister, to initiate such an attack that turned the Americans against him. Four years ago, Paul Bremer, the US viceroy in Iraq, was demanding that Iraqi ministers refer to the Mehdi Army as ‘Muqtada’s militia’. Bremer called him an Iraqi Hitler in the making and made a disastrous attempt to eliminate him in April 2004, an attempt that was similar in many ways to Maliki’s offensive on Basra last month. Bremer too grossly underestimated Muqtada: his supporters took over most of southern Iraq in a few days.
The Iraqi government, ISCI, the Kurds and the Americans all felt threatened by Muqtada’s men. The Green Zone was coming under daily fire from Sadr City. ISCI in particular wants to defeat the Sadrists before the provincial elections in October, in which it is expected to do badly and the Sadrists well. The government dismissed soldiers who had refused to fight in the March campaign and is reported to have recruited 25,000 tribal levies. The Americans have long been hoping to repeat their triumph in Anbar province in 2007, when Sunni tribal leaders allied themselves with the US against al-Qaida in Iraq. Maliki’s advisers felt that if the Iranians had not interfered then the army might have given a better account of itself. But from the Sadrist point of view the humiliation of the government was almost too complete. The Sadrists admitted that they were becoming isolated. ‘A decision has been taken,’ Maliki said in early April. The Sadrists will ‘no longer have a right to participate in the political process, or take part in the upcoming election, unless they end the Mehdi Army’.
The statement was hypocritical: the Kurdish peshmerga and ISCI’s Badr Organisation are both militias that have been effectively incorporated into the Iraqi army and police. But the Sadrists were in a difficult position. Shia solidarity was breaking down. Muqtada has always been good tactician. He called a million person demonstration for 9 April, the fifth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein, to demand an end to the occupation. ‘He needs,’ an Iraqi observer said, ‘to show that his movement’s popularity is still as great as its military strength.’
Patrick Cockburn is the Ihe author of "Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq."
Power struggles loom in Paraguay
Hopefully, the Colorado party will relinquish power and not play games and refuse to give up as Mugabe in Zimbabwe is doing. Paraguay was run as a dictatorship for many years as I recall. Paragay was home to a number of Nazi war criminals for some time.
Power struggles loom in Paraguay
By Robert Plummer
Business reporter, BBC News
After 61 years of Colorado Party rule, Paraguay is the second-poorest country in South America. What chance is there of a fresh start under the new President-elect, former Roman Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo?
It's easy to see why Paraguay's six million inhabitants have grown so discontented at the country's economic plight.
One of the minnows of the Mercosur trading bloc, landlocked Paraguay is squeezed between its bigger, richer neighbours, Brazil and Argentina.
The official economy is heavily dependent on agricultural exports and revenue from the Itaipu hydro-electric power plant that it jointly owns with Brazil.
Itaipu featured prominently in Mr Lugo's election campaign, in an indication that the former bishop might be drawing his inspiration from the only South American nation poorer than Paraguay - the equally landlocked Bolivia.
Bolivia's President, Evo Morales, decided to make energy-hungry Brazil stump up an extra $100m a year for the natural gas supplies it needs from his country.
PARAGUAY'S ECONOMY
South America's second-poorest nation
Gross national income per head: $1,410 (World Bank, 2006)
GDP: $9.3bn (World Bank, 2006)
Foreign debt: 3.69% of gross national income (World Bank, 2006)
Now Mr Lugo is showing signs of the same economic nationalism, calling for an end to contractual obligations that require Paraguay to sell its unused electricity to Brazil at well below the market rate.
The Itaipu deal is a product of South America's shadowy authoritarian past. It was signed in 1973, at a time when both Brazil and Paraguay were ruled by military governments. Paraguayan auditors have never been allowed to see the company books.
Mr Lugo clearly feels it is time to shed some democratic light on this murky project. Denouncing Brazil's "economic colonialism", he has vowed to take his case to the International Court of Justice if necessary.
Argentina has good reason to be worried too, as it has its own Yacyreta hydro-electric joint venture with Paraguay which also has its roots in the military past - and which was described as "a monument to corruption" by former Argentine President Carlos Menem.
Smugglers' haven
But where Paraguay is concerned, the official economy is only one part of the story.
There is certainly little sign of frenzied economic activity in the main city, Asuncion, which ranks as one of the sleepiest capitals in South America.
Street vendors selling traditional "chipa" corn bread and "terere" cold herbal tea are a reminder of the strong indigenous Guarani base of the population.
At night, however, they are replaced by teenage prostitutes who cheerfully attempt to accost unwary foreigners.
Asuncion undoubtedly has its seedy side. But even so, it is certainly a far more clean-living and dignified place than the vast swarming souk that is Paraguay's second city.
Ciudad del Este, on the eastern border with Brazil and Argentina, is full of chaotic markets and down-at-heel shopping arcades that thrive on what economists call the "informal import and re-export of goods" - smuggling, to you and me.
Counterfeit CDs and DVDs, fake designer clothing and perfumes, electronic gadgets - all these are bought and sold cheaply and in vast quantities, with the keenest customers being Brazilians and Argentines buying items to re-sell on the streets of their native countries.
If you stroll into the lobby of any cheap hotel in the city in the middle of the afternoon, you will find it teeming with shoppers waiting for their chartered bus to take them back across the border, every one of them carrying a bulging "sacola" or large canvas bag crammed with booty.
Guns and drugs
Not all economic activity in the tri-border area, as it is known, is as benign as that.
Drug-trafficking and gun-running are also associated with the region. Another Paraguayan border town, Pedro Juan Caballero, first made Brazilian headlines in the 1990s because shops there were ordering large numbers of guns from Brazilian manufacturers.
These guns, often models that were not authorised for sale in Brazil itself, were then being bought by criminal gangs and re-imported to Brazil.
This trade has now been closed down by the Paraguayan authorities, following the discovery of a big arms cache in the town in 2006.
There have also been persistent allegations from the US authorities that Lebanese businessmen based in the region are responsible for channelling large sums of money to armed groups in the Middle East such as Hezbollah.
In short, Paraguay's economy is closely linked to those of its neighbours, but not necessarily in a good way.
Mr Lugo has already met Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and has dropped hints that he sees him as a potential role model.
In this rosy scenario, Lula might be persuaded to grant Paraguay some leeway on the Itaipu deal.
The extra cash in the country's coffers would then allow Mr Lugo to launch a local equivalent of the Bolsa Familia and other social programmes that have helped to lift millions of Brazilians out of poverty.
Alternatively, the relationship could easily turn sour - bringing a swift end to Paraguay's hopes of a brighter future.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/7358214.stm
Published: 2008/04/21 11:56:05 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Power struggles loom in Paraguay
By Robert Plummer
Business reporter, BBC News
After 61 years of Colorado Party rule, Paraguay is the second-poorest country in South America. What chance is there of a fresh start under the new President-elect, former Roman Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo?
It's easy to see why Paraguay's six million inhabitants have grown so discontented at the country's economic plight.
One of the minnows of the Mercosur trading bloc, landlocked Paraguay is squeezed between its bigger, richer neighbours, Brazil and Argentina.
The official economy is heavily dependent on agricultural exports and revenue from the Itaipu hydro-electric power plant that it jointly owns with Brazil.
Itaipu featured prominently in Mr Lugo's election campaign, in an indication that the former bishop might be drawing his inspiration from the only South American nation poorer than Paraguay - the equally landlocked Bolivia.
Bolivia's President, Evo Morales, decided to make energy-hungry Brazil stump up an extra $100m a year for the natural gas supplies it needs from his country.
PARAGUAY'S ECONOMY
South America's second-poorest nation
Gross national income per head: $1,410 (World Bank, 2006)
GDP: $9.3bn (World Bank, 2006)
Foreign debt: 3.69% of gross national income (World Bank, 2006)
Now Mr Lugo is showing signs of the same economic nationalism, calling for an end to contractual obligations that require Paraguay to sell its unused electricity to Brazil at well below the market rate.
The Itaipu deal is a product of South America's shadowy authoritarian past. It was signed in 1973, at a time when both Brazil and Paraguay were ruled by military governments. Paraguayan auditors have never been allowed to see the company books.
Mr Lugo clearly feels it is time to shed some democratic light on this murky project. Denouncing Brazil's "economic colonialism", he has vowed to take his case to the International Court of Justice if necessary.
Argentina has good reason to be worried too, as it has its own Yacyreta hydro-electric joint venture with Paraguay which also has its roots in the military past - and which was described as "a monument to corruption" by former Argentine President Carlos Menem.
Smugglers' haven
But where Paraguay is concerned, the official economy is only one part of the story.
There is certainly little sign of frenzied economic activity in the main city, Asuncion, which ranks as one of the sleepiest capitals in South America.
Street vendors selling traditional "chipa" corn bread and "terere" cold herbal tea are a reminder of the strong indigenous Guarani base of the population.
At night, however, they are replaced by teenage prostitutes who cheerfully attempt to accost unwary foreigners.
Asuncion undoubtedly has its seedy side. But even so, it is certainly a far more clean-living and dignified place than the vast swarming souk that is Paraguay's second city.
Ciudad del Este, on the eastern border with Brazil and Argentina, is full of chaotic markets and down-at-heel shopping arcades that thrive on what economists call the "informal import and re-export of goods" - smuggling, to you and me.
Counterfeit CDs and DVDs, fake designer clothing and perfumes, electronic gadgets - all these are bought and sold cheaply and in vast quantities, with the keenest customers being Brazilians and Argentines buying items to re-sell on the streets of their native countries.
If you stroll into the lobby of any cheap hotel in the city in the middle of the afternoon, you will find it teeming with shoppers waiting for their chartered bus to take them back across the border, every one of them carrying a bulging "sacola" or large canvas bag crammed with booty.
Guns and drugs
Not all economic activity in the tri-border area, as it is known, is as benign as that.
Drug-trafficking and gun-running are also associated with the region. Another Paraguayan border town, Pedro Juan Caballero, first made Brazilian headlines in the 1990s because shops there were ordering large numbers of guns from Brazilian manufacturers.
These guns, often models that were not authorised for sale in Brazil itself, were then being bought by criminal gangs and re-imported to Brazil.
This trade has now been closed down by the Paraguayan authorities, following the discovery of a big arms cache in the town in 2006.
There have also been persistent allegations from the US authorities that Lebanese businessmen based in the region are responsible for channelling large sums of money to armed groups in the Middle East such as Hezbollah.
In short, Paraguay's economy is closely linked to those of its neighbours, but not necessarily in a good way.
Mr Lugo has already met Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and has dropped hints that he sees him as a potential role model.
In this rosy scenario, Lula might be persuaded to grant Paraguay some leeway on the Itaipu deal.
The extra cash in the country's coffers would then allow Mr Lugo to launch a local equivalent of the Bolsa Familia and other social programmes that have helped to lift millions of Brazilians out of poverty.
Alternatively, the relationship could easily turn sour - bringing a swift end to Paraguay's hopes of a brighter future.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/7358214.stm
Published: 2008/04/21 11:56:05 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Democrats are changing U.S. policy in Latin America.
There does not seem to be a similar change of direction in Iraq. Bush seems to get his way with respect to Iraq and there does not seem to be much change on Afghanistan or Iran either. The Democrat also seem to be against dealing with Hamas- except for ex-president Carter!
Democrats are changing U.S. policy in Latin America
By Pablo Bachelet | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — An empowered Democratic Party has taken command of U.S. policy toward Latin America, stalling a free-trade agreement and taking aim at military aid programs for Colombia and Mexico.
This assertiveness began after Democrats took control of Congress in early 2007, but it took a dramatic turn in recent weeks, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi derailing an effort by President Bush to force a vote on a free-trade agreement with Colombia.
Democratic lawmakers, several congressional staffers say, also are likely to cut back a $500 million request for Mexico as part of an anti-drug-trafficking program known as Merida Initiative. And influential Democrats have called for a thorough reassessment of U.S. policy toward the region on everything from Cuba and Venezuela to drug trafficking.
''It's the result of Democrats having a voice again,'' said Dan Restrepo, with the Center for American Progress, a think tank headed by President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta. ``For the first six years of the Bush administration, Democrats were completely cut out of the picture.''
Restrepo, who helps coordinate presidential hopeful Barack Obama's Latin American advisors, said many Democrats believe the Bush administration has failed to advance U.S. interests in the region, and that the policy has been ``mismanaged and neglectful.''
The result is that some of Bush's signature efforts on Latin America are being scrutinized and even stalled by Democrats.
Last week, the House voted 224-195 to sidestep a rule that would have forced a swift House vote on the Colombia trade deal. Bush complained Congress had ''stiffed'' Bogotá.
The deal came under attack from U.S. organized labor and human-rights groups, which argue the country must do more to change its labor laws and protect union members and human rights activists.
The delay of the free-trade agreement came after Democrats cut $171 million from a $614 million military aid package for Colombia, according to the aid-tracking website justf.org..
The administration also is bracing for a showdown over the Merida Initiative, the three-year $1.4 billion anti-drug-trafficking package for Mexico unveiled by Bush in October. Congress is set to debate a $550 million initial outlay in the coming weeks, of which $500 million is for Mexico, as part of a $100 billion Iraq and Afghanistan spending bill.
The administration hopes to supply scanners and communications equipment, helicopters and training to security forces as Mexico's President Felipe Calderón takes on the country's powerful drug cartels. More than 700 people have died in drug-related violence so far this year.
Democrats say the package is too tilted in favor of military hardware and should focus more on strengthening Mexican institutions like the judiciary.
At an April 9 speech before the Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference in Annapolis, Md., Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said the Bush administration should be ''credited'' for the Merida Initiative but added that it had been ''concocted'' under the ``old war on drugs paradigm.''
''The Merida initiative will never succeed,'' he said, ``if we do not work to put in place adequate institutions that can systemically address public security and the rule of law.''
Tim Rieser, a Latin America aide for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., a key member of the Senate appropriations committee, said Democrats ''want to be supportive'' and understand that Mexico's problems affect the United States ``and to some extent we contribute to them.''
But he said the package was ''one-dimensional'' in its security focus and faced stiff competition for U.S. aid dollars, including the need to help Iraqi and Darfur refugees and funding the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
Rieser and other Democrats were skeptical that the United States should pay for eight Bell 412 EPs and three UH-60 Black Hawk transport helicopters.
''We've learned over the years that that is not the way to solve the drug-related crimes,'' he said.
Republicans say cutting back on the Merida initiative is a mistake.
Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the package is ''a rare opportunity'' to build cooperation with Mexico and cutting it back ``would harm U.S.-Mexican relations and broader U.S. interests in the region.''
White House drug czar John Walters said Plan Merida already includes programs for training police and judges. ''The program does not include guns and bullets,'' he said.
Aid to Colombia is partly conditioned on human-rights certifications by the State Department but Mexico considers these too intrusive, and Walters worries Democrats may propose similar conditions in the Merida Initiative.
''The degree to which our cooperation starts having overtones . . . that are reaching into another country and dictating decisions that are theirs, that's a problem,'' said Walters. The administration, he added, was prepared to work on ''legitimate measures'' to ensure ``accountability.''
Beyond taking aim at military aid, Democrats say they want a new approach toward Latin America.
Dodd proposed a new ''strategic partnership'' based on broader public security and rule of law, poverty and inequality and energy integration.
He said changing the long-standing U.S. embargo against Cuba would help Washington reengage with Latin America.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, at an April 1 speech before the Organization of American States, said he wanted the United States to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, engage all nations including Venezuela and ''renew and invigorate'' the U.S. relationship with Latin America.
He said he wants to ''reassess'' the embargo on Cuba, a comprehensive immigration approach that does not include border walls, and a new John F. Kennedy-style Alliance for Progress initiative.
''The U.S.,'' he said, ``can no longer afford to take the goodwill of Latin America for granted.''
Democrats are changing U.S. policy in Latin America
By Pablo Bachelet | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — An empowered Democratic Party has taken command of U.S. policy toward Latin America, stalling a free-trade agreement and taking aim at military aid programs for Colombia and Mexico.
This assertiveness began after Democrats took control of Congress in early 2007, but it took a dramatic turn in recent weeks, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi derailing an effort by President Bush to force a vote on a free-trade agreement with Colombia.
Democratic lawmakers, several congressional staffers say, also are likely to cut back a $500 million request for Mexico as part of an anti-drug-trafficking program known as Merida Initiative. And influential Democrats have called for a thorough reassessment of U.S. policy toward the region on everything from Cuba and Venezuela to drug trafficking.
''It's the result of Democrats having a voice again,'' said Dan Restrepo, with the Center for American Progress, a think tank headed by President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta. ``For the first six years of the Bush administration, Democrats were completely cut out of the picture.''
Restrepo, who helps coordinate presidential hopeful Barack Obama's Latin American advisors, said many Democrats believe the Bush administration has failed to advance U.S. interests in the region, and that the policy has been ``mismanaged and neglectful.''
The result is that some of Bush's signature efforts on Latin America are being scrutinized and even stalled by Democrats.
Last week, the House voted 224-195 to sidestep a rule that would have forced a swift House vote on the Colombia trade deal. Bush complained Congress had ''stiffed'' Bogotá.
The deal came under attack from U.S. organized labor and human-rights groups, which argue the country must do more to change its labor laws and protect union members and human rights activists.
The delay of the free-trade agreement came after Democrats cut $171 million from a $614 million military aid package for Colombia, according to the aid-tracking website justf.org..
The administration also is bracing for a showdown over the Merida Initiative, the three-year $1.4 billion anti-drug-trafficking package for Mexico unveiled by Bush in October. Congress is set to debate a $550 million initial outlay in the coming weeks, of which $500 million is for Mexico, as part of a $100 billion Iraq and Afghanistan spending bill.
The administration hopes to supply scanners and communications equipment, helicopters and training to security forces as Mexico's President Felipe Calderón takes on the country's powerful drug cartels. More than 700 people have died in drug-related violence so far this year.
Democrats say the package is too tilted in favor of military hardware and should focus more on strengthening Mexican institutions like the judiciary.
At an April 9 speech before the Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference in Annapolis, Md., Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said the Bush administration should be ''credited'' for the Merida Initiative but added that it had been ''concocted'' under the ``old war on drugs paradigm.''
''The Merida initiative will never succeed,'' he said, ``if we do not work to put in place adequate institutions that can systemically address public security and the rule of law.''
Tim Rieser, a Latin America aide for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., a key member of the Senate appropriations committee, said Democrats ''want to be supportive'' and understand that Mexico's problems affect the United States ``and to some extent we contribute to them.''
But he said the package was ''one-dimensional'' in its security focus and faced stiff competition for U.S. aid dollars, including the need to help Iraqi and Darfur refugees and funding the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
Rieser and other Democrats were skeptical that the United States should pay for eight Bell 412 EPs and three UH-60 Black Hawk transport helicopters.
''We've learned over the years that that is not the way to solve the drug-related crimes,'' he said.
Republicans say cutting back on the Merida initiative is a mistake.
Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the package is ''a rare opportunity'' to build cooperation with Mexico and cutting it back ``would harm U.S.-Mexican relations and broader U.S. interests in the region.''
White House drug czar John Walters said Plan Merida already includes programs for training police and judges. ''The program does not include guns and bullets,'' he said.
Aid to Colombia is partly conditioned on human-rights certifications by the State Department but Mexico considers these too intrusive, and Walters worries Democrats may propose similar conditions in the Merida Initiative.
''The degree to which our cooperation starts having overtones . . . that are reaching into another country and dictating decisions that are theirs, that's a problem,'' said Walters. The administration, he added, was prepared to work on ''legitimate measures'' to ensure ``accountability.''
Beyond taking aim at military aid, Democrats say they want a new approach toward Latin America.
Dodd proposed a new ''strategic partnership'' based on broader public security and rule of law, poverty and inequality and energy integration.
He said changing the long-standing U.S. embargo against Cuba would help Washington reengage with Latin America.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, at an April 1 speech before the Organization of American States, said he wanted the United States to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, engage all nations including Venezuela and ''renew and invigorate'' the U.S. relationship with Latin America.
He said he wants to ''reassess'' the embargo on Cuba, a comprehensive immigration approach that does not include border walls, and a new John F. Kennedy-style Alliance for Progress initiative.
''The U.S.,'' he said, ``can no longer afford to take the goodwill of Latin America for granted.''
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand.
This is from the NY Times. The Pentagon obviously attempts to control the messages fed to the mainstream media insofar as it is able. In most cases the retired military analysts will do the trick. Of course serving military leaders often can serve the same purpose as can speeches of the president and other authorities. The mainstream media gives countless hours of free time to these sources to spread the message the government wants people to hear. Of course there is often critical commentary as well but often in a news segment there will just be snippets from a speech that convey the messages the government wants.
The beauty of this article is the wealth of details it has about the Pentagon programme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 20, 2008
Message Machine
Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
By DAVID BARSTOW
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.
“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.
Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.
As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.
“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”
The Pentagon defended its relationship with military analysts, saying they had been given only factual information about the war. “The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said.
It was, Mr. Whitman added, “a bit incredible” to think retired military officers could be “wound up” and turned into “puppets of the Defense Department.”
Many analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war. Several, like Jeffrey D. McCausland, a CBS military analyst and defense industry lobbyist, said they kept their networks informed of their outside work and recused themselves from coverage that touched on business interests.
“I’m not here representing the administration,” Dr. McCausland said.
Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said. And whatever the contributions of military analysts, they also noted the many network journalists who have covered the war for years in all its complexity.
Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.
These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.
Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”
Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.
“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”
Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”
The documents released by the Pentagon do not show any quid pro quo between commentary and contracts. But some analysts said they had used the special access as a marketing and networking opportunity or as a window into future business possibilities.
John C. Garrett is a retired Army colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News TV and radio. He is also a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq. In promotional materials, he states that as a military analyst he “is privy to weekly access and briefings with the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high level policy makers in the administration.” One client told investors that Mr. Garrett’s special access and decades of experience helped him “to know in advance — and in detail — how best to meet the needs” of the Defense Department and other agencies.
In interviews Mr. Garrett said there was an inevitable overlap between his dual roles. He said he had gotten “information you just otherwise would not get,” from the briefings and three Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq. He also acknowledged using this access and information to identify opportunities for clients. “You can’t help but look for that,” he said, adding, “If you know a capability that would fill a niche or need, you try to fill it. “That’s good for everybody.”
At the same time, in e-mail messages to the Pentagon, Mr. Garrett displayed an eagerness to be supportive with his television and radio commentary. “Please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay,” he wrote in January 2007, before President Bush went on TV to describe the surge strategy in Iraq.
Conversely, the administration has demonstrated that there is a price for sustained criticism, many analysts said. “You’ll lose all access,” Dr. McCausland said.
With a majority of Americans calling the war a mistake despite all administration attempts to sway public opinion, the Pentagon has focused in the last couple of years on cultivating in particular military analysts frequently seen and heard in conservative news outlets, records and interviews show.
Some of these analysts were on the mission to Cuba on June 24, 2005 — the first of six such Guantánamo trips — which was designed to mobilize analysts against the growing perception of Guantánamo as an international symbol of inhumane treatment. On the flight to Cuba, for much of the day at Guantánamo and on the flight home that night, Pentagon officials briefed the 10 or so analysts on their key messages — how much had been spent improving the facility, the abuse endured by guards, the extensive rights afforded detainees.
The results came quickly. The analysts went on TV and radio, decrying Amnesty International, criticizing calls to close the facility and asserting that all detainees were treated humanely.
“The impressions that you’re getting from the media and from the various pronouncements being made by people who have not been here in my opinion are totally false,” Donald W. Shepperd, a retired Air Force general, reported live on CNN by phone from Guantánamo that same afternoon.
The next morning, Montgomery Meigs, a retired Army general and NBC analyst, appeared on “Today.” “There’s been over $100 million of new construction,” he reported. “The place is very professionally run.”
Within days, transcripts of the analysts’ appearances were circulated to senior White House and Pentagon officials, cited as evidence of progress in the battle for hearts and minds at home.
Charting the Campaign
By early 2002, detailed planning for a possible Iraq invasion was under way, yet an obstacle loomed. Many Americans, polls showed, were uneasy about invading a country with no clear connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Pentagon and White House officials believed the military analysts could play a crucial role in helping overcome this resistance.
Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon’s dealings with the analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called “information dominance.” In a spin-saturated news culture, she argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent.
And so even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit “key influentials” — movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld’s priorities.
In the months after Sept. 11, as every network rushed to retain its own all-star squad of retired military officers, Ms. Clarke and her staff sensed a new opportunity. To Ms. Clarke’s team, the military analysts were the ultimate “key influential” — authoritative, most of them decorated war heroes, all reaching mass audiences.
The analysts, they noticed, often got more airtime than network reporters, and they were not merely explaining the capabilities of Apache helicopters. They were framing how viewers ought to interpret events. What is more, while the analysts were in the news media, they were not of the news media. They were military men, many of them ideologically in sync with the administration’s neoconservative brain trust, many of them important players in a military industry anticipating large budget increases to pay for an Iraq war.
Even analysts with no defense industry ties, and no fondness for the administration, were reluctant to be critical of military leaders, many of whom were friends. “It is very hard for me to criticize the United States Army,” said William L. Nash, a retired Army general and ABC analyst. “It is my life.”
Other administrations had made sporadic, small-scale attempts to build relationships with the occasional military analyst. But these were trifling compared with what Ms. Clarke’s team had in mind. Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary. “We didn’t want to rely on them to be our primary vehicle to get information out,” Mr. Meyer said.
The Pentagon’s regular press office would be kept separate from the military analysts. The analysts would instead be catered to by a small group of political appointees, with the point person being Brent T. Krueger, another senior aide to Ms. Clarke. The decision recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism. Federal agencies, for example, have paid columnists to write favorably about the administration. They have distributed to local TV stations hundreds of fake news segments with fawning accounts of administration accomplishments. The Pentagon itself has made covert payments to Iraqi newspapers to publish coalition propaganda.
Rather than complain about the “media filter,” each of these techniques simply converted the filter into an amplifier. This time, Mr. Krueger said, the military analysts would in effect be “writing the op-ed” for the war.
Assembling the Team
From the start, interviews show, the White House took a keen interest in which analysts had been identified by the Pentagon, requesting lists of potential recruits, and suggesting names. Ms. Clarke’s team wrote summaries describing their backgrounds, business affiliations and where they stood on the war.
“Rumsfeld ultimately cleared off on all invitees,” said Mr. Krueger, who left the Pentagon in 2004. (Through a spokesman, Mr. Rumsfeld declined to comment for this article.)
Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways — either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, Web sites and newspapers. At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.
The group was heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts. Several held senior positions with contractors that gave them direct responsibility for winning new Pentagon business. James Marks, a retired Army general and analyst for CNN from 2004 to 2007, pursued military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil Technologies. Still others held board positions with military firms that gave them responsibility for government business. General McInerney, the Fox analyst, for example, sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks.
Several were defense industry lobbyists, such as Dr. McCausland, who works at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, a major lobbying firm where he is director of a national security team that represents several military contractors. “We offer clients access to key decision makers,” Dr. McCausland’s team promised on the firm’s Web site.
Dr. McCausland was not the only analyst making this pledge. Another was Joseph W. Ralston, a retired Air Force general. Soon after signing on with CBS, General Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm headed by a former defense secretary, William Cohen, himself now a “world affairs” analyst for CNN. “The Cohen Group knows that getting to ‘yes’ in the aerospace and defense market — whether in the United States or abroad — requires that companies have a thorough, up-to-date understanding of the thinking of government decision makers,” the company tells prospective clients on its Web site.
There were also ideological ties.
Two of NBC’s most prominent analysts, Barry R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to help make the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. Both men also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors.
Many also shared with Mr. Bush’s national security team a belief that pessimistic war coverage broke the nation’s will to win in Vietnam, and there was a mutual resolve not to let that happen with this war.
This was a major theme, for example, with Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News analyst from 2001 to 2007. A retired Army general who had specialized in psychological warfare, Mr. Vallely co-authored a paper in 1980 that accused American news organizations of failing to defend the nation from “enemy” propaganda during Vietnam.
“We lost the war — not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped,” he wrote. He urged a radically new approach to psychological operations in future wars — taking aim at not just foreign adversaries but domestic audiences, too. He called his approach “MindWar” — using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.”
The Selling of the War
From their earliest sessions with the military analysts, Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides spoke as if they were all part of the same team.
In interviews, participants described a powerfully seductive environment — the uniformed escorts to Mr. Rumsfeld’s private conference room, the best government china laid out, the embossed name cards, the blizzard of PowerPoints, the solicitations of advice and counsel, the appeals to duty and country, the warm thank you notes from the secretary himself.
“Oh, you have no idea,” Mr. Allard said, describing the effect. “You’re back. They listen to you. They listen to what you say on TV.” It was, he said, “psyops on steroids” — a nuanced exercise in influence through flattery and proximity. “It’s not like it’s, ‘We’ll pay you $500 to get our story out,’ ” he said. “It’s more subtle.”
The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.
In the fall and winter leading up to the invasion, the Pentagon armed its analysts with talking points portraying Iraq as an urgent threat. The basic case became a familiar mantra: Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, was developing nuclear weapons, and might one day slip some to Al Qaeda; an invasion would be a relatively quick and inexpensive “war of liberation.”
At the Pentagon, members of Ms. Clarke’s staff marveled at the way the analysts seamlessly incorporated material from talking points and briefings as if it was their own.
“You could see that they were messaging,” Mr. Krueger said. “You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over.” Some days, he added, “We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’ ”
On April 12, 2003, with major combat almost over, Mr. Rumsfeld drafted a memorandum to Ms. Clarke. “Let’s think about having some of the folks who did such a good job as talking heads in after this thing is over,” he wrote.
By summer, though, the first signs of the insurgency had emerged. Reports from journalists based in Baghdad were increasingly suffused with the imagery of mayhem.
The Pentagon did not have to search far for a counterweight.
It was time, an internal Pentagon strategy memorandum urged, to “re-energize surrogates and message-force multipliers,” starting with the military analysts.
The memorandum led to a proposal to take analysts on a tour of Iraq in September 2003, timed to help overcome the sticker shock from Mr. Bush’s request for $87 billion in emergency war financing.
The group included four analysts from Fox News, one each from CNN and ABC, and several research-group luminaries whose opinion articles appear regularly in the nation’s op-ed pages.
The trip invitation promised a look at “the real situation on the ground in Iraq.”
The situation, as described in scores of books, was deteriorating. L. Paul Bremer III, then the American viceroy in Iraq, wrote in his memoir, “My Year in Iraq,” that he had privately warned the White House that the United States had “about half the number of soldiers we needed here.”
“We’re up against a growing and sophisticated threat,” Mr. Bremer recalled telling the president during a private White House dinner.
That dinner took place on Sept. 24, while the analysts were touring Iraq.
Yet these harsh realities were elided, or flatly contradicted, during the official presentations for the analysts, records show. The itinerary, scripted to the minute, featured brief visits to a model school, a few refurbished government buildings, a center for women’s rights, a mass grave and even the gardens of Babylon.
Mostly the analysts attended briefings. These sessions, records show, spooled out an alternative narrative, depicting an Iraq bursting with political and economic energy, its security forces blossoming. On the crucial question of troop levels, the briefings echoed the White House line: No reinforcements were needed. The “growing and sophisticated threat” described by Mr. Bremer was instead depicted as degraded, isolated and on the run.
“We’re winning,” a briefing document proclaimed.
One trip participant, General Nash of ABC, said some briefings were so clearly “artificial” that he joked to another group member that they were on “the George Romney memorial trip to Iraq,” a reference to Mr. Romney’s infamous claim that American officials had “brainwashed” him into supporting the Vietnam War during a tour there in 1965, while he was governor of Michigan.
But if the trip pounded the message of progress, it also represented a business opportunity: direct access to the most senior civilian and military leaders in Iraq and Kuwait, including many with a say in how the president’s $87 billion would be spent. It also was a chance to gather inside information about the most pressing needs confronting the American mission: the acute shortages of “up-armored” Humvees; the billions to be spent building military bases; the urgent need for interpreters; and the ambitious plans to train Iraq’s security forces.
Information and access of this nature had undeniable value for trip participants like William V. Cowan and Carlton A. Sherwood.
Mr. Cowan, a Fox analyst and retired Marine colonel, was the chief executive of a new military firm, the wvc3 Group. Mr. Sherwood was its executive vice president. At the time, the company was seeking contracts worth tens of millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq. In addition, wvc3 Group had a written agreement to use its influence and connections to help tribal leaders in Al Anbar Province win reconstruction contracts from the coalition.
“Those sheiks wanted access to the C.P.A.,” Mr. Cowan recalled in an interview, referring to the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Mr. Cowan said he pleaded their cause during the trip. “I tried to push hard with some of Bremer’s people to engage these people of Al Anbar,” he said.
Back in Washington, Pentagon officials kept a nervous eye on how the trip translated on the airwaves. Uncomfortable facts had bubbled up during the trip. One briefer, for example, mentioned that the Army was resorting to packing inadequately armored Humvees with sandbags and Kevlar blankets. Descriptions of the Iraqi security forces were withering. “They can’t shoot, but then again, they don’t,” one officer told them, according to one participant’s notes.
“I saw immediately in 2003 that things were going south,” General Vallely, one of the Fox analysts on the trip, recalled in an interview with The Times.
The Pentagon, though, need not have worried.
“You can’t believe the progress,” General Vallely told Alan Colmes of Fox News upon his return. He predicted the insurgency would be “down to a few numbers” within months.
“We could not be more excited, more pleased,” Mr. Cowan told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. There was barely a word about armor shortages or corrupt Iraqi security forces. And on the key strategic question of the moment — whether to send more troops — the analysts were unanimous.
“I am so much against adding more troops,” General Shepperd said on CNN.
Access and Influence
Inside the Pentagon and at the White House, the trip was viewed as a masterpiece in the management of perceptions, not least because it gave fuel to complaints that “mainstream” journalists were ignoring the good news in Iraq.
“We’re hitting a home run on this trip,” a senior Pentagon official wrote in an e-mail message to Richard B. Myers and Peter Pace, then chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Its success only intensified the Pentagon’s campaign. The pace of briefings accelerated. More trips were organized. Eventually the effort involved officials from Washington to Baghdad to Kabul to Guantánamo and back to Tampa, Fla., the headquarters of United States Central Command.
The scale reflected strong support from the top. When officials in Iraq were slow to organize another trip for analysts, a Pentagon official fired off an e-mail message warning that the trips “have the highest levels of visibility” at the White House and urging them to get moving before Lawrence Di Rita, one of Mr. Rumsfeld’s closest aides, “picks up the phone and starts calling the 4-stars.”
Mr. Di Rita, no longer at the Defense Department, said in an interview that a “conscious decision” was made to rely on the military analysts to counteract “the increasingly negative view of the war” coming from journalists in Iraq. The analysts, he said, generally had “a more supportive view” of the administration and the war, and the combination of their TV platforms and military cachet made them ideal for rebutting critical coverage of issues like troop morale, treatment of detainees, inadequate equipment or poorly trained Iraqi security forces. “On those issues, they were more likely to be seen as credible spokesmen,” he said.
For analysts with military industry ties, the attention brought access to a widening circle of influential officials beyond the contacts they had accumulated over the course of their careers.
Charles T. Nash, a Fox military analyst and retired Navy captain, is a consultant who helps small companies break into the military market. Suddenly, he had entree to a host of senior military leaders, many of whom he had never met. It was, he said, like being embedded with the Pentagon leadership. “You start to recognize what’s most important to them,” he said, adding, “There’s nothing like seeing stuff firsthand.”
Some Pentagon officials said they were well aware that some analysts viewed their special access as a business advantage. “Of course we realized that,” Mr. Krueger said. “We weren’t naïve about that.”
They also understood the financial relationship between the networks and their analysts. Many analysts were being paid by the “hit,” the number of times they appeared on TV. The more an analyst could boast of fresh inside information from high-level Pentagon “sources,” the more hits he could expect. The more hits, the greater his potential influence in the military marketplace, where several analysts prominently advertised their network roles.
“They have taken lobbying and the search for contracts to a far higher level,” Mr. Krueger said. “This has been highly honed.”
Mr. Di Rita, though, said it never occurred to him that analysts might use their access to curry favor. Nor, he said, did the Pentagon try to exploit this dynamic. “That’s not something that ever crossed my mind,” he said. In any event, he argued, the analysts and the networks were the ones responsible for any ethical complications. “We assume they know where the lines are,” he said.
The analysts met personally with Mr. Rumsfeld at least 18 times, records show, but that was just the beginning. They had dozens more sessions with the most senior members of his brain trust and access to officials responsible for managing the billions being spent in Iraq. Other groups of “key influentials” had meetings, but not nearly as often as the analysts.
An internal memorandum in 2005 helped explain why. The memorandum, written by a Pentagon official who had accompanied analysts to Iraq, said that based on her observations during the trip, the analysts “are having a greater impact” on network coverage of the military. “They have now become the go-to guys not only on breaking stories, but they influence the views on issues,” she wrote.
Other branches of the administration also began to make use of the analysts. Mr. Gonzales, then the attorney general, met with them soon after news leaked that the government was wiretapping terrorism suspects in the United States without warrants, Pentagon records show. When David H. Petraeus was appointed the commanding general in Iraq in January 2007, one of his early acts was to meet with the analysts.
“We knew we had extraordinary access,” said Timur J. Eads, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Fox analyst who is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies, a fast-growing military contractor.
Like several other analysts, Mr. Eads said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that “some four-star could call up and say, ‘Kill that contract.’ ” For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. “I know a snow job when I see one,” he said. He did not share this on TV.
“Human nature,” he explained, though he noted other instances when he was critical.
Some analysts said that even before the war started, they privately had questions about the justification for the invasion, but were careful not to express them on air.
Mr. Bevelacqua, then a Fox analyst, was among those invited to a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons. He recalled asking the briefer whether the United States had “smoking gun” proof.
“ ‘We don’t have any hard evidence,’ ” Mr. Bevelacqua recalled the briefer replying. He said he and other analysts were alarmed by this concession. “We are looking at ourselves saying, ‘What are we doing?’ ”
Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling “very disappointed” after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being “manipulated” to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.
Mr. Bevelacqua and another Fox analyst, Mr. Cowan, had formed the wvc3 Group, and hoped to win military and national security contracts.
“There’s no way I was going to go down that road and get completely torn apart,” Mr. Bevelacqua said. “You’re talking about fighting a huge machine.”
Some e-mail messages between the Pentagon and the analysts reveal an implicit trade of privileged access for favorable coverage. Robert H. Scales Jr., a retired Army general and analyst for Fox News and National Public Radio whose consulting company advises several military firms on weapons and tactics used in Iraq, wanted the Pentagon to approve high-level briefings for him inside Iraq in 2006.
“Recall the stuff I did after my last visit,” he wrote. “I will do the same this time.”
Pentagon Keeps Tabs
As it happened, the analysts’ news media appearances were being closely monitored. The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana, circulation 20,000.
Omnitec evaluated their appearances using the same tools as corporate branding experts. One report, assessing the impact of several trips to Iraq in 2005, offered example after example of analysts echoing Pentagon themes on all the networks.
“Commentary from all three Iraq trips was extremely positive over all,” the report concluded.
In interviews, several analysts reacted with dismay when told they were described as reliable “surrogates” in Pentagon documents. And some asserted that their Pentagon sessions were, as David L. Grange, a retired Army general and CNN analyst put it, “just upfront information,” while others pointed out, accurately, that they did not always agree with the administration or each other. “None of us drink the Kool-Aid,” General Scales said.
Likewise, several also denied using their special access for business gain. “Not related at all,” General Shepperd said, pointing out that many in the Pentagon held CNN “in the lowest esteem.”
Still, even the mildest of criticism could draw a challenge. Several analysts told of fielding telephone calls from displeased defense officials only minutes after being on the air.
On Aug. 3, 2005, 14 marines died in Iraq. That day, Mr. Cowan, who said he had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the “twisted version of reality” being pushed on analysts in briefings, called the Pentagon to give “a heads-up” that some of his comments on Fox “may not all be friendly,” Pentagon records show. Mr. Rumsfeld’s senior aides quickly arranged a private briefing for him, yet when he told Bill O’Reilly that the United States was “not on a good glide path right now” in Iraq, the repercussions were swift.
Mr. Cowan said he was “precipitously fired from the analysts group” for this appearance. The Pentagon, he wrote in an e-mail message, “simply didn’t like the fact that I wasn’t carrying their water.” The next day James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, presided over another conference call with analysts. He urged them, a transcript shows, not to let the marines’ deaths further erode support for the war.
“The strategic target remains our population,” General Conway said. “We can lose people day in and day out, but they’re never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys can help us not let that happen.”
“General, I just made that point on the air,” an analyst replied.
“Let’s work it together, guys,” General Conway urged.
The Generals’ Revolt
The full dimensions of this mutual embrace were perhaps never clearer than in April 2006, after several of Mr. Rumsfeld’s former generals — none of them network military analysts — went public with devastating critiques of his wartime performance. Some called for his resignation.
On Friday, April 14, with what came to be called the “Generals’ Revolt” dominating headlines, Mr. Rumsfeld instructed aides to summon military analysts to a meeting with him early the next week, records show. When an aide urged a short delay to “give our big guys on the West Coast a little more time to buy a ticket and get here,” Mr. Rumsfeld’s office insisted that “the boss” wanted the meeting fast “for impact on the current story.”
That same day, Pentagon officials helped two Fox analysts, General McInerney and General Vallely, write an opinion article for The Wall Street Journal defending Mr. Rumsfeld.
“Starting to write it now,” General Vallely wrote to the Pentagon that afternoon. “Any input for the article,” he added a little later, “will be much appreciated.” Mr. Rumsfeld’s office quickly forwarded talking points and statistics to rebut the notion of a spreading revolt.
“Vallely is going to use the numbers,” a Pentagon official reported that afternoon.
The standard secrecy notwithstanding, plans for this session leaked, producing a front-page story in The Times that Sunday. In damage-control mode, Pentagon officials scrambled to present the meeting as routine and directed that communications with analysts be kept “very formal,” records show. “This is very, very sensitive now,” a Pentagon official warned subordinates.
On Tuesday, April 18, some 17 analysts assembled at the Pentagon with Mr. Rumsfeld and General Pace, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
A transcript of that session, never before disclosed, shows a shared determination to marginalize war critics and revive public support for the war.
“I’m an old intel guy,” said one analyst. (The transcript omits speakers’ names.) “And I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. That is Psyops. Now most people may hear that and they think, ‘Oh my God, they’re trying to brainwash.’ ”
“What are you, some kind of a nut?” Mr. Rumsfeld cut in, drawing laughter. “You don’t believe in the Constitution?”
There was little discussion about the actual criticism pouring forth from Mr. Rumsfeld’s former generals. Analysts argued that opposition to the war was rooted in perceptions fed by the news media, not reality. The administration’s overall war strategy, they counseled, was “brilliant” and “very successful.”
“Frankly,” one participant said, “from a military point of view, the penalty, 2,400 brave Americans whom we lost, 3,000 in an hour and 15 minutes, is relative.”
An analyst said at another point: “This is a wider war. And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.”
“Yeah,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, taking notes.
But winning or not, they bluntly warned, the administration was in grave political danger so long as most Americans viewed Iraq as a lost cause. “America hates a loser,” one analyst said.
Much of the session was devoted to ways that Mr. Rumsfeld could reverse the “political tide.” One analyst urged Mr. Rumsfeld to “just crush these people,” and assured him that “most of the gentlemen at the table” would enthusiastically support him if he did.
“You are the leader,” the analyst told Mr. Rumsfeld. “You are our guy.”
At another point, an analyst made a suggestion: “In one of your speeches you ought to say, ‘Everybody stop for a minute and imagine an Iraq ruled by Zarqawi.’ And then you just go down the list and say, ‘All right, we’ve got oil, money, sovereignty, access to the geographic center of gravity of the Middle East, blah, blah, blah.’ If you can just paint a mental picture for Joe America to say, ‘Oh my God, I can’t imagine a world like that.’ ”
Even as they assured Mr. Rumsfeld that they stood ready to help in this public relations offensive, the analysts sought guidance on what they should cite as the next “milestone” that would, as one analyst put it, “keep the American people focused on the idea that we’re moving forward to a positive end.” They placed particular emphasis on the growing confrontation with Iran.
“When you said ‘long war,’ you changed the psyche of the American people to expect this to be a generational event,” an analyst said. “And again, I’m not trying to tell you how to do your job...”
“Get in line,” Mr. Rumsfeld interjected.
The meeting ended and Mr. Rumsfeld, appearing pleased and relaxed, took the entire group into a small study and showed off treasured keepsakes from his life, several analysts recalled.
Soon after, analysts hit the airwaves. The Omnitec monitoring reports, circulated to more than 80 officials, confirmed that analysts repeated many of the Pentagon’s talking points: that Mr. Rumsfeld consulted “frequently and sufficiently” with his generals; that he was not “overly concerned” with the criticisms; that the meeting focused “on more important topics at hand,” including the next milestone in Iraq, the formation of a new government.
Days later, Mr. Rumsfeld wrote a memorandum distilling their collective guidance into bullet points. Two were underlined:
“Focus on the Global War on Terror — not simply Iraq. The wider war — the long war.”
“Link Iraq to Iran. Iran is the concern. If we fail in Iraq or Afghanistan, it will help Iran.”
But if Mr. Rumsfeld found the session instructive, at least one participant, General Nash, the ABC analyst, was repulsed.
“I walked away from that session having total disrespect for my fellow commentators, with perhaps one or two exceptions,” he said.
View From the Networks
Two weeks ago General Petraeus took time out from testifying before Congress about Iraq for a conference call with military analysts.
Mr. Garrett, the Fox analyst and Patton Boggs lobbyist, said he told General Petraeus during the call to “keep up the great work.”
“Hey,” Mr. Garrett said in an interview, “anything we can do to help.”
For the moment, though, because of heavy election coverage and general war fatigue, military analysts are not getting nearly as much TV time, and the networks have trimmed their rosters of analysts. The conference call with General Petraeus, for example, produced little in the way of immediate coverage.
Still, almost weekly the Pentagon continues to conduct briefings with selected military analysts. Many analysts said network officials were only dimly aware of these interactions. The networks, they said, have little grasp of how often they meet with senior officials, or what is discussed.
“I don’t think NBC was even aware we were participating,” said Rick Francona, a longtime military analyst for the network.
Some networks publish biographies on their Web sites that describe their analysts’ military backgrounds and, in some cases, give at least limited information about their business ties. But many analysts also said the networks asked few questions about their outside business interests, the nature of their work or the potential for that work to create conflicts of interest. “None of that ever happened,” said Mr. Allard, an NBC analyst until 2006.
“The worst conflict of interest was no interest.”
Mr. Allard and other analysts said their network handlers also raised no objections when the Defense Department began paying their commercial airfare for Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq — a clear ethical violation for most news organizations.
CBS News declined to comment on what it knew about its military analysts’ business affiliations or what steps it took to guard against potential conflicts.
NBC News also declined to discuss its procedures for hiring and monitoring military analysts. The network issued a short statement: “We have clear policies in place to assure that the people who appear on our air have been appropriately vetted and that nothing in their profile would lead to even a perception of a conflict of interest.”
Jeffrey W. Schneider, a spokesman for ABC, said that while the network’s military consultants were not held to the same ethical rules as its full-time journalists, they were expected to keep the network informed about any outside business entanglements. “We make it clear to them we expect them to keep us closely apprised,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Fox News said executives “refused to participate” in this article.
CNN requires its military analysts to disclose in writing all outside sources of income. But like the other networks, it does not provide its military analysts with the kind of written, specific ethical guidelines it gives its full-time employees for avoiding real or apparent conflicts of interest.
Yet even where controls exist, they have sometimes proven porous.
CNN, for example, said it was unaware for nearly three years that one of its main military analysts, General Marks, was deeply involved in the business of seeking government contracts, including contracts related to Iraq.
General Marks was hired by CNN in 2004, about the time he took a management position at McNeil Technologies, where his job was to pursue military and intelligence contracts. As required, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies. But the disclosure form did not require him to describe what his job entailed, and CNN acknowledges it failed to do additional vetting.
“We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have,” CNN said in a written statement.
In an interview, General Marks said it was no secret at CNN that his job at McNeil Technologies was about winning contracts. “I mean, that’s what McNeil does,” he said.
CNN, however, said it did not know the nature of McNeil’s military business or what General Marks did for the company. If he was bidding on Pentagon contracts, CNN said, that should have disqualified him from being a military analyst for the network. But in the summer and fall of 2006, even as he was regularly asked to comment on conditions in Iraq, General Marks was working intensively on bidding for a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq. In fact, General Marks was made president of the McNeil spin-off that won the huge contract in December 2006.
General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN. “I’ve got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest,” he said.
But CNN said it had no idea about his role in the contract until July 2007, when it reviewed his most recent disclosure form, submitted months earlier, and finally made inquiries about his new job.
“We saw the extent of his dealings and determined at that time we should end our relationship with him,” CNN said.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
The beauty of this article is the wealth of details it has about the Pentagon programme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 20, 2008
Message Machine
Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
By DAVID BARSTOW
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.
“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.
Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.
As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.
“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”
The Pentagon defended its relationship with military analysts, saying they had been given only factual information about the war. “The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said.
It was, Mr. Whitman added, “a bit incredible” to think retired military officers could be “wound up” and turned into “puppets of the Defense Department.”
Many analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war. Several, like Jeffrey D. McCausland, a CBS military analyst and defense industry lobbyist, said they kept their networks informed of their outside work and recused themselves from coverage that touched on business interests.
“I’m not here representing the administration,” Dr. McCausland said.
Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said. And whatever the contributions of military analysts, they also noted the many network journalists who have covered the war for years in all its complexity.
Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.
These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.
Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”
Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.
“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”
Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”
The documents released by the Pentagon do not show any quid pro quo between commentary and contracts. But some analysts said they had used the special access as a marketing and networking opportunity or as a window into future business possibilities.
John C. Garrett is a retired Army colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News TV and radio. He is also a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq. In promotional materials, he states that as a military analyst he “is privy to weekly access and briefings with the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high level policy makers in the administration.” One client told investors that Mr. Garrett’s special access and decades of experience helped him “to know in advance — and in detail — how best to meet the needs” of the Defense Department and other agencies.
In interviews Mr. Garrett said there was an inevitable overlap between his dual roles. He said he had gotten “information you just otherwise would not get,” from the briefings and three Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq. He also acknowledged using this access and information to identify opportunities for clients. “You can’t help but look for that,” he said, adding, “If you know a capability that would fill a niche or need, you try to fill it. “That’s good for everybody.”
At the same time, in e-mail messages to the Pentagon, Mr. Garrett displayed an eagerness to be supportive with his television and radio commentary. “Please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay,” he wrote in January 2007, before President Bush went on TV to describe the surge strategy in Iraq.
Conversely, the administration has demonstrated that there is a price for sustained criticism, many analysts said. “You’ll lose all access,” Dr. McCausland said.
With a majority of Americans calling the war a mistake despite all administration attempts to sway public opinion, the Pentagon has focused in the last couple of years on cultivating in particular military analysts frequently seen and heard in conservative news outlets, records and interviews show.
Some of these analysts were on the mission to Cuba on June 24, 2005 — the first of six such Guantánamo trips — which was designed to mobilize analysts against the growing perception of Guantánamo as an international symbol of inhumane treatment. On the flight to Cuba, for much of the day at Guantánamo and on the flight home that night, Pentagon officials briefed the 10 or so analysts on their key messages — how much had been spent improving the facility, the abuse endured by guards, the extensive rights afforded detainees.
The results came quickly. The analysts went on TV and radio, decrying Amnesty International, criticizing calls to close the facility and asserting that all detainees were treated humanely.
“The impressions that you’re getting from the media and from the various pronouncements being made by people who have not been here in my opinion are totally false,” Donald W. Shepperd, a retired Air Force general, reported live on CNN by phone from Guantánamo that same afternoon.
The next morning, Montgomery Meigs, a retired Army general and NBC analyst, appeared on “Today.” “There’s been over $100 million of new construction,” he reported. “The place is very professionally run.”
Within days, transcripts of the analysts’ appearances were circulated to senior White House and Pentagon officials, cited as evidence of progress in the battle for hearts and minds at home.
Charting the Campaign
By early 2002, detailed planning for a possible Iraq invasion was under way, yet an obstacle loomed. Many Americans, polls showed, were uneasy about invading a country with no clear connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Pentagon and White House officials believed the military analysts could play a crucial role in helping overcome this resistance.
Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon’s dealings with the analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called “information dominance.” In a spin-saturated news culture, she argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent.
And so even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit “key influentials” — movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld’s priorities.
In the months after Sept. 11, as every network rushed to retain its own all-star squad of retired military officers, Ms. Clarke and her staff sensed a new opportunity. To Ms. Clarke’s team, the military analysts were the ultimate “key influential” — authoritative, most of them decorated war heroes, all reaching mass audiences.
The analysts, they noticed, often got more airtime than network reporters, and they were not merely explaining the capabilities of Apache helicopters. They were framing how viewers ought to interpret events. What is more, while the analysts were in the news media, they were not of the news media. They were military men, many of them ideologically in sync with the administration’s neoconservative brain trust, many of them important players in a military industry anticipating large budget increases to pay for an Iraq war.
Even analysts with no defense industry ties, and no fondness for the administration, were reluctant to be critical of military leaders, many of whom were friends. “It is very hard for me to criticize the United States Army,” said William L. Nash, a retired Army general and ABC analyst. “It is my life.”
Other administrations had made sporadic, small-scale attempts to build relationships with the occasional military analyst. But these were trifling compared with what Ms. Clarke’s team had in mind. Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary. “We didn’t want to rely on them to be our primary vehicle to get information out,” Mr. Meyer said.
The Pentagon’s regular press office would be kept separate from the military analysts. The analysts would instead be catered to by a small group of political appointees, with the point person being Brent T. Krueger, another senior aide to Ms. Clarke. The decision recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism. Federal agencies, for example, have paid columnists to write favorably about the administration. They have distributed to local TV stations hundreds of fake news segments with fawning accounts of administration accomplishments. The Pentagon itself has made covert payments to Iraqi newspapers to publish coalition propaganda.
Rather than complain about the “media filter,” each of these techniques simply converted the filter into an amplifier. This time, Mr. Krueger said, the military analysts would in effect be “writing the op-ed” for the war.
Assembling the Team
From the start, interviews show, the White House took a keen interest in which analysts had been identified by the Pentagon, requesting lists of potential recruits, and suggesting names. Ms. Clarke’s team wrote summaries describing their backgrounds, business affiliations and where they stood on the war.
“Rumsfeld ultimately cleared off on all invitees,” said Mr. Krueger, who left the Pentagon in 2004. (Through a spokesman, Mr. Rumsfeld declined to comment for this article.)
Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways — either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, Web sites and newspapers. At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.
The group was heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts. Several held senior positions with contractors that gave them direct responsibility for winning new Pentagon business. James Marks, a retired Army general and analyst for CNN from 2004 to 2007, pursued military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil Technologies. Still others held board positions with military firms that gave them responsibility for government business. General McInerney, the Fox analyst, for example, sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks.
Several were defense industry lobbyists, such as Dr. McCausland, who works at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, a major lobbying firm where he is director of a national security team that represents several military contractors. “We offer clients access to key decision makers,” Dr. McCausland’s team promised on the firm’s Web site.
Dr. McCausland was not the only analyst making this pledge. Another was Joseph W. Ralston, a retired Air Force general. Soon after signing on with CBS, General Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm headed by a former defense secretary, William Cohen, himself now a “world affairs” analyst for CNN. “The Cohen Group knows that getting to ‘yes’ in the aerospace and defense market — whether in the United States or abroad — requires that companies have a thorough, up-to-date understanding of the thinking of government decision makers,” the company tells prospective clients on its Web site.
There were also ideological ties.
Two of NBC’s most prominent analysts, Barry R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to help make the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. Both men also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors.
Many also shared with Mr. Bush’s national security team a belief that pessimistic war coverage broke the nation’s will to win in Vietnam, and there was a mutual resolve not to let that happen with this war.
This was a major theme, for example, with Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News analyst from 2001 to 2007. A retired Army general who had specialized in psychological warfare, Mr. Vallely co-authored a paper in 1980 that accused American news organizations of failing to defend the nation from “enemy” propaganda during Vietnam.
“We lost the war — not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped,” he wrote. He urged a radically new approach to psychological operations in future wars — taking aim at not just foreign adversaries but domestic audiences, too. He called his approach “MindWar” — using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.”
The Selling of the War
From their earliest sessions with the military analysts, Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides spoke as if they were all part of the same team.
In interviews, participants described a powerfully seductive environment — the uniformed escorts to Mr. Rumsfeld’s private conference room, the best government china laid out, the embossed name cards, the blizzard of PowerPoints, the solicitations of advice and counsel, the appeals to duty and country, the warm thank you notes from the secretary himself.
“Oh, you have no idea,” Mr. Allard said, describing the effect. “You’re back. They listen to you. They listen to what you say on TV.” It was, he said, “psyops on steroids” — a nuanced exercise in influence through flattery and proximity. “It’s not like it’s, ‘We’ll pay you $500 to get our story out,’ ” he said. “It’s more subtle.”
The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.
In the fall and winter leading up to the invasion, the Pentagon armed its analysts with talking points portraying Iraq as an urgent threat. The basic case became a familiar mantra: Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, was developing nuclear weapons, and might one day slip some to Al Qaeda; an invasion would be a relatively quick and inexpensive “war of liberation.”
At the Pentagon, members of Ms. Clarke’s staff marveled at the way the analysts seamlessly incorporated material from talking points and briefings as if it was their own.
“You could see that they were messaging,” Mr. Krueger said. “You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over.” Some days, he added, “We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’ ”
On April 12, 2003, with major combat almost over, Mr. Rumsfeld drafted a memorandum to Ms. Clarke. “Let’s think about having some of the folks who did such a good job as talking heads in after this thing is over,” he wrote.
By summer, though, the first signs of the insurgency had emerged. Reports from journalists based in Baghdad were increasingly suffused with the imagery of mayhem.
The Pentagon did not have to search far for a counterweight.
It was time, an internal Pentagon strategy memorandum urged, to “re-energize surrogates and message-force multipliers,” starting with the military analysts.
The memorandum led to a proposal to take analysts on a tour of Iraq in September 2003, timed to help overcome the sticker shock from Mr. Bush’s request for $87 billion in emergency war financing.
The group included four analysts from Fox News, one each from CNN and ABC, and several research-group luminaries whose opinion articles appear regularly in the nation’s op-ed pages.
The trip invitation promised a look at “the real situation on the ground in Iraq.”
The situation, as described in scores of books, was deteriorating. L. Paul Bremer III, then the American viceroy in Iraq, wrote in his memoir, “My Year in Iraq,” that he had privately warned the White House that the United States had “about half the number of soldiers we needed here.”
“We’re up against a growing and sophisticated threat,” Mr. Bremer recalled telling the president during a private White House dinner.
That dinner took place on Sept. 24, while the analysts were touring Iraq.
Yet these harsh realities were elided, or flatly contradicted, during the official presentations for the analysts, records show. The itinerary, scripted to the minute, featured brief visits to a model school, a few refurbished government buildings, a center for women’s rights, a mass grave and even the gardens of Babylon.
Mostly the analysts attended briefings. These sessions, records show, spooled out an alternative narrative, depicting an Iraq bursting with political and economic energy, its security forces blossoming. On the crucial question of troop levels, the briefings echoed the White House line: No reinforcements were needed. The “growing and sophisticated threat” described by Mr. Bremer was instead depicted as degraded, isolated and on the run.
“We’re winning,” a briefing document proclaimed.
One trip participant, General Nash of ABC, said some briefings were so clearly “artificial” that he joked to another group member that they were on “the George Romney memorial trip to Iraq,” a reference to Mr. Romney’s infamous claim that American officials had “brainwashed” him into supporting the Vietnam War during a tour there in 1965, while he was governor of Michigan.
But if the trip pounded the message of progress, it also represented a business opportunity: direct access to the most senior civilian and military leaders in Iraq and Kuwait, including many with a say in how the president’s $87 billion would be spent. It also was a chance to gather inside information about the most pressing needs confronting the American mission: the acute shortages of “up-armored” Humvees; the billions to be spent building military bases; the urgent need for interpreters; and the ambitious plans to train Iraq’s security forces.
Information and access of this nature had undeniable value for trip participants like William V. Cowan and Carlton A. Sherwood.
Mr. Cowan, a Fox analyst and retired Marine colonel, was the chief executive of a new military firm, the wvc3 Group. Mr. Sherwood was its executive vice president. At the time, the company was seeking contracts worth tens of millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq. In addition, wvc3 Group had a written agreement to use its influence and connections to help tribal leaders in Al Anbar Province win reconstruction contracts from the coalition.
“Those sheiks wanted access to the C.P.A.,” Mr. Cowan recalled in an interview, referring to the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Mr. Cowan said he pleaded their cause during the trip. “I tried to push hard with some of Bremer’s people to engage these people of Al Anbar,” he said.
Back in Washington, Pentagon officials kept a nervous eye on how the trip translated on the airwaves. Uncomfortable facts had bubbled up during the trip. One briefer, for example, mentioned that the Army was resorting to packing inadequately armored Humvees with sandbags and Kevlar blankets. Descriptions of the Iraqi security forces were withering. “They can’t shoot, but then again, they don’t,” one officer told them, according to one participant’s notes.
“I saw immediately in 2003 that things were going south,” General Vallely, one of the Fox analysts on the trip, recalled in an interview with The Times.
The Pentagon, though, need not have worried.
“You can’t believe the progress,” General Vallely told Alan Colmes of Fox News upon his return. He predicted the insurgency would be “down to a few numbers” within months.
“We could not be more excited, more pleased,” Mr. Cowan told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. There was barely a word about armor shortages or corrupt Iraqi security forces. And on the key strategic question of the moment — whether to send more troops — the analysts were unanimous.
“I am so much against adding more troops,” General Shepperd said on CNN.
Access and Influence
Inside the Pentagon and at the White House, the trip was viewed as a masterpiece in the management of perceptions, not least because it gave fuel to complaints that “mainstream” journalists were ignoring the good news in Iraq.
“We’re hitting a home run on this trip,” a senior Pentagon official wrote in an e-mail message to Richard B. Myers and Peter Pace, then chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Its success only intensified the Pentagon’s campaign. The pace of briefings accelerated. More trips were organized. Eventually the effort involved officials from Washington to Baghdad to Kabul to Guantánamo and back to Tampa, Fla., the headquarters of United States Central Command.
The scale reflected strong support from the top. When officials in Iraq were slow to organize another trip for analysts, a Pentagon official fired off an e-mail message warning that the trips “have the highest levels of visibility” at the White House and urging them to get moving before Lawrence Di Rita, one of Mr. Rumsfeld’s closest aides, “picks up the phone and starts calling the 4-stars.”
Mr. Di Rita, no longer at the Defense Department, said in an interview that a “conscious decision” was made to rely on the military analysts to counteract “the increasingly negative view of the war” coming from journalists in Iraq. The analysts, he said, generally had “a more supportive view” of the administration and the war, and the combination of their TV platforms and military cachet made them ideal for rebutting critical coverage of issues like troop morale, treatment of detainees, inadequate equipment or poorly trained Iraqi security forces. “On those issues, they were more likely to be seen as credible spokesmen,” he said.
For analysts with military industry ties, the attention brought access to a widening circle of influential officials beyond the contacts they had accumulated over the course of their careers.
Charles T. Nash, a Fox military analyst and retired Navy captain, is a consultant who helps small companies break into the military market. Suddenly, he had entree to a host of senior military leaders, many of whom he had never met. It was, he said, like being embedded with the Pentagon leadership. “You start to recognize what’s most important to them,” he said, adding, “There’s nothing like seeing stuff firsthand.”
Some Pentagon officials said they were well aware that some analysts viewed their special access as a business advantage. “Of course we realized that,” Mr. Krueger said. “We weren’t naïve about that.”
They also understood the financial relationship between the networks and their analysts. Many analysts were being paid by the “hit,” the number of times they appeared on TV. The more an analyst could boast of fresh inside information from high-level Pentagon “sources,” the more hits he could expect. The more hits, the greater his potential influence in the military marketplace, where several analysts prominently advertised their network roles.
“They have taken lobbying and the search for contracts to a far higher level,” Mr. Krueger said. “This has been highly honed.”
Mr. Di Rita, though, said it never occurred to him that analysts might use their access to curry favor. Nor, he said, did the Pentagon try to exploit this dynamic. “That’s not something that ever crossed my mind,” he said. In any event, he argued, the analysts and the networks were the ones responsible for any ethical complications. “We assume they know where the lines are,” he said.
The analysts met personally with Mr. Rumsfeld at least 18 times, records show, but that was just the beginning. They had dozens more sessions with the most senior members of his brain trust and access to officials responsible for managing the billions being spent in Iraq. Other groups of “key influentials” had meetings, but not nearly as often as the analysts.
An internal memorandum in 2005 helped explain why. The memorandum, written by a Pentagon official who had accompanied analysts to Iraq, said that based on her observations during the trip, the analysts “are having a greater impact” on network coverage of the military. “They have now become the go-to guys not only on breaking stories, but they influence the views on issues,” she wrote.
Other branches of the administration also began to make use of the analysts. Mr. Gonzales, then the attorney general, met with them soon after news leaked that the government was wiretapping terrorism suspects in the United States without warrants, Pentagon records show. When David H. Petraeus was appointed the commanding general in Iraq in January 2007, one of his early acts was to meet with the analysts.
“We knew we had extraordinary access,” said Timur J. Eads, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Fox analyst who is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies, a fast-growing military contractor.
Like several other analysts, Mr. Eads said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that “some four-star could call up and say, ‘Kill that contract.’ ” For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. “I know a snow job when I see one,” he said. He did not share this on TV.
“Human nature,” he explained, though he noted other instances when he was critical.
Some analysts said that even before the war started, they privately had questions about the justification for the invasion, but were careful not to express them on air.
Mr. Bevelacqua, then a Fox analyst, was among those invited to a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons. He recalled asking the briefer whether the United States had “smoking gun” proof.
“ ‘We don’t have any hard evidence,’ ” Mr. Bevelacqua recalled the briefer replying. He said he and other analysts were alarmed by this concession. “We are looking at ourselves saying, ‘What are we doing?’ ”
Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling “very disappointed” after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being “manipulated” to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.
Mr. Bevelacqua and another Fox analyst, Mr. Cowan, had formed the wvc3 Group, and hoped to win military and national security contracts.
“There’s no way I was going to go down that road and get completely torn apart,” Mr. Bevelacqua said. “You’re talking about fighting a huge machine.”
Some e-mail messages between the Pentagon and the analysts reveal an implicit trade of privileged access for favorable coverage. Robert H. Scales Jr., a retired Army general and analyst for Fox News and National Public Radio whose consulting company advises several military firms on weapons and tactics used in Iraq, wanted the Pentagon to approve high-level briefings for him inside Iraq in 2006.
“Recall the stuff I did after my last visit,” he wrote. “I will do the same this time.”
Pentagon Keeps Tabs
As it happened, the analysts’ news media appearances were being closely monitored. The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana, circulation 20,000.
Omnitec evaluated their appearances using the same tools as corporate branding experts. One report, assessing the impact of several trips to Iraq in 2005, offered example after example of analysts echoing Pentagon themes on all the networks.
“Commentary from all three Iraq trips was extremely positive over all,” the report concluded.
In interviews, several analysts reacted with dismay when told they were described as reliable “surrogates” in Pentagon documents. And some asserted that their Pentagon sessions were, as David L. Grange, a retired Army general and CNN analyst put it, “just upfront information,” while others pointed out, accurately, that they did not always agree with the administration or each other. “None of us drink the Kool-Aid,” General Scales said.
Likewise, several also denied using their special access for business gain. “Not related at all,” General Shepperd said, pointing out that many in the Pentagon held CNN “in the lowest esteem.”
Still, even the mildest of criticism could draw a challenge. Several analysts told of fielding telephone calls from displeased defense officials only minutes after being on the air.
On Aug. 3, 2005, 14 marines died in Iraq. That day, Mr. Cowan, who said he had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the “twisted version of reality” being pushed on analysts in briefings, called the Pentagon to give “a heads-up” that some of his comments on Fox “may not all be friendly,” Pentagon records show. Mr. Rumsfeld’s senior aides quickly arranged a private briefing for him, yet when he told Bill O’Reilly that the United States was “not on a good glide path right now” in Iraq, the repercussions were swift.
Mr. Cowan said he was “precipitously fired from the analysts group” for this appearance. The Pentagon, he wrote in an e-mail message, “simply didn’t like the fact that I wasn’t carrying their water.” The next day James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, presided over another conference call with analysts. He urged them, a transcript shows, not to let the marines’ deaths further erode support for the war.
“The strategic target remains our population,” General Conway said. “We can lose people day in and day out, but they’re never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys can help us not let that happen.”
“General, I just made that point on the air,” an analyst replied.
“Let’s work it together, guys,” General Conway urged.
The Generals’ Revolt
The full dimensions of this mutual embrace were perhaps never clearer than in April 2006, after several of Mr. Rumsfeld’s former generals — none of them network military analysts — went public with devastating critiques of his wartime performance. Some called for his resignation.
On Friday, April 14, with what came to be called the “Generals’ Revolt” dominating headlines, Mr. Rumsfeld instructed aides to summon military analysts to a meeting with him early the next week, records show. When an aide urged a short delay to “give our big guys on the West Coast a little more time to buy a ticket and get here,” Mr. Rumsfeld’s office insisted that “the boss” wanted the meeting fast “for impact on the current story.”
That same day, Pentagon officials helped two Fox analysts, General McInerney and General Vallely, write an opinion article for The Wall Street Journal defending Mr. Rumsfeld.
“Starting to write it now,” General Vallely wrote to the Pentagon that afternoon. “Any input for the article,” he added a little later, “will be much appreciated.” Mr. Rumsfeld’s office quickly forwarded talking points and statistics to rebut the notion of a spreading revolt.
“Vallely is going to use the numbers,” a Pentagon official reported that afternoon.
The standard secrecy notwithstanding, plans for this session leaked, producing a front-page story in The Times that Sunday. In damage-control mode, Pentagon officials scrambled to present the meeting as routine and directed that communications with analysts be kept “very formal,” records show. “This is very, very sensitive now,” a Pentagon official warned subordinates.
On Tuesday, April 18, some 17 analysts assembled at the Pentagon with Mr. Rumsfeld and General Pace, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
A transcript of that session, never before disclosed, shows a shared determination to marginalize war critics and revive public support for the war.
“I’m an old intel guy,” said one analyst. (The transcript omits speakers’ names.) “And I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. That is Psyops. Now most people may hear that and they think, ‘Oh my God, they’re trying to brainwash.’ ”
“What are you, some kind of a nut?” Mr. Rumsfeld cut in, drawing laughter. “You don’t believe in the Constitution?”
There was little discussion about the actual criticism pouring forth from Mr. Rumsfeld’s former generals. Analysts argued that opposition to the war was rooted in perceptions fed by the news media, not reality. The administration’s overall war strategy, they counseled, was “brilliant” and “very successful.”
“Frankly,” one participant said, “from a military point of view, the penalty, 2,400 brave Americans whom we lost, 3,000 in an hour and 15 minutes, is relative.”
An analyst said at another point: “This is a wider war. And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.”
“Yeah,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, taking notes.
But winning or not, they bluntly warned, the administration was in grave political danger so long as most Americans viewed Iraq as a lost cause. “America hates a loser,” one analyst said.
Much of the session was devoted to ways that Mr. Rumsfeld could reverse the “political tide.” One analyst urged Mr. Rumsfeld to “just crush these people,” and assured him that “most of the gentlemen at the table” would enthusiastically support him if he did.
“You are the leader,” the analyst told Mr. Rumsfeld. “You are our guy.”
At another point, an analyst made a suggestion: “In one of your speeches you ought to say, ‘Everybody stop for a minute and imagine an Iraq ruled by Zarqawi.’ And then you just go down the list and say, ‘All right, we’ve got oil, money, sovereignty, access to the geographic center of gravity of the Middle East, blah, blah, blah.’ If you can just paint a mental picture for Joe America to say, ‘Oh my God, I can’t imagine a world like that.’ ”
Even as they assured Mr. Rumsfeld that they stood ready to help in this public relations offensive, the analysts sought guidance on what they should cite as the next “milestone” that would, as one analyst put it, “keep the American people focused on the idea that we’re moving forward to a positive end.” They placed particular emphasis on the growing confrontation with Iran.
“When you said ‘long war,’ you changed the psyche of the American people to expect this to be a generational event,” an analyst said. “And again, I’m not trying to tell you how to do your job...”
“Get in line,” Mr. Rumsfeld interjected.
The meeting ended and Mr. Rumsfeld, appearing pleased and relaxed, took the entire group into a small study and showed off treasured keepsakes from his life, several analysts recalled.
Soon after, analysts hit the airwaves. The Omnitec monitoring reports, circulated to more than 80 officials, confirmed that analysts repeated many of the Pentagon’s talking points: that Mr. Rumsfeld consulted “frequently and sufficiently” with his generals; that he was not “overly concerned” with the criticisms; that the meeting focused “on more important topics at hand,” including the next milestone in Iraq, the formation of a new government.
Days later, Mr. Rumsfeld wrote a memorandum distilling their collective guidance into bullet points. Two were underlined:
“Focus on the Global War on Terror — not simply Iraq. The wider war — the long war.”
“Link Iraq to Iran. Iran is the concern. If we fail in Iraq or Afghanistan, it will help Iran.”
But if Mr. Rumsfeld found the session instructive, at least one participant, General Nash, the ABC analyst, was repulsed.
“I walked away from that session having total disrespect for my fellow commentators, with perhaps one or two exceptions,” he said.
View From the Networks
Two weeks ago General Petraeus took time out from testifying before Congress about Iraq for a conference call with military analysts.
Mr. Garrett, the Fox analyst and Patton Boggs lobbyist, said he told General Petraeus during the call to “keep up the great work.”
“Hey,” Mr. Garrett said in an interview, “anything we can do to help.”
For the moment, though, because of heavy election coverage and general war fatigue, military analysts are not getting nearly as much TV time, and the networks have trimmed their rosters of analysts. The conference call with General Petraeus, for example, produced little in the way of immediate coverage.
Still, almost weekly the Pentagon continues to conduct briefings with selected military analysts. Many analysts said network officials were only dimly aware of these interactions. The networks, they said, have little grasp of how often they meet with senior officials, or what is discussed.
“I don’t think NBC was even aware we were participating,” said Rick Francona, a longtime military analyst for the network.
Some networks publish biographies on their Web sites that describe their analysts’ military backgrounds and, in some cases, give at least limited information about their business ties. But many analysts also said the networks asked few questions about their outside business interests, the nature of their work or the potential for that work to create conflicts of interest. “None of that ever happened,” said Mr. Allard, an NBC analyst until 2006.
“The worst conflict of interest was no interest.”
Mr. Allard and other analysts said their network handlers also raised no objections when the Defense Department began paying their commercial airfare for Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq — a clear ethical violation for most news organizations.
CBS News declined to comment on what it knew about its military analysts’ business affiliations or what steps it took to guard against potential conflicts.
NBC News also declined to discuss its procedures for hiring and monitoring military analysts. The network issued a short statement: “We have clear policies in place to assure that the people who appear on our air have been appropriately vetted and that nothing in their profile would lead to even a perception of a conflict of interest.”
Jeffrey W. Schneider, a spokesman for ABC, said that while the network’s military consultants were not held to the same ethical rules as its full-time journalists, they were expected to keep the network informed about any outside business entanglements. “We make it clear to them we expect them to keep us closely apprised,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Fox News said executives “refused to participate” in this article.
CNN requires its military analysts to disclose in writing all outside sources of income. But like the other networks, it does not provide its military analysts with the kind of written, specific ethical guidelines it gives its full-time employees for avoiding real or apparent conflicts of interest.
Yet even where controls exist, they have sometimes proven porous.
CNN, for example, said it was unaware for nearly three years that one of its main military analysts, General Marks, was deeply involved in the business of seeking government contracts, including contracts related to Iraq.
General Marks was hired by CNN in 2004, about the time he took a management position at McNeil Technologies, where his job was to pursue military and intelligence contracts. As required, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies. But the disclosure form did not require him to describe what his job entailed, and CNN acknowledges it failed to do additional vetting.
“We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have,” CNN said in a written statement.
In an interview, General Marks said it was no secret at CNN that his job at McNeil Technologies was about winning contracts. “I mean, that’s what McNeil does,” he said.
CNN, however, said it did not know the nature of McNeil’s military business or what General Marks did for the company. If he was bidding on Pentagon contracts, CNN said, that should have disqualified him from being a military analyst for the network. But in the summer and fall of 2006, even as he was regularly asked to comment on conditions in Iraq, General Marks was working intensively on bidding for a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq. In fact, General Marks was made president of the McNeil spin-off that won the huge contract in December 2006.
General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN. “I’ve got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest,” he said.
But CNN said it had no idea about his role in the contract until July 2007, when it reviewed his most recent disclosure form, submitted months earlier, and finally made inquiries about his new job.
“We saw the extent of his dealings and determined at that time we should end our relationship with him,” CNN said.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
Philippines: Even ass holes have privacy rights
This is from the Boston Herald. They should have left the event unrecorded except in memory for reproduction as my funniest operation stories.
Laughter not best medicine
By Associated Press |MANILA, Philippines - It probably seemed like fun at the time. In surgery to remove a spray can from a patient’s rectum, the docs and a nurse were yukking it up.
The laugh riot was videotaped, and a nursing student observing the procedure was so impressed with their work that she posted the video on YouTube.
Now the joke’s on them.
Health Secretary Francisco Duque III ordered an investigation and the Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center in Cebu, where the rowdy giggle-fest operation took place Jan. 3, recommended penalties ranging from reprimands to dismissals for violating ethical standards. Health officials will consider the recommendations.
The nearly 3-minute video of a noisy operating room shows doctors and nurses laughing, giggling and cheering. At one point, a hand appears with a cell phone camera taking a close-up picture of the surgery. As a doctor gingerly pulls out a 6-inch-long body spray canister from the male patient’s rectum, someone shouts, “Baby out!” amid loud cheers. The doctor then gleefully sprays a crowd of nurses and doctors.
A fourth doctor and three other nurses were “sternly warned,” and an instructor who supervised a group of observing nursing students is now banned from the hospital. A nursing student is suspected of posting the video on YouTube.
The patient went into surgery three days after a New Year’s drinking spree and a “one-night stand” with a male partner, but claimed to be too drunk to remember how the body spray canister was misplaced.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/asia_pacific/view.bg?articleid=1088160
© Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Media.
Laughter not best medicine
By Associated Press |MANILA, Philippines - It probably seemed like fun at the time. In surgery to remove a spray can from a patient’s rectum, the docs and a nurse were yukking it up.
The laugh riot was videotaped, and a nursing student observing the procedure was so impressed with their work that she posted the video on YouTube.
Now the joke’s on them.
Health Secretary Francisco Duque III ordered an investigation and the Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center in Cebu, where the rowdy giggle-fest operation took place Jan. 3, recommended penalties ranging from reprimands to dismissals for violating ethical standards. Health officials will consider the recommendations.
The nearly 3-minute video of a noisy operating room shows doctors and nurses laughing, giggling and cheering. At one point, a hand appears with a cell phone camera taking a close-up picture of the surgery. As a doctor gingerly pulls out a 6-inch-long body spray canister from the male patient’s rectum, someone shouts, “Baby out!” amid loud cheers. The doctor then gleefully sprays a crowd of nurses and doctors.
A fourth doctor and three other nurses were “sternly warned,” and an instructor who supervised a group of observing nursing students is now banned from the hospital. A nursing student is suspected of posting the video on YouTube.
The patient went into surgery three days after a New Year’s drinking spree and a “one-night stand” with a male partner, but claimed to be too drunk to remember how the body spray canister was misplaced.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/asia_pacific/view.bg?articleid=1088160
© Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Media.
Philippines fails to contract expected amount of rice.
This shows just how serious the global rice shortage is as the Philippines managed to buy only about two thirds of what it had hoped and at much higher prices than they predicted. The rising cost of the rice subsidy hurts the Philippine treasury and no doubt the differential between subsidised and market price rice will generate numerous corrupt deals.
This is from Xinhua.
Philippines fails to contract expected amount of rice
www.chinaview.cn 2008-04-17 16:46:48 Print
MANILA, April 17 (Xinhua) -- The Philippines failed to secure the expected 500,000 metric tons of rice from international bidders in Thursday's rice tender, the third in the year held to hedge against a rice supply shortage evolving into a serious national crisis.
Only 325,750 metric tons of rice was offered at prices ranging from 872.5 U.S. dollars to 1,220 U.S. dollars per metric ton, the national television network GMA News said.
It quoted Ludovico Jarina, deputy head of the National Food Authority (NFA), the government's importing arm, as saying that the bidding prices exceeded the agency's expectation of 900 U.S. dollars per metric ton in maximum.
As one of the world's top rice importers, the Philippines expected to buy not less than 2.2 million metric tons of rice overseas to feed its people in 2008. It has purchased about 1.2 million metric tons at a cost of 626 million U.S. dollars due to soaring grain prices in the global market.
Half of the contracted amount has arrived while 90,000 metric tons are on the way, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo told the public in a Tuesday's address, saying that the rice supply "is secure for the foreseeable future."
Thursday's contracted amount is set for April to June delivery while the government is planning another tender on May 2.
Credit Suisse, the Swiss-based investment bank, predicted the Philippines would spend up to one percent of GDP to deal with the rice crisis this year because the government vowed to maintain the price of subsidized rice sold in domestic market unchanged at 18.25 pesos per kilogram (0.445 U.S. dollars) despite the price of imported rice that almost doubled since the start of the year.
This is from Xinhua.
Philippines fails to contract expected amount of rice
www.chinaview.cn 2008-04-17 16:46:48 Print
MANILA, April 17 (Xinhua) -- The Philippines failed to secure the expected 500,000 metric tons of rice from international bidders in Thursday's rice tender, the third in the year held to hedge against a rice supply shortage evolving into a serious national crisis.
Only 325,750 metric tons of rice was offered at prices ranging from 872.5 U.S. dollars to 1,220 U.S. dollars per metric ton, the national television network GMA News said.
It quoted Ludovico Jarina, deputy head of the National Food Authority (NFA), the government's importing arm, as saying that the bidding prices exceeded the agency's expectation of 900 U.S. dollars per metric ton in maximum.
As one of the world's top rice importers, the Philippines expected to buy not less than 2.2 million metric tons of rice overseas to feed its people in 2008. It has purchased about 1.2 million metric tons at a cost of 626 million U.S. dollars due to soaring grain prices in the global market.
Half of the contracted amount has arrived while 90,000 metric tons are on the way, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo told the public in a Tuesday's address, saying that the rice supply "is secure for the foreseeable future."
Thursday's contracted amount is set for April to June delivery while the government is planning another tender on May 2.
Credit Suisse, the Swiss-based investment bank, predicted the Philippines would spend up to one percent of GDP to deal with the rice crisis this year because the government vowed to maintain the price of subsidized rice sold in domestic market unchanged at 18.25 pesos per kilogram (0.445 U.S. dollars) despite the price of imported rice that almost doubled since the start of the year.
Housing: Time to Halt Taxpayer Subsidies
Farrell neglects some important aspects of government's encouragement of home ownership. By encouraging citizens to invest in housing the government ensures that the citizen has a stake in the success of the system. As the article mentions owning a house is part of the American Dream. It may have become a nightmare for some now but probably many of those who have lost will just pick up the pieces and shoulder on hoping to eventually own another house. At most the clamor will be for bailouts not just of the financiers who floated the sub-market prime issues but to some degree for those who are losing their homes.
Farrell makes the interesting point that the rich rather than the less well off profit most from mortgage payment tax breaks but that is hardly surprising since free market capitalism is basically designed to best serve those with the most money. In fact a market rations goods on the basis of cash people hold or can borrow.
Anyway in a capitalist democracy votes also need to be bought and that often involves providing at least some aspects of the American dream, even if the techniques of doing so do not make sense to every business commentator.
Commentary April 17, 2008, 12:01AM EST
Housing: Time to Halt Taxpayer Subsidies
Even with the housing market declining, it's bad policy to give homes
preferential tax treatment over stocks and other investments
by Chris Farrell
Homeownership has long been a vibrant part of achieving the American
Dream. But these days owning a home is more like starring in a horror
flick, perhaps called Nightmare on Main Street. The numbers are
frightening. Home prices are falling nationwide, and the foreclosure
rate is at record levels. The delinquency rate for subprime adjustable
rate mortgages is an astonishing 20%, and the Federal Reserve's home
equity measure is at its lowest level in 60 years. Indeed, Moody's
Economy.com estimates that more than 10% of the nation's homeowners
were "upside down" on their mortgages by the end of March. In other
words, the value of their mortgage is greater than what their home is
worth.
It's a safe bet with both the housing market and the economy
deteriorating that more federal money (as well as state funds) will go
toward supporting housing this year. But once the downward trajectory
moderates, the government should learn from recent experience and take
a radical stance: Forget propping up housing. Instead, eliminate
taxpayer subsidies for housing. Yes, you read that right.
The Bubble: No Coincidence
There's no question the U.S. tax code is full of special tax
provisions that favor housing. Among the biggest breaks are the
mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for state and local real
estate taxes, and the capital gains exclusion for homes. (The first
$250,000 in profit is exempted from capital gains taxes for individual
filers, and $500,000 profit for couples.) The federal tax code funnels
more than $100 billion annually into the housing sector, estimates the
Tax Foundation in Washington D.C.
This figure doesn't include the mammoth subsidized institutions that
support the housing and mortgage markets. This includes Government
Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) , to
name only two of the best known players. The Congressional Budget
Office estimated that in 2003 the benefit of the explicit and implicit
ties to the federal government for GSE such as Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac amounted to a federal subsidy of more than $23 billion, according
to economists William G. Gale, Jonathan Gruber, and Seth
Stephens-Davidowitz in their 2007 paper, Encouraging Homeownership
Through the Tax Code.
Yet in a modern, dynamic high-tech economy, why should homes get
preferable tax treatment over stocks and other investments? The tax
gap in treatment is significant. Take capital gains. Say you'd
invested in a basket of high-tech stocks three years ago and now you
sell the portfolio for a $500,000 profit. Well, you'll pay a 15%
capital gains tax rate on the gain, writing a $75,000 check to Uncle
Sam. But you and your husband also sell the home you bought three
years ago for a $500,000 profit. Guess what? The Internal Revenue
Service gets nothing.
By the way, the tax break for capital gains on housing was signed into
law in 1997. Is it a coincidence that home prices soared 79% in the
time between the first quarter of 1997 and the first quarter of 2005,
with home prices not just going up but rising at an increasingly rapid
rate, as calculated by Peter Bernstein, a long-time advisor to
institutional investors and author of Against the Gods: The Remarkable
Story of Risk. It's doubtful.
Lessons of the Past Decade
What's more, the mortgage interest deduction is simply bad tax policy.
It's sold as a middle-class subsidy, but since the value of the
deduction goes up with the size of the mortgage, the biggest break is
enjoyed by the highest-income households. For instance, the
President's 2005 Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform calculated that
individuals making more than $200,000 a year received more than eight
times the benefit of those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year.
These days, no one can doubt that a home is an investment. It's an
asset class, like stocks and bonds. Indeed, one reason why housing
prices hit such stratospheric heights was the potent combination of
owners treating homes as an investment, and the capital markets
shoveling huge sums of money into real estate through such innovations
as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). For awhile, the net effect
was to increase the liquidity of real estate "investments," supporting
an unprecedented degree of speculation.
The tax code shouldn't bias investment money to favor one kind of
investment over another—certainly not in an intensely competitive
global economy. Let the economic fundamentals dictate where investors
place their financial bets on the future rather than the tax-writing
prejudices (and campaign contribution solicitations) of Congress and
the White House.
The History of Subsidies
To be sure, calling for the end of housing subsidies is at best
reminiscent of tilting at windmills. After all, governments have long
favored housing. The world's first subsidy for single-family homes may
have been under Constantine I in the capital city of Constantinople,
speculates David Smith, founder and head of the Affordable Housing
Institute in Boston. The subsidy was a perpetual grant of a ration of
bread—the panes aedium. It was given to anyone that built a home in
the city, and the panes aedium was passed along to the new homeowners
at sale. "Strikingly, the panes aedium was not just a first-time home
buyer incentive, but an ongoing property asset, in much the same way
as real estate tax abatements or exemptions are intrinsic property
rights in the modern," writes Smith.
That said, the lesson of the past decade is that too much investment
money goes to real estate in modern America. At a time when companies
from China, India, South Korea, Brazil and other emerging markets are
competing with American firms for markets and profits, it's time to
stop the madness.
Farrell is contributing economics editor for BusinessWeek. You can
also hear him on American Public Media's nationally syndicated finance
program, Marketplace Money, as well as on public radio's business
program Marketplace. His Sound Money column appears on
BusinessWeek.com.
--
Farrell makes the interesting point that the rich rather than the less well off profit most from mortgage payment tax breaks but that is hardly surprising since free market capitalism is basically designed to best serve those with the most money. In fact a market rations goods on the basis of cash people hold or can borrow.
Anyway in a capitalist democracy votes also need to be bought and that often involves providing at least some aspects of the American dream, even if the techniques of doing so do not make sense to every business commentator.
Commentary April 17, 2008, 12:01AM EST
Housing: Time to Halt Taxpayer Subsidies
Even with the housing market declining, it's bad policy to give homes
preferential tax treatment over stocks and other investments
by Chris Farrell
Homeownership has long been a vibrant part of achieving the American
Dream. But these days owning a home is more like starring in a horror
flick, perhaps called Nightmare on Main Street. The numbers are
frightening. Home prices are falling nationwide, and the foreclosure
rate is at record levels. The delinquency rate for subprime adjustable
rate mortgages is an astonishing 20%, and the Federal Reserve's home
equity measure is at its lowest level in 60 years. Indeed, Moody's
Economy.com estimates that more than 10% of the nation's homeowners
were "upside down" on their mortgages by the end of March. In other
words, the value of their mortgage is greater than what their home is
worth.
It's a safe bet with both the housing market and the economy
deteriorating that more federal money (as well as state funds) will go
toward supporting housing this year. But once the downward trajectory
moderates, the government should learn from recent experience and take
a radical stance: Forget propping up housing. Instead, eliminate
taxpayer subsidies for housing. Yes, you read that right.
The Bubble: No Coincidence
There's no question the U.S. tax code is full of special tax
provisions that favor housing. Among the biggest breaks are the
mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for state and local real
estate taxes, and the capital gains exclusion for homes. (The first
$250,000 in profit is exempted from capital gains taxes for individual
filers, and $500,000 profit for couples.) The federal tax code funnels
more than $100 billion annually into the housing sector, estimates the
Tax Foundation in Washington D.C.
This figure doesn't include the mammoth subsidized institutions that
support the housing and mortgage markets. This includes Government
Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) , to
name only two of the best known players. The Congressional Budget
Office estimated that in 2003 the benefit of the explicit and implicit
ties to the federal government for GSE such as Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac amounted to a federal subsidy of more than $23 billion, according
to economists William G. Gale, Jonathan Gruber, and Seth
Stephens-Davidowitz in their 2007 paper, Encouraging Homeownership
Through the Tax Code.
Yet in a modern, dynamic high-tech economy, why should homes get
preferable tax treatment over stocks and other investments? The tax
gap in treatment is significant. Take capital gains. Say you'd
invested in a basket of high-tech stocks three years ago and now you
sell the portfolio for a $500,000 profit. Well, you'll pay a 15%
capital gains tax rate on the gain, writing a $75,000 check to Uncle
Sam. But you and your husband also sell the home you bought three
years ago for a $500,000 profit. Guess what? The Internal Revenue
Service gets nothing.
By the way, the tax break for capital gains on housing was signed into
law in 1997. Is it a coincidence that home prices soared 79% in the
time between the first quarter of 1997 and the first quarter of 2005,
with home prices not just going up but rising at an increasingly rapid
rate, as calculated by Peter Bernstein, a long-time advisor to
institutional investors and author of Against the Gods: The Remarkable
Story of Risk. It's doubtful.
Lessons of the Past Decade
What's more, the mortgage interest deduction is simply bad tax policy.
It's sold as a middle-class subsidy, but since the value of the
deduction goes up with the size of the mortgage, the biggest break is
enjoyed by the highest-income households. For instance, the
President's 2005 Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform calculated that
individuals making more than $200,000 a year received more than eight
times the benefit of those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year.
These days, no one can doubt that a home is an investment. It's an
asset class, like stocks and bonds. Indeed, one reason why housing
prices hit such stratospheric heights was the potent combination of
owners treating homes as an investment, and the capital markets
shoveling huge sums of money into real estate through such innovations
as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). For awhile, the net effect
was to increase the liquidity of real estate "investments," supporting
an unprecedented degree of speculation.
The tax code shouldn't bias investment money to favor one kind of
investment over another—certainly not in an intensely competitive
global economy. Let the economic fundamentals dictate where investors
place their financial bets on the future rather than the tax-writing
prejudices (and campaign contribution solicitations) of Congress and
the White House.
The History of Subsidies
To be sure, calling for the end of housing subsidies is at best
reminiscent of tilting at windmills. After all, governments have long
favored housing. The world's first subsidy for single-family homes may
have been under Constantine I in the capital city of Constantinople,
speculates David Smith, founder and head of the Affordable Housing
Institute in Boston. The subsidy was a perpetual grant of a ration of
bread—the panes aedium. It was given to anyone that built a home in
the city, and the panes aedium was passed along to the new homeowners
at sale. "Strikingly, the panes aedium was not just a first-time home
buyer incentive, but an ongoing property asset, in much the same way
as real estate tax abatements or exemptions are intrinsic property
rights in the modern," writes Smith.
That said, the lesson of the past decade is that too much investment
money goes to real estate in modern America. At a time when companies
from China, India, South Korea, Brazil and other emerging markets are
competing with American firms for markets and profits, it's time to
stop the madness.
Farrell is contributing economics editor for BusinessWeek. You can
also hear him on American Public Media's nationally syndicated finance
program, Marketplace Money, as well as on public radio's business
program Marketplace. His Sound Money column appears on
BusinessWeek.com.
--
Krugman: Why Oil Prices are Rising
No doubt the two factors that Krugman mentions are important but the price of oil also has a speculative component that puts it far above what it would be otherwise and also by limiting production OPEC nations are also an important factor in keeping the price very high. I would not be surprised to see a considerable decline at times in the future but obviously the decline will not last too long due to the factors mentioned by Krugman. This is from Krugman's blog.(NY Times)
April 15, 2008, 9:02 pm
Oil numbers
There are two basic facts that would seem to explain a lot about what’s happening to oil prices.
First, Gross World Product growth has accelerated — from 2.9 percent in the 90s to almost 5 percent in recent years, according to the IMF. All of this is because of growth in emerging economies, largely China.
Second, world oil production has stalled — after growing around 1.6% a year in the 90s, it’s been basically flat for the last three years.
So we’ve got rapidly growing demand due to industrialization in Asia colliding with stagnant supply, basically because oil is getting hard to find. (The demand shock is probably even bigger than the GDP number suggests, because China’s economy is highly energy-inefficient).
And the demand for oil is price-inelastic — that is, it takes big price increases to persuade people to use significantly less.
There’s probably more to the story, but that seems to be the basic thrust. And it seems to be a recipe for rising prices for a long time to come.
This is what peak oil is supposed to look like — not Oh My God We’ve Just Run Out Of Oil, but steady pressure on the economy and the way we live from rising energy prices and their consequences. And it doesn’t matter much whether we’re literally at the peak, or whether production can rise by a few million more barrels a day; unless there are big sources of oil out there, we’ll be feeling peakish for the foreseeable future.
April 15, 2008, 9:02 pm
Oil numbers
There are two basic facts that would seem to explain a lot about what’s happening to oil prices.
First, Gross World Product growth has accelerated — from 2.9 percent in the 90s to almost 5 percent in recent years, according to the IMF. All of this is because of growth in emerging economies, largely China.
Second, world oil production has stalled — after growing around 1.6% a year in the 90s, it’s been basically flat for the last three years.
So we’ve got rapidly growing demand due to industrialization in Asia colliding with stagnant supply, basically because oil is getting hard to find. (The demand shock is probably even bigger than the GDP number suggests, because China’s economy is highly energy-inefficient).
And the demand for oil is price-inelastic — that is, it takes big price increases to persuade people to use significantly less.
There’s probably more to the story, but that seems to be the basic thrust. And it seems to be a recipe for rising prices for a long time to come.
This is what peak oil is supposed to look like — not Oh My God We’ve Just Run Out Of Oil, but steady pressure on the economy and the way we live from rising energy prices and their consequences. And it doesn’t matter much whether we’re literally at the peak, or whether production can rise by a few million more barrels a day; unless there are big sources of oil out there, we’ll be feeling peakish for the foreseeable future.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Financial Crash or Slowdown?
This is from the CPGB(Communist Party of Great Britain). There is disagreement among Marxist analysts as to whether the present crisis will lead to a situation akin to the Great Depression or whether it is simply a slowdown with recession in various countries. This article takes the latter view and explains why although the categories of explanation do not seem to be particularly Marxist to me. However, the radical differences between the state of the economy now and before the depression certainly seem to be relevant differences that favor the position of this article. Note that the article does claim that the crisis does involve the U.S. losing financial hegemony as the U.S. dollar continues its decline and countries switch to holding other currencies.
Financial crash or slowdown?
Bill Jefferies of Permanent Revolution replies to Hillel Ticktin on the strength of the world economy
The US sub-prime mortgage crisis and credit crunch, and the resultant US slowdown and potential recession, has acutely posed the nature of the current period. Over the last 12 months, the IMF has raised its estimate of financial losses from approximately $50 billion in the summer of 2007, to $945 billion in April 2008. US growth is expected to hover around 0% for at least the first half of 2008 and the knock-on effects on the world economy have still to unravel.
As a result certain Marxists, including Peter Taaffe, Lynn Walsh, Robert Brenner - and now Hillel Ticktin in the Weekly Worker - have asserted that this is the deepest crisis that capitalism has faced in decades, one that poses the potential possibility of a repeat of the 1930s great depression. Ticktin says: “The question at the moment is not really whether there is a downturn. It is clear that is the case. The question is whether there is a depression - and I think there is.” And he adds, apocalyptically, that the “system itself could disintegrate”.1
In contrast over the last 18 months Permanent Revolution has explained how several factors coming together over the last decade have decisively transformed the prospects of world capitalism, strengthened it economically and produced a long wave of upward growth.
What were these factors? Firstly the restoration of capitalism in the former centrally planned economies of China, the CIS, eastern Europe and central Asia doubled the size of the working class that could be exploited by capitalism. And secondly there has been an ongoing neoliberal offensive against the world’s working class and the opening up of the formerly sheltered semi-colonies like Brazil and India to the unlimited exploitation by finance capital.
We do not to deny the existence of the present US sub-prime and financial crisis, but it is necessary to situate it within the context of the wider, very strong recent growth in the world economy. “During the past five years, world GDP has grown by an average of 4.5% a year, its fastest for more than three decades, though not as fast as during the golden age of the 1960s, when annual growth exceeded 5%. But the world’s population is now growing at half of its pace in the 1960s, and so world income per head has increased by more over the past five years than during any other period on record.”2
The period of stagnation which characterised the crisis-wracked years of the 1970s-80s was overcome and in its place the period of globalisation saw a marked upward trend, with the explosive development of new capitalist powers, most notably China and Russia; the transformation of production through the information and communication technology revolution; the doubling or trebling of trade as a proportion of gross domestic product; a radical reduction in circulation times; and a consequent recovery in world profit rates.
As Goldman Sachs put it, “While profits as a share of GDP in the US in 2006 were about 67% higher than their post-1970 average, this profit share was not much higher than in the 1950s and early 1960s. What we saw over the course of the 1970s was a massive decrease in profitability, both in the national accounts and in reported earnings. The trend upwards in the profit share in the US starting in the mid-1980s, bumpy as it was due to two recessions, has basically taken us back to where we were five decades earlier.”3 The present US crisis comes against the background of this recovery and is significantly shaped by it.
The sub-prime crisis originated in the Thatcher-Reagan financial revolution of the 1980s onwards. This significantly loosened financial regulations, as finance capitalists sought new avenues to exploit the working class. The old structured relationship between mortgage-holders and banks was transformed: instead financiers sought to ‘securitise’ debt through selling it on financial markets.
As multinational corporations’ balance sheets improved through the 1990s, they used their surplus profits to pay off debt and funded investment through retained profits rather than borrowing from the banks, thus further intensifying the incentive for financiers to invent ever more elaborate scams aimed at skinning the working class out of their wages.
Far from these loans increasing working class demand, as is asserted by Chris Harman, Robert Brenner, Peter Taaffe et al, they in fact reduced it by taking an ever increasing proportion of wages as interest payments. The proportion of disposable income paid in debt repayment in the US rose from 14% in 1980 to 19% in 2007. In the UK the figure is even higher at 21% for 2007. Consequently, US workers spend around $981 billion of their wages every year in debt repayments.
At the same time neoliberal capitalism massively increased disparities in wealth in the imperialist heartlands - for example, the proportion of US national income going to the top 1% rose from 9% in 1979 to 18% in 2007. Annual income for the bottom 20% rose by a mere $200 during the same period.
Capitalist gluttony filled the gap in effective demand. The reduction in working class consumption did not reduce effective demand - consumption increased in the USA to around 70% of output, for, as the workers lived on less, the capitalists lived on more. Much, much more. This was combined with a reduction in wages as a proportion of national income and massively increased profits. Again Goldman Sachs gives the figures: “Between 1980 and 2005, labour’s share of national income decreased from 64% to 60% in the US, from 73% to 63% in Europe, and from 70% to 59% in Japan. As labourÖ’s share of national income declined, the share of income going to capital increased, which manifested itself in the form of increased corporate profitability.”4
Such a dramatic reduction in the real value of working class incomes was only possible because globalisation revolutionised manufacturing productivity. The deflation of manufacturing production from the later 1990s to the mid-2000s meant that, even though the value of wages fell, the amount of commodities they could buy increased and living standards rose. In Marxist terms the cost of the reproduction of labour-power fell. This raised the rate of surplus value and hence the rate of profit.
The effect of revolutions in productivity was not limited to wages. They reduced the cost of investment as well, lowering the organic composition of capital worldwide. Thus investment spending as a share of GDP in the UK can appear very low, but in real terms spending on capital equipment is reaching record highs and massively increasing profits. The low proportion of fixed capital investment is not evidence of capitalist stagnation or a surplus of capital, but of the revolutionising dynamic of globalisation. Fixed capital investment was highest not in the post-war boom, but in the 1970s, as productivity stagnated and capitalists sought to offset rising wages by replacing labour with machines.
The present US recession does not demonstrate the stagnation of capitalism, or the end of the long wave, but the disproportion between the globalisation of the past and the globalisation of the future.
The USA has used its position as a financial and military hegemon to live beyond its means for the past two decades. No longer. The very sharp falls of the dollar, necessary to reflate the US economy, have not been matched by any of its major competitors. This has been combined with very large bailouts from the US state to the tune of an extra $200 billion this year, massively increasing the budget deficit. While this might ameliorate the extent of the crisis in the US in the long run, it will seriously undermine the financial power of the USA, as rivals like the EU, China and even Japan flex their growing financial might.
The concept of an upward long wave asserts that in a period of upswing strong or rising profits will offset crisis by enabling capitalists to invest in new profitable sectors and by permitting the capitalist state to undertake significant reflationary measures not open to it during a period of downturn. The present US recession is a worked example of this. Through the course of the 1980s onwards, US manufacturing, particularly of domestically consumed consumer products, contracted dramatically. Manufacturing employment fell by 20% between 1998 and 2005, even as total output increased.
So, while US workers sought to maintain their living standards through increasing loans, they bought overwhelmingly imported goods and the US balance of payment deficit ballooned. It peaked at 6.8% in the fourth quarter of 2005 before falling to 4.9% in the fourth quarter of 2007. The US dollar was only prevented from falling by massive influxes of cheap foreign loans from China and the so-called ‘emerging world’ into financial instruments - also dependent on the ever diminishing pool of US workers’ wages.
From 2005 onwards the Federal Reserve, in a vain attempt to limit the scale of the housing bubble, raised interest rates - further bolstering the dollar and providing an incentive for foreigners to buy US assets. As the credit crunch exploded in August 2007, the financial instruments, which, it was suggested, spread risk through severing the link between the lender and the borrower, simply made the real value of the speculative assets unclear. Massive write-downs to the tune of $240 billion dollars by April 2008, meant the Federal Reserve cut interest rates at an unprecedented rate, halving them in six months, in order to increase the ability of US workers to maintain their debt repayments and so attempt to put a floor under the losses of the financiers.
But as a result the dollar has fallen very sharply against all the major currencies. This too is no bad thing from the Fed’s point of view, as the price of imports has increased and exports fallen. As a result imports have slowed from around from around 15% annual growth in the middle of 2006 to 6% annually in 2007. Goods exports in 2007 increased to $1,149.2 billion from $1,023.1 billion. The improvement in the US balance of payments has added around 1.25% to US GDP for each of the last three quarters and this trend is likely to accelerate as the crisis deepens.
In addition, this fall in the value of the dollar has meant that repatriated profits have increased in value, whereas the value of US debts to the world has fallen. So, while US financial corporations saw profit growth fall towards the end of 2007, the proportion of foreign profits in US balance sheets increased very rapidly: “Domestic profits of financial corporations decreased $74.4 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with a decrease of $32.5 billion in the third ... The rest-of-the-world component of profits increased $55.8 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $26.4 billion in the third.”5
The final scale of the financial losses will only become apparent when the collapse in the US housing market ends. This is nowhere near happening yet. What is more, the credit crunch is now hitting other sectors dependent on large-scale consumer purchases, most notably automobiles (which are also suffering due to the rise in petrol prices), by around 60% over the last year, as the dollar falls.
So the US recession certainly has some way to go, but what about its impact on the rest of the world? The traditional leftist schema has asserted that globalisation, and particularly the rise of China, was predicated upon US consumption of its exports. Chris Harman, writing in Socialist Review in a rather unfortunately titled article - ‘The financial panic that never was’ - published the week before Northern Rock collapsed, explained: “The world economy was only able to recover from the recession of 2001-02 because of US consumers and the US government borrowing massively to spend well beyond their incomes, by a total of around $400 billion a year.”6
Harman had elaborated this point in an earlier International Socialism article: “So the US economy holds the Chinese economy up by buying its excess production as imports, and the Chinese economy holds the US economy up by providing its firms and consumers with the cash to maintain their present level of consumption.”7
If this were true, then China should already be on the point of collapse, for over the last year its exports to the US have dramatically slowed: “Growth in imports from China has slowed to 2.1% during the last 12 months after growth between 10% and 30% during the last several years. Exports to China for January showed a 15.1% decline, but that followed huge gains during the past several years, also between 10% and 30%.”8
Yet China’s GDP growth accelerated in 2007 to 11.5%. So what is going on? There have been two previous episodes when China’s increase in exports collapsed in the last decade (in 1997 and 2001), yet Chinese growth hardly slowed, for the government increased capital expenditure to compensate for lower exports, and this trend has been repeated this year: “China’s merchandise imports rose 44.3% through February, far outpacing the sequential trend growth in exports. This is a significant change in the previously persistent trend of lagging import growth in the past three years and is consistent with the solid domestic demand trend in China …. The import data by end use also show that domestic demand-related goods are behind the latest surge, while imports for export-related production have slowed.”9
Clearly a slowdown in the USA, which is still responsible for 14% of world imports, will hit exporters to it. But China’s growth is fundamentally due to high domestic rates of profit: “At the end of 2007, profit margins among EM non-financial companies were about 4.6 percentage points above their developed market counterparts. To put this in some perspective, EM companies are now generating about 64% more profits on each dollar of sales compared to companies headquartered in developed markets.”10
And the Chinese government desperately needs to maintain growth rates to cope with the average 10-20 million annual increase in the urban population. So, while US growth has slowed dramatically, it has been significantly offset by the strength of the world economy in general and the growth of the emerging nations, China in particular. It is reasonable to expect both the European Union and Japan to slow this year, as exports to the US are reduced, but German industrial production continues to grow at over 5%, based on capital exports to the emerging world, and the same thing applies to Japan, where exports to China have risen to almost parity with those to the US.
So is this likely to be a repeat of the great depression, as Ticktin and some others on the left suggest? Well if US financial losses increase by a further factor of 20 over the next year, then certainly. But otherwise it seems unlikely. Before the great depression and before the stock markets crash US industrial output fell by 20%. Between 1929 and 1933 US national income fell by 48%. In the present crisis, US industrial production and national income is still increasing, albeit slowly. In the great depression, every major industrial power slumped. In the present crisis, every major industrial power is still growing - and some of them are growing very fast.
This crisis is not insignificant; it signals the beginning of the end of US world hegemony, which was a precondition for the first phase of globalisation from 1990-2008. In its stead a multipolar world is developing, with competing multinational blocs - the EU, China, Russia and Japan. This will destroy the basis of the globalised world economy, based on free trade and the unlimited freedom of finance capital. But the beginning of the next phase of globalisation is not the end of it - which still lies some way ahead.
Notes
1. Weekly Worker April 3.
2. The Economist March 13.
3. Goldman Sachs, ‘The end of the global profit boom?” Global Economics Weekly January 16.
4. Ibid.
5. Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘Corporate profits: fourth quarter 2007’: www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/gdp407f.htm.
6. Socialist Review September 2007.
7. ‘China’s economy and Europe’s crisis’ International Socialism February 2006.
8. T Moeller, ‘US trade deficit widened’, March 11 2008: www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.htm.
9. JP Morgan, ‘China’s import strength buffers global economy’, April 4.
10. Goldman Sachs, ‘The end of the global profit boom?’ Global Economics Weekly January 16.
Financial crash or slowdown?
Bill Jefferies of Permanent Revolution replies to Hillel Ticktin on the strength of the world economy
The US sub-prime mortgage crisis and credit crunch, and the resultant US slowdown and potential recession, has acutely posed the nature of the current period. Over the last 12 months, the IMF has raised its estimate of financial losses from approximately $50 billion in the summer of 2007, to $945 billion in April 2008. US growth is expected to hover around 0% for at least the first half of 2008 and the knock-on effects on the world economy have still to unravel.
As a result certain Marxists, including Peter Taaffe, Lynn Walsh, Robert Brenner - and now Hillel Ticktin in the Weekly Worker - have asserted that this is the deepest crisis that capitalism has faced in decades, one that poses the potential possibility of a repeat of the 1930s great depression. Ticktin says: “The question at the moment is not really whether there is a downturn. It is clear that is the case. The question is whether there is a depression - and I think there is.” And he adds, apocalyptically, that the “system itself could disintegrate”.1
In contrast over the last 18 months Permanent Revolution has explained how several factors coming together over the last decade have decisively transformed the prospects of world capitalism, strengthened it economically and produced a long wave of upward growth.
What were these factors? Firstly the restoration of capitalism in the former centrally planned economies of China, the CIS, eastern Europe and central Asia doubled the size of the working class that could be exploited by capitalism. And secondly there has been an ongoing neoliberal offensive against the world’s working class and the opening up of the formerly sheltered semi-colonies like Brazil and India to the unlimited exploitation by finance capital.
We do not to deny the existence of the present US sub-prime and financial crisis, but it is necessary to situate it within the context of the wider, very strong recent growth in the world economy. “During the past five years, world GDP has grown by an average of 4.5% a year, its fastest for more than three decades, though not as fast as during the golden age of the 1960s, when annual growth exceeded 5%. But the world’s population is now growing at half of its pace in the 1960s, and so world income per head has increased by more over the past five years than during any other period on record.”2
The period of stagnation which characterised the crisis-wracked years of the 1970s-80s was overcome and in its place the period of globalisation saw a marked upward trend, with the explosive development of new capitalist powers, most notably China and Russia; the transformation of production through the information and communication technology revolution; the doubling or trebling of trade as a proportion of gross domestic product; a radical reduction in circulation times; and a consequent recovery in world profit rates.
As Goldman Sachs put it, “While profits as a share of GDP in the US in 2006 were about 67% higher than their post-1970 average, this profit share was not much higher than in the 1950s and early 1960s. What we saw over the course of the 1970s was a massive decrease in profitability, both in the national accounts and in reported earnings. The trend upwards in the profit share in the US starting in the mid-1980s, bumpy as it was due to two recessions, has basically taken us back to where we were five decades earlier.”3 The present US crisis comes against the background of this recovery and is significantly shaped by it.
The sub-prime crisis originated in the Thatcher-Reagan financial revolution of the 1980s onwards. This significantly loosened financial regulations, as finance capitalists sought new avenues to exploit the working class. The old structured relationship between mortgage-holders and banks was transformed: instead financiers sought to ‘securitise’ debt through selling it on financial markets.
As multinational corporations’ balance sheets improved through the 1990s, they used their surplus profits to pay off debt and funded investment through retained profits rather than borrowing from the banks, thus further intensifying the incentive for financiers to invent ever more elaborate scams aimed at skinning the working class out of their wages.
Far from these loans increasing working class demand, as is asserted by Chris Harman, Robert Brenner, Peter Taaffe et al, they in fact reduced it by taking an ever increasing proportion of wages as interest payments. The proportion of disposable income paid in debt repayment in the US rose from 14% in 1980 to 19% in 2007. In the UK the figure is even higher at 21% for 2007. Consequently, US workers spend around $981 billion of their wages every year in debt repayments.
At the same time neoliberal capitalism massively increased disparities in wealth in the imperialist heartlands - for example, the proportion of US national income going to the top 1% rose from 9% in 1979 to 18% in 2007. Annual income for the bottom 20% rose by a mere $200 during the same period.
Capitalist gluttony filled the gap in effective demand. The reduction in working class consumption did not reduce effective demand - consumption increased in the USA to around 70% of output, for, as the workers lived on less, the capitalists lived on more. Much, much more. This was combined with a reduction in wages as a proportion of national income and massively increased profits. Again Goldman Sachs gives the figures: “Between 1980 and 2005, labour’s share of national income decreased from 64% to 60% in the US, from 73% to 63% in Europe, and from 70% to 59% in Japan. As labourÖ’s share of national income declined, the share of income going to capital increased, which manifested itself in the form of increased corporate profitability.”4
Such a dramatic reduction in the real value of working class incomes was only possible because globalisation revolutionised manufacturing productivity. The deflation of manufacturing production from the later 1990s to the mid-2000s meant that, even though the value of wages fell, the amount of commodities they could buy increased and living standards rose. In Marxist terms the cost of the reproduction of labour-power fell. This raised the rate of surplus value and hence the rate of profit.
The effect of revolutions in productivity was not limited to wages. They reduced the cost of investment as well, lowering the organic composition of capital worldwide. Thus investment spending as a share of GDP in the UK can appear very low, but in real terms spending on capital equipment is reaching record highs and massively increasing profits. The low proportion of fixed capital investment is not evidence of capitalist stagnation or a surplus of capital, but of the revolutionising dynamic of globalisation. Fixed capital investment was highest not in the post-war boom, but in the 1970s, as productivity stagnated and capitalists sought to offset rising wages by replacing labour with machines.
The present US recession does not demonstrate the stagnation of capitalism, or the end of the long wave, but the disproportion between the globalisation of the past and the globalisation of the future.
The USA has used its position as a financial and military hegemon to live beyond its means for the past two decades. No longer. The very sharp falls of the dollar, necessary to reflate the US economy, have not been matched by any of its major competitors. This has been combined with very large bailouts from the US state to the tune of an extra $200 billion this year, massively increasing the budget deficit. While this might ameliorate the extent of the crisis in the US in the long run, it will seriously undermine the financial power of the USA, as rivals like the EU, China and even Japan flex their growing financial might.
The concept of an upward long wave asserts that in a period of upswing strong or rising profits will offset crisis by enabling capitalists to invest in new profitable sectors and by permitting the capitalist state to undertake significant reflationary measures not open to it during a period of downturn. The present US recession is a worked example of this. Through the course of the 1980s onwards, US manufacturing, particularly of domestically consumed consumer products, contracted dramatically. Manufacturing employment fell by 20% between 1998 and 2005, even as total output increased.
So, while US workers sought to maintain their living standards through increasing loans, they bought overwhelmingly imported goods and the US balance of payment deficit ballooned. It peaked at 6.8% in the fourth quarter of 2005 before falling to 4.9% in the fourth quarter of 2007. The US dollar was only prevented from falling by massive influxes of cheap foreign loans from China and the so-called ‘emerging world’ into financial instruments - also dependent on the ever diminishing pool of US workers’ wages.
From 2005 onwards the Federal Reserve, in a vain attempt to limit the scale of the housing bubble, raised interest rates - further bolstering the dollar and providing an incentive for foreigners to buy US assets. As the credit crunch exploded in August 2007, the financial instruments, which, it was suggested, spread risk through severing the link between the lender and the borrower, simply made the real value of the speculative assets unclear. Massive write-downs to the tune of $240 billion dollars by April 2008, meant the Federal Reserve cut interest rates at an unprecedented rate, halving them in six months, in order to increase the ability of US workers to maintain their debt repayments and so attempt to put a floor under the losses of the financiers.
But as a result the dollar has fallen very sharply against all the major currencies. This too is no bad thing from the Fed’s point of view, as the price of imports has increased and exports fallen. As a result imports have slowed from around from around 15% annual growth in the middle of 2006 to 6% annually in 2007. Goods exports in 2007 increased to $1,149.2 billion from $1,023.1 billion. The improvement in the US balance of payments has added around 1.25% to US GDP for each of the last three quarters and this trend is likely to accelerate as the crisis deepens.
In addition, this fall in the value of the dollar has meant that repatriated profits have increased in value, whereas the value of US debts to the world has fallen. So, while US financial corporations saw profit growth fall towards the end of 2007, the proportion of foreign profits in US balance sheets increased very rapidly: “Domestic profits of financial corporations decreased $74.4 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with a decrease of $32.5 billion in the third ... The rest-of-the-world component of profits increased $55.8 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $26.4 billion in the third.”5
The final scale of the financial losses will only become apparent when the collapse in the US housing market ends. This is nowhere near happening yet. What is more, the credit crunch is now hitting other sectors dependent on large-scale consumer purchases, most notably automobiles (which are also suffering due to the rise in petrol prices), by around 60% over the last year, as the dollar falls.
So the US recession certainly has some way to go, but what about its impact on the rest of the world? The traditional leftist schema has asserted that globalisation, and particularly the rise of China, was predicated upon US consumption of its exports. Chris Harman, writing in Socialist Review in a rather unfortunately titled article - ‘The financial panic that never was’ - published the week before Northern Rock collapsed, explained: “The world economy was only able to recover from the recession of 2001-02 because of US consumers and the US government borrowing massively to spend well beyond their incomes, by a total of around $400 billion a year.”6
Harman had elaborated this point in an earlier International Socialism article: “So the US economy holds the Chinese economy up by buying its excess production as imports, and the Chinese economy holds the US economy up by providing its firms and consumers with the cash to maintain their present level of consumption.”7
If this were true, then China should already be on the point of collapse, for over the last year its exports to the US have dramatically slowed: “Growth in imports from China has slowed to 2.1% during the last 12 months after growth between 10% and 30% during the last several years. Exports to China for January showed a 15.1% decline, but that followed huge gains during the past several years, also between 10% and 30%.”8
Yet China’s GDP growth accelerated in 2007 to 11.5%. So what is going on? There have been two previous episodes when China’s increase in exports collapsed in the last decade (in 1997 and 2001), yet Chinese growth hardly slowed, for the government increased capital expenditure to compensate for lower exports, and this trend has been repeated this year: “China’s merchandise imports rose 44.3% through February, far outpacing the sequential trend growth in exports. This is a significant change in the previously persistent trend of lagging import growth in the past three years and is consistent with the solid domestic demand trend in China …. The import data by end use also show that domestic demand-related goods are behind the latest surge, while imports for export-related production have slowed.”9
Clearly a slowdown in the USA, which is still responsible for 14% of world imports, will hit exporters to it. But China’s growth is fundamentally due to high domestic rates of profit: “At the end of 2007, profit margins among EM non-financial companies were about 4.6 percentage points above their developed market counterparts. To put this in some perspective, EM companies are now generating about 64% more profits on each dollar of sales compared to companies headquartered in developed markets.”10
And the Chinese government desperately needs to maintain growth rates to cope with the average 10-20 million annual increase in the urban population. So, while US growth has slowed dramatically, it has been significantly offset by the strength of the world economy in general and the growth of the emerging nations, China in particular. It is reasonable to expect both the European Union and Japan to slow this year, as exports to the US are reduced, but German industrial production continues to grow at over 5%, based on capital exports to the emerging world, and the same thing applies to Japan, where exports to China have risen to almost parity with those to the US.
So is this likely to be a repeat of the great depression, as Ticktin and some others on the left suggest? Well if US financial losses increase by a further factor of 20 over the next year, then certainly. But otherwise it seems unlikely. Before the great depression and before the stock markets crash US industrial output fell by 20%. Between 1929 and 1933 US national income fell by 48%. In the present crisis, US industrial production and national income is still increasing, albeit slowly. In the great depression, every major industrial power slumped. In the present crisis, every major industrial power is still growing - and some of them are growing very fast.
This crisis is not insignificant; it signals the beginning of the end of US world hegemony, which was a precondition for the first phase of globalisation from 1990-2008. In its stead a multipolar world is developing, with competing multinational blocs - the EU, China, Russia and Japan. This will destroy the basis of the globalised world economy, based on free trade and the unlimited freedom of finance capital. But the beginning of the next phase of globalisation is not the end of it - which still lies some way ahead.
Notes
1. Weekly Worker April 3.
2. The Economist March 13.
3. Goldman Sachs, ‘The end of the global profit boom?” Global Economics Weekly January 16.
4. Ibid.
5. Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘Corporate profits: fourth quarter 2007’: www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/gdp407f.htm.
6. Socialist Review September 2007.
7. ‘China’s economy and Europe’s crisis’ International Socialism February 2006.
8. T Moeller, ‘US trade deficit widened’, March 11 2008: www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.htm.
9. JP Morgan, ‘China’s import strength buffers global economy’, April 4.
10. Goldman Sachs, ‘The end of the global profit boom?’ Global Economics Weekly January 16.
Philippines popultion climbs, food problems loom
This is from Reuters. Whatever the role of the Church in the failure to restrict population growth it certainly discourages the use of condoms. They are not advertised on TV as I recall but neither were Cialis or Viagra for that matter. Natural birth control methods and advice on limiting family size do not seem to be working. As I recall the commonest response as to why people had so many children on a survey was that they liked children. Anyway there are all the more souls for the Church to save and more votes to be bought with rice portions by the politicians. As well surplus labor can be exported globally to send money back home to help families in the Philippines where there is no extensive govt. supported social safety net.
Philippines population climbs, food problems loom
Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:27am EDT
By Raju Gopalakrishnan
MANILA (Reuters) - The Philippines' population has grown over two percent each year since 2000, the government said on Thursday, but experts said Asia's biggest Catholic nation was unlikely to change policies to slow the increase.
The country has one of the highest population growth rates in the region, with at least three babies born every minute. Its population reached 88.57 million at a census in August last year, up from 76.5 million in 2000, the government said on Thursday.
The figures come as the government grapples with soaring prices of rice, due at least partly to the inability of the country to grow enough of the staple to feed its rapidly growing population.
As a measure of the seriousness of the problem, Manila has temporarily halted conversion of agricultural land for property development, hoping to ring-fence paddy fields to meet the food needs of the country.
Soldiers armed with M-16 automatic rifles guard the sale of subsidized rice and hoarders are being prosecuted.
The country's top economic planner said population control policies needed to be reviewed, but promoting artificial birth control, anathema to the Church, is not a likely option.
"The population is increasing and it means that government has to more vigorously implement its population policy, which is responsible parenthood and the advocacy for natural family planning," Economic Planning Secretary Augusto Santos told Reuters. "I think the population commission will have to review its policies," he added. "We really need greater efforts. It means we have to work harder to make the economy function more properly and more smoothly."
At least one-third of the country's population are poor and the number of poor is growing faster than the population.
Last month, government data showed that 28 million people were subsisting on less than $1 per day in 2006, up 16 percent from 2003.
But Santos said artificial birth control remained a sensitive issue.
In a nod to the Church, the government emphasizes natural family planning over artificial methods, and experts said there was not likely to be any change in this in the immediate future.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who came to power in 2001 with the backing of the Church, has consistently emphasized natural family planning. Government booklets on responsible parenting make no mention of condoms, pills or intrauterine devices.
MADE IT CLEAR
"She has made it very clear she will not purchase contraceptives, she will not promote any other method except what the Church approves and she has very strong links with the most conservative elements of the Church," said Alberto Romualdez, a former health secretary.
Still, the National Statistics Office said the annual population growth rate was 2.04 percent between 2000 and 2007.
Although that fell short of the aim of bringing the growth rate below 2 percent, it was a drop from the average annual growth of 2.34 percent between 1990 and 2000, officials said.
Romualdez said it was not good enough.
"For me, 2.04 percent is well within the normal variation of population growth rates with or without intervention by government. For me, 2.04 means that the government has not done anything."
Other experts, however, said it was a beginning.
"I think it is a significant drop," said Benjamin de Leon, President of the Forum for Family Planning and Development Inc. "But I still have to see in this administration a policy that informs people of the need to space their children, the need to plan their families."
According to the United Nations Population Fund, the average population growth rate in Asia is 1.1 percent.
Solita Monsod, professor of economics at the University of the Philippines, said the problem did not lie with the Church.
She said most Filipinos wanted to regulate their families and providing access to information and funding for civil service groups involved in family planning was key.
"Survey after survey has shown that when it comes to family planning, the Church does not make a difference," Monsod said. "The people don't have access. Give them what they want and then the population problem will take care of itself."
(Additional reporting by Karen Lema; Editing by Valerie Lee)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
Philippines population climbs, food problems loom
Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:27am EDT
By Raju Gopalakrishnan
MANILA (Reuters) - The Philippines' population has grown over two percent each year since 2000, the government said on Thursday, but experts said Asia's biggest Catholic nation was unlikely to change policies to slow the increase.
The country has one of the highest population growth rates in the region, with at least three babies born every minute. Its population reached 88.57 million at a census in August last year, up from 76.5 million in 2000, the government said on Thursday.
The figures come as the government grapples with soaring prices of rice, due at least partly to the inability of the country to grow enough of the staple to feed its rapidly growing population.
As a measure of the seriousness of the problem, Manila has temporarily halted conversion of agricultural land for property development, hoping to ring-fence paddy fields to meet the food needs of the country.
Soldiers armed with M-16 automatic rifles guard the sale of subsidized rice and hoarders are being prosecuted.
The country's top economic planner said population control policies needed to be reviewed, but promoting artificial birth control, anathema to the Church, is not a likely option.
"The population is increasing and it means that government has to more vigorously implement its population policy, which is responsible parenthood and the advocacy for natural family planning," Economic Planning Secretary Augusto Santos told Reuters. "I think the population commission will have to review its policies," he added. "We really need greater efforts. It means we have to work harder to make the economy function more properly and more smoothly."
At least one-third of the country's population are poor and the number of poor is growing faster than the population.
Last month, government data showed that 28 million people were subsisting on less than $1 per day in 2006, up 16 percent from 2003.
But Santos said artificial birth control remained a sensitive issue.
In a nod to the Church, the government emphasizes natural family planning over artificial methods, and experts said there was not likely to be any change in this in the immediate future.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who came to power in 2001 with the backing of the Church, has consistently emphasized natural family planning. Government booklets on responsible parenting make no mention of condoms, pills or intrauterine devices.
MADE IT CLEAR
"She has made it very clear she will not purchase contraceptives, she will not promote any other method except what the Church approves and she has very strong links with the most conservative elements of the Church," said Alberto Romualdez, a former health secretary.
Still, the National Statistics Office said the annual population growth rate was 2.04 percent between 2000 and 2007.
Although that fell short of the aim of bringing the growth rate below 2 percent, it was a drop from the average annual growth of 2.34 percent between 1990 and 2000, officials said.
Romualdez said it was not good enough.
"For me, 2.04 percent is well within the normal variation of population growth rates with or without intervention by government. For me, 2.04 means that the government has not done anything."
Other experts, however, said it was a beginning.
"I think it is a significant drop," said Benjamin de Leon, President of the Forum for Family Planning and Development Inc. "But I still have to see in this administration a policy that informs people of the need to space their children, the need to plan their families."
According to the United Nations Population Fund, the average population growth rate in Asia is 1.1 percent.
Solita Monsod, professor of economics at the University of the Philippines, said the problem did not lie with the Church.
She said most Filipinos wanted to regulate their families and providing access to information and funding for civil service groups involved in family planning was key.
"Survey after survey has shown that when it comes to family planning, the Church does not make a difference," Monsod said. "The people don't have access. Give them what they want and then the population problem will take care of itself."
(Additional reporting by Karen Lema; Editing by Valerie Lee)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
Friday, April 18, 2008
House Democrats to fund war to appear "supportive of troops"
The Democrats like to mouth off against the war but when it comes to action they might as well be Bush supporters. What a hopeless political system the U.S. has. However the main opposition in Canada to our government is little better. They spend their time making sure they do not defeat our minority Conservative government! At least we have other parties in our govt. that can expose the two main parties.
House Democrats to fund war to appear 'supportive of troops'
04/17/2008 @ 9:29 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
House Democrats are poised to approve at least $170 billion in new war funding early next month in hopes of maneuvering domestic spending in with it, say lawmakers and aides to the Congressional Quarterly.
The bill, estimates House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee chair John P. Murtha (D-PA), would allocate approximately $102 billion during fiscal year 2008, with an additional $70 billion for 2009.
The strategy, said one anonymous senior Democrat, is to satisfy the Republicans' appetite for war funding while at the same time effectively blocking accusations of Democrats being unsupportive to the troops.
"We are not going to do this supplemental if it includes stuff that is not defense-related," countered House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO).
"Any attempt by the Democrat leadership to use procedural gimmickry to jam billions in unrelated spending down the throats of the American public," added ranking House Appropriations Committee member Jerry Lewis (R-CA), "will ignite the full and unadulterated opposition from the Republican members of this committee."
House Democrats to fund war to appear 'supportive of troops'
04/17/2008 @ 9:29 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
House Democrats are poised to approve at least $170 billion in new war funding early next month in hopes of maneuvering domestic spending in with it, say lawmakers and aides to the Congressional Quarterly.
Advertisement
The bill, estimates House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee chair John P. Murtha (D-PA), would allocate approximately $102 billion during fiscal year 2008, with an additional $70 billion for 2009.
The strategy, said one anonymous senior Democrat, is to satisfy the Republicans' appetite for war funding while at the same time effectively blocking accusations of Democrats being unsupportive to the troops.
"We are not going to do this supplemental if it includes stuff that is not defense-related," countered House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO).
"Any attempt by the Democrat leadership to use procedural gimmickry to jam billions in unrelated spending down the throats of the American public," added ranking House Appropriations Committee member Jerry Lewis (R-CA), "will ignite the full and unadulterated opposition from the Republican members of this committee."
House Democrats to fund war to appear 'supportive of troops'
04/17/2008 @ 9:29 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
House Democrats are poised to approve at least $170 billion in new war funding early next month in hopes of maneuvering domestic spending in with it, say lawmakers and aides to the Congressional Quarterly.
The bill, estimates House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee chair John P. Murtha (D-PA), would allocate approximately $102 billion during fiscal year 2008, with an additional $70 billion for 2009.
The strategy, said one anonymous senior Democrat, is to satisfy the Republicans' appetite for war funding while at the same time effectively blocking accusations of Democrats being unsupportive to the troops.
"We are not going to do this supplemental if it includes stuff that is not defense-related," countered House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO).
"Any attempt by the Democrat leadership to use procedural gimmickry to jam billions in unrelated spending down the throats of the American public," added ranking House Appropriations Committee member Jerry Lewis (R-CA), "will ignite the full and unadulterated opposition from the Republican members of this committee."
House Democrats to fund war to appear 'supportive of troops'
04/17/2008 @ 9:29 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
House Democrats are poised to approve at least $170 billion in new war funding early next month in hopes of maneuvering domestic spending in with it, say lawmakers and aides to the Congressional Quarterly.
Advertisement
The bill, estimates House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee chair John P. Murtha (D-PA), would allocate approximately $102 billion during fiscal year 2008, with an additional $70 billion for 2009.
The strategy, said one anonymous senior Democrat, is to satisfy the Republicans' appetite for war funding while at the same time effectively blocking accusations of Democrats being unsupportive to the troops.
"We are not going to do this supplemental if it includes stuff that is not defense-related," countered House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO).
"Any attempt by the Democrat leadership to use procedural gimmickry to jam billions in unrelated spending down the throats of the American public," added ranking House Appropriations Committee member Jerry Lewis (R-CA), "will ignite the full and unadulterated opposition from the Republican members of this committee."
U.S. offers Pakistan 7 billion in non-military aid.
This is from The News (Pakistan)The U.S. is obviously abandoning Musharraf. The new government is much more worried about U.S. violation of Pakistani sovereignty and has quite different ideas about how to deal with terrorists. Note that the provocative drone attacks are to cease and that negotiations with the border states is envisioned. The U.S. may not be happy with this but leverage may be limited. There seems to be no clear policy any more from the U.S. side.
US offers Pakistan $7 bn in non-military aid
WASHINGTON: The US has promised to curb air strikes by drones against suspected militants in Pakistan as part of a joint counter-terrorism strategy agreed with the new civilian government in Islamabad, the Guardian has learnt.
That strategy will be supported by an aid package potentially worth more than $7 billon (£3.55 billon), which is due to go before Congress for approval in the next few months. The package would triple the amount of American non-military aid to Pakistan, and is aimed at "redefining" the bilateral relationship, US officials say.
Pakistan will also be given a "democracy dividend" of up to $1 billon, a reward for holding peaceful elections and forming a coalition government. Of that, $200 million could be approved in the next few days.
The aid package, being put together by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, will mark a decisive break in the US policy on Pakistan, which for much of the past nine years focused on President Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistani military as Washington's primary partners in the "war on terror". Officials in Washington said on Wednesday that the shift had already been made.
"Senator Biden wants to show the relationship is much broader than a military one, and that we are willing to sustain it over time," one of the senator's senior aides said on Wednesday. A US administration official said: "Each day Musharraf's influence becomes less and less. Civilians are in control. People aren't meeting with Musharraf any more ... we are very pleased with the new civilian government."
Pakistani officials say much of the new counter-terrorism aid will be spent on civilian law enforcement institutions, such as the interior ministry, the Intelligence Bureau and the Federal Investigation Agency, rather than being channelled almost exclusively through the Army and the military-run Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
The new government says it has also won American support for its policy of opening a dialogue with tribes along the Afghan border, led by the Awami National Party. The new understanding on air strikes by US Predator drones is seen in Islamabad as a critical benchmark for the new relationship.
In January senior US intelligence officials flew to Islamabad and struck an agreement with Musharraf to give the American military a freer hand in the use of Predators against targets in Pakistan's tribal areas, which have become havens for al-Qaeda and other foreign Jihadists as well as Taliban forces fighting Nato forces and the government in Afghanistan, according to The Guardian.
The subsequent increase in Predator strikes – estimates of the number range up to eight – caused outrage in Pakistan. Britain also broke with Washington over the reliance on air strikes often guided by uncertain intelligence.
Pakistani officials say they have been given assurances by Washington that there will be close consultation with the civilian government, not with Musharraf, before any future strikes. However, the use of Predators is held as a closely-guarded secret and US intelligence is reluctant to share information about targets, and there is some skepticism in Islamabad over whether the deal will stick.
"We'll have to take them at their word, won't we," said Information Minister, Sherry Rehman, in an interview in Islamabad. She added that Washington's previous emphasis on ties to Musharraf and the Pakistani military "hasn't provided the results that were supposed to happen on the ground".
The US has given Pakistan about $10 bn in military aid during the past seven years, but it has not diminished the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, while Pakistani extremism is also on the rise. Some officials in Washington believe most of the money has been used to build up Pakistan's conventional forces for use in a possible future conflict with India, rather than spent on counter-insurgency.
Furthermore, much of the money being used for counter-terrorism is being misspent, both Pakistan and US government officials say. As an example they say that Musharraf distributed the $25 million reward money for capturing or killing "high value" al-Qaeda targets in the form of an "inverted pyramid".
"A few thousand would go to the police constable on the ground, who actually spotted the guy, but the millions go to the generals up the chain," a Pakistani official said. No wonder, he added, the tip-offs stopped coming in and the number of high-profile arrests dropped.
US offers Pakistan $7 bn in non-military aid
WASHINGTON: The US has promised to curb air strikes by drones against suspected militants in Pakistan as part of a joint counter-terrorism strategy agreed with the new civilian government in Islamabad, the Guardian has learnt.
That strategy will be supported by an aid package potentially worth more than $7 billon (£3.55 billon), which is due to go before Congress for approval in the next few months. The package would triple the amount of American non-military aid to Pakistan, and is aimed at "redefining" the bilateral relationship, US officials say.
Pakistan will also be given a "democracy dividend" of up to $1 billon, a reward for holding peaceful elections and forming a coalition government. Of that, $200 million could be approved in the next few days.
The aid package, being put together by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, will mark a decisive break in the US policy on Pakistan, which for much of the past nine years focused on President Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistani military as Washington's primary partners in the "war on terror". Officials in Washington said on Wednesday that the shift had already been made.
"Senator Biden wants to show the relationship is much broader than a military one, and that we are willing to sustain it over time," one of the senator's senior aides said on Wednesday. A US administration official said: "Each day Musharraf's influence becomes less and less. Civilians are in control. People aren't meeting with Musharraf any more ... we are very pleased with the new civilian government."
Pakistani officials say much of the new counter-terrorism aid will be spent on civilian law enforcement institutions, such as the interior ministry, the Intelligence Bureau and the Federal Investigation Agency, rather than being channelled almost exclusively through the Army and the military-run Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
The new government says it has also won American support for its policy of opening a dialogue with tribes along the Afghan border, led by the Awami National Party. The new understanding on air strikes by US Predator drones is seen in Islamabad as a critical benchmark for the new relationship.
In January senior US intelligence officials flew to Islamabad and struck an agreement with Musharraf to give the American military a freer hand in the use of Predators against targets in Pakistan's tribal areas, which have become havens for al-Qaeda and other foreign Jihadists as well as Taliban forces fighting Nato forces and the government in Afghanistan, according to The Guardian.
The subsequent increase in Predator strikes – estimates of the number range up to eight – caused outrage in Pakistan. Britain also broke with Washington over the reliance on air strikes often guided by uncertain intelligence.
Pakistani officials say they have been given assurances by Washington that there will be close consultation with the civilian government, not with Musharraf, before any future strikes. However, the use of Predators is held as a closely-guarded secret and US intelligence is reluctant to share information about targets, and there is some skepticism in Islamabad over whether the deal will stick.
"We'll have to take them at their word, won't we," said Information Minister, Sherry Rehman, in an interview in Islamabad. She added that Washington's previous emphasis on ties to Musharraf and the Pakistani military "hasn't provided the results that were supposed to happen on the ground".
The US has given Pakistan about $10 bn in military aid during the past seven years, but it has not diminished the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, while Pakistani extremism is also on the rise. Some officials in Washington believe most of the money has been used to build up Pakistan's conventional forces for use in a possible future conflict with India, rather than spent on counter-insurgency.
Furthermore, much of the money being used for counter-terrorism is being misspent, both Pakistan and US government officials say. As an example they say that Musharraf distributed the $25 million reward money for capturing or killing "high value" al-Qaeda targets in the form of an "inverted pyramid".
"A few thousand would go to the police constable on the ground, who actually spotted the guy, but the millions go to the generals up the chain," a Pakistani official said. No wonder, he added, the tip-offs stopped coming in and the number of high-profile arrests dropped.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Poor sell kidneys in Philippines slum
The same practice is common among the poor in other countries such as India. Of course the original sellers do not get rich but the those who resell it and install it in rich foreigners do. This is from the AFP via Google.
In Philippines slum desperately poor sell kidneys for cash
9 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — The men living in the tough Baseco dockside shantytown on Manila Bay carry one of two badges to prove they belong -- tattoos for the gang members and surgical scars for the kidney sellers.
Built on muck dredged from the bay on the orders of former first lady Imelda Marcos for a visit by Britain's Queen Elizabeth, who never came, the 52-hectare (128-acre) open garbage dump is a grim reminder of the desperate poverty of the Philippines.
Few escape from the ranks of the largely unskilled and poorly educated settlers who arrive by ferry from other islands to hire themselves out as stevedores and porters.
When things get bad the men sell their blood.
And when all seems lost many resort to selling an organ.
"I was paid 160,000 pesos (3,848 dollars)," said Joey Rosco, 38. A curved, 13-inch scar running along his left side from below his ribcage to his hip is the only evidence of the 1991 surgery.
"The money is long gone now, and I am still poor," the father of five with a tattoo of a woman's face on his right bicep tells AFP outside his cramped hut of plywood, bamboo and tin sheets.
But he could consider himself lucky since he appears reasonably healthy.
He says a neighbour and fellow donor died from complications seven years after undergoing the same procedure, while a third donor accidentally killed his pregnant wife after using the money he earned from selling his kidney to buy a handgun.
The Philippines is one of the world's "hot spots" for human organ trafficking, said the Philippine Society of Nephrology, whose members are renal specialists.
"Between 2002 and 2005, when a 10 percent cap for transplants to foreigners was supposed to have been enforced, more than 400 kidney transplants from local donors to foreign recipients were performed," said society president Lyn Gomez.
She added, however, that "incomplete reporting from some hospitals" meant that the actual number of operations was likely to be much higher.
A total of 436 kidney transplants from unrelated, living donors were performed in 2006 in 24 Philippine hospitals, according to the government's Renal Disease Control Programme.
In the same period there were 36 transplants from deceased donors.
Baseco is the best-known living donor community, with local officials estimating that some 3,000 of the slum's 50,000 residents have sold a kidney.
"I never met anyone who got rich selling a kidney" --
Filipino Roman Catholic bishops in January denounced as "morally unacceptable" the organ trade which they said exploited the poor.
"The kidney trade has been here since the 1970s," said Baseco village chief Kristo Hispano.
"They say they resorted to it because they couldn't find a job or needed money to put up a business. But I have yet to meet a person who got rich using his kidney as capital."
Before he sold his kidney in 1991, Rosco said he had been regularly selling his blood for 35 pesos (84 US cents) a litre at Manila's commercial blood banks
In Philippines slum desperately poor sell kidneys for cash
9 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — The men living in the tough Baseco dockside shantytown on Manila Bay carry one of two badges to prove they belong -- tattoos for the gang members and surgical scars for the kidney sellers.
Built on muck dredged from the bay on the orders of former first lady Imelda Marcos for a visit by Britain's Queen Elizabeth, who never came, the 52-hectare (128-acre) open garbage dump is a grim reminder of the desperate poverty of the Philippines.
Few escape from the ranks of the largely unskilled and poorly educated settlers who arrive by ferry from other islands to hire themselves out as stevedores and porters.
When things get bad the men sell their blood.
And when all seems lost many resort to selling an organ.
"I was paid 160,000 pesos (3,848 dollars)," said Joey Rosco, 38. A curved, 13-inch scar running along his left side from below his ribcage to his hip is the only evidence of the 1991 surgery.
"The money is long gone now, and I am still poor," the father of five with a tattoo of a woman's face on his right bicep tells AFP outside his cramped hut of plywood, bamboo and tin sheets.
But he could consider himself lucky since he appears reasonably healthy.
He says a neighbour and fellow donor died from complications seven years after undergoing the same procedure, while a third donor accidentally killed his pregnant wife after using the money he earned from selling his kidney to buy a handgun.
The Philippines is one of the world's "hot spots" for human organ trafficking, said the Philippine Society of Nephrology, whose members are renal specialists.
"Between 2002 and 2005, when a 10 percent cap for transplants to foreigners was supposed to have been enforced, more than 400 kidney transplants from local donors to foreign recipients were performed," said society president Lyn Gomez.
She added, however, that "incomplete reporting from some hospitals" meant that the actual number of operations was likely to be much higher.
A total of 436 kidney transplants from unrelated, living donors were performed in 2006 in 24 Philippine hospitals, according to the government's Renal Disease Control Programme.
In the same period there were 36 transplants from deceased donors.
Baseco is the best-known living donor community, with local officials estimating that some 3,000 of the slum's 50,000 residents have sold a kidney.
"I never met anyone who got rich selling a kidney" --
Filipino Roman Catholic bishops in January denounced as "morally unacceptable" the organ trade which they said exploited the poor.
"The kidney trade has been here since the 1970s," said Baseco village chief Kristo Hispano.
"They say they resorted to it because they couldn't find a job or needed money to put up a business. But I have yet to meet a person who got rich using his kidney as capital."
Before he sold his kidney in 1991, Rosco said he had been regularly selling his blood for 35 pesos (84 US cents) a litre at Manila's commercial blood banks
As Australia Dries a Global Shortage of Rice
This is from IHT.
When thinking of rice production Australia does not come to mind--but neither does the US that also produces quite a bit. It seems that simple economics rather than the drought is the prime cause of production decline. With the huge difference in income from grape production vis-a-vis rice it makes much more sense to produce grapes on land formerly used for rice where that is possible.
As Australia dries, a global shortage of rice
By Keith Bradsher
Thursday, April 17, 2008
DENILIQUIN, Australia: Lindsay Renwick, the mayor of this dusty southern Australian town, remembers the constant whir of the rice mill. "It was our little heartbeat out there, tickety-tick-tickety," he said, imitating the giant fans that dried the rice, "and now it has stopped."
The Deniliquin mill, the largest rice mill in the Southern Hemisphere, once processed enough grain to satisfy the daily needs of 20 million people. But six long years of drought have taken a toll, reducing Australia's rice crop by 98 percent and leading to the mothballing of the mill last December.
Ten thousand miles separate the mill's hushed rows of oversized silos and sheds — beige, gray and now empty — from the riotous streets of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, but a widening global crisis unites them.
The collapse of Australia's rice production is one of several factors contributing to a doubling of rice prices in the last three months — increases that have led the world's largest exporters to restrict exports severely, spurred panicked hoarding in Hong Kong and the Philippines, and set off violent protests in countries including Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, the Philippines, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Yemen.
Drought affects every agricultural industry based here, not just rice — from sheepherding, the other mainstay in this dusty land, to the cultivation of wine grapes, the fastest-growing crop here, with that expansion often coming at the expense of rice.
The drought's effect on rice has produced the greatest impact on the rest of the world, so far. It is one factor contributing to skyrocketing prices, and many scientists believe it is among the earliest signs that a warming planet is starting to affect food production.
While a link between short-term changes in weather and long-term climate change is not certain, the unusually severe drought is consistent with what climatologists predict will be a problem of increasing frequency.
Indeed, the chief executive of the National Farmers' Federation in Australia, Ben Fargher, says, "Climate change is potentially the biggest risk to Australian agriculture."
Drought has already spurred significant changes in Australia's agricultural heartland. Some farmers are abandoning rice, which requires large amounts of water, to plant less water-intensive crops like wheat or, especially here in southeastern Australia, wine grapes. Other rice farmers have sold their fields or their water rights, usually to grape growers.
Scientists and economists worry that the reallocation of scarce water resources — away from rice and other grains and toward more lucrative crops and livestock — threatens poor countries that import rice as a dietary staple.
The global agricultural crisis is threatening to become a political one, pitting the United States and other developed countries against the developing world over the need for affordable food versus the need for renewable energy. Many poorer nations worry that subsidies from rich countries to support biofuels, which turn food, like corn, into fuel, are pushing up the price of staplesThe World Bank and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization both called on major agricultural countries to overhaul policies to avoid a social explosion from rising food prices.
With rice, which is not used to make biofuel, the problem is availability. Even in normal times, little of the world's rice is actually exported — more than 90 percent is consumed in the countries where it is grown. In the last quarter-century, rice consumption has outpaced production, with global reserves plunging by half just since 2000. Current economic uncertainty has led producers to hoard rice and speculators and investors even see it as a lucrative, or at least safe, investment.
All these factors have made countries that buy rice on the global market vulnerable to extreme price swings.
Senegal and Haiti each import four-fifths of their rice. And both have faced mounting unrest as prices have increased. Police suppressed violent demonstrations in Dakar on March 30, and unrest has spread to other rice-dependent nations in West Africa, notably Ivory Coast. The Haitian president, René Préval, after a week of riots, announced subsidies for rice buyers on Saturday.
Scientists expect the problem to worsen in the decades ahead.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set up by the United Nations, predicted last year that even slight warming would decrease agricultural output in tropical and subtropical countries.
Moderate warming could benefit crop and pasture yields in countries far from the Equator, like Canada and Russia. In fact, the net effect of moderate warming is likely to be higher total food production around the world in the next several decades.
But the scientists said the effect would be uneven, and enormous quantities of food would need to be shipped from areas farther from the Equator to feed the populations of often less-affluent countries closer to the Equator.
The panel predicted that even greater warming, which might happen by late in this century if few or no limits are placed on greenhouse gas emissions, would hurt total food output and cripple crops in many countries.
Paul Lamine N'Dong, an elder in Joal, Senegal, worries that hot weather and failing rains have already crippled his village's crop of millet, a coarse grain eaten locally and traded for rice.
Sitting on a concrete dais reserved for elders, N'Dong said on a recent morning, "The price rises very quickly, which means we really have to go and look for money."
"It is live or die," he said.
Survival Techniques
For farmers in a richer nation like Australia the effects of the current drought are already significant.
The rice farmers who do not give up and sell their land or water rights are experimenting with varieties or techniques that require less water. Australia now has some of the world's highest rice yields for a given quantity of water.
Still, Australia's total rice capacity has declined by about a third because many farmers have permanently sold water rights, mostly for grape production. And production last year was far lower because of a severe shortage of water; rice farmers received one-eighth of the water they are usually promised by the government.
The accidental beneficiaries of these conditions have been the farmers who grow wine grapes in the same river basin where the Deniliquin mill stands silent.
Even with the recent doubling of rice prices, to around $1,000 a metric ton for the high grades produced by Australia, it is even more profitable to grow wine grapes.
All told, wine grapes produce a pretax profit of close to $2,000 an acre while rice produces a pretax profit around $240 an acre.
Ranchers like Peter Milliken, who raises sheep on 37,500 acres near Hay, Australia, are trying to reduce the water they use. Milliken is installing a buried nine-mile pipe to replace an irrigation canal that lost up to 90 percent of its water to evaporation — and planning for the day when he does not irrigate at all.
Sheep farmers have already worked out cooperative arrangements to send flocks to whatever fields have recently received rain, sometimes herding or trucking them long distances. Keeping an eye on a flock, Frank Cox, a drover, said recently, "We had to move the sheep because they were dying of starvation, and truck them down here."
The changes here are making rice harder to find.
For instance, SunRice, the Australian rice trading and marketing giant owned by the country's rice growers, began preparing to mothball the Deniliquin mill five months ago, when it noticed that Australian farmers were planting almost no rice. To make sure that it could continue supplying the domestic market, as well as export markets in Papua New Guinea, South Pacific island nations, Taiwan and the Middle East, SunRice went into international markets and stepped up rice purchases from other countries, the chief executive, Gary Helou, said
The SunRice purchases became one among the many factors that are making it harder for longtime rice importers elsewhere to find supplies.
Seeking Hardier Rice
Researchers are looking for solutions to global rice shortages — for example, rice that blooms earlier in the day, when it is cooler, to counter global warming. Rice plants that happen to bloom on hot days are less likely to produce grains of rice, a difficulty that is already starting to emerge in inland areas of China and other Asian countries as temperatures begin to climb.
"There will be problems very soon unless we have new varieties of rice in place," said Reiner Wassmann, climate change coordinator at the International Rice Research Institute near Manila, a leader in developing higher-yielding strains of rice for nearly half a century.
The recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change carried an important caveat that could make the news even worse: the panel said that existing models for the effects of climate change on agriculture did not yet include newer findings that global warming could reduce rainfall and make it more variable.
Many agronomists contend that changes in the timing and amount of rain are more important for crops than temperature changes. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the panel, said long-range climate forecasts for precipitation would require another 5 to 20 years of research, depending on the region.
In addition to drought, climate change could also produce more extreme weather, more outbreaks of pests and weeds, and changes in sea level as polar ices melts. Most of the world's increase in rice production over the last quarter-century has occurred close to sea level, in the deltas of rivers like the Mekong in Vietnam, Chao Phraya in Thailand and Ganges-Brahmaputra in Bangladesh.
Yet the effects of climate change are not uniformly bad for rice. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, can actually help rice plants and other crops — although the effect dwindles or disappears if the plants face excessive heat, inadequate water, severe pollution or other stresses.
Still, the flexibility of farmers and ranchers here has persuaded some climate experts that, particularly in developed countries, the effects of climate change may be mitigated, if not completely avoided.
"I'm not as pessimistic as most people," said Will Steffen, the director of the Fenner School of Environment and Society at Australian National University. "Farmers are learning how to do things differently."
Meanwhile, changes like the use of water to grow wine grapes instead of rice carry their own costs, as the developing world is discovering.
"Rice is a staple food," said Graeme Haley, the general manager of the town of Deniliquin. "Chardonnay is not."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
When thinking of rice production Australia does not come to mind--but neither does the US that also produces quite a bit. It seems that simple economics rather than the drought is the prime cause of production decline. With the huge difference in income from grape production vis-a-vis rice it makes much more sense to produce grapes on land formerly used for rice where that is possible.
As Australia dries, a global shortage of rice
By Keith Bradsher
Thursday, April 17, 2008
DENILIQUIN, Australia: Lindsay Renwick, the mayor of this dusty southern Australian town, remembers the constant whir of the rice mill. "It was our little heartbeat out there, tickety-tick-tickety," he said, imitating the giant fans that dried the rice, "and now it has stopped."
The Deniliquin mill, the largest rice mill in the Southern Hemisphere, once processed enough grain to satisfy the daily needs of 20 million people. But six long years of drought have taken a toll, reducing Australia's rice crop by 98 percent and leading to the mothballing of the mill last December.
Ten thousand miles separate the mill's hushed rows of oversized silos and sheds — beige, gray and now empty — from the riotous streets of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, but a widening global crisis unites them.
The collapse of Australia's rice production is one of several factors contributing to a doubling of rice prices in the last three months — increases that have led the world's largest exporters to restrict exports severely, spurred panicked hoarding in Hong Kong and the Philippines, and set off violent protests in countries including Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, the Philippines, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Yemen.
Drought affects every agricultural industry based here, not just rice — from sheepherding, the other mainstay in this dusty land, to the cultivation of wine grapes, the fastest-growing crop here, with that expansion often coming at the expense of rice.
The drought's effect on rice has produced the greatest impact on the rest of the world, so far. It is one factor contributing to skyrocketing prices, and many scientists believe it is among the earliest signs that a warming planet is starting to affect food production.
While a link between short-term changes in weather and long-term climate change is not certain, the unusually severe drought is consistent with what climatologists predict will be a problem of increasing frequency.
Indeed, the chief executive of the National Farmers' Federation in Australia, Ben Fargher, says, "Climate change is potentially the biggest risk to Australian agriculture."
Drought has already spurred significant changes in Australia's agricultural heartland. Some farmers are abandoning rice, which requires large amounts of water, to plant less water-intensive crops like wheat or, especially here in southeastern Australia, wine grapes. Other rice farmers have sold their fields or their water rights, usually to grape growers.
Scientists and economists worry that the reallocation of scarce water resources — away from rice and other grains and toward more lucrative crops and livestock — threatens poor countries that import rice as a dietary staple.
The global agricultural crisis is threatening to become a political one, pitting the United States and other developed countries against the developing world over the need for affordable food versus the need for renewable energy. Many poorer nations worry that subsidies from rich countries to support biofuels, which turn food, like corn, into fuel, are pushing up the price of staplesThe World Bank and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization both called on major agricultural countries to overhaul policies to avoid a social explosion from rising food prices.
With rice, which is not used to make biofuel, the problem is availability. Even in normal times, little of the world's rice is actually exported — more than 90 percent is consumed in the countries where it is grown. In the last quarter-century, rice consumption has outpaced production, with global reserves plunging by half just since 2000. Current economic uncertainty has led producers to hoard rice and speculators and investors even see it as a lucrative, or at least safe, investment.
All these factors have made countries that buy rice on the global market vulnerable to extreme price swings.
Senegal and Haiti each import four-fifths of their rice. And both have faced mounting unrest as prices have increased. Police suppressed violent demonstrations in Dakar on March 30, and unrest has spread to other rice-dependent nations in West Africa, notably Ivory Coast. The Haitian president, René Préval, after a week of riots, announced subsidies for rice buyers on Saturday.
Scientists expect the problem to worsen in the decades ahead.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set up by the United Nations, predicted last year that even slight warming would decrease agricultural output in tropical and subtropical countries.
Moderate warming could benefit crop and pasture yields in countries far from the Equator, like Canada and Russia. In fact, the net effect of moderate warming is likely to be higher total food production around the world in the next several decades.
But the scientists said the effect would be uneven, and enormous quantities of food would need to be shipped from areas farther from the Equator to feed the populations of often less-affluent countries closer to the Equator.
The panel predicted that even greater warming, which might happen by late in this century if few or no limits are placed on greenhouse gas emissions, would hurt total food output and cripple crops in many countries.
Paul Lamine N'Dong, an elder in Joal, Senegal, worries that hot weather and failing rains have already crippled his village's crop of millet, a coarse grain eaten locally and traded for rice.
Sitting on a concrete dais reserved for elders, N'Dong said on a recent morning, "The price rises very quickly, which means we really have to go and look for money."
"It is live or die," he said.
Survival Techniques
For farmers in a richer nation like Australia the effects of the current drought are already significant.
The rice farmers who do not give up and sell their land or water rights are experimenting with varieties or techniques that require less water. Australia now has some of the world's highest rice yields for a given quantity of water.
Still, Australia's total rice capacity has declined by about a third because many farmers have permanently sold water rights, mostly for grape production. And production last year was far lower because of a severe shortage of water; rice farmers received one-eighth of the water they are usually promised by the government.
The accidental beneficiaries of these conditions have been the farmers who grow wine grapes in the same river basin where the Deniliquin mill stands silent.
Even with the recent doubling of rice prices, to around $1,000 a metric ton for the high grades produced by Australia, it is even more profitable to grow wine grapes.
All told, wine grapes produce a pretax profit of close to $2,000 an acre while rice produces a pretax profit around $240 an acre.
Ranchers like Peter Milliken, who raises sheep on 37,500 acres near Hay, Australia, are trying to reduce the water they use. Milliken is installing a buried nine-mile pipe to replace an irrigation canal that lost up to 90 percent of its water to evaporation — and planning for the day when he does not irrigate at all.
Sheep farmers have already worked out cooperative arrangements to send flocks to whatever fields have recently received rain, sometimes herding or trucking them long distances. Keeping an eye on a flock, Frank Cox, a drover, said recently, "We had to move the sheep because they were dying of starvation, and truck them down here."
The changes here are making rice harder to find.
For instance, SunRice, the Australian rice trading and marketing giant owned by the country's rice growers, began preparing to mothball the Deniliquin mill five months ago, when it noticed that Australian farmers were planting almost no rice. To make sure that it could continue supplying the domestic market, as well as export markets in Papua New Guinea, South Pacific island nations, Taiwan and the Middle East, SunRice went into international markets and stepped up rice purchases from other countries, the chief executive, Gary Helou, said
The SunRice purchases became one among the many factors that are making it harder for longtime rice importers elsewhere to find supplies.
Seeking Hardier Rice
Researchers are looking for solutions to global rice shortages — for example, rice that blooms earlier in the day, when it is cooler, to counter global warming. Rice plants that happen to bloom on hot days are less likely to produce grains of rice, a difficulty that is already starting to emerge in inland areas of China and other Asian countries as temperatures begin to climb.
"There will be problems very soon unless we have new varieties of rice in place," said Reiner Wassmann, climate change coordinator at the International Rice Research Institute near Manila, a leader in developing higher-yielding strains of rice for nearly half a century.
The recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change carried an important caveat that could make the news even worse: the panel said that existing models for the effects of climate change on agriculture did not yet include newer findings that global warming could reduce rainfall and make it more variable.
Many agronomists contend that changes in the timing and amount of rain are more important for crops than temperature changes. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the panel, said long-range climate forecasts for precipitation would require another 5 to 20 years of research, depending on the region.
In addition to drought, climate change could also produce more extreme weather, more outbreaks of pests and weeds, and changes in sea level as polar ices melts. Most of the world's increase in rice production over the last quarter-century has occurred close to sea level, in the deltas of rivers like the Mekong in Vietnam, Chao Phraya in Thailand and Ganges-Brahmaputra in Bangladesh.
Yet the effects of climate change are not uniformly bad for rice. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, can actually help rice plants and other crops — although the effect dwindles or disappears if the plants face excessive heat, inadequate water, severe pollution or other stresses.
Still, the flexibility of farmers and ranchers here has persuaded some climate experts that, particularly in developed countries, the effects of climate change may be mitigated, if not completely avoided.
"I'm not as pessimistic as most people," said Will Steffen, the director of the Fenner School of Environment and Society at Australian National University. "Farmers are learning how to do things differently."
Meanwhile, changes like the use of water to grow wine grapes instead of rice carry their own costs, as the developing world is discovering.
"Rice is a staple food," said Graeme Haley, the general manager of the town of Deniliquin. "Chardonnay is not."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
Trying CIA kidnappers and torturers in absentia
This is from Hornberger's Blog. As this article notes the U.S. somehow considers the CIA above the law. If any other agency did this there would be hell to pay. Italy is no doubt quite angry that the CIA actions simply ruined their own investigations--although some think that at least some in the Italian govt. were aware what was happening. Note that some who belonged to Italy's military intelligence service are actually on trial. Of course the U.S. government has refused to co-operate even though Italy is a staunch ally of the U.S.
Hornberger’s Blog
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Trying CIA Kidnappers and Torturers in Absentia
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Twenty-six CIA agents are scheduled to go on trial today for kidnapping. Unfortunately, all of them will be tried in absentia because the Bush administration, which has long claimed to be against torture, refuses to send the accused kidnappers to Italy, where the prosecution is taking place.
The Italian indictment alleges that in June 2005 the CIA officials kidnapped Hassan Osama Nasr, who is known as Abu Omar, in Italy and then forcibly carried him against his will to Egypt for torture. Nasr claims that Egyptian torturers then tortured him brutally.
The Italian torture trial also involves nine Italian defendants who allegedly conspired with the CIA agents to kidnap Omar and rendition him to Egypt. They include Gen. Nicolo Pollari, the former head of SISMI, Italy’s military intelligence service, who was forced to resign over the Omar kidnapping, as well as his former deputy, Marco Mancini.
Hopefully, the trial will shed more light on the CIA’s kidnapping, rendition, and torture scheme. As Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch (who will be speaking at The Future of Freedom Foundation’s upcoming June 6-8 conference “Restoring The Republic 2008: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties”), stated in a Reuters news dispatch: “It should show the world that Italy does not give get-out-of-jail-free cards to kidnappers. The CIA’s rendition program should be on trial in the United States. But since the US Department of Justice has utterly failed in its responsibility to investigate and prosecute these serious crimes, it is up to Italy to bring the perpetrators to justice.”
To date, neither Congress nor the Justice Department has shown any interest in conducting a serious investigation into any criminal wrongdoing by the CIA, including its kidnapping, secret prisons, rendition, and torture schemes. That’s because in the minds of U.S. officials nothing that the CIA does can ever be considered criminal, especially since here in the United States the CIA is not just above the law, it is the law. Fortunately, Italian prosecutors feel differently.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
Hornberger’s Blog
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Trying CIA Kidnappers and Torturers in Absentia
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Twenty-six CIA agents are scheduled to go on trial today for kidnapping. Unfortunately, all of them will be tried in absentia because the Bush administration, which has long claimed to be against torture, refuses to send the accused kidnappers to Italy, where the prosecution is taking place.
The Italian indictment alleges that in June 2005 the CIA officials kidnapped Hassan Osama Nasr, who is known as Abu Omar, in Italy and then forcibly carried him against his will to Egypt for torture. Nasr claims that Egyptian torturers then tortured him brutally.
The Italian torture trial also involves nine Italian defendants who allegedly conspired with the CIA agents to kidnap Omar and rendition him to Egypt. They include Gen. Nicolo Pollari, the former head of SISMI, Italy’s military intelligence service, who was forced to resign over the Omar kidnapping, as well as his former deputy, Marco Mancini.
Hopefully, the trial will shed more light on the CIA’s kidnapping, rendition, and torture scheme. As Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch (who will be speaking at The Future of Freedom Foundation’s upcoming June 6-8 conference “Restoring The Republic 2008: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties”), stated in a Reuters news dispatch: “It should show the world that Italy does not give get-out-of-jail-free cards to kidnappers. The CIA’s rendition program should be on trial in the United States. But since the US Department of Justice has utterly failed in its responsibility to investigate and prosecute these serious crimes, it is up to Italy to bring the perpetrators to justice.”
To date, neither Congress nor the Justice Department has shown any interest in conducting a serious investigation into any criminal wrongdoing by the CIA, including its kidnapping, secret prisons, rendition, and torture schemes. That’s because in the minds of U.S. officials nothing that the CIA does can ever be considered criminal, especially since here in the United States the CIA is not just above the law, it is the law. Fortunately, Italian prosecutors feel differently.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
U.S. Statement Re Nepal Election.
This is from the State Dept. website. Hmm..they did not congratulate the Maoist terrorists on their victory! However, it is a bland and non-provocative statement that recognises the legitimacy of the elections so it seems that the U.S. will probably also recognise any government that emerges from this process whether there is a Maoist majority or not.
15 April 2008
Statement on Nepal’s Constituent Assembly Election
U.S. congratulates the Nepalese people on their historic election
(begin text)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
April 14, 2008
STATEMENT BY SEAN MCCORMACK, SPOKESMAN
Nepal Elections
We congratulate the people of Nepal on their historic Constituent Assembly election on April 10. Although there was considerable violence and intimidation during the pre-election period, and some instances of voting irregularities on election day, Nepali voters were able to cast their ballots peacefully in most districts. Over the next days and weeks, as complete results of these polls become known, the United States urges patience and nonviolent observance of the democratic process. We look forward to the formation of an assembly that reflects the will of the Nepali people, ready to begin the important work of framing a constitution that addresses their needs.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
15 April 2008
Statement on Nepal’s Constituent Assembly Election
U.S. congratulates the Nepalese people on their historic election
(begin text)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
April 14, 2008
STATEMENT BY SEAN MCCORMACK, SPOKESMAN
Nepal Elections
We congratulate the people of Nepal on their historic Constituent Assembly election on April 10. Although there was considerable violence and intimidation during the pre-election period, and some instances of voting irregularities on election day, Nepali voters were able to cast their ballots peacefully in most districts. Over the next days and weeks, as complete results of these polls become known, the United States urges patience and nonviolent observance of the democratic process. We look forward to the formation of an assembly that reflects the will of the Nepali people, ready to begin the important work of framing a constitution that addresses their needs.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Maoist ex-rebels widen lead in Nepal election.
This is from Reuters via Yahoo. Note that the socialist aspects of their ideology seem to some extent abandoned during campaigning. One of their main opponents is also a communist party. I am not sure how the two differ in ideology. Even though the Maoists have a clear majority of the seats declared a complicated election system apparently makes it unlikely that they will have an absolute majority. Given that one of the main other parties is also Communist they may be able to make a deal with them.
Maoist ex-rebels widen lead in Nepal election By Gopal Sharma
Mon Apr 14, 8:38 AM ET
Nepal's former Maoist rebels have widened their lead in crucial elections meant to map the country's political future and create a new Himalayan republic, the latest tally showed on Monday.
Results from last Thursday's elections for a special assembly meant to write a new constitution and formally abolish the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy show the Maoists have won 101 of the 178 seats declared, the Election Commission said. They were leading in another eight seats where counting was in progress.
In their election campaign, the Maoists abandoned many leftist policies like nationalisation to embrace foreign investment and public-private partnerships. Their victory could lead to a focus on improving living conditions in one of the world's poorest nations.
But a Maoist victory will be a challenge for the United States, which always opposed negotiating with the Maoists and still labels them a terrorist group, and India, battling its own Maoist insurgency.
Despite their good showing so far, a complicated electoral system will make it difficult for them to win an absolute majority in the new assembly, charged also with running the country for at least two years.
Their likely win has puzzled many analysts, who predicted the Maoists would place third. The earlier favourites had been the Communist Party (Unified Marxist-Leninist) -- known as Communist UML -- and the Nepal Congress, who have ended up with 24 and 30 seats respectively.
The Madheshi People's Rights Forum, which organised many of the last year's disruptive protests by a disgruntled ethnic group in Nepal's southern plains, has won 15 seats.
"It is amazing. It is a huge defeat, especially for the Nepali Congress and the UML," said Rhoderick Chalmers, Nepal head of the Brussels-based think-tank, International Crisis Group.
"I think it is a vote for change, a change in the way of doing politics and a change in the way state functions."
The Maoists, who signed a peace deal in November 2006 to end the civil war that killed at least 13,000 people, have toned down their use of the rhetoric of Marx and Mao for now.
During the war, human rights groups accused the Maoists of kidnapping, extortion and killings and other brutal tactics that earned them a terrorist tag. The Nepal army was also accused of widespread abuses at the time.
But since joining the peace process two years ago, the Maoists' calls for a "new Nepal" and radical land reform in favour of small-time farmers seems to have gone down well in a country where corruption and squabbling have become almost synonymous with politics.
"Other political parties did not understand the sentiments of the people and failed to live up to their promises in the past," said Ram Kumar Khadayat, a 25-year-old university student. "So people have given the Maoists a chance. Let's see how they do."
Some analysts said that the perception that the Maoists' firmer ideology and vision for the future had given them an advantage.
"The immediate problem is how to raise petroleum prices without any political repercussions," added Kunda Dixit, editor of the Nepali Times.
Ending the monarchy still appears to top the Maoist agenda.
"He should leave the palace immediately," senior Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai was quoted as saying in the Kathmandu Post, referring to King Gyanendra, who seized absolute power in 2005 but has since been stripped of almost everything but his title.
Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Maoist ex-rebels widen lead in Nepal election By Gopal Sharma
Mon Apr 14, 8:38 AM ET
Nepal's former Maoist rebels have widened their lead in crucial elections meant to map the country's political future and create a new Himalayan republic, the latest tally showed on Monday.
Results from last Thursday's elections for a special assembly meant to write a new constitution and formally abolish the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy show the Maoists have won 101 of the 178 seats declared, the Election Commission said. They were leading in another eight seats where counting was in progress.
In their election campaign, the Maoists abandoned many leftist policies like nationalisation to embrace foreign investment and public-private partnerships. Their victory could lead to a focus on improving living conditions in one of the world's poorest nations.
But a Maoist victory will be a challenge for the United States, which always opposed negotiating with the Maoists and still labels them a terrorist group, and India, battling its own Maoist insurgency.
Despite their good showing so far, a complicated electoral system will make it difficult for them to win an absolute majority in the new assembly, charged also with running the country for at least two years.
Their likely win has puzzled many analysts, who predicted the Maoists would place third. The earlier favourites had been the Communist Party (Unified Marxist-Leninist) -- known as Communist UML -- and the Nepal Congress, who have ended up with 24 and 30 seats respectively.
The Madheshi People's Rights Forum, which organised many of the last year's disruptive protests by a disgruntled ethnic group in Nepal's southern plains, has won 15 seats.
"It is amazing. It is a huge defeat, especially for the Nepali Congress and the UML," said Rhoderick Chalmers, Nepal head of the Brussels-based think-tank, International Crisis Group.
"I think it is a vote for change, a change in the way of doing politics and a change in the way state functions."
The Maoists, who signed a peace deal in November 2006 to end the civil war that killed at least 13,000 people, have toned down their use of the rhetoric of Marx and Mao for now.
During the war, human rights groups accused the Maoists of kidnapping, extortion and killings and other brutal tactics that earned them a terrorist tag. The Nepal army was also accused of widespread abuses at the time.
But since joining the peace process two years ago, the Maoists' calls for a "new Nepal" and radical land reform in favour of small-time farmers seems to have gone down well in a country where corruption and squabbling have become almost synonymous with politics.
"Other political parties did not understand the sentiments of the people and failed to live up to their promises in the past," said Ram Kumar Khadayat, a 25-year-old university student. "So people have given the Maoists a chance. Let's see how they do."
Some analysts said that the perception that the Maoists' firmer ideology and vision for the future had given them an advantage.
"The immediate problem is how to raise petroleum prices without any political repercussions," added Kunda Dixit, editor of the Nepali Times.
Ending the monarchy still appears to top the Maoist agenda.
"He should leave the palace immediately," senior Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai was quoted as saying in the Kathmandu Post, referring to King Gyanendra, who seized absolute power in 2005 but has since been stripped of almost everything but his title.
Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Global Poll: Erosion of Support for Free Market System
This is from worldpublicopinion. As any libertarian will tell you (ad nauseam) the present system is not a free market system. They no doubt would also say support for strong government regulation and for the free market system is contradictory. Governments have always subsidised certain groups such as farmers and often manufacturers as well and many governments have protectionist laws. The poll simply shows that many people no long support the status quo and the diluted free market ideology that has been in vogue and a staple of political rhetoric.
Erosion of Support for Free Market System: Global Poll
April 15, 2008
Supporters of Free Market Look for Strong Government Regulation
Full Report (PDF)
Majorities in most countries continue to support the free market system, but over the last two years support has eroded in 10 of 18 countries regularly polled by GlobeScan. In several countries this drop in support has been quite sharp.
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange in a March 2001 photo (White House photo)
The latest polling was completed before the current stock market volatility that began earlier this year.
Back in 2005 only one country polled--France--had more citizens disagreeing than agreeing with the statement that "the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world."
Displacing France as the least supportive of the free market system today is Turkey where approval of the free market system has plunged from 47 percent in 2005 to 34 percent now, while opposition has risen from 36 to 41 percent.
Support for free markets has also dropped 15 points in South Korea since 2005, though a majority (55%) continue to be supportive. Opposition there has jumped 20 points from 19 to 39 percent.
Support among Chileans is also down 14 points since 2003 when Chileans were last polled on this question.
Support in other countries is down by more modest though significant numbers: China (down 9 points), Britain (7 points), Brazil (7 points), Mexico (6 points), and Kenya (6 points).
The one country to show upward movement in agreement with the free market system is France--up five points. However, more continue to disagree (45%) than agree (41%).
The GlobeScan poll of 9,357 people worldwide also found that large numbers continue to look to their government to take a strong hand in regulating the market. In 17 of the 18 countries a majority (15 countries) or a plurality (two countries) agreed that "the free enterprise system and the free market system work best in society's interest when accompanied by strong government regulation."
Interestingly, supporters of the free market show more enthusiasm for a strongly regulated free market system than critics. Among those who agree that the free market system is the best system, three-quarters also agree that it works best with strong government regulation.
Those who are not enthusiastic about the free market system are divided as to whether it works best with government regulation.
At the same time agreement with this proposition, while still averaging 62 percent across all countries polled, is down in ten countries. This appears to be related to the drop in confidence in the free market system. Among the ten countries for which there was a drop in agreement with the proposition that the free market system works best with strong regulation, six of them also had a significant drop in support for the free market system, and only one had an increase.
Interestingly, three countries that in 2005 were among the four highest in support for the free market system--China, the Philippines, and South Korea--showed substantial increases in agreement with the idea that the market works best with regulation.
The results come from a private multi-client poll conducted by international polling firm GlobeScan between May 29 and August 10, 2007. GlobeScan's paying clients had exclusive use of the poll's findings until today's first-time public release. The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland assisted GlobeScan with the analysis and interpretation of these findings.
GlobeScan president Doug Miller says, "The results suggest that the free enterprise system was already beginning to lose the unquestioned trust of citizens before the current banking meltdown. It underscores the importance of re-building trust sooner rather than later."
Steven Kull comments, "It appears that as people have doubts about the ability of government to regulate the free market, confidence in the market diminishes."
A total of 9,357 citizens in Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone. Polling was conducted by GlobeScan and its research partners in each country. In eight of the 18 countries, the sample was limited to major urban areas. As the questions were asked to half samples in each country, the margin of error per country ranges from +/-3.3 to 5.0 percent.
For more details, please see the full report (PDF).
Erosion of Support for Free Market System: Global Poll
April 15, 2008
Supporters of Free Market Look for Strong Government Regulation
Full Report (PDF)
Majorities in most countries continue to support the free market system, but over the last two years support has eroded in 10 of 18 countries regularly polled by GlobeScan. In several countries this drop in support has been quite sharp.
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange in a March 2001 photo (White House photo)
The latest polling was completed before the current stock market volatility that began earlier this year.
Back in 2005 only one country polled--France--had more citizens disagreeing than agreeing with the statement that "the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world."
Displacing France as the least supportive of the free market system today is Turkey where approval of the free market system has plunged from 47 percent in 2005 to 34 percent now, while opposition has risen from 36 to 41 percent.
Support for free markets has also dropped 15 points in South Korea since 2005, though a majority (55%) continue to be supportive. Opposition there has jumped 20 points from 19 to 39 percent.
Support among Chileans is also down 14 points since 2003 when Chileans were last polled on this question.
Support in other countries is down by more modest though significant numbers: China (down 9 points), Britain (7 points), Brazil (7 points), Mexico (6 points), and Kenya (6 points).
The one country to show upward movement in agreement with the free market system is France--up five points. However, more continue to disagree (45%) than agree (41%).
The GlobeScan poll of 9,357 people worldwide also found that large numbers continue to look to their government to take a strong hand in regulating the market. In 17 of the 18 countries a majority (15 countries) or a plurality (two countries) agreed that "the free enterprise system and the free market system work best in society's interest when accompanied by strong government regulation."
Interestingly, supporters of the free market show more enthusiasm for a strongly regulated free market system than critics. Among those who agree that the free market system is the best system, three-quarters also agree that it works best with strong government regulation.
Those who are not enthusiastic about the free market system are divided as to whether it works best with government regulation.
At the same time agreement with this proposition, while still averaging 62 percent across all countries polled, is down in ten countries. This appears to be related to the drop in confidence in the free market system. Among the ten countries for which there was a drop in agreement with the proposition that the free market system works best with strong regulation, six of them also had a significant drop in support for the free market system, and only one had an increase.
Interestingly, three countries that in 2005 were among the four highest in support for the free market system--China, the Philippines, and South Korea--showed substantial increases in agreement with the idea that the market works best with regulation.
The results come from a private multi-client poll conducted by international polling firm GlobeScan between May 29 and August 10, 2007. GlobeScan's paying clients had exclusive use of the poll's findings until today's first-time public release. The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland assisted GlobeScan with the analysis and interpretation of these findings.
GlobeScan president Doug Miller says, "The results suggest that the free enterprise system was already beginning to lose the unquestioned trust of citizens before the current banking meltdown. It underscores the importance of re-building trust sooner rather than later."
Steven Kull comments, "It appears that as people have doubts about the ability of government to regulate the free market, confidence in the market diminishes."
A total of 9,357 citizens in Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone. Polling was conducted by GlobeScan and its research partners in each country. In eight of the 18 countries, the sample was limited to major urban areas. As the questions were asked to half samples in each country, the margin of error per country ranges from +/-3.3 to 5.0 percent.
For more details, please see the full report (PDF).
Sweeney on the conflict between CNA and SEIU
The conflict between the California Nurses Association and the SEIU has been bitter and continuing. There is a strong prohobition against raiding in the union movement but on the other hand the SEIU seems to have been involved in some dubious contracts in a bid to expand their union. Given the weakness of the union movement in the U.S. it is rather disheartening to see two groups at each others throats instead of meeting together to iron out their differences as Sweeney suggests.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For information: 202/637-5018
`
Statement by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney
On Developments in the SEIU-CNA Dispute
April 15, 2008
For several weeks I have been working to bring the Service Employee
International Union (SEIU) and the California Nurses Association/NNOC
(CNA) together to resolve their escalating dispute over
representation of nurses. Unfortunately, the deplorable events of the
weekend set back the progress we hoped to make.
There is no justification – none – for the violent attack
orchestrated by SEIU at the Labor Notes conference in Detroit. While
there may well be multiple sides to any dispute, violence is any form
is reprehensible. Violence in attacking freedom of speech must be
strongly condemned. Any attempt to deny the right of free speech
threatens the foundation of our movement and the future of working
people.
No union should understand the corrosive effect of violence better
than SEIU, which was founded by courageous janitors in the face of
employer violence in the 1920s and 1930s. I call on the leaders of
SEIU to condemn what happened in Detroit.
Likewise, I call on the leaders of SEIU to withdraw their recent
appeal to their local unions across the country to withhold dues from
AFL-CIO state federations and central labor councils as a pressure
tactic in their dispute with CNA. These organizations are not
involved in the controversy in any way, and withholding resources at
a time when we face the greatest political challenges in our history
is a damaging affront to the determined, united efforts of the entire
labor movement.
It is time for the escalation to stop. Our responsibilities as
leaders demand that we rise above our differences and disagreements
for the greater good. Last week the leaders of CNA agreed to meet
with SEIU to discuss these issues.
Today I am renewing the call for both parties to come together and
resolve the issues that divide them.
___________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For information: 202/637-5018
`
Statement by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney
On Developments in the SEIU-CNA Dispute
April 15, 2008
For several weeks I have been working to bring the Service Employee
International Union (SEIU) and the California Nurses Association/NNOC
(CNA) together to resolve their escalating dispute over
representation of nurses. Unfortunately, the deplorable events of the
weekend set back the progress we hoped to make.
There is no justification – none – for the violent attack
orchestrated by SEIU at the Labor Notes conference in Detroit. While
there may well be multiple sides to any dispute, violence is any form
is reprehensible. Violence in attacking freedom of speech must be
strongly condemned. Any attempt to deny the right of free speech
threatens the foundation of our movement and the future of working
people.
No union should understand the corrosive effect of violence better
than SEIU, which was founded by courageous janitors in the face of
employer violence in the 1920s and 1930s. I call on the leaders of
SEIU to condemn what happened in Detroit.
Likewise, I call on the leaders of SEIU to withdraw their recent
appeal to their local unions across the country to withhold dues from
AFL-CIO state federations and central labor councils as a pressure
tactic in their dispute with CNA. These organizations are not
involved in the controversy in any way, and withholding resources at
a time when we face the greatest political challenges in our history
is a damaging affront to the determined, united efforts of the entire
labor movement.
It is time for the escalation to stop. Our responsibilities as
leaders demand that we rise above our differences and disagreements
for the greater good. Last week the leaders of CNA agreed to meet
with SEIU to discuss these issues.
Today I am renewing the call for both parties to come together and
resolve the issues that divide them.
___________________________________
UN agency: High food prices may force Philippine ration cut.
There never seems enough money for aid programs but there is always enough money to fight trillion dollars wars. Worsening food supplies tends to feed the insurgency but not the people.
This is from the AFP.
High food prices may force Philippines ration cut: UN agency
17 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — A UN agency may be forced to cut rations feeding more than a million people in the troubled southern Philippines because of soaring world food prices, it warned Tuesday.
The World Food Programme has just 4,000 tonnes of rice left in its warehouse in conflict-hit Mindanao, a supply which will only last about two months, said Alghassim Wurie, the agency's deputy country director.
If the WFP fails to get more funds it may be forced to "cut rations and the most affected would be women and children," Wurie said.
"We are appealing for the donor community, the governments and the private sector companies to help us raise enough money to enable us to deliver support," Wurie told AFP.
He said the World Food Program (WFP) will need 500 million dollars in extra worldwide funds this year due to rising food prices, with 19 million dollars needed in immediate "operational funding" for Mindanao.
The WFP fed some 1.6 million people in Mindanao last year, most of them women and children in five central Mindanao provinces wracked by a decades-old Muslim separatist insurgency.
WFP runs a novel food-for-education program in Mindanao, where children are enticed to return to schools in exchange for rice rations to their families, and also helps feed families displaced by the insurgency.
This is from the AFP.
High food prices may force Philippines ration cut: UN agency
17 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — A UN agency may be forced to cut rations feeding more than a million people in the troubled southern Philippines because of soaring world food prices, it warned Tuesday.
The World Food Programme has just 4,000 tonnes of rice left in its warehouse in conflict-hit Mindanao, a supply which will only last about two months, said Alghassim Wurie, the agency's deputy country director.
If the WFP fails to get more funds it may be forced to "cut rations and the most affected would be women and children," Wurie said.
"We are appealing for the donor community, the governments and the private sector companies to help us raise enough money to enable us to deliver support," Wurie told AFP.
He said the World Food Program (WFP) will need 500 million dollars in extra worldwide funds this year due to rising food prices, with 19 million dollars needed in immediate "operational funding" for Mindanao.
The WFP fed some 1.6 million people in Mindanao last year, most of them women and children in five central Mindanao provinces wracked by a decades-old Muslim separatist insurgency.
WFP runs a novel food-for-education program in Mindanao, where children are enticed to return to schools in exchange for rice rations to their families, and also helps feed families displaced by the insurgency.
A Report from Sadr City
This is from WashingtonBureau. This is a rare glimpse from inside an Iraqi hot spot Sadr City. Allam gives vivid descriptions of conditions within the beleaguered city.
What is surprising about this article is that the visit to Sadr City was arranged by Ahmad Chalabi the former favorite of the Pentagon. He is able to move within the city without fear. Chalabi is an amazing survivor whose political role in Iraq is probably far from over.
Middle East Diary is written by McClatchy Newspapers correspondent Hannah Allam. She's based in Cairo but travels widely through the region. Feel free to send a story suggestion. Read her stories at news.mcclatchy.com.
April 13, 2008
Sadr City
The sounds of sobbing drifted from the open door of a rundown home in Sadr City today. Inside, dozens of black-draped women sat cross-legged on the floor, weeping and beating their chests over the latest death to shake this besieged Baghdad slum with a population of about 3 million.
The focus of this somber gathering was a slight grandmotherly figure whose tears splashed onto her mourning cloak. Only her tiny face, dotted with the indigo tattoos of a tribeswoman, was visible. She sat under a portrait of the Imam Hussein, mouthing prayers and embracing each woman who came to share her grief as a martyr's mother.
It's not hard to imagine that many of the women in the room could empathize with the searing pain of losing a son; hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Iraqi men have perished here in bombings, crossfire, targeted killings, or while fighting against U.S. and Iraqi troops as part of the Mahdi Army.
But this time, the slain son was no ordinary militiaman. He was one of the closest aides and friends of the rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr. Riyadh al Nouri, head of Sadr's office in Najaf, was gunned down by unknown assailants as he made his way home from midday prayers Friday. No group has claimed responsibility for the killing, a brazen strike at Sadr's inner circle, though leaders of the movement blame the U.S. military occupation for the violent landscape where bullets too often settle political disputes.
I ended up sitting on the floor with Nouri's mother and her friends because of Ahmad Chalabi, who had invited two Western reporters and an Iraqi television crew to accompany him as he paid his respects at the funeral in Sadr City. (Another funeral was going on down in Najaf, where Nouri was killed.) When Chalabi and the cameras disappeared into the men's tent, the rest of us -- a female American reporter for another U.S. newspaper, my Iraqi colleague Sahar and me -- decided to visit the women's area.
This was the first time in nearly two years that I've walked around in Sadr City, and the first time I've ever visited without our company's own drivers to watch our backs. A young plainclothes guard led us through garbage-strewn alleyways to the home where the women had gathered in solidarity with Nouri's mother.
During the pins-and-needles walk to the home, I scanned rooftops for snipers and saw none. My eyes locked with those of a menacing-looking young militiaman with a Sadr badge pinned to his shirt. He offered a half-smile and said, "Welcome" in Arabic. Naked, filthy children peeked out of their squalid homes. Little boys played soccer in the dirt. A father held his daughter's tiny hand as they crossed the street and stopped at an ice-cream stand. Life was going on as usual in Sadr City, a place that manages to be simultaneously dismal and vibrant.
But with all the U.S. air strikes and clashes here in the past couple of weeks, Sahar and I were keenly aware of the myriad dangers that still lurk in the warrens of Sadr City. Walking alone in this volatile territory left me feeling more exposed than perhaps at any time during my five years of covering Iraq. Sahar whispered for us not to say a word in English, but of course it was obvious we were outsiders. The baby-faced guard who led us to the home said that we need not worry, and it turned out that he was right.
Believe what you will about Chalabi being a has-been (or worse); precious few other Iraqi politicians can sail into Sadr City with foreigners in tow and receive ironclad guarantees of safety from the feared Mahdi Army. The militiamen greeted him with embraces, just a day after Sadr issued a statement that discouraged the targeting of Iraqis unless they have helped the occupation.
You might wonder, as I do, how Chalabi, the onetime Pentagon darling who fell out of American graces, the man who ushered U.S. forces into Iraq, the secular intellectual with dubious associates around the globe, is able to preserve such close ties to the Shiite Islamist, anti-American Sadr movement. We might never know the full story.
Critics will say that Chalabi's trip to Sadr City today amounted to grandstanding; supporters will counter that it's about time an Iraqi official, any Iraqi official, dropped in to see firsthand the suffering of Sadr City's embattled residents. Whatever the case, I was just grateful to tag along and finally be able to soak up the dizzying sights of Sadr's sprawling Baghdad stronghold without the usual wrangling with local militia commanders or U.S. military embed coordinators.
Cold, stunned stares greeted us as we arrived at the home where Nouri's mother sat crying among her relatives and supporters. Mourners packed two large rooms that had been emptied of furniture. I asked a female official from the Sadr office if I could take pictures. "No" was the answer. I asked again, offering to show her the photos on my digital camera. She agreed, but only after she returned with an extra layer of black cloth to cover even more of Nouri's mother's face, including her beautiful traditional tattoos. The mother is a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, the woman warned, so no photograph should show her unveiled.
Feeling highly conspicuous, we only stayed for a few minutes -- just long enough to snap a few photos, mumble our condolences to the mother (who kissed us and thanked us for coming) and listen to the low-pitched mourning chants of some of the women. Arabic condolences can sound a bit unkind when translated into English, but they are based in the Islamic tradition of limiting mourning to a set time period and then moving on with life, knowing that the deceased is in a better place.
"He was taken! He was taken!" sobbed a woman sitting next to Nouri's mother.
"May God take him from your heart as he was taken from your eyes!" another woman cried.
As is customary, we'd taken off our shoes at the door and had to fish them from a jumble of women's sandals on our way out. As we exited, Sahar noticed an Iraqi man staring at our American colleague, who had some stray reddish-blond hair sticking out from under her headscarf. Sahar heard him sputter, "An American, one with blue eyes, has the nerve to show up here?" It was time to go.
We rejoined Chalabi's convoy without incident and thanked our sweet young guard for his protection. We made a quick stop at a food warehouse where Chalabi and the deputy trade minister inquired about rations shipments, electricity and other sorely lacking basic services. Sahar and I hung back to chat with a bystander, 21-year-old Ali Mohamed.
We asked Ali what Sadr City residents wanted from the Iraqi government.
"Water, electricity, rations," came the quick reply. "Where is the future? From Saddam's time to now, what future do we have?'
We asked Ali what the residents sought from Sadr himself.
"We want him to get rid of the occupation," Ali said. He added that he hasn't yet fought alongside the Mahdi Army, but wouldn't hesitate to take up arms if Sadr issued the call.
"Of course I would go," Ali said. "Who is defending Iraq except him?"
During the drive back to Chalabi's compound I busied myself with taking photos from the tinted windows of our armored SUV. At one point, Sahar nudged me.
"I don't want to frighten you," she said, "but I've counted seven IEDs on this road so far. Look, you can even see the wires coming out."
I put down my camera and gazed at the streets, which were marked with craters from previous roadside bombs. We passed piles of trash, animal carcasses and street vendors' stalls that would have been perfect hiding places for IEDs. But I still didn't see any of the ominous wires Sahar was talking about.
Then I glanced to my right and a brightly colored popcorn stand caught my eye. In front of the stand, very close to the road, was a pile of boxes with a telltale wire snaking out. I alerted Sahar.
"That's number eight," she said.
Posted at 10:14 PM | Permalink
What is surprising about this article is that the visit to Sadr City was arranged by Ahmad Chalabi the former favorite of the Pentagon. He is able to move within the city without fear. Chalabi is an amazing survivor whose political role in Iraq is probably far from over.
Middle East Diary is written by McClatchy Newspapers correspondent Hannah Allam. She's based in Cairo but travels widely through the region. Feel free to send a story suggestion. Read her stories at news.mcclatchy.com.
April 13, 2008
Sadr City
The sounds of sobbing drifted from the open door of a rundown home in Sadr City today. Inside, dozens of black-draped women sat cross-legged on the floor, weeping and beating their chests over the latest death to shake this besieged Baghdad slum with a population of about 3 million.
The focus of this somber gathering was a slight grandmotherly figure whose tears splashed onto her mourning cloak. Only her tiny face, dotted with the indigo tattoos of a tribeswoman, was visible. She sat under a portrait of the Imam Hussein, mouthing prayers and embracing each woman who came to share her grief as a martyr's mother.
It's not hard to imagine that many of the women in the room could empathize with the searing pain of losing a son; hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Iraqi men have perished here in bombings, crossfire, targeted killings, or while fighting against U.S. and Iraqi troops as part of the Mahdi Army.
But this time, the slain son was no ordinary militiaman. He was one of the closest aides and friends of the rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr. Riyadh al Nouri, head of Sadr's office in Najaf, was gunned down by unknown assailants as he made his way home from midday prayers Friday. No group has claimed responsibility for the killing, a brazen strike at Sadr's inner circle, though leaders of the movement blame the U.S. military occupation for the violent landscape where bullets too often settle political disputes.
I ended up sitting on the floor with Nouri's mother and her friends because of Ahmad Chalabi, who had invited two Western reporters and an Iraqi television crew to accompany him as he paid his respects at the funeral in Sadr City. (Another funeral was going on down in Najaf, where Nouri was killed.) When Chalabi and the cameras disappeared into the men's tent, the rest of us -- a female American reporter for another U.S. newspaper, my Iraqi colleague Sahar and me -- decided to visit the women's area.
This was the first time in nearly two years that I've walked around in Sadr City, and the first time I've ever visited without our company's own drivers to watch our backs. A young plainclothes guard led us through garbage-strewn alleyways to the home where the women had gathered in solidarity with Nouri's mother.
During the pins-and-needles walk to the home, I scanned rooftops for snipers and saw none. My eyes locked with those of a menacing-looking young militiaman with a Sadr badge pinned to his shirt. He offered a half-smile and said, "Welcome" in Arabic. Naked, filthy children peeked out of their squalid homes. Little boys played soccer in the dirt. A father held his daughter's tiny hand as they crossed the street and stopped at an ice-cream stand. Life was going on as usual in Sadr City, a place that manages to be simultaneously dismal and vibrant.
But with all the U.S. air strikes and clashes here in the past couple of weeks, Sahar and I were keenly aware of the myriad dangers that still lurk in the warrens of Sadr City. Walking alone in this volatile territory left me feeling more exposed than perhaps at any time during my five years of covering Iraq. Sahar whispered for us not to say a word in English, but of course it was obvious we were outsiders. The baby-faced guard who led us to the home said that we need not worry, and it turned out that he was right.
Believe what you will about Chalabi being a has-been (or worse); precious few other Iraqi politicians can sail into Sadr City with foreigners in tow and receive ironclad guarantees of safety from the feared Mahdi Army. The militiamen greeted him with embraces, just a day after Sadr issued a statement that discouraged the targeting of Iraqis unless they have helped the occupation.
You might wonder, as I do, how Chalabi, the onetime Pentagon darling who fell out of American graces, the man who ushered U.S. forces into Iraq, the secular intellectual with dubious associates around the globe, is able to preserve such close ties to the Shiite Islamist, anti-American Sadr movement. We might never know the full story.
Critics will say that Chalabi's trip to Sadr City today amounted to grandstanding; supporters will counter that it's about time an Iraqi official, any Iraqi official, dropped in to see firsthand the suffering of Sadr City's embattled residents. Whatever the case, I was just grateful to tag along and finally be able to soak up the dizzying sights of Sadr's sprawling Baghdad stronghold without the usual wrangling with local militia commanders or U.S. military embed coordinators.
Cold, stunned stares greeted us as we arrived at the home where Nouri's mother sat crying among her relatives and supporters. Mourners packed two large rooms that had been emptied of furniture. I asked a female official from the Sadr office if I could take pictures. "No" was the answer. I asked again, offering to show her the photos on my digital camera. She agreed, but only after she returned with an extra layer of black cloth to cover even more of Nouri's mother's face, including her beautiful traditional tattoos. The mother is a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, the woman warned, so no photograph should show her unveiled.
Feeling highly conspicuous, we only stayed for a few minutes -- just long enough to snap a few photos, mumble our condolences to the mother (who kissed us and thanked us for coming) and listen to the low-pitched mourning chants of some of the women. Arabic condolences can sound a bit unkind when translated into English, but they are based in the Islamic tradition of limiting mourning to a set time period and then moving on with life, knowing that the deceased is in a better place.
"He was taken! He was taken!" sobbed a woman sitting next to Nouri's mother.
"May God take him from your heart as he was taken from your eyes!" another woman cried.
As is customary, we'd taken off our shoes at the door and had to fish them from a jumble of women's sandals on our way out. As we exited, Sahar noticed an Iraqi man staring at our American colleague, who had some stray reddish-blond hair sticking out from under her headscarf. Sahar heard him sputter, "An American, one with blue eyes, has the nerve to show up here?" It was time to go.
We rejoined Chalabi's convoy without incident and thanked our sweet young guard for his protection. We made a quick stop at a food warehouse where Chalabi and the deputy trade minister inquired about rations shipments, electricity and other sorely lacking basic services. Sahar and I hung back to chat with a bystander, 21-year-old Ali Mohamed.
We asked Ali what Sadr City residents wanted from the Iraqi government.
"Water, electricity, rations," came the quick reply. "Where is the future? From Saddam's time to now, what future do we have?'
We asked Ali what the residents sought from Sadr himself.
"We want him to get rid of the occupation," Ali said. He added that he hasn't yet fought alongside the Mahdi Army, but wouldn't hesitate to take up arms if Sadr issued the call.
"Of course I would go," Ali said. "Who is defending Iraq except him?"
During the drive back to Chalabi's compound I busied myself with taking photos from the tinted windows of our armored SUV. At one point, Sahar nudged me.
"I don't want to frighten you," she said, "but I've counted seven IEDs on this road so far. Look, you can even see the wires coming out."
I put down my camera and gazed at the streets, which were marked with craters from previous roadside bombs. We passed piles of trash, animal carcasses and street vendors' stalls that would have been perfect hiding places for IEDs. But I still didn't see any of the ominous wires Sahar was talking about.
Then I glanced to my right and a brightly colored popcorn stand caught my eye. In front of the stand, very close to the road, was a pile of boxes with a telltale wire snaking out. I alerted Sahar.
"That's number eight," she said.
Posted at 10:14 PM | Permalink
A comparison of U.S. health care system with 5 other countries
This is from the NY Times. Many of the best systems such as France are not even discussed. Also, insurance premiums are hardly an efficient mechanism for paying for care. As the article notes Britain has none. Some Canadian provinces have premiums but most do not. Some that had premiums have done away with them and simply paid costs out of general tax revenues. If you have premiums you are faced with adopting some mechanism for seeing that the least well off do not need to pay. Of course one has to collect the premiums as well.
Lower Insurance Premiums and Better Care: Un-American Health Delivery
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
DiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy MIKE HALE
Published: April 15, 2008
If your latest battle with your H.M.O. has you pounding your head with frustration, “Sick Around the World” on PBS may spur you to more drastic action, like leaving the United States altogether.
In this “Frontline” report on Tuesday night, the Washington Post reporter T. R. Reid travels to five countries — Britain, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland — that manage to provide some form of universal health coverage to their populations. In each nation, he reports, insurance premiums are significantly lower than those in America (in Britain there are none), and the waiting time to see a doctor is either tolerable (in Britain) or nonexistent.
This fast-moving and entertaining hour starts from the premise that the American health care system, with its high costs, multiple gatekeepers and failure to provide insurance for much of the population, is a failure. And Mr. Reid makes the case (in about 10 minutes per country) that other capitalist democracies have not just cheaper and more equally available health care, but also better care over all, with longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates. The clinics and hospitals he visits may not be as spacious and well buffed as those in American suburbs, but surveys of these countries’ citizens — the actual consumers of care — show rates of satisfaction that should make American providers blush.
How do they do it? The British, of course, have done it by nationalizing the medical profession, and Mr. Reid, who’s on the lookout for ideas that will work in the United States, admits that this one’s a nonstarter. In the other countries, however, the systems — doctors, hospitals, insurers — are for the most part private, and the difference lies in government regulation that is heavy by current American standards but far short of socialism.
The key factors, Mr. Reid determines, are mandatory coverage (only in Germany are the rich allowed to opt out of the national insurance system), a competitive but nonprofit insurance system and price fixing in the medical industry. One of the greatest savings created by this increased regulation is, counter-intuitively, less bureaucracy: with no combat between insurers and insured, and with no fear on the part of doctors and hospitals that they won’t be paid, these systems have dramatically lower administrative costs than in America.
Nothing is perfect, of course. We see German doctors taking to the streets in mass protests over the low payments they receive. We learn that the Japanese and Taiwanese systems are running at a deficit, which will mean either higher fees or higher taxes. But even if those Asian countries were to make up their deficits immediately, they would still be spending only half as much of their gross domestic product on health care as the United States — and, by all accounts, providing far more to their people than the “safety nets” that our presidential candidates propose as solutions to the American crisis.
One area “Sick Around the World” doesn’t explore is the one that probably makes many Americans — those well above the poverty line, anyway — most nervous about the idea of medical regulation: the availability of the kind of heroic, expensive care we expect when our hearts fail, or cancer strikes. That kind of care is the subject of “The Truth About Cancer,” another PBS health special, on Wednesday night.
In this program the television producer Linda Garmon documents the battles of her husband and several other Boston-area patients against different forms of lethal cancer — mesothelioma, pancreatic cancer, adult leukemia — in a film that is alternately scattered and emotionally wrenching. It’s really about Ms. Garmon’s own process of discovering what’s important, for the patient and the family, after a diagnosis of cancer, and that it’s not always one more round of chemo or the latest experimental drug.
FRONTLINE
Sick Around the World
On most PBS stations on Tuesday night; check local listings.
Lower Insurance Premiums and Better Care: Un-American Health Delivery
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
DiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy MIKE HALE
Published: April 15, 2008
If your latest battle with your H.M.O. has you pounding your head with frustration, “Sick Around the World” on PBS may spur you to more drastic action, like leaving the United States altogether.
In this “Frontline” report on Tuesday night, the Washington Post reporter T. R. Reid travels to five countries — Britain, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland — that manage to provide some form of universal health coverage to their populations. In each nation, he reports, insurance premiums are significantly lower than those in America (in Britain there are none), and the waiting time to see a doctor is either tolerable (in Britain) or nonexistent.
This fast-moving and entertaining hour starts from the premise that the American health care system, with its high costs, multiple gatekeepers and failure to provide insurance for much of the population, is a failure. And Mr. Reid makes the case (in about 10 minutes per country) that other capitalist democracies have not just cheaper and more equally available health care, but also better care over all, with longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates. The clinics and hospitals he visits may not be as spacious and well buffed as those in American suburbs, but surveys of these countries’ citizens — the actual consumers of care — show rates of satisfaction that should make American providers blush.
How do they do it? The British, of course, have done it by nationalizing the medical profession, and Mr. Reid, who’s on the lookout for ideas that will work in the United States, admits that this one’s a nonstarter. In the other countries, however, the systems — doctors, hospitals, insurers — are for the most part private, and the difference lies in government regulation that is heavy by current American standards but far short of socialism.
The key factors, Mr. Reid determines, are mandatory coverage (only in Germany are the rich allowed to opt out of the national insurance system), a competitive but nonprofit insurance system and price fixing in the medical industry. One of the greatest savings created by this increased regulation is, counter-intuitively, less bureaucracy: with no combat between insurers and insured, and with no fear on the part of doctors and hospitals that they won’t be paid, these systems have dramatically lower administrative costs than in America.
Nothing is perfect, of course. We see German doctors taking to the streets in mass protests over the low payments they receive. We learn that the Japanese and Taiwanese systems are running at a deficit, which will mean either higher fees or higher taxes. But even if those Asian countries were to make up their deficits immediately, they would still be spending only half as much of their gross domestic product on health care as the United States — and, by all accounts, providing far more to their people than the “safety nets” that our presidential candidates propose as solutions to the American crisis.
One area “Sick Around the World” doesn’t explore is the one that probably makes many Americans — those well above the poverty line, anyway — most nervous about the idea of medical regulation: the availability of the kind of heroic, expensive care we expect when our hearts fail, or cancer strikes. That kind of care is the subject of “The Truth About Cancer,” another PBS health special, on Wednesday night.
In this program the television producer Linda Garmon documents the battles of her husband and several other Boston-area patients against different forms of lethal cancer — mesothelioma, pancreatic cancer, adult leukemia — in a film that is alternately scattered and emotionally wrenching. It’s really about Ms. Garmon’s own process of discovering what’s important, for the patient and the family, after a diagnosis of cancer, and that it’s not always one more round of chemo or the latest experimental drug.
FRONTLINE
Sick Around the World
On most PBS stations on Tuesday night; check local listings.
The Price of the Surge..
This article has an interesting analysis of the effect of the surge that goes counter to the conventional view that the surge is working or at least that it will work in the long run. As recent violence has shown there is still no accomodation among different factions even competing Shiite factions. The U.S. buying off of some Sunni insurgents to fight Al Qaeda was never sanctioned by the Maliki government and the resulting "militia" are not being assimilated into the Iraqi forces.
The Price of the Surge
How U.S. Strategy Is Hastening Iraq's Demise
Steven Simon
From Foreign Affairs, May / June 2008
STEVEN SIMON is Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern
Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 1994 to 1999, he
served on the National Security Council in positions including Senior
Director for Transnational Threats.
In January 2007, President George W. Bush announced a new approach to
the war in Iraq. At the time, sectarian and insurgent violence
appeared to be spiraling out of control, and Democrats in Washington
-- newly in control of both houses of Congress -- were demanding that
the administration start winding down the war. Bush knew he needed to
change course, but he refused to, as he put it, "give up the goal of
winning." So rather than acquiesce to calls for withdrawal, he
decided to ramp up U.S. efforts. With a "surge" in troops, a new
emphasis on counterinsurgency strategy, and new commanders overseeing
that strategy, Bush declared, the deteriorating situation could be
turned around. More than a year on, a growing conventional wisdom
holds that the surge has paid off handsomely. U.S. casualties are
down significantly from their peak in mid-2007, the level of violence
in Iraq is lower than at any point since 2005, and Baghdad seems the
safest it has been since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime five
years ago. Some backers of the surge even argue that the Iraqi civil
war is over and that victory on Washington's terms is in sight -- so
long as the United States has the will to see its current efforts
through to their conclusion. Unfortunately, such claims misconstrue
the causes of the recent fall in violence and, more important, ignore
a fatal flaw in the strategy. The surge has changed the situation not
by itself but only in conjunction with several other developments:
the grim successes of ethnic cleansing, the tactical quiescence of
the Shiite militias, and a series of deals between U.S. forces and
Sunni tribes that constitute a new bottom-up approach to pacifying
Iraq. The problem is that this strategy to reduce violence is not
linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state. If
anything, it has made such an outcome less likely, by stoking the
revanchist fantasies of Sunni Arab tribes and pitting them against
the central government and against one another. In other words, the
recent short-term gains have come at the expense of the long-term
goal of a stable, unitary Iraq. Despite the current lull in violence,
Washington needs to shift from a unilateral bottom-up surge strategy
to a policy that promotes, rather than undermines, Iraq's cohesion.
That means establishing an effective multilateral process to spur top-
down political reconciliation among the major Iraqi factions. And
that, in turn, means stating firmly and clearly that most U.S. forces
will be withdrawn from Iraq within two or three years. Otherwise, a
strategy adopted for near-term advantage by a frustrated
administration will only increase the likelihood of long-term debacle.
[...]
The Price of the Surge
How U.S. Strategy Is Hastening Iraq's Demise
Steven Simon
From Foreign Affairs, May / June 2008
STEVEN SIMON is Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern
Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 1994 to 1999, he
served on the National Security Council in positions including Senior
Director for Transnational Threats.
In January 2007, President George W. Bush announced a new approach to
the war in Iraq. At the time, sectarian and insurgent violence
appeared to be spiraling out of control, and Democrats in Washington
-- newly in control of both houses of Congress -- were demanding that
the administration start winding down the war. Bush knew he needed to
change course, but he refused to, as he put it, "give up the goal of
winning." So rather than acquiesce to calls for withdrawal, he
decided to ramp up U.S. efforts. With a "surge" in troops, a new
emphasis on counterinsurgency strategy, and new commanders overseeing
that strategy, Bush declared, the deteriorating situation could be
turned around. More than a year on, a growing conventional wisdom
holds that the surge has paid off handsomely. U.S. casualties are
down significantly from their peak in mid-2007, the level of violence
in Iraq is lower than at any point since 2005, and Baghdad seems the
safest it has been since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime five
years ago. Some backers of the surge even argue that the Iraqi civil
war is over and that victory on Washington's terms is in sight -- so
long as the United States has the will to see its current efforts
through to their conclusion. Unfortunately, such claims misconstrue
the causes of the recent fall in violence and, more important, ignore
a fatal flaw in the strategy. The surge has changed the situation not
by itself but only in conjunction with several other developments:
the grim successes of ethnic cleansing, the tactical quiescence of
the Shiite militias, and a series of deals between U.S. forces and
Sunni tribes that constitute a new bottom-up approach to pacifying
Iraq. The problem is that this strategy to reduce violence is not
linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state. If
anything, it has made such an outcome less likely, by stoking the
revanchist fantasies of Sunni Arab tribes and pitting them against
the central government and against one another. In other words, the
recent short-term gains have come at the expense of the long-term
goal of a stable, unitary Iraq. Despite the current lull in violence,
Washington needs to shift from a unilateral bottom-up surge strategy
to a policy that promotes, rather than undermines, Iraq's cohesion.
That means establishing an effective multilateral process to spur top-
down political reconciliation among the major Iraqi factions. And
that, in turn, means stating firmly and clearly that most U.S. forces
will be withdrawn from Iraq within two or three years. Otherwise, a
strategy adopted for near-term advantage by a frustrated
administration will only increase the likelihood of long-term debacle.
[...]
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
U.S. Iraq far apart on security pacts
Note that Iraq will present the agreement to parliament given them a say in the agreement. It is clear that the Bush regime is hell bent on seeing that this does not happen in the U.S.
The U.S. is still insistent that soldiers and contractors have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law and the U.S. will wants freedom to decide when and where to launch attacks without the consent of the Iraqi government.
US, Iraq far apart on security pacts
Wide Differences Slow Negotiations on US-Iraqi Security Pacts, Iraqis Say
QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
AP News
Apr 14, 2008 12:21 EST
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators are far apart over key issues in talks to replace the U.N. mandate that governs American military operations in this country, Iraqi officials said Monday.
Talks began last month on a strategic framework agreement providing for long-term bilateral ties and a separate status of forces pact that spells out the regulations governing U.S. military operations in Iraq.
U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said the two sides have exchanged "a number of drafts and proposals." She refused to give details because negotiations continue.
However, Iraqi officials familiar with the discussions said significant differences exist on the major issues of immunity for U.S. personnel and contractors, authority to order raids and attacks and detention of people believed a threat to security.
The officials refused to discuss the differences in detail and spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to talk about the negotiations.
Those three issues have caused friction in the past between the U.S. military and the Iraqi government.
The Iraqis have from time to time demanded an end to the immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law enjoyed by U.S. soldiers and U.S. government contractors and have criticized U.S. military operations in some populated areas such as the Sadr City district of northeastern Baghdad.
U.S. officials claim authority under the U.N. mandate to detain indefinitely anyone suspected of being a threat to coalition forces. The mandate expires at the end of this year.
Last December, President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a statement of principles regarding future U.S.-Iraqi relations and said they planned to finalize a new security agreement by July 31.
Nantongo said the Iraqi government intends to submit the agreement to Iraq's parliament for ratification, a move which could spell trouble for the document if it is perceived as being too generous to the Americans.
Source: AP News
The U.S. is still insistent that soldiers and contractors have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law and the U.S. will wants freedom to decide when and where to launch attacks without the consent of the Iraqi government.
US, Iraq far apart on security pacts
Wide Differences Slow Negotiations on US-Iraqi Security Pacts, Iraqis Say
QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
AP News
Apr 14, 2008 12:21 EST
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators are far apart over key issues in talks to replace the U.N. mandate that governs American military operations in this country, Iraqi officials said Monday.
Talks began last month on a strategic framework agreement providing for long-term bilateral ties and a separate status of forces pact that spells out the regulations governing U.S. military operations in Iraq.
U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said the two sides have exchanged "a number of drafts and proposals." She refused to give details because negotiations continue.
However, Iraqi officials familiar with the discussions said significant differences exist on the major issues of immunity for U.S. personnel and contractors, authority to order raids and attacks and detention of people believed a threat to security.
The officials refused to discuss the differences in detail and spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to talk about the negotiations.
Those three issues have caused friction in the past between the U.S. military and the Iraqi government.
The Iraqis have from time to time demanded an end to the immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law enjoyed by U.S. soldiers and U.S. government contractors and have criticized U.S. military operations in some populated areas such as the Sadr City district of northeastern Baghdad.
U.S. officials claim authority under the U.N. mandate to detain indefinitely anyone suspected of being a threat to coalition forces. The mandate expires at the end of this year.
Last December, President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a statement of principles regarding future U.S.-Iraqi relations and said they planned to finalize a new security agreement by July 31.
Nantongo said the Iraqi government intends to submit the agreement to Iraq's parliament for ratification, a move which could spell trouble for the document if it is perceived as being too generous to the Americans.
Source: AP News
Carter offers to act as "communicator" between Hamas, US, Israel.
This is from Haaretz.
It is a wonder that Israelis talk to themselves given their propensity not to talk with terrorists. Israel and the U.S. want a weak and compliant Abbas to deal with not Hamas even though Hamas is willing to broker a deal. Perhaps Carter will be able to get the long held Israeli soldier held by Hamas released. Even if he does it is unlikely that Israel will give much if anything in return. The refusal of Israel to provide security for Carter is rather astonishing given that they have always provided security for U.S. presidents or ex-presidents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last update - 23:21 14/04/2008
Carter offers to act as 'communicator' between Hamas, U.S., Israel
By Fadi Eyadat, Haaretz Correspondent Reuters
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, defending a contentious plan to meet the leader of Hamas, said Monday he hoped to become a conduit between the militant group and Washington and even Israel.
"Isolating Hamas is counterproductive," Carter said.
Hamas rules Gaza but is ostracized by Israel, the U.S. and Europe as a terror group.
"I think it is absolutely crucial that in the final and dreamed-about and
prayed-for peace agreement for this region that Hamas be involved and Syria will be involved," Carter told a business conference outside Tel Aviv.
"I can't say that they will be amenable to any suggestions, but at least after I meet with them I can go back and relay what they say, as just a
communicator, to the leaders of the United States," he said.
Earlier on Monday, Carter visited the southern town of Sderot, a frequent target of Qassam rocket fire from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, and met the city's mayor, Eli Moyal, and other municipal officials.
"I think it's a despicable crime for any deliberate effort to be made to kill innocent civilians, and my hope is there will be a cease-fire soon," Carter said during his visit.
Following the visit, Moyal said: "I don't believe that Carter can bring calm and peace and I think his meeting with Meshal is arbitrary and will do nothing to advance Israel's interests," Moyal said, referring to Carter's plans to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Damascus this week.
Olmert's office had no immediate comment.
Carter said Monday that a deal for the release of Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit would top the agenda of his discussions with Meshal.
The Bush administration and close U.S. ally Israel oppose Carter's planned meeting with Meshal, whose Islamist group won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 but was boycotted by the West for refusing to renounce violence and recognize Israel.
Israel and the United States have sought to isolate Hamas, which seized control of the Gaza Strip in June from more secular Fatah forces loyal to Abbas. Abbas holds sway in the West Bank and has launched U.S.-backed peace talks with Olmert.
Hamas leaders have offered a long-term truce with Israel in return for a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but the group's 1988 founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner, who brokered Israel's first peace treaty with an Arab neighbor, Egypt, signed in 1979, met President Shimon Peres on Sunday but was shunned by most of the political leadership, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
In talks with MK Yossi Beilin in Jerusalem on Monday, Carter said he believed a release deal was possible and intended to make it a central aspect of his discussions with the Islamist leader.
Carter also said he would raise the importance of a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and a halt to rocket fire on southern Israel during the meeting.
The former U.S. leader told Beilin that in his efforts to solve international conflicts, he worked on a principle of talking with all possible sources.
Carter told Haaretz Sunday in an exclusive interview that he intends to check Meshal's willingness to accept the Arab League peace initiative. Carter says that acceptance of this plan by Hamas would be a very positive step.
Shin Bet security service declines request to assist in Carter security detail
Shin Bet security service has declined to assist Carter during his visit, U.S. sources close to the matter said on Monday.
An American source described the snub as an "unprecedented" breach between the Shin Bet and the U.S. Secret Service, which protects all current and former U.S. presidents, as well as Israeli leaders when they visit the United States.
Government sources on Monday described the lack of Shin Bet during Carter's visit to Sderot, an area often hit by rockets from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, as particularly "problematic".
Carter angered the Israeli government with plans to meet with Hamas leaders and for describing Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories as "a system of apartheid" in a 2006 book.
Israel has also rejected Carter's request to meet jailed Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti, who is seen as a possible successor to President Mahmoud Abbas, a spokesman for Carter said.
Barghouthi was convicted in 2004 of murder by an Israeli court over the killing of four Israelis and a Greek Orthodox monk in attacks by Palestinian militants. He is serving five life sentences.
American sources close to the matter said the Shin Bet, which helps protect visiting dignitaries and is overseen by Olmert's office, declined to meet the head of Carter's Secret Service security detail or provide his team with assistance as is customary during such visits.
"They're not getting support from local security," an American source said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a wonder that Israelis talk to themselves given their propensity not to talk with terrorists. Israel and the U.S. want a weak and compliant Abbas to deal with not Hamas even though Hamas is willing to broker a deal. Perhaps Carter will be able to get the long held Israeli soldier held by Hamas released. Even if he does it is unlikely that Israel will give much if anything in return. The refusal of Israel to provide security for Carter is rather astonishing given that they have always provided security for U.S. presidents or ex-presidents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last update - 23:21 14/04/2008
Carter offers to act as 'communicator' between Hamas, U.S., Israel
By Fadi Eyadat, Haaretz Correspondent Reuters
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, defending a contentious plan to meet the leader of Hamas, said Monday he hoped to become a conduit between the militant group and Washington and even Israel.
"Isolating Hamas is counterproductive," Carter said.
Hamas rules Gaza but is ostracized by Israel, the U.S. and Europe as a terror group.
"I think it is absolutely crucial that in the final and dreamed-about and
prayed-for peace agreement for this region that Hamas be involved and Syria will be involved," Carter told a business conference outside Tel Aviv.
"I can't say that they will be amenable to any suggestions, but at least after I meet with them I can go back and relay what they say, as just a
communicator, to the leaders of the United States," he said.
Earlier on Monday, Carter visited the southern town of Sderot, a frequent target of Qassam rocket fire from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, and met the city's mayor, Eli Moyal, and other municipal officials.
"I think it's a despicable crime for any deliberate effort to be made to kill innocent civilians, and my hope is there will be a cease-fire soon," Carter said during his visit.
Following the visit, Moyal said: "I don't believe that Carter can bring calm and peace and I think his meeting with Meshal is arbitrary and will do nothing to advance Israel's interests," Moyal said, referring to Carter's plans to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Damascus this week.
Olmert's office had no immediate comment.
Carter said Monday that a deal for the release of Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit would top the agenda of his discussions with Meshal.
The Bush administration and close U.S. ally Israel oppose Carter's planned meeting with Meshal, whose Islamist group won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 but was boycotted by the West for refusing to renounce violence and recognize Israel.
Israel and the United States have sought to isolate Hamas, which seized control of the Gaza Strip in June from more secular Fatah forces loyal to Abbas. Abbas holds sway in the West Bank and has launched U.S.-backed peace talks with Olmert.
Hamas leaders have offered a long-term truce with Israel in return for a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but the group's 1988 founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner, who brokered Israel's first peace treaty with an Arab neighbor, Egypt, signed in 1979, met President Shimon Peres on Sunday but was shunned by most of the political leadership, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
In talks with MK Yossi Beilin in Jerusalem on Monday, Carter said he believed a release deal was possible and intended to make it a central aspect of his discussions with the Islamist leader.
Carter also said he would raise the importance of a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and a halt to rocket fire on southern Israel during the meeting.
The former U.S. leader told Beilin that in his efforts to solve international conflicts, he worked on a principle of talking with all possible sources.
Carter told Haaretz Sunday in an exclusive interview that he intends to check Meshal's willingness to accept the Arab League peace initiative. Carter says that acceptance of this plan by Hamas would be a very positive step.
Shin Bet security service declines request to assist in Carter security detail
Shin Bet security service has declined to assist Carter during his visit, U.S. sources close to the matter said on Monday.
An American source described the snub as an "unprecedented" breach between the Shin Bet and the U.S. Secret Service, which protects all current and former U.S. presidents, as well as Israeli leaders when they visit the United States.
Government sources on Monday described the lack of Shin Bet during Carter's visit to Sderot, an area often hit by rockets from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, as particularly "problematic".
Carter angered the Israeli government with plans to meet with Hamas leaders and for describing Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories as "a system of apartheid" in a 2006 book.
Israel has also rejected Carter's request to meet jailed Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti, who is seen as a possible successor to President Mahmoud Abbas, a spokesman for Carter said.
Barghouthi was convicted in 2004 of murder by an Israeli court over the killing of four Israelis and a Greek Orthodox monk in attacks by Palestinian militants. He is serving five life sentences.
American sources close to the matter said the Shin Bet, which helps protect visiting dignitaries and is overseen by Olmert's office, declined to meet the head of Carter's Secret Service security detail or provide his team with assistance as is customary during such visits.
"They're not getting support from local security," an American source said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, April 14, 2008
Maoists win in Nepal
This is from a blogger in Nepal who fortunately for many of us blogs in English!
It remains to be seen whether everyone accepts the results. If the Maoists had done badly the civil war would probably have resumed. What will the U.S. do. The Nepalese Maoists are on the U.S. list of terrorist organisations. Does the U.S. recognise a country run by terrorists?
Optimistic Look at Maoists Sweep in Nepal Election
Once again, Nepalis surprised themselves. The Maoists sweep (still to complete but it is confirmed that the Maoists will establish itself as the leading party in the Nepal CA Election as they are way ahead than any other political outfit of Nepal) was something that the political analysts, media and leaders failed to predict.
Nepalis voted for change, and no wonder the new party with new agenda, was the one that the people hoped would be best for bring the change.
And, the old parties failed to understand the wave – they went for same old faces (in most of cases, ignoring youth who the large portion of the voters, youth, would have easily associated themselves with). And, they suffered as the top leaders failed to win.
The election was held after eight years in Nepal, and the large portion of the voters voted for the first time. Those grew up witnessing one of the most troubled times of the country and hearing the frustrations of parents towards the political parties.
Now that Maoists have got the people’s mandate, the worse fear for us is that they could deviate themselves from the democratic process and try to establish a communist nation (which looks largely unlikely).Otherwise, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the victory. Here are three of mine:
Success of Peace Process: The win of Maoists means that the exemplary peace process will not be derailed. Democracy wins here. Had Maoists suffered a heavy defeat, there could be a danger to the process.
Change! Change!! Change!! : If any party is likely to bring revolutionary changes in Nepal, it has to be Maoists. They are under pressure to do so otherwise when the general election will be held in two (or two and half) years, they are likely to suffer heavily as the people will put them on the same footings as of the ‘old talk-big-do-nothing parties’.
More Changes: Well, now Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (UML) have to look back at their policy, strategy and tactics and review it hard. They need to go back to people and reconcile and it would be good if all party started caring for the people (something that they
seriously missed in last 18 years). And, next time, there will be new faces for all those parties.
Congratulations to Maoists! May you change the face of Nepal (after all that is going to give benefits to all Nepalis regardless of whom they voted for). And, also for all other parties and people, let’s give up the party politics after the election and join hands for the nation building! (of course, the parties can resume party things in the General Election).
It remains to be seen whether everyone accepts the results. If the Maoists had done badly the civil war would probably have resumed. What will the U.S. do. The Nepalese Maoists are on the U.S. list of terrorist organisations. Does the U.S. recognise a country run by terrorists?
Optimistic Look at Maoists Sweep in Nepal Election
Once again, Nepalis surprised themselves. The Maoists sweep (still to complete but it is confirmed that the Maoists will establish itself as the leading party in the Nepal CA Election as they are way ahead than any other political outfit of Nepal) was something that the political analysts, media and leaders failed to predict.
Nepalis voted for change, and no wonder the new party with new agenda, was the one that the people hoped would be best for bring the change.
And, the old parties failed to understand the wave – they went for same old faces (in most of cases, ignoring youth who the large portion of the voters, youth, would have easily associated themselves with). And, they suffered as the top leaders failed to win.
The election was held after eight years in Nepal, and the large portion of the voters voted for the first time. Those grew up witnessing one of the most troubled times of the country and hearing the frustrations of parents towards the political parties.
Now that Maoists have got the people’s mandate, the worse fear for us is that they could deviate themselves from the democratic process and try to establish a communist nation (which looks largely unlikely).Otherwise, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the victory. Here are three of mine:
Success of Peace Process: The win of Maoists means that the exemplary peace process will not be derailed. Democracy wins here. Had Maoists suffered a heavy defeat, there could be a danger to the process.
Change! Change!! Change!! : If any party is likely to bring revolutionary changes in Nepal, it has to be Maoists. They are under pressure to do so otherwise when the general election will be held in two (or two and half) years, they are likely to suffer heavily as the people will put them on the same footings as of the ‘old talk-big-do-nothing parties’.
More Changes: Well, now Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (UML) have to look back at their policy, strategy and tactics and review it hard. They need to go back to people and reconcile and it would be good if all party started caring for the people (something that they
seriously missed in last 18 years). And, next time, there will be new faces for all those parties.
Congratulations to Maoists! May you change the face of Nepal (after all that is going to give benefits to all Nepalis regardless of whom they voted for). And, also for all other parties and people, let’s give up the party politics after the election and join hands for the nation building! (of course, the parties can resume party things in the General Election).
Sunday, April 13, 2008
U.S. skips meeting to ban cluster bombs.
This is from Wiredispatch. All the great humanitarian countries such as Russia, China, and the United States want to keep these bombs for "legitimate military purposes" but even if they are used in areas where there are only enemy troops they leave many unexploded bomblets that cause untold collateral damage long afterword just as do land mines. Of course they have been used both by the U.S. and Israel in locales where even on impact there will be collateral damage.
US to skip cluster bomb meeting
US to Skip Cluster Bomb Meeting in Dublin, Focus on Geneva Talks
FRANK JORDANS
AP News
Apr 11, 2008 12:42 EST
The United States will skip a meeting in Dublin next month that aims to ban cluster bombs, officials said Friday.
Instead, Washington will focus on separate United Nations talks in Geneva that will restrict — but not ban — the use of the weapon, the head of the U.S. delegation said.
The U.N. talks will aim to draft a legally binding protocol to address the humanitarian impact of cluster bombs, said Stephen Mathias, a State Department lawyer. The protocol may also include nonbinding best practice guidelines for militaries, he said.
"We don't accept for a moment that the only game in town is the Oslo Process," Mathias said, referring to the breakaway talks organized by countries frustrated with the pace of U.N. negotiations.
More than 100 countries are expected to meet May 19-30 in Dublin, where they will try to forge a final agreement on banning a weapon they consider a serious threat to civilians.
Cluster bombs are built to explode above the ground and release thousands of small bomblets primed to detonate on impact.
Combat results show that 10 to 40 percent of the bomblets fail to go off on impact but can explode later, killing and maiming civilians. Children are particularly vulnerable as they are attracted to the bright flashlight-battery sized bomblets.
The United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel oppose a ban on cluster bombs, arguing that there are legitimate military uses for the weapon.
Source: AP News
US to skip cluster bomb meeting
US to Skip Cluster Bomb Meeting in Dublin, Focus on Geneva Talks
FRANK JORDANS
AP News
Apr 11, 2008 12:42 EST
The United States will skip a meeting in Dublin next month that aims to ban cluster bombs, officials said Friday.
Instead, Washington will focus on separate United Nations talks in Geneva that will restrict — but not ban — the use of the weapon, the head of the U.S. delegation said.
The U.N. talks will aim to draft a legally binding protocol to address the humanitarian impact of cluster bombs, said Stephen Mathias, a State Department lawyer. The protocol may also include nonbinding best practice guidelines for militaries, he said.
"We don't accept for a moment that the only game in town is the Oslo Process," Mathias said, referring to the breakaway talks organized by countries frustrated with the pace of U.N. negotiations.
More than 100 countries are expected to meet May 19-30 in Dublin, where they will try to forge a final agreement on banning a weapon they consider a serious threat to civilians.
Cluster bombs are built to explode above the ground and release thousands of small bomblets primed to detonate on impact.
Combat results show that 10 to 40 percent of the bomblets fail to go off on impact but can explode later, killing and maiming civilians. Children are particularly vulnerable as they are attracted to the bright flashlight-battery sized bomblets.
The United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel oppose a ban on cluster bombs, arguing that there are legitimate military uses for the weapon.
Source: AP News
How to Balance Farmer and Consumer Interests
This is from the Inquirer. So one reason that there is not greater Philippine production is because the Agriculture Department received only half their budget at least until the government finally realises it must do something. The Arroyo govt. has also increased it support price by 5 pesos a kilo.
The author seems optimistic about the efficacy of voluntary price controls but I just wonder how well that will work.
How to balance farmer and consumer interests
By Ernesto Ordoñez
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:11:00 04/12/2008
MANILA, Philippines--The fact is that there is no rice supply shortage today. We have a 54-day buffer stock, ongoing harvests, and arriving importations.
However, there is a shortage in our own rice production. That is why the government is planning to import 2.2 million metric tons of rice this year, almost four times the 0.6 million tons we imported in 2000.
If the imports do not come, then we will have a full-blown rice shortage and crisis.
In fairness, the government did not give the Department of Agriculture (DA) an adequate budget during the past decade. Instead of providing the minimum P32.7-billion annual budget required by the Agriculture Fisheries Modernization Act since 1998, the DA received an average budget of only P16.7 billion, half the mandated amount.
It is therefore most welcome that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has announced a P43.7-billion support for food supply.
It is hoped that the rice master plan we started in 2002, but abandoned in 2003 with new management, will be resurrected and completed this year. This way, the budget for rice will be spent effectively, guided by this plan, instead of being subjected to possible political whims and knee-jerk solutions.
Impact on farmers
In their own April 1 food conference, Alyansa Agrikultura leaders representing 42 organizations recommended that the rice farmers should be given an increase in the government's support price for rice. The leaders noted that over the years, this price had barely increased, and was much lower than the inflation rate.
Three days later, these leaders rejoiced when President Arroyo announced that the National Food Authority (NFA) would increase its support price from P12 to P17 a kilo. The impact to farmer profits is shown in this table using data from the Department of Agriculture and other sources.
Price phenomenon
Unfortunately, because of some unscrupulous traders and retailers, this decision to help farmers has harmed many consumers. An example was reported in the Inquirer's April 10 issue: "A kilo of dinorado rice which was being sold two days ago at P35 was retailed at P42 per kilo yesterday." This is a 20-percent price increase in one day. Obviously, the retailer's cost did not go up by that much.
This phenomenon of unjustified price increases is happening not just to fancy dinorado rice, but also to the well-milled rice bought by the less fortunate great majority of our people.
An NFA official was quoted in many newspapers as saying that the justified retail price is double the farmgate price. Partly because of this and the announced new NFA farmgate price of P17, the retail price has been increasing recently from P28 toward P34.
First of all, the well-milled rice in the market today was bought at lower than the very recently announced P17 farmgate price. Therefore, the increased profits are going not to the farmers, but to the traders and retailers, all at the expense of the consumers.
Secondly, the long lines for NFA rice have given the impression that there is a rice shortage, which in turn motivates increasing prices. The shortage is not in rice, but only in NFA rice. This is sold at P18.25 per kilo, way below the alternative well-milled rice at more than P30 per kilo. Of course, there will be long lines, which will never be satisfied because there will simply not be enough cheap NFA rice.
It is true that retail price is normally about double the farmgate price. But this should not necessarily be followed. If the retailers and traders are satisfied with the same level of their profits, they should pass on to the consumers only the actual cost increases.
In the table above, the increase in farmgate price is P6. If the actual average retail price in 2006 was P24 (which is P2 more than double the price of the farmgate price), then the retail price should be P30, not P34.
It's happening again
But what should be the suggested retail rice price today? Given that the farmgate price at which the current rice supply was bought was below P17, and that there are added justifiable distribution costs that should be considered, the answer can best be given in a meeting with the traders and retailers themselves.
No to price controls
In 2006, when there was a similar perceived rice shortage and prices were increasing beyond justifiable levels, I participated in such a meeting. The retailers and traders, together with DTI and DA officials, computed the actual numbers and came out with a suggested retail price. It was below the prevailing market price that was escalating very rapidly then, a deja vu phenomenon that is happening today.
We agree with Trade Secretary Peter Favila that there should be no price controls, as there were no price controls in 2006. But that year, the suggested retail price (only for well-milled rice) previously agreed upon by the traders and retailers, was posted in the newspapers and the wet market price tags. This successfully brought down the price of well-milled rice.
Though there was no price control, retailers who sold at prices much higher than the suggested retail price were systematically asked what their justification was for their high prices. This was sufficient motivation for them to charge a fair price.
We recommend that this mechanism again be used to balance farmer and consumer interests. For consumers facing the almost daily unjustified price increases, we say: "The sooner the better."
(The author is the chair of Agriwatch, former secretary for Presidential Flagship Programs and Projects, and former undersecretary for agriculture, and trade and industry. For inquiries and suggestions, e-mail agriwatchphil@yahoo.com or telefax (02) 8522112).
The author seems optimistic about the efficacy of voluntary price controls but I just wonder how well that will work.
How to balance farmer and consumer interests
By Ernesto Ordoñez
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:11:00 04/12/2008
MANILA, Philippines--The fact is that there is no rice supply shortage today. We have a 54-day buffer stock, ongoing harvests, and arriving importations.
However, there is a shortage in our own rice production. That is why the government is planning to import 2.2 million metric tons of rice this year, almost four times the 0.6 million tons we imported in 2000.
If the imports do not come, then we will have a full-blown rice shortage and crisis.
In fairness, the government did not give the Department of Agriculture (DA) an adequate budget during the past decade. Instead of providing the minimum P32.7-billion annual budget required by the Agriculture Fisheries Modernization Act since 1998, the DA received an average budget of only P16.7 billion, half the mandated amount.
It is therefore most welcome that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has announced a P43.7-billion support for food supply.
It is hoped that the rice master plan we started in 2002, but abandoned in 2003 with new management, will be resurrected and completed this year. This way, the budget for rice will be spent effectively, guided by this plan, instead of being subjected to possible political whims and knee-jerk solutions.
Impact on farmers
In their own April 1 food conference, Alyansa Agrikultura leaders representing 42 organizations recommended that the rice farmers should be given an increase in the government's support price for rice. The leaders noted that over the years, this price had barely increased, and was much lower than the inflation rate.
Three days later, these leaders rejoiced when President Arroyo announced that the National Food Authority (NFA) would increase its support price from P12 to P17 a kilo. The impact to farmer profits is shown in this table using data from the Department of Agriculture and other sources.
Price phenomenon
Unfortunately, because of some unscrupulous traders and retailers, this decision to help farmers has harmed many consumers. An example was reported in the Inquirer's April 10 issue: "A kilo of dinorado rice which was being sold two days ago at P35 was retailed at P42 per kilo yesterday." This is a 20-percent price increase in one day. Obviously, the retailer's cost did not go up by that much.
This phenomenon of unjustified price increases is happening not just to fancy dinorado rice, but also to the well-milled rice bought by the less fortunate great majority of our people.
An NFA official was quoted in many newspapers as saying that the justified retail price is double the farmgate price. Partly because of this and the announced new NFA farmgate price of P17, the retail price has been increasing recently from P28 toward P34.
First of all, the well-milled rice in the market today was bought at lower than the very recently announced P17 farmgate price. Therefore, the increased profits are going not to the farmers, but to the traders and retailers, all at the expense of the consumers.
Secondly, the long lines for NFA rice have given the impression that there is a rice shortage, which in turn motivates increasing prices. The shortage is not in rice, but only in NFA rice. This is sold at P18.25 per kilo, way below the alternative well-milled rice at more than P30 per kilo. Of course, there will be long lines, which will never be satisfied because there will simply not be enough cheap NFA rice.
It is true that retail price is normally about double the farmgate price. But this should not necessarily be followed. If the retailers and traders are satisfied with the same level of their profits, they should pass on to the consumers only the actual cost increases.
In the table above, the increase in farmgate price is P6. If the actual average retail price in 2006 was P24 (which is P2 more than double the price of the farmgate price), then the retail price should be P30, not P34.
It's happening again
But what should be the suggested retail rice price today? Given that the farmgate price at which the current rice supply was bought was below P17, and that there are added justifiable distribution costs that should be considered, the answer can best be given in a meeting with the traders and retailers themselves.
No to price controls
In 2006, when there was a similar perceived rice shortage and prices were increasing beyond justifiable levels, I participated in such a meeting. The retailers and traders, together with DTI and DA officials, computed the actual numbers and came out with a suggested retail price. It was below the prevailing market price that was escalating very rapidly then, a deja vu phenomenon that is happening today.
We agree with Trade Secretary Peter Favila that there should be no price controls, as there were no price controls in 2006. But that year, the suggested retail price (only for well-milled rice) previously agreed upon by the traders and retailers, was posted in the newspapers and the wet market price tags. This successfully brought down the price of well-milled rice.
Though there was no price control, retailers who sold at prices much higher than the suggested retail price were systematically asked what their justification was for their high prices. This was sufficient motivation for them to charge a fair price.
We recommend that this mechanism again be used to balance farmer and consumer interests. For consumers facing the almost daily unjustified price increases, we say: "The sooner the better."
(The author is the chair of Agriwatch, former secretary for Presidential Flagship Programs and Projects, and former undersecretary for agriculture, and trade and industry. For inquiries and suggestions, e-mail agriwatchphil@yahoo.com or telefax (02) 8522112).
Badr Corps avoids crackdown on Militia
As is often the case Juan Cole has an interesting analysis of the recent attack on militias by the U.S. and Maliki. The U.S. often stresses the Iranian connections of the Mahdi army of Sadr but at the same time ignores the closer connections between the Badr Brigades and Iran. The reason is transparent but will never be clear to the U.S. public who read mainstream media. The Badr brigades are connected to the Maliki govt. Iran and Iraq actually have good relations right now. It is the U.S. that is making all the fuss! If anything Sadr is less pro-Iranian than the Badr group. It is just that to hedge its bets Iran tries to foster good relations with Sadr as well.
The U.S. and the Iraqi govt. have in effect violated the terms of Sadr's ceasefire and now it seems they are only selectively acknowledging a second ceasefire brokered by Iran. Operations continue against Sadr City. Even Saddam had trouble controlling Sadr City so how likely is it that Maliki and the U.S. can do so successfully. A likely result is an increase in U.S. casualties perhaps the only possible way that the U.S. can be persuaded to withdraw unless Americans begin to draw a connection between their deteriorating economic situation and war costs.
Likewise, the ISG pointed out that the Badr Corps paramilitary was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is close to Tehran. (See below). It fought on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's side in the recent Basra fighting. In other words, the government side was the pro-Iranian side. The Mahdi Army and Sadr neighborhood militia forces they attacked were largely Iraqi nativists who bad-mouth Iran. Fiderer points out that the ISG report had already diagnosed this syndrome. The Bush team did propaganda, pointedly declining to name Badr as an Iranian client and blaming Iran for the Mahdi Army's violence. In fact, the violence came as a response to violations of the cease fire by the US and the Iraqi government, which took advantage of it to arrest Mahdi Army commanders (that's a ceasefire?)
The key role of Iran in backing the Badr Corps (which Ryan Crocker and Gen Petraeus pointedly did not condemn, and Senator Lindsay Graham actually defended!) is demonstrated by the following:
' Al-Sharqiyah, Al-Iraqiyah Roundup: Political Blocs Express Support for Government
Iraq -- OSC Summary
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Dubai Al-Sharqiyah Television in Arabic . . carries between 1400 GMT and 2000 GMT on 10 April the following . . :
-- "The Badr Corps Command took a series of quick measures to protect itself from any possible military campaign against all militias in Iraq. A high-ranking official at the Interior Ministry, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the Badr Corps withdrew its key commanders to Iran in the past few days after it entered a new batch of fighters, around 1500 it total, into the Interior Ministry services. '
The U.S. and the Iraqi govt. have in effect violated the terms of Sadr's ceasefire and now it seems they are only selectively acknowledging a second ceasefire brokered by Iran. Operations continue against Sadr City. Even Saddam had trouble controlling Sadr City so how likely is it that Maliki and the U.S. can do so successfully. A likely result is an increase in U.S. casualties perhaps the only possible way that the U.S. can be persuaded to withdraw unless Americans begin to draw a connection between their deteriorating economic situation and war costs.
Likewise, the ISG pointed out that the Badr Corps paramilitary was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is close to Tehran. (See below). It fought on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's side in the recent Basra fighting. In other words, the government side was the pro-Iranian side. The Mahdi Army and Sadr neighborhood militia forces they attacked were largely Iraqi nativists who bad-mouth Iran. Fiderer points out that the ISG report had already diagnosed this syndrome. The Bush team did propaganda, pointedly declining to name Badr as an Iranian client and blaming Iran for the Mahdi Army's violence. In fact, the violence came as a response to violations of the cease fire by the US and the Iraqi government, which took advantage of it to arrest Mahdi Army commanders (that's a ceasefire?)
The key role of Iran in backing the Badr Corps (which Ryan Crocker and Gen Petraeus pointedly did not condemn, and Senator Lindsay Graham actually defended!) is demonstrated by the following:
' Al-Sharqiyah, Al-Iraqiyah Roundup: Political Blocs Express Support for Government
Iraq -- OSC Summary
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Dubai Al-Sharqiyah Television in Arabic . . carries between 1400 GMT and 2000 GMT on 10 April the following . . :
-- "The Badr Corps Command took a series of quick measures to protect itself from any possible military campaign against all militias in Iraq. A high-ranking official at the Interior Ministry, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the Badr Corps withdrew its key commanders to Iran in the past few days after it entered a new batch of fighters, around 1500 it total, into the Interior Ministry services. '
Friday, April 11, 2008
White House Authorized War Crimes
Interesting that Rice was heavily involved in these talks even chairing meetings. Of course war crimes are never committed by the U.S. only by its enemies. Historically it is only loser such as Milosevic or Germany that actually are tried. I just listened to NPR who said that officials could be subject to prosecution. That is fantasy. In spite of the claims of the value of torture many experts believe that it is for the most part useless or even counter-productive.
White House Authorized War Crimes
Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'
Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, HOWARD L. ROSENBERG and ARIANE de VOGUE
April 9, 2008— ABC -- - In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.
The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.
Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.
The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.
The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.
Contacted by ABC News today, spokesmen for Tenet, Rumsfeld and Powell declined to comment about the interrogation program or their private discussions in Principals Meetings. Powell said through an assistant there were "hundreds of [Principals] meetings" on a wide variety of topics and that he was "not at liberty to discuss private meetings."
The White House also declined comment on behalf of Rice and Cheney. Ashcroft could not be reached for comment today.
Critics at home and abroad have harshly criticized the interrogation program, which pushed the limits of international law and, they say, condoned torture. Bush and his top aides have consistently defended the program. They say it is legal and did not constitute torture.
"I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us the information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks here in the United States and across the world," Bush said in a speech in September 2006.
In interview with ABC's Charles Gibson last year, Tenet said: "It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States."
But this is the first time sources have disclosed that a handful of the most senior advisers in the White House explicitly approved the details of the program. According to multiple sources, it was members of the Principals Committee that not only discussed specific plans and specific interrogation methods, but approved them.
The discussions and meetings occurred in an atmosphere of great concern that another terror attack on the nation was imminent. Sources said the extraordinary involvement of the senior advisers in the grim details of exactly how individual interrogations would be conducted showed how seriously officials took the al Qaeda threat.
It started after the CIA captured top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in spring 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan. When his safe house was raided by Pakistani security forces along with FBI and CIA agents, Zubaydah was shot three times during the gun battle.
At a time when virtually all counterterrorist professionals viewed another attack as imminent -- and with information on al Qaeda scarce -- the detention of Zubaydah was seen as a potentially critical breakthrough.
Zubaydah was taken to the local hospital, where CIA agent John Kiriakou, who helped coordinate Zubaydah's capture, was ordered to remain at the wounded captive's side at all times. "I ripped up a sheet and tied him to the bed," Kiriakou said.
But after Zubaydah recovered from his wounds at a secret CIA prison in Thailand, he was uncooperative.
"I told him I had heard he was being a jerk," Kiriakou recalled. "I said, 'These guys can make it easy on you or they can make it hard.' It was after that he became defiant."
The CIA wanted to use more aggressive -- and physical -- methods to get information.
The agency briefed high-level officials in the National Security Council's Principals Committee, led by then-National Security Advisor Rice and including then-Attorney General Ashcroft, which then signed off on the plan, sources said. It is unclear whether anyone on the committee objected to the CIA's plans for Zubaydah.
The CIA has confirmed Zubaydah was one of three al Qaeda suspects subjected to waterboarding.
After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
Mohammad was also subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. At a hearing before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay on March 10, 2007, KSM, as he is known, said he broke under the harsh interrogation.
COURT: Were any statements you made as the result of any of the treatment that you received during that time frame from 2003 to 2006? Did you make those statements because of the treatment you receive from these people?
KSM: Statement for whom?
COURT: To any of these interrogators.
KSM: CIA peoples. Yes. At the beginning, when they transferred me...
Lawyers in the Justice Department had written a classified memo, which was extensively reviewed, that gave formal legal authority to government interrogators to use the "enhanced" questioning tactics on suspected terrorist prisoners. The August 2002 memo, signed by then head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, was referred to as the so-called "Golden Shield" for CIA agents, who worried they would be held liable if the harsh interrogations became public.
Old hands in the intelligence community remembered vividly how past covert operations, from the Vietnam War-era "Phoenix Program" of assassinations of Viet Cong to the Iran-Contra arms sales of the 1980s were painted as the work of a "rogue agency" out of control.
But even after the "Golden Shield" was in place, briefings and meetings in the White House to discuss individual interrogations continued, sources said. Tenet, seeking to protect his agents, regularly sought confirmation from the NSC principals that specific interrogation plans were legal.
According to a former CIA official involved in the process, CIA headquarters would receive cables from operatives in the field asking for authorization for specific techniques. Agents, worried about overstepping their boundaries, would await guidance in particularly complicated cases dealing with high-value detainees, two CIA sources said.
Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.
"It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time," said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. "They'd say, 'We've got so and so. This is the plan.'"
Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.
"These discussions weren't adding value," a source said. "Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it's legal, (you should) just tell them to implement it."
Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.
According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News.
At one meeting in the summer of 2003 -- attended by Vice President Cheney, among others -- Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.
A year later, amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects, leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo -- the Golden Shield -- that authorized the program.
But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
White House Authorized War Crimes
Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'
Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, HOWARD L. ROSENBERG and ARIANE de VOGUE
April 9, 2008— ABC -- - In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.
The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.
Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.
The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.
The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.
Contacted by ABC News today, spokesmen for Tenet, Rumsfeld and Powell declined to comment about the interrogation program or their private discussions in Principals Meetings. Powell said through an assistant there were "hundreds of [Principals] meetings" on a wide variety of topics and that he was "not at liberty to discuss private meetings."
The White House also declined comment on behalf of Rice and Cheney. Ashcroft could not be reached for comment today.
Critics at home and abroad have harshly criticized the interrogation program, which pushed the limits of international law and, they say, condoned torture. Bush and his top aides have consistently defended the program. They say it is legal and did not constitute torture.
"I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us the information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks here in the United States and across the world," Bush said in a speech in September 2006.
In interview with ABC's Charles Gibson last year, Tenet said: "It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States."
But this is the first time sources have disclosed that a handful of the most senior advisers in the White House explicitly approved the details of the program. According to multiple sources, it was members of the Principals Committee that not only discussed specific plans and specific interrogation methods, but approved them.
The discussions and meetings occurred in an atmosphere of great concern that another terror attack on the nation was imminent. Sources said the extraordinary involvement of the senior advisers in the grim details of exactly how individual interrogations would be conducted showed how seriously officials took the al Qaeda threat.
It started after the CIA captured top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in spring 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan. When his safe house was raided by Pakistani security forces along with FBI and CIA agents, Zubaydah was shot three times during the gun battle.
At a time when virtually all counterterrorist professionals viewed another attack as imminent -- and with information on al Qaeda scarce -- the detention of Zubaydah was seen as a potentially critical breakthrough.
Zubaydah was taken to the local hospital, where CIA agent John Kiriakou, who helped coordinate Zubaydah's capture, was ordered to remain at the wounded captive's side at all times. "I ripped up a sheet and tied him to the bed," Kiriakou said.
But after Zubaydah recovered from his wounds at a secret CIA prison in Thailand, he was uncooperative.
"I told him I had heard he was being a jerk," Kiriakou recalled. "I said, 'These guys can make it easy on you or they can make it hard.' It was after that he became defiant."
The CIA wanted to use more aggressive -- and physical -- methods to get information.
The agency briefed high-level officials in the National Security Council's Principals Committee, led by then-National Security Advisor Rice and including then-Attorney General Ashcroft, which then signed off on the plan, sources said. It is unclear whether anyone on the committee objected to the CIA's plans for Zubaydah.
The CIA has confirmed Zubaydah was one of three al Qaeda suspects subjected to waterboarding.
After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
Mohammad was also subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. At a hearing before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay on March 10, 2007, KSM, as he is known, said he broke under the harsh interrogation.
COURT: Were any statements you made as the result of any of the treatment that you received during that time frame from 2003 to 2006? Did you make those statements because of the treatment you receive from these people?
KSM: Statement for whom?
COURT: To any of these interrogators.
KSM: CIA peoples. Yes. At the beginning, when they transferred me...
Lawyers in the Justice Department had written a classified memo, which was extensively reviewed, that gave formal legal authority to government interrogators to use the "enhanced" questioning tactics on suspected terrorist prisoners. The August 2002 memo, signed by then head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, was referred to as the so-called "Golden Shield" for CIA agents, who worried they would be held liable if the harsh interrogations became public.
Old hands in the intelligence community remembered vividly how past covert operations, from the Vietnam War-era "Phoenix Program" of assassinations of Viet Cong to the Iran-Contra arms sales of the 1980s were painted as the work of a "rogue agency" out of control.
But even after the "Golden Shield" was in place, briefings and meetings in the White House to discuss individual interrogations continued, sources said. Tenet, seeking to protect his agents, regularly sought confirmation from the NSC principals that specific interrogation plans were legal.
According to a former CIA official involved in the process, CIA headquarters would receive cables from operatives in the field asking for authorization for specific techniques. Agents, worried about overstepping their boundaries, would await guidance in particularly complicated cases dealing with high-value detainees, two CIA sources said.
Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.
"It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time," said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. "They'd say, 'We've got so and so. This is the plan.'"
Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.
"These discussions weren't adding value," a source said. "Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it's legal, (you should) just tell them to implement it."
Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.
According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News.
At one meeting in the summer of 2003 -- attended by Vice President Cheney, among others -- Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.
A year later, amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects, leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo -- the Golden Shield -- that authorized the program.
But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
IMF lowers Philippines growth target to 5.8%
This is from the Manila Times. Even though the Philippines is the second worst performer in Southeast Asia the U.S. would be ecstatic to reach that growth rate! Of course part of the growth is from overseas remittances. For expatriates paid in U.S. dollars they are buying less Philippine pesos because of the weak dollar. The growth may not help many of the poorest filipinos at all since inflated food prices are making their situation much worse.
IMF LOWERS GDP GROWTH TARGET
FOR PHILIPPINES TO 5.8%
By Maricel E. Burgonio, Reporter
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has lowered its economic-growth forecast for the Philippines, which is poised to be the second-worst performer in Southeast Asia this year.
In its latest World Economic Outlook, the Philippines’ economic growth, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), is expected to reach 5.8 percent this year, lower than the original projection of 6 percent and last year’s actual growth of 7.3 percent. GDP refers to the total market value of final goods and services produced within a country in a year.
Strong domestic consumption is expected to drive the country’s growth this year, fueled by expected strong remittance inflows from the millions of overseas Filipino workers. But growth is expected to be affected by a global economic slowdown, resulting from the US subprime mortgage crisis, the IMF said.
“IMF cited that robust domestic demand, led by consumption, supports the growth of Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong SAR [Special Administrative Region], Philippines and Singapore, while export growth began to show some signs of moderation,” according to the report.
Philippine export growth declined by 5.2 percent to $4.241 billion as of January, compared with $3.9987 billion in the same period last year. Exports in the previous month reached $4.472 billion.
In the IMF’s Philippines Staff report, experts earlier suggested that the government should improve its revenue effort to post faster economic growth this year, which would likely be 6.3 percent. This will help government meet its priority targets, such as infrastructure development, as current reforms will only allow the economy to grow modestly, they added.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) member countries—including Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam—is projected to post a GDP growth of 5.8 percent this year, lower than last year’s 6.3 percent.
Vietnam is expected to post the highest growth this year with 7.3 percent, followed by Indonesia at 6.1 percent, Thailand at 5.3 percent, and Malaysia at 5 percent.
But the strength of domestic demand in the region, combined with rising food and energy prices, has contributed to a buildup of inflation pressures in a number of countries.
“Inflation pressures have also begun to emerge in Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines,” according to the IMF.
In the Philippines, inflation or increase of prices in March increased to 6.4 percent from the previous year, and in February, the increase was 5.4 percent compared with the same period in 2007. That reflects the impact of negative global developments, particularly the unprecedented surge in both oil and non-oil commodity prices, the IMF said. But the relative firmness of the peso against the US dollar continues to cushion the impact of higher imported oil and food prices on domestic inflation.
In terms of GDP growth in emerging Asia, IMF said it is expected to decelerate this year but remain robust at about 7.5 percent in 2008 and 7.8 percent in 2009, compared with 9.1 percent last year, as growth in the newly industrialized countries and other Southeast Asian nations are expected to weaken.
In light of the greater uncertainties associated with the outlook, policymakers face a difficult task in balancing the trade-offs between growth and inflation.
“The challenge remains to avoid overheating, which may require tighter monetary policy, supported by greater exchange rate flexibility in some countries,” the IMF said.
“Policymakers will need to respond flexibly, however, to evolving developments, with some scope for monetary policy easing in the event of a sharper than anticipated slowdown in countries where inflation expectations continue to remain well above anchored,” it added.
Moreover, the IMF said capital inflows in emerging economies are projected to slow this year as a consequence of the tightening of global financial conditions.
But the lender expects the direct impact of the US subprime mortgage crisis on regional financial systems has been limited.
IMF LOWERS GDP GROWTH TARGET
FOR PHILIPPINES TO 5.8%
By Maricel E. Burgonio, Reporter
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has lowered its economic-growth forecast for the Philippines, which is poised to be the second-worst performer in Southeast Asia this year.
In its latest World Economic Outlook, the Philippines’ economic growth, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), is expected to reach 5.8 percent this year, lower than the original projection of 6 percent and last year’s actual growth of 7.3 percent. GDP refers to the total market value of final goods and services produced within a country in a year.
Strong domestic consumption is expected to drive the country’s growth this year, fueled by expected strong remittance inflows from the millions of overseas Filipino workers. But growth is expected to be affected by a global economic slowdown, resulting from the US subprime mortgage crisis, the IMF said.
“IMF cited that robust domestic demand, led by consumption, supports the growth of Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong SAR [Special Administrative Region], Philippines and Singapore, while export growth began to show some signs of moderation,” according to the report.
Philippine export growth declined by 5.2 percent to $4.241 billion as of January, compared with $3.9987 billion in the same period last year. Exports in the previous month reached $4.472 billion.
In the IMF’s Philippines Staff report, experts earlier suggested that the government should improve its revenue effort to post faster economic growth this year, which would likely be 6.3 percent. This will help government meet its priority targets, such as infrastructure development, as current reforms will only allow the economy to grow modestly, they added.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) member countries—including Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam—is projected to post a GDP growth of 5.8 percent this year, lower than last year’s 6.3 percent.
Vietnam is expected to post the highest growth this year with 7.3 percent, followed by Indonesia at 6.1 percent, Thailand at 5.3 percent, and Malaysia at 5 percent.
But the strength of domestic demand in the region, combined with rising food and energy prices, has contributed to a buildup of inflation pressures in a number of countries.
“Inflation pressures have also begun to emerge in Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines,” according to the IMF.
In the Philippines, inflation or increase of prices in March increased to 6.4 percent from the previous year, and in February, the increase was 5.4 percent compared with the same period in 2007. That reflects the impact of negative global developments, particularly the unprecedented surge in both oil and non-oil commodity prices, the IMF said. But the relative firmness of the peso against the US dollar continues to cushion the impact of higher imported oil and food prices on domestic inflation.
In terms of GDP growth in emerging Asia, IMF said it is expected to decelerate this year but remain robust at about 7.5 percent in 2008 and 7.8 percent in 2009, compared with 9.1 percent last year, as growth in the newly industrialized countries and other Southeast Asian nations are expected to weaken.
In light of the greater uncertainties associated with the outlook, policymakers face a difficult task in balancing the trade-offs between growth and inflation.
“The challenge remains to avoid overheating, which may require tighter monetary policy, supported by greater exchange rate flexibility in some countries,” the IMF said.
“Policymakers will need to respond flexibly, however, to evolving developments, with some scope for monetary policy easing in the event of a sharper than anticipated slowdown in countries where inflation expectations continue to remain well above anchored,” it added.
Moreover, the IMF said capital inflows in emerging economies are projected to slow this year as a consequence of the tightening of global financial conditions.
But the lender expects the direct impact of the US subprime mortgage crisis on regional financial systems has been limited.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
U.S. envoy may challenge for Afghan presidency.
This is from the Telegraph. Note that the article claims that Khalilzad selected Karzai to be president in 2004.
"Mr Khalilzad is rumoured to have long had his eye on replacing President Karzai, the man he picked to become Afghanistan's first president in 2004."
Nothing like having an independent Afghanistan ruled by presidents from the U.S. or picked by American Envoys!
US envoy may challenge for Afghan presidency
By Thomas Coghlan
Last Updated: 1:41am BST 10/04/2008
The Afghan-born US Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, has signalled that he will run for the presidency of Afghanistan in elections next year.
Mr Khalilzad is a senior figure in the Bush administration who served as ambassador to Kabul before becoming ambassador to Iraq and then the UN.
He holds US citizenship, is married to an American and is a former professor at Columbia University.
advertisementHe has fuelled speculation of a run by announcing on Afghan television: "I will resign from my official work in the next few months and start a private business."
Asked if he would stand for the presidency, he replied: "I have said earlier that I'm not a candidate for any position in Afghanistan, but I am at the service of the Afghan people."
Sources close to Mr Khalilzad within the Afghan establishment insist that he is considering a run for the presidency and has been putting out feelers to political factions within the country.
"He is under pressure to stand from within Afghanistan," said one source. "His comments are genuine in that he will come to Afghanistan and work in the private sector, but he will reassess towards the end of this year whether he has a chance to take the presidency."
Mr Khalilzad is rumoured to have long had his eye on replacing President Karzai, the man he picked to become Afghanistan's first president in 2004.
Mr Khalilzad's supporters are alleged to have sounded out Pashtun tribal chiefs in the south as well as figures within the Northern Alliance, which now calls itself the National Unity Front.
The popularity of President Karzai has waned as disquiet at government corruption and the resurgence of the Taliban has been felt across the country.
Mr Karzai has become increasingly critical of the international community in an apparent attempt to bolster support at home, most notably by attacking Britain and blocking Lord Ashdown, the British diplomat, for the position of UN envoy in Kabul.
The Afghan president let slip his own intention to stand for re-election this week.
Following his return from the Nato conference in Bucharest on Sunday, Mr Karzai said: "I want to complete the work that I started - if they vote for me."
"Mr Khalilzad is rumoured to have long had his eye on replacing President Karzai, the man he picked to become Afghanistan's first president in 2004."
Nothing like having an independent Afghanistan ruled by presidents from the U.S. or picked by American Envoys!
US envoy may challenge for Afghan presidency
By Thomas Coghlan
Last Updated: 1:41am BST 10/04/2008
The Afghan-born US Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, has signalled that he will run for the presidency of Afghanistan in elections next year.
Mr Khalilzad is a senior figure in the Bush administration who served as ambassador to Kabul before becoming ambassador to Iraq and then the UN.
He holds US citizenship, is married to an American and is a former professor at Columbia University.
advertisementHe has fuelled speculation of a run by announcing on Afghan television: "I will resign from my official work in the next few months and start a private business."
Asked if he would stand for the presidency, he replied: "I have said earlier that I'm not a candidate for any position in Afghanistan, but I am at the service of the Afghan people."
Sources close to Mr Khalilzad within the Afghan establishment insist that he is considering a run for the presidency and has been putting out feelers to political factions within the country.
"He is under pressure to stand from within Afghanistan," said one source. "His comments are genuine in that he will come to Afghanistan and work in the private sector, but he will reassess towards the end of this year whether he has a chance to take the presidency."
Mr Khalilzad is rumoured to have long had his eye on replacing President Karzai, the man he picked to become Afghanistan's first president in 2004.
Mr Khalilzad's supporters are alleged to have sounded out Pashtun tribal chiefs in the south as well as figures within the Northern Alliance, which now calls itself the National Unity Front.
The popularity of President Karzai has waned as disquiet at government corruption and the resurgence of the Taliban has been felt across the country.
Mr Karzai has become increasingly critical of the international community in an apparent attempt to bolster support at home, most notably by attacking Britain and blocking Lord Ashdown, the British diplomat, for the position of UN envoy in Kabul.
The Afghan president let slip his own intention to stand for re-election this week.
Following his return from the Nato conference in Bucharest on Sunday, Mr Karzai said: "I want to complete the work that I started - if they vote for me."
Reforms by Raul Castro in Cuba
This is from Reuters.
It seems that there must no longer be an energy shortage. The article does not explain how the shortage was solved. It seems ludicrous that Cubans were excluded from their own hotels. Well now a lot are not their own but owned by foreign corporations it seems!
FACTBOX-Reforms by Raul Castro in Cuba
Tue Apr 8, 2008 1:17pm EDT
April 8 (Reuters) - In the six weeks since he succeeded his ailing brother Fidel Castro, new Cuban President Raul Castro has introduced a series of reforms to raise food output and end what he called "excessive prohibitions" in communist Cuba.
The following are some of the reforms undertaken so far:
* Decentralized agriculture to allow private farmers more leeway to decide how to use their land, what crops to plant and what supplies to buy. Farmers granted leases to unused land.
* Lifted ban on Cubans buying consumer goods such as computers, DVD players, microwave ovens and other electronic appliances previously prohibited due to energy crisis.
* Cubans can now stay at hotels at beach resorts previously reserved for foreigners only, ending a "tourism apartheid" that was a source of resentment.
* As of April 14, Cubans will be allowed to freely buy and use cellular telephones, a service that only government officials and foreign companies had access to until now.
* Reduced bureaucracy for filling medical prescriptions and began revamping family doctor program in response to public complaints it was understaffed.
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. .
It seems that there must no longer be an energy shortage. The article does not explain how the shortage was solved. It seems ludicrous that Cubans were excluded from their own hotels. Well now a lot are not their own but owned by foreign corporations it seems!
FACTBOX-Reforms by Raul Castro in Cuba
Tue Apr 8, 2008 1:17pm EDT
April 8 (Reuters) - In the six weeks since he succeeded his ailing brother Fidel Castro, new Cuban President Raul Castro has introduced a series of reforms to raise food output and end what he called "excessive prohibitions" in communist Cuba.
The following are some of the reforms undertaken so far:
* Decentralized agriculture to allow private farmers more leeway to decide how to use their land, what crops to plant and what supplies to buy. Farmers granted leases to unused land.
* Lifted ban on Cubans buying consumer goods such as computers, DVD players, microwave ovens and other electronic appliances previously prohibited due to energy crisis.
* Cubans can now stay at hotels at beach resorts previously reserved for foreigners only, ending a "tourism apartheid" that was a source of resentment.
* As of April 14, Cubans will be allowed to freely buy and use cellular telephones, a service that only government officials and foreign companies had access to until now.
* Reduced bureaucracy for filling medical prescriptions and began revamping family doctor program in response to public complaints it was understaffed.
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. .
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Nepal: 8 killed in election violence
This is from ABC(Australian Broadcasting System) An election with 8 candidates shot to death is a bit much. It remains to be seen whether the Maoists will decide to restart the civil war. If the Maoists lose they will be unlikely to accept the result.
8 killed in Nepal election violence
Seven Maoist cadres have been shot by police, party leaders said, while another party's candidate was killed in separate incidents of violence ahead of elections meant to map Nepal's political future.
The centrepiece of a 2006 peace deal with Maoist rebels, Thursday's elections will produce an assembly meant to write a new constitution, ditch a 240-year-old monarchy and turn the Himalayan nation into a republic.
But analysts and diplomats say the violence during the run-up to the vote could undermine the credibility of Nepal's first national polls since 1999.
Maoists said a candidate from the rival Nepali Congress party ordered police to fire on their cadres in western Nepal, killing six.
"This is thuggery and the guilty should be punished," said senior Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai.
Home Ministry spokesman Modraj Dotel said six bodies had been recovered from the scene, but said he had no more details.
The United Nations, which is monitoring the elections and peace process, said it was also investigating. A candidate from the Communist UML party was also killed in another incident in nearby Surkhet district, Mr Dotel said.
Maoist and UML activists staged a protest about that death. Maoists said police fired on that protest, killing another of their cadres.
The latest deaths take to at least 11 the number of people killed in election-related violence so far.
Mainstream political parties accuse the former rebels of intimidating voters and preventing campaigning in their former strongholds.
Maoists say rival party workers were trying to provoke them and create trouble to discredit the former guerrillas.
Nepal has deployed at least 135,000 police to provide security during the vote.
Hundreds of international monitors, from organisations including the United Nations, European Union and the Atlanta-based Carter Centre are monitoring the vote.
- Reuters
8 killed in Nepal election violence
Seven Maoist cadres have been shot by police, party leaders said, while another party's candidate was killed in separate incidents of violence ahead of elections meant to map Nepal's political future.
The centrepiece of a 2006 peace deal with Maoist rebels, Thursday's elections will produce an assembly meant to write a new constitution, ditch a 240-year-old monarchy and turn the Himalayan nation into a republic.
But analysts and diplomats say the violence during the run-up to the vote could undermine the credibility of Nepal's first national polls since 1999.
Maoists said a candidate from the rival Nepali Congress party ordered police to fire on their cadres in western Nepal, killing six.
"This is thuggery and the guilty should be punished," said senior Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai.
Home Ministry spokesman Modraj Dotel said six bodies had been recovered from the scene, but said he had no more details.
The United Nations, which is monitoring the elections and peace process, said it was also investigating. A candidate from the Communist UML party was also killed in another incident in nearby Surkhet district, Mr Dotel said.
Maoist and UML activists staged a protest about that death. Maoists said police fired on that protest, killing another of their cadres.
The latest deaths take to at least 11 the number of people killed in election-related violence so far.
Mainstream political parties accuse the former rebels of intimidating voters and preventing campaigning in their former strongholds.
Maoists say rival party workers were trying to provoke them and create trouble to discredit the former guerrillas.
Nepal has deployed at least 135,000 police to provide security during the vote.
Hundreds of international monitors, from organisations including the United Nations, European Union and the Atlanta-based Carter Centre are monitoring the vote.
- Reuters
As Petraeus testifies, Baghdad teeters on edge of erupting
In effect there already is an eruption with a number of casualties resulting from rocket attacks on the Green Zone. They are provocative enough that even Iran condemned them. For its part the Iraqi government and the U.S. has in effect cordoned off Sadr City and blocked vehicular traffic. As my earlier post indicates the U.S. is even carrying out drone air attacks in parts of Baghdad. Meanwhile Sadr is threatening to break the truce that has kept peace for quite a while until the govt. and U.S. decided to rock the boats by challenging the militias. The problem is Sadr will probably make huge gains come election time and Maliki and the U.S. do not like that idea so they tried to put him in his place by disarming him. It is not clear what other Shiite militias have done if anything. This is from McClatchy via Yahoo.
As Petraeus testifies, Baghdad teeters on edge of erupting By Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers
Tue Apr 8, 11:06 AM ET
BAGHDAD — Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were critical of Iran when they testified Tuesday before the Senate , barely giving credit for an Iranian-brokered cease-fire that curbed the killing after a week of Shiite-on-Shiite bloodshed in southern Iraq and Baghdad .
As they spoke, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr threatened to unleash his Mahdi Army militia against U.S. and Iraqi forces. Once again, it was Iran that stepped into the political vacuum and urged a halt to militia attacks into the heavily fortified Green Zone, where U.S. and Iraqi officials, including Petraeus and Crocker, have their offices.
The Iranian foreign ministry called for "restraint and prudence of various Iraqi groups," an implicit rebuke of Sadr, who is living and studying in Iran .
The violence began two weeks ago when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki launched an ill-prepared offensive against militias in the southern port city of Basra. It ebbed after a delegation of the Iraqi governing parties traveled to Iran for talks with a top commander of the Qods force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
This week, it transformed into a conflict largely between the Mahdi Army and U.S. forces. Twelve U.S. troops were killed since Sunday, at least eight of them in the capital, several of them from rocket and mortar attacks into the Green Zone.
Tuesday was the last day of Maliki's ultimatum for militias, mainly the Mahdi Army, to turn in weapons for cash or face a battle. Far from disarming itself and handing its weapons to forces dominated by Shiites in Maliki's Dawa party, Sadr threatened to end the ceasefire he declared in August.
"If it is required to lift the freeze (cease-fire) in order to carry out our goals, objectives, doctrines and religious principles and patriotism, we will do that later and in a separate statement," he said in a statement read by his aide, Salah al Obaidi.
Sadr also postponed his planned million-man march in Baghdad to protest the U.S. occupation on the five-year anniversary of the fall of the capital. The march was expected to bring more violence.
Petraeus acknowledged, though almost in passing, that the clash between the Iraqi government and militias loyal to Sadr and other Shiite leaders— known as "Special Groups"— is one of the biggest threats to Iraqi stability.
"Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq ," he said.
Although he was speaking in the context of the threat Iran posed through its support of militia groups, he did not mention that Iran also backs the Shiite-led government and that the government sanctions a variety of militias.
Nearly every party has its own militia, including Maliki's rival the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq , whose forces were largely absorbed into the ranks of the Iraqi Security Forces but remain loyal to the party. The Kurdish parties also have the peshmerga.
Besides playing down Iran's sometimes positive role in the Iraqi dynamics, Petraeus and Crocker seemed to overplay the political progress in Iraq during the period when "surged" U.S. forces and a new U.S. counter-insurgency strategy had contributed to a drop in overall violence.
One act of progress, according to Crocker, was the passage of a provincial powers law, passed days before Maliki's Basra offensive. But that law, calling for provincial elections in October, may have been a catalyst that led to the offensive.
Many Sadr loyalists viewed the offensive as an attempt by Maliki's Dawa party and the Shiite rivals of the Sadr movement to undercut the much more popular Shiite movement prior to elections in October.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo
As Petraeus testifies, Baghdad teeters on edge of erupting By Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers
Tue Apr 8, 11:06 AM ET
BAGHDAD — Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were critical of Iran when they testified Tuesday before the Senate , barely giving credit for an Iranian-brokered cease-fire that curbed the killing after a week of Shiite-on-Shiite bloodshed in southern Iraq and Baghdad .
As they spoke, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr threatened to unleash his Mahdi Army militia against U.S. and Iraqi forces. Once again, it was Iran that stepped into the political vacuum and urged a halt to militia attacks into the heavily fortified Green Zone, where U.S. and Iraqi officials, including Petraeus and Crocker, have their offices.
The Iranian foreign ministry called for "restraint and prudence of various Iraqi groups," an implicit rebuke of Sadr, who is living and studying in Iran .
The violence began two weeks ago when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki launched an ill-prepared offensive against militias in the southern port city of Basra. It ebbed after a delegation of the Iraqi governing parties traveled to Iran for talks with a top commander of the Qods force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
This week, it transformed into a conflict largely between the Mahdi Army and U.S. forces. Twelve U.S. troops were killed since Sunday, at least eight of them in the capital, several of them from rocket and mortar attacks into the Green Zone.
Tuesday was the last day of Maliki's ultimatum for militias, mainly the Mahdi Army, to turn in weapons for cash or face a battle. Far from disarming itself and handing its weapons to forces dominated by Shiites in Maliki's Dawa party, Sadr threatened to end the ceasefire he declared in August.
"If it is required to lift the freeze (cease-fire) in order to carry out our goals, objectives, doctrines and religious principles and patriotism, we will do that later and in a separate statement," he said in a statement read by his aide, Salah al Obaidi.
Sadr also postponed his planned million-man march in Baghdad to protest the U.S. occupation on the five-year anniversary of the fall of the capital. The march was expected to bring more violence.
Petraeus acknowledged, though almost in passing, that the clash between the Iraqi government and militias loyal to Sadr and other Shiite leaders— known as "Special Groups"— is one of the biggest threats to Iraqi stability.
"Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq ," he said.
Although he was speaking in the context of the threat Iran posed through its support of militia groups, he did not mention that Iran also backs the Shiite-led government and that the government sanctions a variety of militias.
Nearly every party has its own militia, including Maliki's rival the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq , whose forces were largely absorbed into the ranks of the Iraqi Security Forces but remain loyal to the party. The Kurdish parties also have the peshmerga.
Besides playing down Iran's sometimes positive role in the Iraqi dynamics, Petraeus and Crocker seemed to overplay the political progress in Iraq during the period when "surged" U.S. forces and a new U.S. counter-insurgency strategy had contributed to a drop in overall violence.
One act of progress, according to Crocker, was the passage of a provincial powers law, passed days before Maliki's Basra offensive. But that law, calling for provincial elections in October, may have been a catalyst that led to the offensive.
Many Sadr loyalists viewed the offensive as an attempt by Maliki's Dawa party and the Shiite rivals of the Sadr movement to undercut the much more popular Shiite movement prior to elections in October.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo
U.S. Airstrikes in Baghdad kill 12
This is from presstv.ir This is more evidence that the U.S. is implementing a policy of minimising U.S. casualties while using air strikes in urban areas. This policy is bound to produce more collateral damage. Translated that means more Iraqi civilian casualties. This is in turn is bound to produce more insurgents as families seek revenge.
Iran is given virtually no credit for brokering a ceasefire that saved Maliki's face nor even for condemning attacks on the Green Zone. Note that while Sadr's militia is supported by Iran so are other Shiite militia associated with the Shia government. Sadr is trying to retire from the strife and contemplate in Iran while all this is going. If he returns to lead the fray watch out. It may also happen that even more of his followers will not listen to him and go there own way as has already happened to some extent.
US airstrikes in Baghdad kill 12
Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:30:04
A US missile strike in Baghdad's Sadr City
Three US airstrikes in northeastern Baghdad have killed 12 suspected gunmen and wounded 15 civilians, Iraqi police and US military say.
The deadliest strike occurred Tuesday early afternoon when an unmanned drone fired a missile at a large group of gunmen with weapons and mortar tubes, according to a US military statement.
The Hellfire missile killed some 10 fighters who were heavily armed, it claimed.
Iraqi police said 15 people, including women and children, also were wounded in the strike. The US military denied it.
Earlier in the day, another unmanned aerial vehicle fired a Hellfire missile elsewhere in the area, killing two suspected gunmen after two mortar rounds were fired at US forces, according to the statement.
In the third incident, an unmanned drone fired a Hellfire missile to destroy four rocket rails in an open field after determining no civilians were in the area.
Iran is given virtually no credit for brokering a ceasefire that saved Maliki's face nor even for condemning attacks on the Green Zone. Note that while Sadr's militia is supported by Iran so are other Shiite militia associated with the Shia government. Sadr is trying to retire from the strife and contemplate in Iran while all this is going. If he returns to lead the fray watch out. It may also happen that even more of his followers will not listen to him and go there own way as has already happened to some extent.
US airstrikes in Baghdad kill 12
Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:30:04
A US missile strike in Baghdad's Sadr City
Three US airstrikes in northeastern Baghdad have killed 12 suspected gunmen and wounded 15 civilians, Iraqi police and US military say.
The deadliest strike occurred Tuesday early afternoon when an unmanned drone fired a missile at a large group of gunmen with weapons and mortar tubes, according to a US military statement.
The Hellfire missile killed some 10 fighters who were heavily armed, it claimed.
Iraqi police said 15 people, including women and children, also were wounded in the strike. The US military denied it.
Earlier in the day, another unmanned aerial vehicle fired a Hellfire missile elsewhere in the area, killing two suspected gunmen after two mortar rounds were fired at US forces, according to the statement.
In the third incident, an unmanned drone fired a Hellfire missile to destroy four rocket rails in an open field after determining no civilians were in the area.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
16 die in strike against Afghan warlord.
This is typical of Bomber McNeil's tactics, tactics that work to incense rural tribes and guarantee that the insurgents have fighters for the future. The areas cannot be held usually and when the forces leave Hakmatyar and his Taliban allies simply return.
16 die in strike against Afghan warlord
16 Die in Strike Against Fugitive Afghan Warlord; 7 Police Killed in Poppy Field
AMIR SHAH
AP News
Apr 07, 2008 11:31 EST
U.S. and Afghan forces attacked a remote village in a mountainous region of northeastern Afghanistan following reports that an infamous insurgent leader was in the area, a governor said Monday. At least 16 people were killed.
Gov. Tamim Nuristani said Afghan soldiers told him Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was meeting with top deputy Kashmir Khan in the Dohabi district of Nuristan province on Sunday, sparking a fierce bombardment. The Defense Ministry said Hekmatyar wasn't the target but that fighters from his group, Hezb-i-Islami, had gathered in the village alongside Taliban militants.
Other provincial leaders said many civilians were killed in the hours-long clash, which included airstrikes in the remote villages of Shok and Kendal. Nuristani said it was too early to know if any of the 16 killed were civilians. His casualty figures came from police who had reached the remote district.
U.S. officials and the Afghan Defense Ministry have denied that any civilians were killed.
The competing claims were impossible to reconcile because the fighting took part in a remote and dangerous part of the country. U.S. officials say that militants falsely claim civilian casualties as a strategy to weaken the international military coalition and the Afghan government.
In southern Afghanistan, meanwhile, Taliban fighters attacked and killed seven police eradicating a field of opium poppies in rural Kandahar province, the police chief said. Five militants also died in the clash.
The Afghan Defense Ministry said the battle in Nuristan, a lawless region that borders Pakistan, targeted a terrorist center that included a suicide bomb cell. It said it would release casualty figures later.
Hekmatyar heads the militant group Hezb-i-Islami, which has links with the Taliban and al-Qaida, though Hekmatyar has denied direct ties with those groups.
He briefly served as prime minister of Afghanistan in the mid-1990s and is infamous for bombarding the capital, Kabul, during the country's civil war, killing an untold number of civilians.
Zahir Murad, deputy spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said the bombardment targeted fighters from Hezb-i-Islami and the Taliban who were gathering to plan attacks. He said he had no information that Hekmatyar was present.
The chief of Nuristan's provincial council, Rahmatullah Rashid, said 19 people were killed in the battle — all civilians. He said six children, five women and eight men died. He said he didn't have a report of how many militants were killed. Rashid's information was relayed to him by villagers via radio communications.
U.S. Marine 1st Lt. Richard Ulsh said coalition forces have "received no reports of civilian casualties at this time as a result of that conflict."
Mohammad Farooq, the province's criminal investigations director, said 20 people were killed, including civilians. He said that some two dozen houses were destroyed.
In Kandahar province, meanwhile, seven police were killed during a Taliban attack on a poppy eradication team in Maiwand district, said provincial police chief Sayad Agha Saqib. Five militants also died, he said.
The Afghan government eradicated almost 40,000 acres of poppies last year, but the country's farmers still grew 477,000 acres of poppies, a record haul. Attacks on poppy eradication teams are common.
Afghanistan last year produced 93 percent of the world's opium, the main ingredient in heroin.
In nearby Helmand province, two police were killed when they hit a roadside bomb while escorting engineers to repair a mobile phone tower Monday in Sangin district, said provincial police chief Mohammad Hussein Andiwal.
At least 10 mobile phone towers have been attacked in the last month following a warning by the Taliban to shut down the towers at night. Taliban fighters fear they are being tracked by the U.S. and NATO militaries by signals from their mobile phones. In response, phone companies have curtailed service at night throughout the south.
___
Associated Press reporter Noor Khan contributed to this report from Kandahar.
16 die in strike against Afghan warlord
16 Die in Strike Against Fugitive Afghan Warlord; 7 Police Killed in Poppy Field
AMIR SHAH
AP News
Apr 07, 2008 11:31 EST
U.S. and Afghan forces attacked a remote village in a mountainous region of northeastern Afghanistan following reports that an infamous insurgent leader was in the area, a governor said Monday. At least 16 people were killed.
Gov. Tamim Nuristani said Afghan soldiers told him Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was meeting with top deputy Kashmir Khan in the Dohabi district of Nuristan province on Sunday, sparking a fierce bombardment. The Defense Ministry said Hekmatyar wasn't the target but that fighters from his group, Hezb-i-Islami, had gathered in the village alongside Taliban militants.
Other provincial leaders said many civilians were killed in the hours-long clash, which included airstrikes in the remote villages of Shok and Kendal. Nuristani said it was too early to know if any of the 16 killed were civilians. His casualty figures came from police who had reached the remote district.
U.S. officials and the Afghan Defense Ministry have denied that any civilians were killed.
The competing claims were impossible to reconcile because the fighting took part in a remote and dangerous part of the country. U.S. officials say that militants falsely claim civilian casualties as a strategy to weaken the international military coalition and the Afghan government.
In southern Afghanistan, meanwhile, Taliban fighters attacked and killed seven police eradicating a field of opium poppies in rural Kandahar province, the police chief said. Five militants also died in the clash.
The Afghan Defense Ministry said the battle in Nuristan, a lawless region that borders Pakistan, targeted a terrorist center that included a suicide bomb cell. It said it would release casualty figures later.
Hekmatyar heads the militant group Hezb-i-Islami, which has links with the Taliban and al-Qaida, though Hekmatyar has denied direct ties with those groups.
He briefly served as prime minister of Afghanistan in the mid-1990s and is infamous for bombarding the capital, Kabul, during the country's civil war, killing an untold number of civilians.
Zahir Murad, deputy spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said the bombardment targeted fighters from Hezb-i-Islami and the Taliban who were gathering to plan attacks. He said he had no information that Hekmatyar was present.
The chief of Nuristan's provincial council, Rahmatullah Rashid, said 19 people were killed in the battle — all civilians. He said six children, five women and eight men died. He said he didn't have a report of how many militants were killed. Rashid's information was relayed to him by villagers via radio communications.
U.S. Marine 1st Lt. Richard Ulsh said coalition forces have "received no reports of civilian casualties at this time as a result of that conflict."
Mohammad Farooq, the province's criminal investigations director, said 20 people were killed, including civilians. He said that some two dozen houses were destroyed.
In Kandahar province, meanwhile, seven police were killed during a Taliban attack on a poppy eradication team in Maiwand district, said provincial police chief Sayad Agha Saqib. Five militants also died, he said.
The Afghan government eradicated almost 40,000 acres of poppies last year, but the country's farmers still grew 477,000 acres of poppies, a record haul. Attacks on poppy eradication teams are common.
Afghanistan last year produced 93 percent of the world's opium, the main ingredient in heroin.
In nearby Helmand province, two police were killed when they hit a roadside bomb while escorting engineers to repair a mobile phone tower Monday in Sangin district, said provincial police chief Mohammad Hussein Andiwal.
At least 10 mobile phone towers have been attacked in the last month following a warning by the Taliban to shut down the towers at night. Taliban fighters fear they are being tracked by the U.S. and NATO militaries by signals from their mobile phones. In response, phone companies have curtailed service at night throughout the south.
___
Associated Press reporter Noor Khan contributed to this report from Kandahar.
Sadr Postpones Big Baghdad Protest.
This is from the NYtimes.
Given that the U.S. and Maliki seem hell bent on provoking what will be a limited civil war Sadr was probably wise to cancel a demonstration that would see many arrested. The Mahdi Army will be busy fending off a campaign against the Mahdi army in Sadr city. The supposed cease fire does not seem to be holding. Sadr city is sealed off to vehicular traffic. You can expect more U.S. casualties for sure and many more Iraqi casualties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 9, 2008
Militant Cleric Postpones Big Baghdad Protest
By STEPHEN FARRELL
BAGHDAD — Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric in Iraq whose Mahdi Army militia has been engaged in fierce clashes with Iraqi and American troops in Baghdad over the past week, on Tuesday postponed a huge demonstration in the capital less than 24 hours before it was to take place.
In a press release distributed by his political organization in Baghdad, a Sadr spokesman said the planned Wednesday protest, which Mr. Sadr had proclaimed would draw 1 million participants to demonstrate anti-American opposition among Iraqis, had been postponed for unspecified “safety reasons.” No new date was set.
The postponement was announced as Iraqi and American military forces have been tightening a cordon around Sadr City, the vast Shiite district of Baghdad that is Mr. Sadr’s base of support, and where fighting has raged in recent days and where dozens of Iraqis have been killed.
At least three American soldiers were killed Monday in separate attacks in Baghdad, the American military announced late Monday without specifying where they were killed or who might have been responsible. At least 10 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since Sunday.
Acting on the orders of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraqi security squads have been stopping young Shiite males from entering Baghdad at checkpoints around the city’s perimeter, Iraqi witnesses said Tuesday. They said the checkpoint sentries have been singling out men aged 15 to 35 and sometimes detaining them.
Mr. Maliki has warned Mr. Sadr’s organization that it must disarm the Mahdi Army militia, the largest Shiite militia in Iraq, or his representatives would not be allowed to participate in future elections. The ultimatum reflects the growing political tension between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Sadr, who represent rival political factions among Iraq’s majority Shiites.
The tension between the two escalated in late March when Mr. Maliki ordered the Iraqi military to occupy the southern port city of Basra, where Mr. Sadr’s militia had taken control.
Given that the U.S. and Maliki seem hell bent on provoking what will be a limited civil war Sadr was probably wise to cancel a demonstration that would see many arrested. The Mahdi Army will be busy fending off a campaign against the Mahdi army in Sadr city. The supposed cease fire does not seem to be holding. Sadr city is sealed off to vehicular traffic. You can expect more U.S. casualties for sure and many more Iraqi casualties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 9, 2008
Militant Cleric Postpones Big Baghdad Protest
By STEPHEN FARRELL
BAGHDAD — Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric in Iraq whose Mahdi Army militia has been engaged in fierce clashes with Iraqi and American troops in Baghdad over the past week, on Tuesday postponed a huge demonstration in the capital less than 24 hours before it was to take place.
In a press release distributed by his political organization in Baghdad, a Sadr spokesman said the planned Wednesday protest, which Mr. Sadr had proclaimed would draw 1 million participants to demonstrate anti-American opposition among Iraqis, had been postponed for unspecified “safety reasons.” No new date was set.
The postponement was announced as Iraqi and American military forces have been tightening a cordon around Sadr City, the vast Shiite district of Baghdad that is Mr. Sadr’s base of support, and where fighting has raged in recent days and where dozens of Iraqis have been killed.
At least three American soldiers were killed Monday in separate attacks in Baghdad, the American military announced late Monday without specifying where they were killed or who might have been responsible. At least 10 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since Sunday.
Acting on the orders of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraqi security squads have been stopping young Shiite males from entering Baghdad at checkpoints around the city’s perimeter, Iraqi witnesses said Tuesday. They said the checkpoint sentries have been singling out men aged 15 to 35 and sometimes detaining them.
Mr. Maliki has warned Mr. Sadr’s organization that it must disarm the Mahdi Army militia, the largest Shiite militia in Iraq, or his representatives would not be allowed to participate in future elections. The ultimatum reflects the growing political tension between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Sadr, who represent rival political factions among Iraq’s majority Shiites.
The tension between the two escalated in late March when Mr. Maliki ordered the Iraqi military to occupy the southern port city of Basra, where Mr. Sadr’s militia had taken control.
Nepal's Election and Beyond..
This is from prismweb. The election is for a CA (Constituent Assembly) that will both draft a constitution and serve as interim parliament. The Maoist insurgents are participating but are suspicious of vote-rigging and also have been participants in and also victims of election violence. It remains to be seen if this election will terminate the long period of civil war and lead the Maoists to accept a more peaceful political process.
Nepal’s Election and Beyond
Kathmandu/Brussels: Elections for Nepal’s Constituent Assembly on 10 April could be marred by political violence, but if all parties cooperate, it will open the next stage in the peace process. Nepal’s Election and Beyond,* the latest report from the International Crisis Group, examines the positive signs and challenges in the run-up to the elections and calls upon the current seven-party coalition, including the Maoists, to prepare for difficult negotiations in the post-poll period in order to manage a transition to a new unity government.
There are many encouraging indications for the upcoming elections. Party campaigning has built up momentum and, combined with critical media scrutiny, has been boosting public awareness of the electoral system and party positions. The country has considerable experience of elections, although this is the first time Nepalis will elect a constitution-drafting body.
“It will be hard for any major party to back out of the elections now”, says Rhoderick Chalmers, Crisis Group’s South Asia Deputy Project Director. “But the vote itself is only one step: in the days and weeks afterward, leaders will need to respect the outcome of the poll, cope with challenges to the results and then prepare a unity government”.
The 23-point agreement of December 2007 committed the governing parties to make Nepal a federal democratic republic as soon as the Constituent Assembly (which will both write a constitution and serve as interim parliament) convenes and to implement still incomplete aspects of the peace process.
The main challenges concern the violence and intimidation that have dogged the campaign. Public security has been dismal throughout the ceasefire. Armed groups active in the Tarai plains have vowed to disrupt the elections, and the main parties have also engaged in misconduct. The Maoists are responsible for the most systematic attacks on other parties, but they have also been the greatest victims, with eight of their activists killed. The widely respected Election Commission has to manage a complex parallel electoral system, which poses considerable technical and logistical challenges, as well as dealing with likely appeals.
The post-poll period will likely be difficult and dangerous. Under the best of circumstances, it will probably take three weeks to determine final results, and the behaviour of powerful losers will shape the immediate aftermath. Therefore, the parties’ first commitment must be to respect the election’s outcome, as long as it is broadly free and fair. Whatever the results, seven-party cohesion would smooth the way forward, but leaders will need to prepare for a broader unity government that includes other parties that do well at the polls. The priority will then be to tackle the sensitive remaining parts of the peace deal, starting with grasping the nettle of security sector reform and converting the extended military ceasefire into structural support for sustainable peace.
“Surviving the rocky road to the polls and their probably turbulent aftermath will require cooperation and forward planning from the main parties”, says Robert Templer, Crisis Group’s Asia Program Director.
This entry was posted by Tremane Barr on April 7, 2008 at 12:33 pm and filed under Human Rights. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
« China’s Crackdown on Activists Intensified Because of Beijing Olympics, Says Amnesty InternationalRabbi Eliyahu: Life of one yeshiva boy worth more than 1,000 Arabs »Post a Comment
Nepal’s Election and Beyond
Kathmandu/Brussels: Elections for Nepal’s Constituent Assembly on 10 April could be marred by political violence, but if all parties cooperate, it will open the next stage in the peace process. Nepal’s Election and Beyond,* the latest report from the International Crisis Group, examines the positive signs and challenges in the run-up to the elections and calls upon the current seven-party coalition, including the Maoists, to prepare for difficult negotiations in the post-poll period in order to manage a transition to a new unity government.
There are many encouraging indications for the upcoming elections. Party campaigning has built up momentum and, combined with critical media scrutiny, has been boosting public awareness of the electoral system and party positions. The country has considerable experience of elections, although this is the first time Nepalis will elect a constitution-drafting body.
“It will be hard for any major party to back out of the elections now”, says Rhoderick Chalmers, Crisis Group’s South Asia Deputy Project Director. “But the vote itself is only one step: in the days and weeks afterward, leaders will need to respect the outcome of the poll, cope with challenges to the results and then prepare a unity government”.
The 23-point agreement of December 2007 committed the governing parties to make Nepal a federal democratic republic as soon as the Constituent Assembly (which will both write a constitution and serve as interim parliament) convenes and to implement still incomplete aspects of the peace process.
The main challenges concern the violence and intimidation that have dogged the campaign. Public security has been dismal throughout the ceasefire. Armed groups active in the Tarai plains have vowed to disrupt the elections, and the main parties have also engaged in misconduct. The Maoists are responsible for the most systematic attacks on other parties, but they have also been the greatest victims, with eight of their activists killed. The widely respected Election Commission has to manage a complex parallel electoral system, which poses considerable technical and logistical challenges, as well as dealing with likely appeals.
The post-poll period will likely be difficult and dangerous. Under the best of circumstances, it will probably take three weeks to determine final results, and the behaviour of powerful losers will shape the immediate aftermath. Therefore, the parties’ first commitment must be to respect the election’s outcome, as long as it is broadly free and fair. Whatever the results, seven-party cohesion would smooth the way forward, but leaders will need to prepare for a broader unity government that includes other parties that do well at the polls. The priority will then be to tackle the sensitive remaining parts of the peace deal, starting with grasping the nettle of security sector reform and converting the extended military ceasefire into structural support for sustainable peace.
“Surviving the rocky road to the polls and their probably turbulent aftermath will require cooperation and forward planning from the main parties”, says Robert Templer, Crisis Group’s Asia Program Director.
This entry was posted by Tremane Barr on April 7, 2008 at 12:33 pm and filed under Human Rights. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
« China’s Crackdown on Activists Intensified Because of Beijing Olympics, Says Amnesty InternationalRabbi Eliyahu: Life of one yeshiva boy worth more than 1,000 Arabs »Post a Comment
U.S. courting France as new NATO partner
This is from the Hindu.
This article shows why Sarkozy is courting the U.S. He wants France back in the command structure of NATO. De Gaulle a nationalist pulled France out to preserve French autonomy. Sarkozy however is competing with Britain for the role of U.S. lapdog in NATO. Soon Freedom Fries can return to being the traditional French Fries in the U.S.
U.S. courting France as new NATO partner
Vaiju Naravane
The obstacle to the cosying up between Paris and Washington could come from London.
The three-day summit meeting of the 26-member North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which opened in Bucharest on Wednesday, could lay the foundations for France’s return to the pact’s Integrated Military Command. The meeting brings together some 60 heads of state including Russia and NATO membership hopefuls, Georgia, Ukraine, Albania and other central European nations.
Two questions dominate the summit: President Bush’s determination to bring Georgia and Ukraine into the Alliance’s fold — a decision bitterly contested by Russia and one which does not have the support of France or Germany — and the possible return of France, one of NATO’s founding members, to the Integrated Military Command.
France quit NATO’s command structure under President Charles de Gaulle in 1966 in order to “fully exercise its sovereignty.” Since then relations between Paris and Washington have never been entirely easy. President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is distinctly pro-American, has publicly expressed his desire to mend that relationship and re-enter NATO’s command structure.
The United States is reportedly courting France as a new partner in leadership, perhaps even more than Britain and Germany, although Mr. Sarkozy is unlikely to give clear answers as yet to the issue of French reintegration. He announced last year that Paris was willing to return to the military structure provided the European Union first made progress on a common defence capability.
Le Monde reported that the entire scenario for the Bucharest summit was planned: Mr. Sarkozy’s announcement that Paris will increase the French contingent in Afghanistan by as much as a thousand men followed by the posing of preconditions for an eventual French return to NATO’s command structure, essentially the putting in place of a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). President Bush’s reply that he would welcome the establishment of the ESDP has also been closely scripted by French and American officials who have worked on this issue for the past several months. “Much will then depend on Washington’s moves over the next six month period,” Le Monde commented.
The main obstacle to this cosying up between Paris and Washington could, paradoxically, come from London. Prime Minister Gordon Brown will not actively support a new ESDP until and unless the British Parliament ratifies the new European (Lisbon) treaty. For Mr. Sarkozy to attain his objectives he will also need the support of the next occupant of the White House — an imponderable for the moment. The new President has taken a risk at home, since much of the political establishment is wedded to the notion of an independent French foreign and defence policy and is hostile to any hint of subservience to the U.S.
In France itself, there is a degree of hostility to the notion of “surrendering independence” to Washington, which is unlikely to share its leadership of NATO. Several members of Mr. Sarkozy’s own UMP party have reacted unkindly to what they see as the betrayal of General de Gaulle’s legacy. The socialists have described Mr. Sarkozy’s views as an “alignment” with Washington. Their opposition to his “Atlanticist turnaround” is shared by the communists and the far- left. Even centrist leader Francois Bayrou is dead set against a return to the military command quit by General de Gaulle. Mr. Sarkozy will have a difficult time convincing the Gaullist members of his party that the time has come for France to ally with Washington.
Guy Tessier, a conservative MP said: “Right now France can make its voice heard. We can tell the Americans what we think. We will lose that independence and become subservient to Washington. What we need is a better organised European defence policy.”
In Mr. Bayrou’s view too, a return to the command structure would mean “alignment” with Washington and loss of French “independence,” while socialist leader Pierre Moscovici said he saw “no interest at all for France in such a move”.
The prospect of France returning to NATO’s military command after more than four decades of estrangement is changing the power equations within the Alliance. Mr. Sarkozy’s move comes at a time when Britain’s armed forces are overstretched and Mr. Brown is keen on reducing overseas commitments. Germany’s “grand coalition” is hobbled by public opposition to any combat role.
Quoting European and American diplomats, The New York Times reported: “Washington is leaning discreetly on British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to cooperate with the French integration initiative, which U.S. policymakers no longer regard as a threat to NATO. The issue is sensitive in Britain, where Eurosceptics remain fiercely opposed to any idea of a ‘European army’.”
London boasts of a “special relationship” with Washington, but the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair became deeply unpopular at home for joining the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and Mr. Brown has taken a much lower profile in foreign affairs. NATO diplomats said Mr. Sarkozy has privately set a target date of 2009, as long as he gets the necessary political cover, notably from Britain, for enhanced European defence integration so he can argue that NATO is being transformed and “rebalanced”.
The French leader is expected to illustrate his value to the Alliance by announcing in Bucharest the despatch of some 1,000 extra combat troops to reinforce NATO in Afghanistan.
The idea of reintegrating NATO’s command structure is not a new one in France. President Chirac tried to push through such an agreement with Washington but gave up when the U.S. refused to budge on French requests for a top level command post within NATO. Mr. Sarkozy could come up against the same reticence, except that this time around he is playing a better hand. Washington desperately needs more help in Afghanistan and a beefing up of the French contingent could be a quid pro quo for a softening of the U.S. stand on NATO’s structure.
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu
This article shows why Sarkozy is courting the U.S. He wants France back in the command structure of NATO. De Gaulle a nationalist pulled France out to preserve French autonomy. Sarkozy however is competing with Britain for the role of U.S. lapdog in NATO. Soon Freedom Fries can return to being the traditional French Fries in the U.S.
U.S. courting France as new NATO partner
Vaiju Naravane
The obstacle to the cosying up between Paris and Washington could come from London.
The three-day summit meeting of the 26-member North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which opened in Bucharest on Wednesday, could lay the foundations for France’s return to the pact’s Integrated Military Command. The meeting brings together some 60 heads of state including Russia and NATO membership hopefuls, Georgia, Ukraine, Albania and other central European nations.
Two questions dominate the summit: President Bush’s determination to bring Georgia and Ukraine into the Alliance’s fold — a decision bitterly contested by Russia and one which does not have the support of France or Germany — and the possible return of France, one of NATO’s founding members, to the Integrated Military Command.
France quit NATO’s command structure under President Charles de Gaulle in 1966 in order to “fully exercise its sovereignty.” Since then relations between Paris and Washington have never been entirely easy. President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is distinctly pro-American, has publicly expressed his desire to mend that relationship and re-enter NATO’s command structure.
The United States is reportedly courting France as a new partner in leadership, perhaps even more than Britain and Germany, although Mr. Sarkozy is unlikely to give clear answers as yet to the issue of French reintegration. He announced last year that Paris was willing to return to the military structure provided the European Union first made progress on a common defence capability.
Le Monde reported that the entire scenario for the Bucharest summit was planned: Mr. Sarkozy’s announcement that Paris will increase the French contingent in Afghanistan by as much as a thousand men followed by the posing of preconditions for an eventual French return to NATO’s command structure, essentially the putting in place of a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). President Bush’s reply that he would welcome the establishment of the ESDP has also been closely scripted by French and American officials who have worked on this issue for the past several months. “Much will then depend on Washington’s moves over the next six month period,” Le Monde commented.
The main obstacle to this cosying up between Paris and Washington could, paradoxically, come from London. Prime Minister Gordon Brown will not actively support a new ESDP until and unless the British Parliament ratifies the new European (Lisbon) treaty. For Mr. Sarkozy to attain his objectives he will also need the support of the next occupant of the White House — an imponderable for the moment. The new President has taken a risk at home, since much of the political establishment is wedded to the notion of an independent French foreign and defence policy and is hostile to any hint of subservience to the U.S.
In France itself, there is a degree of hostility to the notion of “surrendering independence” to Washington, which is unlikely to share its leadership of NATO. Several members of Mr. Sarkozy’s own UMP party have reacted unkindly to what they see as the betrayal of General de Gaulle’s legacy. The socialists have described Mr. Sarkozy’s views as an “alignment” with Washington. Their opposition to his “Atlanticist turnaround” is shared by the communists and the far- left. Even centrist leader Francois Bayrou is dead set against a return to the military command quit by General de Gaulle. Mr. Sarkozy will have a difficult time convincing the Gaullist members of his party that the time has come for France to ally with Washington.
Guy Tessier, a conservative MP said: “Right now France can make its voice heard. We can tell the Americans what we think. We will lose that independence and become subservient to Washington. What we need is a better organised European defence policy.”
In Mr. Bayrou’s view too, a return to the command structure would mean “alignment” with Washington and loss of French “independence,” while socialist leader Pierre Moscovici said he saw “no interest at all for France in such a move”.
The prospect of France returning to NATO’s military command after more than four decades of estrangement is changing the power equations within the Alliance. Mr. Sarkozy’s move comes at a time when Britain’s armed forces are overstretched and Mr. Brown is keen on reducing overseas commitments. Germany’s “grand coalition” is hobbled by public opposition to any combat role.
Quoting European and American diplomats, The New York Times reported: “Washington is leaning discreetly on British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to cooperate with the French integration initiative, which U.S. policymakers no longer regard as a threat to NATO. The issue is sensitive in Britain, where Eurosceptics remain fiercely opposed to any idea of a ‘European army’.”
London boasts of a “special relationship” with Washington, but the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair became deeply unpopular at home for joining the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and Mr. Brown has taken a much lower profile in foreign affairs. NATO diplomats said Mr. Sarkozy has privately set a target date of 2009, as long as he gets the necessary political cover, notably from Britain, for enhanced European defence integration so he can argue that NATO is being transformed and “rebalanced”.
The French leader is expected to illustrate his value to the Alliance by announcing in Bucharest the despatch of some 1,000 extra combat troops to reinforce NATO in Afghanistan.
The idea of reintegrating NATO’s command structure is not a new one in France. President Chirac tried to push through such an agreement with Washington but gave up when the U.S. refused to budge on French requests for a top level command post within NATO. Mr. Sarkozy could come up against the same reticence, except that this time around he is playing a better hand. Washington desperately needs more help in Afghanistan and a beefing up of the French contingent could be a quid pro quo for a softening of the U.S. stand on NATO’s structure.
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu
Rice shortage bites..
This is from Bloomberg. As this article notes the rice shortage is a global phenomenom and as the staple food is much of the world these increases will have a devastating impact on the poorest in many countries. It sounds as if some traders are hoarding to increase prices even more and the article notes the increase in stock prices of one trading company.
Rice shortage bites
From Cairo to New Delhi to Shanghai, the run on rice is threatening to disrupt worldwide food supplies as much as the scarcity of confidence on Wall Street earlier this year roiled credit markets.
China, Egypt, Vietnam and India, representing more than a third of global rice exports, curbed sales this year, and Indonesia says it may do the same. Investigators in the Philippines, the world's biggest importer, raided warehouses last month to crack down on hoarding. The World Bank in Washington says 33 nations from Mexico to Yemen may face ''social unrest'' after food and energy costs increased for six straight years.
Rice, the staple food for half the world, rose to a record $US20.50 per 100 pounds in Chicago on April 4, double the price a year ago and a fivefold increase from 2001. It may reach $US22 by November, said Dennis DeLaughter, owner of Progressive Farm Marketing in Edna, Texas.
''Rice will gain substantially over the next two years,'' said Roland Jansen, chief executive officer of Pfaffikon, Switzerland-based Mother Earth Investments, which holds 4% of its $US100 million funds in the grain. Governments will likely maintain curbs on exports ''because those countries want to be able to continue to feed their own populations,'' he said.
The upheaval parallels turmoil in global capital markets that seized up nine months ago when subprime mortgages collapsed. The difference between what it costs the US government to borrow and the rate banks charge each other for three month loans ended last week at 1.36 percentage points. A year ago the gap was 0.33 percentage point.
Export Curbs
Rice growing nations are driving up prices for producers that want to sell abroad. The Vietnam Food Association said April 2 it asked members to stop signing export contracts through June, following China, which imposed a 5% tax on exports as of January 1. Egypt banned rice shipments through October.
Prices ''are not coming back to the levels we came from,'' said Mamadou Ciss, head of Singapore-based rice broker Hermes Investments. Vietnam's 5% broken-grain rice may be 40% higher within three months, he said.
Record grain prices are stoking inflation. Wholesale costs in India rose 7% in the week ended March 22, the fastest pace in more than three years, underscoring the threat from rising food costs, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in New Delhi said April 4.
The increase may boost profits for suppliers. Padiberas Nasional rose the most in seven years in Kuala Lumpur stock exchange trading last week. The company is Malaysia's only licensed rice supplier.
Commodity Rally
Goldman Sachs forecasts that all agricultural commodities it covers will rise during the next six months, except for sugar. Global demand for cereals will expand 2.6% this year, 1.6 percentage points above the 10-year average, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome.
The UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index of 26 raw materials gained for six consecutive years and advanced 15% this year.
''We have some very serious problems developing globally for food and energy,'' said Greg Smith, executive director of Global Commodities in Adelaide, which manages $US350 million.
World rice stockpiles are at their lowest levels since the 1980s, and the United Nations forecasts that exports will drop 3.5% this year.
Demand will increase 0.6% this year to 422.5 million tons, while production will rise about 1% to 422.9 million tons, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said March 11.
Grains Revolution
Rice yi
Rice shortage bites
From Cairo to New Delhi to Shanghai, the run on rice is threatening to disrupt worldwide food supplies as much as the scarcity of confidence on Wall Street earlier this year roiled credit markets.
China, Egypt, Vietnam and India, representing more than a third of global rice exports, curbed sales this year, and Indonesia says it may do the same. Investigators in the Philippines, the world's biggest importer, raided warehouses last month to crack down on hoarding. The World Bank in Washington says 33 nations from Mexico to Yemen may face ''social unrest'' after food and energy costs increased for six straight years.
Rice, the staple food for half the world, rose to a record $US20.50 per 100 pounds in Chicago on April 4, double the price a year ago and a fivefold increase from 2001. It may reach $US22 by November, said Dennis DeLaughter, owner of Progressive Farm Marketing in Edna, Texas.
''Rice will gain substantially over the next two years,'' said Roland Jansen, chief executive officer of Pfaffikon, Switzerland-based Mother Earth Investments, which holds 4% of its $US100 million funds in the grain. Governments will likely maintain curbs on exports ''because those countries want to be able to continue to feed their own populations,'' he said.
The upheaval parallels turmoil in global capital markets that seized up nine months ago when subprime mortgages collapsed. The difference between what it costs the US government to borrow and the rate banks charge each other for three month loans ended last week at 1.36 percentage points. A year ago the gap was 0.33 percentage point.
Export Curbs
Rice growing nations are driving up prices for producers that want to sell abroad. The Vietnam Food Association said April 2 it asked members to stop signing export contracts through June, following China, which imposed a 5% tax on exports as of January 1. Egypt banned rice shipments through October.
Prices ''are not coming back to the levels we came from,'' said Mamadou Ciss, head of Singapore-based rice broker Hermes Investments. Vietnam's 5% broken-grain rice may be 40% higher within three months, he said.
Record grain prices are stoking inflation. Wholesale costs in India rose 7% in the week ended March 22, the fastest pace in more than three years, underscoring the threat from rising food costs, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in New Delhi said April 4.
The increase may boost profits for suppliers. Padiberas Nasional rose the most in seven years in Kuala Lumpur stock exchange trading last week. The company is Malaysia's only licensed rice supplier.
Commodity Rally
Goldman Sachs forecasts that all agricultural commodities it covers will rise during the next six months, except for sugar. Global demand for cereals will expand 2.6% this year, 1.6 percentage points above the 10-year average, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome.
The UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index of 26 raw materials gained for six consecutive years and advanced 15% this year.
''We have some very serious problems developing globally for food and energy,'' said Greg Smith, executive director of Global Commodities in Adelaide, which manages $US350 million.
World rice stockpiles are at their lowest levels since the 1980s, and the United Nations forecasts that exports will drop 3.5% this year.
Demand will increase 0.6% this year to 422.5 million tons, while production will rise about 1% to 422.9 million tons, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said March 11.
Grains Revolution
Rice yi