This is from Xinhua. I wonder why the Philippine govt. finds it necessary to call in the FBI? Maybe there is some agreement that they will be invited in when the matter has to do with terrorism. There seems to be quite a bit of co-operation on military maneuvers and the fight against terrorism with the U.S.
U.S. FBI agents in S Philippines to probe deadly bombing
www.chinaview.cn 2008-05-31 21:41:49
Print
MANILA, May 31 (Xinhua) -- Agents of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have arrived in the southern Philippine city Zamboanga to investigate Thursday's powerful bombing which killed two and injured more than 20, reported local daily Philippine Daily Inquirer website Saturday.
The report quoted U.S. embassy spokeswoman Rebecca Thompson as saying that FBI personnel were sent "at the request of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police."
Thursday's bombing took place in front of the office of the U.S.-funded renewable energy company and that of a congresswoman.
The victims were relatives of air force soldiers and they were awaiting to avail of free military air transport to Manila when the bomb went off. The bomb, police investigators said, was hidden in the luggage of people waiting for boarding a military C-130 plane due to take off for Manila
No group has claimed responsibility for the blast so far.
Philippine police said the bomb contained TNT but they could not determine the exact target of the attack. Police also blamed Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) rebels in the nearby island of Basilan and the Abu Sayyaf rebels for the attack.
The MILF has denied any involvement. An MILF statement said the blast was "again the handiwork of agents of darkness".
Editor: Amber Yao
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Opposition mounts to US-Security deal.
The opposition is spreading beyond the Sadr supporters obviously. I have never heard a U.S. commentator consider the possibility that Iraq and not the U.S. might decide when U.S. troops will be withdrawn! It is always discussed as if it was only a question for Americans to decide!
Opposition mounts to US-Iraq security deal
Thousands protest in Iraq against proposed security agreement with US
ROBERT H. REIDAP News
May 30, 2008 14:43 EST
Tens of thousands rallied in several cities Friday against a proposed U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, raising doubts that negotiators can meet a July target to finalize a pact to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after the current U.N. mandate expires.
Although U.S. officials insist they are not seeking permanent bases, suspicion runs deep among many Iraqis that the Americans want to keep at least some troops in the country for many years.
"We denounce the government's intentions to sign a long-term agreement with the occupying forces," Asaad al-Nassiri, a sheik loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said during a sermon in Kufa. "Our army will be under their control in this agreement, and this will lead to them having permanent bases in Iraq."
President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a statement last December on the future of U.S.-Iraqi relations, saying they planned to finalize a new security agreement by July 31 — in time for Iraq's parliament to approve the deal before a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
U.S. and Iraqi officials began negotiations in March on a blueprint for the long-term security agreement and a second deal, to establish the legal basis for U.S. troops to remain in the country after the U.N. mandate runs out.
Rallies in Baghdad and several other Iraqi cities followed Friday prayer services and were the first in wake of a call by al-Sadr for weekly protests against the deal, even though few details of the talks have been released.
Most of the protesters appeared to be followers of al-Sadr, the hardline Shiite cleric and militia leader whose Mahdi Army battled American and Iraqi troops in Baghdad's Sadr City district until a truce this month ended nearly seven weeks of fighting.
But opposition to the agreement appears to be growing beyond the Sadrist movement.
A militant Sunni clerical group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, denounced the "ring of secrecy" surrounding the talks and said the proposed deal would pave the way for "military, economic and cultural domination" by the Americans.
On Thursday, the head of the country's biggest mainstream Shiite party, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, said some unspecified points under negotiation "violate Iraq's national sovereignty," adding that a "national consensus" was emerging against the proposed agreement.
Al-Hakim is al-Sadr's main rival in the majority Shiite community and maintains close ties to the country's main Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Aides to the powerful ayatollah say he also has reservations about the deal.
Some congressional Democrats are also insisting that Congress should authorize any agreement that would obligate the United States to defend Iraq.
Before the Friday protests, al-Sadr's office in Baghdad issued a statement branding the negotiations as "a project of humiliation" aimed at turning Iraq "into a small stooge of the United States."
U.S. officials have declined to comment on the talks until the draft is completed.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said two weeks ago that "we are making progress" although other Iraqi officials acknowledged there were many unresolved issues, including how many Americans would remain and what they would do. American soldiers now enjoy full immunity from the Iraqi legal system.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to talk about the negotiations.
Rallies against the security deal occurred as the U.S. military was seeking to contain the public relations damage caused by reports that an American Marine handed out coins promoting Christianity to Sunni Muslims in the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.
Sunni officials and residents said a Marine distributed about 10 coins at a checkpoint controlling access to the city, the scene of one of the fiercest battles of the war.
One side asked: "Where will you spend eternity?"
The other contained a verse from the New Testament: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16."
Mohammed Hassan Abdullah said he witnessed the coins being handed out on Tuesday as he was waiting at the Halabsa checkpoint, although he didn't receive one himself.
The U.S. military responded quickly to the incident, first reported by McClatchy Newspapers, removing a Marine from duty pending an investigation. Military regulations forbid proselytizing any religion.
"Indications are this was an isolated incident — an individual Marine acting on his own accord passing out coins," Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, a spokesman for U.S. forces in western Iraq, said in an e-mailed statement.
Distribution of the coins was the second perceived insult to Islam by American service members this month. A U.S. Army sniper was sent out of the country after using a Quran, Islam's holy book, for target practice in a predominantly Sunni area west of Baghdad.
"This event did not happen by chance, but it was planned and done intentionally," Sheik Abdul-Rahman al-Zubaie, an influential tribal leader in Fallujah, said of the coins. "The Sunni population cannot accept and endure such a thing. I might not be able to control people's reactions if such incidents keep happening."
__
Associated Press writer Sameer N. Yacoub and AP staff in Fallujah
Opposition mounts to US-Iraq security deal
Thousands protest in Iraq against proposed security agreement with US
ROBERT H. REIDAP News
May 30, 2008 14:43 EST
Tens of thousands rallied in several cities Friday against a proposed U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, raising doubts that negotiators can meet a July target to finalize a pact to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after the current U.N. mandate expires.
Although U.S. officials insist they are not seeking permanent bases, suspicion runs deep among many Iraqis that the Americans want to keep at least some troops in the country for many years.
"We denounce the government's intentions to sign a long-term agreement with the occupying forces," Asaad al-Nassiri, a sheik loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said during a sermon in Kufa. "Our army will be under their control in this agreement, and this will lead to them having permanent bases in Iraq."
President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a statement last December on the future of U.S.-Iraqi relations, saying they planned to finalize a new security agreement by July 31 — in time for Iraq's parliament to approve the deal before a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
U.S. and Iraqi officials began negotiations in March on a blueprint for the long-term security agreement and a second deal, to establish the legal basis for U.S. troops to remain in the country after the U.N. mandate runs out.
Rallies in Baghdad and several other Iraqi cities followed Friday prayer services and were the first in wake of a call by al-Sadr for weekly protests against the deal, even though few details of the talks have been released.
Most of the protesters appeared to be followers of al-Sadr, the hardline Shiite cleric and militia leader whose Mahdi Army battled American and Iraqi troops in Baghdad's Sadr City district until a truce this month ended nearly seven weeks of fighting.
But opposition to the agreement appears to be growing beyond the Sadrist movement.
A militant Sunni clerical group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, denounced the "ring of secrecy" surrounding the talks and said the proposed deal would pave the way for "military, economic and cultural domination" by the Americans.
On Thursday, the head of the country's biggest mainstream Shiite party, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, said some unspecified points under negotiation "violate Iraq's national sovereignty," adding that a "national consensus" was emerging against the proposed agreement.
Al-Hakim is al-Sadr's main rival in the majority Shiite community and maintains close ties to the country's main Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Aides to the powerful ayatollah say he also has reservations about the deal.
Some congressional Democrats are also insisting that Congress should authorize any agreement that would obligate the United States to defend Iraq.
Before the Friday protests, al-Sadr's office in Baghdad issued a statement branding the negotiations as "a project of humiliation" aimed at turning Iraq "into a small stooge of the United States."
U.S. officials have declined to comment on the talks until the draft is completed.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said two weeks ago that "we are making progress" although other Iraqi officials acknowledged there were many unresolved issues, including how many Americans would remain and what they would do. American soldiers now enjoy full immunity from the Iraqi legal system.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to talk about the negotiations.
Rallies against the security deal occurred as the U.S. military was seeking to contain the public relations damage caused by reports that an American Marine handed out coins promoting Christianity to Sunni Muslims in the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.
Sunni officials and residents said a Marine distributed about 10 coins at a checkpoint controlling access to the city, the scene of one of the fiercest battles of the war.
One side asked: "Where will you spend eternity?"
The other contained a verse from the New Testament: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16."
Mohammed Hassan Abdullah said he witnessed the coins being handed out on Tuesday as he was waiting at the Halabsa checkpoint, although he didn't receive one himself.
The U.S. military responded quickly to the incident, first reported by McClatchy Newspapers, removing a Marine from duty pending an investigation. Military regulations forbid proselytizing any religion.
"Indications are this was an isolated incident — an individual Marine acting on his own accord passing out coins," Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, a spokesman for U.S. forces in western Iraq, said in an e-mailed statement.
Distribution of the coins was the second perceived insult to Islam by American service members this month. A U.S. Army sniper was sent out of the country after using a Quran, Islam's holy book, for target practice in a predominantly Sunni area west of Baghdad.
"This event did not happen by chance, but it was planned and done intentionally," Sheik Abdul-Rahman al-Zubaie, an influential tribal leader in Fallujah, said of the coins. "The Sunni population cannot accept and endure such a thing. I might not be able to control people's reactions if such incidents keep happening."
__
Associated Press writer Sameer N. Yacoub and AP staff in Fallujah
The coalition of the willingly bribed!
This is from the Times of India.
I imagine that the UK would have joined in with the U.S. any event given that Blair was usually anxious to please Bush. Poland and South Korea perhaps would not have gone to Iraq without some inducements.
The Times of India
US paying allies to fight war in Iraq31 May 2008, 0335 hrs IST,Subodh Varma,TNN
NEW DELHI: The tale of massive fraud and embezzlement of millions of dollars by the US military in its operations in Iraq continues. Testifying before the US Congress Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on 22 May, Mary Ugone, deputy inspector general of accounts in the Pentagon said that an audit of $8.2 billion spending related to the Iraq war showed that $7.8 billion had been improperly spent. Over 180,000 payments, mostly since the war started in 2003, were made by the defense department to contractors for everything from bottled water to vehicles to transportation services. In her testimony, Ugone also revealed that $135 million were given to forces from three countries UK, South Korea and Poland to facilitate their participation in the war. This is the first time that the US has officially admitted paying its allies in the so-called Coalition of the Willing that invaded Iraq in March 2003. In his opening statement, Henry Waxman, chairman of the committee, said that wounded soldiers are getting notices from the Pentagon to return signing bonuses with interest since they had not completed the full term. "There is something very wrong when our wounded troops have to fill out forms in triplicate for meal money while billions of dollars in cash are handed out in Iraq with no accountability," he said. In an earlier report released in November 2007, the Inspector General had concluded that the Defense Department couldn't properly account for over $5 billion in taxpayer funds spent in support of the Iraq Security Forces. It said that thousands of weapons, including assault rifles, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers were unaccounted for, and millions of dollars had been squandered on construction projects that did not exist. Ugones testimony gave detailed examples of the bizarre manner in which US defense officials doled out huge amounts of money without recording where it was going. In one case a sum of $320 million was paid an Iraqi official for paying salaries with only an incompletely filled voucher signed by one official. Since no details of the spending plan were attached as required by Pentagon rules the auditors have no clue as to where the money went. This payment was made from assets seized from Iraq. Auditors found that the Pentagon gave away $1.8 billion from seized Iraqi assets. There were 53 vouchers noting these payments but not even one adequately explained where the money went. In another instance, two vouchers, one for $5 million and the other for $2.7 million showed payments to a vendor for goods and services provided except that there were no details of what goods or services were actually delivered. Over $2.7 billion was spent on providing equipment and services to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). The auditors found that $2 billion of this was not properly accounted for. For example, 31 heavy tracked recovery vehicles costing $10.2 million were given to the ISF, but 18 of them could not be traced because identification numbers were not recorded.
I imagine that the UK would have joined in with the U.S. any event given that Blair was usually anxious to please Bush. Poland and South Korea perhaps would not have gone to Iraq without some inducements.
The Times of India
US paying allies to fight war in Iraq31 May 2008, 0335 hrs IST,Subodh Varma,TNN
NEW DELHI: The tale of massive fraud and embezzlement of millions of dollars by the US military in its operations in Iraq continues. Testifying before the US Congress Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on 22 May, Mary Ugone, deputy inspector general of accounts in the Pentagon said that an audit of $8.2 billion spending related to the Iraq war showed that $7.8 billion had been improperly spent. Over 180,000 payments, mostly since the war started in 2003, were made by the defense department to contractors for everything from bottled water to vehicles to transportation services. In her testimony, Ugone also revealed that $135 million were given to forces from three countries UK, South Korea and Poland to facilitate their participation in the war. This is the first time that the US has officially admitted paying its allies in the so-called Coalition of the Willing that invaded Iraq in March 2003. In his opening statement, Henry Waxman, chairman of the committee, said that wounded soldiers are getting notices from the Pentagon to return signing bonuses with interest since they had not completed the full term. "There is something very wrong when our wounded troops have to fill out forms in triplicate for meal money while billions of dollars in cash are handed out in Iraq with no accountability," he said. In an earlier report released in November 2007, the Inspector General had concluded that the Defense Department couldn't properly account for over $5 billion in taxpayer funds spent in support of the Iraq Security Forces. It said that thousands of weapons, including assault rifles, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers were unaccounted for, and millions of dollars had been squandered on construction projects that did not exist. Ugones testimony gave detailed examples of the bizarre manner in which US defense officials doled out huge amounts of money without recording where it was going. In one case a sum of $320 million was paid an Iraqi official for paying salaries with only an incompletely filled voucher signed by one official. Since no details of the spending plan were attached as required by Pentagon rules the auditors have no clue as to where the money went. This payment was made from assets seized from Iraq. Auditors found that the Pentagon gave away $1.8 billion from seized Iraqi assets. There were 53 vouchers noting these payments but not even one adequately explained where the money went. In another instance, two vouchers, one for $5 million and the other for $2.7 million showed payments to a vendor for goods and services provided except that there were no details of what goods or services were actually delivered. Over $2.7 billion was spent on providing equipment and services to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). The auditors found that $2 billion of this was not properly accounted for. For example, 31 heavy tracked recovery vehicles costing $10.2 million were given to the ISF, but 18 of them could not be traced because identification numbers were not recorded.
Friday, May 30, 2008
U.S. absent as global cluster munitions ban agreed.
There is a new axis of evil: U.S. China, and Russia (et al). The U.S. not only opposes this ban on cluster bombs but also the ban on landmines. The U.S. through its allies and client states such as Canada and Australia have been pressing for the loophole mentioned that in joint operations with non-signatories such as the U.S. signatories could be involved in joint operations that use cluster bombs. Whether the final text retains this loophole should be evident today.
U.S. absent as global cluster munitions ban agreed
By Andras GergelyWed May 28, 5:40 PM ET
A draft treaty for a worldwide ban on cluster munitions was adopted on Wednesday although major powers including the United States did not attend the meeting.
The Dublin gathering attended by more than 100 nations made the final step towards agreement after a promise from Britain to stop using the devices. Cluster bombs can cause indiscriminate injury long after a conflict has ended.
Diplomats and activists said the text built on the lessons from the 1997 treaty to ban landmines and it did not allow exceptions.
"It's a strong and robust prohibition on all known cluster munitions," Christian Ruge, a member of the Norwegian delegation, told Reuters after a meeting that Russia and China also did not attend.
The draft will be submitted to a plenary session on Friday but approval is now regarded as a formality. Unless any unexpected objections derail the process, the treaty is due to be signed in Oslo in December.
Cluster munitions open in mid-air and scatter as many as several hundred "bomblets" over a wide area. They often fail to explode, creating virtual minefields that can kill or injure anyone who finds them later, often curious children.
Despite the draft treaty, the United States said it still opposed a ban on cluster munitions.
U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the elimination of cluster bombs from U.S. stockpiles would put the lives of U.S. soldiers and those of their allies at risk.
"While the United States shares the humanitarian concerns of those in Dublin, cluster munitions have demonstrated military utility," said Casey.
WEAKEN TREATY
Activists have accused the United States of pressing allies such as Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Australia to try to weaken the treaty.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been pushing his reluctant military to ban the use of the munitions and ordered a Ministry of Defense review earlier this month.
"In order to secure as strong a convention as possible, in the last hours of negotiation we have issued instructions that we should support a ban on all cluster bombs, including those currently in service by the UK," Brown said on Wednesday.
France said last Friday it would withdraw a type of munition that accounted for 90 percent of its cluster bomb stocks.
The last major issues to be resolved centre on military cooperation with countries still using cluster bombs and whether non-signatories such as the United States could keep stockpiles of such weapons in states that have signed up to the ban.
Steve Goose, arms director at New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), said Wednesday's agreement was a success for activists but a section in the text about military cooperation with non-signatories was a partial American victory.
"The US won some concessions on the issue of interoperability," the HRW statement said. "The draft treaty text contains a loophole."
Cluster bombs can be dropped from aircraft or fired in missiles or artillery shells and have been used in conflicts including Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the Balkans and by Israel in southern Lebanon as recently as 2006.
(Additional reporting by David Clarke in London; Editing by Robert Woodward)
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
U.S. absent as global cluster munitions ban agreed
By Andras GergelyWed May 28, 5:40 PM ET
A draft treaty for a worldwide ban on cluster munitions was adopted on Wednesday although major powers including the United States did not attend the meeting.
The Dublin gathering attended by more than 100 nations made the final step towards agreement after a promise from Britain to stop using the devices. Cluster bombs can cause indiscriminate injury long after a conflict has ended.
Diplomats and activists said the text built on the lessons from the 1997 treaty to ban landmines and it did not allow exceptions.
"It's a strong and robust prohibition on all known cluster munitions," Christian Ruge, a member of the Norwegian delegation, told Reuters after a meeting that Russia and China also did not attend.
The draft will be submitted to a plenary session on Friday but approval is now regarded as a formality. Unless any unexpected objections derail the process, the treaty is due to be signed in Oslo in December.
Cluster munitions open in mid-air and scatter as many as several hundred "bomblets" over a wide area. They often fail to explode, creating virtual minefields that can kill or injure anyone who finds them later, often curious children.
Despite the draft treaty, the United States said it still opposed a ban on cluster munitions.
U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the elimination of cluster bombs from U.S. stockpiles would put the lives of U.S. soldiers and those of their allies at risk.
"While the United States shares the humanitarian concerns of those in Dublin, cluster munitions have demonstrated military utility," said Casey.
WEAKEN TREATY
Activists have accused the United States of pressing allies such as Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Australia to try to weaken the treaty.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been pushing his reluctant military to ban the use of the munitions and ordered a Ministry of Defense review earlier this month.
"In order to secure as strong a convention as possible, in the last hours of negotiation we have issued instructions that we should support a ban on all cluster bombs, including those currently in service by the UK," Brown said on Wednesday.
France said last Friday it would withdraw a type of munition that accounted for 90 percent of its cluster bomb stocks.
The last major issues to be resolved centre on military cooperation with countries still using cluster bombs and whether non-signatories such as the United States could keep stockpiles of such weapons in states that have signed up to the ban.
Steve Goose, arms director at New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), said Wednesday's agreement was a success for activists but a section in the text about military cooperation with non-signatories was a partial American victory.
"The US won some concessions on the issue of interoperability," the HRW statement said. "The draft treaty text contains a loophole."
Cluster bombs can be dropped from aircraft or fired in missiles or artillery shells and have been used in conflicts including Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the Balkans and by Israel in southern Lebanon as recently as 2006.
(Additional reporting by David Clarke in London; Editing by Robert Woodward)
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
Why doesn''t Al Qaeda attack the U.S.
This is from anti-war.com. (Anti-war.com needs donations or it may close up shop). I have often been surprised that there are not attacks on the continental U.S. This article gives some of the reasons. As I recall there have been threats to attack the U.S. Threats without any actual backup hardly give Al Qaeda any credibility. In fact Al Qaeda's seeming inability to attack the U.S. gives credibility to the U.S. official position that the U.S. will fight in Iraq and elsewhere to avoid having to fight them in the U.S.
Why Doesn't al-Qaeda Attack the US?
by Michael Scheuer
With daily television coverage of suicide car-bomb attacks, ambushes, drive-by shootings, stabbings, and other Intifada-type attacks around the world, the question arises as to why al-Qaeda does not stage such small-scale but deadly operations in the United States. From Washington and the presidential campaign trail comes a cocky, multi-part answer: our massive homeland security spending has worked; al-Qaeda is on the run and hiding; and/or the U.S. military is fighting the Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan so they cannot come to America. There may be a mite of truth in each claim, but the correct answer would be frankly to acknowledge that al-Qaeda would have no trouble mounting the kind of attacks made against Israel in America – guns, cars, militant Muslims, and open borders for other needs are all readily available – but that, at this time, it has no interest in staging Intifada-type attacks in the United States.
There are at least three solid reasons why al-Qaeda is not running an Intifada-like campaign in the United States:
1.) Al-Qaeda does not want to fight the United States for any longer than is needed to drive it as far as possible out of the Middle East, and its doctrine for so doing has, in Osama bin Laden's formulation, three components: (a) bleed America to bankruptcy; (b) spread out U.S. forces to the greatest extent possible; and (c) promote Vietnam-era-like domestic disunity. Based on this doctrine, al-Qaeda leaders have decided that attacks in the United States are only worthwhile if they have maximum and simultaneous impact in three areas: high and enduring economic costs, severe casualties, and lasting negative psychological impact. Such an attack, they believe, would require significant U.S. military participation in the post-attack phase – especially if the weapon used is the nuclear device they have sought since the early 1990s – and thereby reduce the military's ability to operate overseas. They also believe that a greater-than-9/11 attack would greatly undermine the confidence of Americans in Washington's ability to protect them. (NB: The usually deft Osama bin Laden also has put himself in something of a box regarding another attack in America because he pledged the next attack will be more destructive than 9/11. Paradoxically, a spate of Intifada-type attacks by al-Qaeda in the United States could well be good news because it probably would signal an admission by bin Laden, et. al that they no longer have the capability to match or exceed the attacks of 9/11 inside America.)
2.) Al-Qaeda appears to recognize the huge difference between attacking Israel and attacking the United States. For Palestinian and Hezbollah insurgents, Intifada-style attacks have sufficed; over the decades, the limited number of casualties the Palestinians and Hezbollah have inflicted on Israel's small population has repeatedly won concessions. Suicide attacks, ambushes, and stabbings against America's 300-plus-million population would cause outrage, a few casualties, and some panic, internal confusion, and perhaps limited inter-ethnic-group violence. They would not, however, shift the strategic balance in al-Qaeda's favor. Intifada-style attacks could not satisfy any of al-Qaeda's three-part doctrine: they would not (a) cause U.S. bankruptcy, (b) require large numbers of U.S. troops to clean-up after, or (c) significantly undermine political cohesion. Indeed, there is reason to surmise that al-Qaeda's leaders have concluded that attacks like those used against Israel – which intend to cause deaths of women, children, and the elderly – would unite Americans rather than divide them.
3.) Al-Qaeda leaders probably think, for the moment, that it would be counterproductive to stage any but a larger-than-9/11 attack in America. Currently, Bin Laden and his senior lieutenants are clearly off balance vis-à-vis the United State because so much substantive success has accrued to al-Qaeda's interests so quickly since 9/11. Neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban were destroyed in 2001; both escaped with most of their forces largely intact. Each has regrouped, rearmed, and retrained in safe havens in the Pashtun tribal lands that straddle the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The Pakistan army's incursion into the tribal zone was defeated; the new, less-pro-U.S. government in Islamabad is suing for peace with the tribes; and the Islamization of Pakistan continues unabated. The Muslim world perceives that the U.S. military is being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has been further alienated by the U.S. treatment of captured mujahedin. Finally, the U.S. economy is slowing, Americans are severely divided over Washington's activities overseas, and none of the three major presidential candidates are likely to drastically alter the foreign policies all polls show are hated by up to 80 percent of Muslims. This embarrassment of riches advances each part of al-Qaeda's doctrine for fighting America – casualties, costs, and disunity – and it has been accumulated without a follow-up-to-9/11 attack. While bin Laden might well risk this good fortune for a chance to detonate a nuclear device in the United States, he certainly would not risk it now for the sake of shooting up a half-dozen theaters, coffee shops, and pizza parlors.
So, Americans can relax a bit, go to the movies or the mall, and stop afterwards for coffee or pizza without worrying too much about al-Qaeda launching small-scale attacks. For now, Americans should see themselves as being in standby mode for the larger-than-9/11 attack bin Laden eventually will trigger because the last two U.S. administrations and Senators McCain, Clinton, and Obama have warned about the severe Islamist threat, while knowingly encouraging its worldwide growth by championing status quo foreign policies that degrade U.S. security, as well as by supinely appeasing their Saudi and Israeli masters.
Why Doesn't al-Qaeda Attack the US?
by Michael Scheuer
With daily television coverage of suicide car-bomb attacks, ambushes, drive-by shootings, stabbings, and other Intifada-type attacks around the world, the question arises as to why al-Qaeda does not stage such small-scale but deadly operations in the United States. From Washington and the presidential campaign trail comes a cocky, multi-part answer: our massive homeland security spending has worked; al-Qaeda is on the run and hiding; and/or the U.S. military is fighting the Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan so they cannot come to America. There may be a mite of truth in each claim, but the correct answer would be frankly to acknowledge that al-Qaeda would have no trouble mounting the kind of attacks made against Israel in America – guns, cars, militant Muslims, and open borders for other needs are all readily available – but that, at this time, it has no interest in staging Intifada-type attacks in the United States.
There are at least three solid reasons why al-Qaeda is not running an Intifada-like campaign in the United States:
1.) Al-Qaeda does not want to fight the United States for any longer than is needed to drive it as far as possible out of the Middle East, and its doctrine for so doing has, in Osama bin Laden's formulation, three components: (a) bleed America to bankruptcy; (b) spread out U.S. forces to the greatest extent possible; and (c) promote Vietnam-era-like domestic disunity. Based on this doctrine, al-Qaeda leaders have decided that attacks in the United States are only worthwhile if they have maximum and simultaneous impact in three areas: high and enduring economic costs, severe casualties, and lasting negative psychological impact. Such an attack, they believe, would require significant U.S. military participation in the post-attack phase – especially if the weapon used is the nuclear device they have sought since the early 1990s – and thereby reduce the military's ability to operate overseas. They also believe that a greater-than-9/11 attack would greatly undermine the confidence of Americans in Washington's ability to protect them. (NB: The usually deft Osama bin Laden also has put himself in something of a box regarding another attack in America because he pledged the next attack will be more destructive than 9/11. Paradoxically, a spate of Intifada-type attacks by al-Qaeda in the United States could well be good news because it probably would signal an admission by bin Laden, et. al that they no longer have the capability to match or exceed the attacks of 9/11 inside America.)
2.) Al-Qaeda appears to recognize the huge difference between attacking Israel and attacking the United States. For Palestinian and Hezbollah insurgents, Intifada-style attacks have sufficed; over the decades, the limited number of casualties the Palestinians and Hezbollah have inflicted on Israel's small population has repeatedly won concessions. Suicide attacks, ambushes, and stabbings against America's 300-plus-million population would cause outrage, a few casualties, and some panic, internal confusion, and perhaps limited inter-ethnic-group violence. They would not, however, shift the strategic balance in al-Qaeda's favor. Intifada-style attacks could not satisfy any of al-Qaeda's three-part doctrine: they would not (a) cause U.S. bankruptcy, (b) require large numbers of U.S. troops to clean-up after, or (c) significantly undermine political cohesion. Indeed, there is reason to surmise that al-Qaeda's leaders have concluded that attacks like those used against Israel – which intend to cause deaths of women, children, and the elderly – would unite Americans rather than divide them.
3.) Al-Qaeda leaders probably think, for the moment, that it would be counterproductive to stage any but a larger-than-9/11 attack in America. Currently, Bin Laden and his senior lieutenants are clearly off balance vis-à-vis the United State because so much substantive success has accrued to al-Qaeda's interests so quickly since 9/11. Neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban were destroyed in 2001; both escaped with most of their forces largely intact. Each has regrouped, rearmed, and retrained in safe havens in the Pashtun tribal lands that straddle the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The Pakistan army's incursion into the tribal zone was defeated; the new, less-pro-U.S. government in Islamabad is suing for peace with the tribes; and the Islamization of Pakistan continues unabated. The Muslim world perceives that the U.S. military is being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has been further alienated by the U.S. treatment of captured mujahedin. Finally, the U.S. economy is slowing, Americans are severely divided over Washington's activities overseas, and none of the three major presidential candidates are likely to drastically alter the foreign policies all polls show are hated by up to 80 percent of Muslims. This embarrassment of riches advances each part of al-Qaeda's doctrine for fighting America – casualties, costs, and disunity – and it has been accumulated without a follow-up-to-9/11 attack. While bin Laden might well risk this good fortune for a chance to detonate a nuclear device in the United States, he certainly would not risk it now for the sake of shooting up a half-dozen theaters, coffee shops, and pizza parlors.
So, Americans can relax a bit, go to the movies or the mall, and stop afterwards for coffee or pizza without worrying too much about al-Qaeda launching small-scale attacks. For now, Americans should see themselves as being in standby mode for the larger-than-9/11 attack bin Laden eventually will trigger because the last two U.S. administrations and Senators McCain, Clinton, and Obama have warned about the severe Islamist threat, while knowingly encouraging its worldwide growth by championing status quo foreign policies that degrade U.S. security, as well as by supinely appeasing their Saudi and Israeli masters.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Sadr City truce strains as militia leaders grumble
This is from wiredispatch.
Sadr it seems is safe in Iran and not part of the action in Sadr City. It seems clear that some groups had earlier rejected his leadership. Sadr was probably happy enough that the US and Maliki incursions into Sadr City helped eliminate them. Now it looks as if even more leaders on the ground are rejecting his leadership and feel betrayed. It may do little good that he urges unity. In fact he may find himself losing power within his own movement unless he can show that the truce is not being used by the Maliki govt. to dismantle his militia movement.
Sadr City truce strains as militia leaders grumble
Sadr City truce under strain as Shiite militia leaders grumble about mounting pressures
HAMZA HENDAWIAP News
May 28, 2008 15:49 EST
An angry Shiite militia commander complained Wednesday that "we were duped" into accepting a cease-fire in Sadr City — remarks that point to a potentially damaging rift within the movement of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
The May 11 truce ended seven weeks of fierce fighting in Baghdad between U.S. and Iraqi forces and al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which held nearly complete control of the Sadr City district.
Iraqi soldiers now have moved into most parts of Sadr City with little resistance. But the objections raised by the commander highlight apparent dissent by some Mahdi Army leaders.
A split among al-Sadr's followers — between those favoring a more militant path and others seeking compromise with Iraq's government — could threaten the relative calm in Baghdad and re-ignite Shiite-on-Shiite violence across Iraq's oil-rich south.
The commander, speaking to tribal sheiks and lawmakers loyal to al-Sadr, said that "we were duped and deceived" by the truce. "They are arresting many of us now."
The group had gathered in al-Sadr's main Baghdad office to discuss how to respond to what they consider cease-fire "violations" by Iraqi troops, such as arrests and house searches.
Some in the audience, however, took issue with the views of the commander, whose name was not made public for security reasons.
"You can be the winner without a military victory," said Falah Hassan Shanshal, a prominent Sadrist and one of two lawmakers who attended the meeting in Sadr City, home to about 2.5 million Shiites.
"We had to bow before the storm because it was uprooting everything and everyone standing in its path," he said.
Shanshal was referring to the punishing attacks by U.S. and Iraqi forces, which used tanks, helicopter gunships and Hellfire missiles fired from unmanned aircraft. The strikes killed and wounded hundreds and left parts of Sadr City in ruins.
The southern section of the district has been sealed off from the rest of Sadr City in an attempt to foil militia movements and rocket and mortar attacks on the U.S.-protected Green Zone. The battles in Sadr City were part of a wider Mahdi Army backlash to a government crackdown on armed groups launched in late March in the southern city of Basra.
Al-Sadr, who has been in Iran for at least a year, supported the Sadr City cease-fire, perhaps to save his Mahdi Army from further losses so it can continue the fight later.
But signs of opposition have been growing within the militia ranks. Last week, two Mahdi Army commanders said militiamen were divided over whether the cease-fire was in their interest.
They said some believed too many lives had been lost to quit the fight and allow their "enemies" to take control of Sadr City, the militia's largest stronghold.
The two commanders, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said some militia leaders had fled to Iran or southern Iraq to avoid arrest.
The U.S military claims Iran trains and arms militant Shiite militiamen loosely linked to the Mahdi Army. Tehran denies the charge.
The head of al-Sadr's office in Sadr City, Sheik Salman al-Freiji, suggested the truce may collapse if "violations" by the Iraqi army continue.
"There will not be any trust built between the two sides like that," al-Freiji warned. "The Mahdi Army was created to defend the Iraqi people. How can you do that without fighting the occupier?"
Shanshal, the Sadrist lawmaker, was more conciliatory. He criticized the Iraqi army for what he called heavy-handed tactics, but stressed that he did not want more fighting in Sadr City.
He suggested the government declare a 10-day grace period during which militia weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs would be handed over to the army.
"After that, they should arrest anyone who is found to possess this kind of weapons," Shanshal said.
Much of the devastation caused by the fighting is around the concrete barriers erected by U.S. troops to push militia gunners out of range of the Green Zone, which was hit by near daily salvos of rockets and mortar shells at the height of the fighting in April.
Entire blocks near the wall are now heaps of debris, twisted metal and rocks. Stores sit empty, their walls blackened and merchandise burned. Some residents on Wednesday were still hunting through the rubble to recover valuables.
Dozens of buildings are pockmarked with bullet holes. Some streets are strewn with the charred hulks of cars. Some stores remain shuttered, but residents are moving freely, negotiating their way on foot or in service taxis around Iraqi army tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers patrolling the area's dusty streets or stationed at major intersections.
New billboards compete with old ones bearing images of al-Sadr and his late father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr — the namesake of the district.
Some of the new, government-funded billboards, show images of men wanted for "crimes committed against the Iraqi people" and proclaiming that "criminals use your neighborhoods to launch attacks."
But new graffiti attacks Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, himself a Shiite. One message calls him a "traitor" and an "agent of the Americans." Another declares: "Al-Maliki is a coward."
Hymn-like songs praising al-Sadr and his late father, gunned down in 1999 by suspected Saddam Hussein agents, blare out from several stores.
But there are also signs of everyday life returning.
Municipal workers wearing bright yellow jerseys sweep streets and children play soccer on dirt fields. Women shop at outdoor food markets and men watch movies and smoke water pipes in coffee shops offering a respite from the unforgiving heat with ceiling fans powered by generators.
"Everything is going well, but there is tension still," said a woman who only wanted her nickname, Umm Sadiq, to be used. "I still have to walk a long way to work because of the traffic congestion, but at least I do so feeling safe."
Source: AP News
Sadr it seems is safe in Iran and not part of the action in Sadr City. It seems clear that some groups had earlier rejected his leadership. Sadr was probably happy enough that the US and Maliki incursions into Sadr City helped eliminate them. Now it looks as if even more leaders on the ground are rejecting his leadership and feel betrayed. It may do little good that he urges unity. In fact he may find himself losing power within his own movement unless he can show that the truce is not being used by the Maliki govt. to dismantle his militia movement.
Sadr City truce strains as militia leaders grumble
Sadr City truce under strain as Shiite militia leaders grumble about mounting pressures
HAMZA HENDAWIAP News
May 28, 2008 15:49 EST
An angry Shiite militia commander complained Wednesday that "we were duped" into accepting a cease-fire in Sadr City — remarks that point to a potentially damaging rift within the movement of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
The May 11 truce ended seven weeks of fierce fighting in Baghdad between U.S. and Iraqi forces and al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which held nearly complete control of the Sadr City district.
Iraqi soldiers now have moved into most parts of Sadr City with little resistance. But the objections raised by the commander highlight apparent dissent by some Mahdi Army leaders.
A split among al-Sadr's followers — between those favoring a more militant path and others seeking compromise with Iraq's government — could threaten the relative calm in Baghdad and re-ignite Shiite-on-Shiite violence across Iraq's oil-rich south.
The commander, speaking to tribal sheiks and lawmakers loyal to al-Sadr, said that "we were duped and deceived" by the truce. "They are arresting many of us now."
The group had gathered in al-Sadr's main Baghdad office to discuss how to respond to what they consider cease-fire "violations" by Iraqi troops, such as arrests and house searches.
Some in the audience, however, took issue with the views of the commander, whose name was not made public for security reasons.
"You can be the winner without a military victory," said Falah Hassan Shanshal, a prominent Sadrist and one of two lawmakers who attended the meeting in Sadr City, home to about 2.5 million Shiites.
"We had to bow before the storm because it was uprooting everything and everyone standing in its path," he said.
Shanshal was referring to the punishing attacks by U.S. and Iraqi forces, which used tanks, helicopter gunships and Hellfire missiles fired from unmanned aircraft. The strikes killed and wounded hundreds and left parts of Sadr City in ruins.
The southern section of the district has been sealed off from the rest of Sadr City in an attempt to foil militia movements and rocket and mortar attacks on the U.S.-protected Green Zone. The battles in Sadr City were part of a wider Mahdi Army backlash to a government crackdown on armed groups launched in late March in the southern city of Basra.
Al-Sadr, who has been in Iran for at least a year, supported the Sadr City cease-fire, perhaps to save his Mahdi Army from further losses so it can continue the fight later.
But signs of opposition have been growing within the militia ranks. Last week, two Mahdi Army commanders said militiamen were divided over whether the cease-fire was in their interest.
They said some believed too many lives had been lost to quit the fight and allow their "enemies" to take control of Sadr City, the militia's largest stronghold.
The two commanders, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said some militia leaders had fled to Iran or southern Iraq to avoid arrest.
The U.S military claims Iran trains and arms militant Shiite militiamen loosely linked to the Mahdi Army. Tehran denies the charge.
The head of al-Sadr's office in Sadr City, Sheik Salman al-Freiji, suggested the truce may collapse if "violations" by the Iraqi army continue.
"There will not be any trust built between the two sides like that," al-Freiji warned. "The Mahdi Army was created to defend the Iraqi people. How can you do that without fighting the occupier?"
Shanshal, the Sadrist lawmaker, was more conciliatory. He criticized the Iraqi army for what he called heavy-handed tactics, but stressed that he did not want more fighting in Sadr City.
He suggested the government declare a 10-day grace period during which militia weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs would be handed over to the army.
"After that, they should arrest anyone who is found to possess this kind of weapons," Shanshal said.
Much of the devastation caused by the fighting is around the concrete barriers erected by U.S. troops to push militia gunners out of range of the Green Zone, which was hit by near daily salvos of rockets and mortar shells at the height of the fighting in April.
Entire blocks near the wall are now heaps of debris, twisted metal and rocks. Stores sit empty, their walls blackened and merchandise burned. Some residents on Wednesday were still hunting through the rubble to recover valuables.
Dozens of buildings are pockmarked with bullet holes. Some streets are strewn with the charred hulks of cars. Some stores remain shuttered, but residents are moving freely, negotiating their way on foot or in service taxis around Iraqi army tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers patrolling the area's dusty streets or stationed at major intersections.
New billboards compete with old ones bearing images of al-Sadr and his late father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr — the namesake of the district.
Some of the new, government-funded billboards, show images of men wanted for "crimes committed against the Iraqi people" and proclaiming that "criminals use your neighborhoods to launch attacks."
But new graffiti attacks Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, himself a Shiite. One message calls him a "traitor" and an "agent of the Americans." Another declares: "Al-Maliki is a coward."
Hymn-like songs praising al-Sadr and his late father, gunned down in 1999 by suspected Saddam Hussein agents, blare out from several stores.
But there are also signs of everyday life returning.
Municipal workers wearing bright yellow jerseys sweep streets and children play soccer on dirt fields. Women shop at outdoor food markets and men watch movies and smoke water pipes in coffee shops offering a respite from the unforgiving heat with ceiling fans powered by generators.
"Everything is going well, but there is tension still," said a woman who only wanted her nickname, Umm Sadiq, to be used. "I still have to walk a long way to work because of the traffic congestion, but at least I do so feeling safe."
Source: AP News
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Scott McClellan on Bush administration.
This is a series of comments on a new book by a former Bush administration insider. It is a bit ironic that after having been an apologist for the administration and making good money doing that, McClellan now makes money through exposing lies that he had earlier adopted as the truth! At least the book provides verification for what many of us already knew!
McClellan, Bush and the Press
The Bush Administration still has about eight months to go, but the first big former insidertell-all book is out and our Readers Who Comment are all over it. Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary who spent an enormous amount of time at the podium defending Bush and the war in Iraq, says it was sold to Americans with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by the president, aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war," Michael Shear reports.
This provides the ammunition our RWC need to replay two themes that have consistently been part of what they have had to say about both the current administration and Iraq:1) Bush should be impeached.2) The press, including The Washington Post, didn't do its job in questioning the need for the war before it was started.
Comments also suggest that there's no news here, we've known this for a long time, and that McClellan is just trying to make money. It's a cynical and angry group this morning, and there are few comments defending Bush or the war.
We'll start with DLN1, who said, "This only confirms what many of us know...that the Bush administration destroyed a country then occupied it while lying to its own citizens."
UrbanEndeavors asked, "Can we impeach now...?"
And mcdermott99 said, "The Washington press corps should be sat down in a room with the door locked, made to wear dunce caps, and to listen as McClellan's book is read to them over and over again..."
pkiel provided the one comment I could find supporting the Bush administration in writing, "This 2-bit Jerk wants to make a couple of bucks at the expense of his former employee! Why the hell can't anyone remember 9-11. What a bunch of short-sighted sheep! Washington Post will print whatever suit them!"
pundito tried sarcasm, writing, "I'm shocked, shocked!"
And slim2 suggested, "He [McClellan] is either hyping a little sensationalism to peddle his book or else was an eyewitness to criminal activity. I suspect the latter."
RegisUrgel said, "Not much we did not know about the Bush administration. What is scary is how the press treated this entire period... The same kind of thing happened in other dark periods in our history... I am sorry, and scared, it hasn't learned."
ih82blog asked, "So, Scott, what took you so long? Criticizing the Bush Administration at this point is like shooting lame ducks in a barrel (and getting paid for it)."And stikyfingas added, "McClellan, kinda late now... Same goes for all the Bush Administration lackeys not one of them resigned and told the truth; they all left, waited a year then made money off a book deal."
SpinningPlates said, "The NYTimes and Post can all go to hell. Its just unbelievable that nobody called shenanagins on this administration a long time ago. Our "Liberal Media" sucks. They got duped and are just as much to blame as bush."
tydicea wrote, "I think by now the whole world knows the truth behind the premise for going to war with Iraq, and the deceptions and stupidity of employed by this president and his cohorts. Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see someone of the inner circle come clean, because neither Bush and present company have neither the courage nor the moral fiber to do so."
infuse said, "...What's nice is that McClellan corroborated the information, but it is not news."
bkaufmann wrote, "These lies killed half a million people."
12345leavemealone said, "The truly sad thing is that even if Bush admitted fault some people would still believe that he told the truth."
protagoras wrote, "Looks like the protesters and the dissidents were spot on. Too bad the press hasn't admire them as much as it admires those unnamed sources...."
We'll close with CJackson36, wrote:I don't know what kind of advance McClellan got for this book, but I'm not buying a copy. I'm sick of people who lie to us while being paid with our tax dollars then getting a hefty advance to tell us they were deceived. If McClellan had come clean sooner, he might have spared us a second term of Bush &Co.
All comments on this article are here.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679.html?
By Doug Feaver May 28, 2008; 9:00 AM ET
McClellan, Bush and the Press
The Bush Administration still has about eight months to go, but the first big former insidertell-all book is out and our Readers Who Comment are all over it. Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary who spent an enormous amount of time at the podium defending Bush and the war in Iraq, says it was sold to Americans with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by the president, aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war," Michael Shear reports.
This provides the ammunition our RWC need to replay two themes that have consistently been part of what they have had to say about both the current administration and Iraq:1) Bush should be impeached.2) The press, including The Washington Post, didn't do its job in questioning the need for the war before it was started.
Comments also suggest that there's no news here, we've known this for a long time, and that McClellan is just trying to make money. It's a cynical and angry group this morning, and there are few comments defending Bush or the war.
We'll start with DLN1, who said, "This only confirms what many of us know...that the Bush administration destroyed a country then occupied it while lying to its own citizens."
UrbanEndeavors asked, "Can we impeach now...?"
And mcdermott99 said, "The Washington press corps should be sat down in a room with the door locked, made to wear dunce caps, and to listen as McClellan's book is read to them over and over again..."
pkiel provided the one comment I could find supporting the Bush administration in writing, "This 2-bit Jerk wants to make a couple of bucks at the expense of his former employee! Why the hell can't anyone remember 9-11. What a bunch of short-sighted sheep! Washington Post will print whatever suit them!"
pundito tried sarcasm, writing, "I'm shocked, shocked!"
And slim2 suggested, "He [McClellan] is either hyping a little sensationalism to peddle his book or else was an eyewitness to criminal activity. I suspect the latter."
RegisUrgel said, "Not much we did not know about the Bush administration. What is scary is how the press treated this entire period... The same kind of thing happened in other dark periods in our history... I am sorry, and scared, it hasn't learned."
ih82blog asked, "So, Scott, what took you so long? Criticizing the Bush Administration at this point is like shooting lame ducks in a barrel (and getting paid for it)."And stikyfingas added, "McClellan, kinda late now... Same goes for all the Bush Administration lackeys not one of them resigned and told the truth; they all left, waited a year then made money off a book deal."
SpinningPlates said, "The NYTimes and Post can all go to hell. Its just unbelievable that nobody called shenanagins on this administration a long time ago. Our "Liberal Media" sucks. They got duped and are just as much to blame as bush."
tydicea wrote, "I think by now the whole world knows the truth behind the premise for going to war with Iraq, and the deceptions and stupidity of employed by this president and his cohorts. Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see someone of the inner circle come clean, because neither Bush and present company have neither the courage nor the moral fiber to do so."
infuse said, "...What's nice is that McClellan corroborated the information, but it is not news."
bkaufmann wrote, "These lies killed half a million people."
12345leavemealone said, "The truly sad thing is that even if Bush admitted fault some people would still believe that he told the truth."
protagoras wrote, "Looks like the protesters and the dissidents were spot on. Too bad the press hasn't admire them as much as it admires those unnamed sources...."
We'll close with CJackson36, wrote:I don't know what kind of advance McClellan got for this book, but I'm not buying a copy. I'm sick of people who lie to us while being paid with our tax dollars then getting a hefty advance to tell us they were deceived. If McClellan had come clean sooner, he might have spared us a second term of Bush &Co.
All comments on this article are here.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679.html?
By Doug Feaver May 28, 2008; 9:00 AM ET
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
US consumer mood at 16 year low..
This is from BBC.
These results don't' augur well for consumer spending. With oil prices skyrocketing inflation will soon be a problem so that cutting interest rates will not be an option for stimulating the economy. We may very well encounter what I call recflation.
US consumer mood at 16-year low
Confidence among US consumers hit its lowest level for 16 years in May, according to the Conference Board.
The research body's Consumer Confidence Index fell to a level of 57.2 in May, down from April's figure of 62.8.
The Conference Board blamed the pessimism on the short-term outlook for the US economy as well as weakening business and job conditions.
The figures tell a similar story to the University of Michigan's Index, which hit a 28-year low in May.
"There is a fear the economy is in a recession or going into one and people may find their jobs in jeopardy," said David Coard from the Williams Capital Group in New York.
"When you talk to people on the street they seem to be really being squeezed at the pump and the supermarket while their income isn't keeping up."
Turnaround unlikely
The Conference Board also issued pessimistic forecasts for the coming months.
"Consumers' inflation expectations, fuelled by increasing prices at the pump, are now at an all-time high and are likely to rise further in the months ahead," said Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board Consumer Research Center.
"As for the short-term outlook, the Expectations Index suggests little likelihood of a turnaround in the immediate months ahead."
The index is based on responses from 5,000 US households.
It has plunged since last July, when it stood at 111.9.
Since then, the housing slump and rising prices for food and fuel have taken their toll on the mood among consumers.
The figures are closely watched because consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of all economic activity in the US.
Story from BBC NEWS:
These results don't' augur well for consumer spending. With oil prices skyrocketing inflation will soon be a problem so that cutting interest rates will not be an option for stimulating the economy. We may very well encounter what I call recflation.
US consumer mood at 16-year low
Confidence among US consumers hit its lowest level for 16 years in May, according to the Conference Board.
The research body's Consumer Confidence Index fell to a level of 57.2 in May, down from April's figure of 62.8.
The Conference Board blamed the pessimism on the short-term outlook for the US economy as well as weakening business and job conditions.
The figures tell a similar story to the University of Michigan's Index, which hit a 28-year low in May.
"There is a fear the economy is in a recession or going into one and people may find their jobs in jeopardy," said David Coard from the Williams Capital Group in New York.
"When you talk to people on the street they seem to be really being squeezed at the pump and the supermarket while their income isn't keeping up."
Turnaround unlikely
The Conference Board also issued pessimistic forecasts for the coming months.
"Consumers' inflation expectations, fuelled by increasing prices at the pump, are now at an all-time high and are likely to rise further in the months ahead," said Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board Consumer Research Center.
"As for the short-term outlook, the Expectations Index suggests little likelihood of a turnaround in the immediate months ahead."
The index is based on responses from 5,000 US households.
It has plunged since last July, when it stood at 111.9.
Since then, the housing slump and rising prices for food and fuel have taken their toll on the mood among consumers.
The figures are closely watched because consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of all economic activity in the US.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Monday, May 26, 2008
Michel Suleiman new Lebanese president.
This is from BBC.
The Doha agreement whose main terms are listed below finally unlocked the logjam that blocked any settlement of the political deadlock in Lebanon. Although the West may be very unhappy that Hezbollah gets a veto, the Western backed government still has power and a majority in cabinet. Of course if the two sides insist on continual fighting the system will not work but at least it is better than civil war and worth a try.
First tasks for Lebanon president
Lebanon's new President, Michel Suleiman, has arrived at the presidential palace to begin his first full day in office.
His first official visitor is expected to be Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Mr Suleiman will then begin consultations about forming a new national unity government.
His appointment came after months of political division which exploded into bloody clashes earlier this month.
Mr Suleiman has been head of the army for the past nine years. The presidency has been vacant since November.
He is expected to appoint a prime minister from the parliamentary majority led by the pro-Western leader, Saad al-Hariri - but a recent reconciliation agreement will give a powerful role in the cabinet to the Hezbollah movement and other allies of Syria and Iran.
Military bands played Lebanon's national anthem at the Baabda palace in the hills overlooking southern Beirut.
As he walked down a red carpet past a guard of honour, Mr Suleiman was greeted with a 21-gun salute, while dozens of presidential staff applauded.
Huge relief
As he was sworn in on Sunday, the president called for a "new phase", and a "quiet dialogue" on some of Lebanon's thorniest issues, including the role of Hezbollah as an armed movement.
DOHA AGREEMENT
Western-backed ruling majority to get 16 cabinet seats and choose prime minister
Syrian-backed opposition to get 11 cabinet seats and veto power
Three cabinet seats to be nominated by president
The use of weapons in internal conflicts is to be banned
Opposition protest camps in central Beirut are to be removed
New law to divide country into smaller electoral districts
"Let us unite... and work towards a solid reconciliation," Gen Suleiman said.
"We have paid dearly for our national unity. Let us preserve it hand-in-hand."
The BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut says it was a huge relief for many Lebanese to find themselves with a new president at last, after 19 failed attempts to elect a head of state.
But, he adds, Gen Suleiman comes into office with his wings somewhat clipped, after his army was humiliated by having to stand by while Hezbollah burned newspaper offices and nearly stirred up civil war in the violence which broke out two weeks ago.
At least 65 people died in clashes as Hezbollah fighters seized control of sections of Beirut in response to government attempts to outlaw the group's private telephone network and reassign Beirut airport's security chief, who is close to the opposition.
For months, Gen Suleiman had been accepted by all sides as the only candidate to succeed outgoing pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, but disagreements had repeatedly prevented a parliamentary vote to appoint him.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/
The Doha agreement whose main terms are listed below finally unlocked the logjam that blocked any settlement of the political deadlock in Lebanon. Although the West may be very unhappy that Hezbollah gets a veto, the Western backed government still has power and a majority in cabinet. Of course if the two sides insist on continual fighting the system will not work but at least it is better than civil war and worth a try.
First tasks for Lebanon president
Lebanon's new President, Michel Suleiman, has arrived at the presidential palace to begin his first full day in office.
His first official visitor is expected to be Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Mr Suleiman will then begin consultations about forming a new national unity government.
His appointment came after months of political division which exploded into bloody clashes earlier this month.
Mr Suleiman has been head of the army for the past nine years. The presidency has been vacant since November.
He is expected to appoint a prime minister from the parliamentary majority led by the pro-Western leader, Saad al-Hariri - but a recent reconciliation agreement will give a powerful role in the cabinet to the Hezbollah movement and other allies of Syria and Iran.
Military bands played Lebanon's national anthem at the Baabda palace in the hills overlooking southern Beirut.
As he walked down a red carpet past a guard of honour, Mr Suleiman was greeted with a 21-gun salute, while dozens of presidential staff applauded.
Huge relief
As he was sworn in on Sunday, the president called for a "new phase", and a "quiet dialogue" on some of Lebanon's thorniest issues, including the role of Hezbollah as an armed movement.
DOHA AGREEMENT
Western-backed ruling majority to get 16 cabinet seats and choose prime minister
Syrian-backed opposition to get 11 cabinet seats and veto power
Three cabinet seats to be nominated by president
The use of weapons in internal conflicts is to be banned
Opposition protest camps in central Beirut are to be removed
New law to divide country into smaller electoral districts
"Let us unite... and work towards a solid reconciliation," Gen Suleiman said.
"We have paid dearly for our national unity. Let us preserve it hand-in-hand."
The BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut says it was a huge relief for many Lebanese to find themselves with a new president at last, after 19 failed attempts to elect a head of state.
But, he adds, Gen Suleiman comes into office with his wings somewhat clipped, after his army was humiliated by having to stand by while Hezbollah burned newspaper offices and nearly stirred up civil war in the violence which broke out two weeks ago.
At least 65 people died in clashes as Hezbollah fighters seized control of sections of Beirut in response to government attempts to outlaw the group's private telephone network and reassign Beirut airport's security chief, who is close to the opposition.
For months, Gen Suleiman had been accepted by all sides as the only candidate to succeed outgoing pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, but disagreements had repeatedly prevented a parliamentary vote to appoint him.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/
Sunday, May 25, 2008
U.S. military launches alternative fuel push.
No talk of making any of the military vehicles more fuel efficient or cutting down on usage! Imagine a 13.6 billion bill and usage of 1.5 percent of all US consumption! Maybe a few less wars would help!
U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push
Dependence on Oil Seen as Too Risky; B-1 Takes Test Flight
By YOCHI J. DREAZENMay 21, 2008; Page A1
(See Corrections & Amplifications item below.)
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. -- With fuel prices soaring, the U.S. military, the country's largest single consumer of oil, is turning into an alternative-fuels pioneer.
In March, Air Force Capt. Rick Fournier flew a B-1 stealth bomber code-named Dark 33 across this sprawling proving ground, to confirm for the first time that a plane could break the sound barrier using synthetic jet fuel. A similar formula -- a blend of half-synthetic and half-conventional petroleum -- has been used in some South African commercial airliners for years, but never in a jet going so fast.
"The hope is that the plane will be blind to the gas," Capt. Fournier said as he gripped the handle controlling the plane's thrusters during the test flight. "But you won't know unless you try."
With oil's multiyear ascent showing no signs of stopping -- crude futures set another record Tuesday, closing at $129.07 a barrel in New York trading -- energy security has emerged as a major concern for the Pentagon.
The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department's overall energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available -- almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force's bill for jet fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel costs.
Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil if it's mass-produced.
Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson.
Some Pentagon officers have embraced planning around the "peak oil" theory, which holds that the world's oil production is about to plateau due to shrinking resources and limited investment in many of the most oil-rich regions of the Middle East. Earlier this year, they brought Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons to the Pentagon for a presentation on peak oil; he warned that under the theory, "energy security becomes an oxymoron." House Democrats have proposed creating a new Defense Department position to manage the military's overall energy needs.
Airman Jesus Abalos preparing to fuel a B-1 bomber on Dyess Air Force Base.
Alternative fuels are part of a broader -- and not so long ago unlikely -- conversion by the military to "green" initiatives. Producing synthetic fuel itself can cause more pollution than conventional fuel if the emissions aren't captured. But Army engineers also are pushing contractors to build armored vehicles with hybrid engines. The Air Force is experimenting with making engine parts out of lighter metals such as titanium to boost fuel efficiency.
In December, Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas opened one of the largest solar arrays in the U.S., a 140-acre field of 72,000 motorized panels that powers the base and sells energy to nearby communities. The Pentagon is soliciting bids for three similar arrays on other bases. The military even has begun looking into the possibility of building small nuclear-power plants on unused portions of its more remote bases, though it has no firm plans yet.
The Pentagon is hoping its push for alternative energy will feed civilian applications as well. For synthetic fuel, the Air Force is working with aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing Corp. and the Pratt & Whitney engine unit of United Technologies Corp. North American synthetic-fuel processors including Rentech Inc., Baard Energy and Syntroleum Corp. all operate or hope to build synthetic-fuel refineries to feed the military's growing thirst.
"Our goal is to drive the development of a market here in the U.S.," says Mr. Anderson.
Military use of synthetic fuel faces significant obstacles. The energy bill signed into law by President Bush last year included a clause preventing the government from buying the fuel if it emits more pollution than petroleum. Manufacturers have promised to meet that target by recapturing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses produced in refining. Without those efforts, synthetic fuel can emit up to twice as much pollution in refining as conventional petroleum.
Prices' Impact
Synthetic-fuel prices also need to fall: Formerly stratospheric, they're still about 50% above the soaring prices for petroleum. That should happen if companies can begin operating commercial-scale refineries, says David Berg, a policy analyst who studied the nascent synthetic-fuel market for the Energy Department in December. He estimated that commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refineries would be able to sell artificial fuel for approximately $55 a barrel, less than half the current cost of conventional crude oil.
But many in the field say they're unwilling to invest the necessary billions until they can sign long-term contracts with the government. Right now, the Air Force legally can sign deals only for five years. It has asked the White House's Office of Management and Budget to seek congressional approval for the rule change, but the Bush administration has yet to act on the request, Mr. Anderson says.
"These plants are not likely to get built without government help" such as guaranteed long-term contracts, says Mr. Berg, who recently retired. "And they may not get built even then."
The problems are particularly acute for the Air Force, which uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel a year, or 10% of the entire domestic market in aviation fuel. The Air Force's fuel costs neared $6 billion last year, up from $2 billion in 2003, even as its consumption fell by more than 10% over the same period because of energy-savings measures, including a campaign to shut off lights and lower thermostats at bases.
The Air Force wants to be able to purchase 400 million gallons of synthetic jet fuel a year by 2016, an amount equal to 25% of its total fuel needs for missions in the continental U.S. This year, it expects to buy slightly more than 300,000 gallons.
The Air Force launched its artificial-fuel initiative in the spring of 2006. Testifying before the Senate that March, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told lawmakers that "we realize our reliance on petroleum-based fuels must be curtailed." The Air Force gave a small team at its Wright-Patterson base near Dayton, Ohio, the mission of finding a synthetic fuel capable of powering all of the service's fighters, bombers and other planes.
Despite its high-tech connotations, synthetic fuel -- often dubbed "synfuel" for short within the industry -- has been around for decades. The basic technology for transforming coal or natural gas into synthetic fuel was invented by a pair of German researchers, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, in the 1920s. The Nazis later used the Fischer-Tropsch process to mass-produce synthetic diesel fuel. During the apartheid-era embargo against South Africa, scientists there tweaked the technology so it could also produce synthetic jet fuel.
The Fischer-Tropsch process transforms a synthetic gas derived from coal or other material into liquid gas. The resulting synthetic fuel is different from biofuel, commonly produced from corn, sugar or other plants. Continental Airlines Inc. has announced plans for an experimental flight using biofuel this spring, which would be the first by a U.S. carrier; Virgin Atlantic also has done some testing.
The Wright-Patterson team oversaw experiments on a wide array of synthetic fuels, but quickly settled on a 50-50 blend of conventional jet fuel -- known as JP-8 -- and artificial fuel made using the Fischer-Tropsch process. That mixture is used in South Africa, where Johannesburg-based Sasol Ltd. is one of the world's biggest synthetic-fuel producers. Air Force officials decided it was the safest combination.
B-52 Bomber Test
In June 2006, the Air Force agreed to buy 100,000 gallons of artificial fuel from U.S.-based Syntroleum to mix with petroleum for testing. The next month, military engineers bolted an engine from a B-52 bomber to a table at Tinker Air Force base in Oklahoma and ran it for 50 consecutive hours to see how it would perform on the synthetic blend. Engineers detected no differences from conventional fuel.
The Air Force began conducting test flights. In September 2006, a B-52 took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California with two of its eight engines burning the synthetic-fuel blend, the first time a military aircraft had flown on artificial fuel. The plane's performance was the same as if it had flown on conventional fuel, and the Air Force decided to push ahead.
As the Air Force's experimentation increased, so did the involvement of the private sector. Military and civilian aircraft share many parts and are often built by the same companies. The military's Boeing C-17 cargo jet, for instance, uses the same Pratt & Whitney engine as a Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagon officials are sharing their research into synthetic fuels with such firms to help civilian companies certify their equipment on the synthetic-fuel blend.
At the military's direction, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce PLC, Honeywell International Inc. and General Electric Co. have agreed to work together to develop joint specifications for how their engines perform on artificial fuels. Last November, engineers from Pratt & Whitney mounted one of the company's C-17 engines in a high-tech pressure chamber at Arnold Air Force Base in Tennessee and simulated a variety of altitudes and weather conditions to gauge the engine's performance. The tests were "enormously uneventful," says Alan Epstein, the company's vice president of technology and environment -- an encouraging sign.
In late 2006, Baard Energy of Vancouver had said it would build the first commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refinery in the U.S., to be completed in 2012. Chief Executive John Baardson says he decided to roll the dice on the $6 billion plant because of the military's interest. "There isn't a market for this right now, so it takes a little bit of faith to get these plants going," he says. "Knowing the military was out there took one huge risk factor out of the decision-making process."
But other companies haven't followed suit. Syntroleum shut down the plant that produced the fuel used in the B-52 test flight; it had only been designed to produce small samples for experiments. Rentech is building a new refinery in Colorado, but its plant also is meant to only refine minute samples of synthetic fuel.
"It's a chicken and egg thing: We'll build a larger plant if we can get the money to finance it and find customers willing to buy what it produces," says Rick Penning, Rentech's executive vice president of commercial affairs.
The pure synthetic fuel Syntroleum sold the Air Force for the B-52 test flight in 2006 cost almost $20 a gallon. Its price since has come down sharply, but the synthetic product used in the B-1 supersonic test in March still cost $4.62 a gallon. It was mixed with petroleum fuel costing $3.04 a gallon, according to government officials.
Testing Its Planes
The Air Force plans to finish testing all of its planes on the fuel blend by 2011. Last month, it was time to test artificial fuel on supersonic flights. Air Force officials decided to start with a B-1 bomber, a supersonic plane that has been in service since 1986.
The test flight was assigned to Capt. Fournier and a two-man crew from the 9th Bomber Squadron at Dyess Air Force Base, in Abilene, Texas. The unit's Latin motto, "Mors ab Alto," translates into "Death From Above."
On a clear day in March, the three men took off for New Mexico with a reporter aboard. When the B-1 crossed into the closed airspace above the White Sands Missile Range, Capt. Fournier yanked back his throttle and sent the plane climbing almost straight up, throwing the bomber's occupants back into their seats. He then pitched into a steep dive. Pens and other small objects hovered around the cabin, weightless, until the plane leveled off again.
Capt. Fournier fired the plane's afterburners and sent the bomber roaring over the range. A small dial in the cockpit showed that the bomber was flying faster than Mach 1.
Back at Dyess, the crew packed into a small conference room to analyze the flight with a crew of military and civilian officials, including a pair of engineers from GE, which makes the bomber's engines. Capt. Fournier said the plane handled normally at high speeds and on sharp turns. The only difference he noticed was that the synthetic fuel had a different smell than conventional jet fuel. "So it didn't give you the normal buzz?" one of the engineers joked.
With the B-1 certified to fly on the synthetic mix, Maj. Donald Rhymer, the deputy director of the Air Force's alternative-fuels certification office, said the Air Force would soon test fighters such as its workhorse F-16.
"Our biggest litmus test was Capt. Fournier coming out of the B-1 and saying that it was an unremarkable flight," Maj. Rhymer said as the meeting ended. "That's the subjective endorsement we're looking for with all of the planes."
U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push
Dependence on Oil Seen as Too Risky; B-1 Takes Test Flight
By YOCHI J. DREAZENMay 21, 2008; Page A1
(See Corrections & Amplifications item below.)
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. -- With fuel prices soaring, the U.S. military, the country's largest single consumer of oil, is turning into an alternative-fuels pioneer.
In March, Air Force Capt. Rick Fournier flew a B-1 stealth bomber code-named Dark 33 across this sprawling proving ground, to confirm for the first time that a plane could break the sound barrier using synthetic jet fuel. A similar formula -- a blend of half-synthetic and half-conventional petroleum -- has been used in some South African commercial airliners for years, but never in a jet going so fast.
"The hope is that the plane will be blind to the gas," Capt. Fournier said as he gripped the handle controlling the plane's thrusters during the test flight. "But you won't know unless you try."
With oil's multiyear ascent showing no signs of stopping -- crude futures set another record Tuesday, closing at $129.07 a barrel in New York trading -- energy security has emerged as a major concern for the Pentagon.
The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department's overall energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available -- almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force's bill for jet fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel costs.
Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil if it's mass-produced.
Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson.
Some Pentagon officers have embraced planning around the "peak oil" theory, which holds that the world's oil production is about to plateau due to shrinking resources and limited investment in many of the most oil-rich regions of the Middle East. Earlier this year, they brought Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons to the Pentagon for a presentation on peak oil; he warned that under the theory, "energy security becomes an oxymoron." House Democrats have proposed creating a new Defense Department position to manage the military's overall energy needs.
Airman Jesus Abalos preparing to fuel a B-1 bomber on Dyess Air Force Base.
Alternative fuels are part of a broader -- and not so long ago unlikely -- conversion by the military to "green" initiatives. Producing synthetic fuel itself can cause more pollution than conventional fuel if the emissions aren't captured. But Army engineers also are pushing contractors to build armored vehicles with hybrid engines. The Air Force is experimenting with making engine parts out of lighter metals such as titanium to boost fuel efficiency.
In December, Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas opened one of the largest solar arrays in the U.S., a 140-acre field of 72,000 motorized panels that powers the base and sells energy to nearby communities. The Pentagon is soliciting bids for three similar arrays on other bases. The military even has begun looking into the possibility of building small nuclear-power plants on unused portions of its more remote bases, though it has no firm plans yet.
The Pentagon is hoping its push for alternative energy will feed civilian applications as well. For synthetic fuel, the Air Force is working with aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing Corp. and the Pratt & Whitney engine unit of United Technologies Corp. North American synthetic-fuel processors including Rentech Inc., Baard Energy and Syntroleum Corp. all operate or hope to build synthetic-fuel refineries to feed the military's growing thirst.
"Our goal is to drive the development of a market here in the U.S.," says Mr. Anderson.
Military use of synthetic fuel faces significant obstacles. The energy bill signed into law by President Bush last year included a clause preventing the government from buying the fuel if it emits more pollution than petroleum. Manufacturers have promised to meet that target by recapturing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses produced in refining. Without those efforts, synthetic fuel can emit up to twice as much pollution in refining as conventional petroleum.
Prices' Impact
Synthetic-fuel prices also need to fall: Formerly stratospheric, they're still about 50% above the soaring prices for petroleum. That should happen if companies can begin operating commercial-scale refineries, says David Berg, a policy analyst who studied the nascent synthetic-fuel market for the Energy Department in December. He estimated that commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refineries would be able to sell artificial fuel for approximately $55 a barrel, less than half the current cost of conventional crude oil.
But many in the field say they're unwilling to invest the necessary billions until they can sign long-term contracts with the government. Right now, the Air Force legally can sign deals only for five years. It has asked the White House's Office of Management and Budget to seek congressional approval for the rule change, but the Bush administration has yet to act on the request, Mr. Anderson says.
"These plants are not likely to get built without government help" such as guaranteed long-term contracts, says Mr. Berg, who recently retired. "And they may not get built even then."
The problems are particularly acute for the Air Force, which uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel a year, or 10% of the entire domestic market in aviation fuel. The Air Force's fuel costs neared $6 billion last year, up from $2 billion in 2003, even as its consumption fell by more than 10% over the same period because of energy-savings measures, including a campaign to shut off lights and lower thermostats at bases.
The Air Force wants to be able to purchase 400 million gallons of synthetic jet fuel a year by 2016, an amount equal to 25% of its total fuel needs for missions in the continental U.S. This year, it expects to buy slightly more than 300,000 gallons.
The Air Force launched its artificial-fuel initiative in the spring of 2006. Testifying before the Senate that March, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told lawmakers that "we realize our reliance on petroleum-based fuels must be curtailed." The Air Force gave a small team at its Wright-Patterson base near Dayton, Ohio, the mission of finding a synthetic fuel capable of powering all of the service's fighters, bombers and other planes.
Despite its high-tech connotations, synthetic fuel -- often dubbed "synfuel" for short within the industry -- has been around for decades. The basic technology for transforming coal or natural gas into synthetic fuel was invented by a pair of German researchers, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, in the 1920s. The Nazis later used the Fischer-Tropsch process to mass-produce synthetic diesel fuel. During the apartheid-era embargo against South Africa, scientists there tweaked the technology so it could also produce synthetic jet fuel.
The Fischer-Tropsch process transforms a synthetic gas derived from coal or other material into liquid gas. The resulting synthetic fuel is different from biofuel, commonly produced from corn, sugar or other plants. Continental Airlines Inc. has announced plans for an experimental flight using biofuel this spring, which would be the first by a U.S. carrier; Virgin Atlantic also has done some testing.
The Wright-Patterson team oversaw experiments on a wide array of synthetic fuels, but quickly settled on a 50-50 blend of conventional jet fuel -- known as JP-8 -- and artificial fuel made using the Fischer-Tropsch process. That mixture is used in South Africa, where Johannesburg-based Sasol Ltd. is one of the world's biggest synthetic-fuel producers. Air Force officials decided it was the safest combination.
B-52 Bomber Test
In June 2006, the Air Force agreed to buy 100,000 gallons of artificial fuel from U.S.-based Syntroleum to mix with petroleum for testing. The next month, military engineers bolted an engine from a B-52 bomber to a table at Tinker Air Force base in Oklahoma and ran it for 50 consecutive hours to see how it would perform on the synthetic blend. Engineers detected no differences from conventional fuel.
The Air Force began conducting test flights. In September 2006, a B-52 took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California with two of its eight engines burning the synthetic-fuel blend, the first time a military aircraft had flown on artificial fuel. The plane's performance was the same as if it had flown on conventional fuel, and the Air Force decided to push ahead.
As the Air Force's experimentation increased, so did the involvement of the private sector. Military and civilian aircraft share many parts and are often built by the same companies. The military's Boeing C-17 cargo jet, for instance, uses the same Pratt & Whitney engine as a Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagon officials are sharing their research into synthetic fuels with such firms to help civilian companies certify their equipment on the synthetic-fuel blend.
At the military's direction, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce PLC, Honeywell International Inc. and General Electric Co. have agreed to work together to develop joint specifications for how their engines perform on artificial fuels. Last November, engineers from Pratt & Whitney mounted one of the company's C-17 engines in a high-tech pressure chamber at Arnold Air Force Base in Tennessee and simulated a variety of altitudes and weather conditions to gauge the engine's performance. The tests were "enormously uneventful," says Alan Epstein, the company's vice president of technology and environment -- an encouraging sign.
In late 2006, Baard Energy of Vancouver had said it would build the first commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refinery in the U.S., to be completed in 2012. Chief Executive John Baardson says he decided to roll the dice on the $6 billion plant because of the military's interest. "There isn't a market for this right now, so it takes a little bit of faith to get these plants going," he says. "Knowing the military was out there took one huge risk factor out of the decision-making process."
But other companies haven't followed suit. Syntroleum shut down the plant that produced the fuel used in the B-52 test flight; it had only been designed to produce small samples for experiments. Rentech is building a new refinery in Colorado, but its plant also is meant to only refine minute samples of synthetic fuel.
"It's a chicken and egg thing: We'll build a larger plant if we can get the money to finance it and find customers willing to buy what it produces," says Rick Penning, Rentech's executive vice president of commercial affairs.
The pure synthetic fuel Syntroleum sold the Air Force for the B-52 test flight in 2006 cost almost $20 a gallon. Its price since has come down sharply, but the synthetic product used in the B-1 supersonic test in March still cost $4.62 a gallon. It was mixed with petroleum fuel costing $3.04 a gallon, according to government officials.
Testing Its Planes
The Air Force plans to finish testing all of its planes on the fuel blend by 2011. Last month, it was time to test artificial fuel on supersonic flights. Air Force officials decided to start with a B-1 bomber, a supersonic plane that has been in service since 1986.
The test flight was assigned to Capt. Fournier and a two-man crew from the 9th Bomber Squadron at Dyess Air Force Base, in Abilene, Texas. The unit's Latin motto, "Mors ab Alto," translates into "Death From Above."
On a clear day in March, the three men took off for New Mexico with a reporter aboard. When the B-1 crossed into the closed airspace above the White Sands Missile Range, Capt. Fournier yanked back his throttle and sent the plane climbing almost straight up, throwing the bomber's occupants back into their seats. He then pitched into a steep dive. Pens and other small objects hovered around the cabin, weightless, until the plane leveled off again.
Capt. Fournier fired the plane's afterburners and sent the bomber roaring over the range. A small dial in the cockpit showed that the bomber was flying faster than Mach 1.
Back at Dyess, the crew packed into a small conference room to analyze the flight with a crew of military and civilian officials, including a pair of engineers from GE, which makes the bomber's engines. Capt. Fournier said the plane handled normally at high speeds and on sharp turns. The only difference he noticed was that the synthetic fuel had a different smell than conventional jet fuel. "So it didn't give you the normal buzz?" one of the engineers joked.
With the B-1 certified to fly on the synthetic mix, Maj. Donald Rhymer, the deputy director of the Air Force's alternative-fuels certification office, said the Air Force would soon test fighters such as its workhorse F-16.
"Our biggest litmus test was Capt. Fournier coming out of the B-1 and saying that it was an unremarkable flight," Maj. Rhymer said as the meeting ended. "That's the subjective endorsement we're looking for with all of the planes."
Philippines, US to hold naval exercises near Spratlys
This is from AFP.
I guess that this is meant to show those Chinese, Malaysians, and Vietnamese who is boss. The Americans! The Philippine sparrow, maya maya, can tag along flying under the American Eagle.
Philippines, US to hold naval exercises near Spratlys: report
1 day ago
MANILA (AFP) — US and Philippine forces will carry out joint naval exercises off Palawan, the closest major Philippine island to the disputed Spratlys chain in the South China Sea, a report said Saturday.
The joint exercises will begin Monday, Vice Admiral William Douglas Crowder, commander of the US seventh fleet flagship the USS Blue Ridge, told the Philippine Star newspaper.
About four US ships will sail to Palawan, southwest of Manila, for the combined naval war games involving about a thousand US and Filipino sailors, the newspaper said.
The Spratlys, a chain of islands and atolls believed to be rich in oil and gas deposits, are claimed in full or in part by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. All but Brunei have troops posted on some of the islands.
Naval officials told the paper the exercises would be held within the territorial waters of Palawan, away from the Spratlys, which are located off the island's western coast.
Military spokesmen in Manila would not confirm the report.
I guess that this is meant to show those Chinese, Malaysians, and Vietnamese who is boss. The Americans! The Philippine sparrow, maya maya, can tag along flying under the American Eagle.
Philippines, US to hold naval exercises near Spratlys: report
1 day ago
MANILA (AFP) — US and Philippine forces will carry out joint naval exercises off Palawan, the closest major Philippine island to the disputed Spratlys chain in the South China Sea, a report said Saturday.
The joint exercises will begin Monday, Vice Admiral William Douglas Crowder, commander of the US seventh fleet flagship the USS Blue Ridge, told the Philippine Star newspaper.
About four US ships will sail to Palawan, southwest of Manila, for the combined naval war games involving about a thousand US and Filipino sailors, the newspaper said.
The Spratlys, a chain of islands and atolls believed to be rich in oil and gas deposits, are claimed in full or in part by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. All but Brunei have troops posted on some of the islands.
Naval officials told the paper the exercises would be held within the territorial waters of Palawan, away from the Spratlys, which are located off the island's western coast.
Military spokesmen in Manila would not confirm the report.
PNAC no more?
This is sad news in a way. The site was always a good place to reference to show people what the neocons policy agenda was straight from the horse' s mouth so to speak. I can think of four reasons why the site is no more:
1) The neocons think it was too useful to the left
2) The policy is already part of the mainstream so that the site is no longer needed.
3) The neocons are broke (very unlikely)
4) The site is being bought out by the PNCC (Project for a New Chinese Century)
This is from antiwar.com.
PNAC No More?
May 20, 2008 in News by Jim Lobe
The website of the Bill Kristol’s Project for the New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org) has vanished. If you go to the site, you are diverted to another one that says, “This Account Has Been Suspended. Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.” A metaphor, perhaps, for the bankruptcy of the ideas that inspired the project and the strategic disaster that they produced for U.S. interests in Iraq, the greater Middle East, and the wider world?
You can still find most of PNAC’s documents — including its letters and their signatories — through www.archive.org, but it seems that the original site is gone for lack of payment. While the site became effectively dormant in 2005, its sudden disappearance is somewhat alarming. What does it say about the new American Century itself, particularly in light of the slew of recent books on the decline of American power and the end of unipolarity? A coincidence or an augury?
Visit Lobelog.com for the latest
1) The neocons think it was too useful to the left
2) The policy is already part of the mainstream so that the site is no longer needed.
3) The neocons are broke (very unlikely)
4) The site is being bought out by the PNCC (Project for a New Chinese Century)
This is from antiwar.com.
PNAC No More?
May 20, 2008 in News by Jim Lobe
The website of the Bill Kristol’s Project for the New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org) has vanished. If you go to the site, you are diverted to another one that says, “This Account Has Been Suspended. Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.” A metaphor, perhaps, for the bankruptcy of the ideas that inspired the project and the strategic disaster that they produced for U.S. interests in Iraq, the greater Middle East, and the wider world?
You can still find most of PNAC’s documents — including its letters and their signatories — through www.archive.org, but it seems that the original site is gone for lack of payment. While the site became effectively dormant in 2005, its sudden disappearance is somewhat alarming. What does it say about the new American Century itself, particularly in light of the slew of recent books on the decline of American power and the end of unipolarity? A coincidence or an augury?
Visit Lobelog.com for the latest
Friday, May 23, 2008
Myanmar to allow in UN aid workers.
This is from Al Jazeera.
It remains to be seen how much of a breakthrough this is once the details are worked out. The deal excludes aid through the military. The regime maintains that the basic aid stage is over and now reconstruction will begin. I just wonder how the UN is able to assess the degree to which people have received aid.
FRIDAY, MAY 23, 200814:52 MECCA TIME, 11:52 GMT
Myanmar to allow in UN aid workers
The announcement came after talks between Ban, left, and Myanmar's Than Shwe [AFP]
Myanmar's military leaders have agreed to allow access to all foreign aid workers to help with the relief operation after Cyclone Nargis, according to Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
Ban made the announcement on Friday after more than two hours of talks with Than Shwe, Myanmar's senior general.
bodyVariable350="Htmlphcontrol1_lblError";
Than Shwe's earlier refusal to allow relief workers to operate in Myanmar earned him international condemnation.
His change in attitude comes three weeks after the cyclone hit Myanmar on May 2-3, leaving at least 133,000 people dead or missing and around 2.5 million more in need of immediate aid.
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
"He has agreed to allow all aid workers regardless of nationalities," Ban said in Naypyidaw, Myanmar's capital.
Asked if this was a breakthrough, Ban said: "Yes, I think so."
But the specifics of the new agreement remained unclear and it was not immediately known if Myanmar's rulers would allow in aid from US naval ships nearby - which it said before would be rejected.
UN agencies said they are ready to step up relief to cyclone victims but needed to know practical details of the country's new commitment to admit all aid workers to the devastated coastal area.
Elisabeth Byrs, the UN relief spokeswoman, said UN agencies had been building up food and other supplies for those people affected by the storm but was unable to say immediately how many aid workers would be going into Myanmar.
Cautious response
International aid groups reacted cautiously to the breakthrough, stressing that they would need full access to the devastated Irrawaddy Delta.
"We're not clear on the details - it is welcome news, but we still don't know if this will give us access to the worst hit areas," Chris Webster, from the emergency response team at World Vision, told Al Jazeera.
Lionel Rosenblatt, a former president of refugees international, told Al Jazeera, said he was "sceptical" of the agreement.
"I think if its a precursor to wider agreements then it's something very significant, but we're still not sure what it means in terms of speed - it may take days for these people to get to duty stations," he said.
"I think we have to remember we're now three weeks plus one day into the time elapsed since the cyclone hit - people are in very bad shape."
International relief organisations have repeatedly insisted that more people will die unless they get immediate food, water, shelter and medical care.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation warned that hundreds of thousands of people in remote areas of the delta have insufficient food, and said prices for rice, cooking oil and other basics had doubled throughout the country.
Only a "very narrow window of opportunity" remains to provide seeds and other material to farmers before the rice planting season upon which millions depend begins in a few weeks, the agency said.
Visas blocked
While accepting thousands of tonnes of donated supplies, Myanmar's rulers have been blocking visas for most foreign disaster management experts and insisted reports of survivors not getting enough aid were the work of "traitors".
A senior UN official present at the meeting between the UN secretary-general and Than Shwe said Myanamar also agreed to allow foreigners to work in the hardest-hit region, the Irrawaddy Delta, which has been virtually off-limits to them.
"The general said he saw no reason why that should not happen as long as they were genuine humanitarian workers and it was clear what they were going to do," the Associated Press quoted the official as saying.
The announcement that Myanmar would halt its restrictions came on day two of Ban's visit, the first by a UN secretary-general in more than four decades.
Despite the continuing misery caused by Cyclone Nargis, the country's military rulers pressed ahead with plans to hold a second round of a referendum on Saturday in areas hit hard by the storm.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
It remains to be seen how much of a breakthrough this is once the details are worked out. The deal excludes aid through the military. The regime maintains that the basic aid stage is over and now reconstruction will begin. I just wonder how the UN is able to assess the degree to which people have received aid.
FRIDAY, MAY 23, 200814:52 MECCA TIME, 11:52 GMT
Myanmar to allow in UN aid workers
The announcement came after talks between Ban, left, and Myanmar's Than Shwe [AFP]
Myanmar's military leaders have agreed to allow access to all foreign aid workers to help with the relief operation after Cyclone Nargis, according to Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
Ban made the announcement on Friday after more than two hours of talks with Than Shwe, Myanmar's senior general.
bodyVariable350="Htmlphcontrol1_lblError";
Than Shwe's earlier refusal to allow relief workers to operate in Myanmar earned him international condemnation.
His change in attitude comes three weeks after the cyclone hit Myanmar on May 2-3, leaving at least 133,000 people dead or missing and around 2.5 million more in need of immediate aid.
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
"He has agreed to allow all aid workers regardless of nationalities," Ban said in Naypyidaw, Myanmar's capital.
Asked if this was a breakthrough, Ban said: "Yes, I think so."
But the specifics of the new agreement remained unclear and it was not immediately known if Myanmar's rulers would allow in aid from US naval ships nearby - which it said before would be rejected.
UN agencies said they are ready to step up relief to cyclone victims but needed to know practical details of the country's new commitment to admit all aid workers to the devastated coastal area.
Elisabeth Byrs, the UN relief spokeswoman, said UN agencies had been building up food and other supplies for those people affected by the storm but was unable to say immediately how many aid workers would be going into Myanmar.
Cautious response
International aid groups reacted cautiously to the breakthrough, stressing that they would need full access to the devastated Irrawaddy Delta.
"We're not clear on the details - it is welcome news, but we still don't know if this will give us access to the worst hit areas," Chris Webster, from the emergency response team at World Vision, told Al Jazeera.
Lionel Rosenblatt, a former president of refugees international, told Al Jazeera, said he was "sceptical" of the agreement.
"I think if its a precursor to wider agreements then it's something very significant, but we're still not sure what it means in terms of speed - it may take days for these people to get to duty stations," he said.
"I think we have to remember we're now three weeks plus one day into the time elapsed since the cyclone hit - people are in very bad shape."
International relief organisations have repeatedly insisted that more people will die unless they get immediate food, water, shelter and medical care.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation warned that hundreds of thousands of people in remote areas of the delta have insufficient food, and said prices for rice, cooking oil and other basics had doubled throughout the country.
Only a "very narrow window of opportunity" remains to provide seeds and other material to farmers before the rice planting season upon which millions depend begins in a few weeks, the agency said.
Visas blocked
While accepting thousands of tonnes of donated supplies, Myanmar's rulers have been blocking visas for most foreign disaster management experts and insisted reports of survivors not getting enough aid were the work of "traitors".
A senior UN official present at the meeting between the UN secretary-general and Than Shwe said Myanamar also agreed to allow foreigners to work in the hardest-hit region, the Irrawaddy Delta, which has been virtually off-limits to them.
"The general said he saw no reason why that should not happen as long as they were genuine humanitarian workers and it was clear what they were going to do," the Associated Press quoted the official as saying.
The announcement that Myanmar would halt its restrictions came on day two of Ban's visit, the first by a UN secretary-general in more than four decades.
Despite the continuing misery caused by Cyclone Nargis, the country's military rulers pressed ahead with plans to hold a second round of a referendum on Saturday in areas hit hard by the storm.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Running on Empty? Fears over oil supply move into the mainstream.
This is from the Financial Times. As the article points out worries about oil shortages have moved from being the concern of a few pessimists to the mainstream media. The huge demand increases in newly developing nations such as China is not matched by similar increase in supply. New supplies such as those in the Canadian Oil Sands are quite expensive. Oil is reaching new price highs every few days it seems.
Running on empty? Fears over oil supply move into the mainstreamBy Carola HoyosFinancial TimesMay 19 2008On a rainy day last month, four drummers, three guitarists, a bagpiper, twodidgeridoo players and 186 others assembled in the rural English town ofCirencester to discuss turning their neighbourhoods into low-impactcommunities built around farming, arts and crafts and herbal medicine.After communal meditation and a few speeches, those present gathered insmall groups to discuss everything from transport without oil to engaginglocal politicians in the “Transition Towns” movement’s stated aim: reducingtheir carbon footprint in response to concerns over diminishing hydrocarbonreserves as well as global warming. The mood in the group discussing energywas sombre. One former civil engineer predicted the demise of the lightbulbwithin a decade and derided the idea that market forces and human ingenuitycould save the planet, laughing it off as “the magic wand” theory.For years, such meetings have been dismissed as eccentric. Most of the world’soil executives, government ministers, analysts and consultants reject the“peak oil” theory – the notion based on the 1950s work of Marion KingHubbert, a Shell geologist, that crude production will soon enter terminaldecline. They say it understates remaining reserves, plays down thecontribution of technological advances and ignores the role of market forcesin shaping future supply.But with the oil price at a record $126 a barrel, more than 1,000 per centhigher than a decade ago, fears of the end of the hydrocarbon age haveseeped into the mainstream. Many in the industry itself now accept thatsupply constraints are shaping the price as much as rampant demand. Callsfor greater investment to ease these constraints formed the crux of many ofthe discussions at last month’s meeting in Rome between energy ministers ofthe world’s main oil producers and consumers. A few weeks later, analysts atGoldman Sachs and elsewhere, as well as ministers of the Opec oil cartel,predicted that prices could reach $200 within two years.So are the peak oilists right? A series of recent events certainly appearsto lend credence to those who argue that the world’s ageing oilfields arebeing sucked dry amid China’s and India’s determination to lift themselvesout of poverty and the west’s reluctance to give up the luxuries of modernoil-dependent life.The fact that Russia’s oil production declined almost half a percentagepoint in April, the first drop in a decade, was shocking enough news fromthe world’s second biggest oil producer, whose output was growing at a rateof 12 per cent just five years ago. But Russian oil executives have gone astep further: Leonid Fedun, vice-president of Lukoil, told the FinancialTimes the country’s production may have already reached its peak.Just days later Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil producer and by farthe largest exporter, confirmed it had put on hold plans to increase thekingdom’s production capacity. Ali Naimi, Saudi energy minister, said thedemand forecasts he was reading did not warrant an expansion past the 12.5mb/d capacity Saudi Arabia’s fields will reach next year, following alaborious investment of more than $20bn (£10.3bn, €12.9bn). King Abdullah,the country’s ruler, put it more bluntly: “I keep no secret from you that,when there were some new finds, I told them, ‘No, leave it in the ground,with grace from God, our children need it’.’’Most other forecasts show the world will need Saudi Arabia’s oil. Thus thekingdom’s reluctance to invest further in its fields has led some to askwhether Saudi Arabia can boost production or whether, after 75 years, theworld’s biggest oil deposit has been cashed.Friday’s announcement by Mr Naimi that Saudi Arabia would pump slightly moreoil did little to ease prices because it failed to reduce concerns oversupply: when the kingdom produces more oil, it eats into its cushion ofspare supply. This means such measures sometimes backfire, driving priceshigher – the opposite of what US President George W. Bush, who requested theincreased output, had in mind.One problem is that nobody really knows what is going on inside Saudi Arabia’soil industry. Riyadh is so guarded that analysts from Sanford Bernstein, thefinancial services company, took to spying on its activity via satellite.They spent nine months monitoring the country’s drilling activities andmeasuring whether Ghawar, the world’s biggest oilfield, had subsided. Theirconclusion: Saudi Arabia is having to work harder than the country’sengineers and geologists expected in 2004 to squeeze more out of thenorthern part of the ageing Ghawar field.Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker, has a bleaker view of Ghawar’shealth. He took the news that Saudi Arabia was not planning to expand to 15mb/d as further evidence that the kingdom was struggling to ward off acollapse of its oilfields.With his book Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and theWorld Economy, published in 2005, Mr Simmons, more than any otherindividual, laid the seeds of doubt over Saudi Arabia’s future reliability.Poring over 200 technical papers written by engineers over 20 years, somestored electronically and others gathering dust in the filing cabinets ofthe Society of Petroleum Engineers’ offices on the outskirts of Dallas,Texas, he uncovered evidence the kingdom’s fields were far more complicatedto tap and declining more quickly than the secretive nation was willing toreveal.Less well known, but equally damning, is his study of the rest of the world’soilfields. Mr Simmons launched his project in 2001 after none of theanalysts brought in to help the US Central Intelligence Agency map the world’sremaining big sources of oil came up with answers that satisfied him.He found that the world depends on just a few giant, old, decliningoilfields and that almost nothing to match them has been discovered sincethe 1970s. One in every five barrels of oil consumed each day is pumped froma field that is more than 40 years old. Not a single field discovered in thepast 30 years has ever been able to produce more than 1m b/d and the numberand size of fields discovered since then have been shrinking dramatically.Output declines as an oilfield ages – sometimes dramatically. One example isMexico’s Cantarell field. Discovered by a fisherman in 1976, Cantarell atits peak produced more than 2m b/d. Today, the field pumps half that volumeand is in relentless decline, losing 24 per cent of its production eachyear.The same trend – though at a slower pace – is plaguing most fields aroundthe world, possibly including the four biggest: Ghawar, Cantarell, Kuwait’sBurgan and China’s Daqing. This means running to stand still: each year asmuch as two-thirds of new oil supply capacity goes towards covering for theslowdown at ageing fields.Mr Simmons’ work is potent fodder for peak oilists, who espouse their gloomyviews of the future on websites ranging from those with an academic air tomore alarmist ones that come complete with advertisements for freeze-driedfood and survival guides.Hubbert in 1956 correctly predicted that US production would peak between1965 and 1970. His later forecasts proved less reliable, as did propheciesby his followers. The Hubbert model maintains that the production rate of afinite resource follows a largely symmetrical bell-shaped curve, meaningthat post-peak life could turn quickly to economic turmoil followed by ahorse-and-cart existence.Mr Simmons knows his peak oil views have moved him towards the fringes of abusiness in which he used to occupy a far more central position. But he isnot alone. T. Boone Pickens and Richard Rainwater, the billionaire USinvestors whose net worth is estimated at more than $3bn each, have profitedfrom their view of peak oil, through their hedge funds of mainly oil and gasholdings. Last Thursday Mr Pickens placed a $2bn order for the first 667 of2,500 wind turbines that he plans to erect on the Texas Panhandle as he goesabout building the world’s biggest wind farm.Fears over supply increasingly extend to the corner offices of internationaloil companies. James Mulva, chief executive of ConocoPhillips of the US, andChristophe de Margerie, his counterpart at Total of France, both recentlysaid they did not think world oil production would ever surpass 100m b/d.That is the amount of oil the International Energy Agency, the consumingnations’ watchdog, estimates the world will need in seven years’ time. By2030, it will need 16m b/d more.Mr Mulva and Mr de Margerie would take deep offence at being called peakoilists. But they, together with a rapidly growing number of industryexecutives and ministers, believe the world is running out of “easy oil” andthat political barriers – such as Nigeria’s crippling unrest, thenationalisation that has stunted Russia’s energy industry and theinternational tensions that have for two decades stymied Iraq’s energypotential – are keeping companies from being able to exploit the2,400bn-4,400bn barrels that remain.Instead of preparing for Armageddon, they are using technologies such ashorizontal drilling to squeeze more oil out of their old fields and lookingfor reserves in harsher terrains. But even they advocate that consumers, whorely on oil for everything from light to lipstick, should be less wasteful.Industry executives admit that fields in the developed world, such as thosein the North Sea and Alaska, are about to peak. (Sanford Bernstein believesproduction outside Opec will peak this year.) But they argue thatunconventional fields, such as those in Alberta and in Venezuela’s Orinocobelt, hold more barrels of oil than Saudi Arabia, while the Arctic’s richescould be immense as well.Natural gas, coal, corn, sugar cane, algae and turkey innards are promisingalternative sources that could fuel China’s new love affair with the car,they say. Meanwhile the biggest oilfield, as Joseph Stanislaw, adviser toDeloitte Consulting, likes to point out, lies beneath Detroit. In otherwords, millions of barrels a day of oil could be saved if Americans tradedin their gas-guzzlers for more efficient vehicles.All of this means global production will follow an “undulating plateau forone or more decades before declining slowly”, says Peter Jackson ofCambridge Energy Research Associates, an industry consulting firm. Afterstudying its oil production and resources database, the group concluded thatit saw no decline in the world’s ability to produce oil before 2030, makingCera’s one of the most sanguine forecasts.But the ride could yet prove a bumpy one, even Cera admits. Saudi Arabia’sspare capacity is at its lowest level in a generation, having been eateninto by China and other fuel-hungry customers. It now stands at 2m-3m b/d,too little to cover a big interruption in supplies from elsewhere. This hasalready added a sizeable premium to international oil prices, though no onehas a grasp of exactly how much.Meanwhile, the long-term alternatives have serious downsides. The Albertaproject is a big, dirty mining operation, both energy- and water-intensive.Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s populist president, has made it risky forinternational oil companies to pour billions of dollars into the Orinocobelt. The technology to tap the Arctic’s big reserves and bring them backashore has not been invented. Regarding power of the solar, wind andturkey-gut varieties, even the most optimistic forecasts say these willremain a small fraction of the overall energy mix.In fact, even if all the policies to increase renewable fuels and to use oilmore efficiently were to be enacted immediately, the world would still needOpec’s daily production to increase by 11.5m barrels by 2030, the bulk ofwhich would have to come from Saudi Arabia, the IEA says.That is a tall order. It is 50-plus per cent more than the amount by whichOpec managed to increase output between 1980 and 2006. This time, the oilbusiness is faced with a shortage of skilled labour (the industry’s averageage is just shy of 50) and a squeeze in the supply of steel and othercritical components.So what if politics, an ageing workforce and a dearth of equipment get inthe way and Saudi Arabia cannot – or will not – come to the rescue? Will thepeak oilists turn out to be right, for the wrong reasons?The answer depends on the market’s ability to adjust. For optimists, theworst that could happen is high oil prices eventually damp demand whilegiving the entrepreneurially inclined time to think of ingenious ways toproduce and conserve energy.Growth in demand is in fact already slowing, especially in the US and otherdeveloped countries. Neil McMahon, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein, suggeststhe downturn in developed countries may prove large enough to allow hungriernations, such as those within Opec and China, to continue to demandincreasing volumes of oil. “The question is: Have these [developed] nationsbeen squeezed enough yet, or will prices have to go higher?” he asks in arecent report. Though he leaves open the possibility that prices willcontinue to rise for a while, he argues: “Based on 3.5 per cent [growth in]global GDP, overall oil demand growth will be close to zero.”Guy Caruso (right), head of the Energy Information Administration, thestatistical and forecasting arm of the US Department of Energy, also pointsto the power of the market to drive changes in government policy and thebehaviour of consumers and oil companies. “As you know, we are not believersin peak oil. We believe the above-ground risk is the issue,” he says.The EIA predicts that US imports of oil and petroleum products will decreaseslightly in the next 22 years. This means the import dependence of the world’sbiggest oil consumer is forecast to drop from 60 per cent to 50 per cent by2015 before climbing again slightly to 54 per cent by 2030. The reasons forthe drop include improved car efficiency, slower demand, higher use ofbiofuels and a 1m b/d increase in oil production from the US’s Gulf ofMexico by 2012. “One of the things M. King Hubbert couldn’t have known isabout the technology to drill in 12,000 feet of water and to drillhorizontally,” Mr Caruso says.A pessimist’s version of events would include a more serious and widespreaddownturn, as developing countries buckle under the burden of subsidisingtheir citizens’ swelling fuel and food bills. At the extreme end are theviews of Jeremy Leggett, a geologist turned entrepreneur and author of HalfGone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis. In his worst-casescenario parable, he writes: “The price of houses collapsed. Stock marketscrashed ... Companies went bankrupt ... Workers fell into unemployment bythe hundreds of thousands and then millions. Once affluent cities withstreet cafés now had queues at soup kitchens and armies of beggars on thestreets.”Industry executives dismiss this as doom-mongering so corrosive that it hasthe power to distort policy and investment decisions. But such visions alsohave the power to prompt people to use energy more efficiently. Thebagpipers and didgeridoo players of Transition Towns are indeed already apart, if only a small one, of the solution to the uncertainties ahead – evenif the world never has to experience quite the disaster that they predict.
Running on empty? Fears over oil supply move into the mainstreamBy Carola HoyosFinancial TimesMay 19 2008On a rainy day last month, four drummers, three guitarists, a bagpiper, twodidgeridoo players and 186 others assembled in the rural English town ofCirencester to discuss turning their neighbourhoods into low-impactcommunities built around farming, arts and crafts and herbal medicine.After communal meditation and a few speeches, those present gathered insmall groups to discuss everything from transport without oil to engaginglocal politicians in the “Transition Towns” movement’s stated aim: reducingtheir carbon footprint in response to concerns over diminishing hydrocarbonreserves as well as global warming. The mood in the group discussing energywas sombre. One former civil engineer predicted the demise of the lightbulbwithin a decade and derided the idea that market forces and human ingenuitycould save the planet, laughing it off as “the magic wand” theory.For years, such meetings have been dismissed as eccentric. Most of the world’soil executives, government ministers, analysts and consultants reject the“peak oil” theory – the notion based on the 1950s work of Marion KingHubbert, a Shell geologist, that crude production will soon enter terminaldecline. They say it understates remaining reserves, plays down thecontribution of technological advances and ignores the role of market forcesin shaping future supply.But with the oil price at a record $126 a barrel, more than 1,000 per centhigher than a decade ago, fears of the end of the hydrocarbon age haveseeped into the mainstream. Many in the industry itself now accept thatsupply constraints are shaping the price as much as rampant demand. Callsfor greater investment to ease these constraints formed the crux of many ofthe discussions at last month’s meeting in Rome between energy ministers ofthe world’s main oil producers and consumers. A few weeks later, analysts atGoldman Sachs and elsewhere, as well as ministers of the Opec oil cartel,predicted that prices could reach $200 within two years.So are the peak oilists right? A series of recent events certainly appearsto lend credence to those who argue that the world’s ageing oilfields arebeing sucked dry amid China’s and India’s determination to lift themselvesout of poverty and the west’s reluctance to give up the luxuries of modernoil-dependent life.The fact that Russia’s oil production declined almost half a percentagepoint in April, the first drop in a decade, was shocking enough news fromthe world’s second biggest oil producer, whose output was growing at a rateof 12 per cent just five years ago. But Russian oil executives have gone astep further: Leonid Fedun, vice-president of Lukoil, told the FinancialTimes the country’s production may have already reached its peak.Just days later Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil producer and by farthe largest exporter, confirmed it had put on hold plans to increase thekingdom’s production capacity. Ali Naimi, Saudi energy minister, said thedemand forecasts he was reading did not warrant an expansion past the 12.5mb/d capacity Saudi Arabia’s fields will reach next year, following alaborious investment of more than $20bn (£10.3bn, €12.9bn). King Abdullah,the country’s ruler, put it more bluntly: “I keep no secret from you that,when there were some new finds, I told them, ‘No, leave it in the ground,with grace from God, our children need it’.’’Most other forecasts show the world will need Saudi Arabia’s oil. Thus thekingdom’s reluctance to invest further in its fields has led some to askwhether Saudi Arabia can boost production or whether, after 75 years, theworld’s biggest oil deposit has been cashed.Friday’s announcement by Mr Naimi that Saudi Arabia would pump slightly moreoil did little to ease prices because it failed to reduce concerns oversupply: when the kingdom produces more oil, it eats into its cushion ofspare supply. This means such measures sometimes backfire, driving priceshigher – the opposite of what US President George W. Bush, who requested theincreased output, had in mind.One problem is that nobody really knows what is going on inside Saudi Arabia’soil industry. Riyadh is so guarded that analysts from Sanford Bernstein, thefinancial services company, took to spying on its activity via satellite.They spent nine months monitoring the country’s drilling activities andmeasuring whether Ghawar, the world’s biggest oilfield, had subsided. Theirconclusion: Saudi Arabia is having to work harder than the country’sengineers and geologists expected in 2004 to squeeze more out of thenorthern part of the ageing Ghawar field.Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker, has a bleaker view of Ghawar’shealth. He took the news that Saudi Arabia was not planning to expand to 15mb/d as further evidence that the kingdom was struggling to ward off acollapse of its oilfields.With his book Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and theWorld Economy, published in 2005, Mr Simmons, more than any otherindividual, laid the seeds of doubt over Saudi Arabia’s future reliability.Poring over 200 technical papers written by engineers over 20 years, somestored electronically and others gathering dust in the filing cabinets ofthe Society of Petroleum Engineers’ offices on the outskirts of Dallas,Texas, he uncovered evidence the kingdom’s fields were far more complicatedto tap and declining more quickly than the secretive nation was willing toreveal.Less well known, but equally damning, is his study of the rest of the world’soilfields. Mr Simmons launched his project in 2001 after none of theanalysts brought in to help the US Central Intelligence Agency map the world’sremaining big sources of oil came up with answers that satisfied him.He found that the world depends on just a few giant, old, decliningoilfields and that almost nothing to match them has been discovered sincethe 1970s. One in every five barrels of oil consumed each day is pumped froma field that is more than 40 years old. Not a single field discovered in thepast 30 years has ever been able to produce more than 1m b/d and the numberand size of fields discovered since then have been shrinking dramatically.Output declines as an oilfield ages – sometimes dramatically. One example isMexico’s Cantarell field. Discovered by a fisherman in 1976, Cantarell atits peak produced more than 2m b/d. Today, the field pumps half that volumeand is in relentless decline, losing 24 per cent of its production eachyear.The same trend – though at a slower pace – is plaguing most fields aroundthe world, possibly including the four biggest: Ghawar, Cantarell, Kuwait’sBurgan and China’s Daqing. This means running to stand still: each year asmuch as two-thirds of new oil supply capacity goes towards covering for theslowdown at ageing fields.Mr Simmons’ work is potent fodder for peak oilists, who espouse their gloomyviews of the future on websites ranging from those with an academic air tomore alarmist ones that come complete with advertisements for freeze-driedfood and survival guides.Hubbert in 1956 correctly predicted that US production would peak between1965 and 1970. His later forecasts proved less reliable, as did propheciesby his followers. The Hubbert model maintains that the production rate of afinite resource follows a largely symmetrical bell-shaped curve, meaningthat post-peak life could turn quickly to economic turmoil followed by ahorse-and-cart existence.Mr Simmons knows his peak oil views have moved him towards the fringes of abusiness in which he used to occupy a far more central position. But he isnot alone. T. Boone Pickens and Richard Rainwater, the billionaire USinvestors whose net worth is estimated at more than $3bn each, have profitedfrom their view of peak oil, through their hedge funds of mainly oil and gasholdings. Last Thursday Mr Pickens placed a $2bn order for the first 667 of2,500 wind turbines that he plans to erect on the Texas Panhandle as he goesabout building the world’s biggest wind farm.Fears over supply increasingly extend to the corner offices of internationaloil companies. James Mulva, chief executive of ConocoPhillips of the US, andChristophe de Margerie, his counterpart at Total of France, both recentlysaid they did not think world oil production would ever surpass 100m b/d.That is the amount of oil the International Energy Agency, the consumingnations’ watchdog, estimates the world will need in seven years’ time. By2030, it will need 16m b/d more.Mr Mulva and Mr de Margerie would take deep offence at being called peakoilists. But they, together with a rapidly growing number of industryexecutives and ministers, believe the world is running out of “easy oil” andthat political barriers – such as Nigeria’s crippling unrest, thenationalisation that has stunted Russia’s energy industry and theinternational tensions that have for two decades stymied Iraq’s energypotential – are keeping companies from being able to exploit the2,400bn-4,400bn barrels that remain.Instead of preparing for Armageddon, they are using technologies such ashorizontal drilling to squeeze more oil out of their old fields and lookingfor reserves in harsher terrains. But even they advocate that consumers, whorely on oil for everything from light to lipstick, should be less wasteful.Industry executives admit that fields in the developed world, such as thosein the North Sea and Alaska, are about to peak. (Sanford Bernstein believesproduction outside Opec will peak this year.) But they argue thatunconventional fields, such as those in Alberta and in Venezuela’s Orinocobelt, hold more barrels of oil than Saudi Arabia, while the Arctic’s richescould be immense as well.Natural gas, coal, corn, sugar cane, algae and turkey innards are promisingalternative sources that could fuel China’s new love affair with the car,they say. Meanwhile the biggest oilfield, as Joseph Stanislaw, adviser toDeloitte Consulting, likes to point out, lies beneath Detroit. In otherwords, millions of barrels a day of oil could be saved if Americans tradedin their gas-guzzlers for more efficient vehicles.All of this means global production will follow an “undulating plateau forone or more decades before declining slowly”, says Peter Jackson ofCambridge Energy Research Associates, an industry consulting firm. Afterstudying its oil production and resources database, the group concluded thatit saw no decline in the world’s ability to produce oil before 2030, makingCera’s one of the most sanguine forecasts.But the ride could yet prove a bumpy one, even Cera admits. Saudi Arabia’sspare capacity is at its lowest level in a generation, having been eateninto by China and other fuel-hungry customers. It now stands at 2m-3m b/d,too little to cover a big interruption in supplies from elsewhere. This hasalready added a sizeable premium to international oil prices, though no onehas a grasp of exactly how much.Meanwhile, the long-term alternatives have serious downsides. The Albertaproject is a big, dirty mining operation, both energy- and water-intensive.Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s populist president, has made it risky forinternational oil companies to pour billions of dollars into the Orinocobelt. The technology to tap the Arctic’s big reserves and bring them backashore has not been invented. Regarding power of the solar, wind andturkey-gut varieties, even the most optimistic forecasts say these willremain a small fraction of the overall energy mix.In fact, even if all the policies to increase renewable fuels and to use oilmore efficiently were to be enacted immediately, the world would still needOpec’s daily production to increase by 11.5m barrels by 2030, the bulk ofwhich would have to come from Saudi Arabia, the IEA says.That is a tall order. It is 50-plus per cent more than the amount by whichOpec managed to increase output between 1980 and 2006. This time, the oilbusiness is faced with a shortage of skilled labour (the industry’s averageage is just shy of 50) and a squeeze in the supply of steel and othercritical components.So what if politics, an ageing workforce and a dearth of equipment get inthe way and Saudi Arabia cannot – or will not – come to the rescue? Will thepeak oilists turn out to be right, for the wrong reasons?The answer depends on the market’s ability to adjust. For optimists, theworst that could happen is high oil prices eventually damp demand whilegiving the entrepreneurially inclined time to think of ingenious ways toproduce and conserve energy.Growth in demand is in fact already slowing, especially in the US and otherdeveloped countries. Neil McMahon, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein, suggeststhe downturn in developed countries may prove large enough to allow hungriernations, such as those within Opec and China, to continue to demandincreasing volumes of oil. “The question is: Have these [developed] nationsbeen squeezed enough yet, or will prices have to go higher?” he asks in arecent report. Though he leaves open the possibility that prices willcontinue to rise for a while, he argues: “Based on 3.5 per cent [growth in]global GDP, overall oil demand growth will be close to zero.”Guy Caruso (right), head of the Energy Information Administration, thestatistical and forecasting arm of the US Department of Energy, also pointsto the power of the market to drive changes in government policy and thebehaviour of consumers and oil companies. “As you know, we are not believersin peak oil. We believe the above-ground risk is the issue,” he says.The EIA predicts that US imports of oil and petroleum products will decreaseslightly in the next 22 years. This means the import dependence of the world’sbiggest oil consumer is forecast to drop from 60 per cent to 50 per cent by2015 before climbing again slightly to 54 per cent by 2030. The reasons forthe drop include improved car efficiency, slower demand, higher use ofbiofuels and a 1m b/d increase in oil production from the US’s Gulf ofMexico by 2012. “One of the things M. King Hubbert couldn’t have known isabout the technology to drill in 12,000 feet of water and to drillhorizontally,” Mr Caruso says.A pessimist’s version of events would include a more serious and widespreaddownturn, as developing countries buckle under the burden of subsidisingtheir citizens’ swelling fuel and food bills. At the extreme end are theviews of Jeremy Leggett, a geologist turned entrepreneur and author of HalfGone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis. In his worst-casescenario parable, he writes: “The price of houses collapsed. Stock marketscrashed ... Companies went bankrupt ... Workers fell into unemployment bythe hundreds of thousands and then millions. Once affluent cities withstreet cafés now had queues at soup kitchens and armies of beggars on thestreets.”Industry executives dismiss this as doom-mongering so corrosive that it hasthe power to distort policy and investment decisions. But such visions alsohave the power to prompt people to use energy more efficiently. Thebagpipers and didgeridoo players of Transition Towns are indeed already apart, if only a small one, of the solution to the uncertainties ahead – evenif the world never has to experience quite the disaster that they predict.
Death toll from Philippines storm at 37
This is from the Age. The storm in Burma, earthquake in China, and tornados in the U.S. have meant that this storm in the northern Philippines has been below the radar of the mainstream press in North America.
Death toll from Philippines storm now 37
May 21, 2008 - 5:08PM
The death toll in a tropical storm that pummelled the Philippines over the weekend rose to 37 as rescuers reached far-flung villages in the worst-hit areas.
The National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) said 16 more people were injured in the aftermath of storm Halong that brought heavy rains which triggered landslides and flash floods in several northern provinces.
The NDCC said more than one million people were adversely affected by Halong's fury and several roads have been rendered impassable and bridges swept away by swollen rivers.
Most of the fatalities were in the province of Pangasinan, 180km north of Manila, which was worst hit by Halong.
Many of the victims drowned in flash floods, died when struck by tin sheets torn off from roofs by Halong's strong winds or were buried in collapsed structures.
Damage to agriculture and infrastructure was estimated at 3.49 billion pesos ($A84.74 million
Death toll from Philippines storm now 37
May 21, 2008 - 5:08PM
The death toll in a tropical storm that pummelled the Philippines over the weekend rose to 37 as rescuers reached far-flung villages in the worst-hit areas.
The National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) said 16 more people were injured in the aftermath of storm Halong that brought heavy rains which triggered landslides and flash floods in several northern provinces.
The NDCC said more than one million people were adversely affected by Halong's fury and several roads have been rendered impassable and bridges swept away by swollen rivers.
Most of the fatalities were in the province of Pangasinan, 180km north of Manila, which was worst hit by Halong.
Many of the victims drowned in flash floods, died when struck by tin sheets torn off from roofs by Halong's strong winds or were buried in collapsed structures.
Damage to agriculture and infrastructure was estimated at 3.49 billion pesos ($A84.74 million
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Rival Lebanese reach deal to end crisis.
This is a good sign and it looks as if civil war has been avoided. The article is from Reuters.
Rival Lebanese reach deal to end crisisTue May 20, 2008 7:02 PM ET
By Nadim Ladki
DOHA (Reuters) - Rival Lebanese leaders reached a deal on Wednesday to end 18 months of political conflict that had pushed their country to the brink of a new civil war.
Delegates from the U.S.-backed ruling coalition and the Hezbollah-led opposition told Reuters disputes over a parliamentary election law and a new cabinet had been settled on the sixth day of Arab-mediated talks in Qatar.
"The deal is done. The text has been written," an opposition delegate told Reuters. The official announcement was expected at 10.00 a.m. (3 a.m. EDT), he added.
A ruling coalition delegate also confirmed the deal, which will meet the opposition's long-standing demand for veto power in cabinet.
Hezbollah, a group backed by Iran and Syria, increased pressure on the ruling alliance this month by routing its followers in a military campaign. The Qatari-led negotiations built on mediation that ended violence which killed 81.
It was Lebanon's worst civil conflict since the 1975-1990 war and exacerbated tensions between Shi'ites loyal to Hezbollah and Druze and Sunni followers of the ruling coalition.
Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani joined the Doha talks shortly before midnight after returning from Saudi Arabia -- one of the main foreign backers of the ruling coalition.
A deal paves the way for parliament to elect army chief General Michel Suleiman as president, a post that has been vacant since November because of the political deadlock. The vote in parliament could take place as soon as Thursday, delegates said.
The anti-Damascus ruling coalition had long refused to meet the opposition's demand for cabinet veto power, saying the opposition was trying to restore Syrian control of Lebanon.
Syria, a close ally of Iran, was forced to withdraw troops from Lebanon in 2005 following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.
The United States has held up the withdrawal as a foreign policy success story.
But Hezbollah's military campaign this month was a major blow to U.S. policy in Lebanon and forced Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government to rescind two measures targeting the Iranian-backed group.
The deal will include a pledge by both sides not to use violence in political disputes, echoing a paragraph in the agreement that ended the fighting.
(Writing by Tom Perry in Beirut, editing by Diana Abdallah)
© Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.
Rival Lebanese reach deal to end crisisTue May 20, 2008 7:02 PM ET
By Nadim Ladki
DOHA (Reuters) - Rival Lebanese leaders reached a deal on Wednesday to end 18 months of political conflict that had pushed their country to the brink of a new civil war.
Delegates from the U.S.-backed ruling coalition and the Hezbollah-led opposition told Reuters disputes over a parliamentary election law and a new cabinet had been settled on the sixth day of Arab-mediated talks in Qatar.
"The deal is done. The text has been written," an opposition delegate told Reuters. The official announcement was expected at 10.00 a.m. (3 a.m. EDT), he added.
A ruling coalition delegate also confirmed the deal, which will meet the opposition's long-standing demand for veto power in cabinet.
Hezbollah, a group backed by Iran and Syria, increased pressure on the ruling alliance this month by routing its followers in a military campaign. The Qatari-led negotiations built on mediation that ended violence which killed 81.
It was Lebanon's worst civil conflict since the 1975-1990 war and exacerbated tensions between Shi'ites loyal to Hezbollah and Druze and Sunni followers of the ruling coalition.
Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani joined the Doha talks shortly before midnight after returning from Saudi Arabia -- one of the main foreign backers of the ruling coalition.
A deal paves the way for parliament to elect army chief General Michel Suleiman as president, a post that has been vacant since November because of the political deadlock. The vote in parliament could take place as soon as Thursday, delegates said.
The anti-Damascus ruling coalition had long refused to meet the opposition's demand for cabinet veto power, saying the opposition was trying to restore Syrian control of Lebanon.
Syria, a close ally of Iran, was forced to withdraw troops from Lebanon in 2005 following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.
The United States has held up the withdrawal as a foreign policy success story.
But Hezbollah's military campaign this month was a major blow to U.S. policy in Lebanon and forced Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government to rescind two measures targeting the Iranian-backed group.
The deal will include a pledge by both sides not to use violence in political disputes, echoing a paragraph in the agreement that ended the fighting.
(Writing by Tom Perry in Beirut, editing by Diana Abdallah)
© Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.
Economist: Philippine rice crisis due to bad policies not by shortage of rice.
Some economist this. What he must mean is that the shortage is caused by bad policies not that there is no shortage. Well maybe he doesn't mean that. He seems to think that the problem is just that if Filipinos had enough money they could buy the rice. In fact in saying that it is an income problem that seems to be his line. Of course the role of the World Bank and IMF in helping set Arroyo's agricultural policies which indeed are partly to blame is left unmentioned! This guy is already an executive director. He is on his way up! Certainly neo-liberal policies are partly to blame for the crisis but they are not just a function of Arroyo's whims but of the neo-liberal institutions that guide that policy, the World Bank and IMF. For this economist they don''t seem to enter the equation.
Philippine rice crisis due to bad policies, not shortage: economist
10 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — The rice crisis affecting the Philippines is not caused by a shortage of rice but due to bad policies that have hurt the agriculture sector, a leading economist said in a report released Wednesday.
"The so-called rice crisis is really an income crisis," said Rolando Dy, executive director of the food division of the Manila-based University of Asia and the Pacific.
He blamed "under-investment in agriculture and infrastructure, a poor record in eliminating poverty (and) poor infrastructure quality," for the crisis which has forced thousands of poor Filipinos to line up for hours for subsidised rice.
"We cannot reap what we did not sow. We failed in reducing rural poverty compared to other countries," like China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, he said.
The Philippines is one of the world's biggest rice importers and does not enjoy large contiguous land areas with large river systems that allow China, India, Vietnam and Thailand to grow huge amounts of rice, Dy conceded.
But he said other countries which are more dependent on imported rice, like Malaysia and Singapore did not have long queues for rice and were not suffering from the crisis as badly as the Philippines.
Dy said that rice consumption in the Philippines was so high because much of its population was still poor and could afford to eat nothing else.
"There are so many poor people here, the only food they can afford is a mound of rice and some catsup (tomato sauce)," he said.
The Philippines could raise productivity but it had not properly invested in agriculture or its support infrastructure like irrigation and farm-to-market roads, Dy said.
He said the government was investing little in research and development, building sub-standard rural roads and not putting enough irrigation into potential growth areas like the southern region of Mindanao.
Dy also complained that an agriculture modernisation law that took effect in 2000 was not getting adequate funding.
Graft and corruption also hurt the agriculture sector with rural infrastructure being built to poor standards.
The rice crisis might even be a blessing in disguise because it "will spur production and even investments," in agriculture which will have a positive effect in the long run, Dy said.
But he said the rice issue is "a problem not just of the executive branch... it is a problem of the legislative and judiciary," as well.
Dy said that there is likely to be "some correction in rice prices in the next 12 months but not dramatically," remarking that world rice prices will not return to levels seen in 2006.
Philippine rice crisis due to bad policies, not shortage: economist
10 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — The rice crisis affecting the Philippines is not caused by a shortage of rice but due to bad policies that have hurt the agriculture sector, a leading economist said in a report released Wednesday.
"The so-called rice crisis is really an income crisis," said Rolando Dy, executive director of the food division of the Manila-based University of Asia and the Pacific.
He blamed "under-investment in agriculture and infrastructure, a poor record in eliminating poverty (and) poor infrastructure quality," for the crisis which has forced thousands of poor Filipinos to line up for hours for subsidised rice.
"We cannot reap what we did not sow. We failed in reducing rural poverty compared to other countries," like China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, he said.
The Philippines is one of the world's biggest rice importers and does not enjoy large contiguous land areas with large river systems that allow China, India, Vietnam and Thailand to grow huge amounts of rice, Dy conceded.
But he said other countries which are more dependent on imported rice, like Malaysia and Singapore did not have long queues for rice and were not suffering from the crisis as badly as the Philippines.
Dy said that rice consumption in the Philippines was so high because much of its population was still poor and could afford to eat nothing else.
"There are so many poor people here, the only food they can afford is a mound of rice and some catsup (tomato sauce)," he said.
The Philippines could raise productivity but it had not properly invested in agriculture or its support infrastructure like irrigation and farm-to-market roads, Dy said.
He said the government was investing little in research and development, building sub-standard rural roads and not putting enough irrigation into potential growth areas like the southern region of Mindanao.
Dy also complained that an agriculture modernisation law that took effect in 2000 was not getting adequate funding.
Graft and corruption also hurt the agriculture sector with rural infrastructure being built to poor standards.
The rice crisis might even be a blessing in disguise because it "will spur production and even investments," in agriculture which will have a positive effect in the long run, Dy said.
But he said the rice issue is "a problem not just of the executive branch... it is a problem of the legislative and judiciary," as well.
Dy said that there is likely to be "some correction in rice prices in the next 12 months but not dramatically," remarking that world rice prices will not return to levels seen in 2006.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
NATO rejects UN report on Afghan civilian killings
So they reject the report but none of the countries involved in the mission provides numbers of civilians killed, results of investigations, or whether anyone was punished. This is certainly not a great record of accountability from which to criticise the UN report.
NATO rejects UN report on Afghan civilian killings
REUTERSReuters North American News Service
May 18, 2008 09:12 EST
KABUL, May 18 (Reuters) - NATO rejected on Sunday a report by a UN rapporteur about the number of civilian killings at the hands of the alliance-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
The U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions Philip Alston said on Thursday some 200 Afghan civilians had been killed by foreign and Afghan troops and around 300 by Taliban insurgents since the beginning of 2008.
"In summary, we find much of the substance and the overall tone of his statement inaccurate and unsubstantiated," Mark Laity, a spokesman for NATO, told a news conference.
He did concede that civilians were mistakenly killed by foreign forces while hunting the Taliban militants, but put the number much lower than reported by Alston.
"We would say it is in low double figures," he said.
Alston said international troops and Taliban insurgents needed to do more to avoid civilian casualties or many more innocents would be killed in the ongoing conflict.
The U.N. rapporteur called for more accountability from the more than 55,000 foreign troops led by NATO and the U.S. military in Afghanistan, who together with Afghan government troops are engaged in daily battles with a resurgent Taliban mainly in the south and east of the country.
Alston said he had found no evidence of intentional killing by foreign troops and particular cases were investigated to considerable lengths. But he said no international force was able or willing to provide numbers of civilians killed, the results of investigations or whether anyone had been punished.
"We ... acknowledge the accountability issue is complex," Laity said, adding NATO-led nations were accountable to the law of armed conflict and to individual contributing nations and members were investigating alleged or mistaken civilian deaths. (Reporting by Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by Charles Dick)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
NATO rejects UN report on Afghan civilian killings
REUTERSReuters North American News Service
May 18, 2008 09:12 EST
KABUL, May 18 (Reuters) - NATO rejected on Sunday a report by a UN rapporteur about the number of civilian killings at the hands of the alliance-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
The U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions Philip Alston said on Thursday some 200 Afghan civilians had been killed by foreign and Afghan troops and around 300 by Taliban insurgents since the beginning of 2008.
"In summary, we find much of the substance and the overall tone of his statement inaccurate and unsubstantiated," Mark Laity, a spokesman for NATO, told a news conference.
He did concede that civilians were mistakenly killed by foreign forces while hunting the Taliban militants, but put the number much lower than reported by Alston.
"We would say it is in low double figures," he said.
Alston said international troops and Taliban insurgents needed to do more to avoid civilian casualties or many more innocents would be killed in the ongoing conflict.
The U.N. rapporteur called for more accountability from the more than 55,000 foreign troops led by NATO and the U.S. military in Afghanistan, who together with Afghan government troops are engaged in daily battles with a resurgent Taliban mainly in the south and east of the country.
Alston said he had found no evidence of intentional killing by foreign troops and particular cases were investigated to considerable lengths. But he said no international force was able or willing to provide numbers of civilians killed, the results of investigations or whether anyone had been punished.
"We ... acknowledge the accountability issue is complex," Laity said, adding NATO-led nations were accountable to the law of armed conflict and to individual contributing nations and members were investigating alleged or mistaken civilian deaths. (Reporting by Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by Charles Dick)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Russia, China, U.S. oppose cluster bomb ban
How nice that Russia, China, and the United States can agree not to ban this vicious weapon that ought to be outlawed. Of course Israel, which used cluster bombs in Lebanon, is also on board with this motley crew of countries. When it comes to blowing people up and creating future situations where for years people are maimed by unexploded bombs the great leader of the Western world and the former Commie giants see eye to eye. Will Obama take a position on this matter? This is from common dreams.
Published on Sunday, May 18, 2008 by The Boston Globe
Conferees Seek Cluster Bomb BanRussia, China, US oppose treaty
by Nick Cumming-Bruce
GENEVA - Believe the advocates of a treaty banning cluster munitions, and the international community is about to take a decisive step toward curbing the use of a weapon that inflicts terrible suffering, particularly on civilians. Believe the US government, and the measure they propose threatens to undermine the NATO alliance that has underpinned Western security since World War II.
Delegates from more than 100 countries will open a conference in Dublin tomorrow that will try to hammer out a treaty banning the production, use, stockpiling, or transfer of cluster munitions - bombs or artillery shells packed with up to several hundred bomblets or submunitions that are sprayed over wide areas of territory.Major producers and stockpilers of cluster munitions, the United States, Russia, and China, will be absent and are opposed to a treaty, but disarmament specialists liken the cluster treaty to the Ottawa Treaty of 1997 banning land mines, which was shunned by the major powers but has proved influential in shaping the policies of countries outside the convention.
Support for a ban on cluster weapons has risen sharply since the 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon, when, according to United Nations estimates, Israeli troops fired some 4 million Vietnam War-era submunitions, of which a quarter failed to explode.
These have reportedly caused more than 200 casualties since the end of the war and required a costly and hazardous cleanup operation by international aid agencies - often funded by Western governments.
In Laos, where the United States dropped 2 million tons of ordnance in the 1970s, including an estimated 260 million submunitions, unexploded weapons still kill and maim people and hinder economic development.
As many as 10 percent to 15 percent of cluster munitions normally fail to explode on impact but those who support the treaty say the figure could be much higher. A study by Handicap International, a nongovernmental organization based in Belgium, found that 98 percent of recorded victims were civilians and one-third of casualties were children.
But after a series of international and regional conferences that have mapped out the broad parameters of a treaty, Dublin is the venue where negotiators have to refine rhetoric into a legally binding instrument governing a weapon system that represents a substantial part of the arsenal of the United States and some of its NATO allies.
“It’s going to be a bruising conference,” said Patrick McCarthy, coordinator of the Geneva Forum, a disarmament research body.
A handful of issues loom as key battlegrounds. One will be the definition of what constitutes a cluster munition, with richer Western nations like Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland pressing for exclusion of sophisticated weapons that have self-destruct mechanisms, target sensors, or a small number of submunitions.
Others, like Germany, want a transition period of up to 10 years during which they can continue to use such weapons while they find replacements.
Among the most contentious is a proposed clause that would prevent those who sign onto the treaty from engaging in joint operations with forces still employing cluster munitions.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Published on Sunday, May 18, 2008 by The Boston Globe
Conferees Seek Cluster Bomb BanRussia, China, US oppose treaty
by Nick Cumming-Bruce
GENEVA - Believe the advocates of a treaty banning cluster munitions, and the international community is about to take a decisive step toward curbing the use of a weapon that inflicts terrible suffering, particularly on civilians. Believe the US government, and the measure they propose threatens to undermine the NATO alliance that has underpinned Western security since World War II.
Delegates from more than 100 countries will open a conference in Dublin tomorrow that will try to hammer out a treaty banning the production, use, stockpiling, or transfer of cluster munitions - bombs or artillery shells packed with up to several hundred bomblets or submunitions that are sprayed over wide areas of territory.Major producers and stockpilers of cluster munitions, the United States, Russia, and China, will be absent and are opposed to a treaty, but disarmament specialists liken the cluster treaty to the Ottawa Treaty of 1997 banning land mines, which was shunned by the major powers but has proved influential in shaping the policies of countries outside the convention.
Support for a ban on cluster weapons has risen sharply since the 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon, when, according to United Nations estimates, Israeli troops fired some 4 million Vietnam War-era submunitions, of which a quarter failed to explode.
These have reportedly caused more than 200 casualties since the end of the war and required a costly and hazardous cleanup operation by international aid agencies - often funded by Western governments.
In Laos, where the United States dropped 2 million tons of ordnance in the 1970s, including an estimated 260 million submunitions, unexploded weapons still kill and maim people and hinder economic development.
As many as 10 percent to 15 percent of cluster munitions normally fail to explode on impact but those who support the treaty say the figure could be much higher. A study by Handicap International, a nongovernmental organization based in Belgium, found that 98 percent of recorded victims were civilians and one-third of casualties were children.
But after a series of international and regional conferences that have mapped out the broad parameters of a treaty, Dublin is the venue where negotiators have to refine rhetoric into a legally binding instrument governing a weapon system that represents a substantial part of the arsenal of the United States and some of its NATO allies.
“It’s going to be a bruising conference,” said Patrick McCarthy, coordinator of the Geneva Forum, a disarmament research body.
A handful of issues loom as key battlegrounds. One will be the definition of what constitutes a cluster munition, with richer Western nations like Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland pressing for exclusion of sophisticated weapons that have self-destruct mechanisms, target sensors, or a small number of submunitions.
Others, like Germany, want a transition period of up to 10 years during which they can continue to use such weapons while they find replacements.
Among the most contentious is a proposed clause that would prevent those who sign onto the treaty from engaging in joint operations with forces still employing cluster munitions.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
The Scars of Losing a Home
No doubt part of the American Dream is owning your own home. For many it has become part of the American Empire. It has always been a means of tying citizens to the system. People are encouraged to invest in their own homes through allowing income tax deductions for mortgage payments and through extending mortgages and lately through lending to people without paying much attention to credit worthiness.
It remains to be seen if the loss of homes is any sort of catalyst for producing change in the U.S. or as this article maintains will simply leave a scar on many. It probably will necessitate a much larger and wider dissilussionment to puncture the bubble of the American Dream. However, already the middle class hard-pressed by economic reality is encountering a bit of indigestion that makes sleep difficult.
The New York Times/May 18, 2008/Economic ViewThe Scars of Losing a HomeBy ROBERT J. SHILLERACROSS the United States, there were 243,353 foreclosure filings inApril alone, nearly three times the total in the same month just twoyears ago, according to RealtyTrac, a company that follows thenumbers. The trend is unmistakable, and suggests that, withoutgovernment intervention, many millions of American families will belosing their homes before long.What would this mean in human terms? Picture a line of moving trucksextending for hundreds of miles: they are taking the furniture ofcountless families to storage lockers. Picture schoolchildren sayinggoodbye to their classmates. They aren't going on vacation: they arebeing abruptly moved to the other side of town.It's easy to take a stern view of this spectacle. The arguments gosomething like this: Foreclosure is not the end of the world. Thereare valuable lessons to be learned from such a life experience. Afterall, we live in a capitalist economy that thrives on the sanctity ofcontracts. The founders of our nation put the contract clause into theConstitution to make it clear that people need to live up to thedocuments they sign.This stern view may, in fact, be winning the battle of public opinion. ...Now, let's take the other perspective — and examine some argumentsagainst the stern view. They have to do with the psychological effectsof strict enforcement of a mortgage contract, and economists andpeople in business may need to be reminded of them. After all, toomuch attention to abstract economic statistics just might make usoverlook what is really important.First, we have to consider that we cannot squarely place the blame forthe current mortgage mess on the homeowner. It seems to be sharedamong mortgage brokers, mortgage originators, appraisers, regulatoryagencies, securities ratings agencies, the chairman of the FederalReserve and the president of the United States (who did not issue anywarnings, but instead has consistently extolled the virtues ofhomeownership).Because homeowners facing foreclosure must bear the brunt of the pain,they naturally feel indignation when all of these other partiescontinue to lead comfortable, even affluent lives. Trying to enforcemortgage contracts may thus have a perverse effect: instead ofteaching homeowners that they should respect the contracts they sign,it may incline them to take a cynical [or anti-establishmentarian? --JD] view of the whole mess.But instead of having sympathy for these homeowners, many people blamethem for their predicaments. That isn't surprising. It's an example ofa general tendency that was documented by social psychologists decadesago.In his 1980 book, "The Belief in a Just World: A FundamentalDelusion," Melvin Lerner, a social psychologist, argued that peoplewant to believe in the inherent justice of the economic system inwhich they live, and want to believe that people who appear to besuffering are in fact responsible for their own situations. Heprovided empirical evidence, derived from experiments, that after aninitial pang of sympathy, people tend to develop negative views towardothers who are suffering. That negative tendency seems to be at worktoday.Second, it is important to consider the psychological trauma offoreclosure. No one is likely to starve or sleep on the streets as animmediate result of a foreclosure, and the authorities no longer [andso far?] dump a family's furniture on the sidewalk when it happens.Nonetheless, there is deep trauma.Homeownership is fundamental part of a sense of belonging to acountry. The psychologist William James wrote in 1890 that "a man'sSelf is the sum total of all that he CAN call his, not only his bodyand his psychic powers, but his clothes and his house, his wife andchildren, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, hislands and horses, and yacht and bank account."Homeownership is thus an extension of self; if one owns a part of acountry, one tends to feel at one with that country. Policy makersaround the world have long known that, and hence have supported thegrowth of homeownership.MAYBE that's why President Bush's "Ownership Society" theme had suchresonance in his 2004 re-election campaign. [did it?] Peopleinstinctively understand that homeownership conveys good feelingsabout belonging in our society, and that such feelings matterenormously, not only to our economic success but also to the pleasurewe can take in it.But we are now seeing the president's Ownership Society plan operatein reverse. Already, the homeownership rate has fallen — from 69.1percent in the first quarter of 2005 to 67.8 percent in the firstquarter of 2008. That's almost back to the 67.5 percent level where itstood when Mr. Bush took office in 2001. And it is likely to fallfurther.The pain of this reverse movement could leave a psychological scarthat will be with all of us for the rest of our lives.Robert J. Shiller is professor of economics and finance at Yale andchief economist of MacroMarkets LLC.Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
It remains to be seen if the loss of homes is any sort of catalyst for producing change in the U.S. or as this article maintains will simply leave a scar on many. It probably will necessitate a much larger and wider dissilussionment to puncture the bubble of the American Dream. However, already the middle class hard-pressed by economic reality is encountering a bit of indigestion that makes sleep difficult.
The New York Times/May 18, 2008/Economic ViewThe Scars of Losing a HomeBy ROBERT J. SHILLERACROSS the United States, there were 243,353 foreclosure filings inApril alone, nearly three times the total in the same month just twoyears ago, according to RealtyTrac, a company that follows thenumbers. The trend is unmistakable, and suggests that, withoutgovernment intervention, many millions of American families will belosing their homes before long.What would this mean in human terms? Picture a line of moving trucksextending for hundreds of miles: they are taking the furniture ofcountless families to storage lockers. Picture schoolchildren sayinggoodbye to their classmates. They aren't going on vacation: they arebeing abruptly moved to the other side of town.It's easy to take a stern view of this spectacle. The arguments gosomething like this: Foreclosure is not the end of the world. Thereare valuable lessons to be learned from such a life experience. Afterall, we live in a capitalist economy that thrives on the sanctity ofcontracts. The founders of our nation put the contract clause into theConstitution to make it clear that people need to live up to thedocuments they sign.This stern view may, in fact, be winning the battle of public opinion. ...Now, let's take the other perspective — and examine some argumentsagainst the stern view. They have to do with the psychological effectsof strict enforcement of a mortgage contract, and economists andpeople in business may need to be reminded of them. After all, toomuch attention to abstract economic statistics just might make usoverlook what is really important.First, we have to consider that we cannot squarely place the blame forthe current mortgage mess on the homeowner. It seems to be sharedamong mortgage brokers, mortgage originators, appraisers, regulatoryagencies, securities ratings agencies, the chairman of the FederalReserve and the president of the United States (who did not issue anywarnings, but instead has consistently extolled the virtues ofhomeownership).Because homeowners facing foreclosure must bear the brunt of the pain,they naturally feel indignation when all of these other partiescontinue to lead comfortable, even affluent lives. Trying to enforcemortgage contracts may thus have a perverse effect: instead ofteaching homeowners that they should respect the contracts they sign,it may incline them to take a cynical [or anti-establishmentarian? --JD] view of the whole mess.But instead of having sympathy for these homeowners, many people blamethem for their predicaments. That isn't surprising. It's an example ofa general tendency that was documented by social psychologists decadesago.In his 1980 book, "The Belief in a Just World: A FundamentalDelusion," Melvin Lerner, a social psychologist, argued that peoplewant to believe in the inherent justice of the economic system inwhich they live, and want to believe that people who appear to besuffering are in fact responsible for their own situations. Heprovided empirical evidence, derived from experiments, that after aninitial pang of sympathy, people tend to develop negative views towardothers who are suffering. That negative tendency seems to be at worktoday.Second, it is important to consider the psychological trauma offoreclosure. No one is likely to starve or sleep on the streets as animmediate result of a foreclosure, and the authorities no longer [andso far?] dump a family's furniture on the sidewalk when it happens.Nonetheless, there is deep trauma.Homeownership is fundamental part of a sense of belonging to acountry. The psychologist William James wrote in 1890 that "a man'sSelf is the sum total of all that he CAN call his, not only his bodyand his psychic powers, but his clothes and his house, his wife andchildren, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, hislands and horses, and yacht and bank account."Homeownership is thus an extension of self; if one owns a part of acountry, one tends to feel at one with that country. Policy makersaround the world have long known that, and hence have supported thegrowth of homeownership.MAYBE that's why President Bush's "Ownership Society" theme had suchresonance in his 2004 re-election campaign. [did it?] Peopleinstinctively understand that homeownership conveys good feelingsabout belonging in our society, and that such feelings matterenormously, not only to our economic success but also to the pleasurewe can take in it.But we are now seeing the president's Ownership Society plan operatein reverse. Already, the homeownership rate has fallen — from 69.1percent in the first quarter of 2005 to 67.8 percent in the firstquarter of 2008. That's almost back to the 67.5 percent level where itstood when Mr. Bush took office in 2001. And it is likely to fallfurther.The pain of this reverse movement could leave a psychological scarthat will be with all of us for the rest of our lives.Robert J. Shiller is professor of economics and finance at Yale andchief economist of MacroMarkets LLC.Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Monday, May 19, 2008
Fred Magdoff: World Food Crisis, Sources and Solutions
This is a long analytical article about crisis in world food production particularly the recent situation in 2008. The article shows how many of the neo-liberal policies often demanded by the IMF and the World Bank contribute to the problem. The increasing use of biofuels such as ethanol also contributes.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080501magdoff.phpThe World Food CrisisSources and Solutionsby Fred MagdoffAn acute food crisis has struck the world in 2008. This is on top of a longer-term crisis of agriculture and food that has already left billions hungry and malnourished. In order to understand the full, dire implications of what is happening today it is necessary to look at the interaction between these short-term and long-term crises. Both crises arise primarily from the for-profit production of food, fiber, and now biofuels, and the rift between food and people that this inevitably generates.‘Routine’ Hunger before the Current CrisisOf the more than 6 billion people living in the world today, the United Nations estimates that close to 1 billion suffer from chronic hunger. But this number, which is only a crude estimate, leaves out those suffering from vitamin and nutrient deficiencies and other forms of malnutrition. The total number of food insecure people who are malnourished or lacking critical nutrients is probably closer to 3 billion—about half of humanity. The severity of this situation is made clear by the United Nations estimate of over a year ago that approximately 18,000 children die daily as a direct or indirect consequence of malnutrition (Associated Press, February 18, 2007).Lack of production is rarely the reason that people are hungry. This can be seen most clearly in the United States, where despite the production of more food than the population needs, hunger remains a significant problem. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2006 over 35 million people lived in food-insecure households, including 13 million children. Due to a lack of food adults living in over 12 million households could not eat balanced meals and in over 7 million families someone had smaller portions or skipped meals. In close to 5 million families, children did not get enough to eat at some point during the year.In poor countries too, it is not unusual for large supplies of wasted and misallocated food to exist in the midst of widespread and persistent hunger. A few years ago a New York Times article had a story with the following headline “Poor in India Starve as Surplus Wheat Rots” (December 2, 2002). As a Wall Street Journal headline put it in 2004 “Want Amid Plenty, An Indian Paradox: Bumper Harvests and Rising Hunger” (June 25, 2004).No ‘Right to Food’Hunger and malnutrition generally are symptoms of a larger underlying problem—poverty in an economic system that recognizes, as Rachel Carson put it, no other gods but those of profit and production. Food is treated in almost all of the world’s countries as just another commodity, like clothes, automobiles, pencils, books, diamond jewelry, and so on. People are not considered to have a right to purchase any particular commodity, and no distinction is made in this respect between necessities and luxuries. Those who are rich can afford to purchase anything they want while the poor are often not able to procure even their basic needs. Under capitalist relations people have no right to an adequate diet, shelter, and medical attention. As with other commodities, people without what economists call “effective demand” cannot buy sufficient nutritious food. Of course, lack of “effective demand” in this case means that the poor don’t have enough money to buy the food they need.Humans have a “biological demand” for food—we all need food, just as we need water and air, to continue to live. It is a systematic fact of capitalist society that many are excluded from fully meeting this biological need. It’s true that some wealthy countries, especially those in Europe, do help feed the poor, but the very way capitalism functions inherently creates a lower strata of society that frequently lacks the basics for human existence. In the United States there are a variety of government initiatives—such as food stamps and school lunch programs—aimed at feeding the poor. Yet, the funding for these programs does not come close to meeting the needs of the poor, and various charities fight an uphill battle trying to make up the difference.In this era relatively few people actually die from starvation, aside from the severe hunger induced by wars and dislocations. Most instead become chronically malnourished and then are plagued by a variety of diseases that shorten their lives or make them more miserable. The scourge of malnutrition impedes children’s mental and physical development, harming them for the rest of their lives.The Acute and Growing Crisis: The Great Hunger of 2008At this moment in history there are, in addition to the “routine” hunger discussed above, two separate global food crises occurring simultaneously. The severe and acute crisis, about two years old, is becoming worse day by day and it is this one that we’ll discuss first. The severity of the current crisis cannot be overstated. It has rapidly increased the number of people around the globe that are malnourished. Although statistics of increased hunger during the past year are not yet available, it is clear that many will die prematurely or be harmed in other ways. As usual, it will be the young, the old, and the infirm that will suffer the worst effects of the Great Hunger of 2008. The rapid and simultaneous rise in the world prices for all the basic food crops—corn (maize), wheat, soybeans, rice, and cooking oils—along with many other crops is having a devastating effect on an increasing portion of humanity.The increases in the world market prices over the past few years have been nothing short of astounding. The prices of the sixty agricultural commodities traded on the world market increased 37 percent last year and 14 percent in 2006 (New York Times, January 19, 2008). Corn prices began their rise in the early fall of 2006 and within months had soared by some 70 percent. Wheat and soybean prices also skyrocketed during this time and are now at record levels. The prices for cooking oils (mainly made from soybeans and oil palm)—an essential foodstuff in many poor countries—have rocketed up as well. Rice prices have also risen over 100 percent in the last year (“High Rice Cost Creating Fears of Asia Unrest,” New York Times, March 29, 2008).The reasons for these soaring food prices are fairly clear. First, there are a number of issues related directly or indirectly to the increase in petroleum prices. In the United States, Europe, and many other countries this has brought a new emphasis on growing crops that can be used for fuel—called biofuels (or agrofuels). Thus, producing corn to make ethanol or soybean and palm oil to make diesel fuel is in direct competition with the use of these crops for food. Last year over 20 percent of the entire corn crop in the United States was used to produce ethanol—a process that does not yield much additional energy over that which goes into producing it. (It is estimated that over the next decade about one-third of the U.S. corn crop will be devoted to ethanol production [Bloomberg, February 21, 2008].) Additionally, many of the inputs for large-scale commercial agricultural production are based on petroleum and natural gas—from building and running tractors and harvesting equipment to producing fertilizers and pesticides and drying crops for storage. The price of nitrogen fertilizer, the most commonly used fertilizer worldwide, is directly tied to the price of energy because it takes so much energy to produce.A second cause of the increase in prices of corn and soybeans and soy cooking oil is that the increasing demand for meat among the middle class in Latin America and Asia, especially China. The use of maize and soy to feed cattle, pigs, and poultry has risen sharply to satisfy this demand. The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last twenty years alone. (New York Times, January 27, 2008.) Feeding grain to more and more animals is putting growing pressure on grain stores. Feeding grain to produce meat is a very inefficient way of providing people with either calories or protein. It is especially wasteful for animals such as cows—with digestive systems that can derive energy from cellulose—because they can obtain all of their nutrition from pastures and will grow well without grain, although more slowly. Cows are not efficient converters of corn or soy to meat—to yield a pound of meat, cows require eight pounds of corn; pigs, five; and chickens, three (Baron’s, March 4, 2008).A third reason for the big jump in world food prices is that a few key countries that were self-sufficient—that is, did not import foods, although plenty of people suffered from hunger—are now importing large quantities of food. As a farm analyst in New Delhi says “When countries like India start importing food, then the world prices zoom....If India and China are both turning into bigger importers, shifting from food self-sufficiency as recently we have seen in India, then the global prices are definitely going to rise still further, which will mean the era of cheaper food has now definitely gone away” (VOA News, February 21, 2008). Part of the reason for the pressure on rice prices is the loss of farmland to other uses such as various development projects—some 7 million acres in China and 700,000 acres in Vietnam. In addition, rice yields per acre in Asia have reached a plateau. There has been no per acre increase for ten years and yield increases are not expected in the near future (Rice Today, January–March 2008).Some of the reasons for the recent price increases for wheat and rice are related to weather. The drought in Australia, a major wheat exporting country, and low yields in a few other exporters has greatly affected wheat prices. A 2007 cyclone in Bangladesh destroyed approximately 600 million dollars worth of its rice crop, leading to rice price increases of about 70 percent (The Daily Star [Bangladesh], February 11, 2008). The drought last year in northcentral China combined with the unusual cold and snow during the winter will probably lead the government to greater food purchases on the international markets, keeping the pressure on prices.Speculation in the futures market and hoarding at the local level are certainly playing a part in this crisis situation to make food more expensive. As the U.S. financial crisis deepened and spread in the winter of 2008, speculators started putting more money into food and metals to take advantage of what is being called the “commodities super cycle.” (The dollar’s decline relative to other currencies stimulates “investment” in tangible commodities.) While it would be a mistake to see these aspects, however despicable and inhumane, as the cause of the crisis, they certainly add to the misery by taking advantage of tight markets. It is certainly possible that the commodity bubble will burst, bringing down food prices a bit. However, speculation and local hoarding will continue to put an upward pressure on food prices. Transnational corporations that process agricultural products, manufacture various foods, and sell food to the public are, of course, all doing exceptionally well. Corporate profits usually do well in a time of shortages and price increases.Although not a cause for the increase in prices of other foods, the higher prices for ocean fish have created an added burden for the poor and near poor. Overfishing of many ocean species is removing this important protein source from the diet of a large percentage of the world’s population.The response to the crisis has come in the form of demonstrations and riots as well as changes in government policies. Over the past few months there have been protests and riots over the increasing cost of food in many countries, including Pakistan, Guinea, Mauritania, Morocco, Mexico, Senegal, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. China has instituted price controls for basic foods and Russia has frozen the price of milk, bread, eggs, and cooking oil for six months. Egypt, India, and Vietnam have banned or placed strict control on the export of rice so that their own people will have sufficient food. Egypt, the world’s largest wheat importer, has expanded the number of people eligible to receive food aid by over 10 million. Many countries have lowered protectionist tariffs to try to lessen the blow of dramatically higher prices of imported foods. Countries heavily dependent on food imports such as the Philippines, the world’s largest importer of rice, are scrambling to make deals to obtain the needed imports. But these various stop-gap efforts have mainly marginal effects on the problem. Almost all people are forced into a lower standard of living as those in the middle class become increasingly careful about the foods they purchase, the near poor drop into poverty, and the formerly poor become truly destitute and suffer greatly. The effects have been felt around the world in all classes of society except the truly wealthy. As Josette Sheeran, the head of the UN’s World Food Program, said in February, “This is the new face of hunger....There is food on shelves but people are priced out of the market. There is vulnerability in urban areas we have not seen before. There are food riots in countries where we have not seen them before” (The Guardian, Feb. 26, 2008).Although Haiti has been a very poor country for years—80 percent of the people try to subsist on less than what two dollars a day can purchase in the United States—the recent situation has brought it to new depths of desperation. Two cups of rice, which cost thirty cents a year ago, now cost sixty cents. The description of an Associated Press article from earlier this year (January 29, 2008) is most poignant in its details:It was lunchtime in one of Haiti’s worst slums, and Charlene Dumas was eating mud. With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some take desperate measures to fill their bellies. Charlene, 16 with a 1-month-old son, has come to rely on a traditional Haitian remedy for hunger pangs: cookies made of dried yellow dirt from the country’s central plateau. The “cookies” also contain some vegetable shortening and salt. Toward the end of the article is the following:Marie Noel, 40, sells the cookies in a market to provide for her seven children. Her family also eats them.“I’m hoping one day I’ll have enough food to eat, so I can stop eating these,” she said. “I know it’s not good for me.”Many countries in Africa and Asia have been severely impacted by the crisis with hunger spreading widely—but all nations are affected to one extent or another. In the United States—where over the past year the price of eggs increased 38 percent, milk by 30 percent, lettuce by 16 percent, and whole wheat bread by 12 percent—many people are starting to purchase less costly products. “Higher Food Prices Start to Pinch Consumers” is the way the Wall Street Journal put it in a headline (January 3, 2008).It should be noted here that while wheat prices are at record levels and prices of wheat products in the United States will certainly go higher, the cost of the wheat in a loaf of bread is only small part of the retail price. When wheat prices double, as they have, the price of a loaf of bread may increase by 10 percent, perhaps from $3 to $3.30. However, the effect of a doubling of prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, and rice is devastating for poor people in the third world who primarily purchase raw commodities.With food pantries and soup kitchens stretched to the breaking point, the U.S. poor are experiencing deepening suffering. In general, the poor in the United States tend to first pay their rent, heat, gas (for a car to get to work), and electricity bills. That leaves food as one of the few “flexible” items in their budgets. In the central part of my home state of Vermont, over the last year the use of food shelves (i.e., aid from local, charitable food assistance programs that give groceries directly to the needy) has increased 133 percent among all users and 180 percent among the working poor! (Hal Cohen, with the Central Vermont Community Action Council, personal communication February 20, 2008.)The economic recession is beginning to be felt in many parts of the United States, adding to the rise in requests for help from the various government food assistance programs (“As Jobs Vanish and Prices Rise, Food Stamp Use Nears Record,” New York Times, March 31, 2008). But, frequently people using the inadequately funded government programs tend to run out of food toward the end of the month, resulting in a huge increase in demand at food shelves and soup kitchens at that time. And as the need for food has increased, food donations have actually declined—with a large drop in federal donations (with high prices there are fewer “surplus” commodities from farm programs, so $58 million in food was given to food shelves last year versus $242 million five years before).Supermarkets have found ways to make money from damaged or dated goods they previously donated to charities. In Connecticut, there has been a surge in demand for food while supply is not keeping up. A food pantry in Stamford is supplying food to four hundred families, double the number of a year ago. According to the food pantry’s director, “I have had to turn people away....There were times I went home and wanted to cry” (New York Times, December 23, 2007). A professor at Cornell University who studies food-assistance programs in the United States has summarized the situation: “There is a nascent crisis building....Demand for food-bank assistance is climbing rapidly when the resources are falling in dramatic terms because the dollars just don’t go as far” (Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2008).The Long-Term Food CrisisAs critical as the short-term food crisis is—demanding immediate world notice as well as attention within every country—the long-term, structural crisis is even more important. The latter has existed for decades and contributes to, and is reinforced by, today’s acute food crisis. Indeed, it is this underlying structural crisis of agriculture and food in third world societies which constitutes the real reason that the immediate food crisis is so severe and so difficult to surmount within the system.There has been a huge migration of people out of the countryside to the cities of the third world. They leave the countryside because they lack access to land. Often their land has been stolen as a result of the inroads of agribusiness, while they are also forced from the land by low prices they have historically received for their products and threats against campesino lives. They move to cities seeking a better life but what they find is a very hard existence—life in slums with extremely high unemployment and underemployment. Most will try to scrape by in the “informal” economy by buying things and then selling them in small quantities. Of the half of humanity that lives in cities (3 billion), some 1 billion, or one-third of city dwellers, live in slums. The chairman of a district in Lagos, Nigeria described it as follows: “We have a massive growth in population with a stagnant or shrinking economy. Picture this city ten, twenty years from now. This is not the urban poor—this is the new urban destitute.” A long New Yorker article on Lagos ended on a note of extreme pessimism: “The really disturbing thing about Lagos’ pickers and vendors is that their lives have essentially nothing to do with ours. They scavenge an existence beyond the margins of macroeconomics. They are, in the harsh terms of globalization, superfluous” (November 13, 2006).One of the major factors pushing this mass and continuing migration to the cities—in addition to being landless or forced off land—is the difficulty to make a living as a small farmer. This has been made especially difficult, as countries have implemented the “neoliberal” policies recommended or mandated by the IMF, the World Bank, and even some of the western NGOs working in the poor countries of the third world. The neoliberal ideology holds that the so-called free market should be allowed to work its magic. Through the benign sanctions of the “invisible hand,” it is said, the economy will function most efficiently and will be highly productive. But in order for the market to be “free” governments must stop interfering.With regard to agriculture, governments should stop subsidizing farmers to purchase fertilizers, stop being involved in the storage and transportation of food, and just let farmers and food alone. This approach also holds that governments should stop subsidizing food for poor people and then the newly unbridled market will take care of it all. This mentality was evident as the Haitian food crisis started to develop late in 2007. According to the Haitian Minister of Commerce and Industry, “We cannot intervene and fix prices because we have to comply with free market regulations” (Reuters, December 9, 2007). This was the same response that colonial Britain adopted in response to the Irish potato famine as well as to the famines in India in the late 1800s. But to a certain extent this way of thinking is now internalized in the thinking of many leaders in the “independent” countries of the periphery.This ideology, of course, has no basis in reality—the so-called free market is not necessarily efficient at all. It is also absolutely unable to act as a mechanism to end poverty and hunger. We should always keep in mind that this ideology represents the exact opposite of what the core capitalist countries have historically done and what they are actually doing today. For example, the U.S. national government has supported farmers in many ways for over a century. This has occurred through government programs for research and extension, taking land from Indians and giving it to farmers of European origin, subsidizing farmers directly through a variety of programs including low-cost loans, and stimulating the export of crops. It should also be noted that the United States, Europe, and Japan all developed their industrial economies under protectionist policies plus a variety of programs of direct assistance to industry.The effects of the governments of the third world stopping their support of small farmers and consumers has meant that the life for the poor in those countries has become more difficult. As an independent report commissioned by World Bank put it: “In most reforming countries, the private sector did not step in to fill the vacuum when the public sector withdrew” (New York Times, October 15, 2007). For example, many African governments under pressure from the neoliberal economic policies promoted by the World Bank, the IMF, and the rich countries of the center of the system stopped subsidizing the use of fertilizers on crops. Although it is true that imported fertilizers are very expensive, African soils are generally of very low fertility and crop yields are low when you use neither synthetic nor organic fertilizers. As yields fell after governments were no longer assisting the purchase of fertilizers and helping in other ways, more farmers found that they could not survive and migrated to the city slums. Jeffrey Sachs—a partially recovered free-trade shock doctor—has had some second thoughts. According to Sachs, “The whole thing was based on the idea that if you take away the government for the poorest of the poor that somehow these markets will solve the problems....But markets can’t step in and won’t step in when people have nothing. And if you take away help, you leave them to die” (New York Times, October 15, 2007).Last year one country in Africa, Malawi, decided to reverse course and go against all the recommendations they had received. The government reintroduced subsidies for fertilizers and seeds. Farmers used more fertilizers, the yields increased, and the country’s food situation improved greatly (New York Times, December 2, 2007). In fact, they were able to export some food to Zimbabwe—although there are those in Malawi, who consider that to have lowered their own supplies too far.Another problem occurs as capitalist farmers in some of the poor countries of the periphery enter into world markets. While subsistence farmers usually sell only a small portion of their crops, using most for family consumption, capitalist farmers are those that market all or a large portion of what they produce. They frequently expand production and take over the land of small farmers, with or without compensation, and use fewer people than previously to work a given piece of land because of mechanized production techniques. In Brazil, the “Soybean King” controls well over a quarter of a million acres (100,000 hectares) and uses huge tractors and harvesting equipment for working the land. In China corrupt village and city officials frequently sell “common land” to developers without adequate compensation to the farmers—sometimes there is no compensation at all.Thus, the harsh conditions for farmers caused by a number of factors, made worse by the implementing of free-market ideology, have created a continuing stream of people leaving the countryside and going to live in cities that do not have jobs for them. And those now living in slums and without access to land to grow their own food are at the mercy of the world price for food.One of the reasons for the growing consolidation of land holdings and forcing out of subsistence farmers is the penetration of multinational agricultural corporations into the countries of the periphery. From selling seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides to processing raw agricultural products to exporting or selling them through new, large supermarkets, agribusiness multinationals are having a devastating effect on small farmers. With the collapse of extension systems for helping farmers save seeds and with the disbanding of government seed companies the way was paved for multinational seed companies to make major inroads.The giant transnational corporations such as Cargill and Monsanto now reach into most of the third world—selling seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and feeds while buying and processing raw agricultural products. In the process they assist larger farms to become “more efficient” —to grow over larger land areas. The main advantage of genetically modified organism (GMO) seeds is that they help to simplify the process of farming and allow large acreages to be under the management of a single entity—a large farmer or corporation—squeezing out small farmers.The negative effects of the penetration of large supermarket chains are being felt as well. As a 2004 headline in the New York Times put it “Supermarket Giants Crush Central American Farmers” (December 28, 2004). Large supermarkets would rather deal with a few farmers growing on a large scale than with many small farmers. And the opening of large supermarkets does away with the traditional markets used by small farmers.The Prolonged Crisis Is IntensifyingIt seems logical that with higher food prices, farmers should be better off and produce more to satisfy the “demand” indicated by the market. To a certain extent that is true—especially for farmers that can take advantage of all the physical and monetary advantages of large-scale production. Yet, the input costs for just about everything used in agricultural production have also increased, thus profit gains for farmers are not as large as might be expected. This is a particularly difficult problem for farmers raising animals fed on increasingly expensive grains.In addition, things are not necessarily going well for small and subsistence farmers. Many are stuck in debt so deep that it’s hard for them to get back on their feet. An estimated 25,000 Indian farmers committed suicide last year because they could see no other way out of their predicament. (The Indian government has proposed a budget that includes loan wavers for small farmers that have borrowed through banks. However, if it actually goes into effect, the millions that have borrowed from local usurers will not benefit.) The consolidation of land holdings and the removal of small farmers and landless workers from the land has been exacerbated by the exceptional crop price increases over the last few years.Rising crop prices cause the price of farmland to increase—especially of large fields that can be worked by large-scale machinery. This is happening in the United States and in certain countries of the periphery. For example, Global Ag Investments, a company based in Texas, owns and operates 34,000 acres of Brazilian farmland. At one of its farms, a single field of soybeans covers 1,600 acres—that’s two and a half square miles! A New Zealand company has purchased approximately 100,000 acres in Uruguay and has hired managers to operate dairy farms established on their land.Private equity firms are purchasing farmland in the United States (Associated Press, May 7, 2007) as well as abroad. A U.S. company is cooperating with Brazilian and Japanese partners to purchase 385 square miles in Brazil, approximately a quarter of a million acres! This is also happening with South American capital taking the lead—a Brazilian investment fund, Investimento em Participacoe, is buying a minority stake in a an Argentine soybean producer that owns close to 400,000 acres in Uruguay and Argentina.Rising crop prices have also led to an acceleration of deforestation in the Amazon basin—1,250 square miles (about the size of Rhode Island) in the last five months of 2007—as capitalist farmers hunger for more land (BBC, January 24, 2008). In addition, huge areas of farmland have been taken for development—some of dubious use, such as building suburban style housing and golf courses for the wealthy.In China during 2000 to 2005, there was an average annual loss of 2.6 million acres as farmland is used for development. The country is fast approaching the self-defined minimum amount of arable farmland that it should have—approximately 290 million acres (120 million hectares)—and the amount of farmland will most likely continue to fall. As part of an effort to gain access to foreign agricultural production, a Chinese company has made an agreement to lease close to 2.5 million acres of land in the Philippines to grow rice, corn, and sugar—setting off a huge protest in the Philippines that has temporarily stalled the project (Bloomberg, February 21, 2008). As one farmer put it: “The [Philippine] government and the Chinese call it a partnership, but it only means the Chinese will be our landlords and we will be the slaves.’’Ending World HungerEnding world hunger is conceptually quite simple. However, actually putting it into practice is far from simple. First, the access to a healthy and varied diet needs to be recognized for the basic human right that it clearly is. Governments must commit to ending hunger among their people and they must take forceful action to carry out this commitment. In many countries, even at this time, there is sufficient food produced to feed the entire population at a high level of nutrition. This is, of course, most evident in the United States, where so much food is produced. It is nothing less than a crime that so many of the poor in the United States are hungry, malnourished, or don’t know where their next meal will come from (which itself takes a psychological toll) when there is actually plenty of food.In the short run, the emergency situation of increasingly severe hunger and malnutrition needs be addressed with all resources at a country’s disposal. Although mass bulk distribution of grains or powdered milk can play a role, countries might consider the Venezuelan innovation of setting up feeding houses in all poor neighborhoods. When the people believe that the government is really trying to help them, and they are empowered to find or assist in a solution to their own problems, a burst of enthusiasm and volunteerism results. For example, although the food in Venezuela’s feeding program is supplied by the government, the meals for poor children, the elderly, and the infirm are prepared in, and distributed from, peoples’ homes using considerable amounts of volunteer labor. In addition, Venezuela has developed a network of stores that sell basic foodstuffs at significant discounts over prices charged in private markets.Brazil started a program in 2003 that is aimed at alleviating the conditions of the poorest people. Approximately one-quarter of Brazil’s population receive direct payments from the national government under the Bolsa Família (Family Fund) antipoverty program. Under this program a family with a per capita daily income below approximately $2 per person per day receives a benefit of up to $53 per month per person (The Economist, February 7, 2008). This infusion of cash is dependent on the family’s children attending school and participating in the national vaccination program. This program is certainly having a positive effect on peoples’ lives and nutrition. It is, however, a system that does not have the same effect as Venezuela’s programs, which mobilize people to work together for their own and their community’s benefit.Urban gardens have been used successfully in Cuba as well as other countries to supply city dwellers with food as well as sources of income. These should be strongly promoted—with creative use of available space in urban settings.Agriculture must become one of the top priorities for the third world. Even the World Bank is beginning to stress the importance of governments assisting agriculture in their countries. As Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, managing director of the World Bank, has stated,Today the attention of the world’s policy makers is focused on the sub-prime woes, and the financial crises. But the real crisis is that of hunger and malnutrition...this is the real problem that should grab the world’s attention. We know that 75 percent of the world’s poor people are rural and most of them depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Agriculture is today, more than ever, a fundamental instrument for fighting hunger, malnutrition, and for supporting sustainable development and poverty reduction. (All-Africa Global Media, February 19, 2008)Almost every country in the world has the soil, water, and climate resources to grow enough food so that all their people can eat a healthy diet. In addition, the knowledge and crop varieties already exist in most countries so that if farmers are given adequate assistance they will be able to grow reasonably high yields of crops.Although enhanced agricultural production is essential, much of the emphasis in the past has been on production of export crops. While this may help a country’s balance of payments, export oriented agriculture does not ensure sufficient food for everyone nor does it promote a healthy rural environment. In addition to basic commodities such as soybeans, export-oriented agriculture also leads naturally to the production of high-value luxury crops demanded by export markets (luxuries from the standpoint of the basic food needs of a poor third world country), rather than the low-value subsistence crops needed to meet the needs of the domestic population. Production of sufficient amounts of the right kinds of food within each country’s borders—by small farmers working in cooperatives or on their own and using sustainable techniques—is the best way to achieve the goal of “food security.” In this way the population may be insulated, at least partially, from the price fluctuations on the world market. This, of course, also means not taking land out of food production to produce crops for the biofuel markets.One of the ways to do this and at the same time help with the problem of so many people crowded into urban slums—the people most susceptible to food price increases—is to provide land through meaningful agrarian reforms. But land itself is not enough. Beginning or returning farmers need technical and financial support in order to produce food. Additionally, social support systems, such as cooperatives and community councils, need to be developed to help promote camaraderie and to solidify the new communities that are developed. Perhaps each community needs to be “seeded” with a sprinkling of devoted activists. Also, housing, electricity, water, and wastewater need to be available to make it attractive for people living in the cities to move to the countryside. Another way to encourage people to move to the country to become farmers is to appeal to patriotism and instill the idea that they are real pioneers, establishing a new food system to help their countries gain food self-sufficiency, i.e., independence from transnational agribusiness corporations and provision of healthy food for all the nation’s people. These pioneering farmers need to be viewed by themselves, the rest of the society, and their government as critical to the future of their countries and the well-being of the population. They must be treated with the great respect that they deserve.ConclusionFood is a human right and governments have a responsibility to see that their people are well fed. In addition, there are known ways to end hunger—including emergency measures to combat the current critical situation, urban gardens, agrarian reforms that include a whole support system for farmers, and sustainable agriculture techniques that enhance the environment. The present availability of food to people reflects very unequal economic and political power relationships within and between countries. A sustainable and secure food system requires a different and much more equitable relationship among people. The more the poor and farmers themselves are included in all aspects of the effort to gain food security, and the more they are energized in the process, the greater will be the chance of attaining lasting food security. As President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, a country that has done so much to deal with poverty and hunger, has put it,Yes, it is important to end poverty, to end misery, but the most important thing is to offer power to the poor so that they can fight for themselves.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080501magdoff.phpThe World Food CrisisSources and Solutionsby Fred MagdoffAn acute food crisis has struck the world in 2008. This is on top of a longer-term crisis of agriculture and food that has already left billions hungry and malnourished. In order to understand the full, dire implications of what is happening today it is necessary to look at the interaction between these short-term and long-term crises. Both crises arise primarily from the for-profit production of food, fiber, and now biofuels, and the rift between food and people that this inevitably generates.‘Routine’ Hunger before the Current CrisisOf the more than 6 billion people living in the world today, the United Nations estimates that close to 1 billion suffer from chronic hunger. But this number, which is only a crude estimate, leaves out those suffering from vitamin and nutrient deficiencies and other forms of malnutrition. The total number of food insecure people who are malnourished or lacking critical nutrients is probably closer to 3 billion—about half of humanity. The severity of this situation is made clear by the United Nations estimate of over a year ago that approximately 18,000 children die daily as a direct or indirect consequence of malnutrition (Associated Press, February 18, 2007).Lack of production is rarely the reason that people are hungry. This can be seen most clearly in the United States, where despite the production of more food than the population needs, hunger remains a significant problem. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2006 over 35 million people lived in food-insecure households, including 13 million children. Due to a lack of food adults living in over 12 million households could not eat balanced meals and in over 7 million families someone had smaller portions or skipped meals. In close to 5 million families, children did not get enough to eat at some point during the year.In poor countries too, it is not unusual for large supplies of wasted and misallocated food to exist in the midst of widespread and persistent hunger. A few years ago a New York Times article had a story with the following headline “Poor in India Starve as Surplus Wheat Rots” (December 2, 2002). As a Wall Street Journal headline put it in 2004 “Want Amid Plenty, An Indian Paradox: Bumper Harvests and Rising Hunger” (June 25, 2004).No ‘Right to Food’Hunger and malnutrition generally are symptoms of a larger underlying problem—poverty in an economic system that recognizes, as Rachel Carson put it, no other gods but those of profit and production. Food is treated in almost all of the world’s countries as just another commodity, like clothes, automobiles, pencils, books, diamond jewelry, and so on. People are not considered to have a right to purchase any particular commodity, and no distinction is made in this respect between necessities and luxuries. Those who are rich can afford to purchase anything they want while the poor are often not able to procure even their basic needs. Under capitalist relations people have no right to an adequate diet, shelter, and medical attention. As with other commodities, people without what economists call “effective demand” cannot buy sufficient nutritious food. Of course, lack of “effective demand” in this case means that the poor don’t have enough money to buy the food they need.Humans have a “biological demand” for food—we all need food, just as we need water and air, to continue to live. It is a systematic fact of capitalist society that many are excluded from fully meeting this biological need. It’s true that some wealthy countries, especially those in Europe, do help feed the poor, but the very way capitalism functions inherently creates a lower strata of society that frequently lacks the basics for human existence. In the United States there are a variety of government initiatives—such as food stamps and school lunch programs—aimed at feeding the poor. Yet, the funding for these programs does not come close to meeting the needs of the poor, and various charities fight an uphill battle trying to make up the difference.In this era relatively few people actually die from starvation, aside from the severe hunger induced by wars and dislocations. Most instead become chronically malnourished and then are plagued by a variety of diseases that shorten their lives or make them more miserable. The scourge of malnutrition impedes children’s mental and physical development, harming them for the rest of their lives.The Acute and Growing Crisis: The Great Hunger of 2008At this moment in history there are, in addition to the “routine” hunger discussed above, two separate global food crises occurring simultaneously. The severe and acute crisis, about two years old, is becoming worse day by day and it is this one that we’ll discuss first. The severity of the current crisis cannot be overstated. It has rapidly increased the number of people around the globe that are malnourished. Although statistics of increased hunger during the past year are not yet available, it is clear that many will die prematurely or be harmed in other ways. As usual, it will be the young, the old, and the infirm that will suffer the worst effects of the Great Hunger of 2008. The rapid and simultaneous rise in the world prices for all the basic food crops—corn (maize), wheat, soybeans, rice, and cooking oils—along with many other crops is having a devastating effect on an increasing portion of humanity.The increases in the world market prices over the past few years have been nothing short of astounding. The prices of the sixty agricultural commodities traded on the world market increased 37 percent last year and 14 percent in 2006 (New York Times, January 19, 2008). Corn prices began their rise in the early fall of 2006 and within months had soared by some 70 percent. Wheat and soybean prices also skyrocketed during this time and are now at record levels. The prices for cooking oils (mainly made from soybeans and oil palm)—an essential foodstuff in many poor countries—have rocketed up as well. Rice prices have also risen over 100 percent in the last year (“High Rice Cost Creating Fears of Asia Unrest,” New York Times, March 29, 2008).The reasons for these soaring food prices are fairly clear. First, there are a number of issues related directly or indirectly to the increase in petroleum prices. In the United States, Europe, and many other countries this has brought a new emphasis on growing crops that can be used for fuel—called biofuels (or agrofuels). Thus, producing corn to make ethanol or soybean and palm oil to make diesel fuel is in direct competition with the use of these crops for food. Last year over 20 percent of the entire corn crop in the United States was used to produce ethanol—a process that does not yield much additional energy over that which goes into producing it. (It is estimated that over the next decade about one-third of the U.S. corn crop will be devoted to ethanol production [Bloomberg, February 21, 2008].) Additionally, many of the inputs for large-scale commercial agricultural production are based on petroleum and natural gas—from building and running tractors and harvesting equipment to producing fertilizers and pesticides and drying crops for storage. The price of nitrogen fertilizer, the most commonly used fertilizer worldwide, is directly tied to the price of energy because it takes so much energy to produce.A second cause of the increase in prices of corn and soybeans and soy cooking oil is that the increasing demand for meat among the middle class in Latin America and Asia, especially China. The use of maize and soy to feed cattle, pigs, and poultry has risen sharply to satisfy this demand. The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last twenty years alone. (New York Times, January 27, 2008.) Feeding grain to more and more animals is putting growing pressure on grain stores. Feeding grain to produce meat is a very inefficient way of providing people with either calories or protein. It is especially wasteful for animals such as cows—with digestive systems that can derive energy from cellulose—because they can obtain all of their nutrition from pastures and will grow well without grain, although more slowly. Cows are not efficient converters of corn or soy to meat—to yield a pound of meat, cows require eight pounds of corn; pigs, five; and chickens, three (Baron’s, March 4, 2008).A third reason for the big jump in world food prices is that a few key countries that were self-sufficient—that is, did not import foods, although plenty of people suffered from hunger—are now importing large quantities of food. As a farm analyst in New Delhi says “When countries like India start importing food, then the world prices zoom....If India and China are both turning into bigger importers, shifting from food self-sufficiency as recently we have seen in India, then the global prices are definitely going to rise still further, which will mean the era of cheaper food has now definitely gone away” (VOA News, February 21, 2008). Part of the reason for the pressure on rice prices is the loss of farmland to other uses such as various development projects—some 7 million acres in China and 700,000 acres in Vietnam. In addition, rice yields per acre in Asia have reached a plateau. There has been no per acre increase for ten years and yield increases are not expected in the near future (Rice Today, January–March 2008).Some of the reasons for the recent price increases for wheat and rice are related to weather. The drought in Australia, a major wheat exporting country, and low yields in a few other exporters has greatly affected wheat prices. A 2007 cyclone in Bangladesh destroyed approximately 600 million dollars worth of its rice crop, leading to rice price increases of about 70 percent (The Daily Star [Bangladesh], February 11, 2008). The drought last year in northcentral China combined with the unusual cold and snow during the winter will probably lead the government to greater food purchases on the international markets, keeping the pressure on prices.Speculation in the futures market and hoarding at the local level are certainly playing a part in this crisis situation to make food more expensive. As the U.S. financial crisis deepened and spread in the winter of 2008, speculators started putting more money into food and metals to take advantage of what is being called the “commodities super cycle.” (The dollar’s decline relative to other currencies stimulates “investment” in tangible commodities.) While it would be a mistake to see these aspects, however despicable and inhumane, as the cause of the crisis, they certainly add to the misery by taking advantage of tight markets. It is certainly possible that the commodity bubble will burst, bringing down food prices a bit. However, speculation and local hoarding will continue to put an upward pressure on food prices. Transnational corporations that process agricultural products, manufacture various foods, and sell food to the public are, of course, all doing exceptionally well. Corporate profits usually do well in a time of shortages and price increases.Although not a cause for the increase in prices of other foods, the higher prices for ocean fish have created an added burden for the poor and near poor. Overfishing of many ocean species is removing this important protein source from the diet of a large percentage of the world’s population.The response to the crisis has come in the form of demonstrations and riots as well as changes in government policies. Over the past few months there have been protests and riots over the increasing cost of food in many countries, including Pakistan, Guinea, Mauritania, Morocco, Mexico, Senegal, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. China has instituted price controls for basic foods and Russia has frozen the price of milk, bread, eggs, and cooking oil for six months. Egypt, India, and Vietnam have banned or placed strict control on the export of rice so that their own people will have sufficient food. Egypt, the world’s largest wheat importer, has expanded the number of people eligible to receive food aid by over 10 million. Many countries have lowered protectionist tariffs to try to lessen the blow of dramatically higher prices of imported foods. Countries heavily dependent on food imports such as the Philippines, the world’s largest importer of rice, are scrambling to make deals to obtain the needed imports. But these various stop-gap efforts have mainly marginal effects on the problem. Almost all people are forced into a lower standard of living as those in the middle class become increasingly careful about the foods they purchase, the near poor drop into poverty, and the formerly poor become truly destitute and suffer greatly. The effects have been felt around the world in all classes of society except the truly wealthy. As Josette Sheeran, the head of the UN’s World Food Program, said in February, “This is the new face of hunger....There is food on shelves but people are priced out of the market. There is vulnerability in urban areas we have not seen before. There are food riots in countries where we have not seen them before” (The Guardian, Feb. 26, 2008).Although Haiti has been a very poor country for years—80 percent of the people try to subsist on less than what two dollars a day can purchase in the United States—the recent situation has brought it to new depths of desperation. Two cups of rice, which cost thirty cents a year ago, now cost sixty cents. The description of an Associated Press article from earlier this year (January 29, 2008) is most poignant in its details:It was lunchtime in one of Haiti’s worst slums, and Charlene Dumas was eating mud. With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some take desperate measures to fill their bellies. Charlene, 16 with a 1-month-old son, has come to rely on a traditional Haitian remedy for hunger pangs: cookies made of dried yellow dirt from the country’s central plateau. The “cookies” also contain some vegetable shortening and salt. Toward the end of the article is the following:Marie Noel, 40, sells the cookies in a market to provide for her seven children. Her family also eats them.“I’m hoping one day I’ll have enough food to eat, so I can stop eating these,” she said. “I know it’s not good for me.”Many countries in Africa and Asia have been severely impacted by the crisis with hunger spreading widely—but all nations are affected to one extent or another. In the United States—where over the past year the price of eggs increased 38 percent, milk by 30 percent, lettuce by 16 percent, and whole wheat bread by 12 percent—many people are starting to purchase less costly products. “Higher Food Prices Start to Pinch Consumers” is the way the Wall Street Journal put it in a headline (January 3, 2008).It should be noted here that while wheat prices are at record levels and prices of wheat products in the United States will certainly go higher, the cost of the wheat in a loaf of bread is only small part of the retail price. When wheat prices double, as they have, the price of a loaf of bread may increase by 10 percent, perhaps from $3 to $3.30. However, the effect of a doubling of prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, and rice is devastating for poor people in the third world who primarily purchase raw commodities.With food pantries and soup kitchens stretched to the breaking point, the U.S. poor are experiencing deepening suffering. In general, the poor in the United States tend to first pay their rent, heat, gas (for a car to get to work), and electricity bills. That leaves food as one of the few “flexible” items in their budgets. In the central part of my home state of Vermont, over the last year the use of food shelves (i.e., aid from local, charitable food assistance programs that give groceries directly to the needy) has increased 133 percent among all users and 180 percent among the working poor! (Hal Cohen, with the Central Vermont Community Action Council, personal communication February 20, 2008.)The economic recession is beginning to be felt in many parts of the United States, adding to the rise in requests for help from the various government food assistance programs (“As Jobs Vanish and Prices Rise, Food Stamp Use Nears Record,” New York Times, March 31, 2008). But, frequently people using the inadequately funded government programs tend to run out of food toward the end of the month, resulting in a huge increase in demand at food shelves and soup kitchens at that time. And as the need for food has increased, food donations have actually declined—with a large drop in federal donations (with high prices there are fewer “surplus” commodities from farm programs, so $58 million in food was given to food shelves last year versus $242 million five years before).Supermarkets have found ways to make money from damaged or dated goods they previously donated to charities. In Connecticut, there has been a surge in demand for food while supply is not keeping up. A food pantry in Stamford is supplying food to four hundred families, double the number of a year ago. According to the food pantry’s director, “I have had to turn people away....There were times I went home and wanted to cry” (New York Times, December 23, 2007). A professor at Cornell University who studies food-assistance programs in the United States has summarized the situation: “There is a nascent crisis building....Demand for food-bank assistance is climbing rapidly when the resources are falling in dramatic terms because the dollars just don’t go as far” (Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2008).The Long-Term Food CrisisAs critical as the short-term food crisis is—demanding immediate world notice as well as attention within every country—the long-term, structural crisis is even more important. The latter has existed for decades and contributes to, and is reinforced by, today’s acute food crisis. Indeed, it is this underlying structural crisis of agriculture and food in third world societies which constitutes the real reason that the immediate food crisis is so severe and so difficult to surmount within the system.There has been a huge migration of people out of the countryside to the cities of the third world. They leave the countryside because they lack access to land. Often their land has been stolen as a result of the inroads of agribusiness, while they are also forced from the land by low prices they have historically received for their products and threats against campesino lives. They move to cities seeking a better life but what they find is a very hard existence—life in slums with extremely high unemployment and underemployment. Most will try to scrape by in the “informal” economy by buying things and then selling them in small quantities. Of the half of humanity that lives in cities (3 billion), some 1 billion, or one-third of city dwellers, live in slums. The chairman of a district in Lagos, Nigeria described it as follows: “We have a massive growth in population with a stagnant or shrinking economy. Picture this city ten, twenty years from now. This is not the urban poor—this is the new urban destitute.” A long New Yorker article on Lagos ended on a note of extreme pessimism: “The really disturbing thing about Lagos’ pickers and vendors is that their lives have essentially nothing to do with ours. They scavenge an existence beyond the margins of macroeconomics. They are, in the harsh terms of globalization, superfluous” (November 13, 2006).One of the major factors pushing this mass and continuing migration to the cities—in addition to being landless or forced off land—is the difficulty to make a living as a small farmer. This has been made especially difficult, as countries have implemented the “neoliberal” policies recommended or mandated by the IMF, the World Bank, and even some of the western NGOs working in the poor countries of the third world. The neoliberal ideology holds that the so-called free market should be allowed to work its magic. Through the benign sanctions of the “invisible hand,” it is said, the economy will function most efficiently and will be highly productive. But in order for the market to be “free” governments must stop interfering.With regard to agriculture, governments should stop subsidizing farmers to purchase fertilizers, stop being involved in the storage and transportation of food, and just let farmers and food alone. This approach also holds that governments should stop subsidizing food for poor people and then the newly unbridled market will take care of it all. This mentality was evident as the Haitian food crisis started to develop late in 2007. According to the Haitian Minister of Commerce and Industry, “We cannot intervene and fix prices because we have to comply with free market regulations” (Reuters, December 9, 2007). This was the same response that colonial Britain adopted in response to the Irish potato famine as well as to the famines in India in the late 1800s. But to a certain extent this way of thinking is now internalized in the thinking of many leaders in the “independent” countries of the periphery.This ideology, of course, has no basis in reality—the so-called free market is not necessarily efficient at all. It is also absolutely unable to act as a mechanism to end poverty and hunger. We should always keep in mind that this ideology represents the exact opposite of what the core capitalist countries have historically done and what they are actually doing today. For example, the U.S. national government has supported farmers in many ways for over a century. This has occurred through government programs for research and extension, taking land from Indians and giving it to farmers of European origin, subsidizing farmers directly through a variety of programs including low-cost loans, and stimulating the export of crops. It should also be noted that the United States, Europe, and Japan all developed their industrial economies under protectionist policies plus a variety of programs of direct assistance to industry.The effects of the governments of the third world stopping their support of small farmers and consumers has meant that the life for the poor in those countries has become more difficult. As an independent report commissioned by World Bank put it: “In most reforming countries, the private sector did not step in to fill the vacuum when the public sector withdrew” (New York Times, October 15, 2007). For example, many African governments under pressure from the neoliberal economic policies promoted by the World Bank, the IMF, and the rich countries of the center of the system stopped subsidizing the use of fertilizers on crops. Although it is true that imported fertilizers are very expensive, African soils are generally of very low fertility and crop yields are low when you use neither synthetic nor organic fertilizers. As yields fell after governments were no longer assisting the purchase of fertilizers and helping in other ways, more farmers found that they could not survive and migrated to the city slums. Jeffrey Sachs—a partially recovered free-trade shock doctor—has had some second thoughts. According to Sachs, “The whole thing was based on the idea that if you take away the government for the poorest of the poor that somehow these markets will solve the problems....But markets can’t step in and won’t step in when people have nothing. And if you take away help, you leave them to die” (New York Times, October 15, 2007).Last year one country in Africa, Malawi, decided to reverse course and go against all the recommendations they had received. The government reintroduced subsidies for fertilizers and seeds. Farmers used more fertilizers, the yields increased, and the country’s food situation improved greatly (New York Times, December 2, 2007). In fact, they were able to export some food to Zimbabwe—although there are those in Malawi, who consider that to have lowered their own supplies too far.Another problem occurs as capitalist farmers in some of the poor countries of the periphery enter into world markets. While subsistence farmers usually sell only a small portion of their crops, using most for family consumption, capitalist farmers are those that market all or a large portion of what they produce. They frequently expand production and take over the land of small farmers, with or without compensation, and use fewer people than previously to work a given piece of land because of mechanized production techniques. In Brazil, the “Soybean King” controls well over a quarter of a million acres (100,000 hectares) and uses huge tractors and harvesting equipment for working the land. In China corrupt village and city officials frequently sell “common land” to developers without adequate compensation to the farmers—sometimes there is no compensation at all.Thus, the harsh conditions for farmers caused by a number of factors, made worse by the implementing of free-market ideology, have created a continuing stream of people leaving the countryside and going to live in cities that do not have jobs for them. And those now living in slums and without access to land to grow their own food are at the mercy of the world price for food.One of the reasons for the growing consolidation of land holdings and forcing out of subsistence farmers is the penetration of multinational agricultural corporations into the countries of the periphery. From selling seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides to processing raw agricultural products to exporting or selling them through new, large supermarkets, agribusiness multinationals are having a devastating effect on small farmers. With the collapse of extension systems for helping farmers save seeds and with the disbanding of government seed companies the way was paved for multinational seed companies to make major inroads.The giant transnational corporations such as Cargill and Monsanto now reach into most of the third world—selling seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and feeds while buying and processing raw agricultural products. In the process they assist larger farms to become “more efficient” —to grow over larger land areas. The main advantage of genetically modified organism (GMO) seeds is that they help to simplify the process of farming and allow large acreages to be under the management of a single entity—a large farmer or corporation—squeezing out small farmers.The negative effects of the penetration of large supermarket chains are being felt as well. As a 2004 headline in the New York Times put it “Supermarket Giants Crush Central American Farmers” (December 28, 2004). Large supermarkets would rather deal with a few farmers growing on a large scale than with many small farmers. And the opening of large supermarkets does away with the traditional markets used by small farmers.The Prolonged Crisis Is IntensifyingIt seems logical that with higher food prices, farmers should be better off and produce more to satisfy the “demand” indicated by the market. To a certain extent that is true—especially for farmers that can take advantage of all the physical and monetary advantages of large-scale production. Yet, the input costs for just about everything used in agricultural production have also increased, thus profit gains for farmers are not as large as might be expected. This is a particularly difficult problem for farmers raising animals fed on increasingly expensive grains.In addition, things are not necessarily going well for small and subsistence farmers. Many are stuck in debt so deep that it’s hard for them to get back on their feet. An estimated 25,000 Indian farmers committed suicide last year because they could see no other way out of their predicament. (The Indian government has proposed a budget that includes loan wavers for small farmers that have borrowed through banks. However, if it actually goes into effect, the millions that have borrowed from local usurers will not benefit.) The consolidation of land holdings and the removal of small farmers and landless workers from the land has been exacerbated by the exceptional crop price increases over the last few years.Rising crop prices cause the price of farmland to increase—especially of large fields that can be worked by large-scale machinery. This is happening in the United States and in certain countries of the periphery. For example, Global Ag Investments, a company based in Texas, owns and operates 34,000 acres of Brazilian farmland. At one of its farms, a single field of soybeans covers 1,600 acres—that’s two and a half square miles! A New Zealand company has purchased approximately 100,000 acres in Uruguay and has hired managers to operate dairy farms established on their land.Private equity firms are purchasing farmland in the United States (Associated Press, May 7, 2007) as well as abroad. A U.S. company is cooperating with Brazilian and Japanese partners to purchase 385 square miles in Brazil, approximately a quarter of a million acres! This is also happening with South American capital taking the lead—a Brazilian investment fund, Investimento em Participacoe, is buying a minority stake in a an Argentine soybean producer that owns close to 400,000 acres in Uruguay and Argentina.Rising crop prices have also led to an acceleration of deforestation in the Amazon basin—1,250 square miles (about the size of Rhode Island) in the last five months of 2007—as capitalist farmers hunger for more land (BBC, January 24, 2008). In addition, huge areas of farmland have been taken for development—some of dubious use, such as building suburban style housing and golf courses for the wealthy.In China during 2000 to 2005, there was an average annual loss of 2.6 million acres as farmland is used for development. The country is fast approaching the self-defined minimum amount of arable farmland that it should have—approximately 290 million acres (120 million hectares)—and the amount of farmland will most likely continue to fall. As part of an effort to gain access to foreign agricultural production, a Chinese company has made an agreement to lease close to 2.5 million acres of land in the Philippines to grow rice, corn, and sugar—setting off a huge protest in the Philippines that has temporarily stalled the project (Bloomberg, February 21, 2008). As one farmer put it: “The [Philippine] government and the Chinese call it a partnership, but it only means the Chinese will be our landlords and we will be the slaves.’’Ending World HungerEnding world hunger is conceptually quite simple. However, actually putting it into practice is far from simple. First, the access to a healthy and varied diet needs to be recognized for the basic human right that it clearly is. Governments must commit to ending hunger among their people and they must take forceful action to carry out this commitment. In many countries, even at this time, there is sufficient food produced to feed the entire population at a high level of nutrition. This is, of course, most evident in the United States, where so much food is produced. It is nothing less than a crime that so many of the poor in the United States are hungry, malnourished, or don’t know where their next meal will come from (which itself takes a psychological toll) when there is actually plenty of food.In the short run, the emergency situation of increasingly severe hunger and malnutrition needs be addressed with all resources at a country’s disposal. Although mass bulk distribution of grains or powdered milk can play a role, countries might consider the Venezuelan innovation of setting up feeding houses in all poor neighborhoods. When the people believe that the government is really trying to help them, and they are empowered to find or assist in a solution to their own problems, a burst of enthusiasm and volunteerism results. For example, although the food in Venezuela’s feeding program is supplied by the government, the meals for poor children, the elderly, and the infirm are prepared in, and distributed from, peoples’ homes using considerable amounts of volunteer labor. In addition, Venezuela has developed a network of stores that sell basic foodstuffs at significant discounts over prices charged in private markets.Brazil started a program in 2003 that is aimed at alleviating the conditions of the poorest people. Approximately one-quarter of Brazil’s population receive direct payments from the national government under the Bolsa Família (Family Fund) antipoverty program. Under this program a family with a per capita daily income below approximately $2 per person per day receives a benefit of up to $53 per month per person (The Economist, February 7, 2008). This infusion of cash is dependent on the family’s children attending school and participating in the national vaccination program. This program is certainly having a positive effect on peoples’ lives and nutrition. It is, however, a system that does not have the same effect as Venezuela’s programs, which mobilize people to work together for their own and their community’s benefit.Urban gardens have been used successfully in Cuba as well as other countries to supply city dwellers with food as well as sources of income. These should be strongly promoted—with creative use of available space in urban settings.Agriculture must become one of the top priorities for the third world. Even the World Bank is beginning to stress the importance of governments assisting agriculture in their countries. As Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, managing director of the World Bank, has stated,Today the attention of the world’s policy makers is focused on the sub-prime woes, and the financial crises. But the real crisis is that of hunger and malnutrition...this is the real problem that should grab the world’s attention. We know that 75 percent of the world’s poor people are rural and most of them depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Agriculture is today, more than ever, a fundamental instrument for fighting hunger, malnutrition, and for supporting sustainable development and poverty reduction. (All-Africa Global Media, February 19, 2008)Almost every country in the world has the soil, water, and climate resources to grow enough food so that all their people can eat a healthy diet. In addition, the knowledge and crop varieties already exist in most countries so that if farmers are given adequate assistance they will be able to grow reasonably high yields of crops.Although enhanced agricultural production is essential, much of the emphasis in the past has been on production of export crops. While this may help a country’s balance of payments, export oriented agriculture does not ensure sufficient food for everyone nor does it promote a healthy rural environment. In addition to basic commodities such as soybeans, export-oriented agriculture also leads naturally to the production of high-value luxury crops demanded by export markets (luxuries from the standpoint of the basic food needs of a poor third world country), rather than the low-value subsistence crops needed to meet the needs of the domestic population. Production of sufficient amounts of the right kinds of food within each country’s borders—by small farmers working in cooperatives or on their own and using sustainable techniques—is the best way to achieve the goal of “food security.” In this way the population may be insulated, at least partially, from the price fluctuations on the world market. This, of course, also means not taking land out of food production to produce crops for the biofuel markets.One of the ways to do this and at the same time help with the problem of so many people crowded into urban slums—the people most susceptible to food price increases—is to provide land through meaningful agrarian reforms. But land itself is not enough. Beginning or returning farmers need technical and financial support in order to produce food. Additionally, social support systems, such as cooperatives and community councils, need to be developed to help promote camaraderie and to solidify the new communities that are developed. Perhaps each community needs to be “seeded” with a sprinkling of devoted activists. Also, housing, electricity, water, and wastewater need to be available to make it attractive for people living in the cities to move to the countryside. Another way to encourage people to move to the country to become farmers is to appeal to patriotism and instill the idea that they are real pioneers, establishing a new food system to help their countries gain food self-sufficiency, i.e., independence from transnational agribusiness corporations and provision of healthy food for all the nation’s people. These pioneering farmers need to be viewed by themselves, the rest of the society, and their government as critical to the future of their countries and the well-being of the population. They must be treated with the great respect that they deserve.ConclusionFood is a human right and governments have a responsibility to see that their people are well fed. In addition, there are known ways to end hunger—including emergency measures to combat the current critical situation, urban gardens, agrarian reforms that include a whole support system for farmers, and sustainable agriculture techniques that enhance the environment. The present availability of food to people reflects very unequal economic and political power relationships within and between countries. A sustainable and secure food system requires a different and much more equitable relationship among people. The more the poor and farmers themselves are included in all aspects of the effort to gain food security, and the more they are energized in the process, the greater will be the chance of attaining lasting food security. As President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, a country that has done so much to deal with poverty and hunger, has put it,Yes, it is important to end poverty, to end misery, but the most important thing is to offer power to the poor so that they can fight for themselves.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Philippines: Rice prices softening amid Japan offer, bumper crops
This is from AFP .
It is fortunate that the supply situation is improving and easing prices but the destruction of rice production in areas such as Myanmar(Burma) may offset this trend to some extent.
Philippines: rice prices softening amid Japan offer, bumper crops
1 day ago
MANILA (AFP) — The Philippines, one of the world's largest rice importers, said Friday prices are softening after Japan offered to sell rice to Manila amid news of bumper world harvests for 2008.
Large tenders by the Philippines to fill its expected 2008 production gap of up to 2.7 million tonnes have helped drive up prices by 76 percent between December 2007 and April 2008, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
However, the government's grain procurement arm, the National Food Authority (NFA), has seen prices in the international market ease, NFA spokesman Tom Escarez told AFP.
"Prices spike every time we have a large tender. The market became quiet after the tender for 675,000 tonnes failed and the market realised we were not in a hurry," he added.
A letter from Tokyo informing Manila that between 40,000 and 60,000 tonnes of Japanese rice is available also apparently helped calm the market, Escarez said.
The official said the two governments are currently negotiating the manner by which the supply will be procured, which he said would most probably be in the form of a soft loan or a negotiated supply contract.
The Philippines also expects some supplies to be offered from Pakistan when the NFA holds its next tender for about 200,000 tonnes early next month, he said.
Press reports this week have said Pakistan, the world's fifth largest rice exporter, was expected to allow exports of up to a million tonnes since local requirements have been met.
"The market price for rice has softened by about three percent," Escarez said.
Some reports have said that the market price over the past week has fallen by around 14 percent.
Escarez said Manila is hoping the trend would continue until August and September, when Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, harvests it current crop.
FAO said in a statement released Monday that rice production in Asia, Africa and Latin America should reach a new record level of 666 million tonnes in 2008, up 2.3 percent from a year earlier.
However, it forecast that prices could remain high over the short term, citing the destruction of Myanmar's rice producing areas by Cyclone Nargis.
In an attempt to avoid food scarcities in their own countries, major rice exporters have recently imposed export bans, taxes or minimum ceilings, while large importers like the Philippines have reacted with massive auctions.
"These measures further restricted the availability of rice supplies on international markets, triggering yet more price rises and tighter supply conditions. At the moment, only Thailand, Pakistan and the United States, among leading exporters, are exporting rice without any constraints," the FAO statement said.
It is fortunate that the supply situation is improving and easing prices but the destruction of rice production in areas such as Myanmar(Burma) may offset this trend to some extent.
Philippines: rice prices softening amid Japan offer, bumper crops
1 day ago
MANILA (AFP) — The Philippines, one of the world's largest rice importers, said Friday prices are softening after Japan offered to sell rice to Manila amid news of bumper world harvests for 2008.
Large tenders by the Philippines to fill its expected 2008 production gap of up to 2.7 million tonnes have helped drive up prices by 76 percent between December 2007 and April 2008, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
However, the government's grain procurement arm, the National Food Authority (NFA), has seen prices in the international market ease, NFA spokesman Tom Escarez told AFP.
"Prices spike every time we have a large tender. The market became quiet after the tender for 675,000 tonnes failed and the market realised we were not in a hurry," he added.
A letter from Tokyo informing Manila that between 40,000 and 60,000 tonnes of Japanese rice is available also apparently helped calm the market, Escarez said.
The official said the two governments are currently negotiating the manner by which the supply will be procured, which he said would most probably be in the form of a soft loan or a negotiated supply contract.
The Philippines also expects some supplies to be offered from Pakistan when the NFA holds its next tender for about 200,000 tonnes early next month, he said.
Press reports this week have said Pakistan, the world's fifth largest rice exporter, was expected to allow exports of up to a million tonnes since local requirements have been met.
"The market price for rice has softened by about three percent," Escarez said.
Some reports have said that the market price over the past week has fallen by around 14 percent.
Escarez said Manila is hoping the trend would continue until August and September, when Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, harvests it current crop.
FAO said in a statement released Monday that rice production in Asia, Africa and Latin America should reach a new record level of 666 million tonnes in 2008, up 2.3 percent from a year earlier.
However, it forecast that prices could remain high over the short term, citing the destruction of Myanmar's rice producing areas by Cyclone Nargis.
In an attempt to avoid food scarcities in their own countries, major rice exporters have recently imposed export bans, taxes or minimum ceilings, while large importers like the Philippines have reacted with massive auctions.
"These measures further restricted the availability of rice supplies on international markets, triggering yet more price rises and tighter supply conditions. At the moment, only Thailand, Pakistan and the United States, among leading exporters, are exporting rice without any constraints," the FAO statement said.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Chavez swallows a charm pill..
It seems that Chavez has decided to cool down his combative posture for a while at least.
Chavez seems to draw the line at Uribe of Colombia.
With Chávez in Check, Talks in Peru Stay Calm
.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world/americas/17latin.html
By SIMON ROMERO
Published: May 17, 2008
LIMA, Peru — To the relief of organizers of a summit meeting here of leaders from Latin America and Europe on Friday, the encounter was notable for being relatively free of insults being flung publicly.
No chancellor was accused of being a fascist. No president called another a lap dog of the United States. No king told a president to shut up. (Actually no kings were even in attendance.)
For achieving such an incident-free meeting, Peru’s hosts had primarily President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela to thank. Surprising many people here, he was on his best behavior, almost.
Mr. Chávez hugged a former enemy, President Alan García of Peru, whom he once called “a crook, a liar, a manipulator and an irresponsible man.” He sought to mend ties with Spain, speaking warmly with Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain; relations soured last November when King Juan Carlos asked Mr. Chávez to shut up at a summit meeting in Chile.
Mr. Chávez even apologized to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. A few days ago he had accused her party, the conservative Christian Democratic Union, of sharing the ideas of Hitler.
“I apologize to you,” Mr. Chávez told Ms. Merkel, after cozying up to her and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina during a break, according to news reports. “I’m doing this in front of Cristina because every time I behave badly, she’s the one who pulls my ears.”
Mrs. Merkel smiled widely after her chat with Mr. Chávez, reflecting the relief here after he had said he would be traveling to Lima with his “usual furor.”
An alternative meeting held by leftist groups at the campus of the National Engineering University was more colorful than the meeting of the heads of state. It featured guitar sing-alongs, plates of coca leaves (for chewing) and a soccer match with President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who called a ban on high-altitude competitions a form of “apartheid” against Bolivian teams.
At the official gathering, the heads of state culminated their meeting by drafting a document pointing to the importance of economic growth, and of combating climate change and rising food prices. On the edge of these talks, Mr. Chávez remained cordial — until reporters asked him about President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia, an ally of the United States with whom Venezuela has been feuding. “One of the great problems we have is the government of Colombia,” Mr. Chávez said, his smile melting away.
Mr. Uribe had his own harsh words for Mr. Chávez. “The only thing we ask is for no one to shelter terrorists,” he said, a reference to Colombia’s assertion that Venezuela had assisted the largest guerrilla group in Colombia.
Chavez seems to draw the line at Uribe of Colombia.
With Chávez in Check, Talks in Peru Stay Calm
.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world/americas/17latin.html
By SIMON ROMERO
Published: May 17, 2008
LIMA, Peru — To the relief of organizers of a summit meeting here of leaders from Latin America and Europe on Friday, the encounter was notable for being relatively free of insults being flung publicly.
No chancellor was accused of being a fascist. No president called another a lap dog of the United States. No king told a president to shut up. (Actually no kings were even in attendance.)
For achieving such an incident-free meeting, Peru’s hosts had primarily President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela to thank. Surprising many people here, he was on his best behavior, almost.
Mr. Chávez hugged a former enemy, President Alan García of Peru, whom he once called “a crook, a liar, a manipulator and an irresponsible man.” He sought to mend ties with Spain, speaking warmly with Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain; relations soured last November when King Juan Carlos asked Mr. Chávez to shut up at a summit meeting in Chile.
Mr. Chávez even apologized to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. A few days ago he had accused her party, the conservative Christian Democratic Union, of sharing the ideas of Hitler.
“I apologize to you,” Mr. Chávez told Ms. Merkel, after cozying up to her and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina during a break, according to news reports. “I’m doing this in front of Cristina because every time I behave badly, she’s the one who pulls my ears.”
Mrs. Merkel smiled widely after her chat with Mr. Chávez, reflecting the relief here after he had said he would be traveling to Lima with his “usual furor.”
An alternative meeting held by leftist groups at the campus of the National Engineering University was more colorful than the meeting of the heads of state. It featured guitar sing-alongs, plates of coca leaves (for chewing) and a soccer match with President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who called a ban on high-altitude competitions a form of “apartheid” against Bolivian teams.
At the official gathering, the heads of state culminated their meeting by drafting a document pointing to the importance of economic growth, and of combating climate change and rising food prices. On the edge of these talks, Mr. Chávez remained cordial — until reporters asked him about President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia, an ally of the United States with whom Venezuela has been feuding. “One of the great problems we have is the government of Colombia,” Mr. Chávez said, his smile melting away.
Mr. Uribe had his own harsh words for Mr. Chávez. “The only thing we ask is for no one to shelter terrorists,” he said, a reference to Colombia’s assertion that Venezuela had assisted the largest guerrilla group in Colombia.
Philippines approves 5.5 percent minimum wage rise in Manila
Given the rise in basic foods such as rice this increase is certainly necessary but the increase is just for the Manila area. Workers in other parts of the Philippines will not benefit from the increase. I wonder if the government is at all strict in enforcing minimum wage laws.
Philippines approves 5.5 pct minimum wage rise in Manila
Fri May 16, 2008 1:54pm IST
MANILA, May 16 (Reuters) - The Philippine wage board for the Manila area formally approved on Friday a 20 pesos (47 U.S. cents), or 5.5 percent, increase in the minimum take home pay of workers.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had announced the 20 pesos wage rise on Thursday and the central bank has said the size of the increase was within its inflation assumptions.
Ciriaco Lagunzad, executive director of the National Wages and Productivity Commission, said the increase in the Manila minimum wage, seen as a benchmark for the country, would comprise a 15 pesos increase in wages plus a 5 peso cost of living allowance.
Lagunzad said the wage increase will take effect 15 days after the wage order is published, while the cost of living allowance will be added to workers' salaries on August 28, 2008.
A cost of living allowance is less costly than a wage hike for employers since it does not affect calculations for annual bonuses or retirement and other benefits.
Philippines approves 5.5 pct minimum wage rise in Manila
Fri May 16, 2008 1:54pm IST
MANILA, May 16 (Reuters) - The Philippine wage board for the Manila area formally approved on Friday a 20 pesos (47 U.S. cents), or 5.5 percent, increase in the minimum take home pay of workers.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had announced the 20 pesos wage rise on Thursday and the central bank has said the size of the increase was within its inflation assumptions.
Ciriaco Lagunzad, executive director of the National Wages and Productivity Commission, said the increase in the Manila minimum wage, seen as a benchmark for the country, would comprise a 15 pesos increase in wages plus a 5 peso cost of living allowance.
Lagunzad said the wage increase will take effect 15 days after the wage order is published, while the cost of living allowance will be added to workers' salaries on August 28, 2008.
A cost of living allowance is less costly than a wage hike for employers since it does not affect calculations for annual bonuses or retirement and other benefits.
U.S. planning big new prison in Afghanistan
This is from the NYTimes.
Not content to be the biggest imprisoner in the world at home in the U.S. now in Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. is providing more employment for contractors to build more prisons abroad just to house prisoners the U.S. garners as an occupying force. Imagine a sovereign U.S. that had a foreign military that held hundreds of Americans in prison on American soil. Perhaps that might seem a bit odd to patriotic Americans! It would seem that the U.S. does not intend to relinquish its role as imprisoners of Afghans for some time yet.
May 17, 2008
U.S. Planning Big New Prison in Afghanistan
By ERIC SCHMITT and TIM GOLDEN
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is moving forward with plans to build a new, 40-acre detention complex on the main American military base in Afghanistan, officials said, in a stark acknowledgment that the United States is likely to continue to hold prisoners overseas for years to come.
The proposed detention center would replace the cavernous, makeshift American prison on the Bagram military base north of Kabul, which is now typically packed with about 630 prisoners, compared with the 270 held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Until now, the Bush administration had signaled that it intended to scale back American involvement in detention operations in Afghanistan. It had planned to transfer a large majority of the prisoners to Afghan custody, in an American-financed, high-security prison outside Kabul to be guarded by Afghan soldiers.
But American officials now concede that the new Afghan-run prison cannot absorb all the Afghans now detained by the United States, much less the waves of new prisoners from the escalating fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The proposal for a new American prison at Bagram underscores the daunting scope and persistence of the United States military’s detention problem, at a time when Bush administration officials continue to say they want to close down the facility at Guantánamo Bay.
Military officials have long been aware of serious problems with the existing detention center in Afghanistan, the Bagram Theater Internment Facility. After the prison was set up in early 2002, it became a primary site for screening prisoners captured in the fighting. Harsh interrogation methods and sleep deprivation were used widely, and two Afghan detainees died there in December 2002, after being repeatedly struck by American soldiers.
Conditions and treatment have improved markedly since then, but hundreds of Afghans and other men are still held in wire-mesh pens surrounded by coils of razor wire. There are only minimal areas for the prisoners to exercise, and kitchen, shower and bathroom space is also inadequate.
Faced with that, American officials said they wanted to replace the Bagram prison, a converted aircraft hangar that still holds some of the decrepit aircraft-repair machinery left by the Soviet troops who occupied the country in the 1980s. In its place the United States will build what officials described as a more modern and humane detention center that would usually accommodate about 600 detainees — or as many as 1,100 in a surge — and cost more than $60 million.
“Our existing theater internment facility is deteriorating,” said Sandra L. Hodgkinson, the senior Pentagon official for detention policy, in a telephone interview. “It was renovated to do a temporary mission. There is a sense that this is the right time to build a new facility.”
American officials also acknowledged that there are serious health risks to detainees and American military personnel who work at the Bagram prison, because of their exposure to heavy metals from the aircraft-repair machinery and asbestos.
“It’s just not suitable,” another Pentagon official said. “At some point, you have to say, ‘That’s it. This place was not made to keep people there indefinitely.’ ”
That point came about six months ago. It became clear to Pentagon officials that the original plan of releasing some Afghan prisoners outright and transferring other detainees to Afghan custody would not come close to emptying the existing detention center.
Although a special Afghan court has been established to prosecute detainees formerly held at Bagram and Guantánamo, American officials have been hesitant to turn over those prisoners they consider most dangerous. In late February the head of detainee operations in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Douglas M. Stone, traveled to Bagram to assess conditions there.
In Iraq, General Stone has encouraged prison officials to build ties to tribal leaders, families and communities, said a Congressional official who has been briefed on the general’s work. As a result, American officials are giving Iraqi detainees job training and engaging them in religious discussions to help prepare them to re-enter Iraqi society.
About 8,000 detainees have been released in Iraq since last September. Fewer than 1 percent of them have been returned to the prison, said Lt. Cmdr. K. C. Marshall, General Stone’s spokesman.
The new detention center at Bagram will incorporate some of the lessons learned by the United States in Iraq. Classrooms will be built for vocational training and religious discussion, and there will be more space for recreation and family visits, officials said. After years of entreaties by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United States recently began to allow relatives to speak with prisoners at Bagram through video hookups.
“The driving factor behind this is to ensure that in all instances we are giving the highest standards of treatment and care,” said Ms. Hodgkinson, who has briefed Senate and House officials on the construction plans.
The Pentagon is planning to use $60 million in emergency construction funds this fiscal year to build a complex of 6 to 10 semi-permanent structures resembling Quonset huts, each the size of a football field, a Defense Department official said. The structures will have more natural light, and each will have its own recreation area. There will be a half-dozen other buildings for administration, medical care and other purposes, the official said.
The new Bagram compound is expected to be built away from the existing center of operations on the base, on the other side of a long airfield from the headquarters building that now sits almost directly adjacent to the detention center, one military official said.
It will have its own perimeter security wall, and its own perimeter security guards, a change that will increase the number of soldiers required to operate the detention center.
The military plans to request $24 million in fiscal year 2009 and $7.4 million in fiscal year 2010 to pay for educational programs, job training and other parts of what American officials call a reintegration plan. After that, the Pentagon plans to pay about $7 million a year in training and operational costs.
There has been mixed support for the project on Capitol Hill. Two prominent Senate Democrats, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, have been briefed on the new American-run prison, and have praised the decision to make conditions there more humane.
But the senators, in a May 15 letter to the deputy defense secretary, Gordon England, demanded that the Pentagon explain its long-term plans for detention in Afghanistan and consult the Afghan government on the project.
The population at Bagram began to swell after administration officials halted the flow of prisoners to Guantánamo in September 2004, a cutoff that largely remains in effect. At the same time, the population of detainees at Bagram also began to rise with the resurgence of the Taliban.
Military personnel who know both Bagram and Guantánamo describe the Afghan site, 40 miles north of Kabul, as far more spartan. Bagram prisoners have fewer privileges, less ability to contest their detention and no access to lawyers.
Some detainees have been held without charge for more than five years, officials said. As of April, about 10 juveniles were being held at Bagram, according to a recent American report to a United Nations committee.
Not content to be the biggest imprisoner in the world at home in the U.S. now in Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. is providing more employment for contractors to build more prisons abroad just to house prisoners the U.S. garners as an occupying force. Imagine a sovereign U.S. that had a foreign military that held hundreds of Americans in prison on American soil. Perhaps that might seem a bit odd to patriotic Americans! It would seem that the U.S. does not intend to relinquish its role as imprisoners of Afghans for some time yet.
May 17, 2008
U.S. Planning Big New Prison in Afghanistan
By ERIC SCHMITT and TIM GOLDEN
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is moving forward with plans to build a new, 40-acre detention complex on the main American military base in Afghanistan, officials said, in a stark acknowledgment that the United States is likely to continue to hold prisoners overseas for years to come.
The proposed detention center would replace the cavernous, makeshift American prison on the Bagram military base north of Kabul, which is now typically packed with about 630 prisoners, compared with the 270 held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Until now, the Bush administration had signaled that it intended to scale back American involvement in detention operations in Afghanistan. It had planned to transfer a large majority of the prisoners to Afghan custody, in an American-financed, high-security prison outside Kabul to be guarded by Afghan soldiers.
But American officials now concede that the new Afghan-run prison cannot absorb all the Afghans now detained by the United States, much less the waves of new prisoners from the escalating fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The proposal for a new American prison at Bagram underscores the daunting scope and persistence of the United States military’s detention problem, at a time when Bush administration officials continue to say they want to close down the facility at Guantánamo Bay.
Military officials have long been aware of serious problems with the existing detention center in Afghanistan, the Bagram Theater Internment Facility. After the prison was set up in early 2002, it became a primary site for screening prisoners captured in the fighting. Harsh interrogation methods and sleep deprivation were used widely, and two Afghan detainees died there in December 2002, after being repeatedly struck by American soldiers.
Conditions and treatment have improved markedly since then, but hundreds of Afghans and other men are still held in wire-mesh pens surrounded by coils of razor wire. There are only minimal areas for the prisoners to exercise, and kitchen, shower and bathroom space is also inadequate.
Faced with that, American officials said they wanted to replace the Bagram prison, a converted aircraft hangar that still holds some of the decrepit aircraft-repair machinery left by the Soviet troops who occupied the country in the 1980s. In its place the United States will build what officials described as a more modern and humane detention center that would usually accommodate about 600 detainees — or as many as 1,100 in a surge — and cost more than $60 million.
“Our existing theater internment facility is deteriorating,” said Sandra L. Hodgkinson, the senior Pentagon official for detention policy, in a telephone interview. “It was renovated to do a temporary mission. There is a sense that this is the right time to build a new facility.”
American officials also acknowledged that there are serious health risks to detainees and American military personnel who work at the Bagram prison, because of their exposure to heavy metals from the aircraft-repair machinery and asbestos.
“It’s just not suitable,” another Pentagon official said. “At some point, you have to say, ‘That’s it. This place was not made to keep people there indefinitely.’ ”
That point came about six months ago. It became clear to Pentagon officials that the original plan of releasing some Afghan prisoners outright and transferring other detainees to Afghan custody would not come close to emptying the existing detention center.
Although a special Afghan court has been established to prosecute detainees formerly held at Bagram and Guantánamo, American officials have been hesitant to turn over those prisoners they consider most dangerous. In late February the head of detainee operations in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Douglas M. Stone, traveled to Bagram to assess conditions there.
In Iraq, General Stone has encouraged prison officials to build ties to tribal leaders, families and communities, said a Congressional official who has been briefed on the general’s work. As a result, American officials are giving Iraqi detainees job training and engaging them in religious discussions to help prepare them to re-enter Iraqi society.
About 8,000 detainees have been released in Iraq since last September. Fewer than 1 percent of them have been returned to the prison, said Lt. Cmdr. K. C. Marshall, General Stone’s spokesman.
The new detention center at Bagram will incorporate some of the lessons learned by the United States in Iraq. Classrooms will be built for vocational training and religious discussion, and there will be more space for recreation and family visits, officials said. After years of entreaties by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United States recently began to allow relatives to speak with prisoners at Bagram through video hookups.
“The driving factor behind this is to ensure that in all instances we are giving the highest standards of treatment and care,” said Ms. Hodgkinson, who has briefed Senate and House officials on the construction plans.
The Pentagon is planning to use $60 million in emergency construction funds this fiscal year to build a complex of 6 to 10 semi-permanent structures resembling Quonset huts, each the size of a football field, a Defense Department official said. The structures will have more natural light, and each will have its own recreation area. There will be a half-dozen other buildings for administration, medical care and other purposes, the official said.
The new Bagram compound is expected to be built away from the existing center of operations on the base, on the other side of a long airfield from the headquarters building that now sits almost directly adjacent to the detention center, one military official said.
It will have its own perimeter security wall, and its own perimeter security guards, a change that will increase the number of soldiers required to operate the detention center.
The military plans to request $24 million in fiscal year 2009 and $7.4 million in fiscal year 2010 to pay for educational programs, job training and other parts of what American officials call a reintegration plan. After that, the Pentagon plans to pay about $7 million a year in training and operational costs.
There has been mixed support for the project on Capitol Hill. Two prominent Senate Democrats, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, have been briefed on the new American-run prison, and have praised the decision to make conditions there more humane.
But the senators, in a May 15 letter to the deputy defense secretary, Gordon England, demanded that the Pentagon explain its long-term plans for detention in Afghanistan and consult the Afghan government on the project.
The population at Bagram began to swell after administration officials halted the flow of prisoners to Guantánamo in September 2004, a cutoff that largely remains in effect. At the same time, the population of detainees at Bagram also began to rise with the resurgence of the Taliban.
Military personnel who know both Bagram and Guantánamo describe the Afghan site, 40 miles north of Kabul, as far more spartan. Bagram prisoners have fewer privileges, less ability to contest their detention and no access to lawyers.
Some detainees have been held without charge for more than five years, officials said. As of April, about 10 juveniles were being held at Bagram, according to a recent American report to a United Nations committee.
Iraqi rulings stop at US detention sites.
This is from wiredispatch.
Not only are Iraqis released by Iraqi courts and then imprisoned by US authorities but some of those held in U.S. facilities have been there for five years without charge. Imagine if another country had military facilities in the US where Americans were imprisoned under these conditions. I think Americans might be a bit upset!
Iraqi court rulings stop at US detention sites
Freedom on hold: American rules on Iraqi detainees can overlook local rulings for release
CHRIS TOMLINSON
AP News
May 17, 2008 11:34 EST
In the eyes of Iraqi justice, Yahya Ali Humadi is a free man.
To the U.S. military, he's another of the detainees in yellow jumpsuits held at the sprawling Camp Bucca in southern Iraq.
Humadi — ordered released nine months ago after an Iraqi judge dropped all charges — now spends his days in a legal limbo. It's one that has confronted and confounded thousands of other Iraqis since 2003 who have been freed by their nation's courts but remained in U.S. custody.
"I don't know why the U.S. army brought him to an Iraqi court, if they intend to keep him for an unlimited time," said Humadi's lawyer, Samiya al-Baghdadi.
The American military, however, sees no contradiction.
Commanders say the current international mandate in Iraq, as well as general codes of war, allow them to hold any prisoner until the detainee is no longer considered a threat to U.S. forces. Local law and court rulings do not apply, they add.
These dual realities — freedom granted by Iraqi courts but continued detention by the Americans — have been faced by about 3,000 Iraqis since 2003 and stand as a sharp contrast between U.S. policies on the battlefield and Washington's appeals for Iraqis to build credible civic institutions.
The differences could grow even more pronounced as Iraqi authorities move ahead with an amnesty program that was strongly supported by the White House as a step to reconcile Iraq's rival factions.
The amnesty rulings could offer an early exit for many of the 27,000 prisoners in Iraqi hands. They also could wipe the slate for hundreds of the roughly 22,000 detainees held by the U.S. military — which then must decide whether to abide by the decisions or ignore a formula that Washington applauded.
The case of Humadi — accused of attacking American forces and other alleged acts — offers a brush with the bewildering gray area for Iraqis questioning why local rulings extend only as far as the gates of U.S. detention facilities.
"The U.S. army's refusal to release my husband shows that the Americans do not care about how Iraqis suffer," Sundis Nimaa, Humadi's 34-year-old wife said between sobs.
"They have brought my family down and they have separated the children from their father," she told The Associated Press. "They think they can do whatever they like because they have the upper hand in this country."
Humadi's lawyer, al-Baghdadi, accuses Washington of rejecting the very legal system it helped forge.
"The trial was fair and the judge followed the right legal procedure and even the appeal court approved the ruling," al-Baghdadi said.
The U.S. military does not comment on individual cases.
It insists, however, that the detention system is authorized by a U.N. resolution under which the Iraqi government allows U.S. troops to detain people at will. U.S. military attorneys also say it complies with international laws covering warfare and was created in "the spirit" of the Geneva Conventions.
These laws, the military says, are designed to take fighters off the streets, not determine guilt or innocence.
"There are a large number that, after being acquitted, are released," said Maj. Gen. Doug Stone, commander of detainee operations in Iraq. "In some cases, and we are talking about a very small number, the compelling information that we have mandates that they still stay in our detention."
But rights groups have criticized U.S. detention policy as a misrepresentation of international law, which they say requires some form of legal process to detain someone.
"There are basic issues of access to judicial review and access to due process rights that are not being met," said Joseph Logan, a researcher who specializes on Iraq for Human Rights Watch.
After Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003, U.S. officials helped reorganize Iraq's judicial system and later applied intense pressure for the amnesty law, which was finally passed in February. The U.S. military regularly refers cases to Iraq's criminal courts if it thinks there is enough evidence for a conviction.
But if Washington likes the system, it doesn't necessarily abide by it.
U.S. troops burst into Humadi's home in Baghdad in April 2007, tossing stun grenades, searching the building and immediately arresting him. He was charged with illegally possessing weapons and attacking U.S. forces, though only one rifle was found in the home, al-Baghdadi said. Iraq law allows every home to have one assault rifle.
U.S. military lawyers provided evidence to an investigating judge, who recommended a trial. But the three-judge tribunal that heard the case, and an appeals court, both ruled in July 2007 that the evidence did not support the charges.
All the roughly 3,000 U.S. detainees whose cases were thrown out by Iraqi tribunals were kept in military detention, at least temporarily, until U.S. officers could make their own determination, said Navy Capt. Brian Bill, Stone's top military attorney. All of their cases are sent before a military review board within 30 days.
It was not clear how many of those detainees are still in U.S. custody.
The amnesty law looms as a separate test between the U.S. military and Iraqi justice.
So far the only known case of the Iraqi courts granting amnesty to a U.S. detainee involved AP photographer Bilal Hussein. He was released within 72 hours of the ruling in early April, but with a caveat from the military that he was not being freed because of the amnesty.
"The decision to detain is based on an assessment of the threat the individual poses to the security of Iraq," Stone said in a statement at the time. "These determinations will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis and as a separate action from any determination of amnesty."
Maj. Matthew Morgan, Stone's spokesman, said military lawyers have identified more than 400 other U.S. detainees who may also be eligible for amnesty.
"We are reviewing those cases to decide if each detainee will remain in our custody as a security internee or be released," Morgan said. It is not known when — or if — the Iraqi courts will take up those amnesty hearings.
By contrast, government commissions have granted amnesty in 22,500 cases, said Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar, a spokesman for the Iraqi Higher Judicial Council. But one person could be the subject of multiple cases, and it's unclear how many individuals have been granted total amnesty.
Tracking individual cases through Iraq's jails is very difficult. U.S. detention centers take in and release dozens of people every day, creating a high turnover in a very complex bureaucracy. The military has released more than 6,000 people since January while maintaining an average detainee population of more than 24,000.
Record-keeping in Iraqi courts, meanwhile, is shrouded in secrecy and technical shortcomings. The number of computers is limited, with few skilled workers to maintain databases, and the U.S. and Iraqi authorities do not always share vital information.
In the U.S. detention system, different boards and committees make recommendations on each detainee at least every six months.
The final decision, though, rests with Stone. He can accept or reject the recommendations made by the boards or committees.
The military asserts that it is on solid footing under international law. But the wide-ranging authority claimed by the Pentagon is not in the U.N. resolution itself, and instead is included in a side letter from then Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Experts said it is so general that it allows for broad — and differing — interpretations.
"The United States has spent a lot of time establishing the criminal court," said Logan of Human Rights Watch. "It is something they regard as a model judicial body for Iraq, and, in that case, if it's going to selectively ignore the court's rulings on freeing people who have been referred from (U.S. military) detention, it doesn't say very much about the institution the (military) had a major role in creating," he added.
But Stone and his staff insist they are operating under the laws of war, which supplant standard human rights law.
"The conditions on the ground require us to temporarily derogate from certain rights in order to ultimately lay the groundwork for civil society and the implementation of human rights law," Stone said.
The clock, meanwhile, is ticking on the U.N. resolution, which expires at the end of the year.
U.S. authorities are trying to negotiate an agreement with the Iraqi government to maintain the current system. Iraqi officials, though, demand that all Iraqis held by U.S. forces be surrendered to their control.
Stone said his unit is preparing to turn over all detainee operations to the Iraqi government as soon as possible.
Falah Shanshal, a Shiite lawmaker from the bloc loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, insisted that "the government has to take over these prisoners and apply the amnesty."
The amnesty is also extremely important to Sunnis, who make up most of the prisoners.
"We are not pleased at all with the way the amnesty program has been managed so far," said Salim Abdullah, a Sunni lawmaker from the Iraqi Islamic Party. "There are large number of (U.S.) detainees who were not included."
Meanwhile, Humadi remains in Camp Bucca indefinitely, and his wife, Nimaa, says: "I pray to God to save my husband and put an end to our long misery."
___
Associated Press writers Sameer Yacoub and Bushra Juhi contributed to this report.
Source: AP News
powered by mochila
Copyright 2008 Wiredispatch.com
Not only are Iraqis released by Iraqi courts and then imprisoned by US authorities but some of those held in U.S. facilities have been there for five years without charge. Imagine if another country had military facilities in the US where Americans were imprisoned under these conditions. I think Americans might be a bit upset!
Iraqi court rulings stop at US detention sites
Freedom on hold: American rules on Iraqi detainees can overlook local rulings for release
CHRIS TOMLINSON
AP News
May 17, 2008 11:34 EST
In the eyes of Iraqi justice, Yahya Ali Humadi is a free man.
To the U.S. military, he's another of the detainees in yellow jumpsuits held at the sprawling Camp Bucca in southern Iraq.
Humadi — ordered released nine months ago after an Iraqi judge dropped all charges — now spends his days in a legal limbo. It's one that has confronted and confounded thousands of other Iraqis since 2003 who have been freed by their nation's courts but remained in U.S. custody.
"I don't know why the U.S. army brought him to an Iraqi court, if they intend to keep him for an unlimited time," said Humadi's lawyer, Samiya al-Baghdadi.
The American military, however, sees no contradiction.
Commanders say the current international mandate in Iraq, as well as general codes of war, allow them to hold any prisoner until the detainee is no longer considered a threat to U.S. forces. Local law and court rulings do not apply, they add.
These dual realities — freedom granted by Iraqi courts but continued detention by the Americans — have been faced by about 3,000 Iraqis since 2003 and stand as a sharp contrast between U.S. policies on the battlefield and Washington's appeals for Iraqis to build credible civic institutions.
The differences could grow even more pronounced as Iraqi authorities move ahead with an amnesty program that was strongly supported by the White House as a step to reconcile Iraq's rival factions.
The amnesty rulings could offer an early exit for many of the 27,000 prisoners in Iraqi hands. They also could wipe the slate for hundreds of the roughly 22,000 detainees held by the U.S. military — which then must decide whether to abide by the decisions or ignore a formula that Washington applauded.
The case of Humadi — accused of attacking American forces and other alleged acts — offers a brush with the bewildering gray area for Iraqis questioning why local rulings extend only as far as the gates of U.S. detention facilities.
"The U.S. army's refusal to release my husband shows that the Americans do not care about how Iraqis suffer," Sundis Nimaa, Humadi's 34-year-old wife said between sobs.
"They have brought my family down and they have separated the children from their father," she told The Associated Press. "They think they can do whatever they like because they have the upper hand in this country."
Humadi's lawyer, al-Baghdadi, accuses Washington of rejecting the very legal system it helped forge.
"The trial was fair and the judge followed the right legal procedure and even the appeal court approved the ruling," al-Baghdadi said.
The U.S. military does not comment on individual cases.
It insists, however, that the detention system is authorized by a U.N. resolution under which the Iraqi government allows U.S. troops to detain people at will. U.S. military attorneys also say it complies with international laws covering warfare and was created in "the spirit" of the Geneva Conventions.
These laws, the military says, are designed to take fighters off the streets, not determine guilt or innocence.
"There are a large number that, after being acquitted, are released," said Maj. Gen. Doug Stone, commander of detainee operations in Iraq. "In some cases, and we are talking about a very small number, the compelling information that we have mandates that they still stay in our detention."
But rights groups have criticized U.S. detention policy as a misrepresentation of international law, which they say requires some form of legal process to detain someone.
"There are basic issues of access to judicial review and access to due process rights that are not being met," said Joseph Logan, a researcher who specializes on Iraq for Human Rights Watch.
After Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003, U.S. officials helped reorganize Iraq's judicial system and later applied intense pressure for the amnesty law, which was finally passed in February. The U.S. military regularly refers cases to Iraq's criminal courts if it thinks there is enough evidence for a conviction.
But if Washington likes the system, it doesn't necessarily abide by it.
U.S. troops burst into Humadi's home in Baghdad in April 2007, tossing stun grenades, searching the building and immediately arresting him. He was charged with illegally possessing weapons and attacking U.S. forces, though only one rifle was found in the home, al-Baghdadi said. Iraq law allows every home to have one assault rifle.
U.S. military lawyers provided evidence to an investigating judge, who recommended a trial. But the three-judge tribunal that heard the case, and an appeals court, both ruled in July 2007 that the evidence did not support the charges.
All the roughly 3,000 U.S. detainees whose cases were thrown out by Iraqi tribunals were kept in military detention, at least temporarily, until U.S. officers could make their own determination, said Navy Capt. Brian Bill, Stone's top military attorney. All of their cases are sent before a military review board within 30 days.
It was not clear how many of those detainees are still in U.S. custody.
The amnesty law looms as a separate test between the U.S. military and Iraqi justice.
So far the only known case of the Iraqi courts granting amnesty to a U.S. detainee involved AP photographer Bilal Hussein. He was released within 72 hours of the ruling in early April, but with a caveat from the military that he was not being freed because of the amnesty.
"The decision to detain is based on an assessment of the threat the individual poses to the security of Iraq," Stone said in a statement at the time. "These determinations will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis and as a separate action from any determination of amnesty."
Maj. Matthew Morgan, Stone's spokesman, said military lawyers have identified more than 400 other U.S. detainees who may also be eligible for amnesty.
"We are reviewing those cases to decide if each detainee will remain in our custody as a security internee or be released," Morgan said. It is not known when — or if — the Iraqi courts will take up those amnesty hearings.
By contrast, government commissions have granted amnesty in 22,500 cases, said Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar, a spokesman for the Iraqi Higher Judicial Council. But one person could be the subject of multiple cases, and it's unclear how many individuals have been granted total amnesty.
Tracking individual cases through Iraq's jails is very difficult. U.S. detention centers take in and release dozens of people every day, creating a high turnover in a very complex bureaucracy. The military has released more than 6,000 people since January while maintaining an average detainee population of more than 24,000.
Record-keeping in Iraqi courts, meanwhile, is shrouded in secrecy and technical shortcomings. The number of computers is limited, with few skilled workers to maintain databases, and the U.S. and Iraqi authorities do not always share vital information.
In the U.S. detention system, different boards and committees make recommendations on each detainee at least every six months.
The final decision, though, rests with Stone. He can accept or reject the recommendations made by the boards or committees.
The military asserts that it is on solid footing under international law. But the wide-ranging authority claimed by the Pentagon is not in the U.N. resolution itself, and instead is included in a side letter from then Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Experts said it is so general that it allows for broad — and differing — interpretations.
"The United States has spent a lot of time establishing the criminal court," said Logan of Human Rights Watch. "It is something they regard as a model judicial body for Iraq, and, in that case, if it's going to selectively ignore the court's rulings on freeing people who have been referred from (U.S. military) detention, it doesn't say very much about the institution the (military) had a major role in creating," he added.
But Stone and his staff insist they are operating under the laws of war, which supplant standard human rights law.
"The conditions on the ground require us to temporarily derogate from certain rights in order to ultimately lay the groundwork for civil society and the implementation of human rights law," Stone said.
The clock, meanwhile, is ticking on the U.N. resolution, which expires at the end of the year.
U.S. authorities are trying to negotiate an agreement with the Iraqi government to maintain the current system. Iraqi officials, though, demand that all Iraqis held by U.S. forces be surrendered to their control.
Stone said his unit is preparing to turn over all detainee operations to the Iraqi government as soon as possible.
Falah Shanshal, a Shiite lawmaker from the bloc loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, insisted that "the government has to take over these prisoners and apply the amnesty."
The amnesty is also extremely important to Sunnis, who make up most of the prisoners.
"We are not pleased at all with the way the amnesty program has been managed so far," said Salim Abdullah, a Sunni lawmaker from the Iraqi Islamic Party. "There are large number of (U.S.) detainees who were not included."
Meanwhile, Humadi remains in Camp Bucca indefinitely, and his wife, Nimaa, says: "I pray to God to save my husband and put an end to our long misery."
___
Associated Press writers Sameer Yacoub and Bushra Juhi contributed to this report.
Source: AP News
powered by mochila
Copyright 2008 Wiredispatch.com
Friday, May 16, 2008
Left-wing activist in Philippines shot dead, group suspects military
This is from IHT.
The military and police are often suspects in the killing of leftist activists. Some may be associated indirectly with the NPA but many are simply left activists who may irritate powerful people. The military seems to have a standard reaction and that is to blame the killings on internal purges. These do happen but if they happened as often as the military claims the insurgency would be long dead!
Left-wing activist in Philippines shot dead, group suspects military
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 15, 2008
MANILA, Philippines: A left-wing activist was fatally shot Thursday in front of a diner in the southern Philippines, and his colleague suggested he was the latest victim in a wave of extrajudicial killings blamed on the military.
Celso Pojas, 40, was eating breakfast outside a restaurant in Davao, the largest southern city, when he was shot and killed by one of two men on a motorcycle, said Carl Ala, spokesman for the Peasant Movement of the Philippines.
He said several people witnessed the shooting and Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte assured the group of a swift investigation.
Police Chief Superintendent Andres Caro said Pojas was shot without provocation and officers were interviewing witnesses and trying to determine the motive and identities of the gunmen.
Ala said Pojas, the regional spokesman for the group, was being monitored and followed by military agents before his death.
Ala said this was the first time an activist leader had been killed in Davao, where human rights organizations say hundreds of suspected petty criminals and drug pushers have been killed in recent years by mysterious death squads in a bid to "cleanse" the city.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, local rights groups and Philip Alston, a U.N. envoy on extrajudicial killings, have all accused the Philippine military of targeting left-wing activists as part of a campaign to wipe out communist rebels, who have been fighting a low-level insurgency for the past 40 years.
The military in the past has said some soldiers may have been involved but most of the killings were the result of internal fighting within the underground communist movement.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said earlier this year the number of extrajudicial killings was down 83 percent in 2007, with seven activists and journalists killed, compared to 41 in 2006.
The left-wing human rights group Karapatan said fewer activists were killed or abducted because of pressure from the international community. It says 68 activists were killed and 26 went missing last year.
Notes:
Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/
The military and police are often suspects in the killing of leftist activists. Some may be associated indirectly with the NPA but many are simply left activists who may irritate powerful people. The military seems to have a standard reaction and that is to blame the killings on internal purges. These do happen but if they happened as often as the military claims the insurgency would be long dead!
Left-wing activist in Philippines shot dead, group suspects military
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 15, 2008
MANILA, Philippines: A left-wing activist was fatally shot Thursday in front of a diner in the southern Philippines, and his colleague suggested he was the latest victim in a wave of extrajudicial killings blamed on the military.
Celso Pojas, 40, was eating breakfast outside a restaurant in Davao, the largest southern city, when he was shot and killed by one of two men on a motorcycle, said Carl Ala, spokesman for the Peasant Movement of the Philippines.
He said several people witnessed the shooting and Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte assured the group of a swift investigation.
Police Chief Superintendent Andres Caro said Pojas was shot without provocation and officers were interviewing witnesses and trying to determine the motive and identities of the gunmen.
Ala said Pojas, the regional spokesman for the group, was being monitored and followed by military agents before his death.
Ala said this was the first time an activist leader had been killed in Davao, where human rights organizations say hundreds of suspected petty criminals and drug pushers have been killed in recent years by mysterious death squads in a bid to "cleanse" the city.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, local rights groups and Philip Alston, a U.N. envoy on extrajudicial killings, have all accused the Philippine military of targeting left-wing activists as part of a campaign to wipe out communist rebels, who have been fighting a low-level insurgency for the past 40 years.
The military in the past has said some soldiers may have been involved but most of the killings were the result of internal fighting within the underground communist movement.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said earlier this year the number of extrajudicial killings was down 83 percent in 2007, with seven activists and journalists killed, compared to 41 in 2006.
The left-wing human rights group Karapatan said fewer activists were killed or abducted because of pressure from the international community. It says 68 activists were killed and 26 went missing last year.
Notes:
Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/
Afghan death squads 'acting on foreign orders'.
These death squads are seldom mentioned in media reports on Afghanistan. In effect the squads are engaging in war crimes and killing people without the bother of having to charge them with any crimes or prove that they are guilty of anything. The perpetrators are granted complete immunity from prosecution themselves. These people are in effect state sponsored terrorists.
Independent.co.uk
Afghan death squads 'acting on foreign orders'
By Jerome Starkey in KabulFriday, 16 May 2008
Secret Afghan death squads are acting on the orders of foreign spies and killing civilians inside Afghanistan with impunity, a senior UN envoy has claimed. Professor Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on illegal killings, said "foreign intelligence agencies" had used illegal groups of heavily armed Afghans in raids against suspected insurgents.
He said the attacks were beyond the legitimate military chains of command, and they were "completely unacceptable" and "outside the law".
At the end of a 12-day fact-finding mission to Afghanistan, Professor Alston said: "There have been a large number of raids for which no state or military appears to take responsibility. I have spoken with a large number of people in relation to the operation of foreign intelligence units. I don't want to name them but they are at the most senior level of the relevant places. These forces operate with what appears to be impunity."
Professor Alston said he knew of at least three recent raids. In one, two brothers were killed by troops operating out of an American Special Forces base in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan. Afghan government officials admitted neither was linked to the Taliban, but no army has claimed responsibility for the raid.
Another group, known as Shaheen, operates out of Nangahar, in eastern Afghanistan, where US forces are in charge, Professor Alston said. "Essentially, they are companies of Afghans but with a handful, at most, of international people directing them. I'm not aware that they fall under any command."
In Helmand, where most of Britain's 7,800 troops are based, Special Forces were accused of slitting a man's throat in a botched night raid last year. Security sources now claim the operation was mounted by a secret spy unit.
In a preliminary report, Professor Alston added: "It is absolutely unacceptable for heavily armed internationals accompanied by heavily armed Afghan forces to be wandering around conducting dangerous raids that too often result in killings without anyone taking responsibility for them."
He refused to name the spies behind the secret units, or their nationality, but most of the provinces he identified where these raids have been mounted fall under American command. He also refused to rule out the possibility that raids may have been made in Helmand, where British troops are in command.
A Western official close to the investigation said the secret units are still known as Campaign Forces, from the time when American Special Forces and CIA spies recruited Afghan troops to help overthrow the Taliban during the US-led invasion in 2001. "The brightest, smartest guys in these militias were kept on," the official said. "They were trained and rearmed and they are still being used."
A British embassy spokesman in Kabul said UK officials were "examining the independent expert's report closely". But they refused to comment on whether MI6 was involved.
Professor Alston accused the international community, the Afghan government and the insurgents of "gratuitous civilian killing". He attacked the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force for not keeping better records of civilian casualties, criticising it for the complex and at times deliberately "opaque" processes that stop victims' relatives finding who raided their house or bombed their village.
"The level of complacency in response to these killings is staggeringly high," he said. "They [international military forces] have not taken the steps which are necessary, at the political level, to ensure a degree of transparency and accountability."
He said Nato commanders he met kept records only for the duration of their tour, in some cases just four months. Isaf officials rejected the report's claims, insisting they are as accountable as they can be "in a very complex situation".
Afghan police also faced strong criticism for killing civilians, and Professor Alston criticised the impunity afforded the "wealthy and the powerful" by the endemic corruption in Afghanistan's legal system. His full report is due out by autumn.
SearchQuery: Independent.co.uk The Web Go
©independent.co.uk
Independent.co.uk
Afghan death squads 'acting on foreign orders'
By Jerome Starkey in KabulFriday, 16 May 2008
Secret Afghan death squads are acting on the orders of foreign spies and killing civilians inside Afghanistan with impunity, a senior UN envoy has claimed. Professor Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on illegal killings, said "foreign intelligence agencies" had used illegal groups of heavily armed Afghans in raids against suspected insurgents.
He said the attacks were beyond the legitimate military chains of command, and they were "completely unacceptable" and "outside the law".
At the end of a 12-day fact-finding mission to Afghanistan, Professor Alston said: "There have been a large number of raids for which no state or military appears to take responsibility. I have spoken with a large number of people in relation to the operation of foreign intelligence units. I don't want to name them but they are at the most senior level of the relevant places. These forces operate with what appears to be impunity."
Professor Alston said he knew of at least three recent raids. In one, two brothers were killed by troops operating out of an American Special Forces base in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan. Afghan government officials admitted neither was linked to the Taliban, but no army has claimed responsibility for the raid.
Another group, known as Shaheen, operates out of Nangahar, in eastern Afghanistan, where US forces are in charge, Professor Alston said. "Essentially, they are companies of Afghans but with a handful, at most, of international people directing them. I'm not aware that they fall under any command."
In Helmand, where most of Britain's 7,800 troops are based, Special Forces were accused of slitting a man's throat in a botched night raid last year. Security sources now claim the operation was mounted by a secret spy unit.
In a preliminary report, Professor Alston added: "It is absolutely unacceptable for heavily armed internationals accompanied by heavily armed Afghan forces to be wandering around conducting dangerous raids that too often result in killings without anyone taking responsibility for them."
He refused to name the spies behind the secret units, or their nationality, but most of the provinces he identified where these raids have been mounted fall under American command. He also refused to rule out the possibility that raids may have been made in Helmand, where British troops are in command.
A Western official close to the investigation said the secret units are still known as Campaign Forces, from the time when American Special Forces and CIA spies recruited Afghan troops to help overthrow the Taliban during the US-led invasion in 2001. "The brightest, smartest guys in these militias were kept on," the official said. "They were trained and rearmed and they are still being used."
A British embassy spokesman in Kabul said UK officials were "examining the independent expert's report closely". But they refused to comment on whether MI6 was involved.
Professor Alston accused the international community, the Afghan government and the insurgents of "gratuitous civilian killing". He attacked the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force for not keeping better records of civilian casualties, criticising it for the complex and at times deliberately "opaque" processes that stop victims' relatives finding who raided their house or bombed their village.
"The level of complacency in response to these killings is staggeringly high," he said. "They [international military forces] have not taken the steps which are necessary, at the political level, to ensure a degree of transparency and accountability."
He said Nato commanders he met kept records only for the duration of their tour, in some cases just four months. Isaf officials rejected the report's claims, insisting they are as accountable as they can be "in a very complex situation".
Afghan police also faced strong criticism for killing civilians, and Professor Alston criticised the impunity afforded the "wealthy and the powerful" by the endemic corruption in Afghanistan's legal system. His full report is due out by autumn.
SearchQuery: Independent.co.uk The Web Go
©independent.co.uk
Vietnam pleges to create opportunities for US business
This is from nhandan.
What a waste the Vietnam war was. If the U.S. had just waited for a few years Vietnam would have just by the progress of capitalist development evident in other lapsed communist states such as China become ripe for US investment. Perhaps this is a lesson for an exit strategy in Iraq. Iraq will become a prime investment area for the U.S. if it just would let the Iraqi's fend for themselves and stop trying to dictate their development through military action and indirect control of the government.
From being the enemy the U.S. is now Vietnam's biggest trading partner. Well even Ho Chi Minh liked Lucky Strike cigs apparently.
Vietnam pledges to create opportunities for US businesses
Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung says the Vietnamese government will create all favourable conditions for US businesses to conduct long-term investment in the country and benefiting the two countries.
The Government leader confirmed Vietnam’s support at a reception in Hanoi on May 6 for a delegation of US major corporations visiting Vietnam to seek investment and business opportunities.
PM Dung praised the role of the US-ASEAN Business Council for organising the delegation’s visit and the contributions made by US businesses in boosting bilateral ties between Vietnam and the US .
He said he was delighted by the development in the relations between Vietnam and the US in all fields, particularly in economics with two-way trade turnover reaching close to US $13 billion in 2007. The figure is estimated to reach US $15-16 billion in 2008.
The US is currently Vietnam’s biggest trade partner and ranks sixth among countries and territories investing in the Southeast Asian country. Vietnam has received US $5 billion worth of investment capital from US businesses.
The PM pointed to the need for the two countries to conduct negotiations to sign a framework agreement on investment in order to create more opportunities for US businesses to invest in Vietnam.
He said he hoped the US Government will also give import tax priority to Vietnamese businesses.
Leaders of the US businesses pledged to work to foster the commercial and investment relations between the two countries and make the US the number one investor in Vietnam.
The delegation included 22 US corporations operating in industry, finance, telecommunications and healthcare such as Boeing, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Ford, IBM, Time Warner and General Electric. (VNA)
What a waste the Vietnam war was. If the U.S. had just waited for a few years Vietnam would have just by the progress of capitalist development evident in other lapsed communist states such as China become ripe for US investment. Perhaps this is a lesson for an exit strategy in Iraq. Iraq will become a prime investment area for the U.S. if it just would let the Iraqi's fend for themselves and stop trying to dictate their development through military action and indirect control of the government.
From being the enemy the U.S. is now Vietnam's biggest trading partner. Well even Ho Chi Minh liked Lucky Strike cigs apparently.
Vietnam pledges to create opportunities for US businesses
Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung says the Vietnamese government will create all favourable conditions for US businesses to conduct long-term investment in the country and benefiting the two countries.
The Government leader confirmed Vietnam’s support at a reception in Hanoi on May 6 for a delegation of US major corporations visiting Vietnam to seek investment and business opportunities.
PM Dung praised the role of the US-ASEAN Business Council for organising the delegation’s visit and the contributions made by US businesses in boosting bilateral ties between Vietnam and the US .
He said he was delighted by the development in the relations between Vietnam and the US in all fields, particularly in economics with two-way trade turnover reaching close to US $13 billion in 2007. The figure is estimated to reach US $15-16 billion in 2008.
The US is currently Vietnam’s biggest trade partner and ranks sixth among countries and territories investing in the Southeast Asian country. Vietnam has received US $5 billion worth of investment capital from US businesses.
The PM pointed to the need for the two countries to conduct negotiations to sign a framework agreement on investment in order to create more opportunities for US businesses to invest in Vietnam.
He said he hoped the US Government will also give import tax priority to Vietnamese businesses.
Leaders of the US businesses pledged to work to foster the commercial and investment relations between the two countries and make the US the number one investor in Vietnam.
The delegation included 22 US corporations operating in industry, finance, telecommunications and healthcare such as Boeing, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Ford, IBM, Time Warner and General Electric. (VNA)
Thursday, May 15, 2008
U.S. to request quick military aid for Lebanon
Now if I were a Syrian or Iranian I might call this meddling in Lebanese politics but I'm not so I guess I must say that this is a great step towards making Lebanon a free and democratic country a great beacon and model for the rest of the middle east along with Israel of course.
From what I have read there is no guarantee that the Lebanese army has any intention of slugging it out with Hezbollah so it is not clear what use further military aid will be. However, perhaps it will sway the military towards the U.S.
US to request quick military aid for Lebanon
State Department: US will seek emergency military aid for Lebanon Army
StaffAP News
May 14, 2008 12:51 EST
The Bush administration said Wednesday it wants to speed up U.S. aid for Lebanon's Army because of the recent wave of sectarian fighting.
The administration plans to ask Congress to quickly approve military spending that was already in the works. State Department spokesman Tom Casey would not say how much money the administration is seeking. He also would not say what the money would buy, but previous military grants have gone to buy ammunition, armor and the like.
President Bush telegraphed the request in interviews ahead of his current Mideast trip. He said he wants to beef up the Lebanese Army, but he also expressed disappointment in the Army's recent performance.
The U.S. backs Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora in a political and constitutional struggle with Hezbollah militants. Months of deadlock turned into street fighting last week.
The administration has spent about $1.3 billion in the past two years trying to prop up Saniora's Western-allied government, including about $400 million in military aid.
A senior U.S. military commander was also in Lebanon on Wednesday, meeting with Lebanese military leaders.
No fighting was reported throughout Lebanon on Wednesday, but tensions lingered after Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah demonstrated its military power last week by seizing control of parts of Beirut in a showdown with the U.S.-backed government. It was the worst internal fighting since the end of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.
A high-powered Arab League delegation mediated between Lebanese factions, to try to end street confrontations that have killed at least 54 people.
Source: AP News
From what I have read there is no guarantee that the Lebanese army has any intention of slugging it out with Hezbollah so it is not clear what use further military aid will be. However, perhaps it will sway the military towards the U.S.
US to request quick military aid for Lebanon
State Department: US will seek emergency military aid for Lebanon Army
StaffAP News
May 14, 2008 12:51 EST
The Bush administration said Wednesday it wants to speed up U.S. aid for Lebanon's Army because of the recent wave of sectarian fighting.
The administration plans to ask Congress to quickly approve military spending that was already in the works. State Department spokesman Tom Casey would not say how much money the administration is seeking. He also would not say what the money would buy, but previous military grants have gone to buy ammunition, armor and the like.
President Bush telegraphed the request in interviews ahead of his current Mideast trip. He said he wants to beef up the Lebanese Army, but he also expressed disappointment in the Army's recent performance.
The U.S. backs Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora in a political and constitutional struggle with Hezbollah militants. Months of deadlock turned into street fighting last week.
The administration has spent about $1.3 billion in the past two years trying to prop up Saniora's Western-allied government, including about $400 million in military aid.
A senior U.S. military commander was also in Lebanon on Wednesday, meeting with Lebanese military leaders.
No fighting was reported throughout Lebanon on Wednesday, but tensions lingered after Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah demonstrated its military power last week by seizing control of parts of Beirut in a showdown with the U.S.-backed government. It was the worst internal fighting since the end of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.
A high-powered Arab League delegation mediated between Lebanese factions, to try to end street confrontations that have killed at least 54 people.
Source: AP News
Lebanese Cabinet reverses anti-Hezbollah decisions
This is from wiredispatch. This may help defuse the situation and avoid civil war. No doubt the U.S. will not be pleased by this turn of events. It is possible that the U.S. had a hand in encouraging the original decisions. Although the army is supposedly neutral they seem to manage to make deals with Hezbollah from time to time.
Lebanese Cabinet reverses anti-Hezbollah decisions
Lebanon's pro-Western Cabinet rescinds decisions against Hezbollah that triggered violence
KATARINA KRATOVACAP News
May 14, 2008 17:16 EST
The U.S.-backed Cabinet on Wednesday reversed measures against the militant Hezbollah movement that set off Lebanon's worst violence since the 1975-90 civil war.
The decision was a major victory for the Iranian-allied Hezbollah and the latest sign that the Shiite militant group appeared to have gained the upper hand in the country's political power struggle after its fighters routed supporters of the government.
Seconds after the announcement, celebratory gunfire erupted south of Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold, but there was no immediate response from the movement's leaders to the government's decision.
Clashes between government supporters and opponents broke out last week after the Cabinet challenged Hezbollah with decisions to sack the airport security chief for alleged ties to the group and to declare the militants' private telephone network illegal.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that amounted to a declaration of war and sent his armed fighters to the streets for the first time since the civil war ended, demanding the government rescind its orders.
Fierce street battles, many of them along sectarian lines, erupted and Hezbollah and its Shiite allies seized much of Muslim west Beirut by force. At least 54 people were killed.
Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said the government made a "courageous" decision to revoke the measures "in view of the higher national interest."
Aridi said the government hoped the decision would "pave the way for a new stage" in which the country would "manage to put sectarian strife behind us and concentrate on Lebanese national unity."
He said the government hoped for a settlement in the crisis with the Hezbollah-led opposition that has paralyzed Lebanon for 18 months.
The opposition quit the Cabinet in November 2007 demanding more power and a veto over all government decisions. The deadlock has prevented parliament from electing a new president, leaving the country without a head of state for six months.
A cease-fire largely halted fighting Monday and no clashes were reported Wednesday. But tensions lingered after Hezbollah's display of its military might last week.
The Bush administration said Wednesday it wants to speed up U.S. aid for Lebanon's army because of the recent fighting.
Acting chief of U.S. Central Command, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, met Wednesday with Lebanon's army commander and defense minister in a visit to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. He said the meeting "focused on the continued assistance" to the Lebanese military.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the administration plans to ask Congress to quickly approve military aid for Lebanon that was already in the works. He would not say how much the administration sought or what the money would buy. But previous military grants have gone to buy ammunition, armored vehicles and other combat gear.
Bush has said he wants to beef up the Lebanese army, but he also expressed disappointment in the military's performance during the recent violence. The army did not intervene as Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by the U.S., overran Beirut neighborhoods.
The Lebanese military feared that if it got involved in the fighting, it could split along sectarian lines as happened in the civil war.
The Cabinet's reversal came after a day of mediation by an Arab League delegation in Beirut. The delegation, with senior ministers of nine countries, met with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who is aligned with the opposition, and Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.
Arab heavyweights Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which back the Saniora government, were not represented in the delegation, nor was Syria, which supports Hezbollah. The three countries were considered too close to the opposing factions.
Lebanon's strife has touched off a wider regional standoff between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal warned Iran that its support for Hezbollah's "coup" in Beirut will damage Tehran's relations with Muslim and Arab countries. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad retorted that Iran is the only country that does not interfere in Lebanon's affairs.
Syria, which has been accused by the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Lebanon's governing coalition of obstructing parliament's election of a president, said it supported Arab efforts to resolve the crisis.
___
Associated Press writer Zeina Karam contributed to this report.
Source: AP News
Lebanese Cabinet reverses anti-Hezbollah decisions
Lebanon's pro-Western Cabinet rescinds decisions against Hezbollah that triggered violence
KATARINA KRATOVACAP News
May 14, 2008 17:16 EST
The U.S.-backed Cabinet on Wednesday reversed measures against the militant Hezbollah movement that set off Lebanon's worst violence since the 1975-90 civil war.
The decision was a major victory for the Iranian-allied Hezbollah and the latest sign that the Shiite militant group appeared to have gained the upper hand in the country's political power struggle after its fighters routed supporters of the government.
Seconds after the announcement, celebratory gunfire erupted south of Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold, but there was no immediate response from the movement's leaders to the government's decision.
Clashes between government supporters and opponents broke out last week after the Cabinet challenged Hezbollah with decisions to sack the airport security chief for alleged ties to the group and to declare the militants' private telephone network illegal.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that amounted to a declaration of war and sent his armed fighters to the streets for the first time since the civil war ended, demanding the government rescind its orders.
Fierce street battles, many of them along sectarian lines, erupted and Hezbollah and its Shiite allies seized much of Muslim west Beirut by force. At least 54 people were killed.
Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said the government made a "courageous" decision to revoke the measures "in view of the higher national interest."
Aridi said the government hoped the decision would "pave the way for a new stage" in which the country would "manage to put sectarian strife behind us and concentrate on Lebanese national unity."
He said the government hoped for a settlement in the crisis with the Hezbollah-led opposition that has paralyzed Lebanon for 18 months.
The opposition quit the Cabinet in November 2007 demanding more power and a veto over all government decisions. The deadlock has prevented parliament from electing a new president, leaving the country without a head of state for six months.
A cease-fire largely halted fighting Monday and no clashes were reported Wednesday. But tensions lingered after Hezbollah's display of its military might last week.
The Bush administration said Wednesday it wants to speed up U.S. aid for Lebanon's army because of the recent fighting.
Acting chief of U.S. Central Command, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, met Wednesday with Lebanon's army commander and defense minister in a visit to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. He said the meeting "focused on the continued assistance" to the Lebanese military.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the administration plans to ask Congress to quickly approve military aid for Lebanon that was already in the works. He would not say how much the administration sought or what the money would buy. But previous military grants have gone to buy ammunition, armored vehicles and other combat gear.
Bush has said he wants to beef up the Lebanese army, but he also expressed disappointment in the military's performance during the recent violence. The army did not intervene as Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by the U.S., overran Beirut neighborhoods.
The Lebanese military feared that if it got involved in the fighting, it could split along sectarian lines as happened in the civil war.
The Cabinet's reversal came after a day of mediation by an Arab League delegation in Beirut. The delegation, with senior ministers of nine countries, met with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who is aligned with the opposition, and Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.
Arab heavyweights Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which back the Saniora government, were not represented in the delegation, nor was Syria, which supports Hezbollah. The three countries were considered too close to the opposing factions.
Lebanon's strife has touched off a wider regional standoff between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal warned Iran that its support for Hezbollah's "coup" in Beirut will damage Tehran's relations with Muslim and Arab countries. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad retorted that Iran is the only country that does not interfere in Lebanon's affairs.
Syria, which has been accused by the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Lebanon's governing coalition of obstructing parliament's election of a president, said it supported Arab efforts to resolve the crisis.
___
Associated Press writer Zeina Karam contributed to this report.
Source: AP News
U.S. no longer dominant influence in Latin America
This is from Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) It is surprising that this body should consider that the U.S. is no longer dominant in Latin America as an influence. I imagine there are many dissenters to this view or at least those who wish to restore any lost influence. The full report can be downloaded from the website above.
Latin America has never mattered more for the United States. The region is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a strong partner in the development of alternative fuels. It is the United States’ fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both documented and not. All of this reinforces deep U.S. ties with the region—strategic, economic, and cultural—but also deep concerns.
This Task Force report makes clear that the era of the United States as the dominant influence in Latin America is over. Countries in the region have not only grown stronger but have expanded relations with others, including China and India. U.S. attention has also focused elsewhere in recent years, particularly on challenges in the Middle East. The result is a region shaping its future far more than it shaped its past.
At the same time Latin America has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing challenges. Democracy has spread, economies have opened, and populations have grown more mobile. But many countries have struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security.
The Council on Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to take stock of these changes and assess their consequences for U.S. policy toward Latin America. The Task Force finds that the long-standing focus on trade, democracy, and drugs, while still relevant, is inadequate. The Task Force recommends reframing policy around four critical areas—poverty and inequality, public security, migration, and energy security—that are of immediate concern to Latin America’s governments and citizens.
The Task Force urges that U.S. efforts to address these challenges be done in coordination with multilateral institutions, civil society organizations, governments, and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual concern, the United States and Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports regional initiatives and the countries’ own progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S. objectives of fostering stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.
Latin America has never mattered more for the United States. The region is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a strong partner in the development of alternative fuels. It is the United States’ fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both documented and not. All of this reinforces deep U.S. ties with the region—strategic, economic, and cultural—but also deep concerns.
This Task Force report makes clear that the era of the United States as the dominant influence in Latin America is over. Countries in the region have not only grown stronger but have expanded relations with others, including China and India. U.S. attention has also focused elsewhere in recent years, particularly on challenges in the Middle East. The result is a region shaping its future far more than it shaped its past.
At the same time Latin America has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing challenges. Democracy has spread, economies have opened, and populations have grown more mobile. But many countries have struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security.
The Council on Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to take stock of these changes and assess their consequences for U.S. policy toward Latin America. The Task Force finds that the long-standing focus on trade, democracy, and drugs, while still relevant, is inadequate. The Task Force recommends reframing policy around four critical areas—poverty and inequality, public security, migration, and energy security—that are of immediate concern to Latin America’s governments and citizens.
The Task Force urges that U.S. efforts to address these challenges be done in coordination with multilateral institutions, civil society organizations, governments, and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual concern, the United States and Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports regional initiatives and the countries’ own progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S. objectives of fostering stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.
First oil at Philippines' Galoc field b earliest end of May
This is from Reuters. The oil is coming on stream a bit behind schedule. Philippines depends almost entirely on imported oil so this new field may provide a little relief from total dependence on foreign oil. This development alone will boost Philippine output by 70 per cent.
REFILE-First oil at Philippines' Galoc field by earliest end-May
Mon May 12, 2008 9:57am BST
(Refiles to correct spelling of Philippines)
SINGAPORE, May 12 (Reuters) - The Philippines' newest oilfield, Galoc, will come on stream at the earliest by the end of May, more than a month behind target, equity producer Otto Energy (OEL.AX: Quote, Profile, Research) said in a release on Monday.
Australia-based Otto Energy said in a press statement the Rubicon Intrepid Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading System (FPSO) arrived at the offshore field on Sunday.
Galoc Production Co. (GPC), which operates the 17,500 bpd field, has advised a three-week hook schedule, the company added.
"It is anticipated that these activities will take approximately three weeks with the target of achieving first oil by the end of the month," GPC said in an attached release that was issued on Sunday.
The first cargo of crude is anticipated for mid to late June but was not heard marketed yet.
First oil had been expected in the third week of April, senior officials said earlier this year, already slightly behind schedule for a first-quarter launch.
The Galoc field holds deep significance, not only for the Philippines whose meagre output it will hike by some 70 percent to slightly more than 40,000 bpd, but also for Otto Energy and Nido Petroleum (NDO.AX: Quote, Profile, Research), two small independent Australian companies that have bet on underexplored Philippines.
Galoc will be Otto Energy's first oilfield to come onstream.
Otto shares settled at A$0.43 on Monday, off the record high A$0.445 also touched earlier this month.
Nido shares closed 4.21 percent down on Monday at A$0.455, off a high of A$0.50 hit earlier this month.
Both companies underperformed the wider Australian market on Monday, which rose nearly 1 percent to 3-½ month highs.
Otto Energy acquired last December a 31.38 percent stake in GPC, with European trader Vitol holding the remaining 68.62 percent.
GPC operates the Galoc field with a 58.29 percent interest.
The remaining 41.71 percent are split between Nido Petroleum with a 22.28 percent share and several Phillipine partners.
Vitol, and European trader Trafigura, will be the two main marketers of the light sweet crude. (Reporting by Maryelle Demongeot; Editing by Michael Urquhart)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. U
REFILE-First oil at Philippines' Galoc field by earliest end-May
Mon May 12, 2008 9:57am BST
(Refiles to correct spelling of Philippines)
SINGAPORE, May 12 (Reuters) - The Philippines' newest oilfield, Galoc, will come on stream at the earliest by the end of May, more than a month behind target, equity producer Otto Energy (OEL.AX: Quote, Profile, Research) said in a release on Monday.
Australia-based Otto Energy said in a press statement the Rubicon Intrepid Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading System (FPSO) arrived at the offshore field on Sunday.
Galoc Production Co. (GPC), which operates the 17,500 bpd field, has advised a three-week hook schedule, the company added.
"It is anticipated that these activities will take approximately three weeks with the target of achieving first oil by the end of the month," GPC said in an attached release that was issued on Sunday.
The first cargo of crude is anticipated for mid to late June but was not heard marketed yet.
First oil had been expected in the third week of April, senior officials said earlier this year, already slightly behind schedule for a first-quarter launch.
The Galoc field holds deep significance, not only for the Philippines whose meagre output it will hike by some 70 percent to slightly more than 40,000 bpd, but also for Otto Energy and Nido Petroleum (NDO.AX: Quote, Profile, Research), two small independent Australian companies that have bet on underexplored Philippines.
Galoc will be Otto Energy's first oilfield to come onstream.
Otto shares settled at A$0.43 on Monday, off the record high A$0.445 also touched earlier this month.
Nido shares closed 4.21 percent down on Monday at A$0.455, off a high of A$0.50 hit earlier this month.
Both companies underperformed the wider Australian market on Monday, which rose nearly 1 percent to 3-½ month highs.
Otto Energy acquired last December a 31.38 percent stake in GPC, with European trader Vitol holding the remaining 68.62 percent.
GPC operates the Galoc field with a 58.29 percent interest.
The remaining 41.71 percent are split between Nido Petroleum with a 22.28 percent share and several Phillipine partners.
Vitol, and European trader Trafigura, will be the two main marketers of the light sweet crude. (Reporting by Maryelle Demongeot; Editing by Michael Urquhart)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. U
World Bank Releases Loan to the Philippines
This is from the WallStreetJournal.
The article doesn't say the investigation didn''t find any corruption just that it was finished. Does this mean there was no corruption or that whatever there was is now officially sanctioned!?
World Bank Releases Loan to the Philippines
By Bob Davis
WASHINGTON -- The World Bank's governing board approved a $232 million loan to build roads in the Philippines, which it had opposed in October on concern about corruption allegations.
When the board blocked the loan, World Bank president Robert Zoellick hadn't been briefed on the proposal, and an investigation into alleged graft hadn't been completed. Investigators had uncovered evidence that China State Construction Engineering Co., a state-owned company, was involved in bid rigging on an earlier construction-loan program, bank officials said.
The investigation has been completed, a World Bank official said, and the board unanimously approved the loan Tuesday.
The article doesn't say the investigation didn''t find any corruption just that it was finished. Does this mean there was no corruption or that whatever there was is now officially sanctioned!?
World Bank Releases Loan to the Philippines
By Bob Davis
WASHINGTON -- The World Bank's governing board approved a $232 million loan to build roads in the Philippines, which it had opposed in October on concern about corruption allegations.
When the board blocked the loan, World Bank president Robert Zoellick hadn't been briefed on the proposal, and an investigation into alleged graft hadn't been completed. Investigators had uncovered evidence that China State Construction Engineering Co., a state-owned company, was involved in bid rigging on an earlier construction-loan program, bank officials said.
The investigation has been completed, a World Bank official said, and the board unanimously approved the loan Tuesday.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Air Force (US) aims for "Full Control" of " Any and All" computers
This is from blogwired. There doesn't seem to be any consideration at all as to whether many of these operations might be illegal and invasions of privacy. The arrogance and boastfulness behind this rhetoric is astonishing. Maybe the scheme will be blown up by some IITV (Improvised Islamic Terrorist Virus) that counterattacks against Air Force hacker computers.
Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers
By Noah Shachtman May 13, 2008 3:54:00 PMCategories: Info War
The Air Force wants a suite of hacker tools, to give it "access" to -- and "full control" of -- any kind of computer there is. And once the info warriors are in, the Air Force wants them to keep tabs on their "adversaries' information infrastructure completely undetected."
The government is growing increasingly interested in waging war online. The Air Force recently put together a "Cyberspace Command," with a charter to rule networks the way its fighter jets rule the skies. The Department of Homeland Security, Darpa, and other agencies are teaming up for a five-year, $30 billion "national cybersecurity initiative." That includes an electronic test range, where federally-funded hackers can test out the latest electronic attacks. "You used to need an army to wage a war," a recent Air Force commercial notes. "Now, all you need is an Internet connection."
On Monday, the Air Force Research Laboratory introduced a two-year, $11 million effort to put together hardware and software tools for "Dominant Cyber Offensive Engagement." "Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access," a request for proposals notes, "to both fixed (PC) or mobile computing platforms... any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware." This isn't just some computer science study, mind you; "research efforts under this program are expected to result in complete functional capabilities."
Unlike an Air Force colonel's proposal, to knock down enemy websites with military botnets, the Research Lab is encouraging a sneaky, "low and slow" approach. The preferred attack consists of lying quiet, and then "stealthily exfiltrat[ing] information" from adversaries' networks.
But, in the end, the Air Force wants to see all kinds of "techniques and technologies" to "Deceive, Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, [or] Destroy" hostile systems. And "in addition to these main concepts," the Research Lab would like to see studies into "Proactive Botnet Defense Technology Development," the "reinvent[ion of] the network protocol stack" and new antennas, based on carbon nanotubes.
raditionally, the military has been extremely reluctant to talk much about offensive operations online. Instead, the focus has normally been on protecting against electronic attacks. But in the last year or so, the tone has changed -- and become more bellicose. “Cyber, as a warfighting domain . . . like air, favors the offense,” said Lani Kass, a special assistant to the Air Force Chief of Staff who previously headed up the service's Cyberspace Task Force. "If you’re defending in cyber, you’re already too late."
"We want to go in and knock them out in the first round," added Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force, which focuses on network issues.
"An adversary needs to know that the U.S. possesses powerful hard and soft-kill (cyberwarfare) means for attacking adversary information and command and support systems at all levels," a recent Defense Department report notes. "Every potential adversary, from nation states to rogue individuals... should be compelled to consider... an attack on U.S. systems resulting in highly undesireable consequences to their own security."
Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers
By Noah Shachtman May 13, 2008 3:54:00 PMCategories: Info War
The Air Force wants a suite of hacker tools, to give it "access" to -- and "full control" of -- any kind of computer there is. And once the info warriors are in, the Air Force wants them to keep tabs on their "adversaries' information infrastructure completely undetected."
The government is growing increasingly interested in waging war online. The Air Force recently put together a "Cyberspace Command," with a charter to rule networks the way its fighter jets rule the skies. The Department of Homeland Security, Darpa, and other agencies are teaming up for a five-year, $30 billion "national cybersecurity initiative." That includes an electronic test range, where federally-funded hackers can test out the latest electronic attacks. "You used to need an army to wage a war," a recent Air Force commercial notes. "Now, all you need is an Internet connection."
On Monday, the Air Force Research Laboratory introduced a two-year, $11 million effort to put together hardware and software tools for "Dominant Cyber Offensive Engagement." "Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access," a request for proposals notes, "to both fixed (PC) or mobile computing platforms... any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware." This isn't just some computer science study, mind you; "research efforts under this program are expected to result in complete functional capabilities."
Unlike an Air Force colonel's proposal, to knock down enemy websites with military botnets, the Research Lab is encouraging a sneaky, "low and slow" approach. The preferred attack consists of lying quiet, and then "stealthily exfiltrat[ing] information" from adversaries' networks.
But, in the end, the Air Force wants to see all kinds of "techniques and technologies" to "Deceive, Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, [or] Destroy" hostile systems. And "in addition to these main concepts," the Research Lab would like to see studies into "Proactive Botnet Defense Technology Development," the "reinvent[ion of] the network protocol stack" and new antennas, based on carbon nanotubes.
raditionally, the military has been extremely reluctant to talk much about offensive operations online. Instead, the focus has normally been on protecting against electronic attacks. But in the last year or so, the tone has changed -- and become more bellicose. “Cyber, as a warfighting domain . . . like air, favors the offense,” said Lani Kass, a special assistant to the Air Force Chief of Staff who previously headed up the service's Cyberspace Task Force. "If you’re defending in cyber, you’re already too late."
"We want to go in and knock them out in the first round," added Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force, which focuses on network issues.
"An adversary needs to know that the U.S. possesses powerful hard and soft-kill (cyberwarfare) means for attacking adversary information and command and support systems at all levels," a recent Defense Department report notes. "Every potential adversary, from nation states to rogue individuals... should be compelled to consider... an attack on U.S. systems resulting in highly undesireable consequences to their own security."
Italy PM called in rendition case.
This is from the BBC.
This case has dropped off the media radar for a while. No doubt Berlusconi will be quizzed concerning what he did or did not know about the affair. Of course the US has refused to co-operate. Some sections of the Italian intelligence services were outraged at the kidnapping since they were engaged in an ongoing operation of spying on the target. Their whole operation was ruined.
Italy PM called in rendition case
Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi will be called as a witness in a trial over the alleged CIA kidnap of a terror suspect.
Twenty-six Americans and six Italians are accused of kidnapping a Muslim cleric from Italy and sending him to Egypt, where he claims he was tortured.
A judge in Milan ruled that Mr Berlusconi, who faces no charges in the trial, could be called to testify.
Former spy chief Nicolo Pollari says testimony from ex-heads of government may prove he was against the practice.
Mr Berlusconi is considered a key witness as he was prime minister when prosecutors allege that Egyptian cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr was snatched from a street in Milan, in February 2003.
Torture claims
Italian prosecutors say he was taken as part of a series of extraordinary renditions carried out by the CIA - when terror suspects were moved between countries without any public legal process.
Judge Oscar Magi ruled that former Prime Minister Romano Prodi can also be called as a witness during the trial.
The US agents and military personnel will be tried in absentia.
Italian prosecutors say Mr Nasr was taken to US bases in Italy and Germany before being taken to the Egyptian capital of Cairo.
Mr Nasr says he was tortured during his four-year imprisonment in Cairo.
At the time of his arrest he was suspected of recruiting fighters for Islamic groups but had not been charged.
He was released by Egypt in February 2007.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7400120.stmPublished: 2008/05/14 10:19:03 GMT© BBC MMVIII
This case has dropped off the media radar for a while. No doubt Berlusconi will be quizzed concerning what he did or did not know about the affair. Of course the US has refused to co-operate. Some sections of the Italian intelligence services were outraged at the kidnapping since they were engaged in an ongoing operation of spying on the target. Their whole operation was ruined.
Italy PM called in rendition case
Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi will be called as a witness in a trial over the alleged CIA kidnap of a terror suspect.
Twenty-six Americans and six Italians are accused of kidnapping a Muslim cleric from Italy and sending him to Egypt, where he claims he was tortured.
A judge in Milan ruled that Mr Berlusconi, who faces no charges in the trial, could be called to testify.
Former spy chief Nicolo Pollari says testimony from ex-heads of government may prove he was against the practice.
Mr Berlusconi is considered a key witness as he was prime minister when prosecutors allege that Egyptian cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr was snatched from a street in Milan, in February 2003.
Torture claims
Italian prosecutors say he was taken as part of a series of extraordinary renditions carried out by the CIA - when terror suspects were moved between countries without any public legal process.
Judge Oscar Magi ruled that former Prime Minister Romano Prodi can also be called as a witness during the trial.
The US agents and military personnel will be tried in absentia.
Italian prosecutors say Mr Nasr was taken to US bases in Italy and Germany before being taken to the Egyptian capital of Cairo.
Mr Nasr says he was tortured during his four-year imprisonment in Cairo.
At the time of his arrest he was suspected of recruiting fighters for Islamic groups but had not been charged.
He was released by Egypt in February 2007.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7400120.stmPublished: 2008/05/14 10:19:03 GMT© BBC MMVIII
U.S rice futures tumble on increased supply outlook
This is from Reuters.
This may be good news for all those countries facing rice shortages and skyrocketing prices.
U.S. rice futures tumble on increased supply outlook
Tue May 13, 2008 7:14pm EDT
SEOUL (Reuters) - U.S. rice futures fell more than 3 percent in early Asian trading on Wednesday, extending an overnight fall on an expected rise in global rice output this year.
At the Chicago Board of Trade, U.S. rough rice futures for July delivery RRN8 fell 3.4 percent, or 75 cents, to $21.49 per hundredweight. September contract RRU8 also fell 3.8 percent, or 74 cents, to $18.85.
(Reporting by Miyoung Kim; editing by Jonathan Hopfner)
© 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.
This may be good news for all those countries facing rice shortages and skyrocketing prices.
U.S. rice futures tumble on increased supply outlook
Tue May 13, 2008 7:14pm EDT
SEOUL (Reuters) - U.S. rice futures fell more than 3 percent in early Asian trading on Wednesday, extending an overnight fall on an expected rise in global rice output this year.
At the Chicago Board of Trade, U.S. rough rice futures for July delivery RRN8 fell 3.4 percent, or 75 cents, to $21.49 per hundredweight. September contract RRU8 also fell 3.8 percent, or 74 cents, to $18.85.
(Reporting by Miyoung Kim; editing by Jonathan Hopfner)
© 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.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
MILF welcomes Libyans as Peace Monitors.
This is from adrikronos.
Somewhat surprising that new ceasefire monitors should come from half way around the world! The monitors will no doubt be Muslim so that may make them acceptable to MILF. I imagine that the Philippine government will also be happy to find a replacement for the Malaysians who are leaving.
Philippines: Rebels welcome Libya's offer to head peace monitoring mission
Cotabato City, 12 May (AKI) – The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Philippines' largest Islamic separatist group, welcomed Libya's offer to replace Malaysia and lead the international peace monitoring mission in war-torn Mindanao.The Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, through its special envoy Salem Adam, said Libya is ready to take over Malaysia's role, as the Southeast Asian country has already started to withdraw its representatives from the Philippines. Ghazali Jaafar, the vice chairman for political affairs of the MILF, said on Monday that a decision will be taken after discussing the offer with Manila but it praised Libya's initiative. Malaysia has been the leader of the International Monitoring Team (IMT) since it was first deployed in Mindanao in 2004. The IMT is tasked with ensuring the ceasefire holds and fostering a better environment for the peace negotiations between the government and the MILF. The body has been credited with cutting skirmishes between troops and Muslim rebels from 700 in 2002 to fewer than a dozen last year.The unarmed monitors team included 41 troops from Malaysia, 10 from Brunei, two Libyan diplomats and a Japanese development worker. Half of the Malaysian representatives have already left and the rest are expected to leave by September. The IMT has offices in the cities of Cotabato, Davao, General Santos Iligan and Zamboanga, which also monitors the situation on Basilan Island.The Malaysian pull-out followed Kuala Lumpur’s frustration with the pace of the peace talks and raised tensions in Mindanao with the MILF and the government blaming each other. Talks between the government and MILF have been going on for more than 10 years.Peace talks stalled in December as the two sides attempted to hammer out an agreement on the boundaries of a new autonomous region.The Philippines government argues that under the Constitution, a referendum must be held to create the new autonomous region - a move strongly opposed by the MILF.
Somewhat surprising that new ceasefire monitors should come from half way around the world! The monitors will no doubt be Muslim so that may make them acceptable to MILF. I imagine that the Philippine government will also be happy to find a replacement for the Malaysians who are leaving.
Philippines: Rebels welcome Libya's offer to head peace monitoring mission
Cotabato City, 12 May (AKI) – The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Philippines' largest Islamic separatist group, welcomed Libya's offer to replace Malaysia and lead the international peace monitoring mission in war-torn Mindanao.The Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, through its special envoy Salem Adam, said Libya is ready to take over Malaysia's role, as the Southeast Asian country has already started to withdraw its representatives from the Philippines. Ghazali Jaafar, the vice chairman for political affairs of the MILF, said on Monday that a decision will be taken after discussing the offer with Manila but it praised Libya's initiative. Malaysia has been the leader of the International Monitoring Team (IMT) since it was first deployed in Mindanao in 2004. The IMT is tasked with ensuring the ceasefire holds and fostering a better environment for the peace negotiations between the government and the MILF. The body has been credited with cutting skirmishes between troops and Muslim rebels from 700 in 2002 to fewer than a dozen last year.The unarmed monitors team included 41 troops from Malaysia, 10 from Brunei, two Libyan diplomats and a Japanese development worker. Half of the Malaysian representatives have already left and the rest are expected to leave by September. The IMT has offices in the cities of Cotabato, Davao, General Santos Iligan and Zamboanga, which also monitors the situation on Basilan Island.The Malaysian pull-out followed Kuala Lumpur’s frustration with the pace of the peace talks and raised tensions in Mindanao with the MILF and the government blaming each other. Talks between the government and MILF have been going on for more than 10 years.Peace talks stalled in December as the two sides attempted to hammer out an agreement on the boundaries of a new autonomous region.The Philippines government argues that under the Constitution, a referendum must be held to create the new autonomous region - a move strongly opposed by the MILF.
Pakistan coalition breaks up over deposed judges issue.
This is from the Washington Post.
It seems that Zardari is not that anxious to restore the ousted judges and demote those promoted by Musharraf. Of course Zardari might come under legal scrutiny again if Chaudry were restored as chief justice. Who knows maybe there will be a deal with Musharraf and the PPP after all! Sharif has been a consistent supporter of the ousted justices.
Pakistani Party Quits Cabinet Over JusticesSharif Pulls Out After Talks Break Down
By Pamela ConstableWashington Post Foreign ServiceTuesday, May 13, 2008; A10
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 12 -- Pakistan's fragile governing coalition cracked open Monday as one of its major parties withdrew from the cabinet, less than three months after elections that had united rival factions opposed to President Pervez Musharraf.
Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, announced that his party would leave all federal posts after talks broke down with the Pakistan People's Party over how to restore the country's former chief justice and 60 other judges who had been fired in November by Musharraf, Pakistan's military ruler at the time.
Sharif, a former prime minister, said his party would remain in Parliament and had no desire to damage the government or the country. Looking grim and exhausted after days of negotiations, he told journalists that his decision was a "bitter pill, but we had to do it . . . we do not want to destabilize the democratic process."
The split was seen by analysts as a significant blow to Pakistan's progress toward mature democratic rule and a deep disappointment to the public, which ousted Musharraf's party at the polls in February and had demanded the restoration of the judges during months of unprecedented civic protests.
Analysts also said the judicial dispute -- and by extension, the question of Musharraf's future -- would now likely drag on, distracting the new government from addressing more important national problems, especially battling radical Islamist fighters and rebuilding the badly ailing economy.
"This is a huge setback for the government," said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani security analyst based in Washington. He noted that Sharif's pullout may give Musharraf a chance to reassert his political strength. "This crisis will distract attention from critical issues, and the real losers will be the people of Pakistan," he said.
For the past month, Pakistanis watched with sinking hopes while Sharif and his archrival, Pakistan People's Party leader Asif Ali Zardari, held three rounds of negotiations over the judicial dispute.
Sharif set Monday as a final deadline for Zardari to agree on a plan to restore the dismissed judges and bring the matter to Parliament. But Zardari, who took his post after the December assassination of his wife, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, has been more ambivalent about the judges. He has said that the courts had failed to help him when he spent a decade in jail on unproven corruption charges.
A final round of talks between the two in London broke off with no agreement over the weekend, even after the top U.S. regional diplomat met there separately with both men and privately urged them to reconcile. Sharif, who was overthrown by Musharraf in 1999, insisted on a plan to bring back the ousted judges and demote those who took the oath of office under Musharraf's rule; Zardari, who benefited politically and legally from Musharraf's court purge, insisted that the president's appointed judges keep their full powers.
Public opinion here has tended to blame Zardari for being intransigent. Sharif, despite the potential damage from his cabinet pullout, is widely seen as having taken the moral high ground on an issue that drew an unprecedented public outcry here last year and quickly became a first major test for Pakistan's new government.
"This is a defining moment for Pakistan," said Ehsan Iqbal, a top aide to Sharif and one of nine cabinet members from the Muslim League who will leave his post Tuesday. "Without the rule of law, without an independent judiciary, the country cannot move ahead democratically or constitutionally."
In Washington, the State Department said the makeup of the Pakistani government would not affect bilateral cooperation. "How they arrange themselves politically, the platform of the government, those are going to be decisions for the Pakistani government to make," spokesman Sean McCormack said.
But diplomatic sources here said there was frustration among Pakistan's Western allies that the civilian leadership had failed to resolve the judicial issue at a time of pressing national problems.
Leaders of the People's Party took pains to say they would continue to work with others to prevent any systemic breakdown. Sherry Rehman, federal information minister, said Monday that there was no danger of a government collapse and that her party would not retaliate against Sharif by walking out of the politically powerful Punjab provincial government.
"Our aim is to soften the fallout from all this," Rehman said in an interview. "We regret that they are leaving the coalition, but we will continue our working relationship. We can't afford a constitutional crisis."
The rift between Zardari and Sharif leaves unresolved a second, more significant power struggle between Musharraf and the former chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. Chaudhry, an iconoclastic figure, challenged Musharraf in a society where judges have traditionally deferred to the military. Musharraf tried to fire him twice and declared a state of emergency last November while the high court was preparing to rule on the legality of his presidency.
Although Musharraf doffed his uniform in December and had been seen as wielding less power in recent months, Monday's political breakdown could give him more room to reassert himself as a power broker, analysts said. As a civilian president, he has the authority to dissolve Parliament and appoint military commanders.
Ultimately, the greatest threat to Pakistan's political evolution is the possibility of military intervention. So far, the new army chief has shown no interest in politics. But if renewed protests should erupt over the judicial dispute, food and fuel prices should continue to rise, or civilian authorities should fail to address the rising threat of violent extremism, some fear the army could be tempted to take over, as it has done before.
"At the end of the day, what's at stake here is the civil-military balance," said Babar Sattar, a lawyer and columnist who has written extensively about the judicial issue. "Does the army have an intervention streak, or does it step in because nothing else works? This infighting between politicians, so soon after eight years of military dictatorship, is a very big mistake."
Staff writer Robin Wright in Washington contributed to this report.
It seems that Zardari is not that anxious to restore the ousted judges and demote those promoted by Musharraf. Of course Zardari might come under legal scrutiny again if Chaudry were restored as chief justice. Who knows maybe there will be a deal with Musharraf and the PPP after all! Sharif has been a consistent supporter of the ousted justices.
Pakistani Party Quits Cabinet Over JusticesSharif Pulls Out After Talks Break Down
By Pamela ConstableWashington Post Foreign ServiceTuesday, May 13, 2008; A10
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 12 -- Pakistan's fragile governing coalition cracked open Monday as one of its major parties withdrew from the cabinet, less than three months after elections that had united rival factions opposed to President Pervez Musharraf.
Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, announced that his party would leave all federal posts after talks broke down with the Pakistan People's Party over how to restore the country's former chief justice and 60 other judges who had been fired in November by Musharraf, Pakistan's military ruler at the time.
Sharif, a former prime minister, said his party would remain in Parliament and had no desire to damage the government or the country. Looking grim and exhausted after days of negotiations, he told journalists that his decision was a "bitter pill, but we had to do it . . . we do not want to destabilize the democratic process."
The split was seen by analysts as a significant blow to Pakistan's progress toward mature democratic rule and a deep disappointment to the public, which ousted Musharraf's party at the polls in February and had demanded the restoration of the judges during months of unprecedented civic protests.
Analysts also said the judicial dispute -- and by extension, the question of Musharraf's future -- would now likely drag on, distracting the new government from addressing more important national problems, especially battling radical Islamist fighters and rebuilding the badly ailing economy.
"This is a huge setback for the government," said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani security analyst based in Washington. He noted that Sharif's pullout may give Musharraf a chance to reassert his political strength. "This crisis will distract attention from critical issues, and the real losers will be the people of Pakistan," he said.
For the past month, Pakistanis watched with sinking hopes while Sharif and his archrival, Pakistan People's Party leader Asif Ali Zardari, held three rounds of negotiations over the judicial dispute.
Sharif set Monday as a final deadline for Zardari to agree on a plan to restore the dismissed judges and bring the matter to Parliament. But Zardari, who took his post after the December assassination of his wife, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, has been more ambivalent about the judges. He has said that the courts had failed to help him when he spent a decade in jail on unproven corruption charges.
A final round of talks between the two in London broke off with no agreement over the weekend, even after the top U.S. regional diplomat met there separately with both men and privately urged them to reconcile. Sharif, who was overthrown by Musharraf in 1999, insisted on a plan to bring back the ousted judges and demote those who took the oath of office under Musharraf's rule; Zardari, who benefited politically and legally from Musharraf's court purge, insisted that the president's appointed judges keep their full powers.
Public opinion here has tended to blame Zardari for being intransigent. Sharif, despite the potential damage from his cabinet pullout, is widely seen as having taken the moral high ground on an issue that drew an unprecedented public outcry here last year and quickly became a first major test for Pakistan's new government.
"This is a defining moment for Pakistan," said Ehsan Iqbal, a top aide to Sharif and one of nine cabinet members from the Muslim League who will leave his post Tuesday. "Without the rule of law, without an independent judiciary, the country cannot move ahead democratically or constitutionally."
In Washington, the State Department said the makeup of the Pakistani government would not affect bilateral cooperation. "How they arrange themselves politically, the platform of the government, those are going to be decisions for the Pakistani government to make," spokesman Sean McCormack said.
But diplomatic sources here said there was frustration among Pakistan's Western allies that the civilian leadership had failed to resolve the judicial issue at a time of pressing national problems.
Leaders of the People's Party took pains to say they would continue to work with others to prevent any systemic breakdown. Sherry Rehman, federal information minister, said Monday that there was no danger of a government collapse and that her party would not retaliate against Sharif by walking out of the politically powerful Punjab provincial government.
"Our aim is to soften the fallout from all this," Rehman said in an interview. "We regret that they are leaving the coalition, but we will continue our working relationship. We can't afford a constitutional crisis."
The rift between Zardari and Sharif leaves unresolved a second, more significant power struggle between Musharraf and the former chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. Chaudhry, an iconoclastic figure, challenged Musharraf in a society where judges have traditionally deferred to the military. Musharraf tried to fire him twice and declared a state of emergency last November while the high court was preparing to rule on the legality of his presidency.
Although Musharraf doffed his uniform in December and had been seen as wielding less power in recent months, Monday's political breakdown could give him more room to reassert himself as a power broker, analysts said. As a civilian president, he has the authority to dissolve Parliament and appoint military commanders.
Ultimately, the greatest threat to Pakistan's political evolution is the possibility of military intervention. So far, the new army chief has shown no interest in politics. But if renewed protests should erupt over the judicial dispute, food and fuel prices should continue to rise, or civilian authorities should fail to address the rising threat of violent extremism, some fear the army could be tempted to take over, as it has done before.
"At the end of the day, what's at stake here is the civil-military balance," said Babar Sattar, a lawyer and columnist who has written extensively about the judicial issue. "Does the army have an intervention streak, or does it step in because nothing else works? This infighting between politicians, so soon after eight years of military dictatorship, is a very big mistake."
Staff writer Robin Wright in Washington contributed to this report.
Philippines paralyzed by transport strike.
This is from Radio Australia. The privately run jeepneys are the standard bus service in many urban centres. Their rates are controlled and when gas prices go up their slim profit margins dip even further and some type of drastic action is required so that rates can go up. Of course politicians like to be seen as saving the citizens from high fares so there is often resistance to fare increases. The result is work stoppages such as this and also jeepneys that should not be on the road because the tires are worn as well as everything else.
Philippines paralysed by transport strike
A transport strike by operators of Philippine jeepneys over fuel prices left urban centres across the Philippines paralysed on Monday, forcing thousands to hitch rides or walk home from offices.While police say the strike did not affect the capital Manila, observers say it crippled key cities in the Bicol region on the main island of Luzon, on central Negros and Panay islands and on the southern island of Mindanao.Reuters reports that the strike was called by a left-wing group of transport workers, who are demanding an end to sales taxes on petrol.Police made no arrests, declaring the strike was "generally peaceful".
Philippines paralysed by transport strike
A transport strike by operators of Philippine jeepneys over fuel prices left urban centres across the Philippines paralysed on Monday, forcing thousands to hitch rides or walk home from offices.While police say the strike did not affect the capital Manila, observers say it crippled key cities in the Bicol region on the main island of Luzon, on central Negros and Panay islands and on the southern island of Mindanao.Reuters reports that the strike was called by a left-wing group of transport workers, who are demanding an end to sales taxes on petrol.Police made no arrests, declaring the strike was "generally peaceful".
Monday, May 12, 2008
Al Qaeda urges fight against Hezbollah in Lebanon
This is from presstv.ir
So Al Qaeda will fight against Hezbollah. Maybe the US will take Al-Qaeda off the terrorist list and provide it with arms for the fight or will Israel do it first!!
Al-Qaeda has reportedly called on its operatives to go to Lebanon and defend what it called the Sunni community of the country. The report came while some Arab media outlets described the current clashes in Lebanon as a fight between Sunni and Shia communities. In an interviews with Sunni clerics with links to Saad Hariri's pro-government bloc, Al-Arabiya TV network described the ongoing clashes as a sectarian strife. Sheikh Ali al-Jozo, Mufti of the Jebel region, who is well known for his harsh stance against Hezbollah told the TV network that the clashes are a battle between Lebanon's Shia and Sunni communities and called on Arab leaders to prevent "Iran's influence in the country." The TV network reported that al-Qaeda on all of its websites urged its operatives to defend the Sunni community of Lebanon. The reports came while in interviews with NBN and al-Manar TV stations on Thursday, a number of Sunni clerics said that the clashes are not a sectarian strife and many Sunni Muslims in Lebanon support Hezbollah. RE/RE
So Al Qaeda will fight against Hezbollah. Maybe the US will take Al-Qaeda off the terrorist list and provide it with arms for the fight or will Israel do it first!!
Al-Qaeda has reportedly called on its operatives to go to Lebanon and defend what it called the Sunni community of the country. The report came while some Arab media outlets described the current clashes in Lebanon as a fight between Sunni and Shia communities. In an interviews with Sunni clerics with links to Saad Hariri's pro-government bloc, Al-Arabiya TV network described the ongoing clashes as a sectarian strife. Sheikh Ali al-Jozo, Mufti of the Jebel region, who is well known for his harsh stance against Hezbollah told the TV network that the clashes are a battle between Lebanon's Shia and Sunni communities and called on Arab leaders to prevent "Iran's influence in the country." The TV network reported that al-Qaeda on all of its websites urged its operatives to defend the Sunni community of Lebanon. The reports came while in interviews with NBN and al-Manar TV stations on Thursday, a number of Sunni clerics said that the clashes are not a sectarian strife and many Sunni Muslims in Lebanon support Hezbollah. RE/RE
US air strike on Sadr City ahead of ceasefire..
Perhaps the U.S. does not like the ceasefire or it is just trying to show who is boss. In any event this is no way to win hearts and minds. It seems that the U.S. has given up on that.
From Monsters and Critics.com
Middle East NewsUS air strike on Baghdad's Shiite area ahead of ceasefire (Extra)By DPAMay 11, 2008, 8:13 GMT
Baghdad - The stronghold of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia in Baghdad's Sadr City has been bombed overnight by US aircraft hours before a deal to end the fighting in the area comes into effect, witnesses said Sunday.
'US aircraft has bombed Sadr City Saturday night and in the early hours on Sunday,' witnesses told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
The Iraqi government has agreed to a ceasefire with the Shiite militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to end the fighting in their stronghold.
Under the 14-point agreement, the militiamen are to lay down their arms, end public displays of arms and remove snipers and bombs from roads.
The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabagh, said security forces were empowered under the deal to search any place where they suspect heavy and medium weapons are hidden.
Iraqi and US troops have been trying to subdue militiamen in Shiite-dominated neighbourhoods of Baghdad since the end of March. At least 6,000 people have fled the fighting and nearly 1,000 people are believed to have been killed, many of them civilians.
© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com. This notice cannot be removed without permission.
From Monsters and Critics.com
Middle East NewsUS air strike on Baghdad's Shiite area ahead of ceasefire (Extra)By DPAMay 11, 2008, 8:13 GMT
Baghdad - The stronghold of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia in Baghdad's Sadr City has been bombed overnight by US aircraft hours before a deal to end the fighting in the area comes into effect, witnesses said Sunday.
'US aircraft has bombed Sadr City Saturday night and in the early hours on Sunday,' witnesses told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
The Iraqi government has agreed to a ceasefire with the Shiite militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to end the fighting in their stronghold.
Under the 14-point agreement, the militiamen are to lay down their arms, end public displays of arms and remove snipers and bombs from roads.
The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabagh, said security forces were empowered under the deal to search any place where they suspect heavy and medium weapons are hidden.
Iraqi and US troops have been trying to subdue militiamen in Shiite-dominated neighbourhoods of Baghdad since the end of March. At least 6,000 people have fled the fighting and nearly 1,000 people are believed to have been killed, many of them civilians.
© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com. This notice cannot be removed without permission.
Serbs fear more party wrangling...
This is rather a surprise result differing somewhat from the polls that gave the nationalists more of a lead. However, the pro-western alliance will still have to form some sort of coalition government. This may not be an easy task and the group may have to change their policies somewhat to achieve a majority.
Serbs fear more party wrangling
By Helen Fawkes BBC News, Belgrade
For many voters, this is a pivotal moment for Serbia.
This country appears to be a step closer to the EU.
''I feel more European as a result of the election,'' says Andrej Nosov, leader of the Youth Initiative for Human Rights in Serbia.
''There is hope that we are going to move forward towards better lives and not back to the isolation that we faced in the 1990s. It's a good feeling.''
The newspapers in Serbia seem to agree.
''Historic victory for European Serbia'' and ''Serbia for Europe'' are just some of the headlines.
In one of the shops on the main square in Belgrade, you can even buy white handbags with the words, ''Hey, what is Europe without Serbia?''
Revival hopes
The parliamentary election was viewed as a referendum on this former Yugoslav republic and whether it should continue on its path towards membership of the EU.
Supporters of the president's pro-Western alliance say they feel that they have done their European duty and delivered a strong mandate.
For them this was not just a political choice, it was a vote for a European future, with the promise of better jobs, more international investment and easier foreign travel.
The ballot was sparked by the thorny issue of Kosovo.
Three months ago the Serbian province declared independence.
There was considerable anger that Kosovo was then recognised as an independent country by most EU states.
The political shockwaves brought down the government in Belgrade.
It was a bitter campaign for Sunday's snap election and it polarised the country.
''What is most worrying is that there has been tough rhetoric and dangerous warnings from the politicians. There is now a sharp division of Serbia, which may lead to politically and socially risky situations,'' says a prominent political commentator, Bratislav Grubacic.
Blow to nationalists
Perhaps the biggest surprise of the ballot was the outcome for the hardline nationalists, the Radical Party.
The party of Milosevic has emerged as a real player Andrej Nosov Leader of Youth Initiative for Human Rights in Serbia
Going into the election, the party, which advocates halting European integration and looking more towards Russia for co-operation, led the opinion polls. But it did much worse than expected.
''This is sad for us and bad for our democratic country. The voters have fallen for empty promises that just can't be delivered,'' says Ivan Sasic, a Radical Party voter.
However the pro-Western alliance of President Tadic did not win enough seats for a majority, so a coalition will have to be formed.
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) seems an obvious choice as a coalition partner, but it may not be enough.
The Socialist Party of the late Slobodan Milosevic, which is expected to get around 20 seats, could prove to be the kingmaker.
''The party of Milosevic has emerged as a real player, and it's still possible that the nationalists could establish a majority. These are not positive developments for our democracy,'' says Mr Nosov.
The Radicals are confident that they will be able to return to power. They were last in government with Milosevic.
Difficult and lengthy negotiations lie ahead.
It will be hard for either side to come up with a convincing majority, so the next coalition government is likely to be unstable.
Following the parliamentary election last year, it took months before Serbia had a new government.
''We need the coalition to be agreed quickly. It really needs to happen this week for the sake of the people and country. I am worried that if it takes too long, we may face more elections," said Mr Sasic.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7396794.stmPublished: 2008/05/12 15:47:58 GMT© BBC MMVIII
Serbs fear more party wrangling
By Helen Fawkes BBC News, Belgrade
For many voters, this is a pivotal moment for Serbia.
This country appears to be a step closer to the EU.
''I feel more European as a result of the election,'' says Andrej Nosov, leader of the Youth Initiative for Human Rights in Serbia.
''There is hope that we are going to move forward towards better lives and not back to the isolation that we faced in the 1990s. It's a good feeling.''
The newspapers in Serbia seem to agree.
''Historic victory for European Serbia'' and ''Serbia for Europe'' are just some of the headlines.
In one of the shops on the main square in Belgrade, you can even buy white handbags with the words, ''Hey, what is Europe without Serbia?''
Revival hopes
The parliamentary election was viewed as a referendum on this former Yugoslav republic and whether it should continue on its path towards membership of the EU.
Supporters of the president's pro-Western alliance say they feel that they have done their European duty and delivered a strong mandate.
For them this was not just a political choice, it was a vote for a European future, with the promise of better jobs, more international investment and easier foreign travel.
The ballot was sparked by the thorny issue of Kosovo.
Three months ago the Serbian province declared independence.
There was considerable anger that Kosovo was then recognised as an independent country by most EU states.
The political shockwaves brought down the government in Belgrade.
It was a bitter campaign for Sunday's snap election and it polarised the country.
''What is most worrying is that there has been tough rhetoric and dangerous warnings from the politicians. There is now a sharp division of Serbia, which may lead to politically and socially risky situations,'' says a prominent political commentator, Bratislav Grubacic.
Blow to nationalists
Perhaps the biggest surprise of the ballot was the outcome for the hardline nationalists, the Radical Party.
The party of Milosevic has emerged as a real player Andrej Nosov Leader of Youth Initiative for Human Rights in Serbia
Going into the election, the party, which advocates halting European integration and looking more towards Russia for co-operation, led the opinion polls. But it did much worse than expected.
''This is sad for us and bad for our democratic country. The voters have fallen for empty promises that just can't be delivered,'' says Ivan Sasic, a Radical Party voter.
However the pro-Western alliance of President Tadic did not win enough seats for a majority, so a coalition will have to be formed.
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) seems an obvious choice as a coalition partner, but it may not be enough.
The Socialist Party of the late Slobodan Milosevic, which is expected to get around 20 seats, could prove to be the kingmaker.
''The party of Milosevic has emerged as a real player, and it's still possible that the nationalists could establish a majority. These are not positive developments for our democracy,'' says Mr Nosov.
The Radicals are confident that they will be able to return to power. They were last in government with Milosevic.
Difficult and lengthy negotiations lie ahead.
It will be hard for either side to come up with a convincing majority, so the next coalition government is likely to be unstable.
Following the parliamentary election last year, it took months before Serbia had a new government.
''We need the coalition to be agreed quickly. It really needs to happen this week for the sake of the people and country. I am worried that if it takes too long, we may face more elections," said Mr Sasic.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7396794.stmPublished: 2008/05/12 15:47:58 GMT© BBC MMVIII
Sadrists and Iraq government reach truce deal..
This is from the NY Times.
What you have here is Iran supporting Maliki. The Americans have lost the Iraq war long ago once some sort of majority government was allowed. Sadr is a nationalist rather than a friend of Iran. Iran supported him only to hedge their bets and pester the Americans. For his part Maliki will have to stop his U.S. supported drive against the Sadrists in Sadr city. Maliki seems to have regained control in Basra but I have not seen much on the situation there recently. The U.S. keeps complaining about Iran while Iran has good relations with Maliki and no doubt helps supply the Badr brigades who at the moment are not attacking the U.S. Why should they when the U.S. supports the Maliki government!
May 11, 2008
Sadrists and Iraqi Government Reach Truce Deal
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi government and leaders of the movement of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr agreed Saturday to a truce, brokered with help from Iran, that would end more than a month of bloody fighting in the vast, crowded Sadr City section of Baghdad.
The fighting there, which has claimed several hundred lives, left many more wounded and forced residents to flee, has tested the ability of Iraq’s Shiite-led government to confront powerful Shiite militias, here in Baghdad and in Basra, to the south.
The deal would allow the sides to pull back from what was becoming a messy and unpopular showdown in the months leading up to crucial provincial elections. It is not clear who won, how long it would take for the truce to take effect or how long it would hold. But at least for now it would end the warfare among Shiite factions.
The Iranians helped end the standoff by throwing their weight behind the government after a delegation of Shiite members of Parliament visited Iran earlier this month, according to three people involved in negotiating the truce.
Under the terms of the agreement, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government would gain control over Sadr City, now a largely lawless area, and in turn give members of Mr. Sadr’s militia who were not actively involved in the fighting a guarantee that they would not be arrested.
The decision to negotiate a cease-fire came as both parties appeared to realize that they were losing ground. Civilians in Sadr City blame both sides for their suffering.
The Iraqi government has done little to ease the crisis and allow medical and other aid to reach people. There has been almost no effort to repair the shattered neighborhood, where burned-out cars and piles of bricks from bomb-damaged houses are common sights..
For the Shiite militias, losses have been rising as well. They are suffering more casualties and are also being blamed for the deaths of some civilians, who frequently bear the brunt of the gun battles. More than 30 people have been killed there since Thursday.
Furthermore, the political establishment appears to have turned against them, at least for now.
“The ground has changed for them,” said Jalaluddin al-Sagheer, a member of Parliament from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a rival party to the Sadrists. “They are suffering a lot of losses and defeats, and they are politically isolated.”
Conversely, he added, “there is national, political unity” coalescing behind the government.
The visit to Iran by members of Parliament had been cited by the Americans as the first Iraqi effort to confront Iran with evidence of its training, financing and arming of Shiite militias in Iraq. But the trip evolved into a sophisticated political maneuver that could help the Iraqis out of a situation that was taking a rising toll on the country’s political stability.
The members of Parliament asked Iran to lean on the Shiite militias they have influence with, said Ali Adeeb, a Parliament member from Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party who was part of the delegation. “They said the better way to deal with the Sadrists is by negotiation; don’t fight them and don’t use force.”
Haider Abbadi, another member of Parliament, said the Iranians “promised that they would pressure all the groups that they have communication with to defer to Iraqi law.”
Mr. Sadr’s representatives did not answer phone calls late Saturday and have not confirmed Iran’s role in the negotiations. Nor was it certain that Mr. Sadr had personally signed off on the deal, although a spokesman confirmed that “the Sadr movement” had agreed to the truce.
Whether the truce will last is an open question. In Basra, where a similar deal was struck last month, violence stopped completely almost overnight, but in recent days there have been a few explosions of homemade bombs and rocket fire that suggest the armed groups are merely underground for the time being.
Iran’s influence could prove invaluable in that regard. If the Iranians supply the weapons, cash and training that American intelligence officials say they do, they could threaten to limit or cut off those supplies, hampering the militias’ ability to fight. Iran has denied supplying the militias.
Mr. Sadr has long had a fraught relationship with Iran. A staunch Arab nationalist, he has eschewed close political ties to Tehran, making it unclear whether he would heed Iran’s requests.
By Saturday evening, word of the truce had yet to trickle down to the front lines in Sadr City, where the fighting continued. Four homemade bombs exploded there in the late afternoon and there were several firefights.
However, a commander of Mr. Sadr’s militia who goes by the nom de guerre Haji Abu Mohammed said the order had gone out only in the early evening for gunmen to begin to withdraw from the streets.
Parliament members involved in the deal said the gunmen had four days to fully withdraw. The agreement also permits the Iraqi Army to search for weapons in Sadr City and detain fighters for whom they have warrants.
Militia fighters would have to refrain from firing on the Green Zone. If they complied, the American military would not be involved in the military operations in the militia-held northern part of Sadr City.
Residents of Sadr City expressed doubt that the truce would hold and frustration at both the government and the militia. “All that we hope for is safety and safety and security,” Abu Hussein said as he lugged a container of fuel home for his generator. “The only loser in this battle has been the people. The politicians live on the government, not with us here. They do not feel the suffering of the neighborhood.”
The Iraqi Army division that has been fighting in Sadr City is already holding meetings to discuss the next steps. Previously, the Iraqi Army was making plans to enter the militia-held area of Sadr City by force.
The Iraqi Army is now stationed in the southern part of the neighborhood with American Army units. The Iraqis hold the forward positions closest to the front lines. The northern area has been held by Shiite militias, both those of Mr. Sadr, the Mahdi Army, and the so-called special groups that the American military and many Iraqis say are linked more directly to Iran.
The flashpoint for the past four weeks has been the dividing line, Al Quds Street. The Americans have built a high concrete wall between the two areas, and militia members have been trying to blow a hole in the thick concrete.
Late Friday afternoon, some children played kickball along the militia-held side of the wall while two men carrying medium-heavy machine guns and a third with an AK-47 rifle observed it from a nearby alley. Seeing a reporter and photographer nearby, the gunmen asked the journalists to leave because they wanted to launch an attack. Then they vanished into the warren of bomb-wrecked buildings.
In the north on Saturday, Iraqi security officials said they were renewing their operations against Sunni insurgents in Mosul. Lt. Gen. Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, commander of Iraqi armed forces in Nineveh Province, said large numbers of Iraqi forces had been sent there to “clean the province of Al Qaeda remnants,” referring to the homegrown Sunni insurgent group, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, that American intelligence officers say has foreign leadership.
Reporting was contributed by Michael R. Gordon, Qais Mizher, Ammar Karim, Mudhafer al-Husaini and Riyadh Mohammed.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Afghan intellectuals criticise US, NATO operations
This is from AFP via Yahoo. Obviously many Afghans are tired of the fighting and insecurity and are ready to cut a deal with the Taliban if possible. The problem is that with US and NATO forces often on the offensive no deal will be possible. Only if the occupying forces withdraw or perhaps if they take a purely defensive stance would a deal be possible but the US in particular is unlikely to accept this. Karzai depends upon US forces to stay in power but even he seems to be leaning towards negotiating an end to the fighting.
Afghan intellectuals criticise US, NATO operations
Thu May 8, 1:34 PM ET
About 3,000 Afghan politicians and intellectuals criticised Thursday the international military campaign against Islamic militants in Afghanistan and called for dialogue to ending the fighting.
The meeting of mainly Pashtuns, the country's largest ethnic group, launched a new body that it said would work on "saving people captured in fighting" and assist "those involved in conflict to stop fighting."
Afghanistan is in the grips of an insurgency by the extremist Taliban, a majority Pashtun group that was in government between 1996 and 2001. The country depends on about 70,000 mainly US troops for security.
"Today our elders, children and women are captured and jailed," civil society activist Daud Mirakai, one of the founders of the new National Peace Jirga of Afghanistan, told the crowd.
He was referring to arrests of suspects during US- and NATO-led operations mainly in Pashtun-dominated southern and eastern Afghanistan where Taliban militants are most active and are said to have local support.
The forces regularly round up suspects but no women are known to be among them.
"Today, they (foreign forces) break through our doors while our women are sleeping," he continued, raising a highly emotive issue among Pashtuns that prompted shouts of "Allahu akbar" (God is greater).
International troops looking for Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other rebels have been accused of not respecting local culture; they in turn say militants deliberately position themselves among women and children.
Mirakai said international forces claimed to have brought peace and democracy to Afghanistan but this was not true.
Instead "people are forced to abandon their villages under the shells and mortars of US forces and their allies who are killing people first and asking questions later," he said.
Pashtuns were main victims of the unrest, he said, claiming the ethnic group which has ruled for the past two centuries had been pushed aside by the government of President Hamid Karzai, himself a Pashtun.
"Peace in Afghanistan is impossible when Pashtuns are targeted from the air and ground on a daily basis," he added, referring to military operations.
Another key organiser, parliamentarian Bakhtar Aminzai, said the new jirga, the Pashtu word for council, wanted to bring peace through talks with the rebels.
"Fighting is not the solution," he said. "Dialogue and reconciliation is the solution for the conflict," he said.
Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Afghan intellectuals criticise US, NATO operations
Thu May 8, 1:34 PM ET
About 3,000 Afghan politicians and intellectuals criticised Thursday the international military campaign against Islamic militants in Afghanistan and called for dialogue to ending the fighting.
The meeting of mainly Pashtuns, the country's largest ethnic group, launched a new body that it said would work on "saving people captured in fighting" and assist "those involved in conflict to stop fighting."
Afghanistan is in the grips of an insurgency by the extremist Taliban, a majority Pashtun group that was in government between 1996 and 2001. The country depends on about 70,000 mainly US troops for security.
"Today our elders, children and women are captured and jailed," civil society activist Daud Mirakai, one of the founders of the new National Peace Jirga of Afghanistan, told the crowd.
He was referring to arrests of suspects during US- and NATO-led operations mainly in Pashtun-dominated southern and eastern Afghanistan where Taliban militants are most active and are said to have local support.
The forces regularly round up suspects but no women are known to be among them.
"Today, they (foreign forces) break through our doors while our women are sleeping," he continued, raising a highly emotive issue among Pashtuns that prompted shouts of "Allahu akbar" (God is greater).
International troops looking for Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other rebels have been accused of not respecting local culture; they in turn say militants deliberately position themselves among women and children.
Mirakai said international forces claimed to have brought peace and democracy to Afghanistan but this was not true.
Instead "people are forced to abandon their villages under the shells and mortars of US forces and their allies who are killing people first and asking questions later," he said.
Pashtuns were main victims of the unrest, he said, claiming the ethnic group which has ruled for the past two centuries had been pushed aside by the government of President Hamid Karzai, himself a Pashtun.
"Peace in Afghanistan is impossible when Pashtuns are targeted from the air and ground on a daily basis," he added, referring to military operations.
Another key organiser, parliamentarian Bakhtar Aminzai, said the new jirga, the Pashtu word for council, wanted to bring peace through talks with the rebels.
"Fighting is not the solution," he said. "Dialogue and reconciliation is the solution for the conflict," he said.
Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Olmert admits taking cash, won't quit.
Bush may push for a peace plan all he wants but with all the turmoil between Israel and the Palestinians and now this it seems unlikely that he will be able to forge a deal any time soon. Israel will take any cash it can get from the U.S. why not its politicians as well. Strange that the U.S. needs to buy influence in Israel but not vice versa!
MSNBC.com
Olmert admits taking cash, won't quit
Prime minister denies campaign backing from American was improper
Reuters
JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert admitted on Thursday taking cash from a U.S. businessman but resisted calls to resign over a police investigation into alleged hefty bribes over almost a decade.
As Israelis enjoyed festivities marking Independence Day and the 60th anniversary of the founding of their state, police lifted a week-old media gag order and announced details of accusations that sparked opposition calls for Olmert to quit.
He said he would resign only if he were formally indicted.
Whether he goes or not, doubt over his future is likely to upset his faltering, U.S.-sponsored peace negotiations with the Palestinians and will cast a heavy cloud over next week's celebratory visit to Israel by U.S. President George W. Bush.
The White House said Bush still intended to make the trip.
Olmert, in a late-night televised address to the nation, said: "I look each and every one of you in the eye and say, 'I never took bribes. I never took a penny for myself'."
His allies say there is a right-wing campaign to wreck the peace process, but it was unclear if his fragile coalition would rally behind a man who last year said he was "indestructible."
Israelis are no strangers to tales of corruption at the top in the Middle East's most feted democracy and the latest case may fuel calls for an overhaul of political funding rules.
String of investigationsOlmert, who was questioned by police for an hour last Friday, has weathered a string of investigations since he succeeded Ariel Sharon as prime minister in 2006. Sharon's son is in jail for campaign funding misdeeds on his father's behalf.
On Thursday, Olmert said all the cash he received -- put at hundreds of thousands of dollars by one judicial source -- was legitimate support from New York financier Morris Talansky to fund various election campaigns over nearly a decade from 1993.
"I was elected by you, the citizens of Israel, to be prime minister. I do not intend to shrug off this responsibility," he said. "However, although not required by law, if the attorney general decides to file an indictment against me I will resign."
Olmert, 62, said he did not believe the attorney general would follow through and indict him on the latest accusations.
American 'helped me cover deficits'In a terse six-minute address, Olmert said Talansky funded his two successful campaigns for mayor of Jerusalem in 1993 and 1998, an unsuccessful bid to lead the right-wing Likud party in 1999 and a further internal Likud election in 2002. He also said the American "helped me cover deficits" after elections.
Earlier, a police statement said: "The investigation deals with suspicions that the prime minister received significant sums of money from a foreigner or number of foreign individuals over an extended period of time."
A police spokesman named Talansky as a key witness, along with Olmert's long-time secretary Shula Zaken, who has been under house arrest, and his former law partner Uri Messer.
One police source said investigators cracked coded notes kept by Zaken that they suspect recorded sums given by Talansky -- referred to in some of the jottings as "The Laundry Man."
Palestinian negotiators fear a collapse of Olmert's coalition will scupper hopes for reaching a deal on creating a Palestinian state before Bush leaves office in January.
If Olmert did step down, however, his most likely immediate successor would be his deputy in the centrist Kadima party, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. She has been working closely with Washington and Palestinian negotiators on the peace process.
Talansky: ‘I don't understand what's the big thing’One parliamentarian from Kadima, founded by Sharon and Olmert when they left Likud, said she was "uncomfortable" about the allegations. Ronit Tirosh said, however, she thought Olmert was capable of continuing to lead Israel.
But Gideon Sahar, an ally of Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, said: "Olmert is unworthy and cannot carry on in his post. The Kadima government is sunk up to its neck in corruption."
There was no immediate comment from Livni or from Defense Minister Ehud Barak, leader of Olmert's main coalition partner the Labour party. Barak is under pressure from some Labour members to bolt the alliance, but others in the party fear that would trigger an election which Netanyahu could win with ease.
Talansky said in Jerusalem he had given evidence to police after he came to Israel last month to visit relatives for the Passover holiday: "I never was involved in politics," he said, smiling and joking with Israeli reporters.
"Everything is OK. I don't understand what's the big thing."
Official documents show Talansky was treasurer of a charity, the New Jerusalem Foundation, which Olmert set up in 1999. U.S. tax records show this institution declared more than $855,000 in donations from 1999 to 2002.
Copyright 2008 Reuters. Click for restrictions.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24527673/
MSN Privacy . Legal© 2008 MSNBC.com
MSNBC.com
Olmert admits taking cash, won't quit
Prime minister denies campaign backing from American was improper
Reuters
JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert admitted on Thursday taking cash from a U.S. businessman but resisted calls to resign over a police investigation into alleged hefty bribes over almost a decade.
As Israelis enjoyed festivities marking Independence Day and the 60th anniversary of the founding of their state, police lifted a week-old media gag order and announced details of accusations that sparked opposition calls for Olmert to quit.
He said he would resign only if he were formally indicted.
Whether he goes or not, doubt over his future is likely to upset his faltering, U.S.-sponsored peace negotiations with the Palestinians and will cast a heavy cloud over next week's celebratory visit to Israel by U.S. President George W. Bush.
The White House said Bush still intended to make the trip.
Olmert, in a late-night televised address to the nation, said: "I look each and every one of you in the eye and say, 'I never took bribes. I never took a penny for myself'."
His allies say there is a right-wing campaign to wreck the peace process, but it was unclear if his fragile coalition would rally behind a man who last year said he was "indestructible."
Israelis are no strangers to tales of corruption at the top in the Middle East's most feted democracy and the latest case may fuel calls for an overhaul of political funding rules.
String of investigationsOlmert, who was questioned by police for an hour last Friday, has weathered a string of investigations since he succeeded Ariel Sharon as prime minister in 2006. Sharon's son is in jail for campaign funding misdeeds on his father's behalf.
On Thursday, Olmert said all the cash he received -- put at hundreds of thousands of dollars by one judicial source -- was legitimate support from New York financier Morris Talansky to fund various election campaigns over nearly a decade from 1993.
"I was elected by you, the citizens of Israel, to be prime minister. I do not intend to shrug off this responsibility," he said. "However, although not required by law, if the attorney general decides to file an indictment against me I will resign."
Olmert, 62, said he did not believe the attorney general would follow through and indict him on the latest accusations.
American 'helped me cover deficits'In a terse six-minute address, Olmert said Talansky funded his two successful campaigns for mayor of Jerusalem in 1993 and 1998, an unsuccessful bid to lead the right-wing Likud party in 1999 and a further internal Likud election in 2002. He also said the American "helped me cover deficits" after elections.
Earlier, a police statement said: "The investigation deals with suspicions that the prime minister received significant sums of money from a foreigner or number of foreign individuals over an extended period of time."
A police spokesman named Talansky as a key witness, along with Olmert's long-time secretary Shula Zaken, who has been under house arrest, and his former law partner Uri Messer.
One police source said investigators cracked coded notes kept by Zaken that they suspect recorded sums given by Talansky -- referred to in some of the jottings as "The Laundry Man."
Palestinian negotiators fear a collapse of Olmert's coalition will scupper hopes for reaching a deal on creating a Palestinian state before Bush leaves office in January.
If Olmert did step down, however, his most likely immediate successor would be his deputy in the centrist Kadima party, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. She has been working closely with Washington and Palestinian negotiators on the peace process.
Talansky: ‘I don't understand what's the big thing’One parliamentarian from Kadima, founded by Sharon and Olmert when they left Likud, said she was "uncomfortable" about the allegations. Ronit Tirosh said, however, she thought Olmert was capable of continuing to lead Israel.
But Gideon Sahar, an ally of Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, said: "Olmert is unworthy and cannot carry on in his post. The Kadima government is sunk up to its neck in corruption."
There was no immediate comment from Livni or from Defense Minister Ehud Barak, leader of Olmert's main coalition partner the Labour party. Barak is under pressure from some Labour members to bolt the alliance, but others in the party fear that would trigger an election which Netanyahu could win with ease.
Talansky said in Jerusalem he had given evidence to police after he came to Israel last month to visit relatives for the Passover holiday: "I never was involved in politics," he said, smiling and joking with Israeli reporters.
"Everything is OK. I don't understand what's the big thing."
Official documents show Talansky was treasurer of a charity, the New Jerusalem Foundation, which Olmert set up in 1999. U.S. tax records show this institution declared more than $855,000 in donations from 1999 to 2002.
Copyright 2008 Reuters. Click for restrictions.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24527673/
MSN Privacy . Legal© 2008 MSNBC.com
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Malaysia prepares to withdraw ceasefire monitors from the Philippines
This is from Radio Australia. It remains to be seen if the withdrawal will result in renewed fighting. There have always been some incidents but most with Abu Sayyaf supporters.
Malaysia prepares for withdrawal from the Philippines
Updated Thu May 8, 2008 10:30pm AEST
Malaysia's foreign minister says his country's peace monitors in the southern Philippines province of Mindanao will begin a phased withdrawal in two days.Mr Rais Yatim, who is in Manila, says his government is unable to continue the mission.Earlier, he held talks with Philippine President Gloria Arroyo and foreign secretary Alberto Romulo.They have asked Malaysia to continue to support the peace process after the pullout.Manila and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front struck a deal last November to create a Muslim homeland in the country's south but further talks have been unsuccessful.Malaysian troops have made up the bulk of an international team that has been monitoring the ceasefire since 2004.
Malaysia prepares for withdrawal from the Philippines
Updated Thu May 8, 2008 10:30pm AEST
Malaysia's foreign minister says his country's peace monitors in the southern Philippines province of Mindanao will begin a phased withdrawal in two days.Mr Rais Yatim, who is in Manila, says his government is unable to continue the mission.Earlier, he held talks with Philippine President Gloria Arroyo and foreign secretary Alberto Romulo.They have asked Malaysia to continue to support the peace process after the pullout.Manila and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front struck a deal last November to create a Muslim homeland in the country's south but further talks have been unsuccessful.Malaysian troops have made up the bulk of an international team that has been monitoring the ceasefire since 2004.
War with Iran might be closer than you think.
This is from from amconmag. The "con" in amconmag stands for conservative not "con" ! However given the source perhaps some doubt is in order! Yet, there has been a plethora of articles blaming Iran for this that and the other and these seem to be designed to soften up te U.S. public for a possible attack on Iran.
War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think
Posted on May 9th, 2008 by Philip Giraldi
There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran. The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups. The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles. It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties. The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final. The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.
Filed under: Foreign policy, War
-->
War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think
Posted on May 9th, 2008 by Philip Giraldi
There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran. The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups. The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles. It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties. The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final. The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.
Filed under: Foreign policy, War
-->
Friday, May 9, 2008
Hezbollah in control of West Beirut
This is from Al Jazeera. The government has put itself in a difficult position after challenging Hezbollah. Peace in Lebanon depends upon accomodation with Hezbollah. Perhaps the U.S. or other western nations are pressing the government to weaken Hezbollah but this action may provoke civil war. Already it has put part of Beirut under control of Hezbollah. Perhaps negotiations can work something out before events get out of control.
Hezbollah in control of west Beirut
At least 11 people were killed as clashes intensify in Beirut [Reuters]
Clashes have again erupted on the streets of Beirut, the Lebanese capital, as Hezbollah takes control of large areas of the capital from groups loyal to the government following gun battles.
The building of Future TV network, owned by Saad Hariri, a prominent pro-government politician, was set alight in continued violence on Friday.
bodyVariable350="Htmlphcontrol1_lblError";
The street battles, which first erupted on Wednesday, have so far left at least 11 people dead and 20 others wounded.Lebanese troops began taking up positions in some neighbourhoods in west Beirut abandoned by the pro-government groups.
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
The army has largely avoided getting involved in the street battles amid fears of being dragged into the conflict.
Earlier in the day, a rocket-propelled grenade struck the fence of the heavily protected residence of Saad Hariri in the suburb of Koreitem, a Muslim area of western Beirut.
Hariri, leader of the Future bloc, the biggest party in Lebanon's governing coalition,was believed to be inside at the time but unhurt.
Earlier, armed men loyal to Hezbollah forced Future News, the news channel of the Future group, off the air in Beirut.
"Armed gunmen surrounded the building, stormed into the garage and demanded that the army shut down the station," a senior TV official said.
Future group targeted
Security sources said Hezbollah and fighters from the allied Amal movement - both Shia groups - had overrun offices of Hariri's Future group across the predominantly Muslim western half of the Lebanese capital.
The headquarters of the Future group's Al-Mustaqbal daily was also surrounded by fighters firing rocket-propelled grenades, setting fire to one floor, its managing editor said.
Nadim Munla, the general manager of Future TV, told Al Jazeera that masked armed men entered the control rooms and cut off the cables.
"We have been effectively prevented from broadcasting and doing our jobs as media professionals," he said."Hezbollah ... have proven that the gun is stronger than the value of the opinion. We have only one thing left - free speech, and their guns will not silence us."
Lebanese troops evacuated the staff of the TV station's terrestrial and satellite studios in the Kantari area of western Beirut.
Meanwhile, in a statement seen as politically significant, Michel Aoun, a Christian leader allied with the Hezbollah-led opposition, has said that normalcy should be restored on the streets."The derailed carriage is now back on track. We hope from this point that things will fall back into the normal course [of events]," he said on Friday.Aoun said that he had sent a letter to Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, and various member states of the UN Security Council, but "did not find a clear response to avert the crisis".
Saudi pressure
Reports have also emerged that the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon advised Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, to step down.
Al Jazeera's Rula Amin, reporting from Beirut, said: "This is a significant move considering that the Saudi government is a staunch supporter of the ruling coalition in Beirut.
Opposition fighters took rapid controlof many suburbs [AFP]"The Saudis see this as a dangerous situation that can escalate rapidly."Amin also conducted an exclusive interview with Walid Jumblatt, head of the Progressive Socialist Party, member of parliament, and leader of the country's Druze community.She said that Jumblatt did not regret his backing to remove the head of the country's airport security, whom the government accuses of being too close to Hezbollah."Jumblatt did not anticipate such a strong response from Hezbollah, and he is resigned to the fact that the group is much stronger than other armed militias," she said."He also said that the government should have undertaken these moves earlier, but predicts that the fighting will end soon."
Hezbollah control
In several neighbourhoods across the capital, automatic rifle fire could be heard in the worst domestic fighting since the 1975-90 civil war. Hezbollah also took control of all roads leading to Beirut's international airport, Lebanon's only air link to the outside world.
According to Elie Zakhour, a port official, Beirut's sea port was also shut down "until further notice" because of the situation, Lebanon's state-run National News Agency reported.
Tension between the government and Hezbollah escalated when the cabinet said the group's private phone network was illegal and an attack on the country's sovereignty.
Hezbollah said it was infuriated by government allegations it was spying on Beirut airport and by the cabinet's decision to fire the head of airport security.
Call for restraint
The fighting has prompted urgent appeals for calm from the international community.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt called for an urgent meeting of Arab foreign ministers to try to halt the violence.
"An emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo to discuss the crisis will be held in two days," Hossam Zaki, the Egyptian foreign ministery spokesman, said.
The UN Security Council also called for "calm and restraint", urging all sides to return to peaceful dialogue.
Syria said the dispute in Lebanon was an "internal affair" and expressed hope the feuding parties would find a solution through dialogue.
Hezbollah in control of west Beirut
At least 11 people were killed as clashes intensify in Beirut [Reuters]
Clashes have again erupted on the streets of Beirut, the Lebanese capital, as Hezbollah takes control of large areas of the capital from groups loyal to the government following gun battles.
The building of Future TV network, owned by Saad Hariri, a prominent pro-government politician, was set alight in continued violence on Friday.
bodyVariable350="Htmlphcontrol1_lblError";
The street battles, which first erupted on Wednesday, have so far left at least 11 people dead and 20 others wounded.Lebanese troops began taking up positions in some neighbourhoods in west Beirut abandoned by the pro-government groups.
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
The army has largely avoided getting involved in the street battles amid fears of being dragged into the conflict.
Earlier in the day, a rocket-propelled grenade struck the fence of the heavily protected residence of Saad Hariri in the suburb of Koreitem, a Muslim area of western Beirut.
Hariri, leader of the Future bloc, the biggest party in Lebanon's governing coalition,was believed to be inside at the time but unhurt.
Earlier, armed men loyal to Hezbollah forced Future News, the news channel of the Future group, off the air in Beirut.
"Armed gunmen surrounded the building, stormed into the garage and demanded that the army shut down the station," a senior TV official said.
Future group targeted
Security sources said Hezbollah and fighters from the allied Amal movement - both Shia groups - had overrun offices of Hariri's Future group across the predominantly Muslim western half of the Lebanese capital.
The headquarters of the Future group's Al-Mustaqbal daily was also surrounded by fighters firing rocket-propelled grenades, setting fire to one floor, its managing editor said.
Nadim Munla, the general manager of Future TV, told Al Jazeera that masked armed men entered the control rooms and cut off the cables.
"We have been effectively prevented from broadcasting and doing our jobs as media professionals," he said."Hezbollah ... have proven that the gun is stronger than the value of the opinion. We have only one thing left - free speech, and their guns will not silence us."
Lebanese troops evacuated the staff of the TV station's terrestrial and satellite studios in the Kantari area of western Beirut.
Meanwhile, in a statement seen as politically significant, Michel Aoun, a Christian leader allied with the Hezbollah-led opposition, has said that normalcy should be restored on the streets."The derailed carriage is now back on track. We hope from this point that things will fall back into the normal course [of events]," he said on Friday.Aoun said that he had sent a letter to Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, and various member states of the UN Security Council, but "did not find a clear response to avert the crisis".
Saudi pressure
Reports have also emerged that the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon advised Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, to step down.
Al Jazeera's Rula Amin, reporting from Beirut, said: "This is a significant move considering that the Saudi government is a staunch supporter of the ruling coalition in Beirut.
Opposition fighters took rapid controlof many suburbs [AFP]"The Saudis see this as a dangerous situation that can escalate rapidly."Amin also conducted an exclusive interview with Walid Jumblatt, head of the Progressive Socialist Party, member of parliament, and leader of the country's Druze community.She said that Jumblatt did not regret his backing to remove the head of the country's airport security, whom the government accuses of being too close to Hezbollah."Jumblatt did not anticipate such a strong response from Hezbollah, and he is resigned to the fact that the group is much stronger than other armed militias," she said."He also said that the government should have undertaken these moves earlier, but predicts that the fighting will end soon."
Hezbollah control
In several neighbourhoods across the capital, automatic rifle fire could be heard in the worst domestic fighting since the 1975-90 civil war. Hezbollah also took control of all roads leading to Beirut's international airport, Lebanon's only air link to the outside world.
According to Elie Zakhour, a port official, Beirut's sea port was also shut down "until further notice" because of the situation, Lebanon's state-run National News Agency reported.
Tension between the government and Hezbollah escalated when the cabinet said the group's private phone network was illegal and an attack on the country's sovereignty.
Hezbollah said it was infuriated by government allegations it was spying on Beirut airport and by the cabinet's decision to fire the head of airport security.
Call for restraint
The fighting has prompted urgent appeals for calm from the international community.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt called for an urgent meeting of Arab foreign ministers to try to halt the violence.
"An emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo to discuss the crisis will be held in two days," Hossam Zaki, the Egyptian foreign ministery spokesman, said.
The UN Security Council also called for "calm and restraint", urging all sides to return to peaceful dialogue.
Syria said the dispute in Lebanon was an "internal affair" and expressed hope the feuding parties would find a solution through dialogue.
Philippines performs best in getting health care to children among developing nations
This is from the BBC.
Among developing nations at least the Philippines is doing quite well but there are still 31 per cent of children not getting access to health care.
India children's health 'ignored'
More than half of Indian children under the age of five do not get the health care they need, according to a report by Save the Children.
It ranks India alongside Ghana when it comes to providing basic health care to its children under five years of age.
The annual report looks at whether developing countries are delivering health care effectively to children.
It found the Philippines was performing best with almost 69% of children able to get access to health care.
Ethiopia ranks last - only 16% of children under five get health care when they need it.
'Basic measures'
The report, called State of the World's Mothers, says girls die at much higher rates in India than most countries.
Although India has cut child its mortality rate by 34% since 1990, Indian girls are 61% more likely than boys to die between the ages of one and five.
Inequity of health care among male and female children is responsible for this situation, the report says.
The report says experts predict that over 60% of the nearly 10 million children who die every year could be saved by delivering basic health services through a health facility or community health worker.
"A child's chance of reaching its fifth birthday should not depend on the country or community where it is born," said Jasmine Whitbread, Save the Children's chief executive.
"We need to do a better job of reaching the poorest children with basic health measures like vaccines, antibiotics and skilled care at childbirth," she said.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7389283.stmPublished: 2008/05/08 06:03:03 GMT© BBC MMVIII
Among developing nations at least the Philippines is doing quite well but there are still 31 per cent of children not getting access to health care.
India children's health 'ignored'
More than half of Indian children under the age of five do not get the health care they need, according to a report by Save the Children.
It ranks India alongside Ghana when it comes to providing basic health care to its children under five years of age.
The annual report looks at whether developing countries are delivering health care effectively to children.
It found the Philippines was performing best with almost 69% of children able to get access to health care.
Ethiopia ranks last - only 16% of children under five get health care when they need it.
'Basic measures'
The report, called State of the World's Mothers, says girls die at much higher rates in India than most countries.
Although India has cut child its mortality rate by 34% since 1990, Indian girls are 61% more likely than boys to die between the ages of one and five.
Inequity of health care among male and female children is responsible for this situation, the report says.
The report says experts predict that over 60% of the nearly 10 million children who die every year could be saved by delivering basic health services through a health facility or community health worker.
"A child's chance of reaching its fifth birthday should not depend on the country or community where it is born," said Jasmine Whitbread, Save the Children's chief executive.
"We need to do a better job of reaching the poorest children with basic health measures like vaccines, antibiotics and skilled care at childbirth," she said.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7389283.stmPublished: 2008/05/08 06:03:03 GMT© BBC MMVIII
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Iran seeking to keep Afghanistan unstable: U.S. official.
This is from terra.net.lb. The U.S. which is occupying both Afghanistan and Iraq never seems to see the irony when it complains about Iranian interference in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, for the U.S. the Iranians have good relationships with both the Maliki govt. in Iraq and the Karzai govt. in Afghanistan. The real purpose of all these reports about Iran in the U.S. media is to soften the U.S. public for a possible attack on Iran.
Iran seeking to keep Afghanistan unstable: US official
Iran is seeking to keep Afghanistan weak and unstable, delivering arms to the Taliban whilst ostensibly supporting Kabul's government, a senior US state department official said in Paris Tuesday.
"They (Iran) interfere in a variety of different ways, perhaps not as violently as they do sometimes in Iraq," Richard Boucher, assistant secretary of state for south and central Asia, told reporters at a press conference.
"But what we see is Iranian interference politically, Iranian interference in terms of the money that they channel into the political process, Iranian interference in terms of playing off local officials against central government, trying to undermine the state in that way
Iran seeking to keep Afghanistan unstable: US official
Iran is seeking to keep Afghanistan weak and unstable, delivering arms to the Taliban whilst ostensibly supporting Kabul's government, a senior US state department official said in Paris Tuesday.
"They (Iran) interfere in a variety of different ways, perhaps not as violently as they do sometimes in Iraq," Richard Boucher, assistant secretary of state for south and central Asia, told reporters at a press conference.
"But what we see is Iranian interference politically, Iranian interference in terms of the money that they channel into the political process, Iranian interference in terms of playing off local officials against central government, trying to undermine the state in that way
Malibu plant strike adds to GM woes..
This is from truthdig. Ford seems to be doing the best of the big three. It now has settled with the CAW in Canada. Autoworkers don't seem to be in a very strong position with auto sale down and most companies in loss positions. However, as the article notes the present strike puts quite a bit of pressure on GM to settle or be in an even worse position.
Malibu plant strike adds to GM woes
Popular models hit by walkouts
By Katie Merx, Business WriterDetroit Free Press May 6, 2008A strike was launched Monday by the UAW at a General Motors Corp.manufacturing plant in Kansas that makes the new Chevrolet Malibu.This walkout, coupled with a continuing strike at its Lansing Delta Townshipcrossover assembly plant, could drain the automaker's inventory of itsfastest-selling car and crossovers in as little as a month.Industry experts say the work stoppages put the union in a position ofpower.The UAW, negotiating local contracts at both plants, is hitting GM at two ofits most important North America plants in a move that some say is meant topress GM to facilitate resolution of the American Axle & Manufacturing Inc.strike.UAW President Ron Gettelfinger has said the strikes are about local issuesnot American Axle. And union leaders in Kansas City, Kan., said they walkedout because the union and GM remain "far apart" on a variety of localcontract issues, including seniority, job selection and the use of outsidecontractors.Disrupting production of the Malibu, Saturn Aura and GM's popular BuickEnclave, GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook crossovers -- at a time when consumerdemand is shifting to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars and crossovers -- isa move that could really hurt GM, analysts and workers say.GM's labor spokesman Dan Flores said: "We are disappointed that UAW Local 31ended the bargaining and took strike action at Fairfax. We remain focused onreaching an agreement as soon as possible."The newly redesigned Malibu, the fourth best-selling midsize sedan, has beenrising up the charts since its launch in November, with an averagetransaction price $4,000 higher than the previous model. Dealers say the newsedans are often sold even before they arrive on lots."The vehicles under threat from the strike are some of the most critical forGM right now," Jesse Toprak, an analyst at Edmunds.com, said Monday.
Malibu plant strike adds to GM woes
Popular models hit by walkouts
By Katie Merx, Business WriterDetroit Free Press May 6, 2008A strike was launched Monday by the UAW at a General Motors Corp.manufacturing plant in Kansas that makes the new Chevrolet Malibu.This walkout, coupled with a continuing strike at its Lansing Delta Townshipcrossover assembly plant, could drain the automaker's inventory of itsfastest-selling car and crossovers in as little as a month.Industry experts say the work stoppages put the union in a position ofpower.The UAW, negotiating local contracts at both plants, is hitting GM at two ofits most important North America plants in a move that some say is meant topress GM to facilitate resolution of the American Axle & Manufacturing Inc.strike.UAW President Ron Gettelfinger has said the strikes are about local issuesnot American Axle. And union leaders in Kansas City, Kan., said they walkedout because the union and GM remain "far apart" on a variety of localcontract issues, including seniority, job selection and the use of outsidecontractors.Disrupting production of the Malibu, Saturn Aura and GM's popular BuickEnclave, GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook crossovers -- at a time when consumerdemand is shifting to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars and crossovers -- isa move that could really hurt GM, analysts and workers say.GM's labor spokesman Dan Flores said: "We are disappointed that UAW Local 31ended the bargaining and took strike action at Fairfax. We remain focused onreaching an agreement as soon as possible."The newly redesigned Malibu, the fourth best-selling midsize sedan, has beenrising up the charts since its launch in November, with an averagetransaction price $4,000 higher than the previous model. Dealers say the newsedans are often sold even before they arrive on lots."The vehicles under threat from the strike are some of the most critical forGM right now," Jesse Toprak, an analyst at Edmunds.com, said Monday.
U.S. forces arrest 4 media men in Diala.
Of course the U.S. did not ask for govt. permission to arrest this group. The U.S. is a law onto itself as an occupier of Iraq. No word lately on negotiations for a new mandate after the UN mandate expires. This is from aswataliraq.
U.S. forces arrest 4 media men in Diala
Diala - Voices of Iraq
Thursday , 08 /05 /2008 Time 3:19:12
Baaquba, May 7, (VOI)- Four Iraqi media men were arrested by U.S. forces in western Baaquba, the head of the administrative body of the Unified Media men Association in Baaquba said on Wednesday.
“U.S. forces raided the house of Hussein Rashied al-Azawi, a lecturer in the Faculty if Information and arrested him along with three media men; Adam Mahdi, Associated Press correspondent, Mohamed Wahieb, the BBC correspondent and Daham al-Ubeidi, the media official of the Diala University,” Omar al-Dulaimi told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq (VOI).He demanded the government to immediately intervene to free the detainees and put an end to the random arresting against several media men,” he added.For his part, Abdellatif Rayan, an MNF-Iraq media adviser, said that he has no information so far on the incident. The Baaquba-based Unified Media men Association includes more than 40 correspondents of local, Arab and international newspapers as well as news agencies and satellite channels.Baaquba, the capital of Diala, is 57 km northeast of Baghdad.
U.S. forces arrest 4 media men in Diala
Diala - Voices of Iraq
Thursday , 08 /05 /2008 Time 3:19:12
Baaquba, May 7, (VOI)- Four Iraqi media men were arrested by U.S. forces in western Baaquba, the head of the administrative body of the Unified Media men Association in Baaquba said on Wednesday.
“U.S. forces raided the house of Hussein Rashied al-Azawi, a lecturer in the Faculty if Information and arrested him along with three media men; Adam Mahdi, Associated Press correspondent, Mohamed Wahieb, the BBC correspondent and Daham al-Ubeidi, the media official of the Diala University,” Omar al-Dulaimi told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq (VOI).He demanded the government to immediately intervene to free the detainees and put an end to the random arresting against several media men,” he added.For his part, Abdellatif Rayan, an MNF-Iraq media adviser, said that he has no information so far on the incident. The Baaquba-based Unified Media men Association includes more than 40 correspondents of local, Arab and international newspapers as well as news agencies and satellite channels.Baaquba, the capital of Diala, is 57 km northeast of Baghdad.
Anti-Cuban terrorist feted in U.S.
Terrrorist is by definition someone who uses violence for political ends but is opposed to the U.S. Carriles is a freedom fighter the same as the anti-Sandinista terrorists in Nicaragua. Apparently the U.S. may be about to change its tune re the Nepalese Maoists.
From the Los Angeles Times
Luis Posada Carriles, a terror suspect abroad, enjoys a 'coming-out' in Miami
A dinner with 500 fellow Cuban exiles honors the militant and former CIA operative, now 80 and still wanted in Venezuela on terrorism charges.By Carol J. WilliamsLos Angeles Times Staff WriterMay 7, 2008MIAMI — The dapper octogenarian in a crisp blue suit, his face smoothed by plastic surgery, swanned from table to table in the candlelit banquet hall, bestowing kisses and collecting accolades.An aging movie star being feted by fans? A veteran politico taking his bows?No, the man being honored by 500 fellow Cuban Americans at a sold-out gala was Luis Posada Carriles, the former CIA operative wanted in Venezuela on terrorism charges and under a deportation order for illegally entering the United States three years ago.Posada, 80, has mostly kept a low profile since his release from a Texas prison a year ago and a federal judge's dismissal of the only U.S. charges against him -- making false statements to immigration officials.But recent events like the Friday dinner and an exhibition and sale of his paintings last fall show that the man who spent his life trying to topple the communist government of Fidel Castro has returned to the social forefront of this city's exile community."We are coming to the end of a terrible stage. The end of our struggle is near," Posada told the crowd of supporters in evening dress, referring to Castro's failing health.Venezuela's ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvarez Herrera, condemned the celebration of Posada as a mockery of justice and evidence of a Bush administration double standard in fighting terrorism."This is outrageous, particularly because he kept talking about violence," Alvarez said of Posada. "He said that the whole thing now is 'to sharpen our machetes' " for a confrontation with leftist regimes in Latin America.The U.S. government has never given Venezuela a formal answer to its 3-year-old request for extradition of Posada, despite a treaty providing for such cooperation that has been in effect since 1922, the ambassador said.Posada, a naturalized Venezuelan citizen, is alleged to have masterminded the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 on which all 73 on board were killed, including a youth fencing team returning from a tournament in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas. He is also suspected of plotting a series of hotel bombings in Havana in the late 1990s, one of which killed an Italian tourist.He has boasted of his many attempts to kill Castro and has allegedly been involved in, according to court documents, "some of the most infamous events of 20th century Central American politics."Posada was serving time in a Panama prison for a 2000 assassination attempt on Castro when outgoing Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso pardoned him and three accomplices in August 2004 in what some observers saw as a favor to President Bush to rally the Cuban-dominated Florida vote for his reelection.The three other Cuban Americans returned to Miami as heroes; Posada arrived six months later, reportedly fetched from Mexico by a shrimp boat owned by an anti-Castro benefactor.As Venezuela, Cuba and human rights groups clamored for Posada's extradition for trial on the plane-bombing charges, federal authorities here arrested him in May 2005 for illegal entry. A federal judge in Texas ordered him deported, but another judge prohibited his being sent to Venezuela, heeding claims by Posada's lawyers that he could face torture or execution there.None of a half-dozen friendly countries contacted by the State Department would agree to take Posada.An immigration fraud case was brought by federal prosecutors later that year but dismissed in May 2007. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone accused federal authorities of using trickery, fraud and deceit in pursuing a criminal case against him.Federal prosecutors appealed and are waiting for a ruling from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, said Dean Boyd, spokesman for the Justice Department.Analysts speculate that the U.S. government has dodged calls for prosecution of Posada for fear he would disclose details of CIA involvement in coups, assassination plots and scandals, including the Iran-Contra Affair.Peter Kornbluh, head of the Cuba Documentation Project at George Washington University's National Security Archive, has compiled declassified CIA and FBI documents on Posada that show he remained in close touch with Washington handlers throughout his covert service."The spectacle of a wanted international terrorist being publicly feted as a hero in Miami makes a mockery of the Bush administration's commitment to wage a war on terrorism," he said of Posada's coming-out party.Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) convened a congressional hearing in November on the administration's handling of the Posada case, arguing that there was "compelling evidence" implicating Posada in the plane bombing.Delahunt said Tuesday that "there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm" under the current administration for prosecuting Posada, but that he would push again for legal action against Posada after the fall election. "To have Posada honored in such a way sends a terrible statement to the rest of the world," the congressman said of the tribute.Posada, still under a supervision order with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, entered the banquet to a standing ovation, his face beaming and minus the scar from a 1990 attack by gunmen in Guatemala."He's a real hero for Cuba. He's been fighting for the freedom of Cuba since the day he arrived in the United States," said Hector Morales-George, a retired surgeon who attended the dinner.
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
From the Los Angeles Times
Luis Posada Carriles, a terror suspect abroad, enjoys a 'coming-out' in Miami
A dinner with 500 fellow Cuban exiles honors the militant and former CIA operative, now 80 and still wanted in Venezuela on terrorism charges.By Carol J. WilliamsLos Angeles Times Staff WriterMay 7, 2008MIAMI — The dapper octogenarian in a crisp blue suit, his face smoothed by plastic surgery, swanned from table to table in the candlelit banquet hall, bestowing kisses and collecting accolades.An aging movie star being feted by fans? A veteran politico taking his bows?No, the man being honored by 500 fellow Cuban Americans at a sold-out gala was Luis Posada Carriles, the former CIA operative wanted in Venezuela on terrorism charges and under a deportation order for illegally entering the United States three years ago.Posada, 80, has mostly kept a low profile since his release from a Texas prison a year ago and a federal judge's dismissal of the only U.S. charges against him -- making false statements to immigration officials.But recent events like the Friday dinner and an exhibition and sale of his paintings last fall show that the man who spent his life trying to topple the communist government of Fidel Castro has returned to the social forefront of this city's exile community."We are coming to the end of a terrible stage. The end of our struggle is near," Posada told the crowd of supporters in evening dress, referring to Castro's failing health.Venezuela's ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvarez Herrera, condemned the celebration of Posada as a mockery of justice and evidence of a Bush administration double standard in fighting terrorism."This is outrageous, particularly because he kept talking about violence," Alvarez said of Posada. "He said that the whole thing now is 'to sharpen our machetes' " for a confrontation with leftist regimes in Latin America.The U.S. government has never given Venezuela a formal answer to its 3-year-old request for extradition of Posada, despite a treaty providing for such cooperation that has been in effect since 1922, the ambassador said.Posada, a naturalized Venezuelan citizen, is alleged to have masterminded the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 on which all 73 on board were killed, including a youth fencing team returning from a tournament in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas. He is also suspected of plotting a series of hotel bombings in Havana in the late 1990s, one of which killed an Italian tourist.He has boasted of his many attempts to kill Castro and has allegedly been involved in, according to court documents, "some of the most infamous events of 20th century Central American politics."Posada was serving time in a Panama prison for a 2000 assassination attempt on Castro when outgoing Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso pardoned him and three accomplices in August 2004 in what some observers saw as a favor to President Bush to rally the Cuban-dominated Florida vote for his reelection.The three other Cuban Americans returned to Miami as heroes; Posada arrived six months later, reportedly fetched from Mexico by a shrimp boat owned by an anti-Castro benefactor.As Venezuela, Cuba and human rights groups clamored for Posada's extradition for trial on the plane-bombing charges, federal authorities here arrested him in May 2005 for illegal entry. A federal judge in Texas ordered him deported, but another judge prohibited his being sent to Venezuela, heeding claims by Posada's lawyers that he could face torture or execution there.None of a half-dozen friendly countries contacted by the State Department would agree to take Posada.An immigration fraud case was brought by federal prosecutors later that year but dismissed in May 2007. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone accused federal authorities of using trickery, fraud and deceit in pursuing a criminal case against him.Federal prosecutors appealed and are waiting for a ruling from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, said Dean Boyd, spokesman for the Justice Department.Analysts speculate that the U.S. government has dodged calls for prosecution of Posada for fear he would disclose details of CIA involvement in coups, assassination plots and scandals, including the Iran-Contra Affair.Peter Kornbluh, head of the Cuba Documentation Project at George Washington University's National Security Archive, has compiled declassified CIA and FBI documents on Posada that show he remained in close touch with Washington handlers throughout his covert service."The spectacle of a wanted international terrorist being publicly feted as a hero in Miami makes a mockery of the Bush administration's commitment to wage a war on terrorism," he said of Posada's coming-out party.Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) convened a congressional hearing in November on the administration's handling of the Posada case, arguing that there was "compelling evidence" implicating Posada in the plane bombing.Delahunt said Tuesday that "there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm" under the current administration for prosecuting Posada, but that he would push again for legal action against Posada after the fall election. "To have Posada honored in such a way sends a terrible statement to the rest of the world," the congressman said of the tribute.Posada, still under a supervision order with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, entered the banquet to a standing ovation, his face beaming and minus the scar from a 1990 attack by gunmen in Guatemala."He's a real hero for Cuba. He's been fighting for the freedom of Cuba since the day he arrived in the United States," said Hector Morales-George, a retired surgeon who attended the dinner.
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Arroyo sending 15 member medical mission to Myanmar
This is from the Inquirer. It would seem reasonable to postpone the referendum although the government does seem to be postponing it in some regions. The article does not mention that the Philippines is sending any other aid. It remains to be seen whether Myanmar will allow in U.S. aid. Laura Bush certainly did not help with her useless lecture. Maybe it makes her feel virtuous.
Arroyo sending 15-member medical mission to Myanmar
Philippine Daily InquirerFirst Posted 02:12:00 05/08/2008
MANILA, Philippines—President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is sending in the next 48 hours a 15-member medical team to Burma (Myanmar) to join a massive international effort to help victims of a devastating cyclone.
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita Wednesday said Ms Arroyo instructed the health and foreign affairs departments to organize the team of doctors and nurses. He said Burmese authorities had been asked what medicines were urgently needed.
Also Wednesday, about 50 Filipino protesters who marched outside the Burmese Embassy in Makati City demanded that Burma postpone this week’s planned constitutional referendum and allow the unrestricted entry of international relief for cyclone victims.
“While the people are so worried about survival in the midst of this disaster, the junta is too preoccupied thinking of how to pursue its referendum,” said Egoy Bans, spokesperson for the Free Burma Coalition.
Postpone referendum
“This is not the time for a political exercise. The population is very vulnerable and insecure,” Bans said.
He also called on Burmese military rulers to open the borders of the tightly controlled country to international aid.
In addition, Bans expressed concern that Burmese authorities would give priority for aid distribution to communities considered loyal to the military, and would exclude opposition strongholds. He provided no details.
Cyclone Nargis struck over the weekend and killed more than 22,000 people, just days ahead of a key referendum on a draft constitution backed by military leaders as an important step forward on what they call a “road map to democracy.”
Critics say the constitution is meant to perpetuate military rule.
State radio said Saturday’s vote would be delayed until May 24 in 40 of 45 townships near the largest city, Rangoon, and seven in the Irrawaddy delta—areas that bore the worst of the storm. The report indicated, however, that the balloting would be held in other areas as scheduled. Reports from Christine O. Avendaño, Jerome Aning and Reuters
Arroyo sending 15-member medical mission to Myanmar
Philippine Daily InquirerFirst Posted 02:12:00 05/08/2008
MANILA, Philippines—President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is sending in the next 48 hours a 15-member medical team to Burma (Myanmar) to join a massive international effort to help victims of a devastating cyclone.
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita Wednesday said Ms Arroyo instructed the health and foreign affairs departments to organize the team of doctors and nurses. He said Burmese authorities had been asked what medicines were urgently needed.
Also Wednesday, about 50 Filipino protesters who marched outside the Burmese Embassy in Makati City demanded that Burma postpone this week’s planned constitutional referendum and allow the unrestricted entry of international relief for cyclone victims.
“While the people are so worried about survival in the midst of this disaster, the junta is too preoccupied thinking of how to pursue its referendum,” said Egoy Bans, spokesperson for the Free Burma Coalition.
Postpone referendum
“This is not the time for a political exercise. The population is very vulnerable and insecure,” Bans said.
He also called on Burmese military rulers to open the borders of the tightly controlled country to international aid.
In addition, Bans expressed concern that Burmese authorities would give priority for aid distribution to communities considered loyal to the military, and would exclude opposition strongholds. He provided no details.
Cyclone Nargis struck over the weekend and killed more than 22,000 people, just days ahead of a key referendum on a draft constitution backed by military leaders as an important step forward on what they call a “road map to democracy.”
Critics say the constitution is meant to perpetuate military rule.
State radio said Saturday’s vote would be delayed until May 24 in 40 of 45 townships near the largest city, Rangoon, and seven in the Irrawaddy delta—areas that bore the worst of the storm. The report indicated, however, that the balloting would be held in other areas as scheduled. Reports from Christine O. Avendaño, Jerome Aning and Reuters
Russia and U.S. strike nuclear deal.
This is from the BBC. Well Bush looked into Putin's soul and saw that it was good so it is fitting that a deal between Putin and Bush be signed on the last day of Putin's presidency. Unfortunately, Bush has a ways to go yet!
Russia and US strike nuclear deal
Russia and the US have signed a key agreement on civilian nuclear power that formally allows nuclear trade between US and Russian companies.
It will also allow them to widen technological co-operation in areas such as storing nuclear materials.
Russia's top nuclear official Sergei Kiriyenko and US ambassador William Burns signed the deal in Moscow.
It comes the day before Russian President Vladimir Putin steps down in favour of Dmitry Medvedev.
"The US and Russia were once nuclear rivals," Mr Burns said after the signing ceremony.
"Today, we are nuclear partners with unique capabilities and unique responsibilities for global nuclear leadership."
It is a deal that pales in significance beside the major strategic arms control treaties of the past, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.
But, in a minor key, it is a small reminder of the days when Washington and Moscow sat down together to grapple with the great nuclear issues of the day, our correspondent adds.
Iran obstacle
The US is said to be interested in developments in areas including recycling nuclear fuel, while Russia wants to establishing an international nuclear fuel storage facility and have access to the lucrative US market for nuclear materials.
The agreement will allow US and Russian companies to form joint ventures in the nuclear sector and will facilitate the transfer of nuclear material between the two countries, officials said earlier.
Co-operation on nuclear issues between Russia and the US has cooled in recent years because of disagreements over how to handle the perceived nuclear threat from Iran.
The US has similar agreements with other major economic powers, including China.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7385849.stmPublished: 2008/05/06 14:39:23 GMT© BBC MMVIII
Russia and US strike nuclear deal
Russia and the US have signed a key agreement on civilian nuclear power that formally allows nuclear trade between US and Russian companies.
It will also allow them to widen technological co-operation in areas such as storing nuclear materials.
Russia's top nuclear official Sergei Kiriyenko and US ambassador William Burns signed the deal in Moscow.
It comes the day before Russian President Vladimir Putin steps down in favour of Dmitry Medvedev.
"The US and Russia were once nuclear rivals," Mr Burns said after the signing ceremony.
"Today, we are nuclear partners with unique capabilities and unique responsibilities for global nuclear leadership."
It is a deal that pales in significance beside the major strategic arms control treaties of the past, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.
But, in a minor key, it is a small reminder of the days when Washington and Moscow sat down together to grapple with the great nuclear issues of the day, our correspondent adds.
Iran obstacle
The US is said to be interested in developments in areas including recycling nuclear fuel, while Russia wants to establishing an international nuclear fuel storage facility and have access to the lucrative US market for nuclear materials.
The agreement will allow US and Russian companies to form joint ventures in the nuclear sector and will facilitate the transfer of nuclear material between the two countries, officials said earlier.
Co-operation on nuclear issues between Russia and the US has cooled in recent years because of disagreements over how to handle the perceived nuclear threat from Iran.
The US has similar agreements with other major economic powers, including China.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7385849.stmPublished: 2008/05/06 14:39:23 GMT© BBC MMVIII
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Philippine bonds hard hit by inflation...
This is from Reuters. The rise in the consumer price index will mean that poor people will have even more trouble making ends meet or even obtaining sufficient food since rice prices are soaring.
Bonds from the Philippines were among the worst hit in the region, dropping on data showing the consumer price index jumped in April by 8.3 percent from a year earlier, its highest level in nearly three years. [ID:nMAN226800]
"The CPI data came out well above expectations, so we saw a wave of selling in cash bonds, primarily in the long end," said a Manila-based trader, saying falls had reached as much as three-quarters of a point, before losses were pared.
Manila's 2031 bonds were quoted at 112.5/112.625 cents to a dollar while the 2032 bonds <718286bd8=rrps> were at 97.375/97.75, both down roughly half a point from Monday.
Philippines five-year credit default swaps -- or insurance-like contracts that protect against defaults and restructuring -- widened as much 15-20 basis points to 200, but then narrowed to 193/199, the trader said
Bonds from the Philippines were among the worst hit in the region, dropping on data showing the consumer price index jumped in April by 8.3 percent from a year earlier, its highest level in nearly three years. [ID:nMAN226800]
"The CPI data came out well above expectations, so we saw a wave of selling in cash bonds, primarily in the long end," said a Manila-based trader, saying falls had reached as much as three-quarters of a point, before losses were pared.
Manila's 2031 bonds
Philippines five-year credit default swaps -- or insurance-like contracts that protect against defaults and restructuring -- widened as much 15-20 basis points to 200, but then narrowed to 193/199, the trader said
Postwar suicides may exceed combat deaths, U.S. says.
This is from Bloomberg.
Although there seems to be plenty of money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when it comes to the mental (and physical) health needs of returning veterans it seems that not enough is available. Continuous public pressure seems necessary to force government to cough up funds.
This article shows just how inadequate mental health care is. The situation is compounded by the reluctance of many returning soldiers to admit they have any problems.
Post-War Suicides May Exceed Combat Deaths, U.S. Says (Update1)
By Avram Goldstein
May 5 (Bloomberg) -- The number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care, the U.S. government's top psychiatric researcher said.
Community mental health centers, hobbled by financial limits, haven't provided enough scientifically sound care, especially in rural areas, said Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He briefed reporters today at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in Washington.
Insel echoed a Rand Corporation study published last month that found about 20 percent of returning U.S. soldiers have post- traumatic stress disorder or depression, and only half of them receive treatment. About 1.6 million U.S. troops have fought in the two wars since October 2001, the report said. About 4,560 soldiers had died in the conflicts as of today, the Defense Department reported on its Web site.
Based on those figures and established suicide rates for similar patients who commonly develop substance abuse and other complications of post-traumatic stress disorder, ``it's quite possible that the suicides and psychiatric mortality of this war could trump the combat deaths,'' Insel said.
Post-traumatic stress disorder, known as PTSD, is the failure to cope after a major shock, such as an auto accident, a rape or combat, Insel said. PTSD may remain dormant for months or years before it surfaces, and in about 10 percent of cases people never recover, he said.
Difficult to Predict
``We don't yet know how to predict who is going to be the person to be most concerned about,'' Insel said.
The Pentagon didn't dispute Insel's remark.
``The department takes the issue of suicide very seriously, and one suicide is too many,'' said spokeswoman Cynthia Smith in an e-mail.
The department has expanded efforts to encourage soldiers and veterans not to feel stigmatized if they seek mental health treatment, Smith said.
Soldiers who'd been exposed to combat trauma were the most likely to suffer from depression or PTSD, the Rand report said. About 53 percent of soldiers with those conditions sought treatment during the past year. Half of those who got care were judged by Rand researchers to have received inadequate treatment.
Failure to adequately treat the mental and neurological problems of returning soldiers can cause a chain of negative events in the lives of affected veterans, the researchers said. About 300,000 soldiers suffer from depression or PTSD, the report said.
Treatment Options
Researchers aren't sure whether it's appropriate to treat such patients with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a class of medications that include Prozac, and other anti- depressants, Insel said. His institute is examining that question and novel treatments for PTSD, including using so-called virtual reality technology.
The psychiatric association reported last week that a survey of 191 military members and their spouses found 32 percent said their duty hurt their mental health, and six in 10 believed seeking treatment would damage their careers.
More than 15,000 psychiatrists are attending the professional group's meeting.
To contact the reporter on this story: Avram Goldstein in Washington at agoldstein1@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: May 5, 2008 14:15 EDT
Although there seems to be plenty of money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when it comes to the mental (and physical) health needs of returning veterans it seems that not enough is available. Continuous public pressure seems necessary to force government to cough up funds.
This article shows just how inadequate mental health care is. The situation is compounded by the reluctance of many returning soldiers to admit they have any problems.
Post-War Suicides May Exceed Combat Deaths, U.S. Says (Update1)
By Avram Goldstein
May 5 (Bloomberg) -- The number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care, the U.S. government's top psychiatric researcher said.
Community mental health centers, hobbled by financial limits, haven't provided enough scientifically sound care, especially in rural areas, said Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He briefed reporters today at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in Washington.
Insel echoed a Rand Corporation study published last month that found about 20 percent of returning U.S. soldiers have post- traumatic stress disorder or depression, and only half of them receive treatment. About 1.6 million U.S. troops have fought in the two wars since October 2001, the report said. About 4,560 soldiers had died in the conflicts as of today, the Defense Department reported on its Web site.
Based on those figures and established suicide rates for similar patients who commonly develop substance abuse and other complications of post-traumatic stress disorder, ``it's quite possible that the suicides and psychiatric mortality of this war could trump the combat deaths,'' Insel said.
Post-traumatic stress disorder, known as PTSD, is the failure to cope after a major shock, such as an auto accident, a rape or combat, Insel said. PTSD may remain dormant for months or years before it surfaces, and in about 10 percent of cases people never recover, he said.
Difficult to Predict
``We don't yet know how to predict who is going to be the person to be most concerned about,'' Insel said.
The Pentagon didn't dispute Insel's remark.
``The department takes the issue of suicide very seriously, and one suicide is too many,'' said spokeswoman Cynthia Smith in an e-mail.
The department has expanded efforts to encourage soldiers and veterans not to feel stigmatized if they seek mental health treatment, Smith said.
Soldiers who'd been exposed to combat trauma were the most likely to suffer from depression or PTSD, the Rand report said. About 53 percent of soldiers with those conditions sought treatment during the past year. Half of those who got care were judged by Rand researchers to have received inadequate treatment.
Failure to adequately treat the mental and neurological problems of returning soldiers can cause a chain of negative events in the lives of affected veterans, the researchers said. About 300,000 soldiers suffer from depression or PTSD, the report said.
Treatment Options
Researchers aren't sure whether it's appropriate to treat such patients with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a class of medications that include Prozac, and other anti- depressants, Insel said. His institute is examining that question and novel treatments for PTSD, including using so-called virtual reality technology.
The psychiatric association reported last week that a survey of 191 military members and their spouses found 32 percent said their duty hurt their mental health, and six in 10 believed seeking treatment would damage their careers.
More than 15,000 psychiatrists are attending the professional group's meeting.
To contact the reporter on this story: Avram Goldstein in Washington at agoldstein1@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: May 5, 2008 14:15 EDT
Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them.
This is from wiredispatch. This is a good move to point out the hypocrisy of the international community in relationship to the Israeli nuclear programme. It is almost politically incorrect to point out that Israel has nuclear weapons and developed them in secret supposedly even unknown to the U.S.! Of course few seem to notice the fact that the loudest complainers about Iran possibly having a nuclear weapons programme are those who already possess nuclear weapons.
Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them
Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel also submits to international safeguards
ALEXANDER G. HIGGINSAP News
May 05, 2008 15:22 EST
An Iranian envoy said Monday his government will not submit to extensive nuclear inspections while Israel stays outside the global treaty to curb the spread of atomic weapons.
document.write(""+"");
"The existing double standard shall not be tolerated anymore by non-nuclear-weapon states," Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told a meeting of the 190 countries that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Nuclear safeguards are far from universal, he said, adding that more than 30 countries are still without a comprehensive safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure full cooperation with that U.N. body.
"Israel, with huge nuclear weapons activities, has not concluded" such an agreement or submitted its facilities to the IAEA's safeguards, Soltanieh said.
Israel, which does not discuss whether it has atomic weapons, did not sign the nonproliferation treaty, which requires all signatories except the major powers to refrain from obtaining nuclear arms. India and Pakistan, which have developed nuclear weapons, also are not signatories.
Iran did sign the treaty and is under U.N. Security Council sanctions meant to pressure the Tehran government into allowing inspections that will ensure it isn't developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its atomic program is peaceful, with the sole goal of using reactors to generate electricity.
A U.S. envoy accused Iran of "provocative and destabilizing activities" and said its leaders were responsible for leading the country into the sanctions imposed by the Security Council.
"The path of defiance is also the path of isolation, of continuing and additional sanctions and of further stunted economic opportunities for a proud and sophisticated people already suffering from economic turmoil and mismanagement by its regime's leaders," said Christopher A. Ford, U.S. special representative for nuclear nonproliferation.
Ford said Iran joined North Korea and Syria in weakening the nonproliferation treaty.
"This treaty regime faces today the most serious tests it has ever faced: the ongoing nuclear weapons proliferation challenges presented by Iran, by North Korea and now by Syria," Ford said.
Ford cited U.S. intelligence that North Korea was helping Syria in "secretly constructing a nuclear reactor that we believe was not intended for peaceful purposes." Syria denied last week that it was working on an undeclared reactor, which purportedly was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike last September.
Soltanieh said nuclear-armed powers like the United States, Britain and France are practicing "nuclear apartheid" by denying or restricting peaceful atomic technology to countries like Iran.
"Access of developing countries to peaceful nuclear materials and technologies has been continuously denied to the extent that they have had no choice than to acquire their requirements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including for medical and industrial applications, from open markets," Soltanieh said.
This usually means the material is more expensive, poorer quality and less safe, he said.
Source: AP News
Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them
Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel also submits to international safeguards
ALEXANDER G. HIGGINSAP News
May 05, 2008 15:22 EST
An Iranian envoy said Monday his government will not submit to extensive nuclear inspections while Israel stays outside the global treaty to curb the spread of atomic weapons.
document.write(""+"");
"The existing double standard shall not be tolerated anymore by non-nuclear-weapon states," Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told a meeting of the 190 countries that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Nuclear safeguards are far from universal, he said, adding that more than 30 countries are still without a comprehensive safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure full cooperation with that U.N. body.
"Israel, with huge nuclear weapons activities, has not concluded" such an agreement or submitted its facilities to the IAEA's safeguards, Soltanieh said.
Israel, which does not discuss whether it has atomic weapons, did not sign the nonproliferation treaty, which requires all signatories except the major powers to refrain from obtaining nuclear arms. India and Pakistan, which have developed nuclear weapons, also are not signatories.
Iran did sign the treaty and is under U.N. Security Council sanctions meant to pressure the Tehran government into allowing inspections that will ensure it isn't developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its atomic program is peaceful, with the sole goal of using reactors to generate electricity.
A U.S. envoy accused Iran of "provocative and destabilizing activities" and said its leaders were responsible for leading the country into the sanctions imposed by the Security Council.
"The path of defiance is also the path of isolation, of continuing and additional sanctions and of further stunted economic opportunities for a proud and sophisticated people already suffering from economic turmoil and mismanagement by its regime's leaders," said Christopher A. Ford, U.S. special representative for nuclear nonproliferation.
Ford said Iran joined North Korea and Syria in weakening the nonproliferation treaty.
"This treaty regime faces today the most serious tests it has ever faced: the ongoing nuclear weapons proliferation challenges presented by Iran, by North Korea and now by Syria," Ford said.
Ford cited U.S. intelligence that North Korea was helping Syria in "secretly constructing a nuclear reactor that we believe was not intended for peaceful purposes." Syria denied last week that it was working on an undeclared reactor, which purportedly was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike last September.
Soltanieh said nuclear-armed powers like the United States, Britain and France are practicing "nuclear apartheid" by denying or restricting peaceful atomic technology to countries like Iran.
"Access of developing countries to peaceful nuclear materials and technologies has been continuously denied to the extent that they have had no choice than to acquire their requirements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including for medical and industrial applications, from open markets," Soltanieh said.
This usually means the material is more expensive, poorer quality and less safe, he said.
Source: AP News
Monday, May 5, 2008
Philippines Cancels Rice Tender..
This is from Bloomberg.This is the second time in two months tenders have failed to attract sufficient bids. Some Worl Bank and IMF policies have discouraged countries from pursuing an agricultural policy of food self-sufficiency.
Philippines Cancels Rice Tender; Futures Rebound (Update6)
By Luzi Ann Javier
May 5 (Bloomberg) -- The Philippines, the world's biggest rice importer, canceled a tender to buy 675,000 metric tons after only one company submitted an offer amid limited global supplies. Grain futures rebounded in Chicago.
Vietnam Southern Food Corp. was the only company to offer the grain, National Food Authority Deputy Administrator Vic Jarina said. The authority will wait until the ``market softens'' before holding another tender, possibly in the second half, he said today.
The Philippines failed to fill a tender last month, helping rice prices rise to a record in Chicago on April 24. Philippine Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap said on May 2 that today's planned purchase was intended to boost stockpiles and the country was prepared to reject offers if it deemed prices were too high.
``Global supply until the end of the year will remain tight,'' Chookiat Ophaswongse, president of the Thai Rice Exporters Association, said in a telephone interview. The Philippines ``will probably need to issue another tender.''
Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, and Vietnam both signaled that they would not take part in today's tender. The Thai government couldn't guarantee contracts, the commerce ministry said on April 28.
Rice, the staple food for half the world, surged 90 percent on the Chicago Board of Trade in the past year on higher demand and export curbs by some nations, including Vietnam. The most- active contract, which advanced to a record $25.07 per 100 pounds on April 24, rose 14.5 cents, or 0.7 percent, to $21.09.
`Any Price'
The surge in the price of rice and record energy costs have stoked concern that global poverty may increase and social unrest may spread. Ministers from Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which includes the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, agreed May 3 to work together to cope with rising rice prices.
Yap's statement that the Philippines may reject bids if prices were too high may have discouraged potential suppliers, said Luz Lorenzo, an economist at ATR-Kim Eng Securities Inc. in Manila, the Philippine capital.
``When the government was willing to buy at any price, it attracted a lot of bidders,'' Lorenzo said by phone. ``There's less willingness now to pay top price.''
Twelve companies including suppliers from Thailand and Vietnam offered on April 17 to sell the Philippines 325,750 tons of rice at prices ranging from $872.50 a ton to $1,220, including freight costs. The nation had sought 500,000 tons, prompting the government to raise the amount it was seeking today.
`Critical Volume'
``We've already procured the critical volume of 1.713 million tons'' needed to fill the gap in supply, Jarina told reporters in Manila this morning as the tender details were announced. That volume included imports bought with loans from the U.S., he said.
The Philippines will likely hit a production target of 17.3 million tons of rough rice this year, Yap also said on May 2. That's equivalent to 11.2 million tons of milled rice. The nation's demand for the grain is about 12 million tons a year.
The National Food Authority, which has been authorized to import up to 2.1 million tons of rice this year, is in talks to secure an extra 300,000 tons, including 100,000 tons from the East Asian Emergency Rice Reserve, Jarina said by phone this afternoon.
If the government fails to secure the additional supplies and prices fall, ``we may do the tender in the third quarter, or the fourth quarter,'' Jarina said by phone. The price may drop between August and September as Thailand and the U.S. harvest second crops, Jarina said in the interview.
Rising food prices are creating ``a silent tsunami'' and threatened to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger, the World Food Programme said last month.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is to chair a new UN task force to counter the effects of soaring food prices. There was ``mounting hunger and increasing evidence of severe malnutrition,'' Ban said April 29.
To contact the reporter for this story: Luzi Ann Javier in Manila at ljavier@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 5, 2008
Philippines Cancels Rice Tender; Futures Rebound (Update6)
By Luzi Ann Javier
May 5 (Bloomberg) -- The Philippines, the world's biggest rice importer, canceled a tender to buy 675,000 metric tons after only one company submitted an offer amid limited global supplies. Grain futures rebounded in Chicago.
Vietnam Southern Food Corp. was the only company to offer the grain, National Food Authority Deputy Administrator Vic Jarina said. The authority will wait until the ``market softens'' before holding another tender, possibly in the second half, he said today.
The Philippines failed to fill a tender last month, helping rice prices rise to a record in Chicago on April 24. Philippine Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap said on May 2 that today's planned purchase was intended to boost stockpiles and the country was prepared to reject offers if it deemed prices were too high.
``Global supply until the end of the year will remain tight,'' Chookiat Ophaswongse, president of the Thai Rice Exporters Association, said in a telephone interview. The Philippines ``will probably need to issue another tender.''
Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, and Vietnam both signaled that they would not take part in today's tender. The Thai government couldn't guarantee contracts, the commerce ministry said on April 28.
Rice, the staple food for half the world, surged 90 percent on the Chicago Board of Trade in the past year on higher demand and export curbs by some nations, including Vietnam. The most- active contract, which advanced to a record $25.07 per 100 pounds on April 24, rose 14.5 cents, or 0.7 percent, to $21.09.
`Any Price'
The surge in the price of rice and record energy costs have stoked concern that global poverty may increase and social unrest may spread. Ministers from Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which includes the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, agreed May 3 to work together to cope with rising rice prices.
Yap's statement that the Philippines may reject bids if prices were too high may have discouraged potential suppliers, said Luz Lorenzo, an economist at ATR-Kim Eng Securities Inc. in Manila, the Philippine capital.
``When the government was willing to buy at any price, it attracted a lot of bidders,'' Lorenzo said by phone. ``There's less willingness now to pay top price.''
Twelve companies including suppliers from Thailand and Vietnam offered on April 17 to sell the Philippines 325,750 tons of rice at prices ranging from $872.50 a ton to $1,220, including freight costs. The nation had sought 500,000 tons, prompting the government to raise the amount it was seeking today.
`Critical Volume'
``We've already procured the critical volume of 1.713 million tons'' needed to fill the gap in supply, Jarina told reporters in Manila this morning as the tender details were announced. That volume included imports bought with loans from the U.S., he said.
The Philippines will likely hit a production target of 17.3 million tons of rough rice this year, Yap also said on May 2. That's equivalent to 11.2 million tons of milled rice. The nation's demand for the grain is about 12 million tons a year.
The National Food Authority, which has been authorized to import up to 2.1 million tons of rice this year, is in talks to secure an extra 300,000 tons, including 100,000 tons from the East Asian Emergency Rice Reserve, Jarina said by phone this afternoon.
If the government fails to secure the additional supplies and prices fall, ``we may do the tender in the third quarter, or the fourth quarter,'' Jarina said by phone. The price may drop between August and September as Thailand and the U.S. harvest second crops, Jarina said in the interview.
Rising food prices are creating ``a silent tsunami'' and threatened to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger, the World Food Programme said last month.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is to chair a new UN task force to counter the effects of soaring food prices. There was ``mounting hunger and increasing evidence of severe malnutrition,'' Ban said April 29.
To contact the reporter for this story: Luzi Ann Javier in Manila at ljavier@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 5, 2008
Iraqi official says Iran arms evidence not conclusive.
This is from wiredispatch. Even though Iraq had a war with Iran the present Iraqi government is anxious to be on good relations with their Shia neighbours. Another reason why they are cosy is that Iran not only helps arm Al Sadr but also the Badr brigades that are associated with the main government party! The U.S. doesn't seem to realise that once the majority Shia are a key force in the government that Iran has won the Iraq war.
Iraqi official says Iran arms evidence not conclusive
Iraqi official says no conclusive evidence on some Iran arms to militias
SAMEER N. YACOUB
AP News
May 04, 2008 13:10 EST
A top Iraqi official said Sunday there was no conclusive evidence that Shiite extremists have been directly supplied with some Iranian arms as alleged by the United States.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraq does not want trouble with any country, "especially Iran."
Al-Dabbagh was commenting on talks this week in Tehran between an Iraqi delegation and Iranian authorities aimed at halting suspected Iranian aid to some Shiite militias.
Asked about reports that some rockets made in 2007 or 2008 and seized in raids against militias were directly supplied by Iran, al-Dabbagh replied: "There is no conclusive evidence."
The U.S. accuses Iran of financing and training Shiite militants in Iraq and of funneling lethal weapons into the country. Iranian officials have denied the allegations.
Al-Dabbagh said Iraq wants friendly ties with Iran and stressed both countries share common interests.
"We can't ignore or deny we are neighbors. We do not want to be pushed in a struggle with any country, especially Iran," he told a news conference.
"We are fed up with past tensions that we have paid a costly price for because some parties have pushed Iraq (in the past) to take an aggressive attitude to Iran."
But he also said a crackdown on Shiite militants will not stop, despite word that Iran will not restart security talks with the United States until the fighting is halted.
Al-Dabbagh told reporters that the Iraqi government is "seizing every opportunity to establish good relations with Iran" but that it also has a responsibility to "implement the rule of law."
"I think that the ongoing military operations in Iraq are an internal Iraqi affair and concern the Iraqi government and the coalition forces in Iraq," al-Dabbagh said. "No other party, except the Iraqis, has anything to do with this issue."
A five-member Iraqi delegation returned Saturday from Tehran where they held meetings aimed at halting the suspected Iranian aid to militiamen.
One of the meetings was with Gen. Ghassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps that has been accused of training and funneling weapons to Shiite extremists in Iraq.
The Iraqi delegation was said to have carried documents and other material implicating the Quds Force in supplying weapons and training Shiite fighters.
U.S. military officials have said the evidence includes caches of weapons that have date stamps showing they were produced in Iran this year — including mortars, rockets and armor-piercing roadside bombs known as explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs.
U.S.-backed Iraqi forces are in the midst of a crackdown on the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is believed to be living in Iran.
According to officials familiar with the meeting, the delegation received a frosty reception from Soleimani, who questioned the origin of the documents. The officials asked not to be named for security reasons.
Iran's Fars news agency reported that Iranian negotiators told their Iraqi counterparts that as long as the U.S. carried out attacks against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City, Iran would not restart talks with the Americans.
U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll told reporters that the "multi-national force endorses all dialogue."
But he said Iranian involvement in destabilizing Iraq was mostly an "issue between the government of Iraq — a sovereign nation — and Iran to discuss and seek resolution."
___
Iraqi official says Iran arms evidence not conclusive
Iraqi official says no conclusive evidence on some Iran arms to militias
SAMEER N. YACOUB
AP News
May 04, 2008 13:10 EST
A top Iraqi official said Sunday there was no conclusive evidence that Shiite extremists have been directly supplied with some Iranian arms as alleged by the United States.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraq does not want trouble with any country, "especially Iran."
Al-Dabbagh was commenting on talks this week in Tehran between an Iraqi delegation and Iranian authorities aimed at halting suspected Iranian aid to some Shiite militias.
Asked about reports that some rockets made in 2007 or 2008 and seized in raids against militias were directly supplied by Iran, al-Dabbagh replied: "There is no conclusive evidence."
The U.S. accuses Iran of financing and training Shiite militants in Iraq and of funneling lethal weapons into the country. Iranian officials have denied the allegations.
Al-Dabbagh said Iraq wants friendly ties with Iran and stressed both countries share common interests.
"We can't ignore or deny we are neighbors. We do not want to be pushed in a struggle with any country, especially Iran," he told a news conference.
"We are fed up with past tensions that we have paid a costly price for because some parties have pushed Iraq (in the past) to take an aggressive attitude to Iran."
But he also said a crackdown on Shiite militants will not stop, despite word that Iran will not restart security talks with the United States until the fighting is halted.
Al-Dabbagh told reporters that the Iraqi government is "seizing every opportunity to establish good relations with Iran" but that it also has a responsibility to "implement the rule of law."
"I think that the ongoing military operations in Iraq are an internal Iraqi affair and concern the Iraqi government and the coalition forces in Iraq," al-Dabbagh said. "No other party, except the Iraqis, has anything to do with this issue."
A five-member Iraqi delegation returned Saturday from Tehran where they held meetings aimed at halting the suspected Iranian aid to militiamen.
One of the meetings was with Gen. Ghassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps that has been accused of training and funneling weapons to Shiite extremists in Iraq.
The Iraqi delegation was said to have carried documents and other material implicating the Quds Force in supplying weapons and training Shiite fighters.
U.S. military officials have said the evidence includes caches of weapons that have date stamps showing they were produced in Iran this year — including mortars, rockets and armor-piercing roadside bombs known as explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs.
U.S.-backed Iraqi forces are in the midst of a crackdown on the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is believed to be living in Iran.
According to officials familiar with the meeting, the delegation received a frosty reception from Soleimani, who questioned the origin of the documents. The officials asked not to be named for security reasons.
Iran's Fars news agency reported that Iranian negotiators told their Iraqi counterparts that as long as the U.S. carried out attacks against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City, Iran would not restart talks with the Americans.
U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll told reporters that the "multi-national force endorses all dialogue."
But he said Iranian involvement in destabilizing Iraq was mostly an "issue between the government of Iraq — a sovereign nation — and Iran to discuss and seek resolution."
___
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Water Conservation and U.S. golf courses.
This is from the Wallstreetjournal. Not only golf courses soak up scarce water but so do millions of private lawns and they equally need to be regulated. I wonder how those against any government regulation suggest we solve the problem of scarce water resources?
GOLF JOURNAL
By JOHN PAUL NEWPORT
Play It as It Dries
May 3, 2008; Page W1
Last December, I got a taste of what golfers are likely to experience, if not quite so starkly, in the years ahead. I played a course in Georgia whose fairways, due to strict drought restrictions across the northern third of the state, hadn't been watered in months.
How should the government balance water conservation and business risk? How do courses play in dry areas? Share your thoughts.The look was a little eerie. Unlike links courses in the British Isles, which are meant to play hard, fast and usually brown, this course at Reynolds Plantation in Greensboro was designed for lushness, but now only the putting surfaces were green. The fairways had not been overseeded for winter, and everything was parched.
I can't say the round wasn't fun. Our drives rolled out to ego-boosting distances and our lies on the dormant turf were usually quite good. But it wasn't what one expects 70 miles west of the famously green course at Augusta National (which, luckily, is in a county that escaped the most stringent water limitations).
The drought in northern Georgia illustrates the delicate balance between rampant development and natural resources. Metropolitan Atlanta, in the heart of the drought region, has doubled in population since 1980, to more than five million, while its main source of water, Lake Lanier, has stayed the same. Twenty years ago, this drought probably wouldn't have forced city golf courses to curtail watering much, if at all.
The Future of Golf? Views of dry fairways at Georgia's Reynolds Plantation in December.
"What's happening in Georgia and elsewhere raises important issues that golf has to consider," says Greg Lyman, the national director of environmental programs at the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America. "Every gallon of water has economic value, and communities have to ask themselves: 'What is the value of golf?' "
As an industry, golf is girding for battle on water issues. Two weeks ago, top executives from 11 major golf organizations, including U.S. Golf Association Executive Director David Fay and PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem, assembled in Washington for the first-ever National Golf Day. But their purpose wasn't to celebrate the game so much as to present a unified lobbying front.
The trigger issue was the government's relief effort after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Storm-damaged courses, it seems, were lumped in with massage parlors and casinos and declared ineligible for federal aid. That isn't proper respect, the golf honchos declared, for an industry that they documented creates two million jobs and generates $195 billion in economic activity.
Establishing this perspective on golf as an economic powerhouse will be central to the game's ongoing advocacy work, most particularly when it comes to environmental issues and the competition for water resources with agriculture and other industries.
Georgia's Reynolds Plantation
In Georgia, it has already begun. "We calculate that golf courses have had to cut back 97% on their water usage in this drought, while other water-using industries were only asked to reduce by 10%," says Mike Crawford, president of the Georgia chapter of the superintendents association and the course superintendent at TPC Sugarloaf in Duluth, Ga. "We want to be a good partner, but that's not fair. Golf is a $3.5 billion industry in this state."
Nationwide, golf-course irrigation consumes less than half of 1% of the 408 billion gallons of water used daily, a golf-industry report concludes.
Even so, that's a lot of water -- two billion gallons a day, or enough to satisfy the household needs of more than two-thirds of the U.S. population, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. And it's clear from the pioneering work that some courses have done in reducing water usage how much less water golf overall could get by on.
Four years ago, for instance, the Olympic Club and two other courses in the San Francisco area collaborated on a project to reclaim wastewater before it was discharged into the ocean. The courses now irrigate exclusively with this nonpotable "gray water," as do 12% of U.S. courses.
Many courses have also scaled back the acreage they maintain as turf, substituting low-maintenance vegetation in areas where golfers are unlikely to hit balls. Moisture-metering systems, coupled with watering systems that use as many as 3,000 computer-controlled sprinkler heads, allow some superintendents to spot-water only when and where the turf needs it.
Scientists are also developing breeds of grass that require less water, such as paspalum, which can tolerate saltwater.
Some of these techniques don't make financial sense for courses in areas where water is still relatively abundant. In the arid Southwest, however, they are often the only way golf hangs on.
"When I moved to Las Vegas 21 years ago, there were 15 courses and a population of maybe 600,000," recalls Bill Rohret, the superintendent at that city's 45-hole Angel Park Golf Club. "Lake Mead [the city's main water supply] was filled to the brim and water was cheap. Now we have 50 courses and a population three times as big and Lake Mead is 100 feet down. People's attitude about water has completely changed."
Las Vegas effectively banned construction of new golf courses four years ago and the local water district's "cash-for-grass" program pays $1.50 for every square foot of turf that courses replace with native desert plants. Angel Park, which at one point was capable of pumping three million gallons of water a day, now uses less than two-thirds what it did and by October will have removed 80 acres of its original 260 acres of irrigated turf -- including the grassy medians in the parking lot.
Courses maintained with less water may look different, but that doesn't make them less playable. The only change we everyday players have to make is in our expectations. To my eye, the wall-to-wall green, Augusta National look is a bit tired, if not decadent. The new aesthetic in golf design, exemplified by the courses of Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore, is more naturalistic, with contrasting colors created by shaggy native grasses instead of thick artificial rough and other unmaintained areas that can double as wildlife habitat.
Even the fairways don't have to be flawlessly green to provide a fun round. St. Andrews in Scotland is seldom deep green, but to most golfers it remains among the most beautiful courses in the world.
• Email me at golfjournal@wsj.com.
GOLF JOURNAL
By JOHN PAUL NEWPORT
Play It as It Dries
May 3, 2008; Page W1
Last December, I got a taste of what golfers are likely to experience, if not quite so starkly, in the years ahead. I played a course in Georgia whose fairways, due to strict drought restrictions across the northern third of the state, hadn't been watered in months.
How should the government balance water conservation and business risk? How do courses play in dry areas? Share your thoughts.The look was a little eerie. Unlike links courses in the British Isles, which are meant to play hard, fast and usually brown, this course at Reynolds Plantation in Greensboro was designed for lushness, but now only the putting surfaces were green. The fairways had not been overseeded for winter, and everything was parched.
I can't say the round wasn't fun. Our drives rolled out to ego-boosting distances and our lies on the dormant turf were usually quite good. But it wasn't what one expects 70 miles west of the famously green course at Augusta National (which, luckily, is in a county that escaped the most stringent water limitations).
The drought in northern Georgia illustrates the delicate balance between rampant development and natural resources. Metropolitan Atlanta, in the heart of the drought region, has doubled in population since 1980, to more than five million, while its main source of water, Lake Lanier, has stayed the same. Twenty years ago, this drought probably wouldn't have forced city golf courses to curtail watering much, if at all.
The Future of Golf? Views of dry fairways at Georgia's Reynolds Plantation in December.
"What's happening in Georgia and elsewhere raises important issues that golf has to consider," says Greg Lyman, the national director of environmental programs at the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America. "Every gallon of water has economic value, and communities have to ask themselves: 'What is the value of golf?' "
As an industry, golf is girding for battle on water issues. Two weeks ago, top executives from 11 major golf organizations, including U.S. Golf Association Executive Director David Fay and PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem, assembled in Washington for the first-ever National Golf Day. But their purpose wasn't to celebrate the game so much as to present a unified lobbying front.
The trigger issue was the government's relief effort after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Storm-damaged courses, it seems, were lumped in with massage parlors and casinos and declared ineligible for federal aid. That isn't proper respect, the golf honchos declared, for an industry that they documented creates two million jobs and generates $195 billion in economic activity.
Establishing this perspective on golf as an economic powerhouse will be central to the game's ongoing advocacy work, most particularly when it comes to environmental issues and the competition for water resources with agriculture and other industries.
Georgia's Reynolds Plantation
In Georgia, it has already begun. "We calculate that golf courses have had to cut back 97% on their water usage in this drought, while other water-using industries were only asked to reduce by 10%," says Mike Crawford, president of the Georgia chapter of the superintendents association and the course superintendent at TPC Sugarloaf in Duluth, Ga. "We want to be a good partner, but that's not fair. Golf is a $3.5 billion industry in this state."
Nationwide, golf-course irrigation consumes less than half of 1% of the 408 billion gallons of water used daily, a golf-industry report concludes.
Even so, that's a lot of water -- two billion gallons a day, or enough to satisfy the household needs of more than two-thirds of the U.S. population, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. And it's clear from the pioneering work that some courses have done in reducing water usage how much less water golf overall could get by on.
Four years ago, for instance, the Olympic Club and two other courses in the San Francisco area collaborated on a project to reclaim wastewater before it was discharged into the ocean. The courses now irrigate exclusively with this nonpotable "gray water," as do 12% of U.S. courses.
Many courses have also scaled back the acreage they maintain as turf, substituting low-maintenance vegetation in areas where golfers are unlikely to hit balls. Moisture-metering systems, coupled with watering systems that use as many as 3,000 computer-controlled sprinkler heads, allow some superintendents to spot-water only when and where the turf needs it.
Scientists are also developing breeds of grass that require less water, such as paspalum, which can tolerate saltwater.
Some of these techniques don't make financial sense for courses in areas where water is still relatively abundant. In the arid Southwest, however, they are often the only way golf hangs on.
"When I moved to Las Vegas 21 years ago, there were 15 courses and a population of maybe 600,000," recalls Bill Rohret, the superintendent at that city's 45-hole Angel Park Golf Club. "Lake Mead [the city's main water supply] was filled to the brim and water was cheap. Now we have 50 courses and a population three times as big and Lake Mead is 100 feet down. People's attitude about water has completely changed."
Las Vegas effectively banned construction of new golf courses four years ago and the local water district's "cash-for-grass" program pays $1.50 for every square foot of turf that courses replace with native desert plants. Angel Park, which at one point was capable of pumping three million gallons of water a day, now uses less than two-thirds what it did and by October will have removed 80 acres of its original 260 acres of irrigated turf -- including the grassy medians in the parking lot.
Courses maintained with less water may look different, but that doesn't make them less playable. The only change we everyday players have to make is in our expectations. To my eye, the wall-to-wall green, Augusta National look is a bit tired, if not decadent. The new aesthetic in golf design, exemplified by the courses of Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore, is more naturalistic, with contrasting colors created by shaggy native grasses instead of thick artificial rough and other unmaintained areas that can double as wildlife habitat.
Even the fairways don't have to be flawlessly green to provide a fun round. St. Andrews in Scotland is seldom deep green, but to most golfers it remains among the most beautiful courses in the world.
• Email me at golfjournal@wsj.com.
United States is drawing up plans to strike an Iranian insurgency camp.
This is from the Timesonline. It seems that Bush is bound and determined to mount some kind of attack on Iran before leaving office. However, there has been a lot sabre rattling before and complaints about Iran. We will just have to wait and see. Any attack is likely to not go down well with U.S. allies with the exception of Israel.
Notice this article has not a word to say about the Badr brigades also militias helped by Iran but allies of Maliki so they are not even mentioned.
United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp
Michael Smith
Read Mick Smith's defence blog at www.timesonline.co.uk/micksmith
The US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilise Iraq, western intelligence sources said last week. One source said the Americans were growing increasingly angry at the involvement of the Guards’ special-operations Quds force inside Iraq, training Shi’ite militias and smuggling weapons into the country.
Despite a belligerent stance by Vice-President Dick Cheney, the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on the back burner since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary in 2006, the sources said.
However, US commanders are increasingly concerned by Iranian interference in Iraq and are determined that recent successes by joint Iraqi and US forces in the southern port city of Basra should not be reversed by the Quds Force.
“If the situation in Basra goes back to what it was like before, America is likely to blame Iran and carry out a surgical strike on a militant training camp across the border in Khuzestan,” said one source, referring to a frontier province.
They acknowledged Iran was unlikely to cease involvement in Iraq and that, however limited a US attack might be, the fighting could escalate.
Although American defence chiefs are firmly opposed to any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, they believe a raid on one of the camps training Shi’ite militiamen would deliver a powerful message to Tehran.
British officials believe the US military tends to overestimate the effect of the Iranian involvement in Iraq.
But they say there is little doubt that the Revolutionary Guard exercises significant influence over splinter groups of the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, who were the main targets of recent operations in Basra.
The CBS television network reported last week that plans were being drawn up for an attack on Iran, citing an officer who blamed the “increasingly hostile role” Iran was playing in Iraq.
The American news reports were unclear about the precise target of such an action and referred to Iran’s nuclear facilities as the likely objective.
According to the intelligence sources there will not be an attack on Iran’s nuclear capacity. “The Pentagon is not keen on that at all. If an attack happens it will be on a training camp to send a clear message to Iran not to interfere.”
President George W Bush is known to be determined that he should not hand over what he sees as “the Iran problem” to his successor. A limited attack on a training camp may give an impression of tough action, while at the same time being something that both Gates and the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, could accept.
Notice this article has not a word to say about the Badr brigades also militias helped by Iran but allies of Maliki so they are not even mentioned.
United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp
Michael Smith
Read Mick Smith's defence blog at www.timesonline.co.uk/micksmith
The US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilise Iraq, western intelligence sources said last week. One source said the Americans were growing increasingly angry at the involvement of the Guards’ special-operations Quds force inside Iraq, training Shi’ite militias and smuggling weapons into the country.
Despite a belligerent stance by Vice-President Dick Cheney, the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on the back burner since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary in 2006, the sources said.
However, US commanders are increasingly concerned by Iranian interference in Iraq and are determined that recent successes by joint Iraqi and US forces in the southern port city of Basra should not be reversed by the Quds Force.
“If the situation in Basra goes back to what it was like before, America is likely to blame Iran and carry out a surgical strike on a militant training camp across the border in Khuzestan,” said one source, referring to a frontier province.
They acknowledged Iran was unlikely to cease involvement in Iraq and that, however limited a US attack might be, the fighting could escalate.
Although American defence chiefs are firmly opposed to any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, they believe a raid on one of the camps training Shi’ite militiamen would deliver a powerful message to Tehran.
British officials believe the US military tends to overestimate the effect of the Iranian involvement in Iraq.
But they say there is little doubt that the Revolutionary Guard exercises significant influence over splinter groups of the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, who were the main targets of recent operations in Basra.
The CBS television network reported last week that plans were being drawn up for an attack on Iran, citing an officer who blamed the “increasingly hostile role” Iran was playing in Iraq.
The American news reports were unclear about the precise target of such an action and referred to Iran’s nuclear facilities as the likely objective.
According to the intelligence sources there will not be an attack on Iran’s nuclear capacity. “The Pentagon is not keen on that at all. If an attack happens it will be on a training camp to send a clear message to Iran not to interfere.”
President George W Bush is known to be determined that he should not hand over what he sees as “the Iran problem” to his successor. A limited attack on a training camp may give an impression of tough action, while at the same time being something that both Gates and the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, could accept.
Importing Disneyland type fun park into Baghdad!
This is from Global Research. This is just parts of the article.I just wonder if this park might not be a terrorist target. This Disneyland style park may not be consistent with strict Islamic codes and culture. Certainly Al Qaeda types would have no compunction of blowing people and displays to smithereens.
The whole idea is an insult to Iraqi culture. Surely the Americans could replace what they destroyed a park with a zoo. Of course this might not be profitable! The U.S. aims seems to be to sell dreams at a profit same as at home!
The concept underlying Disney's Imagineering (developed by RSE) is to "overcome the barriers between reality and dreams".
The objective is to replace reality by a dream world.
Iraq's daily realities of death, destruction and torture are replaced by a "Dream World Made in America".
The imagery and motion simulations intended for Iraqi children and adolescents provide a "human face" to the American invaders.
The project constitutes a despicable form of war propaganda. It is a cover-up of the extensive war crimes committed against the Iraqi people in the name of an illusory "American Dream".
The project will take possession of the existing Al Zawra park and Baghdad Zoo, which was ransacked when US troops entered Baghdad in April 2003. ........................................................
...............
The Baghdad Disneyland-style project has all the essential features of a PsyOp. It is intended to instill American values and destroy Iraqi identity.
"The people [of Iraq] need this kind of positive influence. Its going to have a huge psychological impact," said Mr. Werner of C3.
In a cruel irony the PsyOp target group are Iraqi Children:
“There are all sorts of investment opportunities all over Iraq. But it’s not just hydrocarbons. Half the Iraqi population is under the age of 15. These kids really need something to do,” (Mr. Brinkley, quoted in The Times, April 24, 2008)
Iraq's cultural heritage is destroyed.
The historical memory of Mesopotamia is wiped out.
US investors are to "bring badly needed fun" to the war theater.
The sponsor of project Mr. Llewellyn Werner says the time is ripe for a "fun park":
"I think people will embrace it. They'll see it as an opportunity for their children regardless if they're Shia or Sunni. They'll say their kids deserve a place to play and they'll leave it alone."(Ibid)
According to a spokesman for the US installed Iraqi regime:
“There is a shortage of entertainment in the city. Cinemas can’t open. Playgrounds can’t open. The fun park is badly needed for Baghdad. Children don’t have any opportunities to enjoy their childhood.” Mr al-Dabbagh added that entry to the park would be strictly controlled." (Times, April 24, 2008)
Children don’t have any opportunities to enjoy their childhood?
What kind of childhood can be "enjoyed" in a land where public infrastructure, including schools and hospitals have been transformed into rubble?
Imagine the road-blocks and military check points that impoverished Iraqi children will have to go through to see Mickey Mouse...
The US investment company will essentially take possession of municipal lands in an undisclosed deal reached with the Mayor of Baghdad.
At the moment the site is occupied by the Al-Zawra park and zoo, where Baghdad residents gather on weekends. The park is typically Iraqi with ponds, fountains, sculptures, and children’s playgrounds.
"Everything Here is for Profit"
The site is a functioning national park, which is slated for privatization. It is prime real estate for the US investors. The California holding company C3 plans to use the land for lucrative investments in hotels and upscale housing. No doubt, for the project to be profitable and financially viable, it will also require direct financing by the Pentagon.
“I wouldn’t be doing this if I wasn’t making money”:
"Mr Werner will retain exclusive rights to housing and hotel developments, which he says will be both culturally sensitive and enormously profitable... I also have this wonderful sense that we’re doing the right thing – we’re going to employ thousands of Iraqis. But mostly everything here is for profit.”
The whole idea is an insult to Iraqi culture. Surely the Americans could replace what they destroyed a park with a zoo. Of course this might not be profitable! The U.S. aims seems to be to sell dreams at a profit same as at home!
The concept underlying Disney's Imagineering (developed by RSE) is to "overcome the barriers between reality and dreams".
The objective is to replace reality by a dream world.
Iraq's daily realities of death, destruction and torture are replaced by a "Dream World Made in America".
The imagery and motion simulations intended for Iraqi children and adolescents provide a "human face" to the American invaders.
The project constitutes a despicable form of war propaganda. It is a cover-up of the extensive war crimes committed against the Iraqi people in the name of an illusory "American Dream".
The project will take possession of the existing Al Zawra park and Baghdad Zoo, which was ransacked when US troops entered Baghdad in April 2003. ........................................................
...............
The Baghdad Disneyland-style project has all the essential features of a PsyOp. It is intended to instill American values and destroy Iraqi identity.
"The people [of Iraq] need this kind of positive influence. Its going to have a huge psychological impact," said Mr. Werner of C3.
In a cruel irony the PsyOp target group are Iraqi Children:
“There are all sorts of investment opportunities all over Iraq. But it’s not just hydrocarbons. Half the Iraqi population is under the age of 15. These kids really need something to do,” (Mr. Brinkley, quoted in The Times, April 24, 2008)
Iraq's cultural heritage is destroyed.
The historical memory of Mesopotamia is wiped out.
US investors are to "bring badly needed fun" to the war theater.
The sponsor of project Mr. Llewellyn Werner says the time is ripe for a "fun park":
"I think people will embrace it. They'll see it as an opportunity for their children regardless if they're Shia or Sunni. They'll say their kids deserve a place to play and they'll leave it alone."(Ibid)
According to a spokesman for the US installed Iraqi regime:
“There is a shortage of entertainment in the city. Cinemas can’t open. Playgrounds can’t open. The fun park is badly needed for Baghdad. Children don’t have any opportunities to enjoy their childhood.” Mr al-Dabbagh added that entry to the park would be strictly controlled." (Times, April 24, 2008)
Children don’t have any opportunities to enjoy their childhood?
What kind of childhood can be "enjoyed" in a land where public infrastructure, including schools and hospitals have been transformed into rubble?
Imagine the road-blocks and military check points that impoverished Iraqi children will have to go through to see Mickey Mouse...
The US investment company will essentially take possession of municipal lands in an undisclosed deal reached with the Mayor of Baghdad.
At the moment the site is occupied by the Al-Zawra park and zoo, where Baghdad residents gather on weekends. The park is typically Iraqi with ponds, fountains, sculptures, and children’s playgrounds.
"Everything Here is for Profit"
The site is a functioning national park, which is slated for privatization. It is prime real estate for the US investors. The California holding company C3 plans to use the land for lucrative investments in hotels and upscale housing. No doubt, for the project to be profitable and financially viable, it will also require direct financing by the Pentagon.
“I wouldn’t be doing this if I wasn’t making money”:
"Mr Werner will retain exclusive rights to housing and hotel developments, which he says will be both culturally sensitive and enormously profitable... I also have this wonderful sense that we’re doing the right thing – we’re going to employ thousands of Iraqis. But mostly everything here is for profit.”
Baghdad hospital damaged by U.S. missile, dozens injured.
This is from mcclatchy. The U.S. has carried out a number of air and missile attacks right within Baghdad especially in Sadr City. This will simply strengthen anti-U.S. feeling among the citizens. The U.S. simply does not seem to care about winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis.
The whole attack upon militias is a bad joke. The militias associated with Maliki and the governing party, the Badr brigades, are not touched. The irony is that the Badr brigades are also supported by and probably armed by Iran. Iran wins whether the Mahdi army is defeated or not.
U.S. losses are trending upward again as the U.S. and Iraqi forces take on the Madhi army. The Mahdi army seems to have been put down in Basra for the short term at least.
Baghdad hospital damaged by U.S. missile, dozens injured
By Shashank Bengali | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Saturday, May 3, 2008
BAGHDAD — A major hospital in Baghdad's Sadr City slum was damaged Saturday when an American military strike targeted a militia command center just a few yards away, the U.S. military said.
American troops also killed 14 people in separate incidents in and around Sadr City as bloody street battles continued to mark the U.S. effort to rid the area of suspected Shiite Muslim militants, military officials said.
The rocket strike near Sadr Hospital injured 30 people, shattered the windows of ambulances and sent doctors and hospital staff fleeing the scene, hospital officials said.
That hospital and another major facility in Sadr City had already taken in 25 dead bodies between Friday afternoon and 10 a.m. Saturday, when the strike occurred, hospital officials said. None of the injuries was life threatening.
The U.S. military is facing growing criticism over what residents describe as mounting civilian casualties in Sadr City, a densely populated slum of some 2.5 million people, which has seen heavy clashes over the past six weeks between U.S. and Iraqi forces and militiamen loyal to the hard-line Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr.
A senior Iranian official accused the U.S. military of attacking Iraqi civilians, telling the official Fars News Agency that Iran would pull out of talks with the United States on Iraqi security unless the attacks stop. The countries held three rounds of talks last year on Iraq — the highest level bilateral talks since 1980 — and are due to meet again this year.
U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they try to avoid civilian casualties. They accuse Iran of arming and training Iraqi militias, a charge that Tehran denies. American officials in Baghdad were reviewing the Iranian report but didn’t immediately comment on it.
Since Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Shiite-led government launched an offensive against Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in the southern port city of Basra in March, Shiite militants have targeted U.S. and Iraqi troops in the sprawling, maze-like slum in northeast Baghdad that is becoming increasingly deadly for American soldiers.
Sadr has called on his followers to end the American occupation of Iraq. American military officials say that militants are using houses in Sadr City as bases from which to fire on U.S. and Iraqi troops and launch mortars into the Green Zone, the heavily fortified seat of government in Baghdad.
Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a U.S. military spokesman, said that the strike near the Sadr Hospital destroyed a house that American intelligence reports described as a command center for militiamen.
"It did not hit the hospital," Stover said. "Based on the proximity of the house, there may have been shattered windows."
A hospital official said that the explosion shattered all the windows and sent many doctors running from the building, leaving the emergency ward without enough personnel to deal with injury victims. Television footage showed several ambulances with shattered windows and hospital staff racing through corridors with bleeding victims strapped to gurneys.
"Some of those injured were patients who were on their way into the hospital. Others were just passing by," said the hospital official, who requested anonymity for security reasons.
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
The whole attack upon militias is a bad joke. The militias associated with Maliki and the governing party, the Badr brigades, are not touched. The irony is that the Badr brigades are also supported by and probably armed by Iran. Iran wins whether the Mahdi army is defeated or not.
U.S. losses are trending upward again as the U.S. and Iraqi forces take on the Madhi army. The Mahdi army seems to have been put down in Basra for the short term at least.
Baghdad hospital damaged by U.S. missile, dozens injured
By Shashank Bengali | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Saturday, May 3, 2008
BAGHDAD — A major hospital in Baghdad's Sadr City slum was damaged Saturday when an American military strike targeted a militia command center just a few yards away, the U.S. military said.
American troops also killed 14 people in separate incidents in and around Sadr City as bloody street battles continued to mark the U.S. effort to rid the area of suspected Shiite Muslim militants, military officials said.
The rocket strike near Sadr Hospital injured 30 people, shattered the windows of ambulances and sent doctors and hospital staff fleeing the scene, hospital officials said.
That hospital and another major facility in Sadr City had already taken in 25 dead bodies between Friday afternoon and 10 a.m. Saturday, when the strike occurred, hospital officials said. None of the injuries was life threatening.
The U.S. military is facing growing criticism over what residents describe as mounting civilian casualties in Sadr City, a densely populated slum of some 2.5 million people, which has seen heavy clashes over the past six weeks between U.S. and Iraqi forces and militiamen loyal to the hard-line Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr.
A senior Iranian official accused the U.S. military of attacking Iraqi civilians, telling the official Fars News Agency that Iran would pull out of talks with the United States on Iraqi security unless the attacks stop. The countries held three rounds of talks last year on Iraq — the highest level bilateral talks since 1980 — and are due to meet again this year.
U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they try to avoid civilian casualties. They accuse Iran of arming and training Iraqi militias, a charge that Tehran denies. American officials in Baghdad were reviewing the Iranian report but didn’t immediately comment on it.
Since Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Shiite-led government launched an offensive against Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in the southern port city of Basra in March, Shiite militants have targeted U.S. and Iraqi troops in the sprawling, maze-like slum in northeast Baghdad that is becoming increasingly deadly for American soldiers.
Sadr has called on his followers to end the American occupation of Iraq. American military officials say that militants are using houses in Sadr City as bases from which to fire on U.S. and Iraqi troops and launch mortars into the Green Zone, the heavily fortified seat of government in Baghdad.
Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a U.S. military spokesman, said that the strike near the Sadr Hospital destroyed a house that American intelligence reports described as a command center for militiamen.
"It did not hit the hospital," Stover said. "Based on the proximity of the house, there may have been shattered windows."
A hospital official said that the explosion shattered all the windows and sent many doctors running from the building, leaving the emergency ward without enough personnel to deal with injury victims. Television footage showed several ambulances with shattered windows and hospital staff racing through corridors with bleeding victims strapped to gurneys.
"Some of those injured were patients who were on their way into the hospital. Others were just passing by," said the hospital official, who requested anonymity for security reasons.
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
Boris Johnson: New Mayor of London
Conservatives are crowing about the election of Boris Johnson as new mayor of London ousting Ken Livingstone. However Johnson is no ordinary Conservative. He is very much his own person and on some issues his views would be regarded by many as leftist certainly moreso than Tony Blair! Johnson's attitude to Bush is caustic if not downright abusive. He is a vehement opponent of the war in Iraq though originally he supported it. He is also opposed to an attack on Iran. See this article. Johnson has his own website. Johnson is anything but politically correct and sometimes comes on like Monty Python:
"Johnson's candidacy was the subject of international interest. Germany's Der Spiegel and America's National Public Radio reported the race, both quoting Johnson as saying "if you vote for the Conservatives, your wife will get bigger breasts, and your chances of driving a BMW M3 will increase."[26][27], without however giving a source for this; the BBC has quoted the same statement by him from his 2004 campaign trail.[28]" (from Wikipedia)
Here is a typical article where Johnson criticises the Blair government and defends (sort of!) Al Jazeera. From the Telegraph.
Boris is sometimes called Boris the Menace mimicking Dennis the Menace.
It remains to be seen if Johnson has any administrative skills along with his journalistic and comedic talents!
I'll go to jail to print the truth about Bush and al-Jazeera
By Boris Johnson
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 24/11/2005
It must be said that subsequent events have not made life easy for those of us who were so optimistic as to support the war in Iraq. There were those who believed the Government's rubbish about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then the WMD made their historic no-show.
Some of us were so innocent as to suppose that the Pentagon had a well-thought-out plan for the removal of the dictator and the introduction of peace. Then we had the insurgency, in which tens of thousands have died.
Some of us thought it was about ensuring that chemical weapons could never again be used on Iraqi soil. Then we heard about the white phosphorus deployed by the Pentagon. Some people believed that the American liberation would mean the end of torture in Iraqi jails. Then we had Abu Ghraib.
advertisementSome of us thought it was all about the dissemination of the institutions of a civil society - above all a free press, in which journalists could work without fear of being murdered. Then we heard about the Bush plan to blow up al-Jazeera.
Some of us feel that we have an abusive relationship with this war. Every time we get our hopes up, we get punched by some piece of bad news. We yearn to be told that we're wrong, that things are going to get better, that the glass is half full. That's why I would love to think that Dubya was just having one of his little frat-house wisecracks, when he talked of destroying the Qatar-based satellite TV station. Maybe he was only horsing around. Maybe it was a flippant one-liner, of the kind that he delivers before making one of his dramatic exits into the broom-closet. Perhaps it was a kind of Henry II moment: you know, who will rid me of this turbulent TV station? Maybe he had a burst of spacy Reagan-esque surrealism, like the time the old boy forgot that the mikes were switched on, and startled a press conference with the announcement that he was going to start bombing Russia in five minutes. Maybe Bush thought he was Kenny Everett. Perhaps he was playing Basil Brush. Boom boom.
Who knows? But if his remarks were just an innocent piece of cretinism, then why in the name of holy thunder has the British state decreed that anyone printing those remarks will be sent to prison?
We all hope and pray that the American President was engaging in nothing more than neo-con Tourette-style babble about blowing things up. We are quite prepared to believe that the Daily Mirror is wrong. We are ready to accept that the two British civil servants who have leaked the account are either malicious or mistaken. But if there is one thing that would seem to confirm the essential accuracy of the story, it is that the Attorney General has announced that he will prosecute anyone printing the exact facts.
What are we supposed to think? The meeting between Bush and Blair took place on April 16, 2004, at the height of the US assault on Fallujah, and there is circumstantial evidence for believing that Bush may indeed have said what he is alleged to have said.
We know that the administration was infuriated with the al-Jazeera coverage of the battle, and the way the station focused on the deaths of hundreds of people, including civilians, rather than the necessity of ridding the town of dangerous terrorists. We remember how Cheney and Rumsfeld both launched vehement attacks on the station, and accused it of aiding the rebels. We are told by the New York Times that there were shouty-crackers arguments within the administration, with some officials yelling that the channel should be shut down, and others saying that it would be better to work with the journalists in the hope of producing better coverage.
We also recall that the Americans have form when it comes to the mass media outlets of regimes they dislike. They blew up the Kabul bureau of al-Jazeera in 2002, and they pulverised the Baghdad bureau in April 2003, killing one of the reporters. In 1999 they managed to blow up the Serb TV station, killing two make-up girls, in circumstances that were never satisfactorily explained.
To be fair to the Americans, we must also accept that they had good grounds for resenting al-Jazeera. The station is hugely respected in the Arab world, has about 35 million viewers, and yet it gives what can only be described as a thoroughly Arab perspective of current affairs. It assists in the glorification of suicide bombers; it publishes the rambling tapes of Bin Laden and others among the world's leading creeps and whackos; it is overwhelmingly hostile to America and sceptical about the neo-con project of imposing western values and political systems in the Middle East.
And yet however wrong you may think al-Jazeera is in its slant and its views, you must accept that what it is providing is recognisably journalism. It is not always helpful to the American cause in Iraq, but then nor is the BBC; and would anybody in London or Washington suggest sending a Tomahawk into White City? Well, they might, but only as a joke. Exhausted Western leaders, living in the nightmare of a media-dominated democracy, are allowed to make jokes about blowing up journalists. I seem to remember that when I was sent to Belgrade to cover the Nato attacks, Tony Blair told the then proprietor of The Daily Telegraph that he would "tell Nato to step up the bombing!" Ho ho ho.
But if there is an ounce of truth in the notion that George Bush seriously proposed the destruction of al-Jazeera, and was only dissuaded by the Prime Minister, then we need to know, and we need to know urgently. We need to know what we have been fighting for, and there is only one way to find out.
The Attorney General's ban is ridiculous, untenable, and redolent of guilt. I do not like people to break the Official Secrets Act, and, as it happens, I would not object to the continued prosecution of those who are alleged to have broken it. But we now have allegations of such severity, against the US President and his motives, that we need to clear them up.
If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. The public need to judge for themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for, and in an important respect we become as sick and as bad as our enemies.
Boris Johnson is MP for Henley and editor of 'The Spectator'
"Johnson's candidacy was the subject of international interest. Germany's Der Spiegel and America's National Public Radio reported the race, both quoting Johnson as saying "if you vote for the Conservatives, your wife will get bigger breasts, and your chances of driving a BMW M3 will increase."[26][27], without however giving a source for this; the BBC has quoted the same statement by him from his 2004 campaign trail.[28]" (from Wikipedia)
Here is a typical article where Johnson criticises the Blair government and defends (sort of!) Al Jazeera. From the Telegraph.
Boris is sometimes called Boris the Menace mimicking Dennis the Menace.
It remains to be seen if Johnson has any administrative skills along with his journalistic and comedic talents!
I'll go to jail to print the truth about Bush and al-Jazeera
By Boris Johnson
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 24/11/2005
It must be said that subsequent events have not made life easy for those of us who were so optimistic as to support the war in Iraq. There were those who believed the Government's rubbish about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then the WMD made their historic no-show.
Some of us were so innocent as to suppose that the Pentagon had a well-thought-out plan for the removal of the dictator and the introduction of peace. Then we had the insurgency, in which tens of thousands have died.
Some of us thought it was about ensuring that chemical weapons could never again be used on Iraqi soil. Then we heard about the white phosphorus deployed by the Pentagon. Some people believed that the American liberation would mean the end of torture in Iraqi jails. Then we had Abu Ghraib.
advertisementSome of us thought it was all about the dissemination of the institutions of a civil society - above all a free press, in which journalists could work without fear of being murdered. Then we heard about the Bush plan to blow up al-Jazeera.
Some of us feel that we have an abusive relationship with this war. Every time we get our hopes up, we get punched by some piece of bad news. We yearn to be told that we're wrong, that things are going to get better, that the glass is half full. That's why I would love to think that Dubya was just having one of his little frat-house wisecracks, when he talked of destroying the Qatar-based satellite TV station. Maybe he was only horsing around. Maybe it was a flippant one-liner, of the kind that he delivers before making one of his dramatic exits into the broom-closet. Perhaps it was a kind of Henry II moment: you know, who will rid me of this turbulent TV station? Maybe he had a burst of spacy Reagan-esque surrealism, like the time the old boy forgot that the mikes were switched on, and startled a press conference with the announcement that he was going to start bombing Russia in five minutes. Maybe Bush thought he was Kenny Everett. Perhaps he was playing Basil Brush. Boom boom.
Who knows? But if his remarks were just an innocent piece of cretinism, then why in the name of holy thunder has the British state decreed that anyone printing those remarks will be sent to prison?
We all hope and pray that the American President was engaging in nothing more than neo-con Tourette-style babble about blowing things up. We are quite prepared to believe that the Daily Mirror is wrong. We are ready to accept that the two British civil servants who have leaked the account are either malicious or mistaken. But if there is one thing that would seem to confirm the essential accuracy of the story, it is that the Attorney General has announced that he will prosecute anyone printing the exact facts.
What are we supposed to think? The meeting between Bush and Blair took place on April 16, 2004, at the height of the US assault on Fallujah, and there is circumstantial evidence for believing that Bush may indeed have said what he is alleged to have said.
We know that the administration was infuriated with the al-Jazeera coverage of the battle, and the way the station focused on the deaths of hundreds of people, including civilians, rather than the necessity of ridding the town of dangerous terrorists. We remember how Cheney and Rumsfeld both launched vehement attacks on the station, and accused it of aiding the rebels. We are told by the New York Times that there were shouty-crackers arguments within the administration, with some officials yelling that the channel should be shut down, and others saying that it would be better to work with the journalists in the hope of producing better coverage.
We also recall that the Americans have form when it comes to the mass media outlets of regimes they dislike. They blew up the Kabul bureau of al-Jazeera in 2002, and they pulverised the Baghdad bureau in April 2003, killing one of the reporters. In 1999 they managed to blow up the Serb TV station, killing two make-up girls, in circumstances that were never satisfactorily explained.
To be fair to the Americans, we must also accept that they had good grounds for resenting al-Jazeera. The station is hugely respected in the Arab world, has about 35 million viewers, and yet it gives what can only be described as a thoroughly Arab perspective of current affairs. It assists in the glorification of suicide bombers; it publishes the rambling tapes of Bin Laden and others among the world's leading creeps and whackos; it is overwhelmingly hostile to America and sceptical about the neo-con project of imposing western values and political systems in the Middle East.
And yet however wrong you may think al-Jazeera is in its slant and its views, you must accept that what it is providing is recognisably journalism. It is not always helpful to the American cause in Iraq, but then nor is the BBC; and would anybody in London or Washington suggest sending a Tomahawk into White City? Well, they might, but only as a joke. Exhausted Western leaders, living in the nightmare of a media-dominated democracy, are allowed to make jokes about blowing up journalists. I seem to remember that when I was sent to Belgrade to cover the Nato attacks, Tony Blair told the then proprietor of The Daily Telegraph that he would "tell Nato to step up the bombing!" Ho ho ho.
But if there is an ounce of truth in the notion that George Bush seriously proposed the destruction of al-Jazeera, and was only dissuaded by the Prime Minister, then we need to know, and we need to know urgently. We need to know what we have been fighting for, and there is only one way to find out.
The Attorney General's ban is ridiculous, untenable, and redolent of guilt. I do not like people to break the Official Secrets Act, and, as it happens, I would not object to the continued prosecution of those who are alleged to have broken it. But we now have allegations of such severity, against the US President and his motives, that we need to clear them up.
If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. The public need to judge for themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for, and in an important respect we become as sick and as bad as our enemies.
Boris Johnson is MP for Henley and editor of 'The Spectator'
Saturday, May 3, 2008
The Pentagon as Global Gas-Guzzler
When it comes to saving gas the emphasis is always on the citizen driving his or her auto but never on the military which as this article shows is the supreme gas-guzzler. No one ever even remarks on the fuel efficiency of military vehicles. It is probably of little concern. There are thousands upon thousands of military flights and probably no concern about the amount of fuel consumed. This is from the polaris institute.
The Pentagon as Global Gas-Guzzler
Posted June 19, 2007 in [Energy]
Michael T. Klare, Thursday, June 14, 2007, www.TomDispatch.com - How wars of the future may be fought just to run the machines that fight them.
Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis - either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.
Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia. That's greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million - and yet it's a gross underestimate of the Pentagon's wartime consumption.
Such numbers cannot do full justice to the extraordinary gas-guzzling expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, for every soldier stationed "in theater," there are two more in transit, in training, or otherwise in line for eventual deployment to the war zone - soldiers who also consume enormous amounts of oil, even if less than their compatriots overseas. Moreover, to sustain an "expeditionary" army located halfway around the world, the Department of Defense must move millions of tons of arms, ammunition, food, fuel, and equipment every year by plane or ship, consuming additional tanker-loads of petroleum. Add this to the tally and the Pentagon's war-related oil budget jumps appreciably, though exactly how much we have no real way of knowing.
And foreign wars, sad to say, account for but a small fraction of the Pentagon's total petroleum consumption. Possessing the world's largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support systems - virtually all powered by oil - the Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world's leading consumer of petroleum. It can be difficult to obtain precise details on the DoD's daily oil hit, but an April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.
Not "Guns v. Butter," but "Guns v. Oil"
For anyone who drives a motor vehicle these days, this has ominous implications. With the price of gasoline now 75 cents to a dollar more than it was just six months ago, it's obvious that the Pentagon is facing a potentially serious budgetary crunch. Just like any ordinary American family, the DoD has to make some hard choices: It can use its normal amount of petroleum and pay more at the Pentagon's equivalent of the pump, while cutting back on other basic expenses; or it can cut back on its gas use in order to protect favored weapons systems under development. Of course, the DoD has a third option: It can go before Congress and plead for yet another supplemental budget hike, but this is sure to provoke renewed calls for a timetable for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq, and so is an unlikely prospect at this time.
Nor is this destined to prove a temporary issue. As recently as two years ago, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) was confidently predicting that the price of crude oil would hover in the $30 per barrel range for another quarter century or so, leading to gasoline prices of about $2 per gallon. But then came Hurricane Katrina, the crisis in Iran, the insurgency in southern Nigeria, and a host of other problems that tightened the oil market, prompting the DoE to raise its long-range price projection into the $50 per barrel range. This is the amount that figures in many current governmental budgetary forecasts - including, presumably, those of the Department of Defense. But just how realistic is this? The price of a barrel of crude oil today is hovering in the $66 range. Many energy analysts now say that a price range of $70-$80 per barrel (or possibly even significantly more) is far more likely to be our fate for the foreseeable future.
A price rise of this magnitude, when translated into the cost of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, home-heating oil, and petrochemicals will play havoc with the budgets of families, farms, businesses, and local governments. Sooner or later, it will force people to make profound changes in their daily lives - as benign as purchasing a hybrid vehicle in place of an SUV or as painful as cutting back on home heating or health care simply to make an unavoidable drive to work. It will have an equally severe affect on the Pentagon budget. As the world's number one consumer of petroleum products, the DoD will obviously be disproportionately affected by a doubling in the price of crude oil. If it can't turn to Congress for redress, it will have to reduce its profligate consumption of oil and/or cut back on other expenses, including weapons purchases.
The rising price of oil is producing what Pentagon contractor LMI calls a "fiscal disconnect" between the military's long-range objectives and the realities of the energy marketplace. "The need to recapitalize obsolete and damaged equipment [from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan] and to develop high-technology systems to implement future operational concepts is growing," it explained in an April 2007 report. However, an inability "to control increased energy costs from fuel and supporting infrastructure diverts resources that would otherwise be available to procure new capabilities."
And this is likely to be the least of the Pentagon's worries. The Department of Defense is, after all, the world's richest military organization, and so can be expected to tap into hidden accounts of one sort or another in order to pay its oil bills and finance its many pet weapons projects. However, this assumes that sufficient petroleum will be available on world markets to meet the Pentagon's ever-growing needs - by no means a foregone conclusion. Like every other large consumer, the DoD must now confront the looming - but hard to assess - reality of "Peak Oil"; the very real possibility that global oil production is at or near its maximum sustainable ("peak") output and will soon commence an irreversible decline.
That global oil output will eventually reach a peak and then decline is no longer a matter of debate; all major energy organizations have now embraced this view. What remains open for argument is precisely when this moment will arrive. Some experts place it comfortably in the future - meaning two or three decades down the pike - while others put it in this very decade. If there is a consensus emerging, it is that peak-oil output will occur somewhere around 2015. Whatever the timing of this momentous event, it is apparent that the world faces a profound shift in the global availability of energy, as we move from a situation of relative abundance to one of relative scarcity. It should be noted, moreover, that this shift will apply, above all, to the form of energy most in demand by the Pentagon: the petroleum liquids used to power planes, ships, and armored vehicles.
The Bush Doctrine Faces Peak Oil
Peak oil is not one of the global threats the Department of Defense has ever had to face before; and, like other U.S. government agencies, it tended to avoid the issue, viewing it until recently as a peripheral matter. As intimations of peak oil's imminent arrival increased, however, it has been forced to sit up and take notice. Spurred perhaps by rising fuel prices, or by the growing attention being devoted to "energy security" by academic strategists, the DoD has suddenly taken an interest in the problem. To guide its exploration of the issue, the Office of Force Transformation within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy commissioned LMI to conduct a study on the implications of future energy scarcity for Pentagon strategic planning.
The resulting study, "Transforming the Way the DoD Looks at Energy," was a bombshell. Determining that the Pentagon's favored strategy of global military engagement is incompatible with a world of declining oil output, LMI concluded that "current planning presents a situation in which the aggregate operational capability of the force may be unsustainable in the long term."
LMI arrived at this conclusion from a careful analysis of current U.S. military doctrine. At the heart of the national military strategy imposed by the Bush administration - the Bush Doctrine - are two core principles: transformation, or the conversion of America's stodgy, tank-heavy Cold War military apparatus into an agile, continent-hopping high-tech, futuristic war machine; and pre-emption, or the initiation of hostilities against "rogue states" like Iraq and Iran, thought to be pursuing weapons of mass destruction. What both principles entail is a substantial increase in the Pentagon's consumption of petroleum products - either because such plans rely, to an increased extent, on air and sea-power or because they imply an accelerated tempo of military operations.
As summarized by LMI, implementation of the Bush Doctrine requires that "our forces must expand geographically and be more mobile and expeditionary so that they can be engaged in more theaters and prepared for expedient deployment anywhere in the world"; at the same time, they "must transition from a reactive to a proactive force posture to deter enemy forces from organizing for and conducting potentially catastrophic attacks." It follows that, "to carry out these activities, the U.S. military will have to be even more energy intense.... Considering the trend in operational fuel consumption and future capability needs, this 'new' force employment construct will likely demand more energy/fuel in the deployed setting."
The resulting increase in petroleum consumption is likely to prove dramatic. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the average American soldier consumed only four gallons of oil per day; as a result of George W. Bush's initiatives, a U.S. soldier in Iraq is now using four times as much. If this rate of increase continues unabated, the next major war could entail an expenditure of 64 gallons per soldier per day.
It was the unassailable logic of this situation that led LMI to conclude that there is a severe "operational disconnect" between the Bush administration's principles for future war-fighting and the global energy situation. The administration has, the company notes, "tethered operational capability to high-technology solutions that require continued growth in energy sources" - and done so at the worst possible moment historically. After all, the likelihood is that the global energy supply is about to begin diminishing rather than expanding. Clearly, writes LMI in its April 2007 report, "it may not be possible to execute operational concepts and capabilities to achieve our security strategy if the energy implications are not considered." And when those energy implications are considered, the strategy appears "unsustainable."
The Pentagon as a Global Oil-Protection Service
How will the military respond to this unexpected challenge? One approach, favored by some within the DoD, is to go "green" - that is, to emphasize the accelerated development and acquisition of fuel-efficient weapons systems so that the Pentagon can retain its commitment to the Bush Doctrine, but consume less oil while doing so. This approach, if feasible, would have the obvious attraction of allowing the Pentagon to assume an environmentally-friendly facade while maintaining and developing its existing, interventionist force structure.
But there is also a more sinister approach that may be far more highly favored by senior officials: To ensure itself a "reliable" source of oil in perpetuity, the Pentagon will increase its efforts to maintain control over foreign sources of supply, notably oil fields and refineries in the Persian Gulf region, especially in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This would help explain the recent talk of U.S. plans to retain "enduring" bases in Iraq, along with its already impressive and elaborate basing infrastructure in these other countries.
The U.S. military first began procuring petroleum products from Persian Gulf suppliers to sustain combat operations in the Middle East and Asia during World War II, and has been doing so ever since. It was, in part, to protect this vital source of petroleum for military purposes that, in 1945, President Roosevelt first proposed the deployment of an American military presence in the Persian Gulf region. Later, the protection of Persian Gulf oil became more important for the economic well-being of the United States, as articulated in President Jimmy Carter's "Carter Doctrine" speech of January 23, 1980 as well as in President George H. W. Bush's August 1990 decision to stop Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, which led to the first Gulf War - and, many would argue, the decision of the younger Bush to invade Iraq over a decade later.
Along the way, the American military has been transformed into a "global oil-protection service" for the benefit of U.S. corporations and consumers, fighting overseas battles and establishing its bases to ensure that we get our daily fuel fix. It would be both sad and ironic, if the military now began fighting wars mainly so that it could be guaranteed the fuel to run its own planes, ships, and tanks - consuming hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could instead be spent on the development of petroleum alternatives.
---------
Michael T. Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, is the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books).
The Pentagon as Global Gas-Guzzler
Posted June 19, 2007 in [Energy]
Michael T. Klare, Thursday, June 14, 2007, www.TomDispatch.com - How wars of the future may be fought just to run the machines that fight them.
Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis - either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.
Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia. That's greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million - and yet it's a gross underestimate of the Pentagon's wartime consumption.
Such numbers cannot do full justice to the extraordinary gas-guzzling expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, for every soldier stationed "in theater," there are two more in transit, in training, or otherwise in line for eventual deployment to the war zone - soldiers who also consume enormous amounts of oil, even if less than their compatriots overseas. Moreover, to sustain an "expeditionary" army located halfway around the world, the Department of Defense must move millions of tons of arms, ammunition, food, fuel, and equipment every year by plane or ship, consuming additional tanker-loads of petroleum. Add this to the tally and the Pentagon's war-related oil budget jumps appreciably, though exactly how much we have no real way of knowing.
And foreign wars, sad to say, account for but a small fraction of the Pentagon's total petroleum consumption. Possessing the world's largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support systems - virtually all powered by oil - the Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world's leading consumer of petroleum. It can be difficult to obtain precise details on the DoD's daily oil hit, but an April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.
Not "Guns v. Butter," but "Guns v. Oil"
For anyone who drives a motor vehicle these days, this has ominous implications. With the price of gasoline now 75 cents to a dollar more than it was just six months ago, it's obvious that the Pentagon is facing a potentially serious budgetary crunch. Just like any ordinary American family, the DoD has to make some hard choices: It can use its normal amount of petroleum and pay more at the Pentagon's equivalent of the pump, while cutting back on other basic expenses; or it can cut back on its gas use in order to protect favored weapons systems under development. Of course, the DoD has a third option: It can go before Congress and plead for yet another supplemental budget hike, but this is sure to provoke renewed calls for a timetable for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq, and so is an unlikely prospect at this time.
Nor is this destined to prove a temporary issue. As recently as two years ago, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) was confidently predicting that the price of crude oil would hover in the $30 per barrel range for another quarter century or so, leading to gasoline prices of about $2 per gallon. But then came Hurricane Katrina, the crisis in Iran, the insurgency in southern Nigeria, and a host of other problems that tightened the oil market, prompting the DoE to raise its long-range price projection into the $50 per barrel range. This is the amount that figures in many current governmental budgetary forecasts - including, presumably, those of the Department of Defense. But just how realistic is this? The price of a barrel of crude oil today is hovering in the $66 range. Many energy analysts now say that a price range of $70-$80 per barrel (or possibly even significantly more) is far more likely to be our fate for the foreseeable future.
A price rise of this magnitude, when translated into the cost of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, home-heating oil, and petrochemicals will play havoc with the budgets of families, farms, businesses, and local governments. Sooner or later, it will force people to make profound changes in their daily lives - as benign as purchasing a hybrid vehicle in place of an SUV or as painful as cutting back on home heating or health care simply to make an unavoidable drive to work. It will have an equally severe affect on the Pentagon budget. As the world's number one consumer of petroleum products, the DoD will obviously be disproportionately affected by a doubling in the price of crude oil. If it can't turn to Congress for redress, it will have to reduce its profligate consumption of oil and/or cut back on other expenses, including weapons purchases.
The rising price of oil is producing what Pentagon contractor LMI calls a "fiscal disconnect" between the military's long-range objectives and the realities of the energy marketplace. "The need to recapitalize obsolete and damaged equipment [from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan] and to develop high-technology systems to implement future operational concepts is growing," it explained in an April 2007 report. However, an inability "to control increased energy costs from fuel and supporting infrastructure diverts resources that would otherwise be available to procure new capabilities."
And this is likely to be the least of the Pentagon's worries. The Department of Defense is, after all, the world's richest military organization, and so can be expected to tap into hidden accounts of one sort or another in order to pay its oil bills and finance its many pet weapons projects. However, this assumes that sufficient petroleum will be available on world markets to meet the Pentagon's ever-growing needs - by no means a foregone conclusion. Like every other large consumer, the DoD must now confront the looming - but hard to assess - reality of "Peak Oil"; the very real possibility that global oil production is at or near its maximum sustainable ("peak") output and will soon commence an irreversible decline.
That global oil output will eventually reach a peak and then decline is no longer a matter of debate; all major energy organizations have now embraced this view. What remains open for argument is precisely when this moment will arrive. Some experts place it comfortably in the future - meaning two or three decades down the pike - while others put it in this very decade. If there is a consensus emerging, it is that peak-oil output will occur somewhere around 2015. Whatever the timing of this momentous event, it is apparent that the world faces a profound shift in the global availability of energy, as we move from a situation of relative abundance to one of relative scarcity. It should be noted, moreover, that this shift will apply, above all, to the form of energy most in demand by the Pentagon: the petroleum liquids used to power planes, ships, and armored vehicles.
The Bush Doctrine Faces Peak Oil
Peak oil is not one of the global threats the Department of Defense has ever had to face before; and, like other U.S. government agencies, it tended to avoid the issue, viewing it until recently as a peripheral matter. As intimations of peak oil's imminent arrival increased, however, it has been forced to sit up and take notice. Spurred perhaps by rising fuel prices, or by the growing attention being devoted to "energy security" by academic strategists, the DoD has suddenly taken an interest in the problem. To guide its exploration of the issue, the Office of Force Transformation within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy commissioned LMI to conduct a study on the implications of future energy scarcity for Pentagon strategic planning.
The resulting study, "Transforming the Way the DoD Looks at Energy," was a bombshell. Determining that the Pentagon's favored strategy of global military engagement is incompatible with a world of declining oil output, LMI concluded that "current planning presents a situation in which the aggregate operational capability of the force may be unsustainable in the long term."
LMI arrived at this conclusion from a careful analysis of current U.S. military doctrine. At the heart of the national military strategy imposed by the Bush administration - the Bush Doctrine - are two core principles: transformation, or the conversion of America's stodgy, tank-heavy Cold War military apparatus into an agile, continent-hopping high-tech, futuristic war machine; and pre-emption, or the initiation of hostilities against "rogue states" like Iraq and Iran, thought to be pursuing weapons of mass destruction. What both principles entail is a substantial increase in the Pentagon's consumption of petroleum products - either because such plans rely, to an increased extent, on air and sea-power or because they imply an accelerated tempo of military operations.
As summarized by LMI, implementation of the Bush Doctrine requires that "our forces must expand geographically and be more mobile and expeditionary so that they can be engaged in more theaters and prepared for expedient deployment anywhere in the world"; at the same time, they "must transition from a reactive to a proactive force posture to deter enemy forces from organizing for and conducting potentially catastrophic attacks." It follows that, "to carry out these activities, the U.S. military will have to be even more energy intense.... Considering the trend in operational fuel consumption and future capability needs, this 'new' force employment construct will likely demand more energy/fuel in the deployed setting."
The resulting increase in petroleum consumption is likely to prove dramatic. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the average American soldier consumed only four gallons of oil per day; as a result of George W. Bush's initiatives, a U.S. soldier in Iraq is now using four times as much. If this rate of increase continues unabated, the next major war could entail an expenditure of 64 gallons per soldier per day.
It was the unassailable logic of this situation that led LMI to conclude that there is a severe "operational disconnect" between the Bush administration's principles for future war-fighting and the global energy situation. The administration has, the company notes, "tethered operational capability to high-technology solutions that require continued growth in energy sources" - and done so at the worst possible moment historically. After all, the likelihood is that the global energy supply is about to begin diminishing rather than expanding. Clearly, writes LMI in its April 2007 report, "it may not be possible to execute operational concepts and capabilities to achieve our security strategy if the energy implications are not considered." And when those energy implications are considered, the strategy appears "unsustainable."
The Pentagon as a Global Oil-Protection Service
How will the military respond to this unexpected challenge? One approach, favored by some within the DoD, is to go "green" - that is, to emphasize the accelerated development and acquisition of fuel-efficient weapons systems so that the Pentagon can retain its commitment to the Bush Doctrine, but consume less oil while doing so. This approach, if feasible, would have the obvious attraction of allowing the Pentagon to assume an environmentally-friendly facade while maintaining and developing its existing, interventionist force structure.
But there is also a more sinister approach that may be far more highly favored by senior officials: To ensure itself a "reliable" source of oil in perpetuity, the Pentagon will increase its efforts to maintain control over foreign sources of supply, notably oil fields and refineries in the Persian Gulf region, especially in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This would help explain the recent talk of U.S. plans to retain "enduring" bases in Iraq, along with its already impressive and elaborate basing infrastructure in these other countries.
The U.S. military first began procuring petroleum products from Persian Gulf suppliers to sustain combat operations in the Middle East and Asia during World War II, and has been doing so ever since. It was, in part, to protect this vital source of petroleum for military purposes that, in 1945, President Roosevelt first proposed the deployment of an American military presence in the Persian Gulf region. Later, the protection of Persian Gulf oil became more important for the economic well-being of the United States, as articulated in President Jimmy Carter's "Carter Doctrine" speech of January 23, 1980 as well as in President George H. W. Bush's August 1990 decision to stop Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, which led to the first Gulf War - and, many would argue, the decision of the younger Bush to invade Iraq over a decade later.
Along the way, the American military has been transformed into a "global oil-protection service" for the benefit of U.S. corporations and consumers, fighting overseas battles and establishing its bases to ensure that we get our daily fuel fix. It would be both sad and ironic, if the military now began fighting wars mainly so that it could be guaranteed the fuel to run its own planes, ships, and tanks - consuming hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could instead be spent on the development of petroleum alternatives.
---------
Michael T. Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, is the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books).
Philippines near top(sixth) of "Impunity Index" for slain journalists.
Many of the journalists are leftists and involved in exposing corruption. Many of the perpetrators are protected by powerful interests. In spite of all this the Philippines has a very active opposition press much more exciting and radical than the mainstream press in Canada or the U.S.
RP, others top 'Impunity Index' for slain journalists
By ROY MEDINA
abs-cbnNEWS.com
The Philippines has been ranked among 13 countries with the "poorest records" of running after and prosecuting murderers of journalists, the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a list released Wednesday.
"Most countries on the Impunity Index are democratic, are not at war, and have functioning law enforcement institutions, yet journalists are regularly targeted for murder and no one is held accountable," CPJ said as it released the index ahead of World Press Freedom Day on Saturday, May 3.
The Philippines, at sixth spot, was desribed as a country with "a free and vibrant press."
The report, however, added that, "...journalists covering corruption, crime, and politics have repeatedly been targeted with violence."
"Broadcast commentators and reporters in provincial regions are especially vulnerable. Politicians and police have been implicated in a number of slayings, but corruption in the local court system has stymied efforts to prosecute. No convictions have been obtained in 24 cases," it said.
The Impunity Index rating for the Philippines, the CPJ said, means that there are "0.289 unsolved journalist murders per 1 million inhabitants."
Citing Philippine records, CPJ said the country has 24 unsolved cases of journalists' murders.
The Philippines was ranked just below Sri Lanka, which was desribed as a country where "journalists are more like to be assassinated than to die in crossfire, with many of the victims ethnic Tamils."
'92, 56'
The Manila-based National Union of Journalists in the Philippines, meanwhile, has listed 92 media practitioners murdered since 1986 after dictator Ferdinand Marcos was ousted from power.
It, however, explained that, "The list contains only those who were killed -- or most likely killed -- because of their journalism work.
"In cases where it is not clear whether the death was work-related, or when the authorities could not ascertain the motives behind the killing, NUJP shall assume that the killing was work-related, unless future evidence points to the contrary."
Based on NUJP records, newspaper publisher Benefredo Acabal was the 92nd journalist journalist to be murdered since 1986 and the 56th following the ascent of President Arroyo to power in 2001.
Acabal, who wrote a column under the name Freddie Yanco, was gunned down by a lone assailant in Pasig City on April 7, 2008.
RP, others top 'Impunity Index' for slain journalists
By ROY MEDINA
abs-cbnNEWS.com
The Philippines has been ranked among 13 countries with the "poorest records" of running after and prosecuting murderers of journalists, the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a list released Wednesday.
"Most countries on the Impunity Index are democratic, are not at war, and have functioning law enforcement institutions, yet journalists are regularly targeted for murder and no one is held accountable," CPJ said as it released the index ahead of World Press Freedom Day on Saturday, May 3.
The Philippines, at sixth spot, was desribed as a country with "a free and vibrant press."
The report, however, added that, "...journalists covering corruption, crime, and politics have repeatedly been targeted with violence."
"Broadcast commentators and reporters in provincial regions are especially vulnerable. Politicians and police have been implicated in a number of slayings, but corruption in the local court system has stymied efforts to prosecute. No convictions have been obtained in 24 cases," it said.
The Impunity Index rating for the Philippines, the CPJ said, means that there are "0.289 unsolved journalist murders per 1 million inhabitants."
Citing Philippine records, CPJ said the country has 24 unsolved cases of journalists' murders.
The Philippines was ranked just below Sri Lanka, which was desribed as a country where "journalists are more like to be assassinated than to die in crossfire, with many of the victims ethnic Tamils."
'92, 56'
The Manila-based National Union of Journalists in the Philippines, meanwhile, has listed 92 media practitioners murdered since 1986 after dictator Ferdinand Marcos was ousted from power.
It, however, explained that, "The list contains only those who were killed -- or most likely killed -- because of their journalism work.
"In cases where it is not clear whether the death was work-related, or when the authorities could not ascertain the motives behind the killing, NUJP shall assume that the killing was work-related, unless future evidence points to the contrary."
Based on NUJP records, newspaper publisher Benefredo Acabal was the 92nd journalist journalist to be murdered since 1986 and the 56th following the ascent of President Arroyo to power in 2001.
Acabal, who wrote a column under the name Freddie Yanco, was gunned down by a lone assailant in Pasig City on April 7, 2008.
U.S. in contact with Nepal Maoists
Oh no the U.S. is talking to terrorists! However, only Jimmy Carter is talking to Hamas! The U.S. is lecturing the Maoists about democracy no doubt bringing up Pinochet as a shining example or support for Papa Doc in Haiti or Somoza in Nicaragua. This is from the BBC.
US in contact with Nepal Maoists
The United States has made its first official diplomatic contact with the leader of Nepal's former rebel Maoists.
The Maoists came first in last month's national elections but are still listed as a terrorist group by Washington.
US ambassador to Nepal Nancy Powell met Maoist leader Prachanda on Thursday, a statement from the US embassy in Kathmandu said.
The BBC's correspondent there says this is a diplomatic milestone, with the US rethinking its policy on the Maoists.
The statement said Ms Powell would visit Washington soon for consultations on US-Nepal relations.
'Words and actions'
The US embassy statement said that Ms Powell and Prachanda, whose real name is Pushpa Kamal Dahal, discussed the outcome of last month's elections to a constituent assembly.
It said Ms Powell encouraged the Maoist leader to ensure that the former rebels showed their commitment to the political process through their words and actions.
The Maoists were the biggest single party in recent elections, winning 220 out of 601 seats.
They are committed to abolishing the monarchy and have urged King Gyanendra to leave office voluntarily.
Prachanda has said that he wants to be president.
The Maoists now have to forge a coalition interim administration to draw up a new constitution.
'Embarrassing'
For the past year the US has tried to bypass the Maoists while dealing with an interim government of which they were members.
Speaking just after the 10 April elections, former US President Jimmy Carter told the BBC he found America's failure to deal with the Maoists "embarrassing".
During 10 years of insurgency which left thousands dead, both the Maoists and the military were accused of gross human rights abuses.
Analysts say there are many problems facing the Maoists.
The other main parties do not trust them.
Since the elections, Prachanda has promised that the Maoists are committed to multi-party and peaceful politics.
However its members, particularly in its youth wing, have been accused of intimidation and extortion.
The army is also opposed to the Maoists' demand that its former fighters be integrated into the armed forces.
The long insurgency has worsened the chronic poverty in Nepal which, like other countries in the region, is suffering from rising food prices.
The Maoists signed a peace accord with Nepal's main political parties in 2006. The year before the increasingly unpopular King Gyanendra had been forced to restore parliament amid a wave of street protests.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/7379567.stm
Published: 2008/05/02 09:49:06 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
US in contact with Nepal Maoists
The United States has made its first official diplomatic contact with the leader of Nepal's former rebel Maoists.
The Maoists came first in last month's national elections but are still listed as a terrorist group by Washington.
US ambassador to Nepal Nancy Powell met Maoist leader Prachanda on Thursday, a statement from the US embassy in Kathmandu said.
The BBC's correspondent there says this is a diplomatic milestone, with the US rethinking its policy on the Maoists.
The statement said Ms Powell would visit Washington soon for consultations on US-Nepal relations.
'Words and actions'
The US embassy statement said that Ms Powell and Prachanda, whose real name is Pushpa Kamal Dahal, discussed the outcome of last month's elections to a constituent assembly.
It said Ms Powell encouraged the Maoist leader to ensure that the former rebels showed their commitment to the political process through their words and actions.
The Maoists were the biggest single party in recent elections, winning 220 out of 601 seats.
They are committed to abolishing the monarchy and have urged King Gyanendra to leave office voluntarily.
Prachanda has said that he wants to be president.
The Maoists now have to forge a coalition interim administration to draw up a new constitution.
'Embarrassing'
For the past year the US has tried to bypass the Maoists while dealing with an interim government of which they were members.
Speaking just after the 10 April elections, former US President Jimmy Carter told the BBC he found America's failure to deal with the Maoists "embarrassing".
During 10 years of insurgency which left thousands dead, both the Maoists and the military were accused of gross human rights abuses.
Analysts say there are many problems facing the Maoists.
The other main parties do not trust them.
Since the elections, Prachanda has promised that the Maoists are committed to multi-party and peaceful politics.
However its members, particularly in its youth wing, have been accused of intimidation and extortion.
The army is also opposed to the Maoists' demand that its former fighters be integrated into the armed forces.
The long insurgency has worsened the chronic poverty in Nepal which, like other countries in the region, is suffering from rising food prices.
The Maoists signed a peace accord with Nepal's main political parties in 2006. The year before the increasingly unpopular King Gyanendra had been forced to restore parliament amid a wave of street protests.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/7379567.stm
Published: 2008/05/02 09:49:06 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Pepe Escobar: The Iranian Chessboard
This is from antiwar.com This is the sort of in depth article that you just do not find in the mass media in the west. Rather than just a few snippets of anti-Iranian factoids Escobar actually goes into some depth about the different forces at work in Iran and how they are reacting to western pressure.
The Iranian Chessboard
Five Ways to Think about Iran under the Gun
By Pepe Escobar
More than two years ago, Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker how George W. Bush was considering strategic nuclear strikes against Iran. Ever since, a campaign to demonize that country has proceeded in a relentless, Terminator-like way, applying the same techniques and semantic contortions that were so familiar in the period before the Bush administration launched its invasion of Iraq.
The campaign's greatest hits are widely known: "The ayatollahs" are building a Shi'ite nuclear bomb; Iranian weapons are killing American soldiers in Iraq; Iranian gunboats are provoking U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf – Iran, in short, is the new al-Qaeda, a terror state aimed at the heart of the United States. It's idle to expect the American mainstream media to offer any tools that might put this orchestrated blitzkrieg in context.
Here are just a few recent instances of the ongoing campaign: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insists that Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admits that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" when it comes to Iran. In tandem with U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus, Mullen denounces Iran's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq, although he claims to harbor "no expectations" of an attack on Iran "in the immediate future" and even admits he has "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership [of Iran] is involved."
But keep in mind one thing the Great Saddam Take-out of 2003 proved: that a "smoking gun" is, in the end, irrelevant. And this week, the U.S. is ominously floating a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf.
But what of Iran itself under the blizzard of charges and threats? What to make of it? What does the world look like from Tehran? Here are five ways to think about Iran under the gun and to better decode the Iranian chessboard.
1. Don't underestimate the power of Shi'ite Islam: Seventy-five percent of the world's oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf. Seventy percent of the Gulf's population is Shi'ite. Shi'ism is an eschatological – and revolutionary – religion, fueled by a passionate mixture of romanticism and cosmic despair. As much as it may instill fear in hegemonic Sunni Islam, some Westerners should feel a certain empathy for intellectual Shi'ism's almost Sartrean nausea towards the vacuous material world.
For more than a thousand years Shi'ite Islam has, in fact, been a galaxy of Shi'isms – a kind of Fourth World of its own, always cursed by political exclusion and implacable economic marginalization, always carrying an immensely dramatic view of history with it.
It's impossible to understand Iran without grasping the contradiction that the Iranian religious leadership faces in ruling, however fractiously, a nation state. In the minds of Iran's religious leaders, the very concept of the nation-state is regarded with deep suspicion, because it detracts from the umma, the global Muslim community. The nation-state, as they see it, is but a way station on the road to the final triumph of Shi'ism and pure Islam. To venture beyond the present stage of history, however, they also recognize the necessity of reinforcing the nation-state that offers Shi'ism a sanctuary – and that, of course, happens to be Iran. When Shi'ism finally triumphs, the concept of nation-state – a heritage, in any case, of the West – will disappear, replaced by a community organized according to the will of Prophet Muhammad.
In the right context, this is, believe me, a powerful message. I briefly became a mashti – a pilgrim visiting a privileged Shi'ite gateway to Paradise, the holy shrine of Imam Reza in Mashhad, four hours west of the Iran-Afghan border. At sunset, the only foreigner lost in a pious multitude of black chadors and white turbans occupying every square inch of the huge walled shrine, I felt a tremendous emotional jolt. And I wasn't even a believer, just a simple infidel.
2. Geography is destiny: Whenever I go to the holy city of Qom, bordering the central deserts in Iran, I am always reminded, in no uncertain terms, that, as far as the major ayatollahs are concerned, their supreme mission is to convert the rest of Islam to the original purity and revolutionary power of Shi'ism – a religion invariably critical of the established social and political order.
Even a Shi'ite leader in Tehran, however, can't simply live by preaching and conversion alone. Iran, after all, happens to be a nation-state at the crucial intersection of the Arabic, Turkish, Russian, and Indian worlds. It is the key transit point of the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Indian subcontinent. It lies between three seas (the Caspian, the Persian Gulf, and the sea of Oman). Close to Europe and yet at the gates of Asia (in fact part of Southwest Asia), Iran is the ultimate Eurasian crossroads. Isfahan, the country's third largest city, is roughly equidistant from Paris and Shanghai. No wonder Dick Cheney, checking out Iran, "salivates like a Pavlov dog" (to quote those rock 'n roll geopoliticians, the Rolling Stones).
Members of the Iranian upper middle classes in North Tehran might spin dreams of Iran recapturing the expansive range of influence once held by the Persian empire; but the silky, Qom-carpet-like diplomats at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will assure you that what they really dream of is an Iran respected as a major regional power. To this end, they have little choice, faced with the enmity of the globe's "sole superpower," but to employ a sophisticated counter-encirclement foreign policy. After all, Iran is now completely surrounded by post-9/11 American military bases in Afghanistan, Central Asia, Iraq, and the Gulf states. It faces the U.S. military on its Afghan, Iraqi, Pakistani, and Persian Gulf borders, and lives with ever tightening U.S. economic sanctions, as well as a continuing drumbeat of Bush administration threats involving possible air assaults on Iranian nuclear (and probably other) facilities.
The Iranian counter-response to sanctions and to its demonization as a rogue or pariah state has been to develop a "Look East" foreign policy that is, in itself, a challenge to American energy hegemony in the Gulf. The policy has been conducted with great skill by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who was educated in Bangalore, India. While focused on massive energy deals with China, India, and Pakistan, it looks as well to Africa and Latin America. To the horror of American neocons, an intercontinental "axis of evil" air link already exists – a weekly commercial Tehran-Caracas flight via Iran Air.
Iran's diplomatic (and energy) reach is now striking. When I was in Bolivia early this year, I learned of a tour Iran's ambassador to Venezuela had taken on the jet of Bolivian President Evo Morales. The ambassador reportedly offered Morales "everything he wanted" to offset the influence of "American imperialism."
Meanwhile, a fierce energy competition is developing among the Turks, Iranians, Russians, Chinese, and Americans – all placing their bets on which future trade routes will be the crucial ones as oil and natural gas flow out of Central Asia. As a player, Iran is trying to position itself as the unavoidable bazaar-state in an oil-and-gas-fueled New Silk Road – the backbone of a new Asian Energy Security Grid. That's how it could recover some of the preeminence it enjoyed in the distant era of Darius, the King of Kings. And that's the main reason why U.S. neo-Cold Warriors, Zio-cons, armchair imperialists, or all of the above, are throwing such a collective – and threatening – fit.
3. What is the nuclear "new Hitler" Ahmadinejad up to?: Ever since the days when former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami suggested a "dialogue of civilizations," Iranian diplomats have endlessly repeated the official position on Iran's nuclear program: It's peaceful; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no proof of the military development of nuclear power; the religious leadership opposes atomic weapons; and Iran – unlike the US – has not invaded or attacked any nation for the past quarter millennium.
Think of George W. Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the new Blues Brothers: Both believe they are on a mission from God. Both are religious fundamentalists. Ahmadinejad believes fervently in the imminent return of the Mahdi, the Shi'ite messiah, who "disappeared" and has remained hidden since the ninth century. Bush believes fervently in a coming end time and the return of Jesus Christ. But only Bush, despite his actual invasions and constant threats, gets a (sort of) free pass from the Western ideological machine, while Ahmadinejad is portrayed as a Hitlerian believer in a new Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad is relentlessly depicted as an angry, totally irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who wants to "wipe Israel off the map." That infamous quote, repeated ad nauseam but out of context, comes from an October 2005 speech at an obscure anti-Zionist student conference. What Ahmadinejad really said, in a literal translation from Farsi, was that "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time." He was actually quoting the leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, who said it first in the early 1980s. Khomeini hoped that a regime so unjust toward the Palestinians would be replaced by another more equitable one. He was not, however, threatening to nuke Israel.
In the 1980s, in the bitterest years of the Iran-Iraq War, Khomeini also made it very clear that the production, possession, or use of nuclear weapons is against Islam. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei later issued a fatwa – a religious injunction – under the same terms. For the theocratic regime, however, the Iranian nuclear program is a powerful symbol of independence vis-á-vis what is still widely considered by Iranians of all social classes and educational backgrounds as Anglo-Saxon colonialism.
Ahmadinejad is mad for the Iranian nuclear program. It's his bread and butter in terms of domestic popularity. During the Iran-Iraq War, he was a member of a support team aiding anti-Saddam Hussein Kurdish forces. (That's when he became friends with "Uncle" Jalal Talabani, now the Kurdish president of Iraq.) Not many presidents have been trained in guerrilla warfare. Speculation is rampant in Tehran that Ahmadinejad, the leadership of the Quds Force, an elite division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), plus the hardcore volunteer militia, the Basij (informally known in Iran as "the army of twenty million") are betting on a U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities to strengthen the country's theocratic regime and their faction of it.
Reformists refer to Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran last October, when he was received by the Supreme Leader (a very rare honor). Putin offered a new plan to resolve the explosive Iranian nuclear dossier: Iran would halt nuclear enrichment on Iranian soil in return for peaceful nuclear cooperation and development in league with Russia, the Europeans, and the IAEA.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator of that moment, Ali Larijani, a confidant of Supreme Leader Khamenei, as well as the Leader himself let it be known that the idea would be seriously considered. But Ahmadinejad immediately contradicted the Supreme Leader in public. Even more startling, yet evidently with the Leader's acquiescence, he then sacked Larijani and replaced him with a longtime friend, Saeed Jalili, an ideological hardliner.
4. A velvet revolution is not around the corner: Before the 2005 Iranian elections, at a secret, high-level meeting of the ruling ayatollahs in his house, the Supreme Leader concluded that Ahmadinejad would be able to revive the regime with his populist rhetoric and pious conservatism, which then seemed very appealing to the downtrodden masses. (Curiously enough, Ahmadinejad's campaign motto was: "We can.")
But the ruling ayatollahs miscalculated. Since they controlled all key levers of power – the Supreme National Security Council, the Council of Guardians, the Judiciary, the bonyads (Islamic foundations that control vast sections of the economy), the army, the IRGC (the parallel army created by Khomeini in 1979 and recently branded a terrorist organization by the Bush administration), the media – they assumed they would also control the self-described "street cleaner of the people." How wrong they have been.
For Khamenei himself, this was big business. After 18 years of non-stop internal struggle, he was finally in full control of executive power, as well as of the legislature, the judiciary, the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij, and the key ayatollahs in Qom.
Ahmadinejad, for his part, unleashed his own agenda. He purged the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of many reformist-minded diplomats; encouraged the Interior Ministry and the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance to crackdown on all forms of "nefarious" Western influences, from entertainment industry products to colorful made-in-India scarves for women; and filled his cabinet with revolutionary friends from the Iran-Iraq War days. These friends proved to be as faithful as administratively incompetent – especially in terms of economic policy. Instead of solidifying the theocratic leadership under Supreme Leader Khamenei, Ahmadinejad increasingly fractured an increasingly unpopular ruling elite.
Nonetheless, discontent with Ahmadinejad's economic incompetence has not translated into street barricades and it probably will not; nor, contrary to neocon fantasyland scenarios, would an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities provoke a popular uprising. Every single political faction supports the nuclear program out of patriotic pride.
There is surely a glaring paradox here. The regime may be wildly unpopular – because of so much enforced austerity in an energy-rich land and the virtual absence of social mobility – but for millions, especially in the countryside and the remote provinces, life is still bearable. In the large urban centers – Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, and Tabriz – most would be in favor of a move toward a more market-oriented economy combined with a progressive liberalization of mores (even as the regime insists on going the other way). No velvet revolution, however, seems to be on the horizon.
At least four main factions are at play in the intricate Persian-miniature-like game of today's Iranian power politics – and two others, the revolutionary left and the secular right, even though thoroughly marginalized, shouldn't be forgotten either.
The extreme right, very religiously conservative but economically socialist, has, from the beginning, been closely aligned with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Ahmadinejad is the star of this faction.
The clerics, from the Supreme Leader to thousands of provincial religious figures, are pure conservatives, even more patriotic than the extreme right, yet generally no lovers of Ahmadinejad. But there is a crucial internal split. The substantially wealthy bonyads – the Islamic foundations, active in all economic sectors – badly want a reconciliation with the West. They know that, under the pressure of Western sanctions, the relentless flight of both capital and brains is working against the national interest.
Economists in Tehran project there may be as much as $600 billion in Iranian funds invested in the economies of Persian Gulf petro-monarchies. The best and the brightest continue to flee the country. But the Islamic foundations also know that this state of affairs slowly undermines Ahmadinejad's power.
The extremely influential Revolutionary Guard Corps, a key component of government with vast economic interests, transits between these two factions. They privilege the fight against what they define as Zionism, are in favor of close relations with Sunni Arab states, and want to go all the way with the nuclear program. In fact, substantial sections of the IRGC and the Basij believe Iran must enter the nuclear club not only to prevent an attack by the "American Satan," but to irreversibly change the balance of power in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
The current reformists/progressives of the left were originally former partisans of Khomeini's son, Ahmad Khomeini. Later, after a spectacular mutation from Soviet-style socialism to some sort of religious democracy, their new icon became former President Khatami (of "dialogue of civilizations" fame). Here, after all, was an Islamic president who had captured the youth vote and the women's vote and had written about the ideas of German philosopher Jurgen Habermas as applied to civil society as well as the possibility of democratization in Iran. Unfortunately, his "Tehran Spring" didn't last long – and is now long gone.
The key establishment faction is undoubtedly that of moderate Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former two-term President, current chairman of the Expediency Council and a key member of the Council of Experts – 86 clerics, no women, the Holy Grail of the system, and the only institution in the Islamic Republic capable of removing the Supreme Leader from office. He is now supported by the intelligentsia and urban youth. Colloquially known as "The Shark," Rafsanjani is the consummate Machiavellian. He retains privileged ties to key Washington players and has proven to be the ultimate survivor – moving like a skilled juggler between Khatami and Khamenei as power in the country shifted.
Rafsanjani is, and will always remain, a supporter of the Supreme Leader. As the regime's de facto number two, his quest is not only to "save" the Islamic Revolution, but also to consolidate Iran's regional power and reconcile the country with the West. His reasoning is clear: He knows that an anti-Islamic tempest is already brewing among the young in Iran's major cities, who dream of integrating with the nomad elites of liquid global modernity.
If the Bush administration had any real desire to let its aircraft carriers float out of the Gulf and establish an entente cordiale with Tehran, Rafsanjani would be the man to talk to.
5. Heading down the New Silk Road
Reformist friends in Tehran keep telling me the country is now immersed in an atmosphere similar to the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s in China or the 1980s rectification campaign in Cuba – and nothing "velvet" or "orange" or "tulip" or any of the other color-coded Western-style movements that Washington might dream of is, as yet, on the horizon.
Under such conditions, what if there were an American air attack on Iran? The Supreme Leader, on the record, offered his own version of threats in 2006. If Iran were attacked, he said, the retaliation would be doubly powerful against U.S. interests elsewhere in the world.
From American supply lines and bases in southern Iraq to the Straits of Hormuz, the Iranians, though no military powerhouse, do have the ability to cause real damage to American forces and interests – and certainly to drive the price of oil into the stratosphere. Such a "war" would clearly be a disaster for everyone.
The Iranian theocratic leadership, however, seems to doubt that the Bush administration and the U.S. military, exhausted by their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will attack. They feel a tide at their backs. Meanwhile the "Look East" strategy, driven by soaring energy prices, is bearing fruit.
Ahmadinejad has just concluded a tour of South Asia and, to the despair of American neocons, the Asian Energy Security Grid is quickly becoming a reality. Two years ago, at the Petroleum Ministry in Tehran, I was told Iran is betting on the total "interdependence of Asia and Persian Gulf geo-economic politics." This year Iran finally becomes a natural gas-exporting country. The framework for the $7.6 billion Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, also known as the "peace" pipeline, is a go. Both these key South Asian U.S. allies are ignoring Bush administration desires and rapidly bolstering their economic, political, cultural, and – crucially – geostrategic connections with Iran. An attack on Iran would now inevitably be viewed as an attack against Asia.
What a disaster in the making, and yet, now more than ever, Vice President Dick Cheney's faction in Washington (not to mention possible future president John McCain) seems ready to bomb. Perhaps the Mahdi himself – in his occult wisdom – is betting on a U.S. war against Asia to slouch towards Qom to be reborn.
Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is the roving correspondent for Asia Times and an analyst for The Real News. He's been a foreign correspondent since 1985, based in London, Milan, Los Angeles, Paris, Singapore, and Bangkok. Since the late 1990s, he has specialized in covering the arc from the Middle East to Central Asia, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has made frequent visits to Iran and is the author of Globalistan and also Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge, both published by Nimble Books in 2007.
The Iranian Chessboard
Five Ways to Think about Iran under the Gun
By Pepe Escobar
More than two years ago, Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker how George W. Bush was considering strategic nuclear strikes against Iran. Ever since, a campaign to demonize that country has proceeded in a relentless, Terminator-like way, applying the same techniques and semantic contortions that were so familiar in the period before the Bush administration launched its invasion of Iraq.
The campaign's greatest hits are widely known: "The ayatollahs" are building a Shi'ite nuclear bomb; Iranian weapons are killing American soldiers in Iraq; Iranian gunboats are provoking U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf – Iran, in short, is the new al-Qaeda, a terror state aimed at the heart of the United States. It's idle to expect the American mainstream media to offer any tools that might put this orchestrated blitzkrieg in context.
Here are just a few recent instances of the ongoing campaign: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insists that Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admits that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" when it comes to Iran. In tandem with U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus, Mullen denounces Iran's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq, although he claims to harbor "no expectations" of an attack on Iran "in the immediate future" and even admits he has "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership [of Iran] is involved."
But keep in mind one thing the Great Saddam Take-out of 2003 proved: that a "smoking gun" is, in the end, irrelevant. And this week, the U.S. is ominously floating a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf.
But what of Iran itself under the blizzard of charges and threats? What to make of it? What does the world look like from Tehran? Here are five ways to think about Iran under the gun and to better decode the Iranian chessboard.
1. Don't underestimate the power of Shi'ite Islam: Seventy-five percent of the world's oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf. Seventy percent of the Gulf's population is Shi'ite. Shi'ism is an eschatological – and revolutionary – religion, fueled by a passionate mixture of romanticism and cosmic despair. As much as it may instill fear in hegemonic Sunni Islam, some Westerners should feel a certain empathy for intellectual Shi'ism's almost Sartrean nausea towards the vacuous material world.
For more than a thousand years Shi'ite Islam has, in fact, been a galaxy of Shi'isms – a kind of Fourth World of its own, always cursed by political exclusion and implacable economic marginalization, always carrying an immensely dramatic view of history with it.
It's impossible to understand Iran without grasping the contradiction that the Iranian religious leadership faces in ruling, however fractiously, a nation state. In the minds of Iran's religious leaders, the very concept of the nation-state is regarded with deep suspicion, because it detracts from the umma, the global Muslim community. The nation-state, as they see it, is but a way station on the road to the final triumph of Shi'ism and pure Islam. To venture beyond the present stage of history, however, they also recognize the necessity of reinforcing the nation-state that offers Shi'ism a sanctuary – and that, of course, happens to be Iran. When Shi'ism finally triumphs, the concept of nation-state – a heritage, in any case, of the West – will disappear, replaced by a community organized according to the will of Prophet Muhammad.
In the right context, this is, believe me, a powerful message. I briefly became a mashti – a pilgrim visiting a privileged Shi'ite gateway to Paradise, the holy shrine of Imam Reza in Mashhad, four hours west of the Iran-Afghan border. At sunset, the only foreigner lost in a pious multitude of black chadors and white turbans occupying every square inch of the huge walled shrine, I felt a tremendous emotional jolt. And I wasn't even a believer, just a simple infidel.
2. Geography is destiny: Whenever I go to the holy city of Qom, bordering the central deserts in Iran, I am always reminded, in no uncertain terms, that, as far as the major ayatollahs are concerned, their supreme mission is to convert the rest of Islam to the original purity and revolutionary power of Shi'ism – a religion invariably critical of the established social and political order.
Even a Shi'ite leader in Tehran, however, can't simply live by preaching and conversion alone. Iran, after all, happens to be a nation-state at the crucial intersection of the Arabic, Turkish, Russian, and Indian worlds. It is the key transit point of the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Indian subcontinent. It lies between three seas (the Caspian, the Persian Gulf, and the sea of Oman). Close to Europe and yet at the gates of Asia (in fact part of Southwest Asia), Iran is the ultimate Eurasian crossroads. Isfahan, the country's third largest city, is roughly equidistant from Paris and Shanghai. No wonder Dick Cheney, checking out Iran, "salivates like a Pavlov dog" (to quote those rock 'n roll geopoliticians, the Rolling Stones).
Members of the Iranian upper middle classes in North Tehran might spin dreams of Iran recapturing the expansive range of influence once held by the Persian empire; but the silky, Qom-carpet-like diplomats at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will assure you that what they really dream of is an Iran respected as a major regional power. To this end, they have little choice, faced with the enmity of the globe's "sole superpower," but to employ a sophisticated counter-encirclement foreign policy. After all, Iran is now completely surrounded by post-9/11 American military bases in Afghanistan, Central Asia, Iraq, and the Gulf states. It faces the U.S. military on its Afghan, Iraqi, Pakistani, and Persian Gulf borders, and lives with ever tightening U.S. economic sanctions, as well as a continuing drumbeat of Bush administration threats involving possible air assaults on Iranian nuclear (and probably other) facilities.
The Iranian counter-response to sanctions and to its demonization as a rogue or pariah state has been to develop a "Look East" foreign policy that is, in itself, a challenge to American energy hegemony in the Gulf. The policy has been conducted with great skill by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who was educated in Bangalore, India. While focused on massive energy deals with China, India, and Pakistan, it looks as well to Africa and Latin America. To the horror of American neocons, an intercontinental "axis of evil" air link already exists – a weekly commercial Tehran-Caracas flight via Iran Air.
Iran's diplomatic (and energy) reach is now striking. When I was in Bolivia early this year, I learned of a tour Iran's ambassador to Venezuela had taken on the jet of Bolivian President Evo Morales. The ambassador reportedly offered Morales "everything he wanted" to offset the influence of "American imperialism."
Meanwhile, a fierce energy competition is developing among the Turks, Iranians, Russians, Chinese, and Americans – all placing their bets on which future trade routes will be the crucial ones as oil and natural gas flow out of Central Asia. As a player, Iran is trying to position itself as the unavoidable bazaar-state in an oil-and-gas-fueled New Silk Road – the backbone of a new Asian Energy Security Grid. That's how it could recover some of the preeminence it enjoyed in the distant era of Darius, the King of Kings. And that's the main reason why U.S. neo-Cold Warriors, Zio-cons, armchair imperialists, or all of the above, are throwing such a collective – and threatening – fit.
3. What is the nuclear "new Hitler" Ahmadinejad up to?: Ever since the days when former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami suggested a "dialogue of civilizations," Iranian diplomats have endlessly repeated the official position on Iran's nuclear program: It's peaceful; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no proof of the military development of nuclear power; the religious leadership opposes atomic weapons; and Iran – unlike the US – has not invaded or attacked any nation for the past quarter millennium.
Think of George W. Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the new Blues Brothers: Both believe they are on a mission from God. Both are religious fundamentalists. Ahmadinejad believes fervently in the imminent return of the Mahdi, the Shi'ite messiah, who "disappeared" and has remained hidden since the ninth century. Bush believes fervently in a coming end time and the return of Jesus Christ. But only Bush, despite his actual invasions and constant threats, gets a (sort of) free pass from the Western ideological machine, while Ahmadinejad is portrayed as a Hitlerian believer in a new Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad is relentlessly depicted as an angry, totally irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who wants to "wipe Israel off the map." That infamous quote, repeated ad nauseam but out of context, comes from an October 2005 speech at an obscure anti-Zionist student conference. What Ahmadinejad really said, in a literal translation from Farsi, was that "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time." He was actually quoting the leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, who said it first in the early 1980s. Khomeini hoped that a regime so unjust toward the Palestinians would be replaced by another more equitable one. He was not, however, threatening to nuke Israel.
In the 1980s, in the bitterest years of the Iran-Iraq War, Khomeini also made it very clear that the production, possession, or use of nuclear weapons is against Islam. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei later issued a fatwa – a religious injunction – under the same terms. For the theocratic regime, however, the Iranian nuclear program is a powerful symbol of independence vis-á-vis what is still widely considered by Iranians of all social classes and educational backgrounds as Anglo-Saxon colonialism.
Ahmadinejad is mad for the Iranian nuclear program. It's his bread and butter in terms of domestic popularity. During the Iran-Iraq War, he was a member of a support team aiding anti-Saddam Hussein Kurdish forces. (That's when he became friends with "Uncle" Jalal Talabani, now the Kurdish president of Iraq.) Not many presidents have been trained in guerrilla warfare. Speculation is rampant in Tehran that Ahmadinejad, the leadership of the Quds Force, an elite division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), plus the hardcore volunteer militia, the Basij (informally known in Iran as "the army of twenty million") are betting on a U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities to strengthen the country's theocratic regime and their faction of it.
Reformists refer to Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran last October, when he was received by the Supreme Leader (a very rare honor). Putin offered a new plan to resolve the explosive Iranian nuclear dossier: Iran would halt nuclear enrichment on Iranian soil in return for peaceful nuclear cooperation and development in league with Russia, the Europeans, and the IAEA.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator of that moment, Ali Larijani, a confidant of Supreme Leader Khamenei, as well as the Leader himself let it be known that the idea would be seriously considered. But Ahmadinejad immediately contradicted the Supreme Leader in public. Even more startling, yet evidently with the Leader's acquiescence, he then sacked Larijani and replaced him with a longtime friend, Saeed Jalili, an ideological hardliner.
4. A velvet revolution is not around the corner: Before the 2005 Iranian elections, at a secret, high-level meeting of the ruling ayatollahs in his house, the Supreme Leader concluded that Ahmadinejad would be able to revive the regime with his populist rhetoric and pious conservatism, which then seemed very appealing to the downtrodden masses. (Curiously enough, Ahmadinejad's campaign motto was: "We can.")
But the ruling ayatollahs miscalculated. Since they controlled all key levers of power – the Supreme National Security Council, the Council of Guardians, the Judiciary, the bonyads (Islamic foundations that control vast sections of the economy), the army, the IRGC (the parallel army created by Khomeini in 1979 and recently branded a terrorist organization by the Bush administration), the media – they assumed they would also control the self-described "street cleaner of the people." How wrong they have been.
For Khamenei himself, this was big business. After 18 years of non-stop internal struggle, he was finally in full control of executive power, as well as of the legislature, the judiciary, the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij, and the key ayatollahs in Qom.
Ahmadinejad, for his part, unleashed his own agenda. He purged the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of many reformist-minded diplomats; encouraged the Interior Ministry and the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance to crackdown on all forms of "nefarious" Western influences, from entertainment industry products to colorful made-in-India scarves for women; and filled his cabinet with revolutionary friends from the Iran-Iraq War days. These friends proved to be as faithful as administratively incompetent – especially in terms of economic policy. Instead of solidifying the theocratic leadership under Supreme Leader Khamenei, Ahmadinejad increasingly fractured an increasingly unpopular ruling elite.
Nonetheless, discontent with Ahmadinejad's economic incompetence has not translated into street barricades and it probably will not; nor, contrary to neocon fantasyland scenarios, would an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities provoke a popular uprising. Every single political faction supports the nuclear program out of patriotic pride.
There is surely a glaring paradox here. The regime may be wildly unpopular – because of so much enforced austerity in an energy-rich land and the virtual absence of social mobility – but for millions, especially in the countryside and the remote provinces, life is still bearable. In the large urban centers – Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, and Tabriz – most would be in favor of a move toward a more market-oriented economy combined with a progressive liberalization of mores (even as the regime insists on going the other way). No velvet revolution, however, seems to be on the horizon.
At least four main factions are at play in the intricate Persian-miniature-like game of today's Iranian power politics – and two others, the revolutionary left and the secular right, even though thoroughly marginalized, shouldn't be forgotten either.
The extreme right, very religiously conservative but economically socialist, has, from the beginning, been closely aligned with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Ahmadinejad is the star of this faction.
The clerics, from the Supreme Leader to thousands of provincial religious figures, are pure conservatives, even more patriotic than the extreme right, yet generally no lovers of Ahmadinejad. But there is a crucial internal split. The substantially wealthy bonyads – the Islamic foundations, active in all economic sectors – badly want a reconciliation with the West. They know that, under the pressure of Western sanctions, the relentless flight of both capital and brains is working against the national interest.
Economists in Tehran project there may be as much as $600 billion in Iranian funds invested in the economies of Persian Gulf petro-monarchies. The best and the brightest continue to flee the country. But the Islamic foundations also know that this state of affairs slowly undermines Ahmadinejad's power.
The extremely influential Revolutionary Guard Corps, a key component of government with vast economic interests, transits between these two factions. They privilege the fight against what they define as Zionism, are in favor of close relations with Sunni Arab states, and want to go all the way with the nuclear program. In fact, substantial sections of the IRGC and the Basij believe Iran must enter the nuclear club not only to prevent an attack by the "American Satan," but to irreversibly change the balance of power in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
The current reformists/progressives of the left were originally former partisans of Khomeini's son, Ahmad Khomeini. Later, after a spectacular mutation from Soviet-style socialism to some sort of religious democracy, their new icon became former President Khatami (of "dialogue of civilizations" fame). Here, after all, was an Islamic president who had captured the youth vote and the women's vote and had written about the ideas of German philosopher Jurgen Habermas as applied to civil society as well as the possibility of democratization in Iran. Unfortunately, his "Tehran Spring" didn't last long – and is now long gone.
The key establishment faction is undoubtedly that of moderate Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former two-term President, current chairman of the Expediency Council and a key member of the Council of Experts – 86 clerics, no women, the Holy Grail of the system, and the only institution in the Islamic Republic capable of removing the Supreme Leader from office. He is now supported by the intelligentsia and urban youth. Colloquially known as "The Shark," Rafsanjani is the consummate Machiavellian. He retains privileged ties to key Washington players and has proven to be the ultimate survivor – moving like a skilled juggler between Khatami and Khamenei as power in the country shifted.
Rafsanjani is, and will always remain, a supporter of the Supreme Leader. As the regime's de facto number two, his quest is not only to "save" the Islamic Revolution, but also to consolidate Iran's regional power and reconcile the country with the West. His reasoning is clear: He knows that an anti-Islamic tempest is already brewing among the young in Iran's major cities, who dream of integrating with the nomad elites of liquid global modernity.
If the Bush administration had any real desire to let its aircraft carriers float out of the Gulf and establish an entente cordiale with Tehran, Rafsanjani would be the man to talk to.
5. Heading down the New Silk Road
Reformist friends in Tehran keep telling me the country is now immersed in an atmosphere similar to the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s in China or the 1980s rectification campaign in Cuba – and nothing "velvet" or "orange" or "tulip" or any of the other color-coded Western-style movements that Washington might dream of is, as yet, on the horizon.
Under such conditions, what if there were an American air attack on Iran? The Supreme Leader, on the record, offered his own version of threats in 2006. If Iran were attacked, he said, the retaliation would be doubly powerful against U.S. interests elsewhere in the world.
From American supply lines and bases in southern Iraq to the Straits of Hormuz, the Iranians, though no military powerhouse, do have the ability to cause real damage to American forces and interests – and certainly to drive the price of oil into the stratosphere. Such a "war" would clearly be a disaster for everyone.
The Iranian theocratic leadership, however, seems to doubt that the Bush administration and the U.S. military, exhausted by their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will attack. They feel a tide at their backs. Meanwhile the "Look East" strategy, driven by soaring energy prices, is bearing fruit.
Ahmadinejad has just concluded a tour of South Asia and, to the despair of American neocons, the Asian Energy Security Grid is quickly becoming a reality. Two years ago, at the Petroleum Ministry in Tehran, I was told Iran is betting on the total "interdependence of Asia and Persian Gulf geo-economic politics." This year Iran finally becomes a natural gas-exporting country. The framework for the $7.6 billion Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, also known as the "peace" pipeline, is a go. Both these key South Asian U.S. allies are ignoring Bush administration desires and rapidly bolstering their economic, political, cultural, and – crucially – geostrategic connections with Iran. An attack on Iran would now inevitably be viewed as an attack against Asia.
What a disaster in the making, and yet, now more than ever, Vice President Dick Cheney's faction in Washington (not to mention possible future president John McCain) seems ready to bomb. Perhaps the Mahdi himself – in his occult wisdom – is betting on a U.S. war against Asia to slouch towards Qom to be reborn.
Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is the roving correspondent for Asia Times and an analyst for The Real News. He's been a foreign correspondent since 1985, based in London, Milan, Los Angeles, Paris, Singapore, and Bangkok. Since the late 1990s, he has specialized in covering the arc from the Middle East to Central Asia, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has made frequent visits to Iran and is the author of Globalistan and also Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge, both published by Nimble Books in 2007.
Friday, May 2, 2008
The Black Hole of a UN Blacklist.
That a body supposedly representing human rights has a list such as this is disgusting. The list is a legal abomination. People can have their assets frozen and their freedom of movement restricted without any hearing or ability to challenge evidence. I am surprised that more is not written about this. I suppose anyone who criticised the list would be charged with being soft on terrorism. Lucky I don't have many assets to freeze if I make the list!
Some countries are more likely to enforce the regulations associated with the list than others. In fact I would suspect that in some countries some of those named are probably not worried at all about their names being on the list. On the other hand innocent people may be on the list as the result of false intelligence and incompetent and overzealous intelligence agencies such as the CSIS and the RCMP.
This is from Global Policy.
The Black Hole of a UN Blacklist
By David Crawford
Wall Street Journal
October 2, 2006
Governments around the world have drawn criticism for some extrajudicial steps taken to corral suspected terrorists, from secret prisons to surreptitious abductions to deportations that could lead to torture or execution. Meanwhile, a program overseen by the United Nations Security Council has stripped hundreds of people of assets and international-travel rights -- and even the right to earn a salary or buy groceries -- without so much as a hearing, let alone trial or appeal. Apart from suspects' lawyers and a European human-rights watchdog, the program has drawn little scrutiny.
Today, 359 people are on this blacklist created by Security Council Resolution 1267. No court process is involved in adding someone to the list, nor is it debated by the council's member states. Those added have no right to present exculpatory evidence to Security Council members, nor any right of appeal.
Cutting Off Funding
The U.S. and other governments say these sanctions are an important weapon in the fight against international terrorism, cutting suspects off from the money they need to communicate and operate, either from jail or when the law would otherwise let them go free.
Opponents say the program has lost its original purpose and is used by governments to evade due process in pursuit of alleged terrorists and their accomplices. Critics also decry the opportunity for governments to abuse the system by framing dissidents and others who draw official disfavor. "This isn't about preventing terrorism. This is punishment without trial," says German lawyer Gül Pinar, who represents several people in Germany who are on the U.N. list.
A Security Council report in March aired concerns about how effective the program has been against terrorism. In a letter to the panel's president, the chairman of the committee that oversees the list cited inconsistent enforcement among nations, noting many suspects continue to cross borders. Resolution 1267 was passed in 1999 to pressure Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to hand over Osama bin Laden after Washington accused him of masterminding the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa. Rather than impose broad economic sanctions, which would hurt the Afghan population, the Security Council aimed to isolate and punish Taliban leaders. A year later, the restrictions were applied to Mr. bin Laden and some of his associates.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., Resolution 1267 has been used against a much wider group, including suspected and convicted al Qaeda operatives and their networks. Some people on the U.N. list have been tried and convicted of terrorist-related offenses and are in jail. Some, like Mr. bin Laden, are or were fugitives. Others inhabit a grayer zone.
Take Saad al-Fagih, whom Saudi Arabia accuses of complicity in an attempted assassination and of helping to buy the satellite phone Mr. bin Laden used to direct the embassy bombings. Mr. Fagih has never been charged with a crime in the United Kingdom, where he lives. His designation on the U.N. list "is a critical part of the international campaign to counter terrorism," according to a U.S. Treasury Department statement. Two cellphones chirp constantly as Mr. Fagih, a Saudi citizen, pilots a Honda Civic through busy London traffic en route to a four-bedroom townhouse in a tony neighborhood of northwest London. The home, like the car and the phones, is in his wife's name. Mr. Fagih denies any ties or past dealings with Mr. bin Laden: "If it were true, why haven't I been charged?" he asks.
Heino Vahldieck, the head of intelligence in Hamburg, Germany, says administrative pressure, such as 1267 sanctions, is used against men like Mr. Fagih when circumstantial evidence tying them to terrorism is considered overwhelming but criminal prosecution is difficult or impossible. "We need to be creative," he says.
Although most of the list's designated Taliban supporters are Afghan nationals, those accused of al Qaeda links are more diverse, including at least one U.S. citizen, three Britons, two Germans and five Saudi Arabian citizens. The blacklist includes at least 35 Tunisians, five Moroccans, 10 Egyptians and 77 individuals of indeterminate nationality, according to the U.N.'s official 1267 sanctions list.
Sanctions Survive Acquittal
Last year, a court in Hamburg found Abdelghani Mzoudi -- a Moroccan student and former roommate of three Sept. 11 pilots -- not guilty on all charges of logistical support for those hijack attacks. Despite the acquittal, Mr. Mzoudi, who returned to Morocco after his trial, remains sanctioned under 1267 for his alleged support of al Qaeda.
Mamoun Darkazanli, who lives in Hamburg, was designated under 1267 in October 2001, shortly after he told police he spent Sept. 11 watching television with a man who later admitted -- under interrogation in Syria -- that he recruited three pilots for the attacks. Mr. Darkazanli, whose lawyer notes her client has never been convicted of a crime, was left destitute when banking restrictions made it impossible to run his import-export business. He survives on welfare payments authorized by the Security Council.
This year, the Council of Europe, an intergovernmental human-rights watchdog, said in a report requested by the U.N. that the 1267 process doesn't comply with Europe's convention on human rights because it provides no protection against arbitrary decisions and has no mechanism to review the accuracy of allegations governments make. Those targeted have no recourse against national governments, which can simply say they are bound to follow the dictates of the Security Council.
The procedure to designate someone an al Qaeda or Taliban supporter is simple. A government submits a name to the Security Council's 1267 committee, which circulates it among the 15 council members, along with supporting details. There are no formal standards of evidence required for designation, a diplomat involved in the process said, adding. "The 1267 committee is not a court. This is a political process."
Delistings Are Few
If no objection is made within five days, the person is added to the list. Their assets -- from bank accounts to private debts to prison-canteen funds -- are frozen and they lose the right to travel internationally. "Silence means, 'Yes, the sanction is confirmed,' " a U.N. spokeswoman said. Most sanction requests have been approved without challenge, although nine people have been delisted. Individuals don't get a hearing and can't submit evidence to refute the allegations. Nor can they apply to be delisted -- only a government can on their behalf.
Mr. Fagih says "nobody contacted me about the allegations" when his name went before the 1267 committee in 2004. He eventually learned of Saudi Arabia's charges, and the Security Council sanctions, from the British foreign office. His name was proposed by Saudi Arabia, which alleged that in 2003 Mr. Fagih received $1 million from a man who later confessed to plotting the assassination of the Saudi crown prince, according to the Treasury Department. Mr. Fagih denies involvement in the alleged plot and says he was targeted for organizing peaceful human-rights demonstrations.
Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi security adviser at the kingdom's London embassy, says he investigated Mr. Fagih's case for three years and the charges against him are "rock solid." Saudi Arabia hasn't applied to extradite Mr. Fagih, because the U.K., like other European Union countries, refuses to extradite suspects to countries where they would face the death penalty, Mr. Obaid says.
Despite the U.N. sanctions, Mr. Fagih continues to broadcast from London for Al-Islah TV, a Saudi dissident television station that aims to overthrow the royal family. He says the impact of the U.N. sanctions on his life has been negligible. "Nothing has changed," says Mr. Fagih, while serving tea and cakes from a silver tray in his office. Joking, he adds: "Except I can't buy a tank."
Some countries are more likely to enforce the regulations associated with the list than others. In fact I would suspect that in some countries some of those named are probably not worried at all about their names being on the list. On the other hand innocent people may be on the list as the result of false intelligence and incompetent and overzealous intelligence agencies such as the CSIS and the RCMP.
This is from Global Policy.
The Black Hole of a UN Blacklist
By David Crawford
Wall Street Journal
October 2, 2006
Governments around the world have drawn criticism for some extrajudicial steps taken to corral suspected terrorists, from secret prisons to surreptitious abductions to deportations that could lead to torture or execution. Meanwhile, a program overseen by the United Nations Security Council has stripped hundreds of people of assets and international-travel rights -- and even the right to earn a salary or buy groceries -- without so much as a hearing, let alone trial or appeal. Apart from suspects' lawyers and a European human-rights watchdog, the program has drawn little scrutiny.
Today, 359 people are on this blacklist created by Security Council Resolution 1267. No court process is involved in adding someone to the list, nor is it debated by the council's member states. Those added have no right to present exculpatory evidence to Security Council members, nor any right of appeal.
Cutting Off Funding
The U.S. and other governments say these sanctions are an important weapon in the fight against international terrorism, cutting suspects off from the money they need to communicate and operate, either from jail or when the law would otherwise let them go free.
Opponents say the program has lost its original purpose and is used by governments to evade due process in pursuit of alleged terrorists and their accomplices. Critics also decry the opportunity for governments to abuse the system by framing dissidents and others who draw official disfavor. "This isn't about preventing terrorism. This is punishment without trial," says German lawyer Gül Pinar, who represents several people in Germany who are on the U.N. list.
A Security Council report in March aired concerns about how effective the program has been against terrorism. In a letter to the panel's president, the chairman of the committee that oversees the list cited inconsistent enforcement among nations, noting many suspects continue to cross borders. Resolution 1267 was passed in 1999 to pressure Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to hand over Osama bin Laden after Washington accused him of masterminding the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa. Rather than impose broad economic sanctions, which would hurt the Afghan population, the Security Council aimed to isolate and punish Taliban leaders. A year later, the restrictions were applied to Mr. bin Laden and some of his associates.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., Resolution 1267 has been used against a much wider group, including suspected and convicted al Qaeda operatives and their networks. Some people on the U.N. list have been tried and convicted of terrorist-related offenses and are in jail. Some, like Mr. bin Laden, are or were fugitives. Others inhabit a grayer zone.
Take Saad al-Fagih, whom Saudi Arabia accuses of complicity in an attempted assassination and of helping to buy the satellite phone Mr. bin Laden used to direct the embassy bombings. Mr. Fagih has never been charged with a crime in the United Kingdom, where he lives. His designation on the U.N. list "is a critical part of the international campaign to counter terrorism," according to a U.S. Treasury Department statement. Two cellphones chirp constantly as Mr. Fagih, a Saudi citizen, pilots a Honda Civic through busy London traffic en route to a four-bedroom townhouse in a tony neighborhood of northwest London. The home, like the car and the phones, is in his wife's name. Mr. Fagih denies any ties or past dealings with Mr. bin Laden: "If it were true, why haven't I been charged?" he asks.
Heino Vahldieck, the head of intelligence in Hamburg, Germany, says administrative pressure, such as 1267 sanctions, is used against men like Mr. Fagih when circumstantial evidence tying them to terrorism is considered overwhelming but criminal prosecution is difficult or impossible. "We need to be creative," he says.
Although most of the list's designated Taliban supporters are Afghan nationals, those accused of al Qaeda links are more diverse, including at least one U.S. citizen, three Britons, two Germans and five Saudi Arabian citizens. The blacklist includes at least 35 Tunisians, five Moroccans, 10 Egyptians and 77 individuals of indeterminate nationality, according to the U.N.'s official 1267 sanctions list.
Sanctions Survive Acquittal
Last year, a court in Hamburg found Abdelghani Mzoudi -- a Moroccan student and former roommate of three Sept. 11 pilots -- not guilty on all charges of logistical support for those hijack attacks. Despite the acquittal, Mr. Mzoudi, who returned to Morocco after his trial, remains sanctioned under 1267 for his alleged support of al Qaeda.
Mamoun Darkazanli, who lives in Hamburg, was designated under 1267 in October 2001, shortly after he told police he spent Sept. 11 watching television with a man who later admitted -- under interrogation in Syria -- that he recruited three pilots for the attacks. Mr. Darkazanli, whose lawyer notes her client has never been convicted of a crime, was left destitute when banking restrictions made it impossible to run his import-export business. He survives on welfare payments authorized by the Security Council.
This year, the Council of Europe, an intergovernmental human-rights watchdog, said in a report requested by the U.N. that the 1267 process doesn't comply with Europe's convention on human rights because it provides no protection against arbitrary decisions and has no mechanism to review the accuracy of allegations governments make. Those targeted have no recourse against national governments, which can simply say they are bound to follow the dictates of the Security Council.
The procedure to designate someone an al Qaeda or Taliban supporter is simple. A government submits a name to the Security Council's 1267 committee, which circulates it among the 15 council members, along with supporting details. There are no formal standards of evidence required for designation, a diplomat involved in the process said, adding. "The 1267 committee is not a court. This is a political process."
Delistings Are Few
If no objection is made within five days, the person is added to the list. Their assets -- from bank accounts to private debts to prison-canteen funds -- are frozen and they lose the right to travel internationally. "Silence means, 'Yes, the sanction is confirmed,' " a U.N. spokeswoman said. Most sanction requests have been approved without challenge, although nine people have been delisted. Individuals don't get a hearing and can't submit evidence to refute the allegations. Nor can they apply to be delisted -- only a government can on their behalf.
Mr. Fagih says "nobody contacted me about the allegations" when his name went before the 1267 committee in 2004. He eventually learned of Saudi Arabia's charges, and the Security Council sanctions, from the British foreign office. His name was proposed by Saudi Arabia, which alleged that in 2003 Mr. Fagih received $1 million from a man who later confessed to plotting the assassination of the Saudi crown prince, according to the Treasury Department. Mr. Fagih denies involvement in the alleged plot and says he was targeted for organizing peaceful human-rights demonstrations.
Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi security adviser at the kingdom's London embassy, says he investigated Mr. Fagih's case for three years and the charges against him are "rock solid." Saudi Arabia hasn't applied to extradite Mr. Fagih, because the U.K., like other European Union countries, refuses to extradite suspects to countries where they would face the death penalty, Mr. Obaid says.
Despite the U.N. sanctions, Mr. Fagih continues to broadcast from London for Al-Islah TV, a Saudi dissident television station that aims to overthrow the royal family. He says the impact of the U.N. sanctions on his life has been negligible. "Nothing has changed," says Mr. Fagih, while serving tea and cakes from a silver tray in his office. Joking, he adds: "Except I can't buy a tank."
Pakistan coalition averts break-up over judges' reinstatement
This is from thepost.
There seemed to be agreement all along about re-instatement but disagreement about what else shou
There seemed to be agreement all along about re-instatement but disagreement about what else shou