This is just symptomatic of the lack of any real difference in foreign policy between the Democrats and Republicans. Both parties share an aggressive imperialist policy that attempts to assert U.S. global hegemony even though it will ruin the U.S. economy, in the end burdening the populace with ruinous debt and wasting resources that could have been used to improve the condition of Americans at home. Also, there is a waste of American lives for foreign adventures that mostly benefit the capitalist cronies of the two main parties who lavishly support them and are richly rewarded with defence contracts and no bid contracts in Iraq and elsewhere.
If the war on terrror did not exist something else would have been invented to hoodwink the U.S. populace. Don't be surprised if China or Russia become new evil empires within a very short while. A new unifying diversion may be necessary as times get harder.
Robert Gates continuing tenure is also symptomatic of what Obama stands for in the way of real change.
Barack Obama may recruit defence chief Robert Gates
Sarah Baxter in WashingtonTimes of LondonJune 29, 2008
In defiance of traditional party labels, Barack Obama, the Democraticpresidential nominee, may ask the defence secretary of President George WBush to stay on if he wins the White House.Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing thecase for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praisefor his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama's desire toappoint a cabinet of all the talents.After appealing for unity with former rival Hillary Clinton and hersupporters and big donors last week, Obama, 46, is turning his attention towooing Republicans and independent voters who may be concerned that he lacksthe experience to be trusted with America's defence.Richard Danzig, an adviser to Obama on national security and a former navysecretary, said: "My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary ofdefence and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."The appointment would cause a furore among Democratic party activists butwould have the advantage of providing continuity at a time when Iraq appearsto be stabilising and demanding more independence from America.Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution in Washington, a foreign policyadviser to Obama, said: "Robert Gates is one of the best defence secretarieswe have had in a long time and it makes a lot of sense to keep him."Gates, a former member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, was initiallysceptical about the troop surge in Iraq and has been quietly seeking anorderly transition to a new US administration in January so that hard-wonmilitary gains in Iraq are not thrown away in a hasty withdrawal.At one stage last year, he had hoped that 60,000-70,000 US troops could bewithdrawn by Christmas this year, but he was persuaded to back more modestreductions by General David Petraeus, the US commander. There are still150,000 US troops in Iraq.Obama has declared he will be as "careful" about leaving Iraq as Bush was"careless" going in. His current position is to remove all combat troopsfrom Iraq within 16 months at the rate of "one or two" brigades a month. Heis preparing to visit Iraq and Afghanistan, and will stop over in Britain.Gates recently said Obama and John McCain, his Republican rival, were likelyto take a "sensible approach" to Iraq because "the next president wouldsuffer the greatest consequences if we do get the endgame wrong". RetainingGates would give Obama "cover" for adjusting his policy if necessary, whilereassuring Republicans that withdrawing from Iraq would not imperil nationalsecurity.Gates showed he was comfortable working with Democrats when he appointedJohn Hamre, a former senior official under Bill Clinton, to serve aschairman of the influential Defence Policy Board last year. He alsoappointed William Perry, a former defence secretary who is advising Obama,to the board.Gates has said he finds it "inconceivable" that he would stay on but Obama'sadvisers believe he would respond to the call. "This is a man who believesin service," Daalder said.James Carafano, a defence expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation inWashington, said Obama would be making a "smart move" if he asked Gates tocarry on. "He has clearly adopted a mainstream course on national securitythat would be acceptable to either McCain or Obama."Last month Gates said he backed negotiations with Iran, a policy favoured byObama. "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and thensit down and talk with them," the defence secretary told an association ofretired diplomats.Obama has been attacked by McCain, 71, for being all talk and no substancewhen it comes to forging cross-party alliances. The independent-mindedMcCain has had the courage to buck party lines, Republicans argue, whileObama is a conventional liberal beneath the bipartisan rhetoric.Obama has previously told The Sunday Times he is interested in appointingindependent Republican figures such as Senator Chuck Hagel to his cabinet.Hagel, who opposed the Iraq war, is still considered a leading contender fordefence secretary or another prominent post.Obama has also praised Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography ofPresident Abraham Lincoln, because it showed how Lincoln was able to marshala civil war-era cabinet of former opponents.Last week Obama told Joe Klein, a commentator for Time magazine: "The lessonis not to let your ego or grudges get in the way of hiring absolutely thebest people . . . I have an interest in casting a wide net, seeking outpeople with a wide range of expertise, including Republicans."Speculation intensified this weekend that Obama may offer Hillary Clintonthe position of health secretary after he appointed Neera Tanden, her seniorpolicy director and a key architect of her healthcare plan, to his campaignteam.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4232070.ece
Monday, June 30, 2008
The era of oil wars is growing.
This is from the Guardian (UK).
As the article points out the U.S. is determined to make sure that the West has access to and preferably control over the development of Iraq oil. This is already happening. Although the new oil law has not passed agreements are being inked with Kurdish authorities and also development agreements with the Iraqi oil ministry. Since there is so much opposition to the oil bill foreign companies are doing an end run around it!
There is also feirce competition in Africa for oil resources and the U.S. is increasing and unifying its military involvement there.
The era of oil wars
Growing competition for oil may escalate to something as hot and dangerous as nuclear proliferation
Michael Meacher
guardian.co.uk,
Sunday June 29, 2008
Article history
Gordon Brown meeting Britain's oil chiefs to discuss higher North Sea output to bring down prices is prompted by oil prices hitting a record high of $135 a barrel, twice as high as a year ago and a staggering 12 times higher than a decade ago. The well-sourced website petrolprices.com is now predicting that petrol will reach £1.50 a litre by September, just 4 months away. Jeff Rubin of CIBC World Markets is forecasting "oil prices almost doubling over the next five years". That would mean $270 a barrel by 2013. It perhaps explains why the government is now strongly backing BP to get a big new slice of the oil drilling licences soon to be issued in Iraq, and – astonishingly – has now also made clear it intends to annex a third of a million square miles of the seabed off Antarctica to pre-empt any rights to the oil it may contain. The fight for oil has begun in earnest.But is there the oil to go round? The authoritative International Energy Agency foresees an oil supply crunch within 5 years forcing up prices to unprecedented levels and greatly increasing western dependence on Opec. And the oil industry itself in its own report Facing the Hard Truths about Energy, produced by 175 authorities including all the heads of the world's big oil companies, for the first time predicted that oil and gas may run short by 2015.
The geopolitical implications of this gathering crisis for world oil supply 2010-15 are immense. The risk of further military interventions and conflicts in the Middle East is clearly high. Total world oil reserves are estimated at 2.5-2.9 trillion barrels, of which half has now been already consumed, while half of the 51 oil-producing countries reported output declines in 2006. Non-Opec production is expected to peak and decline within the next five years, driven mainly by burgeoning demand from China and the US, together with restricted output from Iraq. Then in the following five years Opec's diminishing spare capacity will probably become increasingly unable to accommodate short-term fluctuations, depending on how fast world demand grows and how extensively Opec invests in new capacity. The latter may well not raise production capacity high enough or quickly enough, whether for political reasons or because internal decision-making is too slow or the security environment too hostile.
There are of course exits from this doom-stricken scenario, though none is at all credible. First, discovery of major new oilfields could alter the picture. However, though billions have been spent on the search for new fields, discovery peaked in the mid-1960s and the last big ones were found in the 1970s. Only Iraq has undeveloped super-giant oilfields – at West Qurna, Athabascan tar sands (from Alberta, Canada), extra-heavy oil (from the Orinoco belt in Venezuela), oil shale, and mature source rocks. But the almost insurmountable problem is recoverability, whether poor quality oil (extra-heavy oil), poor quality reservoirs (oil from source rocks), or both (oil shale). Worse, production may be uneconomic because of a very low net energy gain, ie it requires almost as much energy to extract the oil as is made available for subsequent use. And the enormous hike in greenhouse gases generated could produce a turbo climate change effect that would wipe out any benefit from a global post-Kyoto agreement.
But even if supply constraints are ineluctable as the explosion of Chinese growth coincides with falling non-Opec oil production and the beginnings of a slow but remorseless slippage in Opec capacity, the coming crisis could still be eased by significant demand restrictions. Clearly there is substantial room for energy-saving when half the energy generated every day is wasted and when propulsion of an average car is only about 20% efficient, heating of a standard oven only 25%, and electricity generated in some power stations only some 35%. The question, however, is whether improvement can be secured globally on the level and timescale required to push back the crisis more than a few years. Equally, taking the CO2 out of fossil fuels, especially coal, may be crucial, but a decade at least is needed even to test the carbon capture technology in pilot projects, let alone begin to mainstream it. But the most direct means of constraining world demand would be the proposed Rimini protocol, which prescribes that oil-importing countries cut their imports to match the world depletion rate (ie annual production as a percentage of remaining global reserves) now running at about 2% a year. Of course, the fundamental political problem remains that the most powerful oil-hungry countries will not agree. If not Kyoto, why Rimini?
What is most disturbing of all is that the big powers, so far from seeking major adjustments of their energy policies on either the supply or demand fronts or making a major switch into renewables, are actually massively intensifying their competitive struggle short-term for the limited oil reserves left. Despite an unwinnable war in Iraq, the US is still constructing at least five large permanent military bases there in order, according to evidence given to a US Congressional Committee, to control access to Gulf oil, including in Saudi and Iran. As one neocon recently put it, "one of the reasons we had no exit plan from Iraq is that we didn't intend to leave". The US is also trying to force through a new Iraqi oil law that would give western, primarily American, oil multinationals control of Iraqi oilfields for the next 30 years.
The US maintains 737 military bases in 130 countries under cover of the "war on terror" to defend American economic interests, particularly access to oil. The principal objective for the continued existence and expansion of Nato post-cold war is the encirclement of Russia and the pre-emption of China dominating access to oil and gas in the Caspian Sea and Middle East regions. It is only the beginning of the unannounced titanic global resource struggle between the US and China, the world's largest importers of oil (China overtook Japan in 2003). Islam has been dragged into this tussle because it is in the Islamic world where most of these resources lie, but Islam is only a secondary player. In the case of Russia, the recent pronounced stepping up of western attacks on Putin and claims he is undermining democracy are ultimately aimed at securing a pro-western government there, and access to Russian oil and gas when Russia has more of these two hydrocarbons together than any other country in the world.
The struggle has also spilled over into West Africa, reckoned to hold some 66 billion barrels of oil typically low in sulphur and thus ideal for refining. In 2005 the US imported more oil from the Gulf of Guinea than from Saudi and Kuwait combined, and is expected over the next 10 years to import more oil from Africa than from the Middle East. In step with this, the Pentagon is setting up a new unified military command for the continent named Africom. Conversely, Angola is now China's main supplier of crude oil, overtaking Saudi Arabia last year. There is no doubt that Africom, which will greatly increase the US military presence in Africa, is aimed at the growing conflict with China over oil supplies.
As Joe Lieberman, former US presidential candidate, put it, efforts by the US and China to use imports to meet growing demand "may escalate competition for oil to something as hot and dangerous as the nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviet Union".
As the article points out the U.S. is determined to make sure that the West has access to and preferably control over the development of Iraq oil. This is already happening. Although the new oil law has not passed agreements are being inked with Kurdish authorities and also development agreements with the Iraqi oil ministry. Since there is so much opposition to the oil bill foreign companies are doing an end run around it!
There is also feirce competition in Africa for oil resources and the U.S. is increasing and unifying its military involvement there.
The era of oil wars
Growing competition for oil may escalate to something as hot and dangerous as nuclear proliferation
Michael Meacher
guardian.co.uk,
Sunday June 29, 2008
Article history
Gordon Brown meeting Britain's oil chiefs to discuss higher North Sea output to bring down prices is prompted by oil prices hitting a record high of $135 a barrel, twice as high as a year ago and a staggering 12 times higher than a decade ago. The well-sourced website petrolprices.com is now predicting that petrol will reach £1.50 a litre by September, just 4 months away. Jeff Rubin of CIBC World Markets is forecasting "oil prices almost doubling over the next five years". That would mean $270 a barrel by 2013. It perhaps explains why the government is now strongly backing BP to get a big new slice of the oil drilling licences soon to be issued in Iraq, and – astonishingly – has now also made clear it intends to annex a third of a million square miles of the seabed off Antarctica to pre-empt any rights to the oil it may contain. The fight for oil has begun in earnest.But is there the oil to go round? The authoritative International Energy Agency foresees an oil supply crunch within 5 years forcing up prices to unprecedented levels and greatly increasing western dependence on Opec. And the oil industry itself in its own report Facing the Hard Truths about Energy, produced by 175 authorities including all the heads of the world's big oil companies, for the first time predicted that oil and gas may run short by 2015.
The geopolitical implications of this gathering crisis for world oil supply 2010-15 are immense. The risk of further military interventions and conflicts in the Middle East is clearly high. Total world oil reserves are estimated at 2.5-2.9 trillion barrels, of which half has now been already consumed, while half of the 51 oil-producing countries reported output declines in 2006. Non-Opec production is expected to peak and decline within the next five years, driven mainly by burgeoning demand from China and the US, together with restricted output from Iraq. Then in the following five years Opec's diminishing spare capacity will probably become increasingly unable to accommodate short-term fluctuations, depending on how fast world demand grows and how extensively Opec invests in new capacity. The latter may well not raise production capacity high enough or quickly enough, whether for political reasons or because internal decision-making is too slow or the security environment too hostile.
There are of course exits from this doom-stricken scenario, though none is at all credible. First, discovery of major new oilfields could alter the picture. However, though billions have been spent on the search for new fields, discovery peaked in the mid-1960s and the last big ones were found in the 1970s. Only Iraq has undeveloped super-giant oilfields – at West Qurna, Athabascan tar sands (from Alberta, Canada), extra-heavy oil (from the Orinoco belt in Venezuela), oil shale, and mature source rocks. But the almost insurmountable problem is recoverability, whether poor quality oil (extra-heavy oil), poor quality reservoirs (oil from source rocks), or both (oil shale). Worse, production may be uneconomic because of a very low net energy gain, ie it requires almost as much energy to extract the oil as is made available for subsequent use. And the enormous hike in greenhouse gases generated could produce a turbo climate change effect that would wipe out any benefit from a global post-Kyoto agreement.
But even if supply constraints are ineluctable as the explosion of Chinese growth coincides with falling non-Opec oil production and the beginnings of a slow but remorseless slippage in Opec capacity, the coming crisis could still be eased by significant demand restrictions. Clearly there is substantial room for energy-saving when half the energy generated every day is wasted and when propulsion of an average car is only about 20% efficient, heating of a standard oven only 25%, and electricity generated in some power stations only some 35%. The question, however, is whether improvement can be secured globally on the level and timescale required to push back the crisis more than a few years. Equally, taking the CO2 out of fossil fuels, especially coal, may be crucial, but a decade at least is needed even to test the carbon capture technology in pilot projects, let alone begin to mainstream it. But the most direct means of constraining world demand would be the proposed Rimini protocol, which prescribes that oil-importing countries cut their imports to match the world depletion rate (ie annual production as a percentage of remaining global reserves) now running at about 2% a year. Of course, the fundamental political problem remains that the most powerful oil-hungry countries will not agree. If not Kyoto, why Rimini?
What is most disturbing of all is that the big powers, so far from seeking major adjustments of their energy policies on either the supply or demand fronts or making a major switch into renewables, are actually massively intensifying their competitive struggle short-term for the limited oil reserves left. Despite an unwinnable war in Iraq, the US is still constructing at least five large permanent military bases there in order, according to evidence given to a US Congressional Committee, to control access to Gulf oil, including in Saudi and Iran. As one neocon recently put it, "one of the reasons we had no exit plan from Iraq is that we didn't intend to leave". The US is also trying to force through a new Iraqi oil law that would give western, primarily American, oil multinationals control of Iraqi oilfields for the next 30 years.
The US maintains 737 military bases in 130 countries under cover of the "war on terror" to defend American economic interests, particularly access to oil. The principal objective for the continued existence and expansion of Nato post-cold war is the encirclement of Russia and the pre-emption of China dominating access to oil and gas in the Caspian Sea and Middle East regions. It is only the beginning of the unannounced titanic global resource struggle between the US and China, the world's largest importers of oil (China overtook Japan in 2003). Islam has been dragged into this tussle because it is in the Islamic world where most of these resources lie, but Islam is only a secondary player. In the case of Russia, the recent pronounced stepping up of western attacks on Putin and claims he is undermining democracy are ultimately aimed at securing a pro-western government there, and access to Russian oil and gas when Russia has more of these two hydrocarbons together than any other country in the world.
The struggle has also spilled over into West Africa, reckoned to hold some 66 billion barrels of oil typically low in sulphur and thus ideal for refining. In 2005 the US imported more oil from the Gulf of Guinea than from Saudi and Kuwait combined, and is expected over the next 10 years to import more oil from Africa than from the Middle East. In step with this, the Pentagon is setting up a new unified military command for the continent named Africom. Conversely, Angola is now China's main supplier of crude oil, overtaking Saudi Arabia last year. There is no doubt that Africom, which will greatly increase the US military presence in Africa, is aimed at the growing conflict with China over oil supplies.
As Joe Lieberman, former US presidential candidate, put it, efforts by the US and China to use imports to meet growing demand "may escalate competition for oil to something as hot and dangerous as the nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviet Union".
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Secret U.S. operation kills Iraqi, strains relations
This is from McClatchy.
These operations are often counter-productive in terms of relations with occupied countries. The same type of operations have created havoc in Afghanistan. Not only the U.S. there but also British and perhaps even Canadian special forces are involved in Afghanistan. Many if not most of the operations clearly violate international law and often involve war crimes. No one seems to care except the local people who no doubt develop an undying hatred for the occupying forces.
This particular operation has gained publicity only because a person who was a relative of an important person was killed. I wonder if this operation will garner any headlines in the U.S. mainstream media.
Secret U.S. operation kills Iraqi, strains relations
By Hannah A
llam, McClatchy NewspapersSat Jun 28, 6:11 PM ET
�
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Senior Iraqi government officials said Saturday that a U.S. Special Forces counterterrorism unit conducted the raid that reportedly killed a relative of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki , touching off a high-stakes diplomatic crisis between the United States and Iraq .
U.S. military officials in Baghdad had no comment for the second day in a row, an unusual position for a command that typically releases information on combat operations within 24 hours.
The raid occurred at dawn Friday in the town of Janaja near Maliki's birthplace in the southern, mostly Shiite Muslim province of Karbala . Ali Abdulhussein Razak al Maliki , who was killed in the raid, was related to the prime minister and had close ties to his personal security detail, according to authorities in Karbala .
The incident puts an added strain on U.S.-Iraqi negotiations to draft a Status of Forces Agreement, a long-term security pact that will govern the conduct of U.S. forces in Iraq . Members of the Iraqi government and security forces said the raid only deepened their reluctance to sign any agreement that did not leave Iraqis with the biggest say on when and how combat operations are conducted.
The U.S. military handed Iraqi forces control of Karbala security in October 2007 . By the end of 2007 the U.S. military had transferred nine of the country's 18 provinces to Iraqi control.
"We are afraid now of signing the long-term pact between Iraq and America because of such unjustified violations by the troops. Handing over security in provinces doesn't mean anything to the American troops," said Mohamed Hussein al Musawi , a senior Najaf-based member of the prime minister's Dawa Party . "We condemn these barbaric actions not only when they target a relative of Maliki's, but when any Iraqi is targeted in the same way."
Outrage over the mysterious operation has spread to the highest levels of the Iraqi government, which is demanding an explanation for how such a raid occurred in a province ostensibly under full Iraqi command.
"This is a Special Forces operation, an antiterrorism unit that operates almost independently so there's been no coordination with the local forces on the ground," said a high-ranking member of the Iraqi government who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the extreme sensitivity of the issue. "That's why it's so important to have a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate this relationship. As long as it's vague and open, these incidents will continue to happen."
U.S. and Iraqi officials have been in difficult negotiations to draft a Status of Forces Agreement. Among the main sticking points are whether the U.S. military can stage combat operations without the consent of the Iraqi government and whether to grant immunity to American troops and security contractors.
Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman called Friday's operation "unacceptable" and had strained relations between the countries.
"This is a big embarrassment for Prime Minister Maliki because he was in that area two days before the incident, telling his people that we are the masters in our country and the decisions were ours to make," Othman said. "This is why we are afraid of agreements and immunity. ... If there are wanted people in any area, why not send an Iraqi force to do the job?"
Iraqi officials in Karbala said the operation began at dawn Friday with U.S. aircraft delivering dozens of American troops to the rural Shiite Muslim town of Janaja, which is populated mostly by members of the Maliki tribe. Authorities said the raid apparently was aimed at capturing what the military calls a "high-value target," often a reference to the leader of a militant cell.
Raed Shakir Jowdet, the Iraqi military commander of Karbala operations, told journalists Friday that the Americans had acted on faulty intelligence. He said four U.S. military helicopters and a jet fighter soared over the area that morning. About 60 U.S. ground forces then stormed the town, "terrifying the families," Jowdet said. At least one man was detained, though some Iraqi authorities said more were taken into custody.
�
(Special correspondent Qassim Zein contributed from Najaf.)
These operations are often counter-productive in terms of relations with occupied countries. The same type of operations have created havoc in Afghanistan. Not only the U.S. there but also British and perhaps even Canadian special forces are involved in Afghanistan. Many if not most of the operations clearly violate international law and often involve war crimes. No one seems to care except the local people who no doubt develop an undying hatred for the occupying forces.
This particular operation has gained publicity only because a person who was a relative of an important person was killed. I wonder if this operation will garner any headlines in the U.S. mainstream media.
Secret U.S. operation kills Iraqi, strains relations
By Hannah A
llam, McClatchy NewspapersSat Jun 28, 6:11 PM ET
�
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Senior Iraqi government officials said Saturday that a U.S. Special Forces counterterrorism unit conducted the raid that reportedly killed a relative of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki , touching off a high-stakes diplomatic crisis between the United States and Iraq .
U.S. military officials in Baghdad had no comment for the second day in a row, an unusual position for a command that typically releases information on combat operations within 24 hours.
The raid occurred at dawn Friday in the town of Janaja near Maliki's birthplace in the southern, mostly Shiite Muslim province of Karbala . Ali Abdulhussein Razak al Maliki , who was killed in the raid, was related to the prime minister and had close ties to his personal security detail, according to authorities in Karbala .
The incident puts an added strain on U.S.-Iraqi negotiations to draft a Status of Forces Agreement, a long-term security pact that will govern the conduct of U.S. forces in Iraq . Members of the Iraqi government and security forces said the raid only deepened their reluctance to sign any agreement that did not leave Iraqis with the biggest say on when and how combat operations are conducted.
The U.S. military handed Iraqi forces control of Karbala security in October 2007 . By the end of 2007 the U.S. military had transferred nine of the country's 18 provinces to Iraqi control.
"We are afraid now of signing the long-term pact between Iraq and America because of such unjustified violations by the troops. Handing over security in provinces doesn't mean anything to the American troops," said Mohamed Hussein al Musawi , a senior Najaf-based member of the prime minister's Dawa Party . "We condemn these barbaric actions not only when they target a relative of Maliki's, but when any Iraqi is targeted in the same way."
Outrage over the mysterious operation has spread to the highest levels of the Iraqi government, which is demanding an explanation for how such a raid occurred in a province ostensibly under full Iraqi command.
"This is a Special Forces operation, an antiterrorism unit that operates almost independently so there's been no coordination with the local forces on the ground," said a high-ranking member of the Iraqi government who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the extreme sensitivity of the issue. "That's why it's so important to have a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate this relationship. As long as it's vague and open, these incidents will continue to happen."
U.S. and Iraqi officials have been in difficult negotiations to draft a Status of Forces Agreement. Among the main sticking points are whether the U.S. military can stage combat operations without the consent of the Iraqi government and whether to grant immunity to American troops and security contractors.
Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman called Friday's operation "unacceptable" and had strained relations between the countries.
"This is a big embarrassment for Prime Minister Maliki because he was in that area two days before the incident, telling his people that we are the masters in our country and the decisions were ours to make," Othman said. "This is why we are afraid of agreements and immunity. ... If there are wanted people in any area, why not send an Iraqi force to do the job?"
Iraqi officials in Karbala said the operation began at dawn Friday with U.S. aircraft delivering dozens of American troops to the rural Shiite Muslim town of Janaja, which is populated mostly by members of the Maliki tribe. Authorities said the raid apparently was aimed at capturing what the military calls a "high-value target," often a reference to the leader of a militant cell.
Raed Shakir Jowdet, the Iraqi military commander of Karbala operations, told journalists Friday that the Americans had acted on faulty intelligence. He said four U.S. military helicopters and a jet fighter soared over the area that morning. About 60 U.S. ground forces then stormed the town, "terrifying the families," Jowdet said. At least one man was detained, though some Iraqi authorities said more were taken into custody.
�
(Special correspondent Qassim Zein contributed from Najaf.)
Krauthammer on Obama
This is from townhall.com
This is by Krauthammer the right wing U.S. commentator. It is worth reading the other side sometimes! Krauthammer shows not that Obama is moving to the middle but to the right .He was already in the middle or at most a ten minute march away I would say! Anyway the opposition often pens truths that our good guys hide!
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -- Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007
WASHINGTON -- That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-9/11 eavesdropping.
Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take "the hammer" to Canada and Mexico, and threaten unilateral abrogation.
Today, the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric "overheated" and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.
Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet "without preconditions" with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be "preparations," you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.
Obama's long march to the center has begun
This is by Krauthammer the right wing U.S. commentator. It is worth reading the other side sometimes! Krauthammer shows not that Obama is moving to the middle but to the right .He was already in the middle or at most a ten minute march away I would say! Anyway the opposition often pens truths that our good guys hide!
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -- Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007
WASHINGTON -- That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-9/11 eavesdropping.
Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take "the hammer" to Canada and Mexico, and threaten unilateral abrogation.
Today, the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric "overheated" and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.
Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet "without preconditions" with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be "preparations," you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.
Obama's long march to the center has begun
Southern Philippines calls for Muslim rebel talks
This is from the Bangkok Post.
I wonder if part of the reluctance to negotiate is not influenced by the U.S. view that there should be no negotiation with terrorists. Not only are these peace talks in limbo but also earlier talks with the NPA Maoist guerrillas have broken down. The NPA is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. Arroyo claims she is going to rid the Philippines of the insurgency but with economic conditions turning sour especially in rural areas that is quite unlikely.
Southern Philippines calls for Muslim rebel talks
Manila (dpa) - More than 100,000 people gathered on Saturday in key cities in the southern Philippines, calling for the resumption of the stalled peace negotiations between the government and Muslim rebels.
Amirah Ali Lidasan, one of the organizers of the rallies, said people gathered in the cities of Marawi, Iligan, Cotabato, General Santos and Basilan to urge President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to resume talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
"We challenge President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to be sincere in the peace negotiations," she said.
The call for the resumption of peace talks came amid escalating clashes between government troops and the MILF rebels.
Earlier in the week, two people were killed, three were wounded and more than a thousand fled their homes in at least three clashes between soldiers and MILF.
Eid Kabalu, MILF civil military affairs chief, said rebel commanders were getting impatient over the continued delay in the negotiations and have expressed doubt on the sincerity of the government to achieve peace in Mindanao.
Peace talks between the MILF and the government have been stalled since December 2007 over disagreements on the scope of territory to be included in a proposed Muslim homeland.
I wonder if part of the reluctance to negotiate is not influenced by the U.S. view that there should be no negotiation with terrorists. Not only are these peace talks in limbo but also earlier talks with the NPA Maoist guerrillas have broken down. The NPA is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. Arroyo claims she is going to rid the Philippines of the insurgency but with economic conditions turning sour especially in rural areas that is quite unlikely.
Southern Philippines calls for Muslim rebel talks
Manila (dpa) - More than 100,000 people gathered on Saturday in key cities in the southern Philippines, calling for the resumption of the stalled peace negotiations between the government and Muslim rebels.
Amirah Ali Lidasan, one of the organizers of the rallies, said people gathered in the cities of Marawi, Iligan, Cotabato, General Santos and Basilan to urge President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to resume talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
"We challenge President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to be sincere in the peace negotiations," she said.
The call for the resumption of peace talks came amid escalating clashes between government troops and the MILF rebels.
Earlier in the week, two people were killed, three were wounded and more than a thousand fled their homes in at least three clashes between soldiers and MILF.
Eid Kabalu, MILF civil military affairs chief, said rebel commanders were getting impatient over the continued delay in the negotiations and have expressed doubt on the sincerity of the government to achieve peace in Mindanao.
Peace talks between the MILF and the government have been stalled since December 2007 over disagreements on the scope of territory to be included in a proposed Muslim homeland.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Dick Cheney 'tried to block North Korea nuclear deal''
This is from the Telegraph.
Cheney is losing influence within the Bush administration it seems. Of course the thaw with North Korea could freeze up again quite quickly. Rice sometimes seems to be a bit more pragmatic than Cheney and other neocons.
Dick Cheney 'tried to block North Korea nuclear deal'
By Philip Sherwell in New York
Last Updated: 6:51PM BST 28/06/2008
Vice President Dick Cheney fought furiously to block efforts by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to strike a controversial US compromise deal with North Korea over the communist state's nuclear programme, the Telegraph has learned.
"The exchanges between Cheney's office and Rice's people at State got very testy. But ultimately Condi had the President's ear and persuaded him that his legacy would be stronger if they reached a deal with Pyongyang," said a Pentagon adviser who was briefed on the battle.
Mr Cheney's office is believed to have played a key role in the release two months ago of documents and photographs linking North Korea to a suspected nuclear site in Syria that was bombed by Israeli jets last year.
Six months later than promised, Pyongyang last week handed over details to China of its plutonium stocks and invited US officials to witness the symbolic destruction of an already disabled cooling tower at its Yongbyon plutonium plant.
Cheney is losing influence within the Bush administration it seems. Of course the thaw with North Korea could freeze up again quite quickly. Rice sometimes seems to be a bit more pragmatic than Cheney and other neocons.
Dick Cheney 'tried to block North Korea nuclear deal'
By Philip Sherwell in New York
Last Updated: 6:51PM BST 28/06/2008
Vice President Dick Cheney fought furiously to block efforts by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to strike a controversial US compromise deal with North Korea over the communist state's nuclear programme, the Telegraph has learned.
"The exchanges between Cheney's office and Rice's people at State got very testy. But ultimately Condi had the President's ear and persuaded him that his legacy would be stronger if they reached a deal with Pyongyang," said a Pentagon adviser who was briefed on the battle.
Mr Cheney's office is believed to have played a key role in the release two months ago of documents and photographs linking North Korea to a suspected nuclear site in Syria that was bombed by Israeli jets last year.
Six months later than promised, Pyongyang last week handed over details to China of its plutonium stocks and invited US officials to witness the symbolic destruction of an already disabled cooling tower at its Yongbyon plutonium plant.
Update on Fengshen casualties in Philippines
Given that there are so many on the ferry unaccounted for it seems that the toll will rise still higher in the coming days. The damage to crops will make things even worse for many filipinos already facing high rice prices.
Typhoon death toll rises to 664 in Philippines
www.chinaview.cn 2008-06-28 00:40:02
MANILA, June 27 (Xinhua) -- The death toll from typhoon Fengshen has risen to 664 in the Philippines, according to the latest government data released on Friday night.
Besides those confirmed dead due to the capsizal of an ill-fated ferry, the Philippine National Disaster Coordinating Council said as of Friday evening, 540 more fatalities have been reported from all parts of the typhoon affected areas. Floods and mudflows were the major reasons for the deaths.
The M/V Princes of the Stars capsized off the Philippines' central province of Romblon last Saturday at the height of the typhoon, with 862 passengers and crew on board. The last official casualty count from the ship was placed at 124, with only 56 survivors confirmed while most of the others are still missing, mostly feared dead.
Rescue and retrieval operations inside the overturn ferry were halted on Friday following reports that the vessel was carrying a pesticide cargo.
Deputy Presidential Spokesman Anthony Golez Jr said the vessel was found to be carrying 10,000 metric tons of the highly-toxic pesticide, and that authorities have shifted efforts to containing the chemical and retrieving the shipment.
The shipment retrieval is expected to start on Saturday afternoon, according to Transportation Undersecretary Elena Bautista.
Of the 540 fatalities confirmed by the disaster-relief agency, 328 have been identified while the rest 212 not yet.
At least 291 were reported injured while 277 remained missing, National Disaster Coordinating Council said in its latest report.
The agency said the typhoon affected 571,641 families or 2,875,725 persons in 46 provinces.
Of these, some 422,618 families or 2,215,529 persons have been served inside and outside evacuation centers, it added.
At least 65,413 houses were destroyed and 167,181 damaged, according to the report.
Estimated cost of damage to infrastructure and, mostly to agriculture, amounted to 6.979 billion pesos (157 million U.S. dollars), the report said.
However, the Philippine National Food Authority on Friday assured the public that there will be sufficient rice supply despite the massive devastation.
The agency's stockpile of 920,000 metric tons of rice is good for 28 days to meet the nationwide staple need, said NFA spokesman Rex Estoperez.
Fengshen entered the Philippines from the eastern Samar island on the night of June 20 and exit through the western coast of Central Luzon after two days' onslaught on the archipelago.
Editor: Mu Xuequan
Typhoon death toll rises to 664 in Philippines
www.chinaview.cn 2008-06-28 00:40:02
MANILA, June 27 (Xinhua) -- The death toll from typhoon Fengshen has risen to 664 in the Philippines, according to the latest government data released on Friday night.
Besides those confirmed dead due to the capsizal of an ill-fated ferry, the Philippine National Disaster Coordinating Council said as of Friday evening, 540 more fatalities have been reported from all parts of the typhoon affected areas. Floods and mudflows were the major reasons for the deaths.
The M/V Princes of the Stars capsized off the Philippines' central province of Romblon last Saturday at the height of the typhoon, with 862 passengers and crew on board. The last official casualty count from the ship was placed at 124, with only 56 survivors confirmed while most of the others are still missing, mostly feared dead.
Rescue and retrieval operations inside the overturn ferry were halted on Friday following reports that the vessel was carrying a pesticide cargo.
Deputy Presidential Spokesman Anthony Golez Jr said the vessel was found to be carrying 10,000 metric tons of the highly-toxic pesticide, and that authorities have shifted efforts to containing the chemical and retrieving the shipment.
The shipment retrieval is expected to start on Saturday afternoon, according to Transportation Undersecretary Elena Bautista.
Of the 540 fatalities confirmed by the disaster-relief agency, 328 have been identified while the rest 212 not yet.
At least 291 were reported injured while 277 remained missing, National Disaster Coordinating Council said in its latest report.
The agency said the typhoon affected 571,641 families or 2,875,725 persons in 46 provinces.
Of these, some 422,618 families or 2,215,529 persons have been served inside and outside evacuation centers, it added.
At least 65,413 houses were destroyed and 167,181 damaged, according to the report.
Estimated cost of damage to infrastructure and, mostly to agriculture, amounted to 6.979 billion pesos (157 million U.S. dollars), the report said.
However, the Philippine National Food Authority on Friday assured the public that there will be sufficient rice supply despite the massive devastation.
The agency's stockpile of 920,000 metric tons of rice is good for 28 days to meet the nationwide staple need, said NFA spokesman Rex Estoperez.
Fengshen entered the Philippines from the eastern Samar island on the night of June 20 and exit through the western coast of Central Luzon after two days' onslaught on the archipelago.
Editor: Mu Xuequan
Deadly Iraq blast in Anbar days before security handoff.
This is from the LAtimes.
Al Qaeda in Iraq may be down but certainly it is not out as these actions show. The recent pronouncements of the Americans about the defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq is a bit like Bush's pronouncement years ago about mission accomplished in Iraq. I suppose the mission is accomplished in the sense that Americans are probably not focused very much on the war anymore but on the upcoming election and the U.S. economy. I am quite surprised that there is not more reaction by the U.S. public about the billions if not trillions of dollars being spent by th U.S. on its foreign wars. Americans can no longer afford their houses in many cases but they can afford to support multi-billion dollar wars that are sinking them into even more debt.
Deadly Iraq blast in Anbar comes days before security handoff
A suicide bomber kills 21 at a meeting of sheiks and city leaders in the province that has been seen as a security success story. In Mosul, explosions kill at least 18.By Doug SmithLos Angeles Times Staff Writer9:45 AM PDT, June 26, 2008BAGHDAD — Nearly 40 Iraqis were killed and more than 100 injured today in a suicide attack at a town meeting in Anbar province and two blasts in the northern city of Mosul.The mayor and tribal chief of Garma were killed along with 19 others when a bomber blew himself up during a meeting of sheiks and city leaders of the town about 15 miles northeast of Fallouja. Another 20 were injured.The attack came only days before the U.S. military planned to hand over responsibility for security in the western province to the Iraqis.Once considered lost to insurgents, Anbar became a success story after tribal leaders banded together to combat Al Qaeda in Iraq.The U.S. military said the bombing was consistent with Al Qaeda in Iraq. A statement said U.S.-led forces were among the injured.The attack followed by days two others targeting government buildings where U.S. forces were meeting with Iraqi local officials in an effort to restore public services and establish democratic processes.Anbar officials said it was too soon to tell whether there would be a setback for the transfer, which was believed to be planned for next week."We will see whether the attack of Fallouja today might have an affect," said Abdul Salam Ani, chairman of the Anbar Provincial Council.In Mosul, Ninevah province Gov. Duraid Kashmola was inspecting the site of a rocket attack near the governor's building when a car bomb exploded. At least 18 people were killed and more than 70 injured in the two attacks.Kashmola was unharmed, police said.
Al Qaeda in Iraq may be down but certainly it is not out as these actions show. The recent pronouncements of the Americans about the defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq is a bit like Bush's pronouncement years ago about mission accomplished in Iraq. I suppose the mission is accomplished in the sense that Americans are probably not focused very much on the war anymore but on the upcoming election and the U.S. economy. I am quite surprised that there is not more reaction by the U.S. public about the billions if not trillions of dollars being spent by th U.S. on its foreign wars. Americans can no longer afford their houses in many cases but they can afford to support multi-billion dollar wars that are sinking them into even more debt.
Deadly Iraq blast in Anbar comes days before security handoff
A suicide bomber kills 21 at a meeting of sheiks and city leaders in the province that has been seen as a security success story. In Mosul, explosions kill at least 18.By Doug SmithLos Angeles Times Staff Writer9:45 AM PDT, June 26, 2008BAGHDAD — Nearly 40 Iraqis were killed and more than 100 injured today in a suicide attack at a town meeting in Anbar province and two blasts in the northern city of Mosul.The mayor and tribal chief of Garma were killed along with 19 others when a bomber blew himself up during a meeting of sheiks and city leaders of the town about 15 miles northeast of Fallouja. Another 20 were injured.The attack came only days before the U.S. military planned to hand over responsibility for security in the western province to the Iraqis.Once considered lost to insurgents, Anbar became a success story after tribal leaders banded together to combat Al Qaeda in Iraq.The U.S. military said the bombing was consistent with Al Qaeda in Iraq. A statement said U.S.-led forces were among the injured.The attack followed by days two others targeting government buildings where U.S. forces were meeting with Iraqi local officials in an effort to restore public services and establish democratic processes.Anbar officials said it was too soon to tell whether there would be a setback for the transfer, which was believed to be planned for next week."We will see whether the attack of Fallouja today might have an affect," said Abdul Salam Ani, chairman of the Anbar Provincial Council.In Mosul, Ninevah province Gov. Duraid Kashmola was inspecting the site of a rocket attack near the governor's building when a car bomb exploded. At least 18 people were killed and more than 70 injured in the two attacks.Kashmola was unharmed, police said.
Global Finance, the Current Crisis and Challenges to the Dollar
This is an interesting analysis of the U.S. financial crisis by David McNally. McNally is a prof. at York University in Toronto Canada. McNally claims that the crisis is not a liquidity crisis but a bank solvency crisis. McNally certainly has a point but the fact that banks are facing financial problems does cause a liquidity crisis of sorts in that money stops flowing as loans to a considerable extent. The crisis is exacerbated by the increasing costs of energy and foodstuffs as speculative funds seek as safe haven. This drives up prices even further. At the same time these problems cause a slowing economy and distress for ordinary citizens. It is rather ironic that Bush a worshipper of the free market applies a band-aid of giving Americans a government check (aka handout) as means to stimulate the economy. If a leftist had suggested this it would have been panned as a unconscionable interference in the operations of the market as concocted by some idealistic free spending liberal who knew nothing about economics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~A Socialist Project e-bulletin .... No. 118 .... June 25, 2008________________________________________________
Global Finance, the Current Crisisand Challenges to the Dollar
David McNally
It is not often that we find ourselves living through financial turmoil so serious that the International Monetary Fund calls it "the largest financial crisis in the United States since the Great Depression." Yet that is where we are today. Already, commercial banks have collapsed in both Britain and Germany, as has the fifth-largest investment bank on Wall Street. A series of hedge funds have gone under or are teetering on the brink of ruin. And it is a near certainty that more financial institutions will fail before the crisis burns out.
It is clear that the Left needs serious analysis of just what is happening to world capitalism at the moment. Too often, however, our assessments are stuck in the past, revolving around debates as to whether or not this crisis represents a repeat of 1929 and the Great Depression.
Such debates detract from the hard work of analysis that is needed. On the one side are those who assume that history tends to repeat itself. On the other side are those critics who so exaggerate what has changed (particularly the ability of central banks to dampen tendencies to financial collapse) that they present a picture of a capitalism whose contradictions have been so muted that the system is no longer susceptible to severe economic slumps.
The real challenge for radical analysis, however, is to grasp both the changes and the enduring economic contradictions within capitalism in order to understand how capitalist transformation displaces and reorganizes crisis tendencies without eliminating them.
In the absence of such analysis, much of the radical commentary on offer tends to focus on the blatant deceit and corruption of financial players who have contributed to the market upheaval. This has its purposes. But it runs the risk of downplaying the structural features of late capitalism that breed financial meltdowns – and in so doing of suggesting that the Left focus on issues like financial regulation rather than class struggle against capital.
Trying to make sense of this crisis is one important step toward developing both an analysis of late capitalism and some of the tasks that confront the Left. To be sure, any assessment of unfolding events will necessarily be partial and incomplete. Nonetheless, it is possible to offer some crucial guidelines for making sense of this crisis.
A Banking Crisis, Not a Liquidity Crisis
It is critical to recognize at the outset that, contrary to the claims of central banks, this is not a liquidity crisis, i.e. financial turmoil caused by insufficient supplies of money flowing through the financial system. Instead, we are dealing with an insolvency crisis caused by the fact that many financial institutions are effectively broke. The result is a trauma in the banking sector.
This trauma persists because a myriad of lending institutions hold billions of dollars in massively depreciated paper that nobody is interested in buying from them. There is a host of exotic names for this paper, but essentially it is an array of debt obligations – titles to payment of interest and principal on a vast array of loans. Until the crisis broke, investors had been treating this paper as a pile of assets that they could always sell, i.e. as real wealth. Yet, the value of a debt rests in the first instance on the capacity of the borrower to pay. If the borrower can't pay, the alternative is for the creditor to seize the asset. But if the asset itself is losing value, then it may not cover the loan – and there might not be anyone out there who wants to buy it. In short, it may not be convertible to cash.
And that is precisely what is happening on a larger and more complex scale today. Economic reality is demonstrating that much of this paper – tied in the first instance to tens of millions of U.S. mortgages – is worth billions of dollars less than what was paid for it. So much of it is being written off or written down (revalued at amounts that involve enormous losses). It is as if you once had $1,000 in the bank, against which you'd borrowed many times that amount (say, ten times that amount or $10,000) and you have now learned that you only have $500. Once your creditors discover that, they'll scramble to collect in the knowledge that there's no way you will ever pay off all that you owe. But your $500 will be gone pretty fast. And since you owe $10,000, a lot of your creditors (including people who bought fancy paper called "Collateralized Debt Obligations" which includes some of your loans) won't be able to collect. And they won't be able to sell off your debts to anyone else either.
Precisely such dynamics are at work when an institutional "run on a bank" occurs, of the sort that rocked Bear Stearns in mid-March. In the course of 48 hours, Bear's holdings of cash and liquid assets plummeted from $17 billion to $2 billion as investors pulled their funds from the bank.
So the root problem is not a lack of liquidity in the system. It's that there are all kinds of institutions out there that nobody wants to lend to and whose ostensible "assets" nobody wants to buy. Worse, none of the players in the system are entirely certain as to who is holding increasingly worthless paper, or how much of it they have. As a result, the flow of funds between banks, and between banks and other lenders (like mortgage companies), keeps seizing up.
This is the reason that injecting cash into the system doesn't restore confidence. In fact, despite deep cuts to interest rates by central banks, particularly the U.S. Federal Reserve (designed to encourage borrowing) and massive injections of money into the banking system, American banks have continued to tighten lending to consumers, corporations and other banks (Financial Times, May 6, 2008).
When investors lost confidence in Bear Stearns, they did so for a fundamental economic reason, not a simply psychological one: Bear's actual assets, particularly those tied to real estate loans, had been losing massive amounts of value for months. In fact, in June of last year, two of the bank's hedge funds, which were deeply invested in sub-prime mortgages, effectively collapsed.
Continue reading: www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet118.html#continue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~A Socialist Project e-bulletin .... No. 118 .... June 25, 2008________________________________________________
Global Finance, the Current Crisisand Challenges to the Dollar
David McNally
It is not often that we find ourselves living through financial turmoil so serious that the International Monetary Fund calls it "the largest financial crisis in the United States since the Great Depression." Yet that is where we are today. Already, commercial banks have collapsed in both Britain and Germany, as has the fifth-largest investment bank on Wall Street. A series of hedge funds have gone under or are teetering on the brink of ruin. And it is a near certainty that more financial institutions will fail before the crisis burns out.
It is clear that the Left needs serious analysis of just what is happening to world capitalism at the moment. Too often, however, our assessments are stuck in the past, revolving around debates as to whether or not this crisis represents a repeat of 1929 and the Great Depression.
Such debates detract from the hard work of analysis that is needed. On the one side are those who assume that history tends to repeat itself. On the other side are those critics who so exaggerate what has changed (particularly the ability of central banks to dampen tendencies to financial collapse) that they present a picture of a capitalism whose contradictions have been so muted that the system is no longer susceptible to severe economic slumps.
The real challenge for radical analysis, however, is to grasp both the changes and the enduring economic contradictions within capitalism in order to understand how capitalist transformation displaces and reorganizes crisis tendencies without eliminating them.
In the absence of such analysis, much of the radical commentary on offer tends to focus on the blatant deceit and corruption of financial players who have contributed to the market upheaval. This has its purposes. But it runs the risk of downplaying the structural features of late capitalism that breed financial meltdowns – and in so doing of suggesting that the Left focus on issues like financial regulation rather than class struggle against capital.
Trying to make sense of this crisis is one important step toward developing both an analysis of late capitalism and some of the tasks that confront the Left. To be sure, any assessment of unfolding events will necessarily be partial and incomplete. Nonetheless, it is possible to offer some crucial guidelines for making sense of this crisis.
A Banking Crisis, Not a Liquidity Crisis
It is critical to recognize at the outset that, contrary to the claims of central banks, this is not a liquidity crisis, i.e. financial turmoil caused by insufficient supplies of money flowing through the financial system. Instead, we are dealing with an insolvency crisis caused by the fact that many financial institutions are effectively broke. The result is a trauma in the banking sector.
This trauma persists because a myriad of lending institutions hold billions of dollars in massively depreciated paper that nobody is interested in buying from them. There is a host of exotic names for this paper, but essentially it is an array of debt obligations – titles to payment of interest and principal on a vast array of loans. Until the crisis broke, investors had been treating this paper as a pile of assets that they could always sell, i.e. as real wealth. Yet, the value of a debt rests in the first instance on the capacity of the borrower to pay. If the borrower can't pay, the alternative is for the creditor to seize the asset. But if the asset itself is losing value, then it may not cover the loan – and there might not be anyone out there who wants to buy it. In short, it may not be convertible to cash.
And that is precisely what is happening on a larger and more complex scale today. Economic reality is demonstrating that much of this paper – tied in the first instance to tens of millions of U.S. mortgages – is worth billions of dollars less than what was paid for it. So much of it is being written off or written down (revalued at amounts that involve enormous losses). It is as if you once had $1,000 in the bank, against which you'd borrowed many times that amount (say, ten times that amount or $10,000) and you have now learned that you only have $500. Once your creditors discover that, they'll scramble to collect in the knowledge that there's no way you will ever pay off all that you owe. But your $500 will be gone pretty fast. And since you owe $10,000, a lot of your creditors (including people who bought fancy paper called "Collateralized Debt Obligations" which includes some of your loans) won't be able to collect. And they won't be able to sell off your debts to anyone else either.
Precisely such dynamics are at work when an institutional "run on a bank" occurs, of the sort that rocked Bear Stearns in mid-March. In the course of 48 hours, Bear's holdings of cash and liquid assets plummeted from $17 billion to $2 billion as investors pulled their funds from the bank.
So the root problem is not a lack of liquidity in the system. It's that there are all kinds of institutions out there that nobody wants to lend to and whose ostensible "assets" nobody wants to buy. Worse, none of the players in the system are entirely certain as to who is holding increasingly worthless paper, or how much of it they have. As a result, the flow of funds between banks, and between banks and other lenders (like mortgage companies), keeps seizing up.
This is the reason that injecting cash into the system doesn't restore confidence. In fact, despite deep cuts to interest rates by central banks, particularly the U.S. Federal Reserve (designed to encourage borrowing) and massive injections of money into the banking system, American banks have continued to tighten lending to consumers, corporations and other banks (Financial Times, May 6, 2008).
When investors lost confidence in Bear Stearns, they did so for a fundamental economic reason, not a simply psychological one: Bear's actual assets, particularly those tied to real estate loans, had been losing massive amounts of value for months. In fact, in June of last year, two of the bank's hedge funds, which were deeply invested in sub-prime mortgages, effectively collapsed.
Continue reading: www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet118.html#continue
Friday, June 27, 2008
Bush administration lifts North Korea sanctions.
This is somewhat surprising but welcome news of progress in relations between the U.S. and North Korea. Maybe the visit by a US symphony orchestra created sweet music! There still is a long way to go and a lot of mutual distrust but this is further than the two countries have ever managed to go before.
This is from wiredispatch.
Bush administration lifts North Korea sanctions
Bush administration lifts sanctions, moves to take North Korea off terrorist list
DEB RIECHMANNAP News
Jun 26, 2008 08:26 EST
President Bush said Thursday he will lift key trade sanctions against North Korea and remove it from the U.S. terrorism blacklist, a remarkable turnaround in policy toward the communist regime he once branded as part of an "axis of evil."
The announcement came after North Korea handed over a long-awaited accounting of its nuclear work to Chinese officials on Thursday, fulfilling a key step in the denuclearization process.
Bush called the declaration a positive step along a long road to get the nation to give up its nuclear weapons. Yet, he remained wary of the regime, which has lied about its nuclear work before. And North Korea's declaration, received six months late, falls short of what the administration once sought, leaving it open to criticism from those who want the U.S. to take an even tougher stance against the regime.
"We will trust you only to the extent you fulfill your promises," Bush said in the Rose Garden. "I'm pleased with the progress. I'm under no illusions. This is the first step. This isn't the end of the process. It is the beginning of the process."
To demonstrate that it is serious about foregoing its nuclear weapons, North Korea is planning the televised destruction of a 65-foot-tall cooling tower at its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. The cooling tower is a key element of the reactor, but blowing it up — with the world watching — has little practical meaning because the reactor has already been nearly disabled.
Specifically, Bush said the U.S. would erase trade sanctions under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and notify Congress that, in 45 days, it intends to take North Korea off the State Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism.
"If North Korea continues to make the right choices it can repair its relationship with the international community ... If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the United States and its partners in the six-party talks will act accordingly," Bush said.
The declaration, about 60 pages of documentation, is the result of long-running negotiations the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia have been having with Pyongyang.
A senior U.S. official said the declaration contains detailed data on the amount of plutonium North Korea produced during each of several rounds of production at a now-shuttered plutonium reactor. It is expected to total about 37 kilograms of plutonium — enough to make about a half-dozen bombs.
However, the declaration, which covers nuclear production dating back to 1986, does not contain detailed information about North Korea's suspected program of developing weapons fueled by enriched uranium.
It also does not provide a complete accounting of how it allegedly helped Syria build what senior U.S. intelligence officials say was a secret nuclear reactor meant to make plutonium, which can be used to make high-yield nuclear weapons. Israeli jets bombed the structure in the remote eastern desert of Syria in September 2007.
North Korea had promised to complete the declaration by the end of last year in exchange for removal from U.S. terrorism and economic sanctions blacklists, which restrict its foreign trade and ability to get loans from international development banks.
North Korea was put on the list of nations that sponsor terrorism for its alleged involvement in the 1987 bombing of a South Korean airliner that killed 115 people. The designation has effectively blocked North Korea from receiving low-interest loans from the World Bank and other international lending agencies.
The president, insisting that the U.S. was not giving North Korea a free ride, said the U.S. action would have little impact on North Korea's financial and diplomatic isolation. "It will remain one of the most heavily sanctioned nations in the world," Bush said. All U.N. sanctions, for example, will remain in place.
Bush said the United States would monitor North Korea closely and "if they don't fulfill their promises, more restrictions will be placed on them."
Bush said that to end its isolation, North Korea must, for instance, dismantle all of its nuclear facilities and resolve outstanding questions on its highly enriched uranium and proliferation activities "and end these activities in a way that we can fully verify."
Bush thanked all members of the six-party talks, but singled out Japan. Tokyo has argued that the U.S. decision to remove North Korea from the list of terrorist nations should be linked to progress in solving North Korea's abduction of Japanese nationals in the 1970s and 1980s.
"The United States will never forget the abduction of Japanese citizens by the North Koreans," said Bush who called Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on Wednesday to express U.S. concern about the issue. "We will continue to closely cooperate and coordinate with Japan and press North Korea to swiftly resolve the abduction issue."
___
AP White House Correspondent Terence Hunt contributed to this story.
Source: AP News
This is from wiredispatch.
Bush administration lifts North Korea sanctions
Bush administration lifts sanctions, moves to take North Korea off terrorist list
DEB RIECHMANNAP News
Jun 26, 2008 08:26 EST
President Bush said Thursday he will lift key trade sanctions against North Korea and remove it from the U.S. terrorism blacklist, a remarkable turnaround in policy toward the communist regime he once branded as part of an "axis of evil."
The announcement came after North Korea handed over a long-awaited accounting of its nuclear work to Chinese officials on Thursday, fulfilling a key step in the denuclearization process.
Bush called the declaration a positive step along a long road to get the nation to give up its nuclear weapons. Yet, he remained wary of the regime, which has lied about its nuclear work before. And North Korea's declaration, received six months late, falls short of what the administration once sought, leaving it open to criticism from those who want the U.S. to take an even tougher stance against the regime.
"We will trust you only to the extent you fulfill your promises," Bush said in the Rose Garden. "I'm pleased with the progress. I'm under no illusions. This is the first step. This isn't the end of the process. It is the beginning of the process."
To demonstrate that it is serious about foregoing its nuclear weapons, North Korea is planning the televised destruction of a 65-foot-tall cooling tower at its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. The cooling tower is a key element of the reactor, but blowing it up — with the world watching — has little practical meaning because the reactor has already been nearly disabled.
Specifically, Bush said the U.S. would erase trade sanctions under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and notify Congress that, in 45 days, it intends to take North Korea off the State Department list of nations that sponsor terrorism.
"If North Korea continues to make the right choices it can repair its relationship with the international community ... If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the United States and its partners in the six-party talks will act accordingly," Bush said.
The declaration, about 60 pages of documentation, is the result of long-running negotiations the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia have been having with Pyongyang.
A senior U.S. official said the declaration contains detailed data on the amount of plutonium North Korea produced during each of several rounds of production at a now-shuttered plutonium reactor. It is expected to total about 37 kilograms of plutonium — enough to make about a half-dozen bombs.
However, the declaration, which covers nuclear production dating back to 1986, does not contain detailed information about North Korea's suspected program of developing weapons fueled by enriched uranium.
It also does not provide a complete accounting of how it allegedly helped Syria build what senior U.S. intelligence officials say was a secret nuclear reactor meant to make plutonium, which can be used to make high-yield nuclear weapons. Israeli jets bombed the structure in the remote eastern desert of Syria in September 2007.
North Korea had promised to complete the declaration by the end of last year in exchange for removal from U.S. terrorism and economic sanctions blacklists, which restrict its foreign trade and ability to get loans from international development banks.
North Korea was put on the list of nations that sponsor terrorism for its alleged involvement in the 1987 bombing of a South Korean airliner that killed 115 people. The designation has effectively blocked North Korea from receiving low-interest loans from the World Bank and other international lending agencies.
The president, insisting that the U.S. was not giving North Korea a free ride, said the U.S. action would have little impact on North Korea's financial and diplomatic isolation. "It will remain one of the most heavily sanctioned nations in the world," Bush said. All U.N. sanctions, for example, will remain in place.
Bush said the United States would monitor North Korea closely and "if they don't fulfill their promises, more restrictions will be placed on them."
Bush said that to end its isolation, North Korea must, for instance, dismantle all of its nuclear facilities and resolve outstanding questions on its highly enriched uranium and proliferation activities "and end these activities in a way that we can fully verify."
Bush thanked all members of the six-party talks, but singled out Japan. Tokyo has argued that the U.S. decision to remove North Korea from the list of terrorist nations should be linked to progress in solving North Korea's abduction of Japanese nationals in the 1970s and 1980s.
"The United States will never forget the abduction of Japanese citizens by the North Koreans," said Bush who called Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on Wednesday to express U.S. concern about the issue. "We will continue to closely cooperate and coordinate with Japan and press North Korea to swiftly resolve the abduction issue."
___
AP White House Correspondent Terence Hunt contributed to this story.
Source: AP News
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Israel prodding U.S. to attack Iran
This is from CBSnews.
Reports such as this help boost the price of oil. It remains to be seen whether the Bush administration is willing to risk disaster during the last months of its life. Iran's nuclear facilities are widely dispersed and Israel is probably not capable of taking them out at one fell swoop. The reaction to any such attack is hard to predict. It certainly could be very forceful and simply widen conflict.
Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran
June 24, 2008
(CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex. CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration. "The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-Ã -vis Iran." Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone. "Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program." The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region. U.S. intelligence estimates Iran won't be able to build a weapon until sometime early in the next decade. But Israel is operating on a much shorter timetable. "The Iranians, according to Israeli security sources, will have an operable nuclear weapon by 2009. That's not a very long time," Oren said. For now, the Bush administration is counting on new economic sanctions which took effect Tuesday to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program. But nobody's counting on it. © MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Reports such as this help boost the price of oil. It remains to be seen whether the Bush administration is willing to risk disaster during the last months of its life. Iran's nuclear facilities are widely dispersed and Israel is probably not capable of taking them out at one fell swoop. The reaction to any such attack is hard to predict. It certainly could be very forceful and simply widen conflict.
Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran
June 24, 2008
(CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex. CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration. "The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-Ã -vis Iran." Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone. "Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program." The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region. U.S. intelligence estimates Iran won't be able to build a weapon until sometime early in the next decade. But Israel is operating on a much shorter timetable. "The Iranians, according to Israeli security sources, will have an operable nuclear weapon by 2009. That's not a very long time," Oren said. For now, the Bush administration is counting on new economic sanctions which took effect Tuesday to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program. But nobody's counting on it. © MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Raimondo: Is War Good for the Economy?
This is from antiwar.com.
Justin Raimondo is one of my favorite right wing libertarian types. Here he is replete with references to Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. In spite of the fact that I am on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I find much of what Raimondo has to say is bang on. Raimondo is almost always worth reading for his provocative and insightful analyses. As the article points out there are beneficiaries of pursuing an aggressive warlike policy. The crony capitalists of the Bush administration do well as do the suppliers to the giant U.S. military machine. War also works as a sort of military Keynesianism to keep the economy expanding.
Is War Good For the Economy? In short: No.
by Justin Raimondo
The idea that warfare helps the economy is a prime example of Bizarro logic, which has pervaded our collective consciousness since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, ideological fallout from the explosion of national hysteria that followed. In Bizarro World, as we all know, the laws of nature and logic are inverted, so that up is down, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. In the post-9/11 era, as I have often pointed out, we have finally arrived in a world where two plus two can and indeed often does equal five – if it suits the purposes of the War Party to deem it so.
Somewhere, George Orwell isn't smiling. He'd no doubt be appalled, and a little nonplused, by the accuracy of his speculations in Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, you'll recall, the deliberate impoverishment of the ordinary "proles" and the Outer Party types was a matter of INGSOC policy, a theme underscored by the general shabbiness of Orwell's dystopia, what with the constant shortages and the way thing always seemed to be literally and physically falling apart. Particularly striking is the Orwellian presentiment that the world of the future is bound to be poorer and, simultaneously, engaged in constant warfare.
This prediction seemed, for quite a while, to be one of the few he got wrong. Yet Orwell, it turns out, was right; it's just that the productive power of capitalism in the U.S. was so great that it coasted along for a long time on sheer momentum. Our accumulated wealth reflected the dynamism of an earlier era. This upward spiral of productivity and wealth-generation really crested during the 1950s, a period of unprecedented prosperity and cultural optimism, and the early 1960s – before the Vietnam war and the inflationary policies that financed it ate away at the heart of American prosperity, the necessary prelude to the "stagflation" of the Carter years.
Wars are expensive propositions, especially the sort of all-embracing, the-sky's-the-limit, multi-generational conflict envisioned by the War Party's editorial board commandos. Our $3 trillion war, as Nobel-prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes have dubbed it, is an albatross hung round the neck of the American giant, whose great neck is bowing under its weight. The unipolar moment the neocons once exulted in will go down in the official record as the briefest incident in human history, albeit not the noblest.
This hasn't always been immediately obvious. The false prosperity induced by the speeding up of the printing presses over at the Federal Reserve led to what Alan Greenspan once called "irrational exuberance," a delusion created by the very easy money policies he carried out as head of the Fed. No sooner had certain Beltway sages declared that the age of permanent abundance was upon us – and that this rendered the struggle against the Welfare-Warfare State irrelevant – than their economic cornucopia of limitless wealth went empty. As banks are bailed out while ordinary Americans are turned out into the streets, the manic hubris of Fukuyama's historical "endism" and prophecies of universal prosperity via "globalization" stand revealed in all their silliness.
Mania is invariably followed by a massive downward plunge into despair, in economic terms, a deep recession, if not something far worse. So what has stopped the forward motion of America's dash over history's finish line?
As Ron Paul has tirelessly explained, it is the cost of our expanding overseas empire that is driving us into bankruptcy. We have, as the Old Right seer Garet Garrett put it, an empire of a unique type, one in which "everything goes out and nothing comes in." The costs of this are ordinarily hidden from sight, as Ron Paul explains, by governmental sleight-of-hand:
"As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it's important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I'm quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted."
Yet there comes a time when the obscuring mists are cleared and the costs of our foreign policy of perpetual war become readily apparent, and surely that time is approaching. Indeed, it may have already passed. Garrett dubbed ours' "the empire of the Bottomless Purse," yet we are just about scratching bottom about now. It remains for Paul and the movement he generated to point out how all of this is paid for. As Paul puts it:
"Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.
"The result of this arrangement is inflation. And inflation finances war."
When our rulers decide to go to war, they simply step on the gas and flood the engines of inflated expectations, fueled by bank credit expansion. The results are the decline of the dollar and the current economic crisis, which might be compared to a hangover that follows an extended binge. Americans are suffering a double-hangover in the sense that they're still recovering from the post-Cold War triumphalism that envisioned a unipolar, Washington-centered world.
The idea that the defense of the country requires an overseas empire that surpasses the British imperium at its zenith is a typical neocon fantasy, one that is proving far more costly than advertised. Yet some are raking it in while others are foreclosed. Remember how the sale of oil was supposed to pay for the Iraq war? A consortium of U.S. and European oil companies have since homesteaded the oil revenues Paul Wolfowitz assured us would be reimbursed to the American taxpayers. It's funny how that works.
War, as the liberal intellectual Randolph Bourne famously explained, is the health of the state. That is, it benefits state officials and their dependents, clients, and assorted sycophants at the expense of the rest of us. Many are impoverished by our policies, but a few are enriched. The beneficiaries are the growing administrative, corporate, and military bureaucracies that oversee our ever expanding global presence, in effect a colonial class. This class pursues and secures its economic and social interests by means of directly influencing government policy, operating as an organized force on behalf of the policy of imperialism, so far with remarkable success.
When John McCain sneered at Mitt Romney's business experience as lacking in honor and the spirit of self-sacrifice, he was expressing the "noble" and highly stagy sentiments of this rising class. Forget the free market fervor of the Reagan era, when entrepreneurs were valorized. The new Republican hero is the swaggering caesar.
Is the Iraq war good for the economy?
Well, whose economy? Who benefits from this war, and who loses? Once the American people realize that they're among this war's biggest losers – aside from the Iraqi people, and perhaps the Iranians, too – they'll turn on the beneficiaries with a vengeance. As their savings are eaten up by inflation, and the equity they labored to preserve and increase evaporates into thin air, ordinary Americans are likely to be quite interested in the question: who's responsible?
As the Federal Reserve pumps more funny money into circulation, in a desperate and vain attempt to postpone the crisis of the Warfare State, the single biggest winners are the banks, the most government-protected industry of all, who are the first to be bailed out of any crisis. Oh, perhaps a few will be allowed to go under, but the big ones will be too big to fall, like Bear Stearns. The economic elite will golden parachute its way out of the crisis.
The main beneficiaries of the present system – what Murray Rothbard, the late libertarian theorist and polemicist, called the Welfare-Warfare State – are the new plutocrats. Think of what Ayn Rand referred to as "the aristocracy of pull," the principal villains of her famous novel Atlas Shrugged, i.e., corrupt businessmen who succeeded on account of their political connections rather than their entrepreneurial skill.
Today's aristocracy of pull is the militarized sector of the economy, which is completely dependent on government contracts. Their political Praetorian Guard is represented in Washington by both parties, and, what's more, their partisans dominate think-tanks of the ostensible Left as well as the Right.
The task of those who oppose the new colonialism, which masquerades as global altruism of one sort or another, is to unmask the real motives and connections of a self-interested colonial class, which, in spite of its claim to the mantle of honor and duty to country, is supremely successful at promoting its own interests over and above those of the nation.~ Justin Raimondo
Justin Raimondo is one of my favorite right wing libertarian types. Here he is replete with references to Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. In spite of the fact that I am on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I find much of what Raimondo has to say is bang on. Raimondo is almost always worth reading for his provocative and insightful analyses. As the article points out there are beneficiaries of pursuing an aggressive warlike policy. The crony capitalists of the Bush administration do well as do the suppliers to the giant U.S. military machine. War also works as a sort of military Keynesianism to keep the economy expanding.
Is War Good For the Economy? In short: No.
by Justin Raimondo
The idea that warfare helps the economy is a prime example of Bizarro logic, which has pervaded our collective consciousness since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, ideological fallout from the explosion of national hysteria that followed. In Bizarro World, as we all know, the laws of nature and logic are inverted, so that up is down, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. In the post-9/11 era, as I have often pointed out, we have finally arrived in a world where two plus two can and indeed often does equal five – if it suits the purposes of the War Party to deem it so.
Somewhere, George Orwell isn't smiling. He'd no doubt be appalled, and a little nonplused, by the accuracy of his speculations in Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, you'll recall, the deliberate impoverishment of the ordinary "proles" and the Outer Party types was a matter of INGSOC policy, a theme underscored by the general shabbiness of Orwell's dystopia, what with the constant shortages and the way thing always seemed to be literally and physically falling apart. Particularly striking is the Orwellian presentiment that the world of the future is bound to be poorer and, simultaneously, engaged in constant warfare.
This prediction seemed, for quite a while, to be one of the few he got wrong. Yet Orwell, it turns out, was right; it's just that the productive power of capitalism in the U.S. was so great that it coasted along for a long time on sheer momentum. Our accumulated wealth reflected the dynamism of an earlier era. This upward spiral of productivity and wealth-generation really crested during the 1950s, a period of unprecedented prosperity and cultural optimism, and the early 1960s – before the Vietnam war and the inflationary policies that financed it ate away at the heart of American prosperity, the necessary prelude to the "stagflation" of the Carter years.
Wars are expensive propositions, especially the sort of all-embracing, the-sky's-the-limit, multi-generational conflict envisioned by the War Party's editorial board commandos. Our $3 trillion war, as Nobel-prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes have dubbed it, is an albatross hung round the neck of the American giant, whose great neck is bowing under its weight. The unipolar moment the neocons once exulted in will go down in the official record as the briefest incident in human history, albeit not the noblest.
This hasn't always been immediately obvious. The false prosperity induced by the speeding up of the printing presses over at the Federal Reserve led to what Alan Greenspan once called "irrational exuberance," a delusion created by the very easy money policies he carried out as head of the Fed. No sooner had certain Beltway sages declared that the age of permanent abundance was upon us – and that this rendered the struggle against the Welfare-Warfare State irrelevant – than their economic cornucopia of limitless wealth went empty. As banks are bailed out while ordinary Americans are turned out into the streets, the manic hubris of Fukuyama's historical "endism" and prophecies of universal prosperity via "globalization" stand revealed in all their silliness.
Mania is invariably followed by a massive downward plunge into despair, in economic terms, a deep recession, if not something far worse. So what has stopped the forward motion of America's dash over history's finish line?
As Ron Paul has tirelessly explained, it is the cost of our expanding overseas empire that is driving us into bankruptcy. We have, as the Old Right seer Garet Garrett put it, an empire of a unique type, one in which "everything goes out and nothing comes in." The costs of this are ordinarily hidden from sight, as Ron Paul explains, by governmental sleight-of-hand:
"As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it's important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I'm quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted."
Yet there comes a time when the obscuring mists are cleared and the costs of our foreign policy of perpetual war become readily apparent, and surely that time is approaching. Indeed, it may have already passed. Garrett dubbed ours' "the empire of the Bottomless Purse," yet we are just about scratching bottom about now. It remains for Paul and the movement he generated to point out how all of this is paid for. As Paul puts it:
"Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.
"The result of this arrangement is inflation. And inflation finances war."
When our rulers decide to go to war, they simply step on the gas and flood the engines of inflated expectations, fueled by bank credit expansion. The results are the decline of the dollar and the current economic crisis, which might be compared to a hangover that follows an extended binge. Americans are suffering a double-hangover in the sense that they're still recovering from the post-Cold War triumphalism that envisioned a unipolar, Washington-centered world.
The idea that the defense of the country requires an overseas empire that surpasses the British imperium at its zenith is a typical neocon fantasy, one that is proving far more costly than advertised. Yet some are raking it in while others are foreclosed. Remember how the sale of oil was supposed to pay for the Iraq war? A consortium of U.S. and European oil companies have since homesteaded the oil revenues Paul Wolfowitz assured us would be reimbursed to the American taxpayers. It's funny how that works.
War, as the liberal intellectual Randolph Bourne famously explained, is the health of the state. That is, it benefits state officials and their dependents, clients, and assorted sycophants at the expense of the rest of us. Many are impoverished by our policies, but a few are enriched. The beneficiaries are the growing administrative, corporate, and military bureaucracies that oversee our ever expanding global presence, in effect a colonial class. This class pursues and secures its economic and social interests by means of directly influencing government policy, operating as an organized force on behalf of the policy of imperialism, so far with remarkable success.
When John McCain sneered at Mitt Romney's business experience as lacking in honor and the spirit of self-sacrifice, he was expressing the "noble" and highly stagy sentiments of this rising class. Forget the free market fervor of the Reagan era, when entrepreneurs were valorized. The new Republican hero is the swaggering caesar.
Is the Iraq war good for the economy?
Well, whose economy? Who benefits from this war, and who loses? Once the American people realize that they're among this war's biggest losers – aside from the Iraqi people, and perhaps the Iranians, too – they'll turn on the beneficiaries with a vengeance. As their savings are eaten up by inflation, and the equity they labored to preserve and increase evaporates into thin air, ordinary Americans are likely to be quite interested in the question: who's responsible?
As the Federal Reserve pumps more funny money into circulation, in a desperate and vain attempt to postpone the crisis of the Warfare State, the single biggest winners are the banks, the most government-protected industry of all, who are the first to be bailed out of any crisis. Oh, perhaps a few will be allowed to go under, but the big ones will be too big to fall, like Bear Stearns. The economic elite will golden parachute its way out of the crisis.
The main beneficiaries of the present system – what Murray Rothbard, the late libertarian theorist and polemicist, called the Welfare-Warfare State – are the new plutocrats. Think of what Ayn Rand referred to as "the aristocracy of pull," the principal villains of her famous novel Atlas Shrugged, i.e., corrupt businessmen who succeeded on account of their political connections rather than their entrepreneurial skill.
Today's aristocracy of pull is the militarized sector of the economy, which is completely dependent on government contracts. Their political Praetorian Guard is represented in Washington by both parties, and, what's more, their partisans dominate think-tanks of the ostensible Left as well as the Right.
The task of those who oppose the new colonialism, which masquerades as global altruism of one sort or another, is to unmask the real motives and connections of a self-interested colonial class, which, in spite of its claim to the mantle of honor and duty to country, is supremely successful at promoting its own interests over and above those of the nation.~ Justin Raimondo
Bush administration to leave Iraq oil deals alone
Did anyone think that the Bush administration would interfere in these negotiations? This is from this site. The Bush administration is no doubt quite pleased that Big Oil is getting in on the ground floor. It is quite possible that the administration even encouraged the deal in the first place. Anyway the Iraqi government probably learned about no bid contracts from the U.S. It encourages the development of corruption that can benefit the players while fleecing taxpayers. Isn't that what politics is all about?
Bush administration to leave Iraq oil deals alone
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
(06-24) 10:21 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The Bush administration indicated Tuesday that it had no plans to interfere with negotiations between Iraq and several Western oil giants to boost crude production in that country, despite concerns by some Democrats that the deal could inflame anti-U.S. sentiments.
"Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
"And if that means that our companies here in the United States can compete and win business, then that's for them and the Iraqis to decide," Perino added. "But I don't think the federal government of the United States needs to get involved."
The administration's position puts it at odds with Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who warn that the deals could fan the perception that U.S. involvement in Iraq was motivated by oil.
In a letter Monday, the senators asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to try to block the oil deals.
Until Baghdad agrees on how to divide the nation's oil revenues, the presence of Western companies — including U.S.-based Exxon Mobil — will heighten tensions among Iraq's feuding sectarian groups "at the same time that American service members are fighting night and day to reduce the levels of violence," they wrote.
"This is clearly a matter of national security, which we believe should trump any and all commercial interests," the senators added.
State Department spokesman Tom Casey said it was unlikely Rice would try to interfere.
"Since the United States has had no involvement in this, I'm not sure on what basis the United States could...block the Iraqi government from contracting in the way it sees fit," he said.
Likewise, Perino dismissed the senators' concerns as illogical.
"I'm curious as to why the Democrats seem to, on the one hand, want Iraq to take over more control of their own country, but on the other hand, want to continue to meddle in their business," she told reporters.
The Democrats responded that while Iraq may be sovereign, the U.S. is entitled to speak up because of the number of troops and dollars it has invested in the country's future.
"When it has been in our interest to try to get the Iraqi government to do something that this administration really wanted them to do, they do it," said Kerry.
The Iraq oil deals will likely be announced by the end of the month. The agreements, worth around $500 million each, are seen as a stopgap measure to begin ramping up oil production while Iraq's sectarian groups debate legislation that would divide the nation's oil revenues.
While modest in size, the contracts are expected to give the companies a significant bidding advantage over others in the future.
Last week, Iraq's oil ministry declined to name the companies set to receive the deals. The New York Times reported Thursday that Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total were in the final stages of negotiations on the no-bid contracts.
Bush administration to leave Iraq oil deals alone
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
(06-24) 10:21 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The Bush administration indicated Tuesday that it had no plans to interfere with negotiations between Iraq and several Western oil giants to boost crude production in that country, despite concerns by some Democrats that the deal could inflame anti-U.S. sentiments.
"Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
"And if that means that our companies here in the United States can compete and win business, then that's for them and the Iraqis to decide," Perino added. "But I don't think the federal government of the United States needs to get involved."
The administration's position puts it at odds with Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who warn that the deals could fan the perception that U.S. involvement in Iraq was motivated by oil.
In a letter Monday, the senators asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to try to block the oil deals.
Until Baghdad agrees on how to divide the nation's oil revenues, the presence of Western companies — including U.S.-based Exxon Mobil — will heighten tensions among Iraq's feuding sectarian groups "at the same time that American service members are fighting night and day to reduce the levels of violence," they wrote.
"This is clearly a matter of national security, which we believe should trump any and all commercial interests," the senators added.
State Department spokesman Tom Casey said it was unlikely Rice would try to interfere.
"Since the United States has had no involvement in this, I'm not sure on what basis the United States could...block the Iraqi government from contracting in the way it sees fit," he said.
Likewise, Perino dismissed the senators' concerns as illogical.
"I'm curious as to why the Democrats seem to, on the one hand, want Iraq to take over more control of their own country, but on the other hand, want to continue to meddle in their business," she told reporters.
The Democrats responded that while Iraq may be sovereign, the U.S. is entitled to speak up because of the number of troops and dollars it has invested in the country's future.
"When it has been in our interest to try to get the Iraqi government to do something that this administration really wanted them to do, they do it," said Kerry.
The Iraq oil deals will likely be announced by the end of the month. The agreements, worth around $500 million each, are seen as a stopgap measure to begin ramping up oil production while Iraq's sectarian groups debate legislation that would divide the nation's oil revenues.
While modest in size, the contracts are expected to give the companies a significant bidding advantage over others in the future.
Last week, Iraq's oil ministry declined to name the companies set to receive the deals. The New York Times reported Thursday that Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total were in the final stages of negotiations on the no-bid contracts.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The timing of the Status of Forces Agreement
This is from an Baghdad journalist's blog.
I was not aware of the signing of the oil contracts as described in this article. However, it is certainly true that the negotiation of the status of forces agreement is going on in secret. However, some Iraqi journalists and politicians are certainly discussing the issue. The U.S. however is more self-absorbed as mentioned. The U.S. economy however is probably more of an issue than the elections. There has been some discussion of whether the status forces agreement is a treaty and should go before the legislature but even this issue seems to have died.
June 21, 2008
Status of Forces Agreement at American Elections' Time
What ingenuity! The timing is brilliant!
The American people are almost completely taken up with the presidential elections and the race to the White House.
The Iraqi people are so overwrought a lot of them don't even know what's going on – some just don't care any more, they are too taken up with the basic affair of staying alive, providing minimal sustenance for their families and too much grief.
And yet, at this "delicate" time everything is boiling down to the core of the objectives for which this war was waged – American long term interests in Iraq.
At this "delicate" time no-bid contracts are to be signed between the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and the self same companies that constituted the old Iraqi petroleum company that had a monopoly over Iraqi oil before nationalization in the early seventies, 1971 - 1972 -What a come back!
Now all is crystal clear – the two objectives that brought hundreds of thousands of troops half across the globe have become crystal clear. Oil - and the power to control it.
And while our "sovereign democracy" shamelessly seeks to hide these facts from the people to present them with a fait accompli, it seems that the American "democracy" is also shamelessly seeking to sneak the agreement through the least visible route so as to willfully disregard the will of the American people and cement its interests here – no matter the cost to human lives – no matter the cost in funds – no matter the loss of face because non of these matter to them as much. The contracts are to be signed soon, before the Iraqi parliament even passes an Oil Law - and that will be that.
What remains to be seen is whether America is willing to sacrifice its men, women and money for these companies' interests to be "properly" looked after.
The Status of Forces Agreement.
And it remains to be seen whether Iraq has any say in this at all.
I was not aware of the signing of the oil contracts as described in this article. However, it is certainly true that the negotiation of the status of forces agreement is going on in secret. However, some Iraqi journalists and politicians are certainly discussing the issue. The U.S. however is more self-absorbed as mentioned. The U.S. economy however is probably more of an issue than the elections. There has been some discussion of whether the status forces agreement is a treaty and should go before the legislature but even this issue seems to have died.
June 21, 2008
Status of Forces Agreement at American Elections' Time
What ingenuity! The timing is brilliant!
The American people are almost completely taken up with the presidential elections and the race to the White House.
The Iraqi people are so overwrought a lot of them don't even know what's going on – some just don't care any more, they are too taken up with the basic affair of staying alive, providing minimal sustenance for their families and too much grief.
And yet, at this "delicate" time everything is boiling down to the core of the objectives for which this war was waged – American long term interests in Iraq.
At this "delicate" time no-bid contracts are to be signed between the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and the self same companies that constituted the old Iraqi petroleum company that had a monopoly over Iraqi oil before nationalization in the early seventies, 1971 - 1972 -What a come back!
Now all is crystal clear – the two objectives that brought hundreds of thousands of troops half across the globe have become crystal clear. Oil - and the power to control it.
And while our "sovereign democracy" shamelessly seeks to hide these facts from the people to present them with a fait accompli, it seems that the American "democracy" is also shamelessly seeking to sneak the agreement through the least visible route so as to willfully disregard the will of the American people and cement its interests here – no matter the cost to human lives – no matter the cost in funds – no matter the loss of face because non of these matter to them as much. The contracts are to be signed soon, before the Iraqi parliament even passes an Oil Law - and that will be that.
What remains to be seen is whether America is willing to sacrifice its men, women and money for these companies' interests to be "properly" looked after.
The Status of Forces Agreement.
And it remains to be seen whether Iraq has any say in this at all.
Security agreement with the US and Iraq
This is from VOI.
Perhaps the parts dealing with the right of the U.S. to attack other countries from Iraq were part of an original draft and have been removed. Apparently, the document has been revised to remove some parts that would make it impossible for the Iraqi parliament to approve. As with the oil bill the contents of the agreement are shrouded in secrecy. If the U.S. intended Iraq to be a true democracy it would encourage public discussion of the oil bill and of this agreement but of course that is the very last thing that the U.S. wants in these cases. There is still no oil law and this agreement may be stalled until the last minute when some other short term substitute for the UN motion will be adopted.
Politics and Security
Deal allows U.S. to attack any country from Iraq – IAF
Baghdad - Voices of Iraq
Tuesday , 24 /06 /2008 Time 3:46:34
Baghdad, Jun 23, (VOI) – A Sunni legislator said on Monday that the security agreement to be signed between Baghdad and Washington would allow the latter to attack any country from Iraqi territories.
"The Iraqi-U.S. agreement contains several items that impinge upon the sovereignty of Iraq, including the right of the U.S. forces in Iraq to attack any nation and raid any Iraqi house and arrest people without prior permission from the Iraqi government," Khalaf al-Alyan, a member of parliament from the Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF), told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).U.S. President George W. Bush had signed a declaration of principles with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on December 1, 2007. It was planned to be ratified on July 31, 2008 to be effective as of January 1, 2009."The agreement grants the United States the right to set up a large number of bases in Iraq, ranging between 50 and 58 bases," said Alyan.The IAF is composed of three key political components: Vice President Tareq al-Hashimi's Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP), IAF leader Adnan al-Dulaimi's Iraq People's Congress (IPC) and Alyan's National Dialogue Council (NDC).The IAF, which has 40 out of a total 275 seats, is the main bloc representing Arab Sunnis in the country's political process.Meanwhile, Labid Abbawi, the undersecretary for foreign affairs, denied that the agreement contained an item allowing U.S. forces to use Iraqi territories as a springboard to threaten other countries."This item does not exist in the agreement because it simply runs counter to the policies of both Baghdad and Washington governments," Abbawi told VOI.The deal governs the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the year 2008. The U.S. presence in Iraq is currently relying on a mandate by the United Nations, renewed annually upon the request of the Iraqi government.The agreement would not enter into effect if the Iraqi parliament did not approve it.AE
Perhaps the parts dealing with the right of the U.S. to attack other countries from Iraq were part of an original draft and have been removed. Apparently, the document has been revised to remove some parts that would make it impossible for the Iraqi parliament to approve. As with the oil bill the contents of the agreement are shrouded in secrecy. If the U.S. intended Iraq to be a true democracy it would encourage public discussion of the oil bill and of this agreement but of course that is the very last thing that the U.S. wants in these cases. There is still no oil law and this agreement may be stalled until the last minute when some other short term substitute for the UN motion will be adopted.
Politics and Security
Deal allows U.S. to attack any country from Iraq – IAF
Baghdad - Voices of Iraq
Tuesday , 24 /06 /2008 Time 3:46:34
Baghdad, Jun 23, (VOI) – A Sunni legislator said on Monday that the security agreement to be signed between Baghdad and Washington would allow the latter to attack any country from Iraqi territories.
"The Iraqi-U.S. agreement contains several items that impinge upon the sovereignty of Iraq, including the right of the U.S. forces in Iraq to attack any nation and raid any Iraqi house and arrest people without prior permission from the Iraqi government," Khalaf al-Alyan, a member of parliament from the Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF), told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).U.S. President George W. Bush had signed a declaration of principles with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on December 1, 2007. It was planned to be ratified on July 31, 2008 to be effective as of January 1, 2009."The agreement grants the United States the right to set up a large number of bases in Iraq, ranging between 50 and 58 bases," said Alyan.The IAF is composed of three key political components: Vice President Tareq al-Hashimi's Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP), IAF leader Adnan al-Dulaimi's Iraq People's Congress (IPC) and Alyan's National Dialogue Council (NDC).The IAF, which has 40 out of a total 275 seats, is the main bloc representing Arab Sunnis in the country's political process.Meanwhile, Labid Abbawi, the undersecretary for foreign affairs, denied that the agreement contained an item allowing U.S. forces to use Iraqi territories as a springboard to threaten other countries."This item does not exist in the agreement because it simply runs counter to the policies of both Baghdad and Washington governments," Abbawi told VOI.The deal governs the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the year 2008. The U.S. presence in Iraq is currently relying on a mandate by the United Nations, renewed annually upon the request of the Iraqi government.The agreement would not enter into effect if the Iraqi parliament did not approve it.AE
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
48 from Philippine ferry survive, at least 67 confirmed dead.
This is from Xinhua.
No doubt there are many more bodies in the ferry to be recovered. Perhaps a few survivors will be rescued elsewhere but it looks as if the vast majority must have perished. This tragedy could have been avoided had the ship not been allowed to set sail when authorities knew that Fengshen was on its way.
48 survive, 67 fatalities confirmed in Philippines sea mishap
MANILA, June 24 (Xinhua) -- The Philippine Coast Guard said Tuesday the situation of 115 people of the 862 on board of a capsized ferry have been known. Forty-eight survived and 67 have been killed.
Beside them, the conditions of the remaining passengers and crew are still unknown and are considered missing, said Coast Guard spokesman Armand Balilo in a press briefing.
On its way from Manila to Cebu, the 23,800-ton M/V Princess of the Stars sank off the Philippines' central province of Romblon at the height of Typhoon Fengshen, which lashed the archipelago from east to west over the weekend.
There were 862 people on board, including "751 manifested passengers and 111 crew members", according to the Sulpicio Lines company, owner of the ill-fated vessel.
Reports said divers have brought three bodies to the surface and spotted at least another 15 floating inside the capsized ferry as they managed to enter the vessel after several failed attempts.
The spokesman said authorities are still verifying the reports.
Earlier, Philippine Navy spokesman Edgard Arevalo said bodies were seen when Navy and Coast Guard divers entered the ship at 9 a.m. local time (0100 GMT) on Tuesday.
"Most of the bodies were floating inside. They were trapped when the ship suddenly tilted and capsized," Arevalo said.
No doubt there are many more bodies in the ferry to be recovered. Perhaps a few survivors will be rescued elsewhere but it looks as if the vast majority must have perished. This tragedy could have been avoided had the ship not been allowed to set sail when authorities knew that Fengshen was on its way.
48 survive, 67 fatalities confirmed in Philippines sea mishap
MANILA, June 24 (Xinhua) -- The Philippine Coast Guard said Tuesday the situation of 115 people of the 862 on board of a capsized ferry have been known. Forty-eight survived and 67 have been killed.
Beside them, the conditions of the remaining passengers and crew are still unknown and are considered missing, said Coast Guard spokesman Armand Balilo in a press briefing.
On its way from Manila to Cebu, the 23,800-ton M/V Princess of the Stars sank off the Philippines' central province of Romblon at the height of Typhoon Fengshen, which lashed the archipelago from east to west over the weekend.
There were 862 people on board, including "751 manifested passengers and 111 crew members", according to the Sulpicio Lines company, owner of the ill-fated vessel.
Reports said divers have brought three bodies to the surface and spotted at least another 15 floating inside the capsized ferry as they managed to enter the vessel after several failed attempts.
The spokesman said authorities are still verifying the reports.
Earlier, Philippine Navy spokesman Edgard Arevalo said bodies were seen when Navy and Coast Guard divers entered the ship at 9 a.m. local time (0100 GMT) on Tuesday.
"Most of the bodies were floating inside. They were trapped when the ship suddenly tilted and capsized," Arevalo said.
Truce in Gaza holding-for the most part!
This is from Al Jazeera.
As the headline would indicate Al Jazeera is not exactly pro-Israel, although they do point out that there was also a rocket from Gaza since the ceasefire. At least the truce seems to be holding and the incident cited by Al Jazeera is not in Gaza at all. However, the incident in the West Bank will put pressure on Abbas. There seems a definite move towards more accomodation between Abbas and Hamas and also a somewhat more pragmatic stance by Israel in dealing with Hamas. This is surely all to the good in terms of creating conditions for peace.
Israel kills West Bank Palestinians
Olmert, left, is meeting Mubarak to discuss the progress of the Gaza truce [Reuters]
Israeli troops have shot dead two Palestinians in the West Bank town of Nablus, five days after a ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian armed groups took effect.
Israeli troops killed the men on Tuesday in an exchange of fire, an Israeli military spokesman said, adding that one of them was a fighter from Islamic Jihad and the other was a "militant".
Nablus residents said that one of the men was a bystander killed by Israeli troops when he opened the door to his apartment, which lies next to the location of the raid.
The truce between Israel and Palestinian armed groups, including Hamas, does not cover the West Bank.
Lamis Andoni, Al Jazeera's Middle East analyst, said: "The killings are a reminder that the truce in Gaza will remain shaky when it is not extended to include the West Bank.
"Israeli insistence on retaining freedom to conduct arrests and raids in the West Bank further undermines Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas' standing, and makes it difficult for Hamas to demand Palestinian fighters adhere to the truce in Gaza."
Mortar attack
A mortar shell was also fired into Israeli territory from the Gaza Strip the previous evening, the Israeli army said, in the first such incident since the truce came into effect.
No one was hurt by the missile, which landed in the Nahal Oz area after being launched from the central Gaza Strip, officials said on Tuesday.
"We are familiar with a mortar shell that landed near the security fence in northern Gaza on the Israeli side," an army spokeswoman said.
There has been no claim of responsibility for the reported incident on Monday evening, nor any confimation from Palestinian sources that such an incident took place.
Observers have said that both sides do not regard the incident as a violation of the ceasefire.
Gaza talks
Meanwhile, Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, is set to discuss the Gaza truce with Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's president, later on Tuesday.
The talks in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheikh are expected to focus on the fate of an Israeli soldier held by Hamas, as well as a possible prisoner exchange with the group.
Amr el-Kahky, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Sharm el Sheikh, said that the main issue would be the release of certain Palestinian prisoners whom Israel deem to have blood on their hands, but whom the Palestinians see as resistance fighters.
The ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Palestinian groups including Hamas, the largest Palestinian armed group, came into effect on Thursday.
Israeli forces have not entered the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip since the truce took effect and has started to lift some restrictions there, easing the effects of a crippling economic blockade of the territory.
Egypt brokered the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas as Tel Aviv rejects direct contact with the Palestinian organisation.
Olmert criticised
Olmert has been criticised at home for not making the truce conditional upon Hamas releasing Gilad Shalit, a soldier captured by them in 2006.
The Israeli prime minister has said that the deal includes a commitment by Hamas to make progress towards Shalit's release.
Regev said: "The issue of Gilad Shalit will be raised.
"Both states have a joint interest in putting this issue behind us. Ultimately, we want to see the situation in Gaza stabilised."
Israel has also called for Egypt to help stop the smuggling of weapons from Egypt's Sinai peninsula into Gaza.
Ismail Haniya, a senior Hamas leader and former Palestinian prime minister, said on Monday that it was premature to judge whether the truce had been a success.
"It is too early to judge whether the occupation is adhering or not adhering to the understandings reached 10 days ago," Haniya said.
Haniya said his Hamas-run administration was "monitoring what is coming into the Gaza Strip and is in daily contact with our brothers in Egypt" to see that Israel eases its Gaza blockade.
El-Khaky said: "The re-opening of the Rafah border crossing [from Gaza to Egypt] is a pressure card that Israel is playing to try to secure and speed up the release of Gilad Shalit."
As the headline would indicate Al Jazeera is not exactly pro-Israel, although they do point out that there was also a rocket from Gaza since the ceasefire. At least the truce seems to be holding and the incident cited by Al Jazeera is not in Gaza at all. However, the incident in the West Bank will put pressure on Abbas. There seems a definite move towards more accomodation between Abbas and Hamas and also a somewhat more pragmatic stance by Israel in dealing with Hamas. This is surely all to the good in terms of creating conditions for peace.
Israel kills West Bank Palestinians
Olmert, left, is meeting Mubarak to discuss the progress of the Gaza truce [Reuters]
Israeli troops have shot dead two Palestinians in the West Bank town of Nablus, five days after a ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian armed groups took effect.
Israeli troops killed the men on Tuesday in an exchange of fire, an Israeli military spokesman said, adding that one of them was a fighter from Islamic Jihad and the other was a "militant".
Nablus residents said that one of the men was a bystander killed by Israeli troops when he opened the door to his apartment, which lies next to the location of the raid.
The truce between Israel and Palestinian armed groups, including Hamas, does not cover the West Bank.
Lamis Andoni, Al Jazeera's Middle East analyst, said: "The killings are a reminder that the truce in Gaza will remain shaky when it is not extended to include the West Bank.
"Israeli insistence on retaining freedom to conduct arrests and raids in the West Bank further undermines Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas' standing, and makes it difficult for Hamas to demand Palestinian fighters adhere to the truce in Gaza."
Mortar attack
A mortar shell was also fired into Israeli territory from the Gaza Strip the previous evening, the Israeli army said, in the first such incident since the truce came into effect.
No one was hurt by the missile, which landed in the Nahal Oz area after being launched from the central Gaza Strip, officials said on Tuesday.
"We are familiar with a mortar shell that landed near the security fence in northern Gaza on the Israeli side," an army spokeswoman said.
There has been no claim of responsibility for the reported incident on Monday evening, nor any confimation from Palestinian sources that such an incident took place.
Observers have said that both sides do not regard the incident as a violation of the ceasefire.
Gaza talks
Meanwhile, Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, is set to discuss the Gaza truce with Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's president, later on Tuesday.
The talks in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheikh are expected to focus on the fate of an Israeli soldier held by Hamas, as well as a possible prisoner exchange with the group.
Amr el-Kahky, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Sharm el Sheikh, said that the main issue would be the release of certain Palestinian prisoners whom Israel deem to have blood on their hands, but whom the Palestinians see as resistance fighters.
The ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Palestinian groups including Hamas, the largest Palestinian armed group, came into effect on Thursday.
Israeli forces have not entered the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip since the truce took effect and has started to lift some restrictions there, easing the effects of a crippling economic blockade of the territory.
Egypt brokered the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas as Tel Aviv rejects direct contact with the Palestinian organisation.
Olmert criticised
Olmert has been criticised at home for not making the truce conditional upon Hamas releasing Gilad Shalit, a soldier captured by them in 2006.
The Israeli prime minister has said that the deal includes a commitment by Hamas to make progress towards Shalit's release.
Regev said: "The issue of Gilad Shalit will be raised.
"Both states have a joint interest in putting this issue behind us. Ultimately, we want to see the situation in Gaza stabilised."
Israel has also called for Egypt to help stop the smuggling of weapons from Egypt's Sinai peninsula into Gaza.
Ismail Haniya, a senior Hamas leader and former Palestinian prime minister, said on Monday that it was premature to judge whether the truce had been a success.
"It is too early to judge whether the occupation is adhering or not adhering to the understandings reached 10 days ago," Haniya said.
Haniya said his Hamas-run administration was "monitoring what is coming into the Gaza Strip and is in daily contact with our brothers in Egypt" to see that Israel eases its Gaza blockade.
El-Khaky said: "The re-opening of the Rafah border crossing [from Gaza to Egypt] is a pressure card that Israel is playing to try to secure and speed up the release of Gilad Shalit."
Monday, June 23, 2008
Tsvangirai always had few options
This is from Al Jazeera.
This is an absolute disaster. In order not to appear to be interfering in another African nation's internal affairs other African countries and in particular South Africa have not put sufficient pressure on Mugabe to cause any difference. You would think that with all the problems it is having with refugees South Africa would take a more forceful stance. The U.S. was able to fund and support rebellion against the Sandinista government but with Mugabe it is all rhetoric. In any event it would be much more appropriate if African countries put more pressure on Mugabe. Mugabe uses anti-colonial rhetoric to justify his incompetence and his gifts to his incompetent cronies as well. The country has become a basket case. Talk about failed states!
UPDATED ON:Monday, June 23, 2008 13:57 Mecca time, 10:57 GMT
FOCUS: ANALYSIS
Tsvangirai always had few options
By Musaazi Namiti
Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai says he pulled out of the June 27 poll after his supporters were beaten and intimidated in Harare GALLO/GETTY]
After winning Zimbabwe's first round of presidential elections - but failing to secure an outright majority - Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has pulled out of a run-off vote against the incumbent.
Tsvangirai, who had been given more than 50 per cent of the first-round vote by the MDC's tally but only officially won 47 per cent, cited violence against his supporters as a major reason for the withdrawal.
The opposition announcement came after thousands of police in riot gear and soldiers blockaded the site of the MDC's main campaign rally.
Had Tsvangirai originally chosen to boycott the June 27 run-off, he would have set the stage for Robert Gabriel Mugabe, the president, to win re-election by default.
Tsvangirai's supporters would also have viewed him as a coward and a let-down, Zimbabwean political analysts say.
But contesting the run-off, perhaps the second-best option, represented major hurdles - the MDC were always aware of the likelihood of intimidation and violence against people who voted for them in the first round.
Tsvangirai has been detained by police several times, and released without charge, during his election campaigning. Tendai Biti, the MDC's secretary-general, has also been arrested and is facing charges of treason, which carry a death sentence upon conviction.
Intimidation, beatings
Mugabe has sworn that his supporters will fight to keep him in power [AFP]Tsvangirai's supporters have not only been attacked and beaten but they have also been murdered for opposing Mugabe, according to the MDC, who have put the death toll at at least 80.
Local election monitors say some MDC supporters have been forcibly removed from their homes, further hindering their abilities to vote; scores more have been hospitalised with severe injuries.
Tsvangirai himself has been to see supporters in hospital who allegedly have been assaulted by security forces and supporters of Zanu-PF, the governing party headed by Mugabe.
For several weeks, the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), which deployed hundreds of observers across the country in the March 29 election, has released statements highlighting incidents of violence against MDC supporters and some of its observers.
But there were hopes that Tsvangirai would win the run-off in spite of a vow by Mugabe that the opposition would never come to power as long as he is alive.
Mugabe has also said that the country's war veterans are ready to fight to try to prevent the MDC from coming to power.
Economic factor
Economic travails could play into the hands of the MDC opposition [AFP]Political observers and analysts say Zimbabwe's deteriorating economic situation made the MDC a popular alternative to Mugabe.
"Mugabe could go on and try every trick in the book, but the sheer number of voters [for the MDC] may be hard to beat," Wilf Mbanga, the London-based editor of The Zimbabwean, a weekly printed in South Africa and sold in Zimbabwe, says.
Others say intimidation may work to the disadvantage of Mugabe.
"Intimidation could turn out to be counterproductive," Professor Tony Hawkins, who lectures at the University of Zimbabwe, told Al Jazeera.
"But chasing people from their homes will make it impossible for them to vote. If you’re chased away, you can't vote."
Mugabe's controversial land redistribution program - which began in 2000 and saw white farmers forced off their farms, some of which went to Mugabe cronies who have no knowledge on how to run them - has hampered food production and brought Zimbabwe to its knees.
In an attempt to stave off the crisis, the government has been printing money with planeloads of banknotes arriving in Harare, the capital, almost on a weekly basis, according to the UK's Sunday Times newspaper.
In depth
Q&A: Zimbabwe'selection crisisThis has resulted in runaway inflation, which stood at 165,000 per cent in February; Zimbabwe has possibly the largest number of millionaires in Africa, but they can't even afford basic commodities.
The Zimbabwean dollar is almost worthless. A one million-dollar bill can only buy a few items in supermarkets - if the customer carrying it is lucky to find goods on the shelves.
Unemployment among the country's 13 million people is said to be around 80 per cent, and hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans have had to seek economic refuge in neighbouring South Africa, Botswana and Mozambique.
They can return home if Tsvangirai one day takes power and sorts out the economic mess, but the former trade union leader has several hurdles yet.
Source:
Al Jazeera
This is an absolute disaster. In order not to appear to be interfering in another African nation's internal affairs other African countries and in particular South Africa have not put sufficient pressure on Mugabe to cause any difference. You would think that with all the problems it is having with refugees South Africa would take a more forceful stance. The U.S. was able to fund and support rebellion against the Sandinista government but with Mugabe it is all rhetoric. In any event it would be much more appropriate if African countries put more pressure on Mugabe. Mugabe uses anti-colonial rhetoric to justify his incompetence and his gifts to his incompetent cronies as well. The country has become a basket case. Talk about failed states!
UPDATED ON:Monday, June 23, 2008 13:57 Mecca time, 10:57 GMT
FOCUS: ANALYSIS
Tsvangirai always had few options
By Musaazi Namiti
Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai says he pulled out of the June 27 poll after his supporters were beaten and intimidated in Harare GALLO/GETTY]
After winning Zimbabwe's first round of presidential elections - but failing to secure an outright majority - Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has pulled out of a run-off vote against the incumbent.
Tsvangirai, who had been given more than 50 per cent of the first-round vote by the MDC's tally but only officially won 47 per cent, cited violence against his supporters as a major reason for the withdrawal.
The opposition announcement came after thousands of police in riot gear and soldiers blockaded the site of the MDC's main campaign rally.
Had Tsvangirai originally chosen to boycott the June 27 run-off, he would have set the stage for Robert Gabriel Mugabe, the president, to win re-election by default.
Tsvangirai's supporters would also have viewed him as a coward and a let-down, Zimbabwean political analysts say.
But contesting the run-off, perhaps the second-best option, represented major hurdles - the MDC were always aware of the likelihood of intimidation and violence against people who voted for them in the first round.
Tsvangirai has been detained by police several times, and released without charge, during his election campaigning. Tendai Biti, the MDC's secretary-general, has also been arrested and is facing charges of treason, which carry a death sentence upon conviction.
Intimidation, beatings
Mugabe has sworn that his supporters will fight to keep him in power [AFP]Tsvangirai's supporters have not only been attacked and beaten but they have also been murdered for opposing Mugabe, according to the MDC, who have put the death toll at at least 80.
Local election monitors say some MDC supporters have been forcibly removed from their homes, further hindering their abilities to vote; scores more have been hospitalised with severe injuries.
Tsvangirai himself has been to see supporters in hospital who allegedly have been assaulted by security forces and supporters of Zanu-PF, the governing party headed by Mugabe.
For several weeks, the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), which deployed hundreds of observers across the country in the March 29 election, has released statements highlighting incidents of violence against MDC supporters and some of its observers.
But there were hopes that Tsvangirai would win the run-off in spite of a vow by Mugabe that the opposition would never come to power as long as he is alive.
Mugabe has also said that the country's war veterans are ready to fight to try to prevent the MDC from coming to power.
Economic factor
Economic travails could play into the hands of the MDC opposition [AFP]Political observers and analysts say Zimbabwe's deteriorating economic situation made the MDC a popular alternative to Mugabe.
"Mugabe could go on and try every trick in the book, but the sheer number of voters [for the MDC] may be hard to beat," Wilf Mbanga, the London-based editor of The Zimbabwean, a weekly printed in South Africa and sold in Zimbabwe, says.
Others say intimidation may work to the disadvantage of Mugabe.
"Intimidation could turn out to be counterproductive," Professor Tony Hawkins, who lectures at the University of Zimbabwe, told Al Jazeera.
"But chasing people from their homes will make it impossible for them to vote. If you’re chased away, you can't vote."
Mugabe's controversial land redistribution program - which began in 2000 and saw white farmers forced off their farms, some of which went to Mugabe cronies who have no knowledge on how to run them - has hampered food production and brought Zimbabwe to its knees.
In an attempt to stave off the crisis, the government has been printing money with planeloads of banknotes arriving in Harare, the capital, almost on a weekly basis, according to the UK's Sunday Times newspaper.
In depth
Q&A: Zimbabwe'selection crisisThis has resulted in runaway inflation, which stood at 165,000 per cent in February; Zimbabwe has possibly the largest number of millionaires in Africa, but they can't even afford basic commodities.
The Zimbabwean dollar is almost worthless. A one million-dollar bill can only buy a few items in supermarkets - if the customer carrying it is lucky to find goods on the shelves.
Unemployment among the country's 13 million people is said to be around 80 per cent, and hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans have had to seek economic refuge in neighbouring South Africa, Botswana and Mozambique.
They can return home if Tsvangirai one day takes power and sorts out the economic mess, but the former trade union leader has several hurdles yet.
Source:
Al Jazeera
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Typhoon Fengshen sinks ferry and kills at least 155 in the Philippines
This is from AP.
The authorities were surely remiss in letting the ferry set sail given that a typhoon was approaching. I was away for the weekend and just learned of the typhoon today. It seems that the area where our relatives live was relatively unscathed as the typhoon changed course. Deforestation of hillsides causes many of the mudslides that bury people and increase the number of casualties.
Red Cross: 155 dead in Philippines typhoon
17 hours ago
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The Philippine Red Cross says the death toll from Typhoon Fengshen has risen to at least 155.
The storm has submerged entire communities in torrential downpours and setting off landslides.
In addition to the dead, more than 740 passengers and crew from a passenger ferry that ran aground Saturday were missing. Only four survivors from the ship have been found so far.
Sen. Richard Gordon, head of the national Red Cross, says the figure of 155 dead is based on field reports from his staff.
He said Sunday he has asked U.S. authorities for help in finding possible survivors inside the ferry.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — A rescue ship battling huge waves and strong winds on Sunday reached a passenger ferry that capsized in Typhoon Fengshen, but found none of the more than 700 people who were on board. The storm has submerged entire communities in the Philippines and left at least 80 people dead.
The ferry, one end jutting out of the water, went down in the rough waters Saturday and had been out of radio contact for more than 24 hours.
"They haven't seen anyone. They're scouring the area. They're studying the direction of the waves to determine where survivors may have drifted," coast guard spokesman Lt. Senior Grade Arman Balilo said. Three survivors had made it to land earlier.
Many of the passengers were feared dead after villagers found four bodies, children's slippers and life jackets that washed ashore near where the MV Princess of Stars had stalled. Port captain Nestor Ponteres said the ferry's owner, Sulpicio Lines, had lost radio contact with the ship.
The dead, including a man and a woman who had bound themselves together, were believed to have been on the vessel, which initially ran aground a few miles off central Sibuyan island Saturday, then capsized, said Mayor Nanette Tansingco of San Fernando on Sibuyan island.
At least three survivors from the ferry were found in Sibuyan's Mabini village and police were ordered to go there. But all the roads to the village, where many houses were washed away by huge waves, were blocked by toppled trees, Tansingco told DZBB radio.
She appealed for food, medicine and formalin — an embalming fluid — apparently expecting many deaths in her town. The ferry's bow could be seen from her town, she said.
The typhoon lashed the central Philippines for about four hours Saturday, setting off landslides and floods, knocking out power and blowing off roofs.
Packing sustained winds of 74 miles per hour and gusts of up to 93 mph, the typhoon shifted course Sunday to the northwest and battered Manila at dawn, dumping heavy rain on the capital.
TV footage showed rescuers holding on to a long rope to pluck three people from raging floodwaters. The three were trapped on top of a partially engulfed van in a village in Iloilo province, where the governor said 59 people had drowned. In nearby village, residents pulled out a body from a muddy field then lays it beside another they found earlier. Gov. Neil Tupaz said another 40 people were missing in the province.
"Almost all the towns are covered by water. It's like an ocean," Tupaz said, adding thousands have been displaced in the central province that is home to 1.7 million people.
Rescue vessels aborted an initial attempt Saturday to get to the 23,824-ton ferry, but efforts resumed in stormy weather Sunday, coast guard chief Vice Admiral Wilfredo Tamayo said, although churning seas kept smaller vessels away. Four coast guard ships and three from the navy were being deployed, and the air force was asked to send aircraft as soon as the weather clears.
The ferry — with 626 passengers and 121 crew members on board — was "dead in the water" after its engine failed around noon Saturday, Tamayo said.
About two dozen relatives trooped to the Manila office of Sulpicio Lines, some quietly weeping as they waited for news about the fate of their loved ones. "I'm very worried, I need to know what happened to my family," said Felino Farionin, his voice cracking. His wife, son and four in-laws were on the ferry.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo directed the defense and local government departments to stand by for relief and rescue missions before she left for the United States late Saturday.
Arroyo later talked to officials in a teleconference aired live on nationwide radio, scolding coast guard officials for allowing the ferry to leave Manila late Friday despite the bad weather.
Ferries are the main form of inter-island transportation in the sprawling Philippines archipelago, site of the world's worst peacetime maritime disaster when the ferry MV Dona Paz sank after colliding with the fuel tanker MT Vector five days before Christmas in 1987, killing more than 4,341 people.
In southern Maguindanao province, at least 14 people drowned in flash floods Saturday, including 10 swept away from riverside homes, said provincial administrator Norie Unas. Five others were missing.
A 50-year-old man and his 10-year-old grandson were killed when a landslide buried their hillside shanty in Cotabato city Saturday, Mayor Muslimin Sema said.
The authorities were surely remiss in letting the ferry set sail given that a typhoon was approaching. I was away for the weekend and just learned of the typhoon today. It seems that the area where our relatives live was relatively unscathed as the typhoon changed course. Deforestation of hillsides causes many of the mudslides that bury people and increase the number of casualties.
Red Cross: 155 dead in Philippines typhoon
17 hours ago
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The Philippine Red Cross says the death toll from Typhoon Fengshen has risen to at least 155.
The storm has submerged entire communities in torrential downpours and setting off landslides.
In addition to the dead, more than 740 passengers and crew from a passenger ferry that ran aground Saturday were missing. Only four survivors from the ship have been found so far.
Sen. Richard Gordon, head of the national Red Cross, says the figure of 155 dead is based on field reports from his staff.
He said Sunday he has asked U.S. authorities for help in finding possible survivors inside the ferry.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — A rescue ship battling huge waves and strong winds on Sunday reached a passenger ferry that capsized in Typhoon Fengshen, but found none of the more than 700 people who were on board. The storm has submerged entire communities in the Philippines and left at least 80 people dead.
The ferry, one end jutting out of the water, went down in the rough waters Saturday and had been out of radio contact for more than 24 hours.
"They haven't seen anyone. They're scouring the area. They're studying the direction of the waves to determine where survivors may have drifted," coast guard spokesman Lt. Senior Grade Arman Balilo said. Three survivors had made it to land earlier.
Many of the passengers were feared dead after villagers found four bodies, children's slippers and life jackets that washed ashore near where the MV Princess of Stars had stalled. Port captain Nestor Ponteres said the ferry's owner, Sulpicio Lines, had lost radio contact with the ship.
The dead, including a man and a woman who had bound themselves together, were believed to have been on the vessel, which initially ran aground a few miles off central Sibuyan island Saturday, then capsized, said Mayor Nanette Tansingco of San Fernando on Sibuyan island.
At least three survivors from the ferry were found in Sibuyan's Mabini village and police were ordered to go there. But all the roads to the village, where many houses were washed away by huge waves, were blocked by toppled trees, Tansingco told DZBB radio.
She appealed for food, medicine and formalin — an embalming fluid — apparently expecting many deaths in her town. The ferry's bow could be seen from her town, she said.
The typhoon lashed the central Philippines for about four hours Saturday, setting off landslides and floods, knocking out power and blowing off roofs.
Packing sustained winds of 74 miles per hour and gusts of up to 93 mph, the typhoon shifted course Sunday to the northwest and battered Manila at dawn, dumping heavy rain on the capital.
TV footage showed rescuers holding on to a long rope to pluck three people from raging floodwaters. The three were trapped on top of a partially engulfed van in a village in Iloilo province, where the governor said 59 people had drowned. In nearby village, residents pulled out a body from a muddy field then lays it beside another they found earlier. Gov. Neil Tupaz said another 40 people were missing in the province.
"Almost all the towns are covered by water. It's like an ocean," Tupaz said, adding thousands have been displaced in the central province that is home to 1.7 million people.
Rescue vessels aborted an initial attempt Saturday to get to the 23,824-ton ferry, but efforts resumed in stormy weather Sunday, coast guard chief Vice Admiral Wilfredo Tamayo said, although churning seas kept smaller vessels away. Four coast guard ships and three from the navy were being deployed, and the air force was asked to send aircraft as soon as the weather clears.
The ferry — with 626 passengers and 121 crew members on board — was "dead in the water" after its engine failed around noon Saturday, Tamayo said.
About two dozen relatives trooped to the Manila office of Sulpicio Lines, some quietly weeping as they waited for news about the fate of their loved ones. "I'm very worried, I need to know what happened to my family," said Felino Farionin, his voice cracking. His wife, son and four in-laws were on the ferry.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo directed the defense and local government departments to stand by for relief and rescue missions before she left for the United States late Saturday.
Arroyo later talked to officials in a teleconference aired live on nationwide radio, scolding coast guard officials for allowing the ferry to leave Manila late Friday despite the bad weather.
Ferries are the main form of inter-island transportation in the sprawling Philippines archipelago, site of the world's worst peacetime maritime disaster when the ferry MV Dona Paz sank after colliding with the fuel tanker MT Vector five days before Christmas in 1987, killing more than 4,341 people.
In southern Maguindanao province, at least 14 people drowned in flash floods Saturday, including 10 swept away from riverside homes, said provincial administrator Norie Unas. Five others were missing.
A 50-year-old man and his 10-year-old grandson were killed when a landslide buried their hillside shanty in Cotabato city Saturday, Mayor Muslimin Sema said.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Yahoo Philippines!
This is from the Inquirer.
Yahoo is becoming more and more popular in Asia. There are plenty of filipinos on Yahoo Chat. This is the second Asian country to have a Yahoo subsidiary. Earlier Yahoo created a branch in Singapore.
Yahoo! establishes Philippine subsidiary
By Erika TapallaINQUIRER.net
Posted date: June 20, 2008
MAKATI City, Philippines -- After 120 days of local preparation, Yahoo! Philippines has finally established an office in Manila, becoming the Internet giant’s second 100-percent owned subsidiary in Southeast Asia after Singapore.
The local Yahoo! office is looking at employing between 10 and 15 people, according to Jojo Añonuevo, General Manager of Philippine Operations for Yahoo! Southeast Asia. Añonuevo added that 20 percent of Yahoo! Singapore employees are Filipinos. The Yahoo! Philippines office is located at Fort Bonifacio Global City.
Based on internal Yahoo! metrics and surveys, 85 percent of Filipinos in the Philippines use Yahoo! platforms. However, the company has not yet partnered with an independent research company to calculate its traffic.
“We know a lot of Filipinos globally use Yahoo! content, but we are not able to break down the exact number of usage per market per country,” said Añonuevo. “We are still working with Nielsen Research to conduct research in the Philippines in conjunction with Internet associations in the Philippines to give us a third-party breakdown of these numbers.”
Añonuevo predicts a double-digit growth in the Philippines in terms of revenue. Yahoo! has three main objectives to generate revenue locally but is primarily banking on online advertising.
The first of the three objectives is to make Yahoo! the starting point for most consumers so that the service would be top-of-mind in their every online experience. For example, Yahoo! has developed mobile services in partnership with Sun Cellular and Smart Communications for the Yahoo! oneSearch mobile application.
Due to the popularity of social networking in the Philippines, Yahoo! Philippines is also looking at partnering with social networking sites.
“We are already in discussions with Friendster and other social networking sites to merge Yahoo! Messenger functions in their pages. There are some functionalities in Yahoo! Messenger that a Friendster user would want," Añonuevo said.
The company’s second objective is to become a "must-buy" for most advertisers by providing various platforms that would be viable choices for advertising and campaigns. In connection with this, Yahoo! Philippines has come up with Yahoo! Sponsored Search for Filipino businesses and advertisers. This advertising product enables small to large Philippine businesses potentially reach 53 million new customers in Southeast Asia.
The third objective is to become a "partner of choice" by providing favorable platforms for publishers and developers. For example, in April, the beta version of Yahoo! Philippine news was launched.
©Copyright 2001-2008 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company
Yahoo is becoming more and more popular in Asia. There are plenty of filipinos on Yahoo Chat. This is the second Asian country to have a Yahoo subsidiary. Earlier Yahoo created a branch in Singapore.
Yahoo! establishes Philippine subsidiary
By Erika TapallaINQUIRER.net
Posted date: June 20, 2008
MAKATI City, Philippines -- After 120 days of local preparation, Yahoo! Philippines has finally established an office in Manila, becoming the Internet giant’s second 100-percent owned subsidiary in Southeast Asia after Singapore.
The local Yahoo! office is looking at employing between 10 and 15 people, according to Jojo Añonuevo, General Manager of Philippine Operations for Yahoo! Southeast Asia. Añonuevo added that 20 percent of Yahoo! Singapore employees are Filipinos. The Yahoo! Philippines office is located at Fort Bonifacio Global City.
Based on internal Yahoo! metrics and surveys, 85 percent of Filipinos in the Philippines use Yahoo! platforms. However, the company has not yet partnered with an independent research company to calculate its traffic.
“We know a lot of Filipinos globally use Yahoo! content, but we are not able to break down the exact number of usage per market per country,” said Añonuevo. “We are still working with Nielsen Research to conduct research in the Philippines in conjunction with Internet associations in the Philippines to give us a third-party breakdown of these numbers.”
Añonuevo predicts a double-digit growth in the Philippines in terms of revenue. Yahoo! has three main objectives to generate revenue locally but is primarily banking on online advertising.
The first of the three objectives is to make Yahoo! the starting point for most consumers so that the service would be top-of-mind in their every online experience. For example, Yahoo! has developed mobile services in partnership with Sun Cellular and Smart Communications for the Yahoo! oneSearch mobile application.
Due to the popularity of social networking in the Philippines, Yahoo! Philippines is also looking at partnering with social networking sites.
“We are already in discussions with Friendster and other social networking sites to merge Yahoo! Messenger functions in their pages. There are some functionalities in Yahoo! Messenger that a Friendster user would want," Añonuevo said.
The company’s second objective is to become a "must-buy" for most advertisers by providing various platforms that would be viable choices for advertising and campaigns. In connection with this, Yahoo! Philippines has come up with Yahoo! Sponsored Search for Filipino businesses and advertisers. This advertising product enables small to large Philippine businesses potentially reach 53 million new customers in Southeast Asia.
The third objective is to become a "partner of choice" by providing favorable platforms for publishers and developers. For example, in April, the beta version of Yahoo! Philippine news was launched.
©Copyright 2001-2008 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company
Official: Negotiator kept 60 percent of Philippines TV crew's ransom.
This is from the AFP.
60 percent of the ransom seems a hefty negotiating fee. I guess the salary of the mayor is probably quite low so he needs to supplement it by negotiating release of persons kidnapped by his relatives! I wonder if the mayor is a good Arroyo supporter!
Negotiator kept 60 percent of Philippines TV crew's ransom: official
7 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — A local Philippines official arrested for the abduction of a television crew kept 60 percent of the ransom while pretending to negotiate their release from Muslim militants, authorities said Friday.
Police have asked prosecutors to file kidnapping charges against Alvarez Isnaji, mayor of Indanan town in the southern island of Jolo, and his son Haider Isnaji, for the abduction of ABS-CBN network presenter Cecilia Drilon and three others.
National police chief Avelino Razon said a police undercover agent saw the Isnajis handling five million pesos (112,500 dollars) delivered to their home by a brother of Drilon to buy her freedom and those of her crew and guide.
During the nine-day hostage ordeal, the mayor publicly warned authorities that the gunmen had threatened to behead the captives if a ransom was not paid.
"We consider him (Alvarez Isnaji) as the leader of the kidnap group," Razon told a news conference.
The TV crew and a university professor acting as a guide were seized on June 8 as they went to interview a senior leader of Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic militant group with ties to Al-Qaeda.
Razon showed two pictures of the Isnajis counting the money, with the undercover agent and provincial vice governor Lady Ann Sahidulla serving as witnesses.
The undercover agent, who presented himself to the Isnajis as a civil servant from the Interior Department, will testify that two million pesos was given to the gunmen while the mayor kept three million, Razon said during a media briefing on Friday.
The money has not been recovered, he added.
The mayor and his son, who the elder Isnaji had described as his personal emissary to the kidnappers, were arrested Wednesday.
Their lawyer, Ernesto Francisco, said his clients were innocent and being prosecuted for "political reasons."
Razon said the 14 gunmen who held the crew hostage were Abu Sayyaf members. They included three blood relatives of the mayor, and they were all still at large, he added.
The gunmen's first captive was released June 12 after the mayor said he paid 100,000 pesos in "board and lodging" fees to the kidnappers -- a euphemism for ransom.
The mayor said a similar amount was later paid to secure the release of the rest of the group.
But Razon said the police were investigating reports that another shipment of ransom money was flown by private plane to Jolo after June 12, resulting in the release of the remaining three hostages late Tuesday.
The mayor said at the time that Senator Loren Legarda, a close friend of Drilon's who is widely expected to run for president in the 2010 election, had helped him secure their freedom.
"We cannot fault the (Drilon) family for doing everything to bring back their loved one," Razon said.
60 percent of the ransom seems a hefty negotiating fee. I guess the salary of the mayor is probably quite low so he needs to supplement it by negotiating release of persons kidnapped by his relatives! I wonder if the mayor is a good Arroyo supporter!
Negotiator kept 60 percent of Philippines TV crew's ransom: official
7 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — A local Philippines official arrested for the abduction of a television crew kept 60 percent of the ransom while pretending to negotiate their release from Muslim militants, authorities said Friday.
Police have asked prosecutors to file kidnapping charges against Alvarez Isnaji, mayor of Indanan town in the southern island of Jolo, and his son Haider Isnaji, for the abduction of ABS-CBN network presenter Cecilia Drilon and three others.
National police chief Avelino Razon said a police undercover agent saw the Isnajis handling five million pesos (112,500 dollars) delivered to their home by a brother of Drilon to buy her freedom and those of her crew and guide.
During the nine-day hostage ordeal, the mayor publicly warned authorities that the gunmen had threatened to behead the captives if a ransom was not paid.
"We consider him (Alvarez Isnaji) as the leader of the kidnap group," Razon told a news conference.
The TV crew and a university professor acting as a guide were seized on June 8 as they went to interview a senior leader of Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic militant group with ties to Al-Qaeda.
Razon showed two pictures of the Isnajis counting the money, with the undercover agent and provincial vice governor Lady Ann Sahidulla serving as witnesses.
The undercover agent, who presented himself to the Isnajis as a civil servant from the Interior Department, will testify that two million pesos was given to the gunmen while the mayor kept three million, Razon said during a media briefing on Friday.
The money has not been recovered, he added.
The mayor and his son, who the elder Isnaji had described as his personal emissary to the kidnappers, were arrested Wednesday.
Their lawyer, Ernesto Francisco, said his clients were innocent and being prosecuted for "political reasons."
Razon said the 14 gunmen who held the crew hostage were Abu Sayyaf members. They included three blood relatives of the mayor, and they were all still at large, he added.
The gunmen's first captive was released June 12 after the mayor said he paid 100,000 pesos in "board and lodging" fees to the kidnappers -- a euphemism for ransom.
The mayor said a similar amount was later paid to secure the release of the rest of the group.
But Razon said the police were investigating reports that another shipment of ransom money was flown by private plane to Jolo after June 12, resulting in the release of the remaining three hostages late Tuesday.
The mayor said at the time that Senator Loren Legarda, a close friend of Drilon's who is widely expected to run for president in the 2010 election, had helped him secure their freedom.
"We cannot fault the (Drilon) family for doing everything to bring back their loved one," Razon said.
Opposition considers pulling out of Zimbabwe vote.
Given the conditions the opposition is facing and the fact that the army and police have both said that they will not support an opposition victory, pulling out seems a prudent action. Only some type of insurgency will overthrow Mugabe it seems unless Mugabe himself is assassinated and some other leader more amenable to negotiation with the opposition takes over. The problem seems to go beyond Mugabe himself though and relate to his party, the army, and the police.
Opposition considers pulling out of Zimbabwe vote
CRIS CHINAKA
Reuters
June 20, 2008 at 6:43 AM EDT
HARARE — Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai is considering whether to pull out of the June 27 presidential run-off election amid fears it will be a charade, a spokesman said on Friday.
Some African nations, the United States and former colonial power Britain have said they do not believe the poll would be free and fair because of growing violence that the opposition blames on veteran President Robert Mugabe.
Mr. Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change says at least 70 of its supporters have been killed since he defeated Mr. Mugabe in a March 29 vote but fell short of the outright majority needed to avoid a run-off, according to official figures.
“There is a huge avalanche of calls and pressure from supporters across the country, especially in the rural areas, not to accept to be participants in this charade,” MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa told Reuters.
Mr. Chamisa did not say when the party would decide on participating in the run-off.
Mr. Mugabe, 84, is fighting to cling onto power in the country he has ruled since independence in 1980. Once prosperous, its economy is now ruined and millions of Zimbabweans have fled the political and economic crisis to neighbouring states.
Mr. Mugabe blames the election bloodshed on the opposition and has threatened to arrest MDC leaders.
Mr. Tsvangirai has been detained five times while campaigning this month and his lieutenant, Tendai Biti, is being held in custody on treason and other charges. A conviction could carry a death sentence.
A magistrate on Friday ordered that Mr. Biti, the MDC's secretary-general, remain behind bars until July 7, rejecting the party's bid to have him released.
“I'm of the view that there's reasonable suspicion to believe the accused committed the said offences. Accordingly the application is dismissed,” Magistrate Mishrod Guvamombe said in a Harare court.
European Union leaders were set to issue a new threat of further sanctions on Zimbabwe on Friday, a draft summit statement showed. The EU has an arms embargo on Zimbabwe as well as visa bans and asset freezes on Mr. Mugabe and other officials.
The EU text, obtained by Reuters before the final working session of the two-day summit, said a free and fair election was critical to the resolution of a political and economic crisis in the former British colony.
But it stopped short of backing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's assertion on Thursday that actions by Mr. Mugabe's government meant the run-off will not be free and fair.
EU leaders urged the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and the African Union to deploy a significant number of election monitors and called for a swift and transparent vote count this time after lengthy delays in the first round.
“The European Council reiterates its readiness to take additional measures against those responsible for violence,” it said.
SADC, a group of 14 nations that includes Zimbabwe, is sending 380 monitors to Zimbabwe for the vote.
SADC ministers responsible for peace and security said on Thursday they doubted the election would be free after hearing initial reports from monitors, signalling growing impatience on the continent with Mugabe's authoritarian rule.
South African President Thabo Mbeki, mandated by the regional group to mediate in the crisis, visited Zimbabwe on Wednesday to discuss the crisis with Mugabe and the opposition.
Mr. Chamisa denied media reports that Mr. Mbeki had asked for the election to be cancelled in favour of a unity government.
“President Mbeki did not raise that issue. We raised the issue of electoral violence,” Mr. Chamisa said, declining to provide further details on the meeting. A spokesman for Mr. Mbeki also declined to comment on the matter.
The political impasse threatens to worsen the economic crisis in Zimbabwe, which is struggling with inflation over 165,000 per cent, 80 per cent unemployment and chronic food and fuel shortages.
Opposition considers pulling out of Zimbabwe vote
CRIS CHINAKA
Reuters
June 20, 2008 at 6:43 AM EDT
HARARE — Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai is considering whether to pull out of the June 27 presidential run-off election amid fears it will be a charade, a spokesman said on Friday.
Some African nations, the United States and former colonial power Britain have said they do not believe the poll would be free and fair because of growing violence that the opposition blames on veteran President Robert Mugabe.
Mr. Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change says at least 70 of its supporters have been killed since he defeated Mr. Mugabe in a March 29 vote but fell short of the outright majority needed to avoid a run-off, according to official figures.
“There is a huge avalanche of calls and pressure from supporters across the country, especially in the rural areas, not to accept to be participants in this charade,” MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa told Reuters.
Mr. Chamisa did not say when the party would decide on participating in the run-off.
Mr. Mugabe, 84, is fighting to cling onto power in the country he has ruled since independence in 1980. Once prosperous, its economy is now ruined and millions of Zimbabweans have fled the political and economic crisis to neighbouring states.
Mr. Mugabe blames the election bloodshed on the opposition and has threatened to arrest MDC leaders.
Mr. Tsvangirai has been detained five times while campaigning this month and his lieutenant, Tendai Biti, is being held in custody on treason and other charges. A conviction could carry a death sentence.
A magistrate on Friday ordered that Mr. Biti, the MDC's secretary-general, remain behind bars until July 7, rejecting the party's bid to have him released.
“I'm of the view that there's reasonable suspicion to believe the accused committed the said offences. Accordingly the application is dismissed,” Magistrate Mishrod Guvamombe said in a Harare court.
European Union leaders were set to issue a new threat of further sanctions on Zimbabwe on Friday, a draft summit statement showed. The EU has an arms embargo on Zimbabwe as well as visa bans and asset freezes on Mr. Mugabe and other officials.
The EU text, obtained by Reuters before the final working session of the two-day summit, said a free and fair election was critical to the resolution of a political and economic crisis in the former British colony.
But it stopped short of backing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's assertion on Thursday that actions by Mr. Mugabe's government meant the run-off will not be free and fair.
EU leaders urged the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and the African Union to deploy a significant number of election monitors and called for a swift and transparent vote count this time after lengthy delays in the first round.
“The European Council reiterates its readiness to take additional measures against those responsible for violence,” it said.
SADC, a group of 14 nations that includes Zimbabwe, is sending 380 monitors to Zimbabwe for the vote.
SADC ministers responsible for peace and security said on Thursday they doubted the election would be free after hearing initial reports from monitors, signalling growing impatience on the continent with Mugabe's authoritarian rule.
South African President Thabo Mbeki, mandated by the regional group to mediate in the crisis, visited Zimbabwe on Wednesday to discuss the crisis with Mugabe and the opposition.
Mr. Chamisa denied media reports that Mr. Mbeki had asked for the election to be cancelled in favour of a unity government.
“President Mbeki did not raise that issue. We raised the issue of electoral violence,” Mr. Chamisa said, declining to provide further details on the meeting. A spokesman for Mr. Mbeki also declined to comment on the matter.
The political impasse threatens to worsen the economic crisis in Zimbabwe, which is struggling with inflation over 165,000 per cent, 80 per cent unemployment and chronic food and fuel shortages.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Zimbabwe opposition reports 4 activists killed
This is from AP.
The army and police have said repeatedly that they will not accept an opposition victory. Mugabe is taking the runoff as an opportunity to show who is boss and try to terrify anyone who supports the opposition. The opposition would seem better off to go into exile or start an insurgency within Zimbabwe. Most of the international community will make a lot of noise but is unlikely to be able to stop Mugabe's actions against opponents. African leaders for the most part fear that if they intervene they will be seen as supporting Western imperialism against poor old Mugabe and this will give an excuse to Mugabe to crackdown even harder. I guess only the good die young is true. The evil old guys often go on forever. Of course that I am old shows that some good guys live to a ripe old age as well!
Zimbabwe opposition reports 4 activists killed
By ANGUS SHAW – 2 hours ago
HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) — Four opposition party activists were killed and three homes firebombed near the capital as militants linked to the ruling party and army continued a campaign of intimidation ahead of a runoff election, the opposition said Thursday.
The activists were abducted Wednesday in the township of Chitungwiza, 15 miles south of the capital, and were assaulted with iron bars, clubs and guns, said Nelson Chamisa, spokesman for the Movement for Democratic Change.
The victims were forced onto trucks and taken away by militias chanting slogans of Mugabe's party, witnesses said. The bodies were found early Thursday, he said.
In a separate incident, three Chitungwiza opposition councilmen and their families fled their homes and escaped injury when their homes were set alight by gasoline bombs Wednesday night, he said.
Attempts to reach Zimbabwean police for confirmation of the firebombing were not immediately successful.
Chamisa said militants linked to Mugabe's party and army troops patrolled the township for several days, visiting houses at night and threatening occupants. The opposition says more than 60 of its activists have been killed in recent weeks.
Independent human rights activists have implicated police, soldiers and Mugabe party militants in the violence, thought to be aimed at ensuring victory over opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai.
Doctors at the main Parirenyatwa hospital in Harare said Thursday they admitted victims injured in assaults in several townships on the outskirts of Harare in recent days as political violence that has plagued rural areas spread to the city.
Residents of Harare's well-to-do suburbs reported gangs of militants forcing household domestic workers and family members to attend meetings known as a "pungwe," a colloquial term for night-long political indoctrination used by militants since the independence war that swept Mugabe to power in 1980.
Mugabe has threatened to return the country to war if he does not win the runoff June 27.
"They came and dragged my workers to the vlei," overgrown grassland nearby, Oliver Mberi said. "You'd think we are already at war." He said neighbors reported employees living in the dormitory townships fleeing violence in townships seen as opposition strongholds.
On Monday night, Abigail Chiroto, the wife of MDC mayor elect of Harare, was seized from her house in the suburb of Hatcliffe with her four-year-old son Ashley, family friends said Thursday. The friends, who did not want to be identified for fear of repercussions, said the two were taken to a nearby farming area where Chiroto's body was found Tuesday.
The boy, who was left at a nearby police station, told family members that he saw his mother being blindfolded and taken off into the bush. When Chiroto's body was found, she was still wearing a blindfold. Her body was identified Wednesday by her husband Emmanuel who was out of town at the time.
Mugabe "is behaving like a warlord," opposition party spokesman Nqobizitha Mlilo said. "This violence must stop."
The opposition claims Tsvangirai won the country's presidential elections, but official results said a runoff, to be held in just over a week, was needed because there was no outright majority win.
South African President Thabo Mbeki held talks with Tsvangirai on Wednesday and later with Mugabe amid increasing international concern that the June 27 runoff will not be free and fair.
Mbeki, who has steadfastly refused to publicly rebuke Mugabe, left late Wednesday without speaking to reporters. On Thursday, he canceled a press conference with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi "due to unforeseen circumstances," the foreign affairs department said in a statement.
Mbeki's spokesman Mukoni Ratshitanga said he had no comment on Wednesday's meetings in Harare because they were not conducting the negotiations in the media.
Mugabe spokesman George Charamba was quoted in Thursday's edition of the state newspaper The Herald as saying Mbeki came merely to review election preparations.
Mbeki says confrontation with Mugabe could backfire. But Mbeki's decision to spend his 66th birthday with the 84-year-old Zimbabwean autocrat underlined the immense pressure he is under at home and abroad. Mbeki is being urged to take a tougher stance or show that his quiet tactics can work to persuade Mugabe to stop the violence before the election.
Tsvangirai has called on Mbeki to step down as mediator, accusing him of bias toward Mugabe.
Mlilo expressed little confidence that Mbeki's visit would make a difference, noting "four people died that very day" the South African visited.
"Mugabe doesn't seem to care what the international community thinks," Mlilo said.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded action Wednesday.
"It is time for leaders of Africa to say to President Mugabe that the people of Zimbabwe deserve a free and fair election," she said after a meeting in Washington with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga — one of the few African leaders who has criticized Mugabe.
"You cannot intimidate opponents, you cannot put opponents in jail, you cannot threaten them with jail on charges of treason and expect to be respected in the international community," Rice said.
Most observers praised the conduct of the first round — although not the delay in releasing official results. But there are growing fears that Mugabe will steal the second round through violence and ballot rigging.
In addition to the violence, Tsvangirai's party has seen rallies banned and campaign stops blocked by police, and its No. 2, Tendai Biti, has been arrested on charges of treason. The opposition says the charges are politically motivated.
On Thursday, Biti was brought back to court and was awaiting a hearing on treason charges to proceed.
The army and police have said repeatedly that they will not accept an opposition victory. Mugabe is taking the runoff as an opportunity to show who is boss and try to terrify anyone who supports the opposition. The opposition would seem better off to go into exile or start an insurgency within Zimbabwe. Most of the international community will make a lot of noise but is unlikely to be able to stop Mugabe's actions against opponents. African leaders for the most part fear that if they intervene they will be seen as supporting Western imperialism against poor old Mugabe and this will give an excuse to Mugabe to crackdown even harder. I guess only the good die young is true. The evil old guys often go on forever. Of course that I am old shows that some good guys live to a ripe old age as well!
Zimbabwe opposition reports 4 activists killed
By ANGUS SHAW – 2 hours ago
HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) — Four opposition party activists were killed and three homes firebombed near the capital as militants linked to the ruling party and army continued a campaign of intimidation ahead of a runoff election, the opposition said Thursday.
The activists were abducted Wednesday in the township of Chitungwiza, 15 miles south of the capital, and were assaulted with iron bars, clubs and guns, said Nelson Chamisa, spokesman for the Movement for Democratic Change.
The victims were forced onto trucks and taken away by militias chanting slogans of Mugabe's party, witnesses said. The bodies were found early Thursday, he said.
In a separate incident, three Chitungwiza opposition councilmen and their families fled their homes and escaped injury when their homes were set alight by gasoline bombs Wednesday night, he said.
Attempts to reach Zimbabwean police for confirmation of the firebombing were not immediately successful.
Chamisa said militants linked to Mugabe's party and army troops patrolled the township for several days, visiting houses at night and threatening occupants. The opposition says more than 60 of its activists have been killed in recent weeks.
Independent human rights activists have implicated police, soldiers and Mugabe party militants in the violence, thought to be aimed at ensuring victory over opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai.
Doctors at the main Parirenyatwa hospital in Harare said Thursday they admitted victims injured in assaults in several townships on the outskirts of Harare in recent days as political violence that has plagued rural areas spread to the city.
Residents of Harare's well-to-do suburbs reported gangs of militants forcing household domestic workers and family members to attend meetings known as a "pungwe," a colloquial term for night-long political indoctrination used by militants since the independence war that swept Mugabe to power in 1980.
Mugabe has threatened to return the country to war if he does not win the runoff June 27.
"They came and dragged my workers to the vlei," overgrown grassland nearby, Oliver Mberi said. "You'd think we are already at war." He said neighbors reported employees living in the dormitory townships fleeing violence in townships seen as opposition strongholds.
On Monday night, Abigail Chiroto, the wife of MDC mayor elect of Harare, was seized from her house in the suburb of Hatcliffe with her four-year-old son Ashley, family friends said Thursday. The friends, who did not want to be identified for fear of repercussions, said the two were taken to a nearby farming area where Chiroto's body was found Tuesday.
The boy, who was left at a nearby police station, told family members that he saw his mother being blindfolded and taken off into the bush. When Chiroto's body was found, she was still wearing a blindfold. Her body was identified Wednesday by her husband Emmanuel who was out of town at the time.
Mugabe "is behaving like a warlord," opposition party spokesman Nqobizitha Mlilo said. "This violence must stop."
The opposition claims Tsvangirai won the country's presidential elections, but official results said a runoff, to be held in just over a week, was needed because there was no outright majority win.
South African President Thabo Mbeki held talks with Tsvangirai on Wednesday and later with Mugabe amid increasing international concern that the June 27 runoff will not be free and fair.
Mbeki, who has steadfastly refused to publicly rebuke Mugabe, left late Wednesday without speaking to reporters. On Thursday, he canceled a press conference with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi "due to unforeseen circumstances," the foreign affairs department said in a statement.
Mbeki's spokesman Mukoni Ratshitanga said he had no comment on Wednesday's meetings in Harare because they were not conducting the negotiations in the media.
Mugabe spokesman George Charamba was quoted in Thursday's edition of the state newspaper The Herald as saying Mbeki came merely to review election preparations.
Mbeki says confrontation with Mugabe could backfire. But Mbeki's decision to spend his 66th birthday with the 84-year-old Zimbabwean autocrat underlined the immense pressure he is under at home and abroad. Mbeki is being urged to take a tougher stance or show that his quiet tactics can work to persuade Mugabe to stop the violence before the election.
Tsvangirai has called on Mbeki to step down as mediator, accusing him of bias toward Mugabe.
Mlilo expressed little confidence that Mbeki's visit would make a difference, noting "four people died that very day" the South African visited.
"Mugabe doesn't seem to care what the international community thinks," Mlilo said.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded action Wednesday.
"It is time for leaders of Africa to say to President Mugabe that the people of Zimbabwe deserve a free and fair election," she said after a meeting in Washington with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga — one of the few African leaders who has criticized Mugabe.
"You cannot intimidate opponents, you cannot put opponents in jail, you cannot threaten them with jail on charges of treason and expect to be respected in the international community," Rice said.
Most observers praised the conduct of the first round — although not the delay in releasing official results. But there are growing fears that Mugabe will steal the second round through violence and ballot rigging.
In addition to the violence, Tsvangirai's party has seen rallies banned and campaign stops blocked by police, and its No. 2, Tendai Biti, has been arrested on charges of treason. The opposition says the charges are politically motivated.
On Thursday, Biti was brought back to court and was awaiting a hearing on treason charges to proceed.
Israel to Ease Gaza Blockade if truce holds
This is from Bloomberg.
Events like this are a glimmer of hope in a generally gloomy scene between Hamas and Israel. The small positive steps Israel has taken at least make more sense than the hard line usually taken by the U.S. and Israel of no negotiating with terrorists. Of course there were Israeli terrorists when the Israelis were fighting for independence!
It seems as if Abbas and Hamas may reconcile. If this happens the Palestinians will be in a much strong negotiating position.
Israel to Ease Gaza Blockade in 3 Days If Truce Holds (Update2)
By Jonathan Ferziger and Gwen Ackerman
June 19 (Bloomberg) -- Israel said it will ease its economic blockade of the Gaza Strip in three days if a cease- fire with Hamas that went into effect today holds.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will go to Egypt June 24 for talks with President Hosni Mubarak, whose aides brokered the truce. Israel will keep the frontier shut unless Hamas releases its captive soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, a government spokesman said.
``If the calm holds, you will see the start of a process of liberalization in the economic sanctions at the very beginning of next week,'' Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said. He added, though, ``there will be no normalization of the crossings unless Gilad Shalit is freed.''
Both sides expressed skepticism that their agreement would last, with Olmert describing it yesterday as fragile. Gaza was mostly quiet since the Egyptian-mediated cease-fire started at 6 a.m., according to the Israeli army and Hamas officials. Olmert's talks with Mubarak will center on disputes over border crossings and prisoners.
About an hour before the cease-fire, Israeli aircraft killed a Palestinian who was preparing to launch a rocket over the border, according to the army and the Palestinian Authority Health Ministry.
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told reporters today the movement will adhere to the cease-fire terms. Business owners expressed disappointment it will probably take until next week before Israel allows required amounts of fuel and other supplies into the territory. Hamas leaders earlier said it would take a few hours after the truce takes effect.
Business Plea
``We hope that by Sunday we'll receive the normal amounts of diesel and petrol,'' Mahmoud al-Khozendar, deputy president of the union of gas stations in Gaza, said in an interview.
Commercial restrictions on Gaza and a corruption probe into Olmert led to the cease-fire, but there's little likelihood of a settlement between Israel and a movement sworn to its destruction, said Gerald Steinberg, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan.
``Hamas is gambling that it can strengthen itself for another round six months or a year from now,'' Steinberg said. ``Olmert is gambling he can save his government.''
The cease-fire was agreed upon after months of indirect talks with Egyptian mediators between Israel and Hamas, which seized control of Gaza a year ago after sharing power with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The militant Muslim group is classified a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and European Union.
`Collision Course'
``Historically, we are on a collision course with Hamas, but seizing this opportunity does make some sense,'' Barak said in an interview with France's Le Monde. ``If it's broken, we'll have greater legitimacy. If it holds, it's an opportunity to protect our citizens exposed to rocket fire, and to free the soldier Shalit.''
About 4,300 rockets and mortar shells were fired at Israel in the 12 months since Hamas took over, and four Israelis were killed in the attacks, according to the Israeli army spokesman's office. More than 570 Palestinians were killed in Israeli air raids and limited ground incursions against rocket launchers and militants, according to Gaza human rights organizations.
Ismail Haniya, the top Hamas leader in Gaza who was deposed as prime minister of the authority, said yesterday he hopes Abbas will soon make his first visit to the territory in more than a year.
Egypt has invited representatives of Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and the EU to Cairo June 26 for talks on opening the southern Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar told reporters yesterday. In parallel, Egypt will mediate talks between Israel and Hamas on a deal that could free Shalit, he said. Hamas wants more than 1,400 Palestinians freed from Israeli jails in exchange.
Olmert said yesterday that the truce will be ``fragile and may be very short.'' Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told reporters that it ``doesn't mean the end of resistance.''
To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan Ferziger in Jerusalem at jferziger@bloomberg.net; Gwen Ackerman in Jerusalem at gackerman@bloomberg.net Last Updated: June 19, 2008 09:52 EDT
Events like this are a glimmer of hope in a generally gloomy scene between Hamas and Israel. The small positive steps Israel has taken at least make more sense than the hard line usually taken by the U.S. and Israel of no negotiating with terrorists. Of course there were Israeli terrorists when the Israelis were fighting for independence!
It seems as if Abbas and Hamas may reconcile. If this happens the Palestinians will be in a much strong negotiating position.
Israel to Ease Gaza Blockade in 3 Days If Truce Holds (Update2)
By Jonathan Ferziger and Gwen Ackerman
June 19 (Bloomberg) -- Israel said it will ease its economic blockade of the Gaza Strip in three days if a cease- fire with Hamas that went into effect today holds.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will go to Egypt June 24 for talks with President Hosni Mubarak, whose aides brokered the truce. Israel will keep the frontier shut unless Hamas releases its captive soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, a government spokesman said.
``If the calm holds, you will see the start of a process of liberalization in the economic sanctions at the very beginning of next week,'' Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said. He added, though, ``there will be no normalization of the crossings unless Gilad Shalit is freed.''
Both sides expressed skepticism that their agreement would last, with Olmert describing it yesterday as fragile. Gaza was mostly quiet since the Egyptian-mediated cease-fire started at 6 a.m., according to the Israeli army and Hamas officials. Olmert's talks with Mubarak will center on disputes over border crossings and prisoners.
About an hour before the cease-fire, Israeli aircraft killed a Palestinian who was preparing to launch a rocket over the border, according to the army and the Palestinian Authority Health Ministry.
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told reporters today the movement will adhere to the cease-fire terms. Business owners expressed disappointment it will probably take until next week before Israel allows required amounts of fuel and other supplies into the territory. Hamas leaders earlier said it would take a few hours after the truce takes effect.
Business Plea
``We hope that by Sunday we'll receive the normal amounts of diesel and petrol,'' Mahmoud al-Khozendar, deputy president of the union of gas stations in Gaza, said in an interview.
Commercial restrictions on Gaza and a corruption probe into Olmert led to the cease-fire, but there's little likelihood of a settlement between Israel and a movement sworn to its destruction, said Gerald Steinberg, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan.
``Hamas is gambling that it can strengthen itself for another round six months or a year from now,'' Steinberg said. ``Olmert is gambling he can save his government.''
The cease-fire was agreed upon after months of indirect talks with Egyptian mediators between Israel and Hamas, which seized control of Gaza a year ago after sharing power with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The militant Muslim group is classified a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and European Union.
`Collision Course'
``Historically, we are on a collision course with Hamas, but seizing this opportunity does make some sense,'' Barak said in an interview with France's Le Monde. ``If it's broken, we'll have greater legitimacy. If it holds, it's an opportunity to protect our citizens exposed to rocket fire, and to free the soldier Shalit.''
About 4,300 rockets and mortar shells were fired at Israel in the 12 months since Hamas took over, and four Israelis were killed in the attacks, according to the Israeli army spokesman's office. More than 570 Palestinians were killed in Israeli air raids and limited ground incursions against rocket launchers and militants, according to Gaza human rights organizations.
Ismail Haniya, the top Hamas leader in Gaza who was deposed as prime minister of the authority, said yesterday he hopes Abbas will soon make his first visit to the territory in more than a year.
Egypt has invited representatives of Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and the EU to Cairo June 26 for talks on opening the southern Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar told reporters yesterday. In parallel, Egypt will mediate talks between Israel and Hamas on a deal that could free Shalit, he said. Hamas wants more than 1,400 Palestinians freed from Israeli jails in exchange.
Olmert said yesterday that the truce will be ``fragile and may be very short.'' Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told reporters that it ``doesn't mean the end of resistance.''
To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan Ferziger in Jerusalem at jferziger@bloomberg.net; Gwen Ackerman in Jerusalem at gackerman@bloomberg.net Last Updated: June 19, 2008 09:52 EDT
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Pakistani Fury Over Airstrikes Imperils Training
This is from the NY Times.
This article gives us a glimpse into the behind-the-scenes manipulation of the U.S. in Pakistan. The U.S. is in effect training a special core in counter-insurgency with the group coming from the tribal areas. These troops will be prime targets for assassination as traitors. It is likely that they will actually come to some accomodation with those they are supposed to eliminate rather than suffer themselves to be slaughtered.
The U.S. policy in Pakistan is in tatters. No Bhutto no Mussharaf.
June 18, 2008
Pakistani Fury Over Airstrikes Imperils Training
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Pakistani military is so angry over the American airstrikes here last week that it is threatening to postpone or cancel an American program to train a paramilitary force in counterinsurgency for combating Islamist militants, two Pakistani government officials said.
Some Pakistani officials are convinced that the Americans deliberately fired on their military, killing 11 men from the very paramilitary force the Americans want to train, an accusation the Americans deny.
The uncertainty over the program reflects how deeply scarred the United States’ alliance with Pakistan, already strained, has been since the June 10 airstrikes, Pakistani officials and Western diplomats said.
The $400 million training program is intended to combat militancy by fielding a paramilitary force, called the Frontier Corps, from among the tribes that live in the border areas. It was a compromise between American and Pakistani officials looking for the least intrusive way to fortify security in an area where the Pakistani government has rejected the idea of American soldiers and where even the regular Pakistani Army is often not welcome.
Ending or delaying the program, which is already under way, would deny the United States what little leverage it has in the tribal areas to combat a rising number of cross-border attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan against American and NATO forces this year.
The United States military said the airstrikes had been carried out in self-defense against militants who had attacked American forces in Afghanistan and then fled into Pakistan. But the Pakistanis continue to dispute important parts of the American account.
“This is the first time the United States has deliberately targeted cooperating Pakistani forces,” said Jehangir Karamat, a former chief of the Pakistani Army and a former ambassador to the United States. “There has been no statement by the United States that this was ‘friendly fire’ and that the intention was not to target Pakistani forces.”
The recriminations have exposed the underlying mistrust in the alliance, which has been held together in large part by the personal relationship between President Pervez Musharraf and President Bush, the Pakistani officials and diplomats said.
As the two men fade from power, the alliance is finding it difficult to quell the threat to the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan from a growing array of Taliban and Qaeda cells that are dug into Pakistan’s tribal areas, the officials and diplomats said.
A senior Pakistani government official with long experience in military affairs, one of the two Pakistani officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities, summed up the feeling of many in the Pakistani military, saying the strikes appeared deliberate — despite American denials — and intended to “punish” Pakistan for not preventing Islamist militants from crossing into Afghanistan.
“Such types of incidents may affect the training program by the United States for the Frontier Corps,” the spokesman for the Pakistani Army, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said Monday.
In Washington, the Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, expressed regret but did not acknowledge any American culpability pending an investigation by senior Pakistani, Afghan and American officers. "As we said last week, every indication we have still is that this was a legitimate attack by U.S. forces acting in self-defense, that all procedures and regulation and coordination had been followed," Mr. Morrell told reporters.
The American, Afghan and Pakistani militaries have agreed to hold a joint investigation into the strikes. That inquiry will now have to sort out the conflicting accounts in an extremely charged atmosphere.
American military spokesmen said a Pakistani liaison officer had been informed of the American intention to strike over the highly disputed border between Kunar Province in Afghanistan and the Mohmand agency, one of seven agencies in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, after American forces were attacked.
The Pakistanis vehemently deny the claim. They say the American bombs were not used in self-defense, but were aimed at a Frontier Corps post at Gora Parai, about 100 miles northwest of the town of Ghalanai.
A stone hut and seven of nine bunkers in which the soldiers were seeking cover were destroyed, the Pakistanis say. The coordinates of the post were clearly marked and were known to NATO and American forces, they say.
The senior Pakistani government official with military experience said the strikes were “too accurate and too intense” to have been an accident.
A senior American officer in the region, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation, rejected the Pakistani allegations that American aircraft had deliberately attacked Pakistani soldiers.
“Undoubtedly the lack of recognized border markings, porous terrain where bad guys travel back and forth, known weaknesses of Frontier Corps to control border area and intermingled people, and tight terrain all are variables,” the officer said. “Deliberate retaliation was not a cause.”
Whatever the case, the fury over the airstrikes was such that Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the new military chief, who the Americans hoped would be a dependable successor to Mr. Musharraf, personally approved an unusually strong statement last week from the Pakistani military, which called the strikes “cowardly and unprovoked,” the Pakistani officials said.
General Kayani has refused every suggestion of letting American forces operate in the tribal areas, even on an advisory basis, American officials have said. A plan for American trainers to accompany Pakistani troops on missions to root out insurgents in the tribal areas was ruled out completely, a senior Pakistani military official said.
The plan for American military advisers to instruct Pakistani trainers, who would in turn train Frontier Corps units in counterinsurgency tactics, was accepted by General Kayani as a light-footed alternative, American officials have said.
Even so, there is considerable skepticism in Washington and among United States military commanders about the value of the training, and the strains caused by the airstrikes have now brought into the open blunt expressions of dissatisfaction with the Pakistanis that officials had kept mostly private.
Gen. Dan K. McNeill, the American commander who stepped down as the leader of NATO forces in Afghanistan this month, said Friday that the Frontier Corps was not up to the job of fighting Pakistan’s Islamist militants. “My experience is it takes well-trained, well-equipped forces — disciplined — to take this thing on,” he said.
He described the corps as “pretty much tribals themselves,” a reference to the fact that the Frontier Corps men are recruited from the Pashtuns, the dominant tribe, which lives in Pakistan’s tribal areas as well as across the border in southern Afghanistan.
The American grievance about the Frontier Corps, which is under the overall command of the Pakistani Army, is largely based on the conviction that the corps allows Islamic militants to cross the porous border from Pakistan into Afghanistan with impunity to fight NATO forces.
There were 50 percent more cross-border attacks in April compared with a year before. The increase was “directly attributable to the lack of pressure on the other side of the border,” General McNeill said, referring to the fact that the Pakistani Army is now observing a cease-fire with the militants, and leaving the prime responsibilities to the Frontier Corps.
One of the Pakistani government officials acknowledged that the area around the Frontier Corps post that was hit by the Americans has been under the control of the Pakistani Taliban since 2006.
After a visit to Pakistan in late May, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, questioned whether the Frontier Corps was reliable enough for the United States to bother training, given what he called its poor record in defending the 1,600-mile border and the apparent affinity of some in the corps with the extremists.
In a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Mr. Levin said he wanted financing for the Frontier Corps to be made dependent on an “explicit commitment” by the Pakistanis to “halt cross-border attacks by Taliban militants and Al Qaeda terrorists into Afghanistan.”
Pakistani officials said Sunday that such a commitment had now been included in a peace deal with the militant leader Baitullah Mehsud. But Mr. Levin said “it remains to be seen if this is more than words, especially in light of previous unkept commitments along this line.”
After The New York Times sought an interview with Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador in Islamabad, an embassy spokeswoman asked that it first get permission from the State Department. Sean McCormack, the department spokesman, gave the go-ahead, but Ms. Patterson declined.
One of the senior Pakistani government officials said the alliance forged between Washington and Islamabad immediately after 9/11 had been imbued with mutual suspicion “since Day 1.”
A major reason for the distrust of the Americans among the Pakistani military came from the belief that Pakistan was unfairly blamed by Washington for the American and NATO difficulties in the war in Afghanistan.
The struggle against the Taliban in Afghanistan was faltering not only because Taliban forces from Pakistan were crossing the border into Afghanistan, the Pakistani government official said. “Pakistan thinks you have screwed up in Afghanistan and made Pakistan the fall guy,” the official said.
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington.
This article gives us a glimpse into the behind-the-scenes manipulation of the U.S. in Pakistan. The U.S. is in effect training a special core in counter-insurgency with the group coming from the tribal areas. These troops will be prime targets for assassination as traitors. It is likely that they will actually come to some accomodation with those they are supposed to eliminate rather than suffer themselves to be slaughtered.
The U.S. policy in Pakistan is in tatters. No Bhutto no Mussharaf.
June 18, 2008
Pakistani Fury Over Airstrikes Imperils Training
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Pakistani military is so angry over the American airstrikes here last week that it is threatening to postpone or cancel an American program to train a paramilitary force in counterinsurgency for combating Islamist militants, two Pakistani government officials said.
Some Pakistani officials are convinced that the Americans deliberately fired on their military, killing 11 men from the very paramilitary force the Americans want to train, an accusation the Americans deny.
The uncertainty over the program reflects how deeply scarred the United States’ alliance with Pakistan, already strained, has been since the June 10 airstrikes, Pakistani officials and Western diplomats said.
The $400 million training program is intended to combat militancy by fielding a paramilitary force, called the Frontier Corps, from among the tribes that live in the border areas. It was a compromise between American and Pakistani officials looking for the least intrusive way to fortify security in an area where the Pakistani government has rejected the idea of American soldiers and where even the regular Pakistani Army is often not welcome.
Ending or delaying the program, which is already under way, would deny the United States what little leverage it has in the tribal areas to combat a rising number of cross-border attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan against American and NATO forces this year.
The United States military said the airstrikes had been carried out in self-defense against militants who had attacked American forces in Afghanistan and then fled into Pakistan. But the Pakistanis continue to dispute important parts of the American account.
“This is the first time the United States has deliberately targeted cooperating Pakistani forces,” said Jehangir Karamat, a former chief of the Pakistani Army and a former ambassador to the United States. “There has been no statement by the United States that this was ‘friendly fire’ and that the intention was not to target Pakistani forces.”
The recriminations have exposed the underlying mistrust in the alliance, which has been held together in large part by the personal relationship between President Pervez Musharraf and President Bush, the Pakistani officials and diplomats said.
As the two men fade from power, the alliance is finding it difficult to quell the threat to the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan from a growing array of Taliban and Qaeda cells that are dug into Pakistan’s tribal areas, the officials and diplomats said.
A senior Pakistani government official with long experience in military affairs, one of the two Pakistani officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities, summed up the feeling of many in the Pakistani military, saying the strikes appeared deliberate — despite American denials — and intended to “punish” Pakistan for not preventing Islamist militants from crossing into Afghanistan.
“Such types of incidents may affect the training program by the United States for the Frontier Corps,” the spokesman for the Pakistani Army, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said Monday.
In Washington, the Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, expressed regret but did not acknowledge any American culpability pending an investigation by senior Pakistani, Afghan and American officers. "As we said last week, every indication we have still is that this was a legitimate attack by U.S. forces acting in self-defense, that all procedures and regulation and coordination had been followed," Mr. Morrell told reporters.
The American, Afghan and Pakistani militaries have agreed to hold a joint investigation into the strikes. That inquiry will now have to sort out the conflicting accounts in an extremely charged atmosphere.
American military spokesmen said a Pakistani liaison officer had been informed of the American intention to strike over the highly disputed border between Kunar Province in Afghanistan and the Mohmand agency, one of seven agencies in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, after American forces were attacked.
The Pakistanis vehemently deny the claim. They say the American bombs were not used in self-defense, but were aimed at a Frontier Corps post at Gora Parai, about 100 miles northwest of the town of Ghalanai.
A stone hut and seven of nine bunkers in which the soldiers were seeking cover were destroyed, the Pakistanis say. The coordinates of the post were clearly marked and were known to NATO and American forces, they say.
The senior Pakistani government official with military experience said the strikes were “too accurate and too intense” to have been an accident.
A senior American officer in the region, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation, rejected the Pakistani allegations that American aircraft had deliberately attacked Pakistani soldiers.
“Undoubtedly the lack of recognized border markings, porous terrain where bad guys travel back and forth, known weaknesses of Frontier Corps to control border area and intermingled people, and tight terrain all are variables,” the officer said. “Deliberate retaliation was not a cause.”
Whatever the case, the fury over the airstrikes was such that Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the new military chief, who the Americans hoped would be a dependable successor to Mr. Musharraf, personally approved an unusually strong statement last week from the Pakistani military, which called the strikes “cowardly and unprovoked,” the Pakistani officials said.
General Kayani has refused every suggestion of letting American forces operate in the tribal areas, even on an advisory basis, American officials have said. A plan for American trainers to accompany Pakistani troops on missions to root out insurgents in the tribal areas was ruled out completely, a senior Pakistani military official said.
The plan for American military advisers to instruct Pakistani trainers, who would in turn train Frontier Corps units in counterinsurgency tactics, was accepted by General Kayani as a light-footed alternative, American officials have said.
Even so, there is considerable skepticism in Washington and among United States military commanders about the value of the training, and the strains caused by the airstrikes have now brought into the open blunt expressions of dissatisfaction with the Pakistanis that officials had kept mostly private.
Gen. Dan K. McNeill, the American commander who stepped down as the leader of NATO forces in Afghanistan this month, said Friday that the Frontier Corps was not up to the job of fighting Pakistan’s Islamist militants. “My experience is it takes well-trained, well-equipped forces — disciplined — to take this thing on,” he said.
He described the corps as “pretty much tribals themselves,” a reference to the fact that the Frontier Corps men are recruited from the Pashtuns, the dominant tribe, which lives in Pakistan’s tribal areas as well as across the border in southern Afghanistan.
The American grievance about the Frontier Corps, which is under the overall command of the Pakistani Army, is largely based on the conviction that the corps allows Islamic militants to cross the porous border from Pakistan into Afghanistan with impunity to fight NATO forces.
There were 50 percent more cross-border attacks in April compared with a year before. The increase was “directly attributable to the lack of pressure on the other side of the border,” General McNeill said, referring to the fact that the Pakistani Army is now observing a cease-fire with the militants, and leaving the prime responsibilities to the Frontier Corps.
One of the Pakistani government officials acknowledged that the area around the Frontier Corps post that was hit by the Americans has been under the control of the Pakistani Taliban since 2006.
After a visit to Pakistan in late May, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, questioned whether the Frontier Corps was reliable enough for the United States to bother training, given what he called its poor record in defending the 1,600-mile border and the apparent affinity of some in the corps with the extremists.
In a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Mr. Levin said he wanted financing for the Frontier Corps to be made dependent on an “explicit commitment” by the Pakistanis to “halt cross-border attacks by Taliban militants and Al Qaeda terrorists into Afghanistan.”
Pakistani officials said Sunday that such a commitment had now been included in a peace deal with the militant leader Baitullah Mehsud. But Mr. Levin said “it remains to be seen if this is more than words, especially in light of previous unkept commitments along this line.”
After The New York Times sought an interview with Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador in Islamabad, an embassy spokeswoman asked that it first get permission from the State Department. Sean McCormack, the department spokesman, gave the go-ahead, but Ms. Patterson declined.
One of the senior Pakistani government officials said the alliance forged between Washington and Islamabad immediately after 9/11 had been imbued with mutual suspicion “since Day 1.”
A major reason for the distrust of the Americans among the Pakistani military came from the belief that Pakistan was unfairly blamed by Washington for the American and NATO difficulties in the war in Afghanistan.
The struggle against the Taliban in Afghanistan was faltering not only because Taliban forces from Pakistan were crossing the border into Afghanistan, the Pakistani government official said. “Pakistan thinks you have screwed up in Afghanistan and made Pakistan the fall guy,” the official said.
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Democrats to back down on Iraq war conditions
Bush is often called a lame duck president at this late period in his administration. It would be more accurate to say that there is a lame duck opposition. Even though anti-war sentiment helped elect many Democrats they seem to be hopeless and helpless in fighting Bush on the Iraq war. Might as well elect McCain! This article comes from Reuters via Yahoo.
Democrats to back down on Iraq war conditions
By Richard CowanMon Jun 16, 4:43 PM ET
Democrats in the Congress, who came to power last year on a call to end the combat in Iraq, will soon give President George W. Bush the last war-funding bill of his presidency without any of the conditions they sought for withdrawing U.S. troops, congressional aides said on Monday.
Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.
"It'll be the lump sum of money, veterans (funding) and that's it," said one House aide familiar with the negotiations on the legislation.
The aide was referring to the funding for the unpopular Iraq war, now in its sixth year, and a measure being attached to expand education benefits for combat veterans.
A House of Representatives vote on the war-funding bill was expected this week. Anything the House passes would have to be approved by the Senate before the legislation is sent to Bush.
With the Pentagon running out of money to continue fighting the two wars, Congress is trying to approve new funds before its July 4 holiday recess.
With this bill, Congress will have written checks for more than $800 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with most of the money going to Iraq.
Since January, 2007, when Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, they have tried to force Bush to change course in Iraq, mostly through troop withdrawal timetables and requirements that U.S. soldiers be more thoroughly trained, equipped and rested before returning to combat.
And while various versions have passed each chamber since then, there have not been enough votes in Congress to enact the war conditions over Bush's objections.
DEMOCRATS LOOKING TO BUSH SUCCESSOR
The result is that the 110th Congress will wrap up most of its work this fall, before November's congressional and presidential elections, without forcing any changes to Bush's open-ended war policy, the defining issue of his presidency.
Anti-war Democrats instead are looking to Bush's successor, hoping it is fellow-Democrat Barack Obama, to bring at least some of the 147,000 U.S. troops home from Iraq.
Speaking to reporters in Michigan where he was campaigning, Obama said he was "encouraged" by the reduction in violence in Iraq, but underlined the importance of beginning "the process of withdrawing U.S. troops."
John McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has backed Bush's opposition to Congress setting timetables.
Democrats enter this campaign season poised to expand their House and Senate majorities.
Instead of Iraq being the dominant issue this campaign season, it has been the U.S. economy, jolted by skyrocketing energy prices and mounting home foreclosures, that has gotten most of the attention.
The war-spending bill has been the staging ground for a Democratic initiative to expand domestic unemployment benefits, in addition to the added veterans benefits.
(Editing by Philip Barbara)
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
Democrats to back down on Iraq war conditions
By Richard CowanMon Jun 16, 4:43 PM ET
Democrats in the Congress, who came to power last year on a call to end the combat in Iraq, will soon give President George W. Bush the last war-funding bill of his presidency without any of the conditions they sought for withdrawing U.S. troops, congressional aides said on Monday.
Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.
"It'll be the lump sum of money, veterans (funding) and that's it," said one House aide familiar with the negotiations on the legislation.
The aide was referring to the funding for the unpopular Iraq war, now in its sixth year, and a measure being attached to expand education benefits for combat veterans.
A House of Representatives vote on the war-funding bill was expected this week. Anything the House passes would have to be approved by the Senate before the legislation is sent to Bush.
With the Pentagon running out of money to continue fighting the two wars, Congress is trying to approve new funds before its July 4 holiday recess.
With this bill, Congress will have written checks for more than $800 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with most of the money going to Iraq.
Since January, 2007, when Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, they have tried to force Bush to change course in Iraq, mostly through troop withdrawal timetables and requirements that U.S. soldiers be more thoroughly trained, equipped and rested before returning to combat.
And while various versions have passed each chamber since then, there have not been enough votes in Congress to enact the war conditions over Bush's objections.
DEMOCRATS LOOKING TO BUSH SUCCESSOR
The result is that the 110th Congress will wrap up most of its work this fall, before November's congressional and presidential elections, without forcing any changes to Bush's open-ended war policy, the defining issue of his presidency.
Anti-war Democrats instead are looking to Bush's successor, hoping it is fellow-Democrat Barack Obama, to bring at least some of the 147,000 U.S. troops home from Iraq.
Speaking to reporters in Michigan where he was campaigning, Obama said he was "encouraged" by the reduction in violence in Iraq, but underlined the importance of beginning "the process of withdrawing U.S. troops."
John McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has backed Bush's opposition to Congress setting timetables.
Democrats enter this campaign season poised to expand their House and Senate majorities.
Instead of Iraq being the dominant issue this campaign season, it has been the U.S. economy, jolted by skyrocketing energy prices and mounting home foreclosures, that has gotten most of the attention.
The war-spending bill has been the staging ground for a Democratic initiative to expand domestic unemployment benefits, in addition to the added veterans benefits.
(Editing by Philip Barbara)
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
Iraq gives al-Mahdi militia deadline to surrender its weapons.
This is from the Times.
al-Sadr is simply biding his time and making sure he is not banished from elections this fall. However, his forces are not all happy with his relinquishing armed struggle. The US and Iraqi offensive will actually help al-Sadr since they will likely vanquish any militia who do not respond to Sadr's demand to honor the truce he negotiated (with Iran's help!) I have never seen Al_Sadr as that much of a radical. He is primarily an opportunist and clever populist. When it seems to be in his interest he will co-operate with the Iraqi authorities and even the U.S.
From The Times
June 17, 2008
Iraq gives al-Mahdi militia deadline to surrender its weapons
James Hider in Baghdad
Iraqi and US forces were poised to strike a key Shia militia stronghold in southern Iraq yesterday as Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, pushed ahead with his campaign to rid the country of al-Mahdi Army gunmen.
Iraqi army tanks, armoured troop carriers and infantrymen surrounded al-Amarah, a lawless tribal city near the Iranian border that is renowned for its smuggling rings. It once held a British base but the army was mortared so heavily by al-Mahdi Army irregulars that it withdrew to patrol the Iranian frontier.
Mr al-Maliki has told the militiamen that they have until Thursday to surrender their weapons before the Iraq forces — backed by US troops and air power — move in. “The military is deployed to ensure total control of the city without leaving any gaps for the militants to flee,” General Nassir al-Abadi, a senior Defence Ministry official, said.
Mr al-Maliki, who gained a boost in popularity when his forces took Basra from murderous militias, is hoping to push forward with his campaign to isolate al-Mahdi Army, led by Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric who once ordered a full-scale revolt against the US occupation.
Colonel Mahdi al-Asadi, a spokesman for al-Amarah police force, said that the operation would target any illegal militia groups, not specifically al-Madhi Army. “It will target outlaws even if they are government officials. It will not target any militia specifically but those who are criminals,” Colonel al-Asadi said.
Hojatoleslam al-Sadr has announced a series of reforms since his street fighters lost control of Basra and he was forced to cut a deal allowing Iraqi government troops into his once-impregnable stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad. Last week he said that his al-Mahdi Army would shift its focus to civilian action, with only a small armed wing being retained to fight the Americans.
The Iraqi Government is trying to manoeuvre the Sadrist movement into renouncing violence and transforming itself from one of the most-feared militia groups into a political organisation. It already runs charities and welfare groups among the poorest of the Shia population but retains the right to attack US forces.
The cleric has sent a delegation to al-Amarah ordering his militia fighters there — many of whom have already fled or buried their weapons — to respect a ceasefire he declared with Iraqi forces.
al-Sadr is simply biding his time and making sure he is not banished from elections this fall. However, his forces are not all happy with his relinquishing armed struggle. The US and Iraqi offensive will actually help al-Sadr since they will likely vanquish any militia who do not respond to Sadr's demand to honor the truce he negotiated (with Iran's help!) I have never seen Al_Sadr as that much of a radical. He is primarily an opportunist and clever populist. When it seems to be in his interest he will co-operate with the Iraqi authorities and even the U.S.
From The Times
June 17, 2008
Iraq gives al-Mahdi militia deadline to surrender its weapons
James Hider in Baghdad
Iraqi and US forces were poised to strike a key Shia militia stronghold in southern Iraq yesterday as Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, pushed ahead with his campaign to rid the country of al-Mahdi Army gunmen.
Iraqi army tanks, armoured troop carriers and infantrymen surrounded al-Amarah, a lawless tribal city near the Iranian border that is renowned for its smuggling rings. It once held a British base but the army was mortared so heavily by al-Mahdi Army irregulars that it withdrew to patrol the Iranian frontier.
Mr al-Maliki has told the militiamen that they have until Thursday to surrender their weapons before the Iraq forces — backed by US troops and air power — move in. “The military is deployed to ensure total control of the city without leaving any gaps for the militants to flee,” General Nassir al-Abadi, a senior Defence Ministry official, said.
Mr al-Maliki, who gained a boost in popularity when his forces took Basra from murderous militias, is hoping to push forward with his campaign to isolate al-Mahdi Army, led by Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric who once ordered a full-scale revolt against the US occupation.
Colonel Mahdi al-Asadi, a spokesman for al-Amarah police force, said that the operation would target any illegal militia groups, not specifically al-Madhi Army. “It will target outlaws even if they are government officials. It will not target any militia specifically but those who are criminals,” Colonel al-Asadi said.
Hojatoleslam al-Sadr has announced a series of reforms since his street fighters lost control of Basra and he was forced to cut a deal allowing Iraqi government troops into his once-impregnable stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad. Last week he said that his al-Mahdi Army would shift its focus to civilian action, with only a small armed wing being retained to fight the Americans.
The Iraqi Government is trying to manoeuvre the Sadrist movement into renouncing violence and transforming itself from one of the most-feared militia groups into a political organisation. It already runs charities and welfare groups among the poorest of the Shia population but retains the right to attack US forces.
The cleric has sent a delegation to al-Amarah ordering his militia fighters there — many of whom have already fled or buried their weapons — to respect a ceasefire he declared with Iraqi forces.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Philippines: Oil prices hiked for 4th straight week.
This will create real hardship for many who depend upon cheap transportation and also gas for cooking. There will be even more smaller motorcycles. Perhaps pedicabs will come back into fashion! This is from the Inquirer.
Oil prices hiked for 4th straight week Saturday
By Ronnel DomingoPhilippine Daily Inquirer
Posted date: June 14, 2008
MANILA, Philippines -- Oil firms hiked prices of gasoline, diesel, and kerosene by P1.50 a liter and of cooking gas by P1 a kilogram on Saturday, citing yet another surge of world oil prices.
This latest price increase is the 14th this year and the fourth-straight week of adjustments at the announced amounts.
Data from the Department of Energy show that the changes at the pumps brought the average price of unleaded gasoline to P56.46 a liter and of diesel to P49.44, including the 12-percent value-added tax.
An 11-kilogram cylinder of liquefied petroleum gas now costs between P615 and P661.
First to raise prices was Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday, followed by Petron Corp., Unioil Petroleum Philippines Inc., Chevron Philippines Inc., and Total (Philippines) Corp. at 6 a.m.
According to Petron, the regional benchmark price of Dubai crude averaged $124.27 a barrel in the first two weeks of June or $4.77 higher than May average of $119.50.
Also, the average price of Dubai crude in May was $16 higher than the April average of $103.41
As for LPG, the contract price for June increased by $55 to $907.50 per ton.
DoE data also showed that June 1-10 prices of gasoline based on the Mean of Platts Singapore (MOPS) increased by about $7 per barrel and of diesel by $4 per barrel compared to the previous level in the same period of May.
In its latest price monitoring report, the DoE noted that the all three benchmark crude prices -- including those in New York and London -- "posted peak levels anew within the first two trading weeks of the month."
"In fact, oil prices had their biggest price jump on record last (June 6), soaring nearly $11 to a new record above $138 per barrel," the agency said.
The DoE added that such unprecedented one-day gain in light sweet crude was due primarily to two factors: a sharp depreciation of the dollar against the euro and the pronouncement by a Senior Israeli Minister that an attack on Iran's nuclear sites looked "unavoidable."
The market reacted simultaneously since Iran has been the second-largest oil producer within the OPEC cartel, and any interruptions in its exports could push prices higher, the agency explained.
On the other hand, the DoE noted that Saudi Arabia -- the largest producer in OPEC -- notified all oil companies with which it has been doing business, as well as consumer nations, of its readiness to provide them with additional quantities of oil they would need.
^ ©Copyright 2001-2008 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company
Oil prices hiked for 4th straight week Saturday
By Ronnel DomingoPhilippine Daily Inquirer
Posted date: June 14, 2008
MANILA, Philippines -- Oil firms hiked prices of gasoline, diesel, and kerosene by P1.50 a liter and of cooking gas by P1 a kilogram on Saturday, citing yet another surge of world oil prices.
This latest price increase is the 14th this year and the fourth-straight week of adjustments at the announced amounts.
Data from the Department of Energy show that the changes at the pumps brought the average price of unleaded gasoline to P56.46 a liter and of diesel to P49.44, including the 12-percent value-added tax.
An 11-kilogram cylinder of liquefied petroleum gas now costs between P615 and P661.
First to raise prices was Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday, followed by Petron Corp., Unioil Petroleum Philippines Inc., Chevron Philippines Inc., and Total (Philippines) Corp. at 6 a.m.
According to Petron, the regional benchmark price of Dubai crude averaged $124.27 a barrel in the first two weeks of June or $4.77 higher than May average of $119.50.
Also, the average price of Dubai crude in May was $16 higher than the April average of $103.41
As for LPG, the contract price for June increased by $55 to $907.50 per ton.
DoE data also showed that June 1-10 prices of gasoline based on the Mean of Platts Singapore (MOPS) increased by about $7 per barrel and of diesel by $4 per barrel compared to the previous level in the same period of May.
In its latest price monitoring report, the DoE noted that the all three benchmark crude prices -- including those in New York and London -- "posted peak levels anew within the first two trading weeks of the month."
"In fact, oil prices had their biggest price jump on record last (June 6), soaring nearly $11 to a new record above $138 per barrel," the agency said.
The DoE added that such unprecedented one-day gain in light sweet crude was due primarily to two factors: a sharp depreciation of the dollar against the euro and the pronouncement by a Senior Israeli Minister that an attack on Iran's nuclear sites looked "unavoidable."
The market reacted simultaneously since Iran has been the second-largest oil producer within the OPEC cartel, and any interruptions in its exports could push prices higher, the agency explained.
On the other hand, the DoE noted that Saudi Arabia -- the largest producer in OPEC -- notified all oil companies with which it has been doing business, as well as consumer nations, of its readiness to provide them with additional quantities of oil they would need.
^ ©Copyright 2001-2008 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company
Exxon-Mobil plans Philippines oil exploration project
The Philippines could certainly use more oil but it is strange that the Philippines does not develop its own oil exploration and development company as China has done instead of leaving the resources to be exploited by foreign interests. Already there are protests against this development by one group.
This article is from AFP.
ExxonMobil plans Philippines oil exploration project
2 days ago
MANILA (AFP) — US oil giant ExxonMobil plans to conduct exploratory operations in the Sulu Sea in the Philippines, company and government officials said Friday.
The company is evaluating seismic data taken from the project area, ExxonMobil Exploration Co. vice president Stephen Greenlee told reporters after calling on President Gloria Arroyo and Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes here.
If the data is encouraging, the company would drill exploration wells from mid-2009, he added.
The Philippines now imports practically all of its oil requirements after some modest offshore deposits that were tapped during the 1970s energy crisis were exhausted.
"A drilling programme could cost over 100 million dollars for us to explore the potential," Greenlee said.
"If we're successful and we find what we hope to find, then the development of the site would (cost) several million dollars," he added.
Reyes said Greenlee's party "made a call on the President to give the good news that ExxonMobil is going to explore in the Sulu Sea."
He said "this is going to be a major milestone in the oil exploration and development efforts in the Philippines".
"ExxonMobil is the largest explorer and producer of gas in the world, they have the technical competence and financial muscle to undertake major oil exploration and production efforts," he added.
This article is from AFP.
ExxonMobil plans Philippines oil exploration project
2 days ago
MANILA (AFP) — US oil giant ExxonMobil plans to conduct exploratory operations in the Sulu Sea in the Philippines, company and government officials said Friday.
The company is evaluating seismic data taken from the project area, ExxonMobil Exploration Co. vice president Stephen Greenlee told reporters after calling on President Gloria Arroyo and Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes here.
If the data is encouraging, the company would drill exploration wells from mid-2009, he added.
The Philippines now imports practically all of its oil requirements after some modest offshore deposits that were tapped during the 1970s energy crisis were exhausted.
"A drilling programme could cost over 100 million dollars for us to explore the potential," Greenlee said.
"If we're successful and we find what we hope to find, then the development of the site would (cost) several million dollars," he added.
Reyes said Greenlee's party "made a call on the President to give the good news that ExxonMobil is going to explore in the Sulu Sea."
He said "this is going to be a major milestone in the oil exploration and development efforts in the Philippines".
"ExxonMobil is the largest explorer and producer of gas in the world, they have the technical competence and financial muscle to undertake major oil exploration and production efforts," he added.
Abbas calls for unity with Hamas.
This is a sign that Abbas has given up on any peace deal with Israel and is another nail in the coffin of Bush's Middle East strategy. Rice is criticizing Israeli settlement plans. Israel is praising Lebanon''s deal with Hezzbollah and is talking with Syria. Olmert is probably on the way out for corruption. Now Abbas is looking for unity with Hamas. The Bushy mid-east policy is self-destructing. The Palestinians will be much stronger if unified. If elections lead to a unified government that fights for Palestinian rights rather than among themselves the U.S. will be less able to simply support Israel and ignore the Palestinians.
Abbas calls for unity with Hamas
By Tobias Buck in Jerusalem
Published: June 5 2008 17:16 Last updated: June 5 2008 17:16
Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, has called for unity between his Fatah party and the Islamist Hamas group, one of the clearest signs yet that the Palestinian leadership has lost faith in its peace talks with Israel.
He said he wanted a “comprehensive national dialogue” with Hamas and again raised the prospect of early elections to end the stand-off between the two rival Palestinian factions.
Mr Abbas has long been reluctant to engage Hamas out of concern that such a move would damage his goal of reaching a peace agreement with Israel by the end of the year. Reaching out to the Islamist group may also threaten the international community’s generous financial and political support for the PA.
Yet with Israel’s coalition government teetering on the brink of collapse and with no visible progress in the peace talks so far, Mr Abbas is now hinting at a change of direction. Speaking late on Wednesday, he said he wanted to implement a recent reconciliation proposal drawn up by Yemen – one of several attempts by Arab countries to bridge the divide between the two groups.
Mr Abbas has accused Hamas of staging a “coup” since the group ousted his forces from the Gaza Strip last June. The defeat left the president with only the West Bank to govern and dealt a heavy blow to his political authority. In spite of strong pressure from Israel, Hamas has since consolidated its hold on the territory, which it and other militant groups use as a launch-pad for rocket attacks on nearby Israeli towns. Only on Thursday, a rocket launched from the Gaza Strip killed an Israeli man and injured several more.
According to the Yemeni plan, Hamas would have to hand back power in the Gaza Strip to the PA – a condition that senior Palestinian officials said Mr Abbas was not about to give up. However, unlike in previous interventions, the president did not refer to a Gaza handover specifically in his speech and one of his adviser’s said yesterday that he wanted to show “flexibility”.
Hamas welcomed the president’s more conciliatory stance but insisted on “unconditional” talks.
Mr Abbas said the divide between Fatah and Hamas and the territories they govern had caused the “worst damage ever to our cause” and increased the suffering of the 1.5m Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Living conditions in the territory have plummeted since Israel imposed an economic blockade on the Strip last year.
Ali Jarbawi, a professor of political sciences at the Bir Zeit University in the West Bank, said Mr Abbas’s intervention marked the most serious attempt to bridge the gulf between Hamas and Fatah since the Gaza takeover last year. “He is now willing to talk to Hamas while Hamas is still controlling Gaza,” he said.
Prof Jarbawi argued that the shift was triggered by several forces, including the forthcoming anniversary of the Gaza takeover, which had increased pressure on Mr Abbas to close the rift.
Growing scepticism about the prospects of the peace talks with Israel was another reason. “He wanted to give the negotiations enough time. But apparently he has now come to the conclusion that nothing is going to happen,” he said.
TIMELINE
January 2006 Hamas, the militant Islamist movement responsible for dozens of suicide bombings in Israel, sweeps to power in Palestinian legislative elections as the ruling Fatah party, led by Mahmoud Abbas, falls. The incoming Palestinian government faces a financial crisis as external funds are cut off.
April 2006 The US and EU suspend direct aid to the Palestinian Authority.
February 2007 Saudi Arabia secures an agreement between Fatah and Hamas, leading to a unity government. EU nations refuse to recognise the new government, insisting it first agree to recognise Israel.
June 2007 Hamas seizes control of the Gaza Strip after defeating forces loyal to Mr Abbas. The PA president dismisses the national unity government and forms a separate West Bank administration .
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Abbas calls for unity with Hamas
By Tobias Buck in Jerusalem
Published: June 5 2008 17:16 Last updated: June 5 2008 17:16
Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, has called for unity between his Fatah party and the Islamist Hamas group, one of the clearest signs yet that the Palestinian leadership has lost faith in its peace talks with Israel.
He said he wanted a “comprehensive national dialogue” with Hamas and again raised the prospect of early elections to end the stand-off between the two rival Palestinian factions.
Mr Abbas has long been reluctant to engage Hamas out of concern that such a move would damage his goal of reaching a peace agreement with Israel by the end of the year. Reaching out to the Islamist group may also threaten the international community’s generous financial and political support for the PA.
Yet with Israel’s coalition government teetering on the brink of collapse and with no visible progress in the peace talks so far, Mr Abbas is now hinting at a change of direction. Speaking late on Wednesday, he said he wanted to implement a recent reconciliation proposal drawn up by Yemen – one of several attempts by Arab countries to bridge the divide between the two groups.
Mr Abbas has accused Hamas of staging a “coup” since the group ousted his forces from the Gaza Strip last June. The defeat left the president with only the West Bank to govern and dealt a heavy blow to his political authority. In spite of strong pressure from Israel, Hamas has since consolidated its hold on the territory, which it and other militant groups use as a launch-pad for rocket attacks on nearby Israeli towns. Only on Thursday, a rocket launched from the Gaza Strip killed an Israeli man and injured several more.
According to the Yemeni plan, Hamas would have to hand back power in the Gaza Strip to the PA – a condition that senior Palestinian officials said Mr Abbas was not about to give up. However, unlike in previous interventions, the president did not refer to a Gaza handover specifically in his speech and one of his adviser’s said yesterday that he wanted to show “flexibility”.
Hamas welcomed the president’s more conciliatory stance but insisted on “unconditional” talks.
Mr Abbas said the divide between Fatah and Hamas and the territories they govern had caused the “worst damage ever to our cause” and increased the suffering of the 1.5m Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Living conditions in the territory have plummeted since Israel imposed an economic blockade on the Strip last year.
Ali Jarbawi, a professor of political sciences at the Bir Zeit University in the West Bank, said Mr Abbas’s intervention marked the most serious attempt to bridge the gulf between Hamas and Fatah since the Gaza takeover last year. “He is now willing to talk to Hamas while Hamas is still controlling Gaza,” he said.
Prof Jarbawi argued that the shift was triggered by several forces, including the forthcoming anniversary of the Gaza takeover, which had increased pressure on Mr Abbas to close the rift.
Growing scepticism about the prospects of the peace talks with Israel was another reason. “He wanted to give the negotiations enough time. But apparently he has now come to the conclusion that nothing is going to happen,” he said.
TIMELINE
January 2006 Hamas, the militant Islamist movement responsible for dozens of suicide bombings in Israel, sweeps to power in Palestinian legislative elections as the ruling Fatah party, led by Mahmoud Abbas, falls. The incoming Palestinian government faces a financial crisis as external funds are cut off.
April 2006 The US and EU suspend direct aid to the Palestinian Authority.
February 2007 Saudi Arabia secures an agreement between Fatah and Hamas, leading to a unity government. EU nations refuse to recognise the new government, insisting it first agree to recognise Israel.
June 2007 Hamas seizes control of the Gaza Strip after defeating forces loyal to Mr Abbas. The PA president dismisses the national unity government and forms a separate West Bank administration .
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
U.S. fails to toe tough Bush line on Mideast.
This is from the Financial Times.
There seems to be some split within the Bush administration. Bush himself never tires of repeating the tired mantra that one should never negotiate with terrorists. The other rule seems to be that one should never criticize Israel. Now Rice has criticised Israel for its plans to expand settlements and Israel itself has plans to talk to Syria and U.S. officials have praised Lebanon''s deal with Hezbollah.
US fails to toe tough Bush line on Mideast
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: May 27 2008 20:48 Last updated: May 28 2008 18:37
The US has followed up President George W. Bush’s warning this month about the risks of appeasement in an unusual way. Washington has welcomed negotiations with some of the Middle Eastern actors the Bush administration most distrusts.
Last week, days after Mr Bush attacked the idea of negotiations with “terrorists and radicals” such as Hizbollah and Hamas, the US found itself congratulating the Lebanese government for a deal with Hizbollah and giving a guarded welcome to indirect talks between Israel and Syria, a state that supports both Hizbollah and Hamas.
In his speech to the Israeli Knesset, Mr Bush had appeared to compare proponents of negotiations with leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president, to the champions of appeasement with Nazi Germany. But in coming days Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, is due to present Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s foreign minister with a formal proposal for talks between Tehran and the world’s big powers – including the US.
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr Bush had said in the Knesset. “We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement.”
However, his tough rhetoric – which was interpreted as an attack on the likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama – appears to be at odds with what some analysts see as Washington’s diminishing influence in the Middle East, amid rival pressures from countries in the region, European allies and even the US presidential campaign.
The administration told Israel of its doubts about the usefulness of negotiations with Syria. But when the news of the talks broke, Washington had little option but to endorse its ally’s initiative, albeit with a note of scepticism.
Similarly, US officials had indicated their desire for Lebanon’s government to take a forceful position regarding Hizbollah. But when the two sides agreed to give the militant Shia movement a blocking minority in the Lebanese cabinet in return for ending an impasse over the country’s presidency, Washington called the deal “necessary and positive”.
Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, argues that Hizbollah will ultimately be weakened because it reduced its legitimacy by turning its guns on Lebanese citizens in the confrontation that preceded the agreement.
But Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Centre at the Brookings Institution, a liberal Washington think-tank, and a former Clinton administration official, says Lebanon is just one of several theatres that has exposed Mr Bush’s reduced clout in the Middle East. “This administration is running out of juice,” he says. “The reality is that Hizbollah won this round.”
As for Iran, the US has reluctantly acceded to the idea of a new offer to Tehran as a quid pro quo for European, Russian and Chinese support for the most recent United Nations resolution imposing sanctions against Iran.
“The question isn’t why we won’t talk to Tehran,” Ms Rice said on Sunday, stressing the big powers’ current insistence that Iran halt uranium enrichment before negotiations begin. “The question is why won’t Tehran talk to us.”
Despite this official US line, the issue of whether engagement with hostile regimes amounts to appeasement has become one of the most divisive topics in the US presidential contest so far. This is partly because of the declared willingness of Mr Obama to meet Iran’s leaders.
Meanwhile, Mr Bush has increasingly sought to project White House resolve over Iran – a resolve queried by some of Washington’s regional allies following a US intelligence report last year that concluded that Tehran had halted a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.
The tougher presidential statements have occasionally backfired. The White House now says it has no knowledge of any specific declaration by Iran of its intent to acquire nuclear weapons, despite statements to the contrary by Mr Bush.
In March, he said on Voice of America’s Persian news network that Iran was isolated “because of the government’s decisions on foreign policy matters – such as announcing they want to destroy countries with a nuclear weapon”.
Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said Mr Bush had been using “shorthand”.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
There seems to be some split within the Bush administration. Bush himself never tires of repeating the tired mantra that one should never negotiate with terrorists. The other rule seems to be that one should never criticize Israel. Now Rice has criticised Israel for its plans to expand settlements and Israel itself has plans to talk to Syria and U.S. officials have praised Lebanon''s deal with Hezbollah.
US fails to toe tough Bush line on Mideast
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: May 27 2008 20:48 Last updated: May 28 2008 18:37
The US has followed up President George W. Bush’s warning this month about the risks of appeasement in an unusual way. Washington has welcomed negotiations with some of the Middle Eastern actors the Bush administration most distrusts.
Last week, days after Mr Bush attacked the idea of negotiations with “terrorists and radicals” such as Hizbollah and Hamas, the US found itself congratulating the Lebanese government for a deal with Hizbollah and giving a guarded welcome to indirect talks between Israel and Syria, a state that supports both Hizbollah and Hamas.
In his speech to the Israeli Knesset, Mr Bush had appeared to compare proponents of negotiations with leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president, to the champions of appeasement with Nazi Germany. But in coming days Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, is due to present Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s foreign minister with a formal proposal for talks between Tehran and the world’s big powers – including the US.
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr Bush had said in the Knesset. “We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement.”
However, his tough rhetoric – which was interpreted as an attack on the likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama – appears to be at odds with what some analysts see as Washington’s diminishing influence in the Middle East, amid rival pressures from countries in the region, European allies and even the US presidential campaign.
The administration told Israel of its doubts about the usefulness of negotiations with Syria. But when the news of the talks broke, Washington had little option but to endorse its ally’s initiative, albeit with a note of scepticism.
Similarly, US officials had indicated their desire for Lebanon’s government to take a forceful position regarding Hizbollah. But when the two sides agreed to give the militant Shia movement a blocking minority in the Lebanese cabinet in return for ending an impasse over the country’s presidency, Washington called the deal “necessary and positive”.
Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, argues that Hizbollah will ultimately be weakened because it reduced its legitimacy by turning its guns on Lebanese citizens in the confrontation that preceded the agreement.
But Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Centre at the Brookings Institution, a liberal Washington think-tank, and a former Clinton administration official, says Lebanon is just one of several theatres that has exposed Mr Bush’s reduced clout in the Middle East. “This administration is running out of juice,” he says. “The reality is that Hizbollah won this round.”
As for Iran, the US has reluctantly acceded to the idea of a new offer to Tehran as a quid pro quo for European, Russian and Chinese support for the most recent United Nations resolution imposing sanctions against Iran.
“The question isn’t why we won’t talk to Tehran,” Ms Rice said on Sunday, stressing the big powers’ current insistence that Iran halt uranium enrichment before negotiations begin. “The question is why won’t Tehran talk to us.”
Despite this official US line, the issue of whether engagement with hostile regimes amounts to appeasement has become one of the most divisive topics in the US presidential contest so far. This is partly because of the declared willingness of Mr Obama to meet Iran’s leaders.
Meanwhile, Mr Bush has increasingly sought to project White House resolve over Iran – a resolve queried by some of Washington’s regional allies following a US intelligence report last year that concluded that Tehran had halted a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.
The tougher presidential statements have occasionally backfired. The White House now says it has no knowledge of any specific declaration by Iran of its intent to acquire nuclear weapons, despite statements to the contrary by Mr Bush.
In March, he said on Voice of America’s Persian news network that Iran was isolated “because of the government’s decisions on foreign policy matters – such as announcing they want to destroy countries with a nuclear weapon”.
Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said Mr Bush had been using “shorthand”.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Negroponte says US to help rid roots of terrorism in the Philippines
It will be news to many Filipinos I should think to hear that the corruption situation has improved very much if at all. Negroponte is of course all for democracy, peace, the elimination of poverty etc. as long as a country agrees to recognise U.S. supremacy. Negroponte is really a sterling example of U.S. concern for human rights in its satrapies. Here is a clip from an article by Noam Chomsky:
But nobody should overlook the ominous precedent: Negroponte learned his trade as US ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s, during the Reaganite phase of many of the incumbents in Washington, when the first war on terror was declared in Central America and the Middle East.
In April, Carla Anne Robbins of The Wall Street Journal wrote about Negroponte's Iraq appointment under the heading Modern Proconsul. In Honduras, Negroponte was known as 'the proconsul', a title given to powerful administrators in colonial times." There, he presided over the second largest embassy in Latin America, with the largest CIA station in the world at that time - and not because Honduras was a centrepiece of world power.
Robbins observed that Negroponte has been criticised by human-rights activists for "covering up abuses by the Honduran military" - a euphemism for large-scale state terror - "to ensure the flow of US aid" to this vital country, which was "the base for President Reagan's covert war against Nicaragua's Sandinista government."
The covert war was launched after the Sandinista revolution took control in Nicaragua. Washington's professed fear was that a second Cuba might develop in this Central American nation. In Honduras, proconsul Negroponte's task was to supervise the bases where a terrorist mercenary army - the Contras - was trained, armed and sent to overthrow the Sandinistas.
In 1984, Nicaragua responded in a way appropriate to a law-abiding state by taking its case against the United States to the World Court in the Hague. The court ordered the United States to terminate the 'unlawful use of force' -- in lay terms, international terrorism -- against Nicaragua and to pay substantial reparations. But Washington ignored the court, then vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions affirming the judgment and calling on all states to observe international law.
US State Department legal adviser Abraham Sofaer explained the rationale. Since most of the world cannot be "counted on to share our view", we must "reserve to ourselves the power to determine" how we will act and which matters fall "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States" - in this case the actions in Nicaragua that the court condemned.
So you can expect Negroponte to encourage the AFP when they act as goon squads and that there will be more complaints of human rights groups about the role of the armed forces and police in eliminating activists. Negroponte will encourage state terrorism in the Philippines and this will ensure more military and other aid from the U.S.
Negroponte says US to help rid roots of terrorism in RP
By RODNEY J. JALECOABS-CBN North America News BureauWASHINGTON D.C. - A ranking US official reiterated that America is in for the long-haul to weed out the threat of terrorism in the Philippines.Addressing officials and guests at the vin d'honneur for the 110th anniversary of Philippine Independence here last Thursday, Deputy State Secretary John Negroponte cited the "extraordinary bonds" between the Philippines and US."We built a relationship based on commitment to democracy, strong people-to-people ties, commercial exchanges and cooperation in security affairs," he declared.He noted that the Philippines is home to one of the biggest American communities overseas. The State Department estimates there are 130,000 Americans living or working in the Philippines.By the same measure, there are 2.5 million Filipino-Americans residing in the US, he said."We work hard to ensure these human ties lead to greater bilateral understanding," Negroponte said."It is important to understand that the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the United States military work together not only in defending our peoples from terrorists but also in building conditions that allow people to live in peace," he stressed.Negroponte was ambassador to Manila in 1993-96. He was also the permanent US representative in the United Nations and later became the first Director of National Intelligence.Philippine Ambassador Willy Gaa said the elevation of the Philippines to "compact" status by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) marked a "new frontier" in relations between the two countries."This emphasizes the confidence of the US in our country and in the ability of our people and leaders to fight poverty and create sustainable growth," he said.The Philippines moved from "threshold" status to "compact eligible" after overcoming corruption concerns and meeting MCC standards on three broad parameters. This would open up hundreds of millions of dollars in possible aid for Philippine poverty-alleviation projects."As we move forward as a nation," the country's chief envoy averred, "there will be differences in opinions and concerns.""But we will continue to debate our differences peacefully and with respect. We will remain united in the pursuit of greater good for our people. I am confident that, together, we can do even more," Gaa stressed.He also cited Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, for his Philippine Independence Day message. In a letter last Friday, Gaa thanked "the Senator's warm wishes and call to the US Congress to pass the Veterans Benefits Enchancement Bill (which contain the equity provisions for Filipino World War II veterans)"."It is quite evident Senator Obama has a very good understanding of the historical foundations of strong Philippine-US relations and the valuable contributions made by the millions of Filipino immigrants to the United States," Gaa declared.Negroponte suggested that relations between the two countries can only grow in the years ahead. On the economic front, he said the American investors are active in the energy, semi-conductor, electronics and food and beverage sectors.The Peace Corps, he added, has already sent over 8,000 volunteers to the Philippines. They are spread all over the archipelago, working as teachers, farm technicians and workers in other technology extension activities. He noted that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) provides about $80 million a year - more than half going to Mindanao."The US signed a $190 million pledge last September for an agreement that will bring further economic growth to Mindanao," Negroponte said.He enumerated other US commitments, including the Philippine Defense Reform program, which aims to improve capabilities of the AFP.
But nobody should overlook the ominous precedent: Negroponte learned his trade as US ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s, during the Reaganite phase of many of the incumbents in Washington, when the first war on terror was declared in Central America and the Middle East.
In April, Carla Anne Robbins of The Wall Street Journal wrote about Negroponte's Iraq appointment under the heading Modern Proconsul. In Honduras, Negroponte was known as 'the proconsul', a title given to powerful administrators in colonial times." There, he presided over the second largest embassy in Latin America, with the largest CIA station in the world at that time - and not because Honduras was a centrepiece of world power.
Robbins observed that Negroponte has been criticised by human-rights activists for "covering up abuses by the Honduran military" - a euphemism for large-scale state terror - "to ensure the flow of US aid" to this vital country, which was "the base for President Reagan's covert war against Nicaragua's Sandinista government."
The covert war was launched after the Sandinista revolution took control in Nicaragua. Washington's professed fear was that a second Cuba might develop in this Central American nation. In Honduras, proconsul Negroponte's task was to supervise the bases where a terrorist mercenary army - the Contras - was trained, armed and sent to overthrow the Sandinistas.
In 1984, Nicaragua responded in a way appropriate to a law-abiding state by taking its case against the United States to the World Court in the Hague. The court ordered the United States to terminate the 'unlawful use of force' -- in lay terms, international terrorism -- against Nicaragua and to pay substantial reparations. But Washington ignored the court, then vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions affirming the judgment and calling on all states to observe international law.
US State Department legal adviser Abraham Sofaer explained the rationale. Since most of the world cannot be "counted on to share our view", we must "reserve to ourselves the power to determine" how we will act and which matters fall "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States" - in this case the actions in Nicaragua that the court condemned.
So you can expect Negroponte to encourage the AFP when they act as goon squads and that there will be more complaints of human rights groups about the role of the armed forces and police in eliminating activists. Negroponte will encourage state terrorism in the Philippines and this will ensure more military and other aid from the U.S.
Negroponte says US to help rid roots of terrorism in RP
By RODNEY J. JALECOABS-CBN North America News BureauWASHINGTON D.C. - A ranking US official reiterated that America is in for the long-haul to weed out the threat of terrorism in the Philippines.Addressing officials and guests at the vin d'honneur for the 110th anniversary of Philippine Independence here last Thursday, Deputy State Secretary John Negroponte cited the "extraordinary bonds" between the Philippines and US."We built a relationship based on commitment to democracy, strong people-to-people ties, commercial exchanges and cooperation in security affairs," he declared.He noted that the Philippines is home to one of the biggest American communities overseas. The State Department estimates there are 130,000 Americans living or working in the Philippines.By the same measure, there are 2.5 million Filipino-Americans residing in the US, he said."We work hard to ensure these human ties lead to greater bilateral understanding," Negroponte said."It is important to understand that the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the United States military work together not only in defending our peoples from terrorists but also in building conditions that allow people to live in peace," he stressed.Negroponte was ambassador to Manila in 1993-96. He was also the permanent US representative in the United Nations and later became the first Director of National Intelligence.Philippine Ambassador Willy Gaa said the elevation of the Philippines to "compact" status by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) marked a "new frontier" in relations between the two countries."This emphasizes the confidence of the US in our country and in the ability of our people and leaders to fight poverty and create sustainable growth," he said.The Philippines moved from "threshold" status to "compact eligible" after overcoming corruption concerns and meeting MCC standards on three broad parameters. This would open up hundreds of millions of dollars in possible aid for Philippine poverty-alleviation projects."As we move forward as a nation," the country's chief envoy averred, "there will be differences in opinions and concerns.""But we will continue to debate our differences peacefully and with respect. We will remain united in the pursuit of greater good for our people. I am confident that, together, we can do even more," Gaa stressed.He also cited Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, for his Philippine Independence Day message. In a letter last Friday, Gaa thanked "the Senator's warm wishes and call to the US Congress to pass the Veterans Benefits Enchancement Bill (which contain the equity provisions for Filipino World War II veterans)"."It is quite evident Senator Obama has a very good understanding of the historical foundations of strong Philippine-US relations and the valuable contributions made by the millions of Filipino immigrants to the United States," Gaa declared.Negroponte suggested that relations between the two countries can only grow in the years ahead. On the economic front, he said the American investors are active in the energy, semi-conductor, electronics and food and beverage sectors.The Peace Corps, he added, has already sent over 8,000 volunteers to the Philippines. They are spread all over the archipelago, working as teachers, farm technicians and workers in other technology extension activities. He noted that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) provides about $80 million a year - more than half going to Mindanao."The US signed a $190 million pledge last September for an agreement that will bring further economic growth to Mindanao," Negroponte said.He enumerated other US commitments, including the Philippine Defense Reform program, which aims to improve capabilities of the AFP.
Sen. Graham: Amend Constitution to overturn court's ruling.
The Supreme Court has shown that justice is not quite yet dead in the U.S. as far as treatment of terror suspects is concerned but with secret prisons, rendering, and Guantanamo it might as well be. The U.S. is an abomination among nations as far as treatment of terror suspects is concerned. Innocent people are snatched off the streets in Pakistan and elsewhere and sold to U.S. agents as terrorists often to make money or in retribution for some perceived wrong. Months or years later they are found to be of "no value" or of no danger and released with no compensation or redress for the wrongs done to them. In Italy a suspect being watched and investigated by Italian police, Hassan Nasr, is kidnapped and spirited out of the country and rendered to Egypt. As a result, CIA agents are tried in absentia in Italy for their multiple violations of Italian law. Of course the U.S. refuses to co-operate. Another suspected terrorist but actually innocent person Khalid Masri is also spirited off while on his vacation and rendered to various places and apparently tortured before his captors decided he was not the person he was after. There has been no recognition on the part of the U.S. that anything was ever done wrong. In Canada we have the famous Arar case in which a dual Syrian Canadian citizen was detained while simply stopping at a NEw York airport on his way back to Canada from vacation. He was judged to be an Al Qaeda agent at a hearing in which he had no counsel and instead of deporting him to Canada he was deported to Syria where he was tortured and kept imprisoned for ages. An extensive inquiry in Canada cleared his name and the government gave him about 10 million dollars. The U.S. has given him nothing and even kept him on a no-fly list. So Senator Graham wants to make the U.S. safe for kangaroo courts and enshrine illegality in the U.S. constitution.
Graham: Amend Constitution to overturn court's ruling
By James Rosen McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — A dejected Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday on Guantanamo Bay detainees, calling it "dangerous and irresponsible."
The South Carolina Republican, who's also a military lawyer and a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, helped craft the Military Commissions Act and had confidently predicted that it would pass high court muster.
The Supreme Court repudiated Graham in a 5-4 decision, ruling that the 270 alleged terrorists being held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal courts.
"The court's ruling makes clear the legal rights given to al Qaida members today should exceed those provided to the Nazis during World War II," Graham said. "Our nation is at war. It's truly unfortunate the Supreme Court did not recognize and appreciate that fact."
The high court's decision was its third ruling in four years against the special powers that President Bush has claimed the executive branch has to detain and try suspected terrorists since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
With Graham in the lead, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in September 2006 after an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the Bush administration couldn't set up a new system for prosecuting alleged terrorists without congressional approval.
The fresh Supreme Court decision is a major blow for Graham politically, eviscerating a law that he recently cited as one of the three achievements of his first Senate term that he was most proud of.
"To the extent that Lindsey Graham wanted to get the federal courts out of the process (of prosecuting detainees) altogether, this ruling is an absolute loss for him, and it's one that Congress can't go back around," said Thomas Crocker, a University of South Carolina law professor.
Graham said he'd explore the possibility of drafting a constitutional amendment "to blunt the effect of this decision."
Any constitutional amendment would be unlikely to move in Congress during the waning months of a lame-duck presidency, however, and at the height of a campaign for the White House.
Graham's talk of a constitutional amendment indicated how little room the Supreme Court has left him, Sen. John McCain — the presumptive Republican presidential nominee — and Bush in their long-standing effort to create a separate trial system outside the federal courts for alleged terrorists.
Graham said that the law gave terrorism suspects at Guantanamo adequate protections, including the power to ask tribunals to review their detainments and to challenge convictions before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
With the Supreme Court now giving detainees full access to the federal courts, Graham warned that "some of the most liberal district courts in the country will have an opportunity to determine who is a threat to the United States."
"Federal judges will now be in charge of the day-to-day military prisons and the interrogation of prisoners," Graham said. "This will empower activist lawyers and interest groups to intervene in basic military matters for the first time in history."
Crocker of USC, though, said Graham was exaggerating the effects of the ruling.
"The court does not claim it has the power to make military decisions, but it does claim the power granted it under the Constitution to hear certain claims properly brought under the writ of habeas corpus," Crocker said.
Graham: Amend Constitution to overturn court's ruling
By James Rosen McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — A dejected Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday on Guantanamo Bay detainees, calling it "dangerous and irresponsible."
The South Carolina Republican, who's also a military lawyer and a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, helped craft the Military Commissions Act and had confidently predicted that it would pass high court muster.
The Supreme Court repudiated Graham in a 5-4 decision, ruling that the 270 alleged terrorists being held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal courts.
"The court's ruling makes clear the legal rights given to al Qaida members today should exceed those provided to the Nazis during World War II," Graham said. "Our nation is at war. It's truly unfortunate the Supreme Court did not recognize and appreciate that fact."
The high court's decision was its third ruling in four years against the special powers that President Bush has claimed the executive branch has to detain and try suspected terrorists since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
With Graham in the lead, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in September 2006 after an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the Bush administration couldn't set up a new system for prosecuting alleged terrorists without congressional approval.
The fresh Supreme Court decision is a major blow for Graham politically, eviscerating a law that he recently cited as one of the three achievements of his first Senate term that he was most proud of.
"To the extent that Lindsey Graham wanted to get the federal courts out of the process (of prosecuting detainees) altogether, this ruling is an absolute loss for him, and it's one that Congress can't go back around," said Thomas Crocker, a University of South Carolina law professor.
Graham said he'd explore the possibility of drafting a constitutional amendment "to blunt the effect of this decision."
Any constitutional amendment would be unlikely to move in Congress during the waning months of a lame-duck presidency, however, and at the height of a campaign for the White House.
Graham's talk of a constitutional amendment indicated how little room the Supreme Court has left him, Sen. John McCain — the presumptive Republican presidential nominee — and Bush in their long-standing effort to create a separate trial system outside the federal courts for alleged terrorists.
Graham said that the law gave terrorism suspects at Guantanamo adequate protections, including the power to ask tribunals to review their detainments and to challenge convictions before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
With the Supreme Court now giving detainees full access to the federal courts, Graham warned that "some of the most liberal district courts in the country will have an opportunity to determine who is a threat to the United States."
"Federal judges will now be in charge of the day-to-day military prisons and the interrogation of prisoners," Graham said. "This will empower activist lawyers and interest groups to intervene in basic military matters for the first time in history."
Crocker of USC, though, said Graham was exaggerating the effects of the ruling.
"The court does not claim it has the power to make military decisions, but it does claim the power granted it under the Constitution to hear certain claims properly brought under the writ of habeas corpus," Crocker said.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Maliki raises possibility that Iraq might ask U.S. to leave
This is from McClatchy Newspapers.
It never seems to dawn on most U.S. commentators that when withdrawal takes place is not just a matter to be debated among U.S. politicians! While Al Maliki is probably just posturing in order to gain popularity at home and put pressure on the U.S. to modify its position there is always the possibility that the U.S. will so irritate Iraqi public opinion that forces will be asked to leave although until the Iraqi armed forces became stronger this is unlikely.
Maliki raises possibility that Iraq might ask U.S. to leave
By Leila Fadel and Mike Tharp McClatchy Newspaper
BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki raised the possibility that his country won't sign a status of forces agreement with the United States and will ask U.S. troops to go home when their U.N. mandate to be in Iraq expires at the end of the year.
Maliki made the comment after weeks of complaints from Shiite Muslim lawmakers that U.S. proposals that would govern a continued troop presence in Iraq would infringe on Iraq's sovereignty.
"Iraq has another option that it may use," Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."
Earlier, Maliki acknowledged that talks with the U.S. on a status of forces agreement "reached an impasse" after the American negotiators presented a draft that would have given the U.S. access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for both U.S. soldiers and private contractors.
The Iraqis rejected those demands, and U.S. diplomats have submitted a second draft, which Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told McClatchy included several major concessions. Among those would be allowing Iraq to prosecute private contractors for violations of Iraqi law and requiring U.S. forces to turn over to Iraqi authorities Iraqis that the Americans detain.
Salih stressed that the Iraqi government wants to reach an agreement with the United States. But he said the Iraqi government wouldn't be pressured into accepting terms that compromised Iraq's rights as a sovereign state.
"Our American allies need to understand and realize that this agreement must be respectful of Iraqi sovereignty," Salih said. "We need them here for a while longer, and they know they have to remain here for a while."
American negotiators have hoped the talks would be finished by the end of July, but Maliki's latest remarks — as well as those by influential members of parliament — make that deadline seem unrealistic.
"When we got to demands made by the American side we found that they greatly infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq and this is something we can ever accept," Maliki said. "We reached a clear disagreement. But I can assure you that all Iraqis would reject an agreement that violates Iraqi sovereignty in any way."
Maliki indicated that officials on both sides were looking for an agreement.
"Negotiations will continue," Maliki said, "by adding new ideas from Plans A, then B, then C, until we reach the decision that ensures the sovereignty of Iraq."
In Baghdad, U.S. Embassy spokesman Armand Cucciniello said Maliki "was referring to the first draft" of the agreement and that negotiations would continue "based on the fundamental principle of Iraqi sovereignty. We are looking forward to a successful conclusion of the negotiations."
Some Iraqi officials, however, said they're concerned that Maliki has become overconfident of his military's ability to defend his government and might believe Iraqi forces alone can maintain security here without the help of U.S. troops.
Maliki's confidence in the security forces' abilities are fed, these officials say by the Iraqi security forces' recent successes in Basra, Mosul and Baghdad's Sadr City area, where Iraqi troops have disarmed rival Sunni and Shiite forces and brought relative calm to once troubled areas.
But many here belive that U.S. backing was critical to those successes.
"I don't know how much of this is posturing in the negotiations," said one senior government official, who asked not to be identified because he did not want to be seen as undercutting Maliki’s position. "If tomorrow the Americans decide to leave, I want to caution against overconfidence. It’s still very precarious and we don't have the capabilities yet to fend for ourselves."
Maliki also said that any agreement for a continued U.S. presence here would be voted on by Iraq's parliament, a statement that also makes it unlikely that an agreement will be reached without considerable give by the Americans.
The status of forces agreement was the backdrop as well for an announcement by rebel Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr that he had created a special branch of his militia that would be allowed to carry weapons and attack American troops.
The remainder of his 60,000-strong Mahdi Army militia is expected to lay down its weapons. The announcement comes two months before a ceasefire that has been in effect for 10 months ends.
Sadr has been struggling for the past year to remain at the head of a militant anti-American movement and at the same time remain part of Iraq's political process. In August he ordered his followers to observe a ceasefire that has largely held despite complaints from his followers that they are being attacked and arrested by government-allied forces.
Mahdi Army militiamen were the principal targets of Maliki's recent military offensives in Basra and Sadr City and another offensive reportedly is being prepared for Amara, a Sadr stronghold in southern Iraq.
The creation of a separate wing authorized to attack U.S. forces may be intended to streamline the Mahdi Army and allow Sadr to maintain the ability to undertake military actions even as he accedes to government demands that most of his followers disarm.
Militants authorized to carry weapons "will direct them toward the occupier only. In fact, all other attacks will be prohibited," Sadr's statement said.
The rest of his followers would resist "Western ideology" through "cultural, religious and ideological means."
A top aide, Salah al Obaidi, said the statement was a rejection of any long-term presence by U.S. troops in Iraq by creating a special force to fight the Americans.
"We know that a number of American soldiers will pull outside of Iraq and they will concentrate their presence in certain bases and so we need to change the way we work," Obaidi said. "It is a message to the people negotiating the agreement that as long as there are American forces inside Iraq, we cannot stray from what we have adopted in our principles — to oppose the American presence in Iraq."
It never seems to dawn on most U.S. commentators that when withdrawal takes place is not just a matter to be debated among U.S. politicians! While Al Maliki is probably just posturing in order to gain popularity at home and put pressure on the U.S. to modify its position there is always the possibility that the U.S. will so irritate Iraqi public opinion that forces will be asked to leave although until the Iraqi armed forces became stronger this is unlikely.
Maliki raises possibility that Iraq might ask U.S. to leave
By Leila Fadel and Mike Tharp McClatchy Newspaper
BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki raised the possibility that his country won't sign a status of forces agreement with the United States and will ask U.S. troops to go home when their U.N. mandate to be in Iraq expires at the end of the year.
Maliki made the comment after weeks of complaints from Shiite Muslim lawmakers that U.S. proposals that would govern a continued troop presence in Iraq would infringe on Iraq's sovereignty.
"Iraq has another option that it may use," Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."
Earlier, Maliki acknowledged that talks with the U.S. on a status of forces agreement "reached an impasse" after the American negotiators presented a draft that would have given the U.S. access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for both U.S. soldiers and private contractors.
The Iraqis rejected those demands, and U.S. diplomats have submitted a second draft, which Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told McClatchy included several major concessions. Among those would be allowing Iraq to prosecute private contractors for violations of Iraqi law and requiring U.S. forces to turn over to Iraqi authorities Iraqis that the Americans detain.
Salih stressed that the Iraqi government wants to reach an agreement with the United States. But he said the Iraqi government wouldn't be pressured into accepting terms that compromised Iraq's rights as a sovereign state.
"Our American allies need to understand and realize that this agreement must be respectful of Iraqi sovereignty," Salih said. "We need them here for a while longer, and they know they have to remain here for a while."
American negotiators have hoped the talks would be finished by the end of July, but Maliki's latest remarks — as well as those by influential members of parliament — make that deadline seem unrealistic.
"When we got to demands made by the American side we found that they greatly infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq and this is something we can ever accept," Maliki said. "We reached a clear disagreement. But I can assure you that all Iraqis would reject an agreement that violates Iraqi sovereignty in any way."
Maliki indicated that officials on both sides were looking for an agreement.
"Negotiations will continue," Maliki said, "by adding new ideas from Plans A, then B, then C, until we reach the decision that ensures the sovereignty of Iraq."
In Baghdad, U.S. Embassy spokesman Armand Cucciniello said Maliki "was referring to the first draft" of the agreement and that negotiations would continue "based on the fundamental principle of Iraqi sovereignty. We are looking forward to a successful conclusion of the negotiations."
Some Iraqi officials, however, said they're concerned that Maliki has become overconfident of his military's ability to defend his government and might believe Iraqi forces alone can maintain security here without the help of U.S. troops.
Maliki's confidence in the security forces' abilities are fed, these officials say by the Iraqi security forces' recent successes in Basra, Mosul and Baghdad's Sadr City area, where Iraqi troops have disarmed rival Sunni and Shiite forces and brought relative calm to once troubled areas.
But many here belive that U.S. backing was critical to those successes.
"I don't know how much of this is posturing in the negotiations," said one senior government official, who asked not to be identified because he did not want to be seen as undercutting Maliki’s position. "If tomorrow the Americans decide to leave, I want to caution against overconfidence. It’s still very precarious and we don't have the capabilities yet to fend for ourselves."
Maliki also said that any agreement for a continued U.S. presence here would be voted on by Iraq's parliament, a statement that also makes it unlikely that an agreement will be reached without considerable give by the Americans.
The status of forces agreement was the backdrop as well for an announcement by rebel Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr that he had created a special branch of his militia that would be allowed to carry weapons and attack American troops.
The remainder of his 60,000-strong Mahdi Army militia is expected to lay down its weapons. The announcement comes two months before a ceasefire that has been in effect for 10 months ends.
Sadr has been struggling for the past year to remain at the head of a militant anti-American movement and at the same time remain part of Iraq's political process. In August he ordered his followers to observe a ceasefire that has largely held despite complaints from his followers that they are being attacked and arrested by government-allied forces.
Mahdi Army militiamen were the principal targets of Maliki's recent military offensives in Basra and Sadr City and another offensive reportedly is being prepared for Amara, a Sadr stronghold in southern Iraq.
The creation of a separate wing authorized to attack U.S. forces may be intended to streamline the Mahdi Army and allow Sadr to maintain the ability to undertake military actions even as he accedes to government demands that most of his followers disarm.
Militants authorized to carry weapons "will direct them toward the occupier only. In fact, all other attacks will be prohibited," Sadr's statement said.
The rest of his followers would resist "Western ideology" through "cultural, religious and ideological means."
A top aide, Salah al Obaidi, said the statement was a rejection of any long-term presence by U.S. troops in Iraq by creating a special force to fight the Americans.
"We know that a number of American soldiers will pull outside of Iraq and they will concentrate their presence in certain bases and so we need to change the way we work," Obaidi said. "It is a message to the people negotiating the agreement that as long as there are American forces inside Iraq, we cannot stray from what we have adopted in our principles — to oppose the American presence in Iraq."
Blockade to last the weekend and then be pared back.
Judges have a real genius for understatement. Justice Salmers avers that GM was ''almost deceitful". I think that Buzz Hargrove would leave out the "almost" and substitute a few swearwords. Buzz would be more accurate!
GM was 'almost deceitful': judge
Union blockade allowed to continue over weekend, then must be pared back
GREG KEENAN
June 14, 2008
An Ontario Superior Court judge has chastised General Motors Corp. for announcing the shutdown of a truck plant in Oshawa, Ont., two weeks after signing a new contract with the Canadian Auto Workers that contained commitments that the plant would be kept open.
Mr. Justice David Salmers granted an injunction yesterday ordering the union to end a blockade of the company's Canadian head office and limit its pickets to 20 people, but said the auto maker "should not be rewarded for improper conduct."
So instead of ordering an immediate end to the protest, Judge Salmers will allow it to continue this weekend before restricting the union to 20 pickets beginning at 7 a.m., Monday.
The union began blockading the General Motors of Canada Ltd. headquarters in Oshawa one day after its parent, GM Corp., announced that it will cease production of pickup trucks in Oshawa next year.
That announcement on June 3 was castigated by union officials as a "betrayal" because it came so quickly after GM Canada signed a new contract with the CAW that committed the company to building the next generation of its pickups in Oshawa in 2011.
Officials at GM's head office in Detroit would have known that the plant was in danger of being closed, Judge Salmers wrote.
"Knowing the dire straits of the truck market, for some time before June 1, 2008, these sophisticated business people would have considered the possibility that the Oshawa truck plant might have to be closed," he wrote.
Two clauses in the new contract between the two parties called for the company to give notice to the union and have discussions before making major changes in production at any of GM's Canadian plants.
The judge found that GM ignored those clauses.
"I find that GM Corp. engaged in almost deceitful business practice by allowing GM Canada's lead negotiators to agree to the advance notice and discussion clauses in the May 15, 2008, agreement at a time when the truck business was in dire straits and when GM Corp. should have been at least aware of the possibility that plants, possibly including the Oshawa truck plant, might have to be closed," he wrote.
He also wrote that a party such as GM seeking relief from the court should possess so-called "clean hands," which means its own actions should not have created the situation it is trying to resolve.
"I find without hesitation that GM Canada does not come to court with clean hands," he ruled.
GM was 'almost deceitful': judge
Union blockade allowed to continue over weekend, then must be pared back
GREG KEENAN
June 14, 2008
An Ontario Superior Court judge has chastised General Motors Corp. for announcing the shutdown of a truck plant in Oshawa, Ont., two weeks after signing a new contract with the Canadian Auto Workers that contained commitments that the plant would be kept open.
Mr. Justice David Salmers granted an injunction yesterday ordering the union to end a blockade of the company's Canadian head office and limit its pickets to 20 people, but said the auto maker "should not be rewarded for improper conduct."
So instead of ordering an immediate end to the protest, Judge Salmers will allow it to continue this weekend before restricting the union to 20 pickets beginning at 7 a.m., Monday.
The union began blockading the General Motors of Canada Ltd. headquarters in Oshawa one day after its parent, GM Corp., announced that it will cease production of pickup trucks in Oshawa next year.
That announcement on June 3 was castigated by union officials as a "betrayal" because it came so quickly after GM Canada signed a new contract with the CAW that committed the company to building the next generation of its pickups in Oshawa in 2011.
Officials at GM's head office in Detroit would have known that the plant was in danger of being closed, Judge Salmers wrote.
"Knowing the dire straits of the truck market, for some time before June 1, 2008, these sophisticated business people would have considered the possibility that the Oshawa truck plant might have to be closed," he wrote.
Two clauses in the new contract between the two parties called for the company to give notice to the union and have discussions before making major changes in production at any of GM's Canadian plants.
The judge found that GM ignored those clauses.
"I find that GM Corp. engaged in almost deceitful business practice by allowing GM Canada's lead negotiators to agree to the advance notice and discussion clauses in the May 15, 2008, agreement at a time when the truck business was in dire straits and when GM Corp. should have been at least aware of the possibility that plants, possibly including the Oshawa truck plant, might have to be closed," he wrote.
He also wrote that a party such as GM seeking relief from the court should possess so-called "clean hands," which means its own actions should not have created the situation it is trying to resolve.
"I find without hesitation that GM Canada does not come to court with clean hands," he ruled.
The Afghan Mission
This is from the Globe and Mail.
Not surprisingly MacKay is just spouting a U.S. line although there is certainly a degree of truth in what he says. No one seems to worry about Pakistan's troubles just the NATO (read U.S.) mission (read occupation) of Afghanistan. The tribal territories have always been a law unto themselves and Pakistan has never been able to make them a stable part of the country. There seems to be no understanding that Pakistan would at least like to have some degree of peace in the area and not face continuing loss of troops and violent attacks in the rest of Pakistan.
The groups on either side of the border are related to each other and a border created by authorities they have little regard for is not going to stop them from going back and forth as they see fit.
THE AFGHAN MISSION
Pakistan's deals a threat, MacKay warns
Agreements with tribal groups could give Taliban freer rein along border, Defence Minister says
CAMPBELL CLARK
June 14, 2008
OTTAWA -- Hopes that Pakistan's new government would prevent Taliban insurgents from crossing the border with Afghanistan are being dashed by deals with tribal groups that threaten to give them freer rein, Defence Minister Peter MacKay warned yesterday.
Pakistan's unstable new government has insisted it is only striking security deals with "peace-loving" tribal groups to secure control over its fractious tribal regions along the Afghan border, but U.S. officials have raised fears the agreements to withdraw Pakistani security forces will ease pressure on insurgents.
Yesterday, Mr. MacKay expressed concern that the Pakistani government was essentially cutting non-aggression pacts with the Taliban that would allow insurgents to move back and forth across the border as long as they do not engage Pakistani forces.
"With a new government, there was hope that this was going to lead to greater, more robust participation on their part. It hasn't quite turned out that way. In fact, some would argue that it may get worse if they're cutting deals with the Taliban," Mr. MacKay said in an interview from London, en route from a NATO conference in Brussels.
"It certainly could make it worse if they're making agreements that they will lay off - that is, the Pakistan security forces will not, essentially, press them, and arrest them if need be, and the understanding is as long as they don't cause problems inside their borders, they'll be left alone. Well, that doesn't do us any good. And it certainly doesn't do Afghanistan any good at all."
Canada's 2,500 troops operate mainly in Kandahar province, in Afghanistan's southeast, where insurgents are often able to slip over the Pakistan border to regroup.
Mr. MacKay said that more border police, checkpoints, aerial surveillance and even fences are needed, but also "various countries, at the highest levels" will have to apply intensified diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to do more to control the border.
"That border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is still a sieve. And you have insurgents being plucked out of those incubators, those refugee camps in Pakistan, and they're still flooding into the country," he said.
Whether Pakistan's shaky government has the will or the power to assert real control is far from certain, however.
Most of Pakistan's own border regions are essentially governed by tribal leaders and warlords who, at best, acknowledge Pakistan's suzerainty, but feel little real attachment to the country.
The new government of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has been shaken by the withdrawal of its coalition partner. It must also contend with pressure from a dominant army, which relies on U.S. military aid, and deep public frustration with U.S. influence.
In the interview, Mr. MacKay also expressed hope that NATO allies were moving toward additional "burden sharing" for Afghanistan's south, and said Canada made a pitch to countries who will not commit combat troops to send equipment or support units instead.
Not surprisingly MacKay is just spouting a U.S. line although there is certainly a degree of truth in what he says. No one seems to worry about Pakistan's troubles just the NATO (read U.S.) mission (read occupation) of Afghanistan. The tribal territories have always been a law unto themselves and Pakistan has never been able to make them a stable part of the country. There seems to be no understanding that Pakistan would at least like to have some degree of peace in the area and not face continuing loss of troops and violent attacks in the rest of Pakistan.
The groups on either side of the border are related to each other and a border created by authorities they have little regard for is not going to stop them from going back and forth as they see fit.
THE AFGHAN MISSION
Pakistan's deals a threat, MacKay warns
Agreements with tribal groups could give Taliban freer rein along border, Defence Minister says
CAMPBELL CLARK
June 14, 2008
OTTAWA -- Hopes that Pakistan's new government would prevent Taliban insurgents from crossing the border with Afghanistan are being dashed by deals with tribal groups that threaten to give them freer rein, Defence Minister Peter MacKay warned yesterday.
Pakistan's unstable new government has insisted it is only striking security deals with "peace-loving" tribal groups to secure control over its fractious tribal regions along the Afghan border, but U.S. officials have raised fears the agreements to withdraw Pakistani security forces will ease pressure on insurgents.
Yesterday, Mr. MacKay expressed concern that the Pakistani government was essentially cutting non-aggression pacts with the Taliban that would allow insurgents to move back and forth across the border as long as they do not engage Pakistani forces.
"With a new government, there was hope that this was going to lead to greater, more robust participation on their part. It hasn't quite turned out that way. In fact, some would argue that it may get worse if they're cutting deals with the Taliban," Mr. MacKay said in an interview from London, en route from a NATO conference in Brussels.
"It certainly could make it worse if they're making agreements that they will lay off - that is, the Pakistan security forces will not, essentially, press them, and arrest them if need be, and the understanding is as long as they don't cause problems inside their borders, they'll be left alone. Well, that doesn't do us any good. And it certainly doesn't do Afghanistan any good at all."
Canada's 2,500 troops operate mainly in Kandahar province, in Afghanistan's southeast, where insurgents are often able to slip over the Pakistan border to regroup.
Mr. MacKay said that more border police, checkpoints, aerial surveillance and even fences are needed, but also "various countries, at the highest levels" will have to apply intensified diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to do more to control the border.
"That border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is still a sieve. And you have insurgents being plucked out of those incubators, those refugee camps in Pakistan, and they're still flooding into the country," he said.
Whether Pakistan's shaky government has the will or the power to assert real control is far from certain, however.
Most of Pakistan's own border regions are essentially governed by tribal leaders and warlords who, at best, acknowledge Pakistan's suzerainty, but feel little real attachment to the country.
The new government of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has been shaken by the withdrawal of its coalition partner. It must also contend with pressure from a dominant army, which relies on U.S. military aid, and deep public frustration with U.S. influence.
In the interview, Mr. MacKay also expressed hope that NATO allies were moving toward additional "burden sharing" for Afghanistan's south, and said Canada made a pitch to countries who will not commit combat troops to send equipment or support units instead.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Guantanamo ruling-the fallout..
What is surprising is that four judges dissented. Although I guess there are quite a few Bush type conservatives on the supreme court now. I would think that many other conservative types who are concerned about human rights and also upholding the U.S. constitution would vote along with any liberals on the court. I wonder if Bush will try to pass some legislation that tries to get around this ruling. This is a big defeat for Bush.
The article claims that both Obama and McCain are for closing Guantanamo. However, the problem of what to do with the prisoners would remain. This could be a problem for whomever gets elected president.
Guantanamo ruling - the fallout
By Kevin Connolly BBC News, Washington
The long-running and so-far inconclusive battle between the Supreme Court and the Bush administration over Guantanamo Bay has been like a High School political science class brought to life.
A power struggle between two branches of government has been playing out over one of the defining issues of this presidential term.
Over the course of the last few years, the executive has had the upper hand over the judiciary.
Consider, for example, how the White House and the Pentagon managed to work their way around a previous Supreme Court decision in 2004 which appeared to guarantee the Guantanamo detainees a right of appeal to the civilian justice system.
In response to that judgement, the US government began what it called Combatant Status Reviews of the detainees and created legislation to set up military commissions - the quasi-legal bodies which have already begun hearing the evidence against the accused.
But with this latest ruling, the Supreme Court appears to have restored its authority in these matters by producing a ruling which will be much more difficult for the administration to ignore.
For example, proceedings at those military commissions may now be interrupted or suspended while lawyers defending the accused assess how best to take advantage of the new Supreme Court ruling.
All are likely to ask federal judges to assess the legality of their detention.
Huge implications
Whatever you think about the morality and legitimacy of the Guantanamo detention facility, there can be no doubting the determination of the Bush administration to stick to its policy, regardless of judicial attempts to undermine it.
The legal implications of Thursday's judgement are huge - after all, it is at least possible that it might end with American judges ordering the American government to release foreign detainees.
It means that even though the US government deliberately built this camp in an American base on the island of Cuba - so that it is not on American soil - and even though the detainees are not US citizens, they are deemed to have rights under the constitution.
The Bush argument that those rights are forfeit because America is fighting a "war on terror" was dismissed.
The nine justices of the Supreme Court split five-four on the issue with one of the dissenting conservative judges warning that the decision could make the war on terror more dangerous.
But Anthony Kennedy spoke for the majority of the justices when he argued that the US Constitution and its laws are designed to function even in extraordinary times.
The political impact of today's Supreme Court ruling may not be quite so extensive, however.
It will mean of course that the Bush administration's decision to create this unprecedented system of detention will not be remembered by history as a decisive or successful means of dealing with a terrorist threat.
It has been mired in international disapproval and undermined by legal challenges from the very start, and diplomatically at least it has been counter-productive.
It will also ensure that this issue dominates the closing months of the Bush presidency - he has already said he will abide by the court's decision while making clear that he does not agree with it.
After Bush
But the timing of the announcement really serves to draw attention to just how close we know find ourselves to the end of the George W Bush era.
At a moment like this, our attention focuses automatically on the known attitudes of the two men competing to be the next president.
As it happens, both John McCain and Barack Obama (the Republican and Democrat respectively) have talked about closing Guantanamo Bay, so much of the political and legal heat may simply evaporate from the issue a few months down the road.
That does not mean that the issue would be over, of course.
No new American president could afford to make himself look weak on terrorism by simply releasing the detainees, so there would be difficult issues to resolve which might take time.
But when Mr Bush completes his second term, there will no longer be in the White House a powerful advocate for the system at Guantanamo Bay grimly determined to find a way of keeping it open regardless of the view of the courts.
It is hard to see what form a solution will take which balances America's perception of its own security priorities against the concerns of its own senior judges.
But one prediction can now safely be made.
Guantanamo may have been created on the watch of America's 43rd President - but its fate is almost certain to be determined during the first term of its 44th.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/
The article claims that both Obama and McCain are for closing Guantanamo. However, the problem of what to do with the prisoners would remain. This could be a problem for whomever gets elected president.
Guantanamo ruling - the fallout
By Kevin Connolly BBC News, Washington
The long-running and so-far inconclusive battle between the Supreme Court and the Bush administration over Guantanamo Bay has been like a High School political science class brought to life.
A power struggle between two branches of government has been playing out over one of the defining issues of this presidential term.
Over the course of the last few years, the executive has had the upper hand over the judiciary.
Consider, for example, how the White House and the Pentagon managed to work their way around a previous Supreme Court decision in 2004 which appeared to guarantee the Guantanamo detainees a right of appeal to the civilian justice system.
In response to that judgement, the US government began what it called Combatant Status Reviews of the detainees and created legislation to set up military commissions - the quasi-legal bodies which have already begun hearing the evidence against the accused.
But with this latest ruling, the Supreme Court appears to have restored its authority in these matters by producing a ruling which will be much more difficult for the administration to ignore.
For example, proceedings at those military commissions may now be interrupted or suspended while lawyers defending the accused assess how best to take advantage of the new Supreme Court ruling.
All are likely to ask federal judges to assess the legality of their detention.
Huge implications
Whatever you think about the morality and legitimacy of the Guantanamo detention facility, there can be no doubting the determination of the Bush administration to stick to its policy, regardless of judicial attempts to undermine it.
The legal implications of Thursday's judgement are huge - after all, it is at least possible that it might end with American judges ordering the American government to release foreign detainees.
It means that even though the US government deliberately built this camp in an American base on the island of Cuba - so that it is not on American soil - and even though the detainees are not US citizens, they are deemed to have rights under the constitution.
The Bush argument that those rights are forfeit because America is fighting a "war on terror" was dismissed.
The nine justices of the Supreme Court split five-four on the issue with one of the dissenting conservative judges warning that the decision could make the war on terror more dangerous.
But Anthony Kennedy spoke for the majority of the justices when he argued that the US Constitution and its laws are designed to function even in extraordinary times.
The political impact of today's Supreme Court ruling may not be quite so extensive, however.
It will mean of course that the Bush administration's decision to create this unprecedented system of detention will not be remembered by history as a decisive or successful means of dealing with a terrorist threat.
It has been mired in international disapproval and undermined by legal challenges from the very start, and diplomatically at least it has been counter-productive.
It will also ensure that this issue dominates the closing months of the Bush presidency - he has already said he will abide by the court's decision while making clear that he does not agree with it.
After Bush
But the timing of the announcement really serves to draw attention to just how close we know find ourselves to the end of the George W Bush era.
At a moment like this, our attention focuses automatically on the known attitudes of the two men competing to be the next president.
As it happens, both John McCain and Barack Obama (the Republican and Democrat respectively) have talked about closing Guantanamo Bay, so much of the political and legal heat may simply evaporate from the issue a few months down the road.
That does not mean that the issue would be over, of course.
No new American president could afford to make himself look weak on terrorism by simply releasing the detainees, so there would be difficult issues to resolve which might take time.
But when Mr Bush completes his second term, there will no longer be in the White House a powerful advocate for the system at Guantanamo Bay grimly determined to find a way of keeping it open regardless of the view of the courts.
It is hard to see what form a solution will take which balances America's perception of its own security priorities against the concerns of its own senior judges.
But one prediction can now safely be made.
Guantanamo may have been created on the watch of America's 43rd President - but its fate is almost certain to be determined during the first term of its 44th.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/
Thursday, June 12, 2008
U.S. enlists and arms patrols in Sadr City
If you can''t beat them then hire them. This avoids casualties and that plays well back home.
Of course in the long run those enrolled may decide in time that it is time to bite the hand that fed them. In effect if these are Sadr militia they are doing what they did before but being paid for it and not only are they not being disarmed by the govt. but being armed by the Americans. Good deal I would say from their point of view. On the other hand the U.S. can crow about the fact there is now hardly any violence in Sadr City.
U.S. Enlists And Arms Patrols in Sadr City'Neighborhood Guards' Modeled on Program In Sunni Areas of Iraq
By Amit R. PaleyWashington Post Foreign ServiceThursday, June 12, 2008; A13
BAGHDAD, June 11 -- Young men armed and paid by the U.S. military took to the streets of the Iraqi capital's Sadr City area for the first time Wednesday to guard their neighborhoods, part of a new strategy designed to recruit former Shiite militiamen to American-created security groups, U.S. officials said.
The program is modeled after a more than year-old initiative, now known as the Awakening movement, to pay men formerly aligned with the Sunni insurgency to turn against it. But the new groups, called "Neighborhood Guards" by the Americans and "Sons of Iraq" by Iraqis, are the first to focus solely on a heavily Shiite area and among the few to acknowledge arming civilians.
Toting AK-47 assault rifles for a $300-a-month salary, the young men are viewed by U.S. officials as the best way to address a dearth of security forces in Sadr City, the site of bitter clashes this spring between U.S. forces and militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The officials hope the initiative will lead some militia supporters away from violence by paying them to protect the area.
But even officers helping to create the program acknowledge there is risk in supplying weapons to men who may have recently encouraged violence against U.S. troops. "Are these guys all going to be lily-white angels? No," said Maj. Byron Sarchet, information operations officer for the brigade responsible for Sadr City. "We need to tread lightly."
As the orange fog of a dust storm enveloped the capital Wednesday afternoon, 11 young men in the new program stood at the entrance to a street in Jamila, a neighborhood of southwestern Sadr City where they all live. Standing watch from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., they glanced at every car and pedestrian entering the road to make sure they were locals and not strangers who might be up to no good.
Qais Ali, 32, a former taxi driver, wore the unusual standard-issue uniform: tan shirt, tan slacks and a tan baseball cap that said "SMIRNOFF" in blue-and-white lettering.
"We are here to protect our neighborhood and make sure the militias don't take control," Ali said as he waved on a rusty blue car. "These are our homes and it is our responsibility to protect them."
The young men acknowledged, however, that they were all at their posts to collect a wage in a district where unemployment is rampant. The $300 salaries are distributed by their leader, Bassim Abdullah Qassim, who said he was contracted by the U.S. military to hire and oversee 105 men over three months.
Lt. Col. Brian Eifler, commander of the U.S. battalion in Sadr City, said there was skepticism initially that Sadr City residents would volunteer to work with Americans. But he said the turnout has been overwhelming.
More than 270 people showed up one day last week looking for jobs in Jamila, he said, suggesting that fear of Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, is subsiding in at least some parts of Sadr City. All of the applicants are vetted by the U.S. military and must be vouched for by a tribal leader, Eifler said.
But Eifler said he does not inquire whether they belonged to the Mahdi Army. When asked if he hoped former militia members would apply, Eifler said: "Absolutely."
"They maybe were out riding the fence and now they have a chance for good solid employment," said Eifler, 39, of Detroit. "I think that's an opportunity."
Not all Iraqis agree. Lt. Col. Yehiye Rasul Abdullah, commander of the Iraqi army battalion in Jamila, recoiled at the idea of working with supporters of Mahdi Army fighters who killed his soldiers.
"Those who have contributed to the spilling of Iraqi blood, we will never accept them," he said after coming to check on the guards.
The 11 men on duty Wednesday were carrying some of the 48 AK-47s that Qassim said the U.S. military supplied him Tuesday. He said that the Americans did not have enough weapons for all of the men at the moment, but that the Iraqi military pledged to provide the rest.
"Neither the American military nor the Iraqi army were supposed to hand us weapons -- each volunteer was supposed to bring his own from his house," Qassim said. But at an initial meeting of 65 guards, it turned out that only five owned rifles. "So the Americans realized they had to help."
Eifler said the AK-47s came from seized weapons caches and that the U.S. military would continue to provide them as needed to the guards.
"Guys can't just go out and buy an AK-47 -- there's no AK-47 store," he said. "So we'd rather make sure these guys are outfitted and give them a job instead of having them turned away."
U.S. military officials began planning the new program as early as May, when troops were engaged in deadly fighting in Sadr City. They wanted to base the initiative on a U.S. program known as the Awakening movement among Iraqis but called the "Sons of Iraq" program by Americans. About 103,000 men across the country are involved, and more than 80 percent are Sunnis, the military says.
Lt. Col. Frank Curtis, commander of a civil affairs battalion in Sadr City, was put in charge of creating a version of the program tailored to the Shiite area of more than 2 million people. As he prepared last month to present the program to a local Shiite leader, he took a standard proposal used elsewhere in the country and crossed out the words "Sons of Iraq."
Underneath it, he wrote: "Neighborhood watch." No one wanted Shiites to boycott the initiative because they thought it was tied to a program dominated by Sunnis.
It was just after 6:30 p.m. on May 7 when Curtis and other U.S. officials sat down with the leader of Sadr City's Neighborhood 512, picked as the launching site for the program because it was a peaceful, relatively affluent area.
The leader, Kadham Saddam Manshad, nodded in excitement as Curtis described the initiative. But when it was proposed that he lead the group, Manshad looked startled. "Working with the coalition forces is risky," he said. "I do not want to be the public face."
U.S. officials began to worry that perhaps no neighborhood leader would participate. "I have to say: That meeting didn't go very well," Sarchet, the operations officer, said after the gathering. "Are we going to get this off the ground?"
But they soon found Qassim, 41, a former mobile phone card merchant who is now making nearly $4,000 to run the program. Among the volunteers is Manshad. "I just talked to him today," Eifler said, "and he said, 'I want to be in now!' "
The Americans have renamed the program "Neighborhood Guard." Eifler said the Iraqis told him the phrase "Neighborhood Watch" made them sound like spies. But the Shiite men on patrol Wednesday said they call themselves "Sons of Iraq," despite the possible Sunni connotations.
"Why would I be embarrassed by this name?" Qassim said. "Sunnis or Shiites, we are all the sons of Iraq."
Special correspondent Saad al-Izzi contributed to this report.
Of course in the long run those enrolled may decide in time that it is time to bite the hand that fed them. In effect if these are Sadr militia they are doing what they did before but being paid for it and not only are they not being disarmed by the govt. but being armed by the Americans. Good deal I would say from their point of view. On the other hand the U.S. can crow about the fact there is now hardly any violence in Sadr City.
U.S. Enlists And Arms Patrols in Sadr City'Neighborhood Guards' Modeled on Program In Sunni Areas of Iraq
By Amit R. PaleyWashington Post Foreign ServiceThursday, June 12, 2008; A13
BAGHDAD, June 11 -- Young men armed and paid by the U.S. military took to the streets of the Iraqi capital's Sadr City area for the first time Wednesday to guard their neighborhoods, part of a new strategy designed to recruit former Shiite militiamen to American-created security groups, U.S. officials said.
The program is modeled after a more than year-old initiative, now known as the Awakening movement, to pay men formerly aligned with the Sunni insurgency to turn against it. But the new groups, called "Neighborhood Guards" by the Americans and "Sons of Iraq" by Iraqis, are the first to focus solely on a heavily Shiite area and among the few to acknowledge arming civilians.
Toting AK-47 assault rifles for a $300-a-month salary, the young men are viewed by U.S. officials as the best way to address a dearth of security forces in Sadr City, the site of bitter clashes this spring between U.S. forces and militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The officials hope the initiative will lead some militia supporters away from violence by paying them to protect the area.
But even officers helping to create the program acknowledge there is risk in supplying weapons to men who may have recently encouraged violence against U.S. troops. "Are these guys all going to be lily-white angels? No," said Maj. Byron Sarchet, information operations officer for the brigade responsible for Sadr City. "We need to tread lightly."
As the orange fog of a dust storm enveloped the capital Wednesday afternoon, 11 young men in the new program stood at the entrance to a street in Jamila, a neighborhood of southwestern Sadr City where they all live. Standing watch from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., they glanced at every car and pedestrian entering the road to make sure they were locals and not strangers who might be up to no good.
Qais Ali, 32, a former taxi driver, wore the unusual standard-issue uniform: tan shirt, tan slacks and a tan baseball cap that said "SMIRNOFF" in blue-and-white lettering.
"We are here to protect our neighborhood and make sure the militias don't take control," Ali said as he waved on a rusty blue car. "These are our homes and it is our responsibility to protect them."
The young men acknowledged, however, that they were all at their posts to collect a wage in a district where unemployment is rampant. The $300 salaries are distributed by their leader, Bassim Abdullah Qassim, who said he was contracted by the U.S. military to hire and oversee 105 men over three months.
Lt. Col. Brian Eifler, commander of the U.S. battalion in Sadr City, said there was skepticism initially that Sadr City residents would volunteer to work with Americans. But he said the turnout has been overwhelming.
More than 270 people showed up one day last week looking for jobs in Jamila, he said, suggesting that fear of Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, is subsiding in at least some parts of Sadr City. All of the applicants are vetted by the U.S. military and must be vouched for by a tribal leader, Eifler said.
But Eifler said he does not inquire whether they belonged to the Mahdi Army. When asked if he hoped former militia members would apply, Eifler said: "Absolutely."
"They maybe were out riding the fence and now they have a chance for good solid employment," said Eifler, 39, of Detroit. "I think that's an opportunity."
Not all Iraqis agree. Lt. Col. Yehiye Rasul Abdullah, commander of the Iraqi army battalion in Jamila, recoiled at the idea of working with supporters of Mahdi Army fighters who killed his soldiers.
"Those who have contributed to the spilling of Iraqi blood, we will never accept them," he said after coming to check on the guards.
The 11 men on duty Wednesday were carrying some of the 48 AK-47s that Qassim said the U.S. military supplied him Tuesday. He said that the Americans did not have enough weapons for all of the men at the moment, but that the Iraqi military pledged to provide the rest.
"Neither the American military nor the Iraqi army were supposed to hand us weapons -- each volunteer was supposed to bring his own from his house," Qassim said. But at an initial meeting of 65 guards, it turned out that only five owned rifles. "So the Americans realized they had to help."
Eifler said the AK-47s came from seized weapons caches and that the U.S. military would continue to provide them as needed to the guards.
"Guys can't just go out and buy an AK-47 -- there's no AK-47 store," he said. "So we'd rather make sure these guys are outfitted and give them a job instead of having them turned away."
U.S. military officials began planning the new program as early as May, when troops were engaged in deadly fighting in Sadr City. They wanted to base the initiative on a U.S. program known as the Awakening movement among Iraqis but called the "Sons of Iraq" program by Americans. About 103,000 men across the country are involved, and more than 80 percent are Sunnis, the military says.
Lt. Col. Frank Curtis, commander of a civil affairs battalion in Sadr City, was put in charge of creating a version of the program tailored to the Shiite area of more than 2 million people. As he prepared last month to present the program to a local Shiite leader, he took a standard proposal used elsewhere in the country and crossed out the words "Sons of Iraq."
Underneath it, he wrote: "Neighborhood watch." No one wanted Shiites to boycott the initiative because they thought it was tied to a program dominated by Sunnis.
It was just after 6:30 p.m. on May 7 when Curtis and other U.S. officials sat down with the leader of Sadr City's Neighborhood 512, picked as the launching site for the program because it was a peaceful, relatively affluent area.
The leader, Kadham Saddam Manshad, nodded in excitement as Curtis described the initiative. But when it was proposed that he lead the group, Manshad looked startled. "Working with the coalition forces is risky," he said. "I do not want to be the public face."
U.S. officials began to worry that perhaps no neighborhood leader would participate. "I have to say: That meeting didn't go very well," Sarchet, the operations officer, said after the gathering. "Are we going to get this off the ground?"
But they soon found Qassim, 41, a former mobile phone card merchant who is now making nearly $4,000 to run the program. Among the volunteers is Manshad. "I just talked to him today," Eifler said, "and he said, 'I want to be in now!' "
The Americans have renamed the program "Neighborhood Guard." Eifler said the Iraqis told him the phrase "Neighborhood Watch" made them sound like spies. But the Shiite men on patrol Wednesday said they call themselves "Sons of Iraq," despite the possible Sunni connotations.
"Why would I be embarrassed by this name?" Qassim said. "Sunnis or Shiites, we are all the sons of Iraq."
Special correspondent Saad al-Izzi contributed to this report.
World donors pledge 21 billion for Afghanistan.
This is just part of the article the rest is at the URL noted. About half the aid will be coming from the U.S. This is fitting since it was the US idea in the first place to invade and overthrow the government with the help of the Northern Alliance. Zalmay Khalilzad a Bush protege is already being groomed to run against Karzai so that a more reliable puppet will be installed. All the graft is not just going to Afghans but to foreign contractors and of course the AID is not provided free by the companies that provide the aid. They often make hefty profits. It is a make work and make money project for many foreign firms. If the last round of pledges is any indication many pledges will never be honored.
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/385246
World donors pledge $21 billion for Afghanistan TheSpec.com - BreakingNews - World donors pledge $21 billion for Afghanistan TimeSincePublished("2008-06-12-13:46:46","2008-06-12","Jun. 12, 2008");-->
PARIS- World donors sought to bolster Afghanistan's fragile leadership Thursday with pledges of more than $21 billion in aid as the need to help secure and feed the country overshadowed concerns about pervasive corruption.The United States led the way, promising $10.2 billion.Donors pledged to co-ordinate their aid better than in the past, when billions poured into the country, often with little oversight. In a final statement, they also urged Afghan officials to tackle corruption.French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, in announcing the final sum, said the figure was beyond his dreams. It exceeds the $15 billion to $20 billion Afghan officials had hoped for."Afghanistan has reached a decisive moment for its future. We must not turn our back on this opportunity," first lady Laura Bush said.The new pledges are in addition to $25 billion pledged by the international community since 2002. However, only $15 billion- 60 per cent- of those previous pledges has been honoured so far.That's because it is almost impossible to police how and where the aid is spent.Security questions loom over every aid project since Karzai's western-backed administration has only a shaky grip on much of the country. The heroin trade is a key part of the economy, as is corruption.Most Afghans lack proper sanitation and 80 per cent have no electricity at home, despite $15 billion in international aid since the Taliban's ouster in 2001. Life expectancy remains under 50 years, and food shortages over the past year have pushed many Afghans to the brink.The Taliban still recruit in desperately poor rural areas, and their insurgency continues to claim lives more than six years after U.S.-led troops invaded following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks blamed on al-Qaida, whose militants the Taliban were sheltering.Afghanistan's still-tenuous security climate was highlighted by tensions over U.S. air strikes that may have killed friendly fighters in Pakistan along the Afghan border. The bombings Tuesday fuelled anti-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan, and could set back efforts to stem violence in the lawless region.Meanwhile, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates was expected to push NATO allies meeting Thursday in Brussels to send more troops and police instructors to Afghanistan. NATO's mission in Afghanistan has more than doubled, to 51,000, over the past two years, but commanders say it still lacks units for critical tasks like air transport and intelligence.. The money is a mix of what Congress already has approved for this year and next, and what the administration is still seeking before it leaves office.Other major donors included the Asian Development Bank, $1.3 billion; the World Bank, $1.1 billion; Britain, $1.2 billion, and the European Union, $775 million.A similar donors' conference in 2006 garnered pledges of $10.5 billion.
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/385246
© Copyright 2007 Metroland Media Group Ltd. All rights reserved. The reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thespec.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Metroland Media Group Ltd.
=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-')
//-->
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/385246
World donors pledge $21 billion for Afghanistan TheSpec.com - BreakingNews - World donors pledge $21 billion for Afghanistan TimeSincePublished("2008-06-12-13:46:46","2008-06-12","Jun. 12, 2008");-->
PARIS- World donors sought to bolster Afghanistan's fragile leadership Thursday with pledges of more than $21 billion in aid as the need to help secure and feed the country overshadowed concerns about pervasive corruption.The United States led the way, promising $10.2 billion.Donors pledged to co-ordinate their aid better than in the past, when billions poured into the country, often with little oversight. In a final statement, they also urged Afghan officials to tackle corruption.French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, in announcing the final sum, said the figure was beyond his dreams. It exceeds the $15 billion to $20 billion Afghan officials had hoped for."Afghanistan has reached a decisive moment for its future. We must not turn our back on this opportunity," first lady Laura Bush said.The new pledges are in addition to $25 billion pledged by the international community since 2002. However, only $15 billion- 60 per cent- of those previous pledges has been honoured so far.That's because it is almost impossible to police how and where the aid is spent.Security questions loom over every aid project since Karzai's western-backed administration has only a shaky grip on much of the country. The heroin trade is a key part of the economy, as is corruption.Most Afghans lack proper sanitation and 80 per cent have no electricity at home, despite $15 billion in international aid since the Taliban's ouster in 2001. Life expectancy remains under 50 years, and food shortages over the past year have pushed many Afghans to the brink.The Taliban still recruit in desperately poor rural areas, and their insurgency continues to claim lives more than six years after U.S.-led troops invaded following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks blamed on al-Qaida, whose militants the Taliban were sheltering.Afghanistan's still-tenuous security climate was highlighted by tensions over U.S. air strikes that may have killed friendly fighters in Pakistan along the Afghan border. The bombings Tuesday fuelled anti-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan, and could set back efforts to stem violence in the lawless region.Meanwhile, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates was expected to push NATO allies meeting Thursday in Brussels to send more troops and police instructors to Afghanistan. NATO's mission in Afghanistan has more than doubled, to 51,000, over the past two years, but commanders say it still lacks units for critical tasks like air transport and intelligence.. The money is a mix of what Congress already has approved for this year and next, and what the administration is still seeking before it leaves office.Other major donors included the Asian Development Bank, $1.3 billion; the World Bank, $1.1 billion; Britain, $1.2 billion, and the European Union, $775 million.A similar donors' conference in 2006 garnered pledges of $10.5 billion.
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/385246
© Copyright 2007 Metroland Media Group Ltd. All rights reserved. The reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thespec.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Metroland Media Group Ltd.
=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-')
//-->
Cockburn: The reality is that Iraqi authority would be nominal
Of course now Iraqi authority is nominal as well as far as the operation of the U.S. and contractors is concerned. The U.S. is concerned to advance the appearance of Iraqi authority to avoid more opposition to the agreement. The Bush administration is also insisting that this will not be a treaty in order to avoid any requirement that it be approved by U.S. legislators.
Independent.co.uk
Patrick Cockburn: The reality is that Iraqi authority would be nominal
Thursday, 12 June 2008
In practice, there is less to the American "concessions" than would first appear. The reaction in Iraq to the US demands for the long-term use of military bases and other rights has been so furious that Washington is now offering limited concessions in the negotiations. For example, the US is lowering the number of bases it wants from 58 to "the low dozens" and says it is willing to compromise on legal immunity for foreign contractors according to information leaked to The Independent.
George Bush is willing to modify some of the demands so the Iraqi government can declare "a significant climbdown" by the American side allowing Baghdad to sign the treaty by 31 July.
But the US currently only maintains about 30 large bases in Iraq, some the size of small cities; the rest are "forward operating bases".
The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, denied The Independent's report that the US wanted permanent bases in Iraq. But the reality of the US plan is that Iraqi authority would be purely nominal with a few Iraqi soldiers stationed outside the bases.
It will also be difficult for the US to concede that the tens of thousands of foreign contractors in Iraq, who vary from heavily armed security men to support staff, be liable to Iraqi law because the US Army has become dependent on these forces and could scarcely function without them.
The new deal between Iraq and the US is in theory a "status of forces agreement", which the US already has with more than 80 other countries, but, in practice, it is a manoeuvre by the US administration to avoid calling the agreement a treaty which, under US law, would then have to be submitted to the Senate. With American politicians wholly absorbed in the presidential election there appears to be only limited interest by congressmen and senators in demanding that the agreement, when signed, be submitted to them.
The fate of the new agreement may depend on the attitude of Iran, which has denounced it fiercely, claiming it would permanently enslave Iraq and turn it into an American client state. Senior Iraqi politicians denouncing the deal include members of the main government party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), such as Jalal al-Din al-Saghir. "Is there sovereignty for Iraq – or isn't there?" he was quoted as saying. "If it is left to them [the US], they would ask for immunity even for American dogs. Other Iraqi politicians have questioned the continuation of the American occupation in any form.
Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, promised Iranian leaders during his visit to Tehran last weekend that Iraqi territory would not be used as an American platform for a military attack on Iran. It is noticeable that the Iraqi politicians within ISCI most vehement in opposing the deal are close to the Badr militia wing of ISCI that has traditionally had close links to Iran.
SearchQuery: Independent.co.uk The Web Go
©independent.co.uk
Independent.co.uk
Patrick Cockburn: The reality is that Iraqi authority would be nominal
Thursday, 12 June 2008
In practice, there is less to the American "concessions" than would first appear. The reaction in Iraq to the US demands for the long-term use of military bases and other rights has been so furious that Washington is now offering limited concessions in the negotiations. For example, the US is lowering the number of bases it wants from 58 to "the low dozens" and says it is willing to compromise on legal immunity for foreign contractors according to information leaked to The Independent.
George Bush is willing to modify some of the demands so the Iraqi government can declare "a significant climbdown" by the American side allowing Baghdad to sign the treaty by 31 July.
But the US currently only maintains about 30 large bases in Iraq, some the size of small cities; the rest are "forward operating bases".
The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, denied The Independent's report that the US wanted permanent bases in Iraq. But the reality of the US plan is that Iraqi authority would be purely nominal with a few Iraqi soldiers stationed outside the bases.
It will also be difficult for the US to concede that the tens of thousands of foreign contractors in Iraq, who vary from heavily armed security men to support staff, be liable to Iraqi law because the US Army has become dependent on these forces and could scarcely function without them.
The new deal between Iraq and the US is in theory a "status of forces agreement", which the US already has with more than 80 other countries, but, in practice, it is a manoeuvre by the US administration to avoid calling the agreement a treaty which, under US law, would then have to be submitted to the Senate. With American politicians wholly absorbed in the presidential election there appears to be only limited interest by congressmen and senators in demanding that the agreement, when signed, be submitted to them.
The fate of the new agreement may depend on the attitude of Iran, which has denounced it fiercely, claiming it would permanently enslave Iraq and turn it into an American client state. Senior Iraqi politicians denouncing the deal include members of the main government party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), such as Jalal al-Din al-Saghir. "Is there sovereignty for Iraq – or isn't there?" he was quoted as saying. "If it is left to them [the US], they would ask for immunity even for American dogs. Other Iraqi politicians have questioned the continuation of the American occupation in any form.
Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, promised Iranian leaders during his visit to Tehran last weekend that Iraqi territory would not be used as an American platform for a military attack on Iran. It is noticeable that the Iraqi politicians within ISCI most vehement in opposing the deal are close to the Badr militia wing of ISCI that has traditionally had close links to Iran.
SearchQuery: Independent.co.uk The Web Go
©independent.co.uk
BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
This is from the BBC. It is nice to see an article that shows what the Iraq war is really about to a lot of companies. It is a cash cow as they say. There are 70 court cases at present and judges have put gag orders on discussion! How convenient. So far zero convictions. As far as the Bush administration is concerned that is probably a perfect score.
BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
By Jane Corbin
BBC News
A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.
The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding.
A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.
The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.
War profiteering
While Presdient George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.
To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.
The president's Democratic opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.
Henry Waxman, who chairs the House committee on oversight and government reform, said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, it's egregious.
"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."
In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.
Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.
Missing billions
The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in west London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.
He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2bn out of the ministry. They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top-class weapons.
Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.
Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated.
He said: "I believe these people are criminals.
"They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence, and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility."
Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.
He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.
There is an Interpol arrest warrant out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe.
He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London.
Panorama: Daylight Robbery will be on BBC One at 9pm on Tuesday 10 June 2008.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm
Published: 2008/06/10 17:25:48 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
By Jane Corbin
BBC News
A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.
The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding.
A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.
The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.
War profiteering
While Presdient George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.
To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.
The president's Democratic opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.
Henry Waxman, who chairs the House committee on oversight and government reform, said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, it's egregious.
"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."
In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.
Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.
Missing billions
The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in west London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.
He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2bn out of the ministry. They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top-class weapons.
Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.
Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated.
He said: "I believe these people are criminals.
"They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence, and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility."
Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.
He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.
There is an Interpol arrest warrant out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe.
He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London.
Panorama: Daylight Robbery will be on BBC One at 9pm on Tuesday 10 June 2008.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm
Published: 2008/06/10 17:25:48 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Probe reveals RCMP firing Tasers multiple times at subjects
Inquiries have already made it clear that the RCMP at times use tasers when it is inappropriate and also use them an inappropriate number of times. I wonder if officers are ever disciplined for this misuse or even reprimanded. There seem to be increases in the number of multiple uses of the taser even in many cases when the person tasered is not armed. Why reports should be so heavily censored is not made clear. Is it just so the public does not get to see relevant information or is there some good reason for the censorship. The general rule seems to be the less the public knows the better. This was evident in the Arar inquiry. In the Iacobucci inquiry we don't get to know anything except that everything must be kept secret.
RCMP firing Tasers multiple times at subjects, probe reveals
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5:42 PM ET
By David McKie CBC News
RCMP officers are likely to fire their stun guns multiple times during an altercation, despite a policy that warns it may pose health risks, according to a joint investigation conducted by CBC News/Radio Canada and the Canadian Press.
The media outlets, which analyzed the Taser-use forms RCMP officers are required to fill out if they draw their stun gun, also found that multiple use of Tasers is increasing.
The data from 2002 to 2007 is heavily censored but reveals that Mounties used their Tasers more than 3,000 times nationwide during the period. In more than 1,300 of those cases, officers fired their stun gun more than once.
The analysis also revealed that in nearly 18 per cent of the incidents, officers had fired three or more times.
The RCMP policy, in place since 2005, states that “multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW [conducted energy weapon] may be hazardous to a subject. Unless situational factors dictate otherwise, do not cycle the CEW repeatedly, for more than 15-20 seconds at a time against a subject.”
In a letter dated Nov. 27, 2007, RCMP Commissioner William Elliot reaffirmed this policy to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day:
“Multiple applications of the CEW have been permitted from the beginning,” he wrote. “But on July 12, 2005, an operational bulletin placed restrictions on the multiple applications of the CEW.”
But despite the new rules, the percentage of Taser incidents in which the weapon was fired multiple times crept up from 42 per cent in 2005 to 45 per cent in 2007.
The investigation also revealed that in 2,200 of the 3,000 RCMP Taser incidents between 2002 and 2007, the person the Mounties were dealing with was unarmed.
Zapped as he cried out
B.C. resident Curtis Wasylenko said he was hit multiple times with a Taser when the RCMP showed up for a dispute he was having with a Kelowna cab driver in 2004. He said he was astounded that within moments he was zapped with a stun gun, which is designed to incapacitate a person by delivering a high-voltage electric shock.
Wasylenko said the first hit knocked him off his feet and that the officer continued to zap him as he cried out in pain. Wasylenko said a second officer fired his stun gun at him as he lay on the ground.
“I can’t really remember how many times they got me but I know it was a lot. I felt my heart – boom, boom, you know, all I could feel was my heart,” he said.
“It felt like I had the wind knocked out of me. I couldn’t breathe.”
The RCMP rejected a request for an interview about the analysis of the data. An interview with one of the Mounties' use-of-force experts was scheduled and then cancelled at the last minute.
But the RCMP has defended the use of multiple stuns by suggesting that there are instances where it is necessary. In the letter to Day, Elliott spelled out reasons for permitting so-called “multiple applications," though the details of his arguments were blacked out when the letter was released.
Elliott noted that it is "common, in some of our contract jurisdictions, to be a considerable distance from other members when encountering offenders and the unpredictability of these events makes them dangerous.
“The use of the CEW … warrants the ability to apply more than one application of the CEW.”
If you have more information on this or any other investigative story, send an e-mail to the journalist, david_mckie@cbc.ca.
RCMP firing Tasers multiple times at subjects, probe reveals
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5:42 PM ET
By David McKie CBC News
RCMP officers are likely to fire their stun guns multiple times during an altercation, despite a policy that warns it may pose health risks, according to a joint investigation conducted by CBC News/Radio Canada and the Canadian Press.
The media outlets, which analyzed the Taser-use forms RCMP officers are required to fill out if they draw their stun gun, also found that multiple use of Tasers is increasing.
The data from 2002 to 2007 is heavily censored but reveals that Mounties used their Tasers more than 3,000 times nationwide during the period. In more than 1,300 of those cases, officers fired their stun gun more than once.
The analysis also revealed that in nearly 18 per cent of the incidents, officers had fired three or more times.
The RCMP policy, in place since 2005, states that “multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW [conducted energy weapon] may be hazardous to a subject. Unless situational factors dictate otherwise, do not cycle the CEW repeatedly, for more than 15-20 seconds at a time against a subject.”
In a letter dated Nov. 27, 2007, RCMP Commissioner William Elliot reaffirmed this policy to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day:
“Multiple applications of the CEW have been permitted from the beginning,” he wrote. “But on July 12, 2005, an operational bulletin placed restrictions on the multiple applications of the CEW.”
But despite the new rules, the percentage of Taser incidents in which the weapon was fired multiple times crept up from 42 per cent in 2005 to 45 per cent in 2007.
The investigation also revealed that in 2,200 of the 3,000 RCMP Taser incidents between 2002 and 2007, the person the Mounties were dealing with was unarmed.
Zapped as he cried out
B.C. resident Curtis Wasylenko said he was hit multiple times with a Taser when the RCMP showed up for a dispute he was having with a Kelowna cab driver in 2004. He said he was astounded that within moments he was zapped with a stun gun, which is designed to incapacitate a person by delivering a high-voltage electric shock.
Wasylenko said the first hit knocked him off his feet and that the officer continued to zap him as he cried out in pain. Wasylenko said a second officer fired his stun gun at him as he lay on the ground.
“I can’t really remember how many times they got me but I know it was a lot. I felt my heart – boom, boom, you know, all I could feel was my heart,” he said.
“It felt like I had the wind knocked out of me. I couldn’t breathe.”
The RCMP rejected a request for an interview about the analysis of the data. An interview with one of the Mounties' use-of-force experts was scheduled and then cancelled at the last minute.
But the RCMP has defended the use of multiple stuns by suggesting that there are instances where it is necessary. In the letter to Day, Elliott spelled out reasons for permitting so-called “multiple applications," though the details of his arguments were blacked out when the letter was released.
Elliott noted that it is "common, in some of our contract jurisdictions, to be a considerable distance from other members when encountering offenders and the unpredictability of these events makes them dangerous.
“The use of the CEW … warrants the ability to apply more than one application of the CEW.”
If you have more information on this or any other investigative story, send an e-mail to the journalist, david_mckie@cbc.ca.
NATO airstrike kills 11 Pakistani soldiers.
This is the sort of action that just increases anti-American feeling in Pakistan where it is already very high. With Musharraf gone and a government in Pakistan that wants peace in the territories the U.S. is in a weak position. This sort of action just makes things that much worse for the U.S. The article speaks of a NATO airstrike but of course it is U.S. aircraft or drones that are involved no doubt. This is not the first time that NATO (US) has violated Pakistani sovereignty in air attacks.
From Times Online
Jenny Booth
Pakistan has condemned a "cowardly and unprovoked" Nato airstrike which killed 11 of its soldiers last night, threatening relations between the West and Islamabad.
The Pakistan army's paramilitary checkpost at Gora Prai in the Mohmand tribal agency was "destroyed by coalition forces in Afghanistan through aerial attack", killing 11 troops including an officer, said an unusually harshly worded statement attributed to an army spokesman.
"The spokesman condemned this completely unprovoked and cowardly act on the FC (Frontier Corps) post and regretted the loss of precious lives of our soldiers," it went on.
"He blamed the coalition forces for violent act and said that the incident had hit at the very basis of cooperation and sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the coalition in the war against terror."
Nato's command centre in eastern Afghanistan said it had begun an investigation into the incident, but that its operations against militants in the area had been previously co-ordinated with Pakistan.
It had called in an airstrike in the middle of a battle with militants when a drone "identified additional anti-Afghan forces joining the attack against the coalition forces", it said. The Pentagon has yet to comment.
The attack caused fury in Pakistan, where it was being seen as an example of US aggressive tactics in the region.
Yousuf Raza Gilani , the Pakistan Prime Minister, told Parliament: "We condemn it strongly. We will take a stand to preserve the sovereignty, dignity and respect of the country."
The Pakistan foreign office issued a statement condemning the"senseless use of air power" by the coalition and urging it to hand over the results of its investigation into the incident.
"The attack also tends to undermine the very basis of our cooperation with the coalition forces and warrants a serious rethink on their part of the consequences that could ensue from such rash acts," it said.
There are several conflicting versions of what happened some time after midnight last night when a missile crashed into the Gora Prai fort, killing 11 and wounding nine more.
According to senior Pakistan army sources, the incident began when its soldiers noticed that Nato forces and the Afghan National Army were constructing a military outpost on a mountaintop inside what Pakistan regards as its own territory.
"I am told the Afghan troops were actually building a kind of new outpost, were challenged by the Pakistan army and then the firing started," said Zahid Hussain, Times correspondent in Islamabad.
"Helicopters also appeared when the clashes started. According to Pakistan military sources, the soldiers died in an airstrike by a US drone on Pakistani soldiers."
But Nato command at Bagram said that the incident began when coalition troops came under rocket and small arms attack from militants while 200 metres inside the Afghan border.
"Shortly after the attack began, coalition forces informed the Pakistan Army that they were being engaged by anti-Afghan forces in a wooded area near the Gora Prai checkpoint," it said in a statement.
An unmanned drone spotted more hostile forces entering the attack, and the coalition troops returned fire with artillery, it went on. "(Then) an unmanned aerial system identified additional anti-Afghan forces joining the attack against the Coalition forces. While maintaining positive identification of the enemy, close-air support was then used by Coalition forces to gain fire superiority until the threat was eliminated. At no time did Coalition ground forces cross into Pakistan."
The nationality of the Western soldiers involved is unknown, but most of the foreign troops based in the rugged, mountainous region of eastern Afghanistan are American.
One senior Pakistan officer on the ground appeared to support the Nato version of events, saying: "The militants launched a cross-border attack into Afghanistan. At least 10 of our soldiers were killed in a counter-offensive by forces in Afghanistan."
A Pakistan Taleban spokesman said that its fighters had attacked US forces and claimed that they had shot down a helicopter. The Taleban spokesman added that they had seen the airstrike on the Pakistan checkpoint.
Damagh Khan Mohmand, a local tribesman who witnessed the fighting, said that it lasted for four hours, with Afghan and foreign forces trading fire with the Pakistani militants and with the Pakistan troops.
Two aircraft bombed several locations, hitting two FC paramilitary posts, said Mr Khan Mohmand. He added that he saw drones flying over the area.
Pakistan reportedly plans to raise the incident with the head of US forces in Afghanistan at the next meeting of the Tripartite Commission, where Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US discuss security issues. It will seek assurances that cross-border incursions will be halted.
The incident follows heightened tensions between Pakistan and the US. Last month a US drone killed a number of civilians when it attacked a village inside Pakistan. This latest attack has had a greater impact, however, as Pakistani troops were killed.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan and NATO have been expressing increasing concern about Pakistani efforts to negotiate peace pacts to end militant violence on its side of the border.
The new Pakistani government has been negotiating with Pashtun tribal elders to persuade militants in their areas to give up a campaign of violence in Pakistan in which hundreds of people have been killed over the past year.
But Afghanistan and its Western allies say peace pacts in northwest Pakistan’s border regions enable militants to step up cross-border attacks from Pakistani sanctuaries.
From Times Online
Jenny Booth
Pakistan has condemned a "cowardly and unprovoked" Nato airstrike which killed 11 of its soldiers last night, threatening relations between the West and Islamabad.
The Pakistan army's paramilitary checkpost at Gora Prai in the Mohmand tribal agency was "destroyed by coalition forces in Afghanistan through aerial attack", killing 11 troops including an officer, said an unusually harshly worded statement attributed to an army spokesman.
"The spokesman condemned this completely unprovoked and cowardly act on the FC (Frontier Corps) post and regretted the loss of precious lives of our soldiers," it went on.
"He blamed the coalition forces for violent act and said that the incident had hit at the very basis of cooperation and sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the coalition in the war against terror."
Nato's command centre in eastern Afghanistan said it had begun an investigation into the incident, but that its operations against militants in the area had been previously co-ordinated with Pakistan.
It had called in an airstrike in the middle of a battle with militants when a drone "identified additional anti-Afghan forces joining the attack against the coalition forces", it said. The Pentagon has yet to comment.
The attack caused fury in Pakistan, where it was being seen as an example of US aggressive tactics in the region.
Yousuf Raza Gilani , the Pakistan Prime Minister, told Parliament: "We condemn it strongly. We will take a stand to preserve the sovereignty, dignity and respect of the country."
The Pakistan foreign office issued a statement condemning the"senseless use of air power" by the coalition and urging it to hand over the results of its investigation into the incident.
"The attack also tends to undermine the very basis of our cooperation with the coalition forces and warrants a serious rethink on their part of the consequences that could ensue from such rash acts," it said.
There are several conflicting versions of what happened some time after midnight last night when a missile crashed into the Gora Prai fort, killing 11 and wounding nine more.
According to senior Pakistan army sources, the incident began when its soldiers noticed that Nato forces and the Afghan National Army were constructing a military outpost on a mountaintop inside what Pakistan regards as its own territory.
"I am told the Afghan troops were actually building a kind of new outpost, were challenged by the Pakistan army and then the firing started," said Zahid Hussain, Times correspondent in Islamabad.
"Helicopters also appeared when the clashes started. According to Pakistan military sources, the soldiers died in an airstrike by a US drone on Pakistani soldiers."
But Nato command at Bagram said that the incident began when coalition troops came under rocket and small arms attack from militants while 200 metres inside the Afghan border.
"Shortly after the attack began, coalition forces informed the Pakistan Army that they were being engaged by anti-Afghan forces in a wooded area near the Gora Prai checkpoint," it said in a statement.
An unmanned drone spotted more hostile forces entering the attack, and the coalition troops returned fire with artillery, it went on. "(Then) an unmanned aerial system identified additional anti-Afghan forces joining the attack against the Coalition forces. While maintaining positive identification of the enemy, close-air support was then used by Coalition forces to gain fire superiority until the threat was eliminated. At no time did Coalition ground forces cross into Pakistan."
The nationality of the Western soldiers involved is unknown, but most of the foreign troops based in the rugged, mountainous region of eastern Afghanistan are American.
One senior Pakistan officer on the ground appeared to support the Nato version of events, saying: "The militants launched a cross-border attack into Afghanistan. At least 10 of our soldiers were killed in a counter-offensive by forces in Afghanistan."
A Pakistan Taleban spokesman said that its fighters had attacked US forces and claimed that they had shot down a helicopter. The Taleban spokesman added that they had seen the airstrike on the Pakistan checkpoint.
Damagh Khan Mohmand, a local tribesman who witnessed the fighting, said that it lasted for four hours, with Afghan and foreign forces trading fire with the Pakistani militants and with the Pakistan troops.
Two aircraft bombed several locations, hitting two FC paramilitary posts, said Mr Khan Mohmand. He added that he saw drones flying over the area.
Pakistan reportedly plans to raise the incident with the head of US forces in Afghanistan at the next meeting of the Tripartite Commission, where Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US discuss security issues. It will seek assurances that cross-border incursions will be halted.
The incident follows heightened tensions between Pakistan and the US. Last month a US drone killed a number of civilians when it attacked a village inside Pakistan. This latest attack has had a greater impact, however, as Pakistani troops were killed.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan and NATO have been expressing increasing concern about Pakistani efforts to negotiate peace pacts to end militant violence on its side of the border.
The new Pakistani government has been negotiating with Pashtun tribal elders to persuade militants in their areas to give up a campaign of violence in Pakistan in which hundreds of people have been killed over the past year.
But Afghanistan and its Western allies say peace pacts in northwest Pakistan’s border regions enable militants to step up cross-border attacks from Pakistani sanctuaries.
Moody's keeps positive outlook on the Philippines
This is good news for Arroyo who is always ready to crow about how well the Philippine economy is doing. Obviously Arroyo is not doing so much for the least well off that she is worrying the investor rating services! However with inflation and a shortage of rice NPA futures and those of the Muslim separatists may be set to rise as well!
Moody's keeps positive outlook on Philippines
By Raju GopalakrishnanReuters
Posted date: June 09, 2008
MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE) Moody's Investor Service is maintaining its positive ratings outlook on the Philippines, despite a slippage in its goal of a balanced budget this year, one of the agency's senior economists said Monday.
"They have pushed back the balanced budget target but there is still overall fiscal restraint," Moody's senior vice-president Tom Byrne said in a telephone interview.
"They are still not blowing the budget. The positive outlook is still the outlook for the Philippines."
The government said earlier this month that it was pushing back the goal of a balanced budget to 2010 from this year, and that it expected to end the year with a shortfall of about P75 billion ($1.7 billion), or about 1.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has ordered subsidies to shield the poor from surging inflation on top of a government infrastructure building program aimed at protecting the economy from falling growth.
"The government hasn't lost control," Byrne said. "Moderate GDP growth and a deficit of 1.0 percent of GDP or a little bit higher is consistent with the positive outlook we have on a B1 rating."
In February, Moody's raised the credit rating outlook on the Philippines to positive from stable on the back of the government's improving finances after a stellar 2007 for the economy.
But it kept the country's debt rating at B1, or four notches below investment grade.
The Philippines recorded 7.2 percent GDP growth last year, a 31-year high, while inflation remained at a two-decade low. After years of runaway budget deficits, the shortfall shrank to 0.2 percent of GDP.
"One good thing about last year was that with the smaller budget deficit, and lower interest payments, the government could afford to spend money on public infrastructure," Byrne said.
"So for the first time in something like five years, investment actually grew as a share of GDP."
The challenge this year, Byrne said, was whether the government could keep up the spending on infrastructure.
"It's almost coming down to a choice between rice or roads because the government will have to, for political necessity, help the poor people and subsidize rice."
"The trend of improvement in fiscal headroom for such spending on infrastructure, or social welfare expenditure, has certainly shrunk," he said. "But right now, we feel it won't be a tremendous burden on the budget."
($1 = P44.20)
©Copyright 2001-2008 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company
Moody's keeps positive outlook on Philippines
By Raju GopalakrishnanReuters
Posted date: June 09, 2008
MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE) Moody's Investor Service is maintaining its positive ratings outlook on the Philippines, despite a slippage in its goal of a balanced budget this year, one of the agency's senior economists said Monday.
"They have pushed back the balanced budget target but there is still overall fiscal restraint," Moody's senior vice-president Tom Byrne said in a telephone interview.
"They are still not blowing the budget. The positive outlook is still the outlook for the Philippines."
The government said earlier this month that it was pushing back the goal of a balanced budget to 2010 from this year, and that it expected to end the year with a shortfall of about P75 billion ($1.7 billion), or about 1.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has ordered subsidies to shield the poor from surging inflation on top of a government infrastructure building program aimed at protecting the economy from falling growth.
"The government hasn't lost control," Byrne said. "Moderate GDP growth and a deficit of 1.0 percent of GDP or a little bit higher is consistent with the positive outlook we have on a B1 rating."
In February, Moody's raised the credit rating outlook on the Philippines to positive from stable on the back of the government's improving finances after a stellar 2007 for the economy.
But it kept the country's debt rating at B1, or four notches below investment grade.
The Philippines recorded 7.2 percent GDP growth last year, a 31-year high, while inflation remained at a two-decade low. After years of runaway budget deficits, the shortfall shrank to 0.2 percent of GDP.
"One good thing about last year was that with the smaller budget deficit, and lower interest payments, the government could afford to spend money on public infrastructure," Byrne said.
"So for the first time in something like five years, investment actually grew as a share of GDP."
The challenge this year, Byrne said, was whether the government could keep up the spending on infrastructure.
"It's almost coming down to a choice between rice or roads because the government will have to, for political necessity, help the poor people and subsidize rice."
"The trend of improvement in fiscal headroom for such spending on infrastructure, or social welfare expenditure, has certainly shrunk," he said. "But right now, we feel it won't be a tremendous burden on the budget."
($1 = P44.20)
©Copyright 2001-2008 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company
Philippines: Galoc oil field to start production.
This is from the IHT.
This is great news for the Philippines which is almost entirely dependent upon imported oil.
The cost of fuel is quite high in the Philippines especially in relationship to income. The independent jeepney drivers are always on the virge of going under because of the slowness with which fares are adjusted to costs and customers too with limited incomes are in turn hurt by the necessary increases in fares.
Philippines' Galoc offshore oil field to start production next week
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
MANILA, Philippines: The Philippines' Galoc offshore oil field will start commercial production next week, initially pumping about 20,000 barrels daily, an official said Tuesday.
The news of the first oil field development in the Philippines in 16 years came as a relief to the oil importing country amid the rapid increases in petroleum prices. A consortium of mostly Philippine companies will pump the oil.
Galoc, about 220 miles (350 kilometers) southwest of Manila, has an estimated reserve of 10 million to 20 million barrels of "high-quality oil" that is light, non-waxy, and has medium sulfur content, Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes told reporters Tuesday.
Reyes said domestic refineries "will be given the first priority" once Galoc starts flowing oil on June 16 at 17,000 to 20,000 barrels per day.
"So rather than being exported, it will be consumed locally," he said.
He said additional exploration will be conducted to confirm more reserves.
The consortion is called Galoc Production Co., which includes Oriental Petroleum & Minerals Corp., Linapacan Oil & Gas Power Corp., and Forum Energy Philippines Corp. and other partners.
Galoc's oil will be benchmarked at international prices and is expected to result in US$1.4 billion (euro890 million) foreign exchange savings for the country, Reyes said.
Reyes also said Exxon Mobil Corp. has expressed interest in exploring for oil and gas in the Sulu Sea, south of Galoc.
He said Exxon has not yet disclosed its estimate of the reserves in the area, but the government is encouraged that such a large oil producer was exploring.
"Being a major, major player, they do not go into any area until the reserves in their estimation is large and quality oil," he said.
He said company officials will meet with President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo later in the week.
Notes:
Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune www.iht.com
This is great news for the Philippines which is almost entirely dependent upon imported oil.
The cost of fuel is quite high in the Philippines especially in relationship to income. The independent jeepney drivers are always on the virge of going under because of the slowness with which fares are adjusted to costs and customers too with limited incomes are in turn hurt by the necessary increases in fares.
Philippines' Galoc offshore oil field to start production next week
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
MANILA, Philippines: The Philippines' Galoc offshore oil field will start commercial production next week, initially pumping about 20,000 barrels daily, an official said Tuesday.
The news of the first oil field development in the Philippines in 16 years came as a relief to the oil importing country amid the rapid increases in petroleum prices. A consortium of mostly Philippine companies will pump the oil.
Galoc, about 220 miles (350 kilometers) southwest of Manila, has an estimated reserve of 10 million to 20 million barrels of "high-quality oil" that is light, non-waxy, and has medium sulfur content, Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes told reporters Tuesday.
Reyes said domestic refineries "will be given the first priority" once Galoc starts flowing oil on June 16 at 17,000 to 20,000 barrels per day.
"So rather than being exported, it will be consumed locally," he said.
He said additional exploration will be conducted to confirm more reserves.
The consortion is called Galoc Production Co., which includes Oriental Petroleum & Minerals Corp., Linapacan Oil & Gas Power Corp., and Forum Energy Philippines Corp. and other partners.
Galoc's oil will be benchmarked at international prices and is expected to result in US$1.4 billion (euro890 million) foreign exchange savings for the country, Reyes said.
Reyes also said Exxon Mobil Corp. has expressed interest in exploring for oil and gas in the Sulu Sea, south of Galoc.
He said Exxon has not yet disclosed its estimate of the reserves in the area, but the government is encouraged that such a large oil producer was exploring.
"Being a major, major player, they do not go into any area until the reserves in their estimation is large and quality oil," he said.
He said company officials will meet with President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo later in the week.
Notes:
Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune www.iht.com
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The ongoing damage done by Agent Orange in Vietnam
This is from VNA (Vietnamese News Agency) While US Vietnamese relations are actually thriving on the level of business there still remains the legacy of damage caused by agent orange. I imagine there are also problems with landmines, certainly there are in other places such as Cambodia. I imagine there are probably still a number of U.S. veterans who suffer from exposure to agent orange as well.
Agent Orange victims fund raises 353 billion VND
09/06/2008 -- 6:43 PM
Hanoi (VNA) - The Fund for Agent Orange/Dioxin Victims says it has raised more than 353 billion VND in the past decade thanks to the generosity of domestic and overseas donors. Vietnam Red Cross (VRC) President Tran Ngoc Tang says the VRC-managed fund has assisted more than 1 million victims nationwide through free medical check-ups and treatment, housing, vocational training, and credit lending for production and safe water supply. At a conference held in Hanoi on June 9 to review the fund’s work in the past decade, Deputy Prime Minister Pham Gia Khiem praised the fund’s operations over the past decade. He also thanked international organisations and the Red Cross in other countries for their assistance to Agent Orange victims. The Deputy Prime Minister said he hopes assistance from the international community to Agent Orange/dioxin victims in Vietnam would continue to increase in the future. In recognition of the fund’s success, Deputy PM Khiem awarded it the Labour Order, third class. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) - Vietnam Representative Irja Sandberg said the fund’s efforts help alleviate the plight of the victims.
Agent Orange victims fund raises 353 billion VND
09/06/2008 -- 6:43 PM
Hanoi (VNA) - The Fund for Agent Orange/Dioxin Victims says it has raised more than 353 billion VND in the past decade thanks to the generosity of domestic and overseas donors. Vietnam Red Cross (VRC) President Tran Ngoc Tang says the VRC-managed fund has assisted more than 1 million victims nationwide through free medical check-ups and treatment, housing, vocational training, and credit lending for production and safe water supply. At a conference held in Hanoi on June 9 to review the fund’s work in the past decade, Deputy Prime Minister Pham Gia Khiem praised the fund’s operations over the past decade. He also thanked international organisations and the Red Cross in other countries for their assistance to Agent Orange victims. The Deputy Prime Minister said he hopes assistance from the international community to Agent Orange/dioxin victims in Vietnam would continue to increase in the future. In recognition of the fund’s success, Deputy PM Khiem awarded it the Labour Order, third class. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) - Vietnam Representative Irja Sandberg said the fund’s efforts help alleviate the plight of the victims.
Avneri on Obama on Israel
Avneri is an Israeli commentator. It is amazing how fawning most U.S. politicians are to the Israel lobby. It is no wonder that conspiracy theories abound about the influence of Israel on U.S. policy. Even stranger some Israelis and Israeli newspapers are more critical than U.S. media and politicians with respect to Israeli policy. Perhaps Obama tries so very hard because apparently he is the choice of Hamas over McCain!
No, I Can't!Uri AvneryJune 7, 2008AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab- Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all- powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.But in a presidential race?THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in theUS. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
No, I Can't!Uri AvneryJune 7, 2008AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab- Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all- powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.But in a presidential race?THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in theUS. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
Monday, June 9, 2008
New Forces fraying U.S. Saudi ties.
This is from the LA Times.
The rise of oil guzzling economies in Asia such as China have changed the playing field. Not only is the dominance of the U.S. in the oil market being challenged by competing demands from emerging economies but the dollar is losing it pre-eminence and value.
New forces fraying U.S.-Saudi oil ties
Surging prices, along with a weak dollar and an oil-thirsty Asia, have blunted America's leverage with the key oil producer and helped sour the two nations' relationship.By Paul RichterLos Angeles Times Staff WriterJune 8, 2008WASHINGTON — For decades, Saudi Arabia worked with its dominant customer, the United States, to keep world oil markets stable and advance common political goals.But the surging price of oil, which soared more than $10 a barrel Friday to a record-high $138.54, has made it plain that those days are over. New forces, including a weak dollar and an oil-thirsty Asia, have blunted the United States' leverage and helped sour the two countries' relationship. As gasoline prices have risen, the White House has unsuccessfully exhorted the Saudis to step up production, and Congress has threatened retaliation. But the situation now is a far cry from the days when the U.S. economy dominated the direction of the petroleum market."That gave us leverage," said Greg Priddy, an oil analyst at the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk assessment firm. "There's certainly a perception that the power equation has changed."The weakening of the economic relationship comes when the vital U.S.-Saudi security relationship also has been fraying.In the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi bond that kept oil prices low was credited with helping weaken the Soviet Union during the waning days of the Cold War. And it helped keep markets stable after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. But the Saudi government has been dismayed by the consequences of the war in Iraq and by what it sees as a weak Bush administration commitment to the Palestinians.The relationship is shaping up as a political issue for the fall campaign, certainly among congressional candidates and perhaps among presidential candidates.With a 20-million-barrel-per-day habit, the U.S. remains the world's largest oil customer, even though its daily consumption over the years has dropped from one-third of total daily production to one-fourth.But the U.S. can no longer guarantee on its own that producers will have the markets they need for their oil. Nor can the Saudis, alone, ramp up production in sufficient amounts to stabilize prices.China and other Asian nations now use about 17 million barrels a day. That's up more than 20% since 2003, and booming growth is expected to continue.With the shift in buying power, the Saudis are cultivating important Chinese customers, analysts say. Saudi Arabia recently contributed $50 million for Chinese earthquake relief, and King Abdullah has visited China."The relationship is clearly developing rapidly," said Paul J. Saunders, who served in the State Department under President Bush and is executive director of the Nixon Center think tank.Saunders believes that China may be buying more Saudi oil than the United States in less than a decade. That sets up "a real possibility that China will have more leverage in dealing with Saudi Arabia than we do," he said.The Saudis helped the United States for years as "doves" within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on the issue of oil prices. They were willing to moderately increase production, fearing that high prices could cause the United States and others to seek alternate supplies or cut consumption, as happened in the 1980s in reaction to the oil price shocks of the 1970s.But attitudes have been shifting. Many believe the Saudis have grown more interested in conserving their supplies for later generations, and confident that if U.S. consumption drops, the economies of China, India and others will take up the slack. By the end of 2007, it was also apparent that the Saudis no longer believed they could substantially affect prices by increasing production. Now, Saudi oil experts believe that the price run-up is due to such factors as investor speculation, the weak dollar and limited output from such key producers as Iraq, Iran and Venezuela. "They see themselves as having lost control of the market," Priddy said.The weakening of the economic ties between the United States and Saudi Arabia comes when the Saudi government has increasingly sought to distance itself politically from Washington.Even as the United States has tried to forge a coalition of Persian Gulf states to counter Iran, Saudi officials have grown skeptical about a security alliance with Washington. Instead, leaders of the overwhelmingly Sunni Arab kingdom worry that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has weakened their security and fret about the Shiite Muslim domination of Iraq. Stephen Hadley, the national security advisor, recently acknowledged to reporters that the war has been a "stress" on the relationship.Meanwhile, the Saudis, making use of the added economic clout fueled by soaring oil prices, are trying to forge a new leadership role in the Muslim world. They have participated, if often invisibly, in efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to stabilize Lebanon.Ordinary Saudis like the idea of their nation's added wealth, as well as the idea that U.S. leaders are coming as supplicants.Saudis and their Persian Gulf neighbors "feel pretty satisfied," Hady Amr, director of the Brookings Institution's Doha Center, said in an interview from Qatar. "They're relishing their prominence on the world stage." In mid-May, President Bush went to Saudi Arabia for the second time this year to seek increased oil production, but officials in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, said no large increases were planned. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) criticized Bush in her presidential campaign appearances, saying she found it embarrassing that a sitting president was "begging" the Saudis.U.S. lawmakers, meanwhile, have proposed various measures to force the Saudis to boost production. One, sponsored by Senate Democrats, threatens withdrawal of a proposed $1.4 billion in pending arms sales. "We have to shove it in the face of the Saudis and the others in the international criminal cartel," Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) said May 22 at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He decried Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC as "bandits."The Saudis, for their part, have told U.S. officials that they understand that this is an election year, and seem to largely discount the rhetoric. But there also have been hints of indignation that Americans are pressing them.Even without the passage of punitive legislation this year, diplomatic efforts could suffer if the Saudis react badly to the American outcry, Saunders said. One that could be affected is Bush's insistence on a Mideast peace pact by the time he leaves office in January."You couldn't have any real expectation of [a peace deal] if the Saudis are seriously alienated from the U.S.," Saunders said.
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
The rise of oil guzzling economies in Asia such as China have changed the playing field. Not only is the dominance of the U.S. in the oil market being challenged by competing demands from emerging economies but the dollar is losing it pre-eminence and value.
New forces fraying U.S.-Saudi oil ties
Surging prices, along with a weak dollar and an oil-thirsty Asia, have blunted America's leverage with the key oil producer and helped sour the two nations' relationship.By Paul RichterLos Angeles Times Staff WriterJune 8, 2008WASHINGTON — For decades, Saudi Arabia worked with its dominant customer, the United States, to keep world oil markets stable and advance common political goals.But the surging price of oil, which soared more than $10 a barrel Friday to a record-high $138.54, has made it plain that those days are over. New forces, including a weak dollar and an oil-thirsty Asia, have blunted the United States' leverage and helped sour the two countries' relationship. As gasoline prices have risen, the White House has unsuccessfully exhorted the Saudis to step up production, and Congress has threatened retaliation. But the situation now is a far cry from the days when the U.S. economy dominated the direction of the petroleum market."That gave us leverage," said Greg Priddy, an oil analyst at the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk assessment firm. "There's certainly a perception that the power equation has changed."The weakening of the economic relationship comes when the vital U.S.-Saudi security relationship also has been fraying.In the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi bond that kept oil prices low was credited with helping weaken the Soviet Union during the waning days of the Cold War. And it helped keep markets stable after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. But the Saudi government has been dismayed by the consequences of the war in Iraq and by what it sees as a weak Bush administration commitment to the Palestinians.The relationship is shaping up as a political issue for the fall campaign, certainly among congressional candidates and perhaps among presidential candidates.With a 20-million-barrel-per-day habit, the U.S. remains the world's largest oil customer, even though its daily consumption over the years has dropped from one-third of total daily production to one-fourth.But the U.S. can no longer guarantee on its own that producers will have the markets they need for their oil. Nor can the Saudis, alone, ramp up production in sufficient amounts to stabilize prices.China and other Asian nations now use about 17 million barrels a day. That's up more than 20% since 2003, and booming growth is expected to continue.With the shift in buying power, the Saudis are cultivating important Chinese customers, analysts say. Saudi Arabia recently contributed $50 million for Chinese earthquake relief, and King Abdullah has visited China."The relationship is clearly developing rapidly," said Paul J. Saunders, who served in the State Department under President Bush and is executive director of the Nixon Center think tank.Saunders believes that China may be buying more Saudi oil than the United States in less than a decade. That sets up "a real possibility that China will have more leverage in dealing with Saudi Arabia than we do," he said.The Saudis helped the United States for years as "doves" within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on the issue of oil prices. They were willing to moderately increase production, fearing that high prices could cause the United States and others to seek alternate supplies or cut consumption, as happened in the 1980s in reaction to the oil price shocks of the 1970s.But attitudes have been shifting. Many believe the Saudis have grown more interested in conserving their supplies for later generations, and confident that if U.S. consumption drops, the economies of China, India and others will take up the slack. By the end of 2007, it was also apparent that the Saudis no longer believed they could substantially affect prices by increasing production. Now, Saudi oil experts believe that the price run-up is due to such factors as investor speculation, the weak dollar and limited output from such key producers as Iraq, Iran and Venezuela. "They see themselves as having lost control of the market," Priddy said.The weakening of the economic ties between the United States and Saudi Arabia comes when the Saudi government has increasingly sought to distance itself politically from Washington.Even as the United States has tried to forge a coalition of Persian Gulf states to counter Iran, Saudi officials have grown skeptical about a security alliance with Washington. Instead, leaders of the overwhelmingly Sunni Arab kingdom worry that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has weakened their security and fret about the Shiite Muslim domination of Iraq. Stephen Hadley, the national security advisor, recently acknowledged to reporters that the war has been a "stress" on the relationship.Meanwhile, the Saudis, making use of the added economic clout fueled by soaring oil prices, are trying to forge a new leadership role in the Muslim world. They have participated, if often invisibly, in efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to stabilize Lebanon.Ordinary Saudis like the idea of their nation's added wealth, as well as the idea that U.S. leaders are coming as supplicants.Saudis and their Persian Gulf neighbors "feel pretty satisfied," Hady Amr, director of the Brookings Institution's Doha Center, said in an interview from Qatar. "They're relishing their prominence on the world stage." In mid-May, President Bush went to Saudi Arabia for the second time this year to seek increased oil production, but officials in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, said no large increases were planned. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) criticized Bush in her presidential campaign appearances, saying she found it embarrassing that a sitting president was "begging" the Saudis.U.S. lawmakers, meanwhile, have proposed various measures to force the Saudis to boost production. One, sponsored by Senate Democrats, threatens withdrawal of a proposed $1.4 billion in pending arms sales. "We have to shove it in the face of the Saudis and the others in the international criminal cartel," Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) said May 22 at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He decried Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC as "bandits."The Saudis, for their part, have told U.S. officials that they understand that this is an election year, and seem to largely discount the rhetoric. But there also have been hints of indignation that Americans are pressing them.Even without the passage of punitive legislation this year, diplomatic efforts could suffer if the Saudis react badly to the American outcry, Saunders said. One that could be affected is Bush's insistence on a Mideast peace pact by the time he leaves office in January."You couldn't have any real expectation of [a peace deal] if the Saudis are seriously alienated from the U.S.," Saunders said.
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
Treaty tensions mount as Iraq tells U.S. it wants troops back in barracks.
The puppets are being bad again. One of these days they may be bad enough to send the U.S. packing although that is not likely in the short term since the Maliki government could hardly protect itself from a concerted armed push by its opponents without U.S. aid. However if the Iraqi government is able to develop its own armed forces and negotiate with rebels it could possibly ask the U.S. to leave. The U.S. is not likely to agree to the terms that Iraq is demanding. Somehow not anything about this seems to be playing out in U.S. domestic politics as far as I have read--which is not all that much!
I would expect some troop withdrawal soon to show that the situation in Iraq is improving and perhaps quite a few more if Obama becomes president.
Treaty tensions mount as Iraq tells the US it wants all troops back in barracks
American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces.
According to a senior Iraqi official, the negotiations between the two allies became so fraught recently that President Bush intervened personally to defuse the situation. On Thursday he telephoned Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, to assure him that Washington was not seeking to undermine Iraq’s sovereignty and that America would reconsider any contentious part of the agreement.
The current United Nations mandate for US troops expires at the end of this year and Washington wants to conclude a bilateral agreement with Baghdad for the future deployment of US forces. There are just over 150,000 US troops in Iraq living on scores of bases across the country, from little 30-men outposts to sprawling camps often built around old Iraqi army barracks.
Construction work over the past five years has turned these bases into small towns of trailers, hangars and blast walls, equipped with a Pizza Hut, Starbucks-style coffee shops, cinemas and swimming pools.
Among a litany of sticking-points surrounding the status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the two countries are Iraqi concerns over how many US bases will remain in the country and who will be in control of Iraqi air space.
Other flashpoints include whether private security companies working for US forces will continue to enjoy immunity from Iraqi law and whether US soldiers will maintain the freedom to travel where they want, arrest people and conduct raids without first gaining approval from the Iraqi Government.
Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said that under the new deal US soldiers should be confined to the larger bases. “We do need the Americans to leave the cities and the streets,” he said. “They have to be there in the back and . . . in their camps. Whenever we ask them they will be ready to support and help.”
As for private security companies, “they should be subject to Iraqi law”, Mr al-Dabbagh said. The immunity of such firms that work for the military or the British or American embassies triggered outrage last year after security guards employed by Blackwater, the largest private security company in Iraq, were involved in a confrontation that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.
A status of forces agreement takes on average more than a year to conclude, but Washington hopes to seal the deal with Iraq by the end of July – a time-frame that the Iraqi side views with less importance than the content of the accord.
Sanctioning the continuing presence of US troops is hugely sensitive, with many Iraqis opposed to such a move. Iran has also voiced concern that the deal will enable Washington to use Iraq as a launch pad to conduct attacks in the region. Mr al-Maliki used a weekend trip to Tehran to try to calm the tensions. “We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and [other] neighbours,” he said.
The Iraqi Prime Minister will need to tread carefully to win the backing of his parliament for the pact and also ensure that the US side is satisfied.
Britain, which will have to sign its own bilateral accord with Iraq to legalise the presence of British troops in the country post2008, is watching the discussions with interest. London will use the US-Iraq arrangements for its own agreement.
The senior Iraqi official, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the chief concern is that Iraq’s sovereignty is protected.
“President [Bush] has been in touch with the Prime Minister of Iraq and has said that the issues which are rejected or not approved by the Government of Iraq will be reconsidered and the future American presence will be for assisting and coordinating with the Iraqi Government,” he told The Times about the conversation, which took place last Thursday.
A senior US official in Baghdad said that such conferences between the two leaders were fairly frequent. “[Mr Bush] has assured Prime Minister al-Maliki consistently we respect Iraq’s sovereignty. The content, the positions we take in the negotiations, will reflect that,” the official said.
US diplomats have been meeting their Iraqi counterparts for the past two months to draw up the status of forces document as well as a strategic framework, which sketches out every aspect of the two countries’ relationship from security, politics and the economy to culture, science and education.
As part of the process, several Iraqi delegates are due to return this week from a fact-finding trip to some of more than 80 countries, including Japan, Turkey and Singapore, with which the United States already has a status of forces accord.
The Iraq-US pact, while based on the same principles of two sovereign nations, will differ slightly because of the need for US forces to be able to fight.
“The general premise though is that they operate in a manner which reflects respect for, acknowledgement of Iraqi sovereignty and ultimately an Iraqi decision,” the US official said.
I would expect some troop withdrawal soon to show that the situation in Iraq is improving and perhaps quite a few more if Obama becomes president.
Treaty tensions mount as Iraq tells the US it wants all troops back in barracks
American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces.
According to a senior Iraqi official, the negotiations between the two allies became so fraught recently that President Bush intervened personally to defuse the situation. On Thursday he telephoned Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, to assure him that Washington was not seeking to undermine Iraq’s sovereignty and that America would reconsider any contentious part of the agreement.
The current United Nations mandate for US troops expires at the end of this year and Washington wants to conclude a bilateral agreement with Baghdad for the future deployment of US forces. There are just over 150,000 US troops in Iraq living on scores of bases across the country, from little 30-men outposts to sprawling camps often built around old Iraqi army barracks.
Construction work over the past five years has turned these bases into small towns of trailers, hangars and blast walls, equipped with a Pizza Hut, Starbucks-style coffee shops, cinemas and swimming pools.
Among a litany of sticking-points surrounding the status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the two countries are Iraqi concerns over how many US bases will remain in the country and who will be in control of Iraqi air space.
Other flashpoints include whether private security companies working for US forces will continue to enjoy immunity from Iraqi law and whether US soldiers will maintain the freedom to travel where they want, arrest people and conduct raids without first gaining approval from the Iraqi Government.
Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said that under the new deal US soldiers should be confined to the larger bases. “We do need the Americans to leave the cities and the streets,” he said. “They have to be there in the back and . . . in their camps. Whenever we ask them they will be ready to support and help.”
As for private security companies, “they should be subject to Iraqi law”, Mr al-Dabbagh said. The immunity of such firms that work for the military or the British or American embassies triggered outrage last year after security guards employed by Blackwater, the largest private security company in Iraq, were involved in a confrontation that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.
A status of forces agreement takes on average more than a year to conclude, but Washington hopes to seal the deal with Iraq by the end of July – a time-frame that the Iraqi side views with less importance than the content of the accord.
Sanctioning the continuing presence of US troops is hugely sensitive, with many Iraqis opposed to such a move. Iran has also voiced concern that the deal will enable Washington to use Iraq as a launch pad to conduct attacks in the region. Mr al-Maliki used a weekend trip to Tehran to try to calm the tensions. “We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and [other] neighbours,” he said.
The Iraqi Prime Minister will need to tread carefully to win the backing of his parliament for the pact and also ensure that the US side is satisfied.
Britain, which will have to sign its own bilateral accord with Iraq to legalise the presence of British troops in the country post2008, is watching the discussions with interest. London will use the US-Iraq arrangements for its own agreement.
The senior Iraqi official, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the chief concern is that Iraq’s sovereignty is protected.
“President [Bush] has been in touch with the Prime Minister of Iraq and has said that the issues which are rejected or not approved by the Government of Iraq will be reconsidered and the future American presence will be for assisting and coordinating with the Iraqi Government,” he told The Times about the conversation, which took place last Thursday.
A senior US official in Baghdad said that such conferences between the two leaders were fairly frequent. “[Mr Bush] has assured Prime Minister al-Maliki consistently we respect Iraq’s sovereignty. The content, the positions we take in the negotiations, will reflect that,” the official said.
US diplomats have been meeting their Iraqi counterparts for the past two months to draw up the status of forces document as well as a strategic framework, which sketches out every aspect of the two countries’ relationship from security, politics and the economy to culture, science and education.
As part of the process, several Iraqi delegates are due to return this week from a fact-finding trip to some of more than 80 countries, including Japan, Turkey and Singapore, with which the United States already has a status of forces accord.
The Iraq-US pact, while based on the same principles of two sovereign nations, will differ slightly because of the need for US forces to be able to fight.
“The general premise though is that they operate in a manner which reflects respect for, acknowledgement of Iraqi sovereignty and ultimately an Iraqi decision,” the US official said.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Afghanistan sovereignty under the talons of the eagle.
If anyone ever thought the U.S. was really interested in an independent Afghanistan this article should disabuse him or her of that idea. It is already being arranged that a new puppet with better connections should be "democratically" chosen as the next president. Karzai has sometimes been a bad puppet criticizing the U.S. and yet being unable to influence Washington. As the article points out it is Washington not Afghanistan that is important and that is why Khalilzad would be the right man for the job.
Bush's former Iraq ambassador to seek Afghan presidency
With Hamid Karzai seen as ineffective, many people are looking to someone with serious influence in Washington
By Kim Sengupta in KabulSunday, 8 June 2008
In his time, he has been President George Bush's point man in Baghdad, Kabul and the UN, as well as a lobbyist for both the Taliban and international oil companies. Now Zalmay Khalilzad is preparing to run for the presidency of his native Afghanistan.
Representatives of Mr Khalilzad, currently US ambassador to the UN, have discreetly sounded out various factions to ascertain his chances in the election scheduled for 2009. Although the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, is expected to run again, he is increasingly unpopular at home while his Western backers see him as ineffectual against the Taliban.
Three meetings have been held with opposition groups in recent months to promote Mr Khalilzad, pictured, as a "unifying" candidate in a country where deep divisions have begun to emerge between the Pashtun communities of the south and the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras of the north.
Mr Khalilzad, a Pashtun, was born in Laghman province in the south-east of the country, but raised in Mazar-i-Sharif in the north. He is on good terms with some former leaders of the Northern Alliance who have split from the Karzai government.
Speculation about the 56-year-old Mr Khalilzad's political ambitions sparked into life when he gave a TV interview, saying he was placing himself "at the service of the Afghan people". He was also said to be considering resigning from his post at the UN. The highest-ranking Muslim in the US administration, he was made the effective viceroy of Afghanistan after the 2001 invasion by President Bush before being moved on to Iraq to sort out the mess left by Paul Bremer.
The candidacy of Mr Khalilzad, a Rhodes scholar who has spent most of his adult life in the US and has an American wife, may come as a surprise, but many Afghan commentators say he would enjoy a high degree of support.
"A lot of people in this country feel that things were getting done while he was in charge and have deteriorated since he left," said Waheed Muzhda, a leading political analyst. "He kept the warlords much more in check, the Taliban had not come back and corruption was nothing like as bad as it is now. His close connection with the US government is actually in his favour. Many see Karzai as a US puppet anyway, so the feeling is, why not have someone who has got some actual influence in Washington, and can do some good for Afghanistan?"
Diplomatic sources agree that Mr Khalilzad seems to be using his UN post to pave the way for a run at the Afghan presidency. He was accused of undermining the prospect of Paddy Ashdown becoming the UN representative in Afghanistan because he didn't want a heavyweight international figure, controlling a huge budget, as a potential rival.
Bush's former Iraq ambassador to seek Afghan presidency
With Hamid Karzai seen as ineffective, many people are looking to someone with serious influence in Washington
By Kim Sengupta in KabulSunday, 8 June 2008
In his time, he has been President George Bush's point man in Baghdad, Kabul and the UN, as well as a lobbyist for both the Taliban and international oil companies. Now Zalmay Khalilzad is preparing to run for the presidency of his native Afghanistan.
Representatives of Mr Khalilzad, currently US ambassador to the UN, have discreetly sounded out various factions to ascertain his chances in the election scheduled for 2009. Although the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, is expected to run again, he is increasingly unpopular at home while his Western backers see him as ineffectual against the Taliban.
Three meetings have been held with opposition groups in recent months to promote Mr Khalilzad, pictured, as a "unifying" candidate in a country where deep divisions have begun to emerge between the Pashtun communities of the south and the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras of the north.
Mr Khalilzad, a Pashtun, was born in Laghman province in the south-east of the country, but raised in Mazar-i-Sharif in the north. He is on good terms with some former leaders of the Northern Alliance who have split from the Karzai government.
Speculation about the 56-year-old Mr Khalilzad's political ambitions sparked into life when he gave a TV interview, saying he was placing himself "at the service of the Afghan people". He was also said to be considering resigning from his post at the UN. The highest-ranking Muslim in the US administration, he was made the effective viceroy of Afghanistan after the 2001 invasion by President Bush before being moved on to Iraq to sort out the mess left by Paul Bremer.
The candidacy of Mr Khalilzad, a Rhodes scholar who has spent most of his adult life in the US and has an American wife, may come as a surprise, but many Afghan commentators say he would enjoy a high degree of support.
"A lot of people in this country feel that things were getting done while he was in charge and have deteriorated since he left," said Waheed Muzhda, a leading political analyst. "He kept the warlords much more in check, the Taliban had not come back and corruption was nothing like as bad as it is now. His close connection with the US government is actually in his favour. Many see Karzai as a US puppet anyway, so the feeling is, why not have someone who has got some actual influence in Washington, and can do some good for Afghanistan?"
Diplomatic sources agree that Mr Khalilzad seems to be using his UN post to pave the way for a run at the Afghan presidency. He was accused of undermining the prospect of Paddy Ashdown becoming the UN representative in Afghanistan because he didn't want a heavyweight international figure, controlling a huge budget, as a potential rival.
New General quiet but qualified.
This is from the Toronto Sun. That Natanczyk is quiet is no doubt a plus at least for most politicians. Hillier could be a loose cannon. However, I find it a bit puzzling that Worthington and others think that his duty in Iraq is also a real plus but then the government thought so too since it gave him a medal for his service. No one seems it might just be a bit inappropriate for a Canadian general to be rewarded for service to a war that was in effect a violation of everything the UN stands for and of the charter, a war based upon misinformation. The UN inspectors were not allowed to do their job before or after the war. They had to get out or get bombed.
No one seems to suggest that we are at best junior partners in U.S. imperialism or in their own words part of the plan for a New American Century. Quite the contrary the media pundits all applaud this role but refuse to call it for what it is.
New general quiet, but qualified
By PETER WORTHINGTON
Not since World War II has a Canadian general had the vast experience of command as the new chief of defence staff (CDS) replacing the too-popular Gen. Rick Hillier.
On paper, Winnipeg-born Walter Natynczyk seems a superb choice. No senior Canadian general can match his diversity of command, or his record of senior command appointments with the U.S. army.
From the government's point of view, Natynczyk is deemed unlikely to be as outspoken, articulate, persuasive and popular as his predecessor -- important for politicians, who don't like being upstaged by soldiers.
Even soldiers who make the government look good, or at least better than it is.
In a way that's a pity. A strong, overt personality in a commander can build morale, both among soldiers and the public.
This, of course, is conditional that he also knows his business and is competent, which Hillier certainly was.
To some, the fact that Natynczyk is from the armoured corps -- as was Hillier -- is a positive.
Natynczyk is a former commanding officer of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, and has held various command and operational roles in Bosnia and Croatia, both in times of peacekeeping and of peacemaking, ending up as chief of land operations for the UN in the Balkans. He's served in Cyprus, and most recently was vice chief of defence staff -- an all-purpose general.
But the extraordinary qualification that Natynczyk brings to his new job -- and which makes him so special -- is that he was attached to the U.S. Army's III Corps, initially in Fort Hood, Texas (arguably the largest military base in the world) and later as deputy commander of III Corps when it went to Iraq. Subsequently he was deputy commanding general of the multinational corps in Iraq.
When one considers that a "corps" comprises roughly 140,000 soldiers, it means that Gen. Natynczyk has more extensive experience at high command during warfare than any living Canadian.
While the CDS is responsible for the army, navy and air force, these total roughly 60,000 in Canada, with the army comprising maybe 20,000 -- three infantry battalions from each of three regiments (Princess Pats, VanDoos and RCR) and three armoured regiments (Strathconas, RCD, and 12th Armoured Regiment).
Maybe a total of 6,000 combat soldiers -- maybe the size of the Toronto Police force. At best, the Canadian army consists of one effective brigade, which Hillier sought to expand and modernize during his tenure as CDS. He was remarkably effective, establishing himself as the face, voice and future of the army, and more popular with the Canadian public than any politician. Bit of a superstar.
He was popular in the army, too (less so among the navy and air force). That doesn't mean much, since politicians are notoriously suspect by the military, which ever since World War II has been subjected to budget cuts and negligence. Especially since the reign of Pierre Trudeau.
There's some irony in a Canadian general being the deputy commander of a U.S. corps, especially when Canada's former PM, Jean Chretien, made such a fuss about not joining, or even supporting, the war in Iraq. Saddam's homicidal manner of governing didn't offend our Jean.
In fact, a couple of dozen Canadian soldiers have served in Iraq, or are there now, attached to British or American units.
With the U.S. becoming more involved in Afghanistan, Natynczyk's background with the Americans should be useful. He is obviously trusted by his U.S. counterparts -- as was Hillier, and as many of our politicians are not.
Although Hillier seemed to get on well with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay (and vice-versa), there's a feeling that his candour and charisma made them uneasy. Natynczyk has a reputation of being much quieter, more discreet.
We shall see.
For those who tend to trust our soldiers more than our politicians, it is hoped that Natynczyk carries on with Hillier's legacy of updating the dynamism and capabilities of the military.
While we've done the heavy work in Afghanistan, and endured casualties, our soldiers have thumped the Taliban at every encounter and made their area safer for civilians. Natynczyk knows this, and signs are positive he'll continue the role he's inherited.
No one seems to suggest that we are at best junior partners in U.S. imperialism or in their own words part of the plan for a New American Century. Quite the contrary the media pundits all applaud this role but refuse to call it for what it is.
New general quiet, but qualified
By PETER WORTHINGTON
Not since World War II has a Canadian general had the vast experience of command as the new chief of defence staff (CDS) replacing the too-popular Gen. Rick Hillier.
On paper, Winnipeg-born Walter Natynczyk seems a superb choice. No senior Canadian general can match his diversity of command, or his record of senior command appointments with the U.S. army.
From the government's point of view, Natynczyk is deemed unlikely to be as outspoken, articulate, persuasive and popular as his predecessor -- important for politicians, who don't like being upstaged by soldiers.
Even soldiers who make the government look good, or at least better than it is.
In a way that's a pity. A strong, overt personality in a commander can build morale, both among soldiers and the public.
This, of course, is conditional that he also knows his business and is competent, which Hillier certainly was.
To some, the fact that Natynczyk is from the armoured corps -- as was Hillier -- is a positive.
Natynczyk is a former commanding officer of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, and has held various command and operational roles in Bosnia and Croatia, both in times of peacekeeping and of peacemaking, ending up as chief of land operations for the UN in the Balkans. He's served in Cyprus, and most recently was vice chief of defence staff -- an all-purpose general.
But the extraordinary qualification that Natynczyk brings to his new job -- and which makes him so special -- is that he was attached to the U.S. Army's III Corps, initially in Fort Hood, Texas (arguably the largest military base in the world) and later as deputy commander of III Corps when it went to Iraq. Subsequently he was deputy commanding general of the multinational corps in Iraq.
When one considers that a "corps" comprises roughly 140,000 soldiers, it means that Gen. Natynczyk has more extensive experience at high command during warfare than any living Canadian.
While the CDS is responsible for the army, navy and air force, these total roughly 60,000 in Canada, with the army comprising maybe 20,000 -- three infantry battalions from each of three regiments (Princess Pats, VanDoos and RCR) and three armoured regiments (Strathconas, RCD, and 12th Armoured Regiment).
Maybe a total of 6,000 combat soldiers -- maybe the size of the Toronto Police force. At best, the Canadian army consists of one effective brigade, which Hillier sought to expand and modernize during his tenure as CDS. He was remarkably effective, establishing himself as the face, voice and future of the army, and more popular with the Canadian public than any politician. Bit of a superstar.
He was popular in the army, too (less so among the navy and air force). That doesn't mean much, since politicians are notoriously suspect by the military, which ever since World War II has been subjected to budget cuts and negligence. Especially since the reign of Pierre Trudeau.
There's some irony in a Canadian general being the deputy commander of a U.S. corps, especially when Canada's former PM, Jean Chretien, made such a fuss about not joining, or even supporting, the war in Iraq. Saddam's homicidal manner of governing didn't offend our Jean.
In fact, a couple of dozen Canadian soldiers have served in Iraq, or are there now, attached to British or American units.
With the U.S. becoming more involved in Afghanistan, Natynczyk's background with the Americans should be useful. He is obviously trusted by his U.S. counterparts -- as was Hillier, and as many of our politicians are not.
Although Hillier seemed to get on well with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay (and vice-versa), there's a feeling that his candour and charisma made them uneasy. Natynczyk has a reputation of being much quieter, more discreet.
We shall see.
For those who tend to trust our soldiers more than our politicians, it is hoped that Natynczyk carries on with Hillier's legacy of updating the dynamism and capabilities of the military.
While we've done the heavy work in Afghanistan, and endured casualties, our soldiers have thumped the Taliban at every encounter and made their area safer for civilians. Natynczyk knows this, and signs are positive he'll continue the role he's inherited.
Protest at GM moves to higher gear.
This is from the Star.
GM obviously thinks that it is in a position of strength vis-a-vis the unions. The bad faith move to close a plant within a few weeks after a contract was signed in which the union gave many concessions in order to keep the plant open is meant to show that the company can do whatever it wants, in fact mocking the whole contract. Unless the union wants to lose all credibility it will be necessary to show that GM cannot do this without serious damage to its bottom line. That is all that matters to GM.
Protest at GM moves to higher gear TheStar.com - GTA - Protest at GM moves to higher gear
June 08, 2008 Paola LoriggioStaff Reporter
General Motors employees yesterday ramped up their protest efforts outside the automaker's truck and car plants in Oshawa, but union representatives say it's only the beginning.
"We've got all kinds of things up our sleeves," said Keith Osborne, union chair for GM's Oshawa complex, though he wouldn't comment on future plans for fear of tipping off the company.
Early yesterday morning, members of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 222, which represents the Oshawa workers, staged a three-hour motorcade through the truck and car plants to show GM executives they mean business.
The union set up a blockade there Wednesday after the company announced it would close the truck plant and three assembly operations in the U.S. and Mexico within two years. The closing in Oshawa would end more than 2,000 plant jobs and several thousand others at parts suppliers.
"This is about all of us – all our jobs, all our community," CAW Local 222 president Chris Buckley told hundreds of cheering union workers as he announced plans for the motorcade, described as "phase two" of the rally.
The slow-moving motorcade cost each plant about 45 minutes in production by cutting off their supply of parts, Osborne said yesterday afternoon.
Osborne wouldn't rule out the possibility of job action, should other legal recourses fail.
GM obviously thinks that it is in a position of strength vis-a-vis the unions. The bad faith move to close a plant within a few weeks after a contract was signed in which the union gave many concessions in order to keep the plant open is meant to show that the company can do whatever it wants, in fact mocking the whole contract. Unless the union wants to lose all credibility it will be necessary to show that GM cannot do this without serious damage to its bottom line. That is all that matters to GM.
Protest at GM moves to higher gear TheStar.com - GTA - Protest at GM moves to higher gear
June 08, 2008 Paola LoriggioStaff Reporter
General Motors employees yesterday ramped up their protest efforts outside the automaker's truck and car plants in Oshawa, but union representatives say it's only the beginning.
"We've got all kinds of things up our sleeves," said Keith Osborne, union chair for GM's Oshawa complex, though he wouldn't comment on future plans for fear of tipping off the company.
Early yesterday morning, members of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 222, which represents the Oshawa workers, staged a three-hour motorcade through the truck and car plants to show GM executives they mean business.
The union set up a blockade there Wednesday after the company announced it would close the truck plant and three assembly operations in the U.S. and Mexico within two years. The closing in Oshawa would end more than 2,000 plant jobs and several thousand others at parts suppliers.
"This is about all of us – all our jobs, all our community," CAW Local 222 president Chris Buckley told hundreds of cheering union workers as he announced plans for the motorcade, described as "phase two" of the rally.
The slow-moving motorcade cost each plant about 45 minutes in production by cutting off their supply of parts, Osborne said yesterday afternoon.
Osborne wouldn't rule out the possibility of job action, should other legal recourses fail.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Outsourcing the Fight: Private Contractors and the U.S military.
This is from Forbes. It is an excellent analytical article that shows some of the many problems with outsourcing functions and services that have traditionally been provided by the military itself to private contractors. In Iraq especially private contractors have been notorious for over-charging for services and being able to get contracts without any real competition.
Supply LinesOutsourcing The FightP.W. Singer 06.05.08, 6:00 PM ET
In 1992 a relatively little-known, Texas-based oil services firm called Halliburton was awarded a $3.9 million Pentagon contract. Its task was to write a classified report on how private companies, like itself, could support the logistics of U.S. military deployments into countries with poor infrastructure. Conspiracy theories aside, it is hard to imagine that either the company or the client realized that 15 years later this contract (now called the Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program or LOGCAP) would be worth as much as $150 billion.
The use of private contractors in U.S wars dates back to the sutlers, merchants who followed behind Revolutionary and Civil War armies selling incidentals to the troops like jam or whiskey. But the size and scope of the private military industry today is unprecedented. In Iraq alone, there are some 180,000 private military contractors performing functions that once would have been handled by soldiers in uniform.
The vast bulk of these contractors handle military support functions: building and operating military bases, maintaining and repairing military equipment and vehicles, and moving massive convoys of supplies that are both vital to the operation's survival (like gas and ammunition) and not so vital (like Pizza Hut Personal Pan Pizza). Getting those jobs done has incurred a great cost, both financial and human; according to Department of Labor insurance claims, 1,292 contractors have been killed and 9,610 wounded as of April 2008.
Contracting out logistics has brought the skills and resources of hundreds of companies from around the world to support the war effort. But, much like when a business outsources too much of its supply chain, this process has caused a loss of control. While companies only perform the jobs specified in their contract, war is an environment in which flexibility is needed most.
Take for example the recent news that at least 12 U.S. soldiers have been accidentally electrocuted inside their bases in Iraq. Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a highly decorated Green Beret, was killed while taking a shower 11 months after KBR contractors had first found potentially serious electrical problems in the facility's construction. But KBR's contract didn't cover "fixing potential hazards." It only required them to repair items that were already broken.
Handing over control to contractors has also lead to allegations of war-profiteering. Almost all of today's logistics firms are operating under "cost-plus" contracts--a structure that is ripe for abuse. Examples in Iraq range from billing for soldiers' meals that were never cooked or served to convoys shipping "sailboat fuel" (as Halliburton -KBR truck drivers laughingly termed charging the government for moving empty pallets from site to site). According to testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government and Reform, the Defense Contract Audit Agency has identified more than $10 billion in unsupported or questionable costs from battlefield contractors--and it has barely scratched the surface.
Such losses don't just represent misspent funds; they represent lost opportunities to actually support our diplomatic and military goals. The situation has gotten so bad that the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction dubbed corruption as the "second insurgency" in Iraq.
Many worry that the lack of control due to outsourcing could weigh even heavier and even put an entire military operation at risk. Consider what happened during the 2004 Sadr uprising, where a spike in attacks on convoys caused many companies to either withdraw or suspend operations, causing fuel and ammunition stocks to dwindle.
It is important to remember that private contractors are not bound by the same codes, structures and obligations as those in public service. As Tom Crum, then the chief operating officer for KBR's logistics operations, wrote in an internal memo, "We cannot allow the Army to push us to put our people in harm's way. ... If we in management believe the Army is asking us to put our KBR employees in danger that we are not willing to accept, then we will refuse to go."
As civilians, this choice is their right to make. But as retired Army Major Gen. Barry McCaffery testified to Congress in 2007, the consequence of turning over so much of the supply system to private civilian firms, which have this right to decide when and where they deploy, makes our logistics system "a house of cards."
In the same way that companies such as Cisco were forced to reconsider their outsourcing policies in the late 1990s, after they lost the ability to deliver on core functions, the military (with a push from Congress) needs to reevaluate what is appropriate to outsource and what is not. If a task is critical to the mission's ultimate success or failure, then perhaps it should be kept in-house. In other words: Feel free to outsource the Burger Kings, laundries and base construction, but maybe we ought to keep roles like military interrogators, armed troops and movement of critical supplies (all now outsourced) inside the system.
The Pentagon also has to do a much better job of being a smart client. Far too few contracts get any true competition to drive down prices. Instead, they tend to be bundled together into massive structures, where a few prime contractors (just three in the new version of LOGCAP) are the ones that dole out sub-contracts. Add in the largely cost-plus contract structure, and savings tend not to accrue.
There also aren't enough eyes and ears working on behalf of the government client to monitor contractor performance. In 1998, there was one financial auditor for every $642 million in Pentagon contracts. Today, there is one auditor for every $2.03 billion in contracts.
These auditors aren't just required to catch false billings and cost overruns, but also to ensure quality. That soldier's electrocution didn't happen because of malice; it happened, as an internal Pentagon e-mail revealed, because KBR's inspections were never reviewed by a "qualified government employee," and the Army wasn't aware of "the extent of the severity of the electrical problems."
Finally, the Pentagon needs to use its massive buying power to shape and sanction the market, much like Wal-Mart does to wring out efficiencies and send warnings to any vendors that think to cross it. For example, the new LOGCAP contract, potentially worth up to $150 billion, went to KBR, DynCorp and Fluor. Yet, as the Project on Government Oversight found, these same three companies have been cited for 29 cases of serious misconduct in the last decade--a category of allegations that includes false claims against the government, violations of the Anti-Kickback Act, fraud and conspiracy to launder money.
There's no doubt that demand for outsourced logistics has grown, and that private military contractors are bigger than ever. But we've yet to see whether the government will advance equally in its efforts to become a smart regulator and customer of this marketplace.
P.W. Singer is director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institutions, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and the forthcoming book Wired for War: The Science Fiction and Political Reality of Robotics on the 21st Century Battlefield.
Supply LinesOutsourcing The FightP.W. Singer 06.05.08, 6:00 PM ET
In 1992 a relatively little-known, Texas-based oil services firm called Halliburton was awarded a $3.9 million Pentagon contract. Its task was to write a classified report on how private companies, like itself, could support the logistics of U.S. military deployments into countries with poor infrastructure. Conspiracy theories aside, it is hard to imagine that either the company or the client realized that 15 years later this contract (now called the Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program or LOGCAP) would be worth as much as $150 billion.
The use of private contractors in U.S wars dates back to the sutlers, merchants who followed behind Revolutionary and Civil War armies selling incidentals to the troops like jam or whiskey. But the size and scope of the private military industry today is unprecedented. In Iraq alone, there are some 180,000 private military contractors performing functions that once would have been handled by soldiers in uniform.
The vast bulk of these contractors handle military support functions: building and operating military bases, maintaining and repairing military equipment and vehicles, and moving massive convoys of supplies that are both vital to the operation's survival (like gas and ammunition) and not so vital (like Pizza Hut Personal Pan Pizza). Getting those jobs done has incurred a great cost, both financial and human; according to Department of Labor insurance claims, 1,292 contractors have been killed and 9,610 wounded as of April 2008.
Contracting out logistics has brought the skills and resources of hundreds of companies from around the world to support the war effort. But, much like when a business outsources too much of its supply chain, this process has caused a loss of control. While companies only perform the jobs specified in their contract, war is an environment in which flexibility is needed most.
Take for example the recent news that at least 12 U.S. soldiers have been accidentally electrocuted inside their bases in Iraq. Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a highly decorated Green Beret, was killed while taking a shower 11 months after KBR contractors had first found potentially serious electrical problems in the facility's construction. But KBR's contract didn't cover "fixing potential hazards." It only required them to repair items that were already broken.
Handing over control to contractors has also lead to allegations of war-profiteering. Almost all of today's logistics firms are operating under "cost-plus" contracts--a structure that is ripe for abuse. Examples in Iraq range from billing for soldiers' meals that were never cooked or served to convoys shipping "sailboat fuel" (as Halliburton -KBR truck drivers laughingly termed charging the government for moving empty pallets from site to site). According to testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government and Reform, the Defense Contract Audit Agency has identified more than $10 billion in unsupported or questionable costs from battlefield contractors--and it has barely scratched the surface.
Such losses don't just represent misspent funds; they represent lost opportunities to actually support our diplomatic and military goals. The situation has gotten so bad that the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction dubbed corruption as the "second insurgency" in Iraq.
Many worry that the lack of control due to outsourcing could weigh even heavier and even put an entire military operation at risk. Consider what happened during the 2004 Sadr uprising, where a spike in attacks on convoys caused many companies to either withdraw or suspend operations, causing fuel and ammunition stocks to dwindle.
It is important to remember that private contractors are not bound by the same codes, structures and obligations as those in public service. As Tom Crum, then the chief operating officer for KBR's logistics operations, wrote in an internal memo, "We cannot allow the Army to push us to put our people in harm's way. ... If we in management believe the Army is asking us to put our KBR employees in danger that we are not willing to accept, then we will refuse to go."
As civilians, this choice is their right to make. But as retired Army Major Gen. Barry McCaffery testified to Congress in 2007, the consequence of turning over so much of the supply system to private civilian firms, which have this right to decide when and where they deploy, makes our logistics system "a house of cards."
In the same way that companies such as Cisco were forced to reconsider their outsourcing policies in the late 1990s, after they lost the ability to deliver on core functions, the military (with a push from Congress) needs to reevaluate what is appropriate to outsource and what is not. If a task is critical to the mission's ultimate success or failure, then perhaps it should be kept in-house. In other words: Feel free to outsource the Burger Kings, laundries and base construction, but maybe we ought to keep roles like military interrogators, armed troops and movement of critical supplies (all now outsourced) inside the system.
The Pentagon also has to do a much better job of being a smart client. Far too few contracts get any true competition to drive down prices. Instead, they tend to be bundled together into massive structures, where a few prime contractors (just three in the new version of LOGCAP) are the ones that dole out sub-contracts. Add in the largely cost-plus contract structure, and savings tend not to accrue.
There also aren't enough eyes and ears working on behalf of the government client to monitor contractor performance. In 1998, there was one financial auditor for every $642 million in Pentagon contracts. Today, there is one auditor for every $2.03 billion in contracts.
These auditors aren't just required to catch false billings and cost overruns, but also to ensure quality. That soldier's electrocution didn't happen because of malice; it happened, as an internal Pentagon e-mail revealed, because KBR's inspections were never reviewed by a "qualified government employee," and the Army wasn't aware of "the extent of the severity of the electrical problems."
Finally, the Pentagon needs to use its massive buying power to shape and sanction the market, much like Wal-Mart does to wring out efficiencies and send warnings to any vendors that think to cross it. For example, the new LOGCAP contract, potentially worth up to $150 billion, went to KBR, DynCorp and Fluor. Yet, as the Project on Government Oversight found, these same three companies have been cited for 29 cases of serious misconduct in the last decade--a category of allegations that includes false claims against the government, violations of the Anti-Kickback Act, fraud and conspiracy to launder money.
There's no doubt that demand for outsourced logistics has grown, and that private military contractors are bigger than ever. But we've yet to see whether the government will advance equally in its efforts to become a smart regulator and customer of this marketplace.
P.W. Singer is director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institutions, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and the forthcoming book Wired for War: The Science Fiction and Political Reality of Robotics on the 21st Century Battlefield.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Report: Arar deported despite concerns he would be tortured.
This report manages to point out a few of the problems with the deportation of Arar to Syria but in the end it is a farcical whitewash in concluding that nothing was done wrong or illegally.
The report concludes:
Skinner's 52-page review of Arar's case was completed in March but only released publicly Thursday. The report says "it does not appear" that Immigration and Naturalization Services personnel violated any "then-existing" law in the removal of Arar to Syria.
It seems that Skinner may actually realise the farcical nature of his findings and is deflecting attention from this fact by renewing his investigation on the basis of new information that the FBI may actually have known that Arar would be tortured in Syria. More farce. Everyone knows that people are tortured in Syria. Everyone except Skinner knows as well that the U.S. has a policy of rendition in which suspects are deliberately sent to countries such as Syria in order that ïnformation" will be extracted through torture. No wonder this report's release was delayed so long. Maybe some in the administration are not completely clueless and worried about its reception.
The report doesn't seem to recognise that the alleged facts used to establish that Arar was an Al Qaeda agent have long been shown to be bogus by an extensive investigation in a Canadian inquiry. To be fair the ïnformation"or most of it came from Canadian intelligence but was completely unverified or even sorted for relevance and with no caveats. Of course no one was ever punished in Canada although the head of the RCMP resigned because he contradicted his own testimony even after expensive tutoring in how to testify paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.
Thursday » June 5 » 2008
Arar deported despite concerns he would be tortured: U.S. report
Sheldon Alberts
Canwest News Service
Thursday, June 05, 2008
CREDIT: Jean Levac/Ottawa Citizen
Maher Arar was released without charges and returned to Canada after spending nearly a year in a Syrian prison.
WASHINGTON - United States immigration officials who detained Canadian engineer Maher Arar in 2002 concluded his deportation to Syria would "more likely than not result in his torture," but removed him anyway despite receiving "ambiguous" assurances of his safety, according to a new U.S. government report into the case.
An investigation led by Richard Skinner, the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general, also found Arar's removal hearing was held under "questionable" circumstances late on a Sunday evening when lawyers for the Canadian citizen could not attend.
"The INS concluded that Arar was entitled to protection from torture and that returning him to Syria would more likely than not result in his torture," the report said.
What's unclear from the report - because those portions were heavily redacted - is the nature of assurances given to the INS that Arar would not be tortured. The report said those assurances are normally obtained through the State Department.
"However, the validity of the assurances to protect Arar does not appear to have been examined," the report said.
In testimony Thursday before a congressional committee, Skinner said he could not determine the U.S. government's rationale for sending Arar to Syria.
"The assurances upon which INS based Arar's removal were ambiguous regarding the source or authority purporting to bind the Syrian government."
Asked if immigration proceedings against Arar were rushed to ensure he did not have legal representation present to challenge his removal to Syria, Skinner replied: "That certainly appears to be the case."
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House subcommittee on constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, said the report shows the Bush administration "knowingly violated the obligations" the United States has under the UN Convention Against Torture.
"This case, and the rendition policy generally, gets more disturbing with each bit of information we obtain," Nadler said.
Just as the House subcommittee began a day-long hearing into the report, Skinner stunned lawmakers by announcing he was re-opening his investigation of U.S. government actions against Arar.
"Less than a month ago, we received additional information that contradicts one of the conclusions in our report," he testified. "As such, we are in the process of conducting additional interviews to determine the validity of this information to the extent we can."
Skinner's 52-page review of Arar's case was completed in March but only released publicly Thursday. The report says "it does not appear" that Immigration and Naturalization Services personnel violated any "then-existing" law in the removal of Arar to Syria.
The INS was able to conduct "peculiar removal proceedings" because of broad latitude under U.S. counterterrorism laws, it said.
But the report does criticize the U.S. for failing to give Arar a reasonable amount of time to "comprehend and respond" to allegations he had ties to al-Qaida.
Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was detained in New York's Kennedy Airport while returning to Canada from a vacation on Sept. 26, 2002.
He was labeled an Islamic extremist, based on information supplied to the U.S. by Canadian authorities, and deported to Syria, where he was jailed and tortured for almost a year.
In 2007, Arar received a $10.5-million compensation package from the Canadian government after an inquiry into the matter concluded his deportation was likely triggered by false information passed on by the RCMP.
The U.S. government has not removed him from its terrorist watch lists.
In his review of U.S. actions, Skinner found INS officials properly deemed Arar inadmissible based on "the derogatory information" it had received about his background.
Arar was notified on Oct. 1, 2002, that he would be removed from the United States, and was given five days to respond.
But the inspector general's report found the circumstances of Arar's detention - in the most restrictive unit of a maximum security jail in Brooklyn - "contributed to his difficulties in obtaining legal counsel and advice on his immigration case."
Arar initially declined an offer to contact Canadian officials on Sept. 26, 2002.
He asked a day later to contact Canada's consulate. The "request was denied" because New York's joint terrorism task force "was concerned that an outside phone call might jeopardize the investigation of Arar."
Arar was only able to meet with a Canadian consular official on Oct. 3 - a week after his detention - and an immigration attorney on Oct. 5, three days before his removal.
"Given the seriousness of the charges, the intent to remove him to Syria, and his highly restrictive detention conditions at (the Brooklyn jail), we question the reasonableness of the length of time he was given to comprehend and respond to the charges against him and his ability to obtain counsel," the report said.
"Arar was in a maximum security detention facility and, as such, was virtually incapable of harming national security or public safety and had very limited opportunities to communicate with anyone."
The decision to remove Arar to Syria was made by the INS in consultations with attorneys from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the report said.
They denied Arar's request to return to Canada because of concerns "the porous nature of the U.S.-Canadian border would enable Arar to easily return to the United States."
After Arar expressed fears about being sent to Syria, the INS conducted a review examining the dangers he faced.
But officials scheduled the hearing at an odd time, on late Sunday, Oct. 6.
INS lawyers attempted to reach an immigration and criminal attorney for Arar at their offices at 5 p.m. for a 9 p.m. hearing. Neither could attend.
"The method of the notification of the interview to Arar's attorneys and the notification's proximity to the time of the interview were questionable," the report said.
Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrats, said he planned to press for a special prosecutor to investigate Arar's case because the Homeland Security report leaves too many questions unanswered.
"This is a gross embarrassment to the people of the United States and to this institution," Delahunt said.
Maria Lahood, Arar's New York-based lawyer, said a special prosecutor was "absolutely necessary" to determine if there U.S. officials
"This is an interesting first step in holding the officials accountable, but we really need is a truly independent investigation and the possibility of criminal prosecutions," said Lahood.
With files from Arielle Godbout (Canwest News Service)
© Canwest News Service 2008
Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
The report concludes:
Skinner's 52-page review of Arar's case was completed in March but only released publicly Thursday. The report says "it does not appear" that Immigration and Naturalization Services personnel violated any "then-existing" law in the removal of Arar to Syria.
It seems that Skinner may actually realise the farcical nature of his findings and is deflecting attention from this fact by renewing his investigation on the basis of new information that the FBI may actually have known that Arar would be tortured in Syria. More farce. Everyone knows that people are tortured in Syria. Everyone except Skinner knows as well that the U.S. has a policy of rendition in which suspects are deliberately sent to countries such as Syria in order that ïnformation" will be extracted through torture. No wonder this report's release was delayed so long. Maybe some in the administration are not completely clueless and worried about its reception.
The report doesn't seem to recognise that the alleged facts used to establish that Arar was an Al Qaeda agent have long been shown to be bogus by an extensive investigation in a Canadian inquiry. To be fair the ïnformation"or most of it came from Canadian intelligence but was completely unverified or even sorted for relevance and with no caveats. Of course no one was ever punished in Canada although the head of the RCMP resigned because he contradicted his own testimony even after expensive tutoring in how to testify paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.
Thursday » June 5 » 2008
Arar deported despite concerns he would be tortured: U.S. report
Sheldon Alberts
Canwest News Service
Thursday, June 05, 2008
CREDIT: Jean Levac/Ottawa Citizen
Maher Arar was released without charges and returned to Canada after spending nearly a year in a Syrian prison.
WASHINGTON - United States immigration officials who detained Canadian engineer Maher Arar in 2002 concluded his deportation to Syria would "more likely than not result in his torture," but removed him anyway despite receiving "ambiguous" assurances of his safety, according to a new U.S. government report into the case.
An investigation led by Richard Skinner, the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general, also found Arar's removal hearing was held under "questionable" circumstances late on a Sunday evening when lawyers for the Canadian citizen could not attend.
"The INS concluded that Arar was entitled to protection from torture and that returning him to Syria would more likely than not result in his torture," the report said.
What's unclear from the report - because those portions were heavily redacted - is the nature of assurances given to the INS that Arar would not be tortured. The report said those assurances are normally obtained through the State Department.
"However, the validity of the assurances to protect Arar does not appear to have been examined," the report said.
In testimony Thursday before a congressional committee, Skinner said he could not determine the U.S. government's rationale for sending Arar to Syria.
"The assurances upon which INS based Arar's removal were ambiguous regarding the source or authority purporting to bind the Syrian government."
Asked if immigration proceedings against Arar were rushed to ensure he did not have legal representation present to challenge his removal to Syria, Skinner replied: "That certainly appears to be the case."
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House subcommittee on constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, said the report shows the Bush administration "knowingly violated the obligations" the United States has under the UN Convention Against Torture.
"This case, and the rendition policy generally, gets more disturbing with each bit of information we obtain," Nadler said.
Just as the House subcommittee began a day-long hearing into the report, Skinner stunned lawmakers by announcing he was re-opening his investigation of U.S. government actions against Arar.
"Less than a month ago, we received additional information that contradicts one of the conclusions in our report," he testified. "As such, we are in the process of conducting additional interviews to determine the validity of this information to the extent we can."
Skinner's 52-page review of Arar's case was completed in March but only released publicly Thursday. The report says "it does not appear" that Immigration and Naturalization Services personnel violated any "then-existing" law in the removal of Arar to Syria.
The INS was able to conduct "peculiar removal proceedings" because of broad latitude under U.S. counterterrorism laws, it said.
But the report does criticize the U.S. for failing to give Arar a reasonable amount of time to "comprehend and respond" to allegations he had ties to al-Qaida.
Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was detained in New York's Kennedy Airport while returning to Canada from a vacation on Sept. 26, 2002.
He was labeled an Islamic extremist, based on information supplied to the U.S. by Canadian authorities, and deported to Syria, where he was jailed and tortured for almost a year.
In 2007, Arar received a $10.5-million compensation package from the Canadian government after an inquiry into the matter concluded his deportation was likely triggered by false information passed on by the RCMP.
The U.S. government has not removed him from its terrorist watch lists.
In his review of U.S. actions, Skinner found INS officials properly deemed Arar inadmissible based on "the derogatory information" it had received about his background.
Arar was notified on Oct. 1, 2002, that he would be removed from the United States, and was given five days to respond.
But the inspector general's report found the circumstances of Arar's detention - in the most restrictive unit of a maximum security jail in Brooklyn - "contributed to his difficulties in obtaining legal counsel and advice on his immigration case."
Arar initially declined an offer to contact Canadian officials on Sept. 26, 2002.
He asked a day later to contact Canada's consulate. The "request was denied" because New York's joint terrorism task force "was concerned that an outside phone call might jeopardize the investigation of Arar."
Arar was only able to meet with a Canadian consular official on Oct. 3 - a week after his detention - and an immigration attorney on Oct. 5, three days before his removal.
"Given the seriousness of the charges, the intent to remove him to Syria, and his highly restrictive detention conditions at (the Brooklyn jail), we question the reasonableness of the length of time he was given to comprehend and respond to the charges against him and his ability to obtain counsel," the report said.
"Arar was in a maximum security detention facility and, as such, was virtually incapable of harming national security or public safety and had very limited opportunities to communicate with anyone."
The decision to remove Arar to Syria was made by the INS in consultations with attorneys from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the report said.
They denied Arar's request to return to Canada because of concerns "the porous nature of the U.S.-Canadian border would enable Arar to easily return to the United States."
After Arar expressed fears about being sent to Syria, the INS conducted a review examining the dangers he faced.
But officials scheduled the hearing at an odd time, on late Sunday, Oct. 6.
INS lawyers attempted to reach an immigration and criminal attorney for Arar at their offices at 5 p.m. for a 9 p.m. hearing. Neither could attend.
"The method of the notification of the interview to Arar's attorneys and the notification's proximity to the time of the interview were questionable," the report said.
Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrats, said he planned to press for a special prosecutor to investigate Arar's case because the Homeland Security report leaves too many questions unanswered.
"This is a gross embarrassment to the people of the United States and to this institution," Delahunt said.
Maria Lahood, Arar's New York-based lawyer, said a special prosecutor was "absolutely necessary" to determine if there U.S. officials
"This is an interesting first step in holding the officials accountable, but we really need is a truly independent investigation and the possibility of criminal prosecutions," said Lahood.
With files from Arielle Godbout (Canwest News Service)
© Canwest News Service 2008
Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Spate of arrests ahead of Zimbabwe runoff election.
This is from allafrica.com.
Mugabe is not about to turn over power. Given that the army and police say that they will not accept the rule of the opposition leader it seems that the election is a farce, a violent and damaging farce as far as the opposition is concerned. It seems that some type of armed insurrection is the only way that Mugabe will be overthrown. Even if he dies the army and police will allow only someone that they approve to rule.
Spate of Arrests Ahead of Elections
UN Integrated Regional Information NetworksNEWS5 June 2008 Posted to the web 5 June 2008 Harare
The detention of presidential contender Morgan Tsvangirai by Zimbabwean police for nearly 12 hours on 4 June is another instance of the orchestrated harassment of opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) supporters and other organisations regarded as out of step with the 28-year rule of President Robert Mugabe, according to analysts.
CARE International, one of the largest non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating in Zimbabwe, has been ordered to suspend its operations for alleged political activity, as have others.
GA_googleFillSlot("AllAfrica_Other_Inset");
Media reports on 5 June said a convoy of British and US diplomatic staff investigating reports of election violence north of the capital were stopped by a police roadblock at Bindura, 80km from Harare, where the tyres of their vehicles were slashed and a Zimbabwean driver was hauled from one of the diplomatic cars and beaten by police.
Sean McCormack, the US State Department spokesman, said in a televised briefing from Washington that the incident was "unacceptable", had caused "deep distress" and was the action of a government that "does not know any bounds"; the US would take up the incident in the Security Council.
MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa told IRIN that party leader Tsvangirai, his deputy, Thokozani Khupe, party chairperson Lovemore Moyo, as well as other senior party officials and their security detail were stopped at a roadblock, and then held at Lupane police station, north of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe's second city.
Tsvangirai, who claims that election rigging cost him victory in the 29 March presidential vote, will contest the run-off ballot on 27 June. He left Zimbabwe soon after the March elections, in which ZANU-PF lost control of parliament for the first time since independence in 1980, and very recently returned to Zimbabwe. He sustained head injuries last year from a beating in police custody and has twice been charged with treason.
Chamisa said the party had confirmed the killings of 60 MDC supporters since the March ballot, but this was "a conservative figure", as ZANU-PF had established "no-go" areas where people were "being killed, buried and forgotten".
One of the people killed was a local MDC organiser, Tonderai Ndira, who had been arrested 35 times and was taken from his house on 14 May by six armed, masked men.
His decomposing body was found a few weeks later. According to reports, a preliminary autopsy by an independent South African pathologist said "it was clear that he died very soon after he was abducted."
Absence of election observers
The promise of a heavier presence by the few election observer missions approved by the government had not led to an increase in their "visibility" Chamisa said.
There was no indication that observers from the African Union, the Pan African Parliament and the Southern African Development Community had deployed to violence hotspots in the northern and western provinces of Mashonaland West, Central and East, Manicaland, Masvingo and Midlands.
The president of an MDC breakaway faction, Arthur Mutambara, was released on bail after his arrest under the controversial Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act - a few days before Tsvangirai was taken into custody - for allegedly writing falsehoods and "undermining public confidence in the army".
In an article titled A Shameful Betrayal of Independence, Mutambara, whose party won more than 10 legislative seats in the March elections wrote: "Our country is characterised by extreme illegitimacy, where we have an imbecilic and cynical military junta running the affairs of the country."
He also accused the High Court of aiding the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission -- accused of favouring ZANU-PF -- in delaying the announcement of the 29 March election results.
The government is harassing defenders of people's rights - politicians, civic society members, media practitioners and even clerics - on the assumption that it will cow them into submission, but ZANU-PF ought to know that no amount of coercion will change people's view
There was a long delay in announcing the winning party candidates in the election of municipal councils, the senate, parliament, and for the presidency. The opposition charged that the delay enabled election rigging.
Davison Maruziva, the editor of Zimbabwe's independent newspaper, The Standard, was arrested for publishing the article and is also on bail.
Political analyst John Makumbe said the recent "spate" of arrests was part of a strategy to intimidate government critics ahead of the presidential poll run-off on 27 June.
"The government is harassing defenders of people's rights -- politicians, civic society members, media practitioners and even clerics - on the assumption that it will cow them into submission, but ZANU-PF ought to know that no amount of coercion will change people's views," Makumbe told IRIN.
He said the police were targeting people who held views contrary to those of the government, and "The state media is full of slanderous content, just as ZANU-PF is pregnant with torturers and murderers but the culprits are never arrested." Makumbe claimed the run-off would not be free and fair because of the harassment of critics and members of the opposition.
On 31 May Eric Matinenga, a human rights lawyer who won a parliamentary seat for the MDC, was arrested. Police spokesperson Wayne Bvudzijena said in a statement on 2 June that Matinenga was arrested for incitement in rural Buhera, in Manicaland Province. Matinenga has instituted court action to bar the deployment of soldiers in his constituency, on the grounds that they were spearheading a terror campaign.
Military loyal to Mugabe
The National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), an NGO lobbying for a new, people-driven constitution, has accused the military of acting unconstitutionally by manipulating soldiers to support Mugabe.
The state-controlled daily newspaper, The Herald, quoted Maj-Gen Martin Chedondo as telling soldiers: "the Constitution says the country should be protected by voting, and in the 27 June presidential election run-off, pitting our defence chief, Comrade Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai of the MDC, we should therefore stand behind our Commander-in-Chief [Mugabe]".
Chedondo said the army was not expected to be apolitical and should protect ZANU-PF principles, otherwise members should resign.
NCA chairman Lovemore Madhuku told IRIN: "The constitution is clear; it does not allocate to the military any political functions and for it to come out so brazenly on the side of a political candidate simply demonstrates the army's waywardness."
The heads of the army, police and prison services have already publicly stated that they will not accept a Tsvangirai presidency.
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations ]
Copyright © 2008 UN Integrated Regional Information Networks. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
Mugabe is not about to turn over power. Given that the army and police say that they will not accept the rule of the opposition leader it seems that the election is a farce, a violent and damaging farce as far as the opposition is concerned. It seems that some type of armed insurrection is the only way that Mugabe will be overthrown. Even if he dies the army and police will allow only someone that they approve to rule.
Spate of Arrests Ahead of Elections
UN Integrated Regional Information NetworksNEWS5 June 2008 Posted to the web 5 June 2008 Harare
The detention of presidential contender Morgan Tsvangirai by Zimbabwean police for nearly 12 hours on 4 June is another instance of the orchestrated harassment of opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) supporters and other organisations regarded as out of step with the 28-year rule of President Robert Mugabe, according to analysts.
CARE International, one of the largest non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating in Zimbabwe, has been ordered to suspend its operations for alleged political activity, as have others.
GA_googleFillSlot("AllAfrica_Other_Inset");
Media reports on 5 June said a convoy of British and US diplomatic staff investigating reports of election violence north of the capital were stopped by a police roadblock at Bindura, 80km from Harare, where the tyres of their vehicles were slashed and a Zimbabwean driver was hauled from one of the diplomatic cars and beaten by police.
Sean McCormack, the US State Department spokesman, said in a televised briefing from Washington that the incident was "unacceptable", had caused "deep distress" and was the action of a government that "does not know any bounds"; the US would take up the incident in the Security Council.
MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa told IRIN that party leader Tsvangirai, his deputy, Thokozani Khupe, party chairperson Lovemore Moyo, as well as other senior party officials and their security detail were stopped at a roadblock, and then held at Lupane police station, north of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe's second city.
Tsvangirai, who claims that election rigging cost him victory in the 29 March presidential vote, will contest the run-off ballot on 27 June. He left Zimbabwe soon after the March elections, in which ZANU-PF lost control of parliament for the first time since independence in 1980, and very recently returned to Zimbabwe. He sustained head injuries last year from a beating in police custody and has twice been charged with treason.
Chamisa said the party had confirmed the killings of 60 MDC supporters since the March ballot, but this was "a conservative figure", as ZANU-PF had established "no-go" areas where people were "being killed, buried and forgotten".
One of the people killed was a local MDC organiser, Tonderai Ndira, who had been arrested 35 times and was taken from his house on 14 May by six armed, masked men.
His decomposing body was found a few weeks later. According to reports, a preliminary autopsy by an independent South African pathologist said "it was clear that he died very soon after he was abducted."
Absence of election observers
The promise of a heavier presence by the few election observer missions approved by the government had not led to an increase in their "visibility" Chamisa said.
There was no indication that observers from the African Union, the Pan African Parliament and the Southern African Development Community had deployed to violence hotspots in the northern and western provinces of Mashonaland West, Central and East, Manicaland, Masvingo and Midlands.
The president of an MDC breakaway faction, Arthur Mutambara, was released on bail after his arrest under the controversial Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act - a few days before Tsvangirai was taken into custody - for allegedly writing falsehoods and "undermining public confidence in the army".
In an article titled A Shameful Betrayal of Independence, Mutambara, whose party won more than 10 legislative seats in the March elections wrote: "Our country is characterised by extreme illegitimacy, where we have an imbecilic and cynical military junta running the affairs of the country."
He also accused the High Court of aiding the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission -- accused of favouring ZANU-PF -- in delaying the announcement of the 29 March election results.
The government is harassing defenders of people's rights - politicians, civic society members, media practitioners and even clerics - on the assumption that it will cow them into submission, but ZANU-PF ought to know that no amount of coercion will change people's view
There was a long delay in announcing the winning party candidates in the election of municipal councils, the senate, parliament, and for the presidency. The opposition charged that the delay enabled election rigging.
Davison Maruziva, the editor of Zimbabwe's independent newspaper, The Standard, was arrested for publishing the article and is also on bail.
Political analyst John Makumbe said the recent "spate" of arrests was part of a strategy to intimidate government critics ahead of the presidential poll run-off on 27 June.
"The government is harassing defenders of people's rights -- politicians, civic society members, media practitioners and even clerics - on the assumption that it will cow them into submission, but ZANU-PF ought to know that no amount of coercion will change people's views," Makumbe told IRIN.
He said the police were targeting people who held views contrary to those of the government, and "The state media is full of slanderous content, just as ZANU-PF is pregnant with torturers and murderers but the culprits are never arrested." Makumbe claimed the run-off would not be free and fair because of the harassment of critics and members of the opposition.
On 31 May Eric Matinenga, a human rights lawyer who won a parliamentary seat for the MDC, was arrested. Police spokesperson Wayne Bvudzijena said in a statement on 2 June that Matinenga was arrested for incitement in rural Buhera, in Manicaland Province. Matinenga has instituted court action to bar the deployment of soldiers in his constituency, on the grounds that they were spearheading a terror campaign.
Military loyal to Mugabe
The National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), an NGO lobbying for a new, people-driven constitution, has accused the military of acting unconstitutionally by manipulating soldiers to support Mugabe.
The state-controlled daily newspaper, The Herald, quoted Maj-Gen Martin Chedondo as telling soldiers: "the Constitution says the country should be protected by voting, and in the 27 June presidential election run-off, pitting our defence chief, Comrade Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai of the MDC, we should therefore stand behind our Commander-in-Chief [Mugabe]".
Chedondo said the army was not expected to be apolitical and should protect ZANU-PF principles, otherwise members should resign.
NCA chairman Lovemore Madhuku told IRIN: "The constitution is clear; it does not allocate to the military any political functions and for it to come out so brazenly on the side of a political candidate simply demonstrates the army's waywardness."
The heads of the army, police and prison services have already publicly stated that they will not accept a Tsvangirai presidency.
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations ]
Copyright © 2008 UN Integrated Regional Information Networks. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
Philippines inflation hits nine year high.
This is from AFP.
The worst part of this news is that the rate is being elevated most by increases in food prices. Maybe even such necessary beverages as San Miguel beer are going up too!
Philippines inflation hits nine-year high in May10 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — Surging food prices in the Philippines pushed the inflation rate in May to 9.6 percent, the highest level since 1999, the government said on Thursday.
The National Statistics Office said the rise was "primarily triggered by the continuing higher annual price increases in the heavily weighted food, beverages and tobacco index."
"The rest of the commodity groups also posted higher inflation rates during the month," it said in a statement.
The May inflation rate was the highest level recorded since inflation hit 10.5 percent in January 1999, the statement added.
The inflation rate in April hit 8.3 percent.
The April figure brought average inflation in 2008 to 6.9 percent, well above the government's full-year target range of 3.0-5.0 percent.
The Philippines, one of the world's largest rice importers, has been hit hard by a worldwide rise in the price of rice.
The worst part of this news is that the rate is being elevated most by increases in food prices. Maybe even such necessary beverages as San Miguel beer are going up too!
Philippines inflation hits nine-year high in May10 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — Surging food prices in the Philippines pushed the inflation rate in May to 9.6 percent, the highest level since 1999, the government said on Thursday.
The National Statistics Office said the rise was "primarily triggered by the continuing higher annual price increases in the heavily weighted food, beverages and tobacco index."
"The rest of the commodity groups also posted higher inflation rates during the month," it said in a statement.
The May inflation rate was the highest level recorded since inflation hit 10.5 percent in January 1999, the statement added.
The inflation rate in April hit 8.3 percent.
The April figure brought average inflation in 2008 to 6.9 percent, well above the government's full-year target range of 3.0-5.0 percent.
The Philippines, one of the world's largest rice importers, has been hit hard by a worldwide rise in the price of rice.
Miners briefly held by Philippine tribesmen
This is from the AFP.
It seems that the only way local people are able to benefit from these developments is through extortion. The demands of local people seem to be ignored.
Miners briefly held by Philippines tribesmen: police
7 hours ago
ZAMBOANGA, Philippines (AFP) — Two Canadian mining consultants were briefly abducted but freed unharmed by members of a tribe opposed to a major copper project in the southern Philippines, police said Thursday.
Deth Triesen, 23, and Andrei Argamomob, 45, surveyors for Swiss-based Xstrata Plc's local unit Sagittarius Mines Inc., were abducted with four Filipinos on Mindanao island, a police official said.
Armed tribesmen blocked the road and seized the six men near Kiblawan town on Tuesday, said regional police spokesman Chief Inspector Querubim Simeon Manalang.
The suspects seized the surveyors' equipment and demanded 10,000 pesos (about 230 dollars) in ransom, the police added. It was not known if the ransom was paid, but the six men walked free later Tuesday.
The kidnapped men were unharmed but their abductors took their money, Manalang said.
Police launched a manhunt for two B'laan tribal leaders, said by witnesses as being among the kidnappers.
The alleged abductors were earlier seen taking part in protests against the mining company, said Manalang, but he could not say if the incident was linked to the demonstrations.
It was the second attack against the Tampakan copper project this year. In January, communist guerrillas burned company equipment as part of extortion activities by Maoists.
It seems that the only way local people are able to benefit from these developments is through extortion. The demands of local people seem to be ignored.
Miners briefly held by Philippines tribesmen: police
7 hours ago
ZAMBOANGA, Philippines (AFP) — Two Canadian mining consultants were briefly abducted but freed unharmed by members of a tribe opposed to a major copper project in the southern Philippines, police said Thursday.
Deth Triesen, 23, and Andrei Argamomob, 45, surveyors for Swiss-based Xstrata Plc's local unit Sagittarius Mines Inc., were abducted with four Filipinos on Mindanao island, a police official said.
Armed tribesmen blocked the road and seized the six men near Kiblawan town on Tuesday, said regional police spokesman Chief Inspector Querubim Simeon Manalang.
The suspects seized the surveyors' equipment and demanded 10,000 pesos (about 230 dollars) in ransom, the police added. It was not known if the ransom was paid, but the six men walked free later Tuesday.
The kidnapped men were unharmed but their abductors took their money, Manalang said.
Police launched a manhunt for two B'laan tribal leaders, said by witnesses as being among the kidnappers.
The alleged abductors were earlier seen taking part in protests against the mining company, said Manalang, but he could not say if the incident was linked to the demonstrations.
It was the second attack against the Tampakan copper project this year. In January, communist guerrillas burned company equipment as part of extortion activities by Maoists.
New ISAF commander in Afghanistan links development to security
This is from xinhuanet.
So bomber McNeil is leaving at last. I wonder if the new commander will also pursue a policy of air strikes that has alienated many Afghans. The emphasis upon security first and then development may lead to little or no development in those areas where the security is threatened by the Taliban. This may be deliberate as a means of showing that only co-operation with the occupiers will bring aid or development. The Taliban counter tactic will be to disrupt security in areas where there is development.The article does not mention where McKiernan is from but he is an American as was McNeil. This is an American mission of the type in which the UN is used as legitimising cover and NATO to provide aid and cannon fodder to take some of the burden off the U.S. McKiernan led the ground troops in the invasion of Iraq.
New ISAF commander in Afghanistan links development to security
http://www.chinaview.cn/index.htm 2008-06-04 20:48:09
Print
KABUL, June 4 (Xinhua) -- The newly appointed commander of NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) military in Afghanistan General David McKiernan on Wednesday linked the development with security in the post-Taliban nation.
"First and foremost there can be no development in Afghanistan without security, but long-term security cannot exist without development and good governance," the commander told newsmen at his first press conference in ISAF's headquarters here.
McKiernan who took over the command of more than 52,000-strong NATO-led ISAF on Tuesday also called on the alliance's member states to be committed towards Afghanistan.
"I want to know that our partners here in ISAF are committed to this mission," he stressed.
Moreover, McKiernan noted that the future must be the credibility of the Afghan government to include security with its people.
However, the general did not speak about his military strategy towards Taliban-related militants but added that the NATO-led ISAFtroops would continue to support the Afghan government, its security forces and reconstruction process of Afghanistan.
"I am committed personally to help the Afghan government and Afghan people down the road to a secure and prosperous Afghanistan," he said, adding "Afghan people can rely on my personal resolve and on the resolve of ISAF."
Insurgency-related violence is on the rise in Afghanistan which claimed around 80,000 lives mostly of militants last year, a bloodiest one since the Taliban regime collapse in 2001.
So bomber McNeil is leaving at last. I wonder if the new commander will also pursue a policy of air strikes that has alienated many Afghans. The emphasis upon security first and then development may lead to little or no development in those areas where the security is threatened by the Taliban. This may be deliberate as a means of showing that only co-operation with the occupiers will bring aid or development. The Taliban counter tactic will be to disrupt security in areas where there is development.The article does not mention where McKiernan is from but he is an American as was McNeil. This is an American mission of the type in which the UN is used as legitimising cover and NATO to provide aid and cannon fodder to take some of the burden off the U.S. McKiernan led the ground troops in the invasion of Iraq.
New ISAF commander in Afghanistan links development to security
http://www.chinaview.cn/index.htm 2008-06-04 20:48:09
KABUL, June 4 (Xinhua) -- The newly appointed commander of NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) military in Afghanistan General David McKiernan on Wednesday linked the development with security in the post-Taliban nation.
"First and foremost there can be no development in Afghanistan without security, but long-term security cannot exist without development and good governance," the commander told newsmen at his first press conference in ISAF's headquarters here.
McKiernan who took over the command of more than 52,000-strong NATO-led ISAF on Tuesday also called on the alliance's member states to be committed towards Afghanistan.
"I want to know that our partners here in ISAF are committed to this mission," he stressed.
Moreover, McKiernan noted that the future must be the credibility of the Afghan government to include security with its people.
However, the general did not speak about his military strategy towards Taliban-related militants but added that the NATO-led ISAFtroops would continue to support the Afghan government, its security forces and reconstruction process of Afghanistan.
"I am committed personally to help the Afghan government and Afghan people down the road to a secure and prosperous Afghanistan," he said, adding "Afghan people can rely on my personal resolve and on the resolve of ISAF."
Insurgency-related violence is on the rise in Afghanistan which claimed around 80,000 lives mostly of militants last year, a bloodiest one since the Taliban regime collapse in 2001.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Food summit seeks "green revolution" in Africa.
The is from Reuters.
Given the policies of the World Bank and IMF the ""green revolution" may involve technologies and modes of farming that simply makes African agriculture a means for global agribusiness giants to make profit. The global trend towards ""free trade'" but with subsidies for many farmers in developed countries makes it impossible in many cases for developing countries to protect and develop their own agricultural economy to provide food self sufficiency.
Food summit seeks "green revolution" for Africa
Wed Jun 4, 2008 8:36am EDT
By Stephen Brown and Robin Pomeroy
ROME (Reuters) - A U.N. summit on the global food crisis asked rich nations on Wednesday to help "revolutionize" farming in Africa and the developing world to produce more food for nearly 1 billion people facing hunger.
"The global food crisis is a wake-up call for Africa to launch itself into a 'green revolution' which has been over-delayed," Nigerian Agriculture Minister Sayyadi Abba Ruma said on the second day of the three-day summit.
"Every second, a child dies of hunger," the minister said. "The time to act is now. Enough rhetoric and more action."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon received a petition signed by more than 300,000 people saying there was no time to lose. A draft declaration from 151 countries taking part said: "We commit to eliminating hunger and to securing food for all."
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization called the summit after soaring commodity prices threatened to add 100 million more people to the 850 million already going hungry and caused food riots that threaten government stability in some countries.
The cost of major food commodities has doubled over the last couple of years, with rice, corn and wheat at record highs. The OECD sees prices retreating from their peaks but still up to 50 percent higher in the coming decade.
Ban said the summit was already a success. "There is a clear sense of resolve, shared responsibility and political commitment among member states to making the right policy choices and investing in agriculture in the years to come.
"Hunger degrades everything we have been fighting for in recent years and decades," he told reporters. "We are duty-bound to act to act now and to act as one."
Ban's predecessor at the head of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, was in Rome to sign an agreement with U.N. food agencies for a new drive to increase farm production in Africa.
BREADBASKET
"We hope to spur a green revolution in Africa which respects biodiversity and the continent's distinct regions," said Annan, who chairs the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) which is coordinating the effort.
The scheme will provide technical support to improve soil and water management, access to seeds and fertilizers, and improve infrastructure in "breadbasket" areas of Africa which have relatively good conditions for farming.
The Nigerian minister said his country had "the potential to become the food basket of Africa." But its farms were 90 percent dependant on rainfall, making them vulnerable to climate change, and its 14 million smallholders used "rudimentary" techniques.
The Rome summit will set the tone on food aid and subsidies for the Group of Eight summit in Japan in July and what is hoped to be the concluding stages of the stalled Doha talks under the World Trade Organization aimed at reducing trade distortions.
As leaders made lofty speeches, many blaming trade barriers and biofuels for driving up prices, delegations worked on a summit declaration for release on Thursday.
A draft of the declaration promised to "stimulate food production and to increase investment in agriculture, to address obstacles to food access and to use the planet's resources sustainability for present and future generations."
The United States found itself on the defensive regarding biofuels, along with Brazil which is the world's largest producer of sugar-cane ethanol, and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer bristled at the criticism.
"I don't think the United States gets enough credit at all for providing over one half of all the food aid," he said.
Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, who told the summit on Tuesday that former colonial power Britain was to blame for many of his country's problems, came under fire from a human rights group which said he was using food as a weapon ahead of a June 27 presidential run-off election.
Human Rights Watch said the Harare government was deliberately stopping food aid being provided to supporters of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
"President Mugabe's government has a long history of using food to control the election outcome," it said.
(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart in Rome and Paul Simao in Johannesburg; Editing by Robert Woodward)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.
Given the policies of the World Bank and IMF the ""green revolution" may involve technologies and modes of farming that simply makes African agriculture a means for global agribusiness giants to make profit. The global trend towards ""free trade'" but with subsidies for many farmers in developed countries makes it impossible in many cases for developing countries to protect and develop their own agricultural economy to provide food self sufficiency.
Food summit seeks "green revolution" for Africa
Wed Jun 4, 2008 8:36am EDT
By Stephen Brown and Robin Pomeroy
ROME (Reuters) - A U.N. summit on the global food crisis asked rich nations on Wednesday to help "revolutionize" farming in Africa and the developing world to produce more food for nearly 1 billion people facing hunger.
"The global food crisis is a wake-up call for Africa to launch itself into a 'green revolution' which has been over-delayed," Nigerian Agriculture Minister Sayyadi Abba Ruma said on the second day of the three-day summit.
"Every second, a child dies of hunger," the minister said. "The time to act is now. Enough rhetoric and more action."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon received a petition signed by more than 300,000 people saying there was no time to lose. A draft declaration from 151 countries taking part said: "We commit to eliminating hunger and to securing food for all."
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization called the summit after soaring commodity prices threatened to add 100 million more people to the 850 million already going hungry and caused food riots that threaten government stability in some countries.
The cost of major food commodities has doubled over the last couple of years, with rice, corn and wheat at record highs. The OECD sees prices retreating from their peaks but still up to 50 percent higher in the coming decade.
Ban said the summit was already a success. "There is a clear sense of resolve, shared responsibility and political commitment among member states to making the right policy choices and investing in agriculture in the years to come.
"Hunger degrades everything we have been fighting for in recent years and decades," he told reporters. "We are duty-bound to act to act now and to act as one."
Ban's predecessor at the head of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, was in Rome to sign an agreement with U.N. food agencies for a new drive to increase farm production in Africa.
BREADBASKET
"We hope to spur a green revolution in Africa which respects biodiversity and the continent's distinct regions," said Annan, who chairs the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) which is coordinating the effort.
The scheme will provide technical support to improve soil and water management, access to seeds and fertilizers, and improve infrastructure in "breadbasket" areas of Africa which have relatively good conditions for farming.
The Nigerian minister said his country had "the potential to become the food basket of Africa." But its farms were 90 percent dependant on rainfall, making them vulnerable to climate change, and its 14 million smallholders used "rudimentary" techniques.
The Rome summit will set the tone on food aid and subsidies for the Group of Eight summit in Japan in July and what is hoped to be the concluding stages of the stalled Doha talks under the World Trade Organization aimed at reducing trade distortions.
As leaders made lofty speeches, many blaming trade barriers and biofuels for driving up prices, delegations worked on a summit declaration for release on Thursday.
A draft of the declaration promised to "stimulate food production and to increase investment in agriculture, to address obstacles to food access and to use the planet's resources sustainability for present and future generations."
The United States found itself on the defensive regarding biofuels, along with Brazil which is the world's largest producer of sugar-cane ethanol, and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer bristled at the criticism.
"I don't think the United States gets enough credit at all for providing over one half of all the food aid," he said.
Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, who told the summit on Tuesday that former colonial power Britain was to blame for many of his country's problems, came under fire from a human rights group which said he was using food as a weapon ahead of a June 27 presidential run-off election.
Human Rights Watch said the Harare government was deliberately stopping food aid being provided to supporters of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
"President Mugabe's government has a long history of using food to control the election outcome," it said.
(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart in Rome and Paul Simao in Johannesburg; Editing by Robert Woodward)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Philippines: Influx of tourists helps employment..
This is from vedior.
This may not do too much to help those out in the boondocks away from tourist areas. Even those with employment may find that the peso no longer buys that many grains of rice!
An influx of tourists over recent months has seen employment in the Philippines boom, according to new figures from the country's Department of Tourism.The government says global marketing campaigns saw 3.09 million visitors enter the country in 2007, with a further 3.4 million expected this year.In April alone, arrivals figures were up 4.3 per cent on last year's total of the same month.Tourism secretary Ace Durano told the Philippine Information Agency (PIA): "These developments further benefit a greater part of the nation as more quality jobs are generated and more wealth enters our country."He predicted the tourism industry will expand further in terms of infrastructure and man power to accommodate the five million tourist target set for 2010.Last month Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo revealed Thailand and the Philippines are jointly pushing for a common visa among South East Asian countries to boost tourism further.
This may not do too much to help those out in the boondocks away from tourist areas. Even those with employment may find that the peso no longer buys that many grains of rice!
An influx of tourists over recent months has seen employment in the Philippines boom, according to new figures from the country's Department of Tourism.The government says global marketing campaigns saw 3.09 million visitors enter the country in 2007, with a further 3.4 million expected this year.In April alone, arrivals figures were up 4.3 per cent on last year's total of the same month.Tourism secretary Ace Durano told the Philippine Information Agency (PIA): "These developments further benefit a greater part of the nation as more quality jobs are generated and more wealth enters our country."He predicted the tourism industry will expand further in terms of infrastructure and man power to accommodate the five million tourist target set for 2010.Last month Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo revealed Thailand and the Philippines are jointly pushing for a common visa among South East Asian countries to boost tourism further.
Iranian leader upbeat on pipeline.
While the U.S. and others try to isolate Iran, Iran itself is forging better relations with its neighbours as is shown by the article on a pipeline to India. Iran is also helpin Sri Lanka with a refinery.
Asian countries are interested in assuring supplies of oil and natural gas. This is article is from the BBC.
Iranian leader upbeat on pipeline
The pipeline is crucial for India's energy supplies
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given assurances to India over the construction of a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline during talks in Delhi.
He told the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, that all obstacles holding up the long-delayed project would be resolved within 45 days.
A deal has been stalled by disputes over transit fees and security issues.
The pipeline will transport gas from Iran to India through Pakistan, and is seen as crucial to Indian energy needs.
Analysts say the pipeline could contribute to regional security as Iran, Pakistan and India would depend on each other more and benefit from mutual co-operation.
Hold-ups
After talks with Mr Singh at the end of his tour of South Asia, Mr Ahmadinejad said he was optimistic about a deal on the 2,600-km (1,620-mile) pipeline, which would initially transport 60m cubic metres of gas (2.2bn cubic feet) a day.
"The two sides are very close to each other. We will finalise the gas pipeline soon," he told reporters in Delhi.
This pipeline is not just a commercial deal - it is a part of confidence-building measures
Shivshankar MenonIndian foreign secretary
Mr Ahmadinejad said a firm proposal on the pipeline would be formulated in the next 45 days and then put before the leaders of the three countries involved.
The Indian government said the project was feasible, but needed to be financially viable with assured supplies.
India has boycotted trilateral meetings since mid-2007, saying it wanted to first resolve the issues of transit fees and transportation tariffs with Pakistan, its long-standing regional rival.
"This pipeline is not just a commercial deal. It is a part of confidence-building measures," Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon said on Tuesday.
The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says the visit has also raised the interest of the US, with Washington suggesting that India put pressure on Iran over its controversial uranium enrichment programme - a suggestion soundly rejected by Delhi.
Although India has twice voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it says that it supports Tehran's right to fulfil a peaceful nuclear programme within the constraints of international law.
India also said relations between it and Iran spanned centuries, and that they were capable of handling them with due care.
Asian countries are interested in assuring supplies of oil and natural gas. This is article is from the BBC.
Iranian leader upbeat on pipeline
The pipeline is crucial for India's energy supplies
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given assurances to India over the construction of a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline during talks in Delhi.
He told the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, that all obstacles holding up the long-delayed project would be resolved within 45 days.
A deal has been stalled by disputes over transit fees and security issues.
The pipeline will transport gas from Iran to India through Pakistan, and is seen as crucial to Indian energy needs.
Analysts say the pipeline could contribute to regional security as Iran, Pakistan and India would depend on each other more and benefit from mutual co-operation.
Hold-ups
After talks with Mr Singh at the end of his tour of South Asia, Mr Ahmadinejad said he was optimistic about a deal on the 2,600-km (1,620-mile) pipeline, which would initially transport 60m cubic metres of gas (2.2bn cubic feet) a day.
"The two sides are very close to each other. We will finalise the gas pipeline soon," he told reporters in Delhi.
This pipeline is not just a commercial deal - it is a part of confidence-building measures
Shivshankar MenonIndian foreign secretary
Mr Ahmadinejad said a firm proposal on the pipeline would be formulated in the next 45 days and then put before the leaders of the three countries involved.
The Indian government said the project was feasible, but needed to be financially viable with assured supplies.
India has boycotted trilateral meetings since mid-2007, saying it wanted to first resolve the issues of transit fees and transportation tariffs with Pakistan, its long-standing regional rival.
"This pipeline is not just a commercial deal. It is a part of confidence-building measures," Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon said on Tuesday.
The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says the visit has also raised the interest of the US, with Washington suggesting that India put pressure on Iran over its controversial uranium enrichment programme - a suggestion soundly rejected by Delhi.
Although India has twice voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it says that it supports Tehran's right to fulfil a peaceful nuclear programme within the constraints of international law.
India also said relations between it and Iran spanned centuries, and that they were capable of handling them with due care.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Syria Agrees to Nuclear Probe.
This is from CNN.
This could be embarassing for Israel and the US if it turns out that there is no evidence of any nuclear reactor being built. Of course the stories to explaint the lack of evidence are probably being drafted by "experts" even now.
Syria agrees to nuclear probe
Story Highlights
Syria agrees to allow nuclear inspectors into the country in June
IAEA staff will look at a site Israeli warplanes destroyed in last September
Syria has denied U.S. claims that it was building a secret nuclear reactor
(CNN) -- UN nuclear inspectors will visit Syria this month to investigate allegations that the country was building a nuclear reactor at a site attacked by Israel last September, officials said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency's fact-finding mission is expected to take place from June 22 to 24.
Information about the Israeli bombing of the site did not come to light until April when U.S. officials informed IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei that it believes the facility was a nuclear reactor.
At the time, ElBaradei said the IAEA will treat the information "with the seriousness it deserves and will investigate the veracity of the information."
"Syria has an obligation under its safeguards agreement with the IAEA to report the planning and construction of any nuclear facility to the agency," he said.
The White House said the covert nuclear reactor was hidden from view, would have been capable of producing plutonium and likely was "not intended for peaceful purposes."
The White House also said that it believes North Korea assisted Syria's nuclear activities.
Syria's ambassador to the United States criticized the Bush administration's claims, saying Syria never worked with North Korea on a nuclear program.
"I hope the truth will be revealed to everyone," Imad Moustapha told CNN at the time. "This will be a major embarrassment to the U.S. administration for the second time -- they lied about the Iraqi WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and they are trying to do it again."
Israeli officials have not commented publicly on what the target of the strike was.
© 2008 Cable News Network
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
This could be embarassing for Israel and the US if it turns out that there is no evidence of any nuclear reactor being built. Of course the stories to explaint the lack of evidence are probably being drafted by "experts" even now.
Syria agrees to nuclear probe
Story Highlights
Syria agrees to allow nuclear inspectors into the country in June
IAEA staff will look at a site Israeli warplanes destroyed in last September
Syria has denied U.S. claims that it was building a secret nuclear reactor
(CNN) -- UN nuclear inspectors will visit Syria this month to investigate allegations that the country was building a nuclear reactor at a site attacked by Israel last September, officials said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency's fact-finding mission is expected to take place from June 22 to 24.
Information about the Israeli bombing of the site did not come to light until April when U.S. officials informed IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei that it believes the facility was a nuclear reactor.
At the time, ElBaradei said the IAEA will treat the information "with the seriousness it deserves and will investigate the veracity of the information."
"Syria has an obligation under its safeguards agreement with the IAEA to report the planning and construction of any nuclear facility to the agency," he said.
The White House said the covert nuclear reactor was hidden from view, would have been capable of producing plutonium and likely was "not intended for peaceful purposes."
The White House also said that it believes North Korea assisted Syria's nuclear activities.
Syria's ambassador to the United States criticized the Bush administration's claims, saying Syria never worked with North Korea on a nuclear program.
"I hope the truth will be revealed to everyone," Imad Moustapha told CNN at the time. "This will be a major embarrassment to the U.S. administration for the second time -- they lied about the Iraqi WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and they are trying to do it again."
Israeli officials have not commented publicly on what the target of the strike was.
© 2008 Cable News Network
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
Australia ends Iraq combat operations
This is from wiredispatch. Another member of the coalition of the willing had abandoned ship. Rudd is simply keeping an election promise that helped get him elected. On other issues Rudd shows himself to be following the U.S. line. Apparently at the Dublin conference on cluster bombs Australia, Canada, and others helped to water down the ban so that they both could participate in missions with the U.S. which refuses to stop using the bombs.
Australia ends Iraq combat operations
Australian troops end combat operations in Iraq, pulls out troops
TANALEE SMITHAP News
Jun 01, 2008 06:23 EST
Australia, a staunch U.S. ally and one of the first countries to commit troops to the Iraq war five years ago, ended combat operations there Sunday, a Defense Department official said.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was swept into office in November largely on the promise that he would bring home the country's 550 combat troops by the middle of 2008.
Rudd has said the Iraq deployment has made Australia more of a target for terrorism.
The combat troops are expected to return home over the next few weeks. Local media reports said the first of the soldiers had already landed in Australia on Sunday afternoon.
Several hundred other troops will remain in Iraq to act as security and headquarters liaisons and to guard diplomats. Australia will also leave behind two maritime surveillance aircraft and a warship to help patrol oil platforms in the Gulf.
The troops on Sunday held a ceremony that included lowering the Australian flag from its position over Camp Terendak in the southern Iraq city of Talil, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as required by the Defense Department.
The soldiers, as well as 65 army trainers, were stationed at Talil, about 185 miles south of Baghdad, and were responsible for providing security training for Iraqi forces, as well as reconstruction and aid work. They have been on standby to offer backup to Iraqi forces in the south for the past two years.
In February, the head of Australia's defense force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, told a Senate inquiry that the troops were no longer needed in Iraq.
Rudd remains committed to keeping Australia's 1,000 troops in Afghanistan.
Source: AP News
Australia ends Iraq combat operations
Australian troops end combat operations in Iraq, pulls out troops
TANALEE SMITHAP News
Jun 01, 2008 06:23 EST
Australia, a staunch U.S. ally and one of the first countries to commit troops to the Iraq war five years ago, ended combat operations there Sunday, a Defense Department official said.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was swept into office in November largely on the promise that he would bring home the country's 550 combat troops by the middle of 2008.
Rudd has said the Iraq deployment has made Australia more of a target for terrorism.
The combat troops are expected to return home over the next few weeks. Local media reports said the first of the soldiers had already landed in Australia on Sunday afternoon.
Several hundred other troops will remain in Iraq to act as security and headquarters liaisons and to guard diplomats. Australia will also leave behind two maritime surveillance aircraft and a warship to help patrol oil platforms in the Gulf.
The troops on Sunday held a ceremony that included lowering the Australian flag from its position over Camp Terendak in the southern Iraq city of Talil, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as required by the Defense Department.
The soldiers, as well as 65 army trainers, were stationed at Talil, about 185 miles south of Baghdad, and were responsible for providing security training for Iraqi forces, as well as reconstruction and aid work. They have been on standby to offer backup to Iraqi forces in the south for the past two years.
In February, the head of Australia's defense force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, told a Senate inquiry that the troops were no longer needed in Iraq.
Rudd remains committed to keeping Australia's 1,000 troops in Afghanistan.
Source: AP News
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Was US press an enabler of the Iraq invasion?
There was plenty of scepticism and many more who advocated caution and further investigation by the UN inspectors. The inspectors found very little. The press was fed by cherry picked intelligence much of it from suspect sources who had axes to grind with Hussein and told interrogators what they wanted to hear. The whole episode shows how any argument to "expert authority" and supposedly reliable sources should be viewed with considerable caution especially when it is known that a certain policy is favored. The Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein long before the war.
May 30, 2008 / New York TIMES.Was Press a War 'Enabler'? 2 Offer a Nod From InsideBy BRIAN STELTERIn his new memoir, "What Happened," Scott McClellan, the former WhiteHouse press secretary, said the national news media neglected theirwatchdog role in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, calling reporters"complicit enablers" of the Bush administration's push for war.Surprisingly, some prominent journalists have agreed.Katie Couric, the anchor of "CBS Evening News," said on Wednesday thatshe had felt pressure from government officials and corporateexecutives to cast the war in a positive light.Speaking on "The Early Show" on CBS, Ms. Couric said the lack ofskepticism shown by journalists about the Bush administration's casefor war amounted to "one of the most embarrassing chapters in Americanjournalism." She also said she sensed pressure from "the corporationswho own where we work and from the government itself to really squashany kind of dissent or any kind of questioning of it." At the time,Ms. Couric was a host of "Today" on NBC.Another broadcast journalist also weighed in. Jessica Yellin, whoworked for MSNBC in 2003 and now reports for CNN, said on Wednesdaythat journalists had been "under enormous pressure from corporateexecutives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in away that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation."On Thursday, she clarified her comments in a blog post, writing thather producers at MSNBC had wanted their coverage to reflect thepatriotic mood of the country.A spokeswoman for General Electric, which owns NBC and MSNBC throughits division NBC Universal, declined to speak about the specifics ofthe comments but said, "General Electric has never, and will never,interfere in the editorial process at NBC News."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/washington/30press.html
May 30, 2008 / New York TIMES.Was Press a War 'Enabler'? 2 Offer a Nod From InsideBy BRIAN STELTERIn his new memoir, "What Happened," Scott McClellan, the former WhiteHouse press secretary, said the national news media neglected theirwatchdog role in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, calling reporters"complicit enablers" of the Bush administration's push for war.Surprisingly, some prominent journalists have agreed.Katie Couric, the anchor of "CBS Evening News," said on Wednesday thatshe had felt pressure from government officials and corporateexecutives to cast the war in a positive light.Speaking on "The Early Show" on CBS, Ms. Couric said the lack ofskepticism shown by journalists about the Bush administration's casefor war amounted to "one of the most embarrassing chapters in Americanjournalism." She also said she sensed pressure from "the corporationswho own where we work and from the government itself to really squashany kind of dissent or any kind of questioning of it." At the time,Ms. Couric was a host of "Today" on NBC.Another broadcast journalist also weighed in. Jessica Yellin, whoworked for MSNBC in 2003 and now reports for CNN, said on Wednesdaythat journalists had been "under enormous pressure from corporateexecutives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in away that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation."On Thursday, she clarified her comments in a blog post, writing thather producers at MSNBC had wanted their coverage to reflect thepatriotic mood of the country.A spokeswoman for General Electric, which owns NBC and MSNBC throughits division NBC Universal, declined to speak about the specifics ofthe comments but said, "General Electric has never, and will never,interfere in the editorial process at NBC News."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/washington/30press.html
Rice: Bush administration was clear about Iraq war.
This is from wiredispatch.
Rice sometimes seems a bit more progressive than some of the Bush administation but as this article shows she is also a faithful defender of Bush as well. Maybe when she leaves politics she will tell all too! This is a hopeless piece of propagandizing on her part. The record of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was never clear. What was clear was that the press and many prominent officials not just in the U.S. but elsewhere were saying that it was clear. What was clear too is that the US never allowed the UN inspectors to complete their mission not even after the invasion!
Rice: Bush administration was clear about Iraq war
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says Bush administration was upfront on Iraq war
MATTHEW LEEAP News
May 29, 2008 04:02 EST
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday rejected allegations from a former White House spokesman who says the Bush administration misled the American public into going to war with Iraq.
Rice would not comment specifically on charges made by ex-press secretary Scott McClellan in a new book, but said President Bush was honest and forthright about the reasons for the war. She also said she remained convinced that toppling Saddam Hussein was right and necessary.
"The president was very clear about the reasons for going to war," she told reporters at a news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Stockholm where she is attending an international conference on Iraq.
Chief among those reasons was the belief, shared widely before the war, that Saddam Hussein had or was developing weapons of mass destruction, Rice recalled, suggesting the international community shouldn't have backed harsh sanctions against Iraq if it doubted the threat.
"I am not going to comment on a book that I haven't read," she said, referring to McClellan's scathing memoir, "but what I will say is that the concern about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the fundamental reason."
"It was not the United States of America alone that believed that he had weapons of mass destruction that he was hiding," Rice said, dismissing suggestions that the administration knew the intelligence was incorrect.
"The story is there for everyone to see, you can't now transplant yourself into the present and say we should have know what we in fact did not know in 2001 and 2002," she said. "The record on weapons of mass destruction was one that appeared to be very clear."
Those who were skeptical should have spoken up at the time and argued against U.N. sanctions such as the oil-for-food program, she said.
"The threat from Saddam Hussein was well understood," Rice said. "You can agree or disagree about the decision to liberate Iraq in 2003, but I would really ask that if you ... believe he was not a threat to the international community, then why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of oil-for-food."
The heart of the McClellan book concerns Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, a determination McClellan says the president had made by early 2002 — at least a full year before the invasion — if not even earlier.
"He signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest," McClellan writes in "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."
However, McClellan wrote that he did not believe Bush or the White House "deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."
McClellan says Bush's main reason for war always was "an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom." But Bush and his advisers made "a marketing choice" to downplay this rationale in favor of one focused on increasingly trumped-up portrayals of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction.
During the "political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people," Bush and his team tried to make the "WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable than they were." Something else was downplayed as well, McClellan says: any discussion of "the possible unpleasant consequences of war — casualties, economic effects, geopolitical risks, diplomatic repercussions."
The White House responded angrily Wednesday to McClellan's memoir, calling it self-serving sour grapes.
"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," said current White House press secretary Dana Perino, a former deputy to McClellan. "We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."
Source: AP News
Rice sometimes seems a bit more progressive than some of the Bush administation but as this article shows she is also a faithful defender of Bush as well. Maybe when she leaves politics she will tell all too! This is a hopeless piece of propagandizing on her part. The record of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was never clear. What was clear was that the press and many prominent officials not just in the U.S. but elsewhere were saying that it was clear. What was clear too is that the US never allowed the UN inspectors to complete their mission not even after the invasion!
Rice: Bush administration was clear about Iraq war
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says Bush administration was upfront on Iraq war
MATTHEW LEEAP News
May 29, 2008 04:02 EST
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday rejected allegations from a former White House spokesman who says the Bush administration misled the American public into going to war with Iraq.
Rice would not comment specifically on charges made by ex-press secretary Scott McClellan in a new book, but said President Bush was honest and forthright about the reasons for the war. She also said she remained convinced that toppling Saddam Hussein was right and necessary.
"The president was very clear about the reasons for going to war," she told reporters at a news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Stockholm where she is attending an international conference on Iraq.
Chief among those reasons was the belief, shared widely before the war, that Saddam Hussein had or was developing weapons of mass destruction, Rice recalled, suggesting the international community shouldn't have backed harsh sanctions against Iraq if it doubted the threat.
"I am not going to comment on a book that I haven't read," she said, referring to McClellan's scathing memoir, "but what I will say is that the concern about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the fundamental reason."
"It was not the United States of America alone that believed that he had weapons of mass destruction that he was hiding," Rice said, dismissing suggestions that the administration knew the intelligence was incorrect.
"The story is there for everyone to see, you can't now transplant yourself into the present and say we should have know what we in fact did not know in 2001 and 2002," she said. "The record on weapons of mass destruction was one that appeared to be very clear."
Those who were skeptical should have spoken up at the time and argued against U.N. sanctions such as the oil-for-food program, she said.
"The threat from Saddam Hussein was well understood," Rice said. "You can agree or disagree about the decision to liberate Iraq in 2003, but I would really ask that if you ... believe he was not a threat to the international community, then why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of oil-for-food."
The heart of the McClellan book concerns Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, a determination McClellan says the president had made by early 2002 — at least a full year before the invasion — if not even earlier.
"He signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest," McClellan writes in "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."
However, McClellan wrote that he did not believe Bush or the White House "deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."
McClellan says Bush's main reason for war always was "an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom." But Bush and his advisers made "a marketing choice" to downplay this rationale in favor of one focused on increasingly trumped-up portrayals of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction.
During the "political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people," Bush and his team tried to make the "WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable than they were." Something else was downplayed as well, McClellan says: any discussion of "the possible unpleasant consequences of war — casualties, economic effects, geopolitical risks, diplomatic repercussions."
The White House responded angrily Wednesday to McClellan's memoir, calling it self-serving sour grapes.
"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," said current White House press secretary Dana Perino, a former deputy to McClellan. "We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."
Source: AP News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
