With respect to imperial arrogance and ignoring the sovereignty of other nations there is bipartisan agreement between McCain and Obama. In respect to Pakistan raids Obama is actually more gung ho even then McCain.
One can expect anti-American feelings and exploitation of those feelings by Islamic militants will only grow. What the US is demonstrating is that the only way to deal with the US is through having military power that the US is not willing to challenge. This can only lead to huge increases in military expenditure by countries such as China and Russia and alliances with those countries by countries who cannot defend themselves against encroachment on their sovereignty by the US.
ANALYSIS-US risks overplaying hand with Pakistan strikes
Randall MikkelsenReuters North American News Service
Oct 30, 2008 00:01 EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. strikes at militants in Pakistan are stoking Islamabad's anger at a time analysts say the two countries must work more closely to fight militants in the region along the border with Afghanistan.
Pakistan's government summoned U.S. Ambassador Anne Peterson Wednesday to protest missile strikes by pilotless aircraft in the border region. The protest came two days after a suspected U.S. drone fired missiles that killed up to 20 militants in that area.
"It was emphasized that such attacks were a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and should be stopped immediately," a Foreign Ministry spokesman said in Islamabad.
The United States has shrugged off previous Pakistani protests, including over a raid by U.S. ground troops last month. It says the attacks are needed to protect U.S. troops in Afghanistan and kill Taliban and al Qaeda militants who threaten them.
But the Bush administration may have overplayed its hand by keeping up the attacks after elected President Asif Ali Zardari replaced resigned former U.S. ally Pervez Musharraf in September, analysts said.
"It is clear that the Bush-Musharraf strategy ... has only aggravated the crisis and the Taliban are in a stronger position today than before," said Hassan Abbas, a Harvard University researcher and former Pakistani legal official.
"Some major rethinking is in order," he said.
Said Thomas Houlahan, an analyst at the Center for Security and Science think tank: "If we had a plan to permanently alienate Pakistan, it couldn't be better than this."
The raids fuel an already high level of anti-American sentiment among the Pakistani public, which in turn puts pressure on the fledgling government.
"Washington D.C. needs to realize that the Musharraf era is over and the new democratic government needs public support for its actions," Abbas said.
STRIKES COUNTERPRODUCTVIE
Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, criticized what he called "impatient decision-makers" in Washington and said unilateral strikes are counterproductive.
"The new government does not need legitimacy through the war against terror. Its legitimacy comes from the vote it received from the people of Pakistan. Therefore, the new government has a different policy and a different outlook toward the war against terror," Haqqani said on PBS television's "Frontline" show Tuesday.
Pakistan is strategically essential to the United States, and provides key logistics routes into Afghanistan.
The government has little leverage to enforce its demands that the United States curb its attacks. Washington provides billions of dollars in economic assistance and the global financial crisis has hit Pakistan hard.
Nevertheless, greater communication between the two countries would help ease mistrust, analysts said.
"If they (cross-border attacks) are coordinated between the two sides, I think the government would understand and they would not be in a position where they are taken by surprise," former Pakistan Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao said at the U.S. Institute of Peace this month.
The White House has promised this in the past, saying it was working to increase coordination. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, assured Pakistan in September it would respect Pakistan's sovereignty.
But that was followed by the ground raid, prompting Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood to complain of a U.S. "institutional disconnect."
Washington also needs to better reduce and apologize for civilian casualties caused by the strikes, said Karin Von Hillel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Both candidates to succeed President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, have indicated they would be willing to order strikes against militant leaders in Pakistan. Obama said the United States might have to act alone, while McCain emphasized working with the Pakistan government.
Obama has also called for a stronger relationship. "There is no alternative but to work with Pakistan," said Obama adviser John Brennan, who has held several senior intelligence positions. (Additional reporting by Paul Eckert; Editing by Doina Chiacu)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Friday, October 31, 2008
Judge questions Dirty Bomb Plot Orders US to yield papers.
This is from the NY Times. There is ample evidence against the CIA claims it does not conduct or condone torture or render anyone for torture. In fact this is just standard denial in the face of plenty of contrary evidence in cases such as Maher Arar , Almalki, Nurredin, El-Maati etc. etc. etc. etc. Of course it is true that they do not condone the torture in public and make sure that when they render someone for torture they get assurances that there will be no torture. But the CIA does know that countries such as Morocco and Syria and Egypt use torture in interrogation.
This is what is called willful ignorance.
October 31, 2008
Questioning ‘Dirty Bomb’ Plot, Judge Orders U.S. to Yield Papers on Detainee
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
WASHINGTON — Saying he questioned the government’s claim that a Guantánamo Bay detainee had planned a radioactive-bomb attack in the United States, a federal district judge ordered the Justice Department on Thursday to give the detainee’s lawyers documents on his treatment.
The documents are central to the claim of the prisoner, Binyam Mohamed, that he falsely confessed to the dirty-bomb plot and other offenses only after being tortured in Morocco at the direction of the United States.
“My concern is getting to the truth,” the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, said at a hearing.
The case of Mr. Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born former British resident, has drawn international attention and been at the center of diplomatic tensions between the United States and Britain. This week, British officials said they had referred questions about his treatment for possible criminal investigation by their law enforcement authorities.
The tension between the governments has intensified in recent weeks after the Pentagon dropped war crimes charges against Mr. Mohamed and the Justice Department said it would no longer rely on its dirty-bomb claims as a justification for holding him.
At the Thursday hearing, Judge Sullivan asked why, after more than six years, the government had stepped away from its claims about a dirty-bomb plot. “That raises a question as to whether or not the allegations were ever true,” the judge said.
In 2002, John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, announced that a plot to detonate a radioactive bomb in the United States had been foiled and an American citizen, Jose Padilla, detained. The Pentagon has claimed that Mr. Mohamed assisted Mr. Padilla.
After Mr. Padilla was held for three and a half years in a naval brig, the Justice Department abandoned its dirty-bomb claims against him. He was convicted of other charges in 2007.
Pressed by Judge Sullivan on Thursday as to whether the government stood behind its assertion of a dirty-bomb plot, a Justice Department lawyer, Andrew I. Warden, said, “The short answer is yes.”
But Mr. Warden said the government could prove that Mr. Mohamed was being properly held without evidence of that plot. Military prosecutors have said they will file new charges against Mr. Mohamed with the Guantánamo war crimes tribunal, but they have not said whether the bomb plot will be among those charges.
The government claims Mr. Mohamed confessed to the plot and to attending Qaeda training camps.
But Zachary Katznelson, a lawyer for Mr. Mohamed, said in court Thursday that all his confessions were made after “he was tortured again and again and again until he just parroted what his torturers wanted him to say.” In Morocco, Mr. Katznelson said, Mr. Mohamed was beaten and repeatedly cut with razor blades on his genitals and elsewhere.
Mr. Mohamed’s lawyers have laid out a detailed argument that he was subjected to the government’s program of rendition to other countries. They say evidence shows that American intelligence agents transferred him to Morocco.
The documents Judge Sullivan directed the government to turn over concern Mr. Mohamed’s treatment during the two years he was held in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan after he was first detained at the airport in Karachi, Pakistan, in 2002. Mr. Katznelson said evidence of torture would prove that Mr. Mohamed had never voluntarily admitted to the dirty-bomb plot or any other involvement with Al Qaeda.
The government has said Mr. Mohamed’s claims of torture are not credible. A Moroccan consular official, Karim el-Mansouri, said in an interview that he had no details on Mr. Mohamed’s case but that Morocco protected human rights. Paul Gimigliano, a spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, said: “The C.I.A. does not conduct or condone torture. Nor does it transport individuals anywhere for the purpose of torture.”
Last week, a British court ruled that 35 documents in British intelligence files concerning Mr. Mohamed’s treatment should be turned over to his lawyers. The court said the documentation “lends some support to his claim that the confession was obtained after a period of two years incommunicado detention during which he was tortured.”
The material Judge Sullivan has now ordered the government to turn over would be any additional information about Mr. Mohamed’s treatment.
The British court had said it would wait to order the actual release of the 35 documents, to give Judge Sullivan an opportunity to rule on the issue first. By the time they arrived in court Thursday, however, Justice Department lawyers had turned over those documents. That followed a letter Tuesday from a British government lawyer to the British court’s judges that said the home secretary had referred to law enforcement officials in Britain “the question of possible criminal wrongdoing” in the treatment of Mr. Mohamed.
This is what is called willful ignorance.
October 31, 2008
Questioning ‘Dirty Bomb’ Plot, Judge Orders U.S. to Yield Papers on Detainee
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
WASHINGTON — Saying he questioned the government’s claim that a Guantánamo Bay detainee had planned a radioactive-bomb attack in the United States, a federal district judge ordered the Justice Department on Thursday to give the detainee’s lawyers documents on his treatment.
The documents are central to the claim of the prisoner, Binyam Mohamed, that he falsely confessed to the dirty-bomb plot and other offenses only after being tortured in Morocco at the direction of the United States.
“My concern is getting to the truth,” the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, said at a hearing.
The case of Mr. Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born former British resident, has drawn international attention and been at the center of diplomatic tensions between the United States and Britain. This week, British officials said they had referred questions about his treatment for possible criminal investigation by their law enforcement authorities.
The tension between the governments has intensified in recent weeks after the Pentagon dropped war crimes charges against Mr. Mohamed and the Justice Department said it would no longer rely on its dirty-bomb claims as a justification for holding him.
At the Thursday hearing, Judge Sullivan asked why, after more than six years, the government had stepped away from its claims about a dirty-bomb plot. “That raises a question as to whether or not the allegations were ever true,” the judge said.
In 2002, John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, announced that a plot to detonate a radioactive bomb in the United States had been foiled and an American citizen, Jose Padilla, detained. The Pentagon has claimed that Mr. Mohamed assisted Mr. Padilla.
After Mr. Padilla was held for three and a half years in a naval brig, the Justice Department abandoned its dirty-bomb claims against him. He was convicted of other charges in 2007.
Pressed by Judge Sullivan on Thursday as to whether the government stood behind its assertion of a dirty-bomb plot, a Justice Department lawyer, Andrew I. Warden, said, “The short answer is yes.”
But Mr. Warden said the government could prove that Mr. Mohamed was being properly held without evidence of that plot. Military prosecutors have said they will file new charges against Mr. Mohamed with the Guantánamo war crimes tribunal, but they have not said whether the bomb plot will be among those charges.
The government claims Mr. Mohamed confessed to the plot and to attending Qaeda training camps.
But Zachary Katznelson, a lawyer for Mr. Mohamed, said in court Thursday that all his confessions were made after “he was tortured again and again and again until he just parroted what his torturers wanted him to say.” In Morocco, Mr. Katznelson said, Mr. Mohamed was beaten and repeatedly cut with razor blades on his genitals and elsewhere.
Mr. Mohamed’s lawyers have laid out a detailed argument that he was subjected to the government’s program of rendition to other countries. They say evidence shows that American intelligence agents transferred him to Morocco.
The documents Judge Sullivan directed the government to turn over concern Mr. Mohamed’s treatment during the two years he was held in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan after he was first detained at the airport in Karachi, Pakistan, in 2002. Mr. Katznelson said evidence of torture would prove that Mr. Mohamed had never voluntarily admitted to the dirty-bomb plot or any other involvement with Al Qaeda.
The government has said Mr. Mohamed’s claims of torture are not credible. A Moroccan consular official, Karim el-Mansouri, said in an interview that he had no details on Mr. Mohamed’s case but that Morocco protected human rights. Paul Gimigliano, a spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, said: “The C.I.A. does not conduct or condone torture. Nor does it transport individuals anywhere for the purpose of torture.”
Last week, a British court ruled that 35 documents in British intelligence files concerning Mr. Mohamed’s treatment should be turned over to his lawyers. The court said the documentation “lends some support to his claim that the confession was obtained after a period of two years incommunicado detention during which he was tortured.”
The material Judge Sullivan has now ordered the government to turn over would be any additional information about Mr. Mohamed’s treatment.
The British court had said it would wait to order the actual release of the 35 documents, to give Judge Sullivan an opportunity to rule on the issue first. By the time they arrived in court Thursday, however, Justice Department lawyers had turned over those documents. That followed a letter Tuesday from a British government lawyer to the British court’s judges that said the home secretary had referred to law enforcement officials in Britain “the question of possible criminal wrongdoing” in the treatment of Mr. Mohamed.
Philippines: Scandal games...
This if from Malaya. (Manila)
When the Senate tried to question Joc Joc before, he disappeared and ended up in the US where he tried unsuccessfully to obtain asylum. Now he is seeking asylum in the hospital! Don't be surprised if he suddenly disappears from the hospital. Arroyo would love him to disappear!
Joc Joc’ gets to staylonger in hospitalPing hits Villar stance on summons
BY DENNIS GADIL
SENATE marshals will have to wait for "a few more days" before they could bring former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn "Joc Joc" Bolante to the chamber for detention.
Senate President Manny Villar yesterday instructed Senate Sergeant-at-Arms chief Jose Balajadia to make sure that Bolante goes through the needed check-ups at the St. Luke’s Medical Center before he could be compelled to give his testimony on the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.
Balajadia said the "few more days" could mean "reasonable number of days."
"It takes days for medical checks," he said.
The St. Luke’s Medical Center finally released its first medical bulletin declaring that Bolante was in normal and stable condition.
"Stable siya pero he needs to be subjected to further examination just to be sure he’s really stable," Dr. Romeo Saavedra said.
He said almost all test results were normal except for CT scans on Bolante’s aorta and arteries, which need to be probed further.
Saavedra also noted the hardening of blood vessels in Bolante’s heart as well as his "significant" weight loss.
He said the full results of the examinations are likely to be released Monday.
He said Bolante will be subjected to a stress test, which includes a treadmill procedure.
He will also undergo peptic ulcer check-ups today.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson criticized Villar’s "dilly-dallying" in getting Bolante to the Senate to testify.
Lacson said Villar could have subpoenaed Bolante’s medical records from St. Luke’s.
"He wants a caucus yet he’s not calling for a caucus. What does he really want out of this whole exercise?" he said.
He said the Senate risks being overtaken by events if it does not act, saying the high court can issue a temporary restraining order on Bolante’s arrest.
Lacson said Villar should have scheduled a hearing so that the Senate will have basis to subpoena the medical records of Bolante.
Lacson said he would not speculate on the real condition of Bolante since he is not a doctor.
Senate President pro tempore Jinggoy Estrada on Wednesday said he was "101 percent" sure that Bolante was just faking his illness.
"I will not speculate (on Bolante’s health). Si Jinggoy nasa US paano niya malaman? Lalong malayo," he said.
Bolante arrived Tuesday night and was served the arrest order by the Senate marshals at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
But before the arrest could be enforced, Bolante complained of chest pains and had to be taken to the hospital.
He was tagged by the Senate in 2005 as the architect in the illegal diversion of fertilizer funds, allotted for farm implements, to the campaign kitty of President Arroyo for the 2004 national elections.
He fled to the United States in July 2006 to seek political asylum but his petition was junked with finality by the US Supreme Court last month, resulting in his deportation.
When the Senate tried to question Joc Joc before, he disappeared and ended up in the US where he tried unsuccessfully to obtain asylum. Now he is seeking asylum in the hospital! Don't be surprised if he suddenly disappears from the hospital. Arroyo would love him to disappear!
Joc Joc’ gets to staylonger in hospitalPing hits Villar stance on summons
BY DENNIS GADIL
SENATE marshals will have to wait for "a few more days" before they could bring former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn "Joc Joc" Bolante to the chamber for detention.
Senate President Manny Villar yesterday instructed Senate Sergeant-at-Arms chief Jose Balajadia to make sure that Bolante goes through the needed check-ups at the St. Luke’s Medical Center before he could be compelled to give his testimony on the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.
Balajadia said the "few more days" could mean "reasonable number of days."
"It takes days for medical checks," he said.
The St. Luke’s Medical Center finally released its first medical bulletin declaring that Bolante was in normal and stable condition.
"Stable siya pero he needs to be subjected to further examination just to be sure he’s really stable," Dr. Romeo Saavedra said.
He said almost all test results were normal except for CT scans on Bolante’s aorta and arteries, which need to be probed further.
Saavedra also noted the hardening of blood vessels in Bolante’s heart as well as his "significant" weight loss.
He said the full results of the examinations are likely to be released Monday.
He said Bolante will be subjected to a stress test, which includes a treadmill procedure.
He will also undergo peptic ulcer check-ups today.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson criticized Villar’s "dilly-dallying" in getting Bolante to the Senate to testify.
Lacson said Villar could have subpoenaed Bolante’s medical records from St. Luke’s.
"He wants a caucus yet he’s not calling for a caucus. What does he really want out of this whole exercise?" he said.
He said the Senate risks being overtaken by events if it does not act, saying the high court can issue a temporary restraining order on Bolante’s arrest.
Lacson said Villar should have scheduled a hearing so that the Senate will have basis to subpoena the medical records of Bolante.
Lacson said he would not speculate on the real condition of Bolante since he is not a doctor.
Senate President pro tempore Jinggoy Estrada on Wednesday said he was "101 percent" sure that Bolante was just faking his illness.
"I will not speculate (on Bolante’s health). Si Jinggoy nasa US paano niya malaman? Lalong malayo," he said.
Bolante arrived Tuesday night and was served the arrest order by the Senate marshals at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
But before the arrest could be enforced, Bolante complained of chest pains and had to be taken to the hospital.
He was tagged by the Senate in 2005 as the architect in the illegal diversion of fertilizer funds, allotted for farm implements, to the campaign kitty of President Arroyo for the 2004 national elections.
He fled to the United States in July 2006 to seek political asylum but his petition was junked with finality by the US Supreme Court last month, resulting in his deportation.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Starbucks Blues
This is from BigMoney.
This corporate culture nonsense is big business it seems. Starbucks employees are associates not employees. Walmart uses similar rhetorical flourishes to build up a corporate culture of hot air with a balloon skin impervious to unions it seems.A wage slave by any other name apparently is much better off. The use of high sounding phrases to describe changes that make most workers worse off is also a good example of improving working conditions by rhetoric when the reality is that things are getting worse.
Starbucks Blues
By liza.featherstone
Created 10/29/2008 - 9:12pm
Fall is pumpkin-latte season for those who can still afford to indulge, but for Starbucks [1] workers, it's been a season of discontent. The coffee giant has recently responded to hard times with scheduling changes that are likely to inflict misery on its employees. These policies seem sharply at odds with Starbucks' reputation for social responsibility but make sense in the context of the company's record as an employer. Curiously, the coffee retailer's benevolent image seems most fragile at the moment that the company's best days seem to be receding into the past.
The store atmosphere remains suffused with NPR-style high-mindedness. A fact sheet from Good magazine [2] about the U.S. economy's woes is prominently displayed, as is Helene Cooper's memoir about her childhood in Liberia. So it's fitting that when Starbucks introduced a new human-resources strategy two weeks ago, a new company manual for managers—obtained and shared with TBM by the Starbucks Workers Union, a group of employees pressing for better wages and working conditions—explained the change in lofty terms, insisting that it was "a philosophy, not a program."
This new "philosophy" is called "Optimal Scheduling," and it requires that "partners" (Starbucks-speak for employees) must dramatically increase their own flexibility. If they'd like to work full time, they must be available to work 70 percent of open store hours. (For a Starbucks open 16 hours a day, as is typical, this means 80.5 hours per week.) Many Starbucks employees say they want to work more hours; the new system could make it possible for those people to work more by downsizing those who can't or don't want to. Starbucks spokeswoman Tara Darrow says optimal scheduling is "a win-win for our customers and partners" that will lead to "more stable scheduling and more satisfied partners."
Liberte Locke, a New York City barista, is not one of those "satisfied partners." Why? Because, although she has opened up her entire day to Starbucks (from 4:15 a.m. to 11 p.m.), the company is "not guaranteeing any hours, not a single one." She's right: The fact that no hours are guaranteed, even for workers classified as "full time," is underscored repeatedly in the company managers' manual. The company is demanding almost all their time and, Locke says, "We are getting nothing in return." Optimal scheduling amounts to a permanent booty call; only the most boorish boyfriend would insist on such conditions.
The new availability requirement could make it almost impossible for employees to have a second job, as many low-wage workers must in order to make ends meet. Erik Forman, who works at Starbucks in the Twin Cities' Mall of America, says one of his fellow baristas opens McDonald's and closes Starbucks every day. Another co-worker opens Starbucks and closes IKEA. As Liberte Locke points out, Starbucks "doesn't pay enough to be someone's livelihood," especially with no hours guaranteed.
Being available 80.5 hours a week, Forman points out, will also be hard on "a student, a mother, or anyone who does anything besides working." Workers who can't make themselves available for the required number of hours will, within six months, lose their jobs. "It's another way for [Starbucks] to thin the herd," says Locke, "to have layoffs without calling them layoffs."
True, and perhaps to be expected. Starbucks' business isn't booming. With consumer sentiment ranging from grim to terrified [3], who's bold enough to pay $5 for coffee? Just stepping into this emporium of high-priced foamy drinks can feel like a time capsule journey back to prerecession days. Starbucks' profits have taken a beating, and its stock price has been steadily slipping over the past year. Milk inflation has been disastrous for the company (because, let's face it, Starbucks' drinks are mostly milk). That, along with rising gas costs, led the company to raise its own prices—already prohibitive to increasingly cost-conscious consumers—this summer. Store traffic is down for the first time since the company began measuring it.
Under such circumstances, it's not unusual for a company to cut costs (though it doesn't have to fall mostly on employees). When Starbucks closed 600 stores this summer, many baristas lost their jobs, but, as spokeswoman Tara Darrow points out, the company was able to place others in nearby stores. In fairness to Starbucks, its low-wage workers have not borne the pain alone: According to Darrow, about 1,000 jobs were axed at company headquarters in July.
Still, optimal scheduling is only one installment in an epic series of workforce management missteps for Starbucks. Like Wal-Mart [4], the company has an extensive union-busting operation and has been the target of numerous National Labor Relations Board complaints over unlawful violations of workers' rights. In early October, Starbucks was forced to settle the case of Mall of America barista Erik Forman (quoted above), who was fired for talking with co-workers about managers' apparent efforts to fire him for union organizing. It is illegal to dismiss workers for this, and after local publicity and citywide store pickets, Starbucks invited Forman back to work. The company also faces trial in Grand Rapids, Mich., for firing a barista for union activity and is awaiting a trial verdict in New York City on 30 counts of violating employees' union organizing rights. Earlier this year, a California court ordered the company to pay baristas more than $100 million for tips illegally shared with shift supervisors.
Though it's easy and fun to mock Starbucks' self-righteous hype, many take it seriously. In corporate-responsibility classes in business school, the Starbucks case studies provide a beacon of hope for the ethically concerned minority. In such discussions, Starbucks is always showcased as a company that provides suppliers with positive incentives to grow coffee in ways that are better for the environment, even throwing some labor standards into the mix. But Starbucks' good reputation on supply-chain practices has deflected attention from its treatment of baristas and even helped nourish the perception that it's a decent employer. Starbucks has repeatedly landed on Fortune magazine's "Best Companies to Work For" list [5]. While Wal-Mart is constantly criticized—including by this writer—for stingy health-insurance policies, Starbucks is often praised for offering any health insurance at all [6]. Yet Starbucks insures an even lower percentage of its work force than Wal-Mart does: 40.9 percent, as calculated from figures the company disclosed to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer last year [7] (about 47 percent of Wal-Mart workers have company insurance). Spokeswoman Tara Darrow deflected TBM's questions about the percentage of employees covered by company insurance, preferring to emphasize that 88 percent of the workers are covered by some form of insurance—which could be Medicaid, or a parent's or spouse's plan—and that 65 percent of "eligible" employees are covered by the company plan.
Unlike Wal-Mart, Starbucks rarely draws criticism for its wages. Yet baristas' wages are similar to those earned by Wal-Mart workers and in some markets may even be lower: about $7 to $9 an hour. (Starbucks wouldn't offer any data on its wages, but the Starbucks Workers Union provided TBM with an internal company document from 2005, which shows the highest and lowest wage in each location. It's unlikely that Starbucks workers' wages have increased much in the last three years, since hardly anyone's have.)
There's always been some media bias in favor of Starbucks, which is perhaps why the company's worst practices have drawn so little attention. Unlike frumpy, red-state Wal-Mart, Starbucks, with its jazz compilations and recycled napkins, is our kind of company. Yet when it comes to mistreatment of employees, says labor activist and former Starbucks barista Daniel Gross (no relation to the Slate writer of the same name), who was fired from the company for union organizing, "Every retailer—McDonald's, Wal-Mart—does the same things. The difference is that Starbucks has really succeeded in convincing people that it's better."
Perhaps this is about to change. Everyone's feeling cranky, and Starbucks' self-love and feel-good branding seem as ill-fitting to our current cultural moment as its prices. The company shouldn't be surprised if recession brings more criticism along with so many other woes.
This corporate culture nonsense is big business it seems. Starbucks employees are associates not employees. Walmart uses similar rhetorical flourishes to build up a corporate culture of hot air with a balloon skin impervious to unions it seems.A wage slave by any other name apparently is much better off. The use of high sounding phrases to describe changes that make most workers worse off is also a good example of improving working conditions by rhetoric when the reality is that things are getting worse.
Starbucks Blues
By liza.featherstone
Created 10/29/2008 - 9:12pm
Fall is pumpkin-latte season for those who can still afford to indulge, but for Starbucks [1] workers, it's been a season of discontent. The coffee giant has recently responded to hard times with scheduling changes that are likely to inflict misery on its employees. These policies seem sharply at odds with Starbucks' reputation for social responsibility but make sense in the context of the company's record as an employer. Curiously, the coffee retailer's benevolent image seems most fragile at the moment that the company's best days seem to be receding into the past.
The store atmosphere remains suffused with NPR-style high-mindedness. A fact sheet from Good magazine [2] about the U.S. economy's woes is prominently displayed, as is Helene Cooper's memoir about her childhood in Liberia. So it's fitting that when Starbucks introduced a new human-resources strategy two weeks ago, a new company manual for managers—obtained and shared with TBM by the Starbucks Workers Union, a group of employees pressing for better wages and working conditions—explained the change in lofty terms, insisting that it was "a philosophy, not a program."
This new "philosophy" is called "Optimal Scheduling," and it requires that "partners" (Starbucks-speak for employees) must dramatically increase their own flexibility. If they'd like to work full time, they must be available to work 70 percent of open store hours. (For a Starbucks open 16 hours a day, as is typical, this means 80.5 hours per week.) Many Starbucks employees say they want to work more hours; the new system could make it possible for those people to work more by downsizing those who can't or don't want to. Starbucks spokeswoman Tara Darrow says optimal scheduling is "a win-win for our customers and partners" that will lead to "more stable scheduling and more satisfied partners."
Liberte Locke, a New York City barista, is not one of those "satisfied partners." Why? Because, although she has opened up her entire day to Starbucks (from 4:15 a.m. to 11 p.m.), the company is "not guaranteeing any hours, not a single one." She's right: The fact that no hours are guaranteed, even for workers classified as "full time," is underscored repeatedly in the company managers' manual. The company is demanding almost all their time and, Locke says, "We are getting nothing in return." Optimal scheduling amounts to a permanent booty call; only the most boorish boyfriend would insist on such conditions.
The new availability requirement could make it almost impossible for employees to have a second job, as many low-wage workers must in order to make ends meet. Erik Forman, who works at Starbucks in the Twin Cities' Mall of America, says one of his fellow baristas opens McDonald's and closes Starbucks every day. Another co-worker opens Starbucks and closes IKEA. As Liberte Locke points out, Starbucks "doesn't pay enough to be someone's livelihood," especially with no hours guaranteed.
Being available 80.5 hours a week, Forman points out, will also be hard on "a student, a mother, or anyone who does anything besides working." Workers who can't make themselves available for the required number of hours will, within six months, lose their jobs. "It's another way for [Starbucks] to thin the herd," says Locke, "to have layoffs without calling them layoffs."
True, and perhaps to be expected. Starbucks' business isn't booming. With consumer sentiment ranging from grim to terrified [3], who's bold enough to pay $5 for coffee? Just stepping into this emporium of high-priced foamy drinks can feel like a time capsule journey back to prerecession days. Starbucks' profits have taken a beating, and its stock price has been steadily slipping over the past year. Milk inflation has been disastrous for the company (because, let's face it, Starbucks' drinks are mostly milk). That, along with rising gas costs, led the company to raise its own prices—already prohibitive to increasingly cost-conscious consumers—this summer. Store traffic is down for the first time since the company began measuring it.
Under such circumstances, it's not unusual for a company to cut costs (though it doesn't have to fall mostly on employees). When Starbucks closed 600 stores this summer, many baristas lost their jobs, but, as spokeswoman Tara Darrow points out, the company was able to place others in nearby stores. In fairness to Starbucks, its low-wage workers have not borne the pain alone: According to Darrow, about 1,000 jobs were axed at company headquarters in July.
Still, optimal scheduling is only one installment in an epic series of workforce management missteps for Starbucks. Like Wal-Mart [4], the company has an extensive union-busting operation and has been the target of numerous National Labor Relations Board complaints over unlawful violations of workers' rights. In early October, Starbucks was forced to settle the case of Mall of America barista Erik Forman (quoted above), who was fired for talking with co-workers about managers' apparent efforts to fire him for union organizing. It is illegal to dismiss workers for this, and after local publicity and citywide store pickets, Starbucks invited Forman back to work. The company also faces trial in Grand Rapids, Mich., for firing a barista for union activity and is awaiting a trial verdict in New York City on 30 counts of violating employees' union organizing rights. Earlier this year, a California court ordered the company to pay baristas more than $100 million for tips illegally shared with shift supervisors.
Though it's easy and fun to mock Starbucks' self-righteous hype, many take it seriously. In corporate-responsibility classes in business school, the Starbucks case studies provide a beacon of hope for the ethically concerned minority. In such discussions, Starbucks is always showcased as a company that provides suppliers with positive incentives to grow coffee in ways that are better for the environment, even throwing some labor standards into the mix. But Starbucks' good reputation on supply-chain practices has deflected attention from its treatment of baristas and even helped nourish the perception that it's a decent employer. Starbucks has repeatedly landed on Fortune magazine's "Best Companies to Work For" list [5]. While Wal-Mart is constantly criticized—including by this writer—for stingy health-insurance policies, Starbucks is often praised for offering any health insurance at all [6]. Yet Starbucks insures an even lower percentage of its work force than Wal-Mart does: 40.9 percent, as calculated from figures the company disclosed to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer last year [7] (about 47 percent of Wal-Mart workers have company insurance). Spokeswoman Tara Darrow deflected TBM's questions about the percentage of employees covered by company insurance, preferring to emphasize that 88 percent of the workers are covered by some form of insurance—which could be Medicaid, or a parent's or spouse's plan—and that 65 percent of "eligible" employees are covered by the company plan.
Unlike Wal-Mart, Starbucks rarely draws criticism for its wages. Yet baristas' wages are similar to those earned by Wal-Mart workers and in some markets may even be lower: about $7 to $9 an hour. (Starbucks wouldn't offer any data on its wages, but the Starbucks Workers Union provided TBM with an internal company document from 2005, which shows the highest and lowest wage in each location. It's unlikely that Starbucks workers' wages have increased much in the last three years, since hardly anyone's have.)
There's always been some media bias in favor of Starbucks, which is perhaps why the company's worst practices have drawn so little attention. Unlike frumpy, red-state Wal-Mart, Starbucks, with its jazz compilations and recycled napkins, is our kind of company. Yet when it comes to mistreatment of employees, says labor activist and former Starbucks barista Daniel Gross (no relation to the Slate writer of the same name), who was fired from the company for union organizing, "Every retailer—McDonald's, Wal-Mart—does the same things. The difference is that Starbucks has really succeeded in convincing people that it's better."
Perhaps this is about to change. Everyone's feeling cranky, and Starbucks' self-love and feel-good branding seem as ill-fitting to our current cultural moment as its prices. The company shouldn't be surprised if recession brings more criticism along with so many other woes.
Obama and Socialism
This is from this Magazine.
The term ''socialism'' is used in popular discourse as a boo word. A boo word is one that has purely negative emotive meaning and very little cognitive meaning. Socialism replaces private ownership of the major means of production, distribution and exchange by some form of socialised ownership. Production is on the basis of need not on the basis of profit. Redistribution within a capitalist system may be progressive but it is not socialism. Often it is simply a means of stimulating capitalist production as in the recent distribution of tax refund checks by the US government in the hopes of stimulating buying and consumption. Even the partial nationalisation of financial institutions has nothing to do with socialism. It is a rescue plan to bail out the system in a crisis and when the crisis passes the institutions pass back completely into private ownership. Some institutions such as the courts, police, and often the post office, and some infrastructure such as highways usually remain socialised under capitalism since they involve necessary costs rather than profits. However under advanced capitalism even these institutions are privatised as far as possible. The prison system is a good example, and security contractors, even for services formerly done by military and police. Prisons are another example.
October 29, 2008
Obama and socialism
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:13 PM ET
McCain, Palin, and their Republican acolytes have recently taken to calling Barack Obama a socialist. In making that "charge" (apparently socialism is a very bad thing in the States) they point to Obama's progressive, or punitive, depending on how you look at it, income-tax plan. In his plan, people making more than $250,000 will face increased tax rates. The rest will experience tax cuts. The McCain campaign calls this redistributionist and, therefore, socialist.
There are a few things to keep in mind at this point: graduated taxation is not necessarily socialism. It is, at best, only one of the conditions for socialism. The United States is now and has been for quite a while a country with a graduated income-tax rate. Obama merely wants to increase the top marginal income-tax rate from 35 to 39.6, amounting to an incremental progression from an existing income-tax plan - not a major shift into a totally different economic system.
Finally, McCain and Palin should not be throwing stones. Palin, as Alaska's governor, did nothing but redistribute wealth. Here is the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg on Palin's hypocrisy:
"She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government's activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year's check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269."
And when asked in 2000 why people are being penalized for making more money and if this was socialism, McCain responded: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
That indeed might be what he really feels. Now why can't he bring himself to let the truth out? He knows Obama is not a socialist and, ultimately, he sort of agrees with Obama's plan, if not the specifics. Where's the "Straight Talk Express" now?More entries on: American Presidential Election
The term ''socialism'' is used in popular discourse as a boo word. A boo word is one that has purely negative emotive meaning and very little cognitive meaning. Socialism replaces private ownership of the major means of production, distribution and exchange by some form of socialised ownership. Production is on the basis of need not on the basis of profit. Redistribution within a capitalist system may be progressive but it is not socialism. Often it is simply a means of stimulating capitalist production as in the recent distribution of tax refund checks by the US government in the hopes of stimulating buying and consumption. Even the partial nationalisation of financial institutions has nothing to do with socialism. It is a rescue plan to bail out the system in a crisis and when the crisis passes the institutions pass back completely into private ownership. Some institutions such as the courts, police, and often the post office, and some infrastructure such as highways usually remain socialised under capitalism since they involve necessary costs rather than profits. However under advanced capitalism even these institutions are privatised as far as possible. The prison system is a good example, and security contractors, even for services formerly done by military and police. Prisons are another example.
October 29, 2008
Obama and socialism
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:13 PM ET
McCain, Palin, and their Republican acolytes have recently taken to calling Barack Obama a socialist. In making that "charge" (apparently socialism is a very bad thing in the States) they point to Obama's progressive, or punitive, depending on how you look at it, income-tax plan. In his plan, people making more than $250,000 will face increased tax rates. The rest will experience tax cuts. The McCain campaign calls this redistributionist and, therefore, socialist.
There are a few things to keep in mind at this point: graduated taxation is not necessarily socialism. It is, at best, only one of the conditions for socialism. The United States is now and has been for quite a while a country with a graduated income-tax rate. Obama merely wants to increase the top marginal income-tax rate from 35 to 39.6, amounting to an incremental progression from an existing income-tax plan - not a major shift into a totally different economic system.
Finally, McCain and Palin should not be throwing stones. Palin, as Alaska's governor, did nothing but redistribute wealth. Here is the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg on Palin's hypocrisy:
"She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government's activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year's check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269."
And when asked in 2000 why people are being penalized for making more money and if this was socialism, McCain responded: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
That indeed might be what he really feels. Now why can't he bring himself to let the truth out? He knows Obama is not a socialist and, ultimately, he sort of agrees with Obama's plan, if not the specifics. Where's the "Straight Talk Express" now?More entries on: American Presidential Election
US unlikely to accept revised Iraq SOFA
This is from the Monterey-Herald.
Time is running out and it seems that the US has drawn the line at its final draft. While that draft gives more power to the Iraqis than earlier drafts it still does not give the Iraqis much jurisdiction when troops or contractors commit crimes and none when they are on missions.
U.S. unlikely to accept revised Iraq security pact
By LEILA FADEL McClatchy Newspapers
Article Last Updated: 10/29/2008 01:47:27 AM PDT
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi cabinet agreed Tuesday to amend a draft agreement governing the status of U.S. forces in Iraq, but introducing new provisions that the U.S. military is unlikely to accept.
Among other things, the amendments would give Iraqi authorities the right to determine whether a U.S. service member was on- or off-duty when he or she committed an alleged crime outside American bases, where such an American would be tried. It also would allow authorities to inspect all U.S. cargo entering the nation.
Iraqi politicians see the changes as a way to preserve Iraqi sovereignty.
The amendments were made to "preserve the basic principles and the sovereignty of Iraq and its supreme interests," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh in a statement. The government, al-Dabbagh said in an interview on an Arabic satellite news station, has no "third option."
U.S. officials have described the original draft agreement, which would replace the United Nations mandate for U.S. military operations in Iraq, as "final," and the Iraqi amendments are likely to push negotiations between Iraq and the U.S. to an impasse.
In Washington Tuesday, senior U.S. military officials said that while they were unaware of the proposed changes, the Pentagon very likely would reject them.
"We are very comfortable with the draft sent forward," a senior U.S. military official said Tuesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the negotiations
publicly. "But the longer we wait, the more in peril this gets."
The Iraqi parliament must approve any agreement, so if the Americans don't accept the proposed Iraqi changes, the cabinet will have to decide whether to submit the agreement to the parliament as it stands, which could doom its chances of passage.
Iraqi officials involved in the process told McClatchy Newspapers that they don't believe the two nations will reach an agreement before the U.N. mandate for the U.S. presence in Iraq expires at the end of this year.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is considering renewing the mandate, but he wants changes that would lift the immunity from Iraqi prosecution that private contractors in Iraq now enjoy. The U.S. will veto a new mandate with any changes, officials have said.
While U.S. military officials are skeptical about the agreement, the Bush administration remains hopeful.
"We remain confident that we'll be able to get one," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino referring to the status of forces agreement. "However, if we don't, there will be consequences for that. I don't think there are Iraqis — I don't think there are any Iraqis who think that they are ready to do this all on their own — deep down."
Time is running out and it seems that the US has drawn the line at its final draft. While that draft gives more power to the Iraqis than earlier drafts it still does not give the Iraqis much jurisdiction when troops or contractors commit crimes and none when they are on missions.
U.S. unlikely to accept revised Iraq security pact
By LEILA FADEL McClatchy Newspapers
Article Last Updated: 10/29/2008 01:47:27 AM PDT
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi cabinet agreed Tuesday to amend a draft agreement governing the status of U.S. forces in Iraq, but introducing new provisions that the U.S. military is unlikely to accept.
Among other things, the amendments would give Iraqi authorities the right to determine whether a U.S. service member was on- or off-duty when he or she committed an alleged crime outside American bases, where such an American would be tried. It also would allow authorities to inspect all U.S. cargo entering the nation.
Iraqi politicians see the changes as a way to preserve Iraqi sovereignty.
The amendments were made to "preserve the basic principles and the sovereignty of Iraq and its supreme interests," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh in a statement. The government, al-Dabbagh said in an interview on an Arabic satellite news station, has no "third option."
U.S. officials have described the original draft agreement, which would replace the United Nations mandate for U.S. military operations in Iraq, as "final," and the Iraqi amendments are likely to push negotiations between Iraq and the U.S. to an impasse.
In Washington Tuesday, senior U.S. military officials said that while they were unaware of the proposed changes, the Pentagon very likely would reject them.
"We are very comfortable with the draft sent forward," a senior U.S. military official said Tuesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the negotiations
publicly. "But the longer we wait, the more in peril this gets."
The Iraqi parliament must approve any agreement, so if the Americans don't accept the proposed Iraqi changes, the cabinet will have to decide whether to submit the agreement to the parliament as it stands, which could doom its chances of passage.
Iraqi officials involved in the process told McClatchy Newspapers that they don't believe the two nations will reach an agreement before the U.N. mandate for the U.S. presence in Iraq expires at the end of this year.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is considering renewing the mandate, but he wants changes that would lift the immunity from Iraqi prosecution that private contractors in Iraq now enjoy. The U.S. will veto a new mandate with any changes, officials have said.
While U.S. military officials are skeptical about the agreement, the Bush administration remains hopeful.
"We remain confident that we'll be able to get one," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino referring to the status of forces agreement. "However, if we don't, there will be consequences for that. I don't think there are Iraqis — I don't think there are any Iraqis who think that they are ready to do this all on their own — deep down."
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
US attack on Syria
This is from antiwar.com
The attack is puzzling. Syria has been trying very hard to repair relationships with the West and is even having talks with Israel. It has co-operated with the US against Al Qaeda. It always has done yeoman work torturing and interrogating terror suspects rendered to Syria by the US.
Security has much improved on the Syrian border. A US official was scheduled to meet with the Syrians now that is cancelled as a result of the raid. Perhaps there is conflict within the government between Pentagon and State Dept. but who knows.
Anyway the article is probably right that the permission came right from the top. It is an arrogant and stupid move so it could only have come from high up not from those lower down who probably have more sense. It puts the SOFA agreement in even more danger.
The unofficial official explanation aka propaganda is that it is warning to Syria to do better in the war on terror or else the US will move in. There is no official explanation just official silence. This is totally bizarre. Perhaps it is learned from the Israelis and the bombing of the supposed nuclear site or their response when asked if they have nuclear weapons.
I have yet to see any response by Obama and McClain on these attacks although I may have missed any. According to the Syrian several children were killed in the raid. No doubt they were child suicide bombers!
Analysts Question Timing of Syria Raid
by Ali Gharib
A cross-border raid into Syria by U.S. forces in Iraq and subsequent stonewalling by U.S. officials unwilling to divulge details have led to rampant speculation among U.S. analysts about the origins and meaning of the attack.
"So the question is: Why?" wrote geo-strategic analyst and journalist Helena Cobban on her blog, wondering if the raid could have been pulled off without explicit permission from the highest levels of the President George W. Bush administration.
"So why now at the end of the Bush administration, with Washington trying to play nice with Damascus and tensions easing throughout the region, would U.S. forces stage such a gambit?" echoed Borzou Daragahi on the Babylon and Beyond blog at the Los Angeles Times Web site.
The questions started to swirl late Sunday afternoon when U.S. helicopters allegedly crossed five miles over the desert border between Syria and Iraq. According to reports, eight U.S. soldiers alighted when a helicopter landed, attacking the al-Sukkari farm in the Syrian Abu Kamal border area.
The cross-border raid – the first of its kind involving a helicopter attack and U.S. boots on the ground that far into Syrian territory – left eight dead, according to Syrian press reports.
The attack is especially curious since, according to a report this weekend in the New York Times, Bush appears to have rolled back his initiative to lead troop-driven cross-border attacks – initially approved this summer – by Afghan-based U.S. forces into Pakistani territory.
The raid also comes as Syria is negotiating with Israel, through Turkish mediation, presumably in a calculated effort to alleviate tensions with the West and the U.S. The Bush administration's take on the Israel-Syria talks has been lukewarm at best.
More immediately for the U.S., the raid could complicate negotiations on a status of forces agreement (SOFA) with Iraqi authorities to allow U.S. forces to keep operating in Iraq after the UN mandate expires at the end of this year.
The talks on the SOFA have been bogged down, and a persistent Iraqi demand has been that Iraqi soil not be used as a launch pad for attacks on other countries.
"The Iraqi government rejects U.S. aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria," a government spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, said Tuesday. "The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighboring countries."
The U.S. Department of Defense has repeatedly declined to comment on the Syrian incident, including to a direct request by IPS, but several press reports have quoted unnamed U.S. officials confirming the attack, and saying that it was ordered by the CIA.
One U.S. official anonymously told Agence France-Presse that the strike was aimed at Abu Ghadiya, whom the official called "one of the most prominent foreign fighter facilitators in the region." The official said he believed the target was killed.
The spokesman for the Syrian embassy here, Ahmed Salkini, told IPS that the name did not appear on the official Syrian list of those dead.
In retaliation, Syria shut down a U.S. school and cultural center in Damascus, and its UN envoy has requested that the Security Council intervene to prevent further incursions into Syrian territory.
Neoconservatives and hawks within the administration have long clamored for expanding Middle Eastern conflicts into Syria, which was named as one of the three countries in Bush's famous "Axis of Evil."
Indeed, Bush's neoconservative deputy national security adviser, Elliott Abrams, told Israeli officials during a high-level meeting that the U.S. would not object if Israel extended its 2006 war with Hezbollah into Syria.
But if the cross-border attack was an attempt by hawks to lure Syria into a war, it appears to have failed; Syria has engaged in a measured and strictly diplomatic response.
"[T]he Syrians have not responded, and are not about to respond, in any way that is violent or otherwise escalates tensions," said Cobban, a well respected commenter and veteran analyst, on her Just World News blog.
"I've been studying the behavior of this Ba'athist regime in Syria closely for 34 years now. They have steely nerves. They are just about impossible to 'provoke,' at any point that they judge a harsh response is not in their interest," she wrote.
While foreign fighters from Syria have long been problematic to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, since 2006, U.S. patrols along the border and some Syrian cooperation have dramatically reduced the number of foreign fighters flowing into Iraq.
Last December, the former U.S. commander in Iraq and now the Centcom chief, Gen. David Petraeus, said, "Syria has taken steps to reduce the flow of the foreign fighters through its borders with Iraq."
Petraeus reiterated the notion this month when he reported that fighters from Syria moving into Iraq have had their monthly total reduced from about 100 to 20.
But last Thursday, the commander of U.S. troops in western Iraq, Marine Maj. John Kelly, said that while there has been progress, it wasn't enough.
The suspected involvement of some of the most vociferous anti-Syria hawks at the highest levels of the Bush administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have combined with U.S. silence on the matter to fuel a guessing game as to just exactly who ordered or approved Sunday's cross-border raid.
"This operation is pretty clearly run by U.S. special operations forces pursuing a terrorist target," Col. Pat Lang, a retired U.S. military intelligence officer, told IPS. "Their sole mission is like a SWAT team to go around and hunt terrorists."
Lang said that these special operations forces sometimes operate distinctly outside the normal military chain of command by design of hawkish former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.
"If left to themselves, they would do this kind of thing [the Syria raid]. That's what they do," said Lang. "They don't follow policy, they carry out their assigned mission."
Because the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, is dealing with mounting concerns about the SOFA, Lang suspects that he'd be hesitant to directly approve such a bold a provocative attack as Sunday afternoon's.
"I haven't established it yet, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the authority to do this came right out of the White House," Lang told IPS.
Asked if the decision doesn't undermine pressing U.S. goals for commanders in Iraq, Lang said that while the considerations are there, they don't always filter up into decision making in the executive branch.
"Usually command arrangements of various kinds are messy," Lang said, "and this White House has shown a tendency to want to bypass the established chain of command and influence what's going on [in the field]."
But in addition to being a bold foreign policy move, the raid has also been interpreted by some as a political stunt, albeit one unlikely to succeed.
Some journalists and experts have speculated that the raid was a Bush administration attempt to deliver an "October Surprise" – a late game-changing development favoring one candidate – for Republican candidate Sen. John McCain just over a week before the presidential election in which he badly trails Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama in most polls.
McCain has been seen as holding an advantage in issues of national security.
(Inter Press Service)
The attack is puzzling. Syria has been trying very hard to repair relationships with the West and is even having talks with Israel. It has co-operated with the US against Al Qaeda. It always has done yeoman work torturing and interrogating terror suspects rendered to Syria by the US.
Security has much improved on the Syrian border. A US official was scheduled to meet with the Syrians now that is cancelled as a result of the raid. Perhaps there is conflict within the government between Pentagon and State Dept. but who knows.
Anyway the article is probably right that the permission came right from the top. It is an arrogant and stupid move so it could only have come from high up not from those lower down who probably have more sense. It puts the SOFA agreement in even more danger.
The unofficial official explanation aka propaganda is that it is warning to Syria to do better in the war on terror or else the US will move in. There is no official explanation just official silence. This is totally bizarre. Perhaps it is learned from the Israelis and the bombing of the supposed nuclear site or their response when asked if they have nuclear weapons.
I have yet to see any response by Obama and McClain on these attacks although I may have missed any. According to the Syrian several children were killed in the raid. No doubt they were child suicide bombers!
Analysts Question Timing of Syria Raid
by Ali Gharib
A cross-border raid into Syria by U.S. forces in Iraq and subsequent stonewalling by U.S. officials unwilling to divulge details have led to rampant speculation among U.S. analysts about the origins and meaning of the attack.
"So the question is: Why?" wrote geo-strategic analyst and journalist Helena Cobban on her blog, wondering if the raid could have been pulled off without explicit permission from the highest levels of the President George W. Bush administration.
"So why now at the end of the Bush administration, with Washington trying to play nice with Damascus and tensions easing throughout the region, would U.S. forces stage such a gambit?" echoed Borzou Daragahi on the Babylon and Beyond blog at the Los Angeles Times Web site.
The questions started to swirl late Sunday afternoon when U.S. helicopters allegedly crossed five miles over the desert border between Syria and Iraq. According to reports, eight U.S. soldiers alighted when a helicopter landed, attacking the al-Sukkari farm in the Syrian Abu Kamal border area.
The cross-border raid – the first of its kind involving a helicopter attack and U.S. boots on the ground that far into Syrian territory – left eight dead, according to Syrian press reports.
The attack is especially curious since, according to a report this weekend in the New York Times, Bush appears to have rolled back his initiative to lead troop-driven cross-border attacks – initially approved this summer – by Afghan-based U.S. forces into Pakistani territory.
The raid also comes as Syria is negotiating with Israel, through Turkish mediation, presumably in a calculated effort to alleviate tensions with the West and the U.S. The Bush administration's take on the Israel-Syria talks has been lukewarm at best.
More immediately for the U.S., the raid could complicate negotiations on a status of forces agreement (SOFA) with Iraqi authorities to allow U.S. forces to keep operating in Iraq after the UN mandate expires at the end of this year.
The talks on the SOFA have been bogged down, and a persistent Iraqi demand has been that Iraqi soil not be used as a launch pad for attacks on other countries.
"The Iraqi government rejects U.S. aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria," a government spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, said Tuesday. "The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighboring countries."
The U.S. Department of Defense has repeatedly declined to comment on the Syrian incident, including to a direct request by IPS, but several press reports have quoted unnamed U.S. officials confirming the attack, and saying that it was ordered by the CIA.
One U.S. official anonymously told Agence France-Presse that the strike was aimed at Abu Ghadiya, whom the official called "one of the most prominent foreign fighter facilitators in the region." The official said he believed the target was killed.
The spokesman for the Syrian embassy here, Ahmed Salkini, told IPS that the name did not appear on the official Syrian list of those dead.
In retaliation, Syria shut down a U.S. school and cultural center in Damascus, and its UN envoy has requested that the Security Council intervene to prevent further incursions into Syrian territory.
Neoconservatives and hawks within the administration have long clamored for expanding Middle Eastern conflicts into Syria, which was named as one of the three countries in Bush's famous "Axis of Evil."
Indeed, Bush's neoconservative deputy national security adviser, Elliott Abrams, told Israeli officials during a high-level meeting that the U.S. would not object if Israel extended its 2006 war with Hezbollah into Syria.
But if the cross-border attack was an attempt by hawks to lure Syria into a war, it appears to have failed; Syria has engaged in a measured and strictly diplomatic response.
"[T]he Syrians have not responded, and are not about to respond, in any way that is violent or otherwise escalates tensions," said Cobban, a well respected commenter and veteran analyst, on her Just World News blog.
"I've been studying the behavior of this Ba'athist regime in Syria closely for 34 years now. They have steely nerves. They are just about impossible to 'provoke,' at any point that they judge a harsh response is not in their interest," she wrote.
While foreign fighters from Syria have long been problematic to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, since 2006, U.S. patrols along the border and some Syrian cooperation have dramatically reduced the number of foreign fighters flowing into Iraq.
Last December, the former U.S. commander in Iraq and now the Centcom chief, Gen. David Petraeus, said, "Syria has taken steps to reduce the flow of the foreign fighters through its borders with Iraq."
Petraeus reiterated the notion this month when he reported that fighters from Syria moving into Iraq have had their monthly total reduced from about 100 to 20.
But last Thursday, the commander of U.S. troops in western Iraq, Marine Maj. John Kelly, said that while there has been progress, it wasn't enough.
The suspected involvement of some of the most vociferous anti-Syria hawks at the highest levels of the Bush administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have combined with U.S. silence on the matter to fuel a guessing game as to just exactly who ordered or approved Sunday's cross-border raid.
"This operation is pretty clearly run by U.S. special operations forces pursuing a terrorist target," Col. Pat Lang, a retired U.S. military intelligence officer, told IPS. "Their sole mission is like a SWAT team to go around and hunt terrorists."
Lang said that these special operations forces sometimes operate distinctly outside the normal military chain of command by design of hawkish former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.
"If left to themselves, they would do this kind of thing [the Syria raid]. That's what they do," said Lang. "They don't follow policy, they carry out their assigned mission."
Because the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, is dealing with mounting concerns about the SOFA, Lang suspects that he'd be hesitant to directly approve such a bold a provocative attack as Sunday afternoon's.
"I haven't established it yet, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the authority to do this came right out of the White House," Lang told IPS.
Asked if the decision doesn't undermine pressing U.S. goals for commanders in Iraq, Lang said that while the considerations are there, they don't always filter up into decision making in the executive branch.
"Usually command arrangements of various kinds are messy," Lang said, "and this White House has shown a tendency to want to bypass the established chain of command and influence what's going on [in the field]."
But in addition to being a bold foreign policy move, the raid has also been interpreted by some as a political stunt, albeit one unlikely to succeed.
Some journalists and experts have speculated that the raid was a Bush administration attempt to deliver an "October Surprise" – a late game-changing development favoring one candidate – for Republican candidate Sen. John McCain just over a week before the presidential election in which he badly trails Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama in most polls.
McCain has been seen as holding an advantage in issues of national security.
(Inter Press Service)
William Bowles on the Global Crisis
This is an interesting take on the current crisis. Bowles is certainly correct that China will hardly profit from the US decline. The US is one of its big customers and it also holds a humungus amount of US dollars. Anyway the decline of the US as a world power I find quite unconvincing. The most you can say is that other powers such as China and India are growing in influence but that is about it.
Bowles also has an interesting comparison with the situation now as contrasted with after the second world war. It is true that there are differences but I think he is wrong that the war on terror cannot substitute for the war on communism. It can and does. In fact the wars associated with the war on terrorism represent a type of Military Keynesianism that keeps the economy in terms of the military industrial complex going. It remains to be seen whether there will be a stimulus program involving new large infrastructure projects in the U.S. but it is quite possible especially if Obama is elected.
Bowles is right that socialism hardly exists as an alternative now. As a result expenditures on social programs or other programs that are redistributive are probably not in the cards. The most one could expect are some crumbs in the way of checks to stimulate consumer spending. The coming crisis of debt in states and muncipalities will serve as an excuse to cut entitlements and social services. Contrast this with the necessity to bail out investment banks, insurance companies and mortgage lenders.
The quote from the UK ministry of defence is interesting. It seems unlikely that the middle classes become revolutionary. More likely they will become Fascist or counter-revolutionary. The naive patriotism of US citizens could easily be whipped up so that you have cries of Amerika Uber Alles. Remember that German Naziism and militarism arose partly as a reaction to the decline of German power and the feeling of humiliation and victimisation of the German people. There will be cries to restore America to its former imagined grandeur and greatness.
Let Us SpeculateBy William Bowles
October 28, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" -- --There’s an awful lot of speculation going on right now, from both the left and right about where the latest crisis of capital is headed, chief amongst them is the notion that this signals the end of the US Empire, that the so-called uni-polar world is over, that a new multi-polar world, headed by China, Russia, India and Brazil is emerging.
The theory is based upon the fact that the US is no longer the world’s numero uno economic power and it’s true that even an overwhelming military force is dependent on the economics that fuels it. But how true is this idea and even if it is true, over what timescale are we talking about here?
Moreover, it’s only one of a number of possible outcomes, much depends on how the leading capitalist countries deal with the crisis. One thing strikes me most forcefully and that is with all the talk of trillions being needed to save capitalism from itself, the ease with which these vast sums have been conjured up, reveals a striking fact about the role of money namely that the value being assigned to it is totally ficticious.
After all, it’s just paper that has long ceased to represent real wealth given that it exists only in the imagination of those who allegedly run the system. Of course, to those of us who possess only nominal amounts of the stuff, out here in the real world, it has a very real value, but let us not confuse the world of finance capital with the one we live in.
The problem boils down to the fact that a tiny percentage of the world’s population has effectively sucked the real wealth out of the system and replaced it with a notional money, this is the one we’re stuck with and it’s called debt and debts only make sense if we agree to pay them and unlike the banks we don’t have governments that are sympathetic to our needs.
But let us return for a mo’ to the idea that the new multi-polar world that is emerging is headed by China, the world’s industrial powerhouse. The problem with this idea is that it’s the developed world that created this situation in order to reduce the cost of production by exporting manufacturing to countries like China. In turn, the markets for China’s stupendous productive capacity is directly linked to Western consumption and to products that are so cheap as to be virtually given away. Perhaps over time, China’s domestic consumption could ‘take up the slack’ but it’s doubtful given the the pathetically low wages being paid to China’s working class.
And already, literally thousands of China’s sweatshops are going belly-up, not only because of the global recession but also because (predictably) wages are slowly rising in China and as the situation gets worse, we can expect major labour upheavals to increase and, it must be added, the major capitalist countries are rapidly running out of cheap labour countries in which to relocate production, just as Marx predicted over 150 years ago.
Worse still, the vast surplus that China has accumulated is denominated in dollars, thus the fate of China’s economy rests entirely on the future well-being of US capitalism, and in turn, because we are all tied to the US’s coattails in this global financial sting operation, so are the rest of us! Thus, China too, is tied to the US’s coattails! China's motto is no doubt 'don't rock the boat' (anymore than it is already).
The reaction of the (marginally) more savvy of the developed capitalist powers in the EU is to reinstate what appears to be the same Keynesian economic policies that happened after the end of WWII, making the state once again the major capital investor but there are major differences between the post-WWII situation and that of today:
1) Unlike the 1940s where the state was not only the major investor but also, and this is crucial, directed the nature of investment via state-owned institutions, and it was investment in major social projects, housing, education, transportation, health care, energy and communications (I might add that these were projects that private capital was unwilling to invest in due to the long term nature of any return on investment). Today, by contrast, we see a ‘hands-off’ approach being used, the money is being handed over effectively as a ‘gift’ from ‘us’ to the crooks and fraudsters to do with it as they want;
2) Unlike the situation in the 1940s, which following the destruction of WWII and powered by the wealth accumulated by the US through financing the war, needed rebuilding, we now live in a world of global over-production, so where and how is this new environment of capital accumulation going to take place?
3) Much of the boom of the post-war period resided in retooling war production for the new world of consumerism led by the automobile, television, consumer goods and ironically, housing (setting aside for the moment the emergence of the Cold War and the military-industrial complex which skewed economic development in so many disastrous ways, that we still live, and die, with its effects).
There is no equivalent in the current situation (the ‘War on Terror’ is simply no replacement for the war on communism), thus in the short term (at least) we are entering a world that has more in common with the world leading up to the outbreak of WWII not the one that followed it; mass unemployment, even more massive cuts in social spending and, if capitalism runs true to form, the need for WWIII to trigger a new round of capital destruction and accumulation.
Some have pointed to the need for some kind of ‘New Deal’ but is this possible? Where will the money come from after bailing out the banks? Moreover, the major capitalist powers are no longer industrial power houses, most of the ‘wealth’ generated comes from two sources: 1) consumer consumption and 2) financial services, both of which are going down the tubes right now.
The other crucial difference between the post-WWII period and today is that socialism was seen by many as a real alternative to capitalism, indeed, not only were Keynesian policies seen as a way of bailing out capitalism, it was also the appropriation of essentially socialist economic policies but geared toward maintaining capitalism when the capitalists failed to do it themselves.
No such luck today however and largely because we have no organized and progressive working class to mount such a programme following the adoption of the so-called neo-liberal economic and political programme, which came about for precisely the same reasons as today’s meltdown, over-production and a falling rate of profit (let us not confuse the vast profits made by sleight-of-hand in the financial sector with the production of real wealth, health care, housing, education and so forth).
In conclusion, what can we say about the nature of the capitalists’ responses to this crisis? Firstly, because the state has decided to try and maintain the current status quo but with some nods in the direction of establishing some kind of global financial order, we are as they say, in the hands of the gods. And judging by the current responses of the G-7, some kind of global set of rules governing the financial markets is simply not on the cards. Remember, these national economies are all competing one against the other but at the same time are tied to each other by the globalized nature of finance capital. All they have done so far is muck about with the system without any idea of the consequences except to try and save capitalism from itself.
Second, these fiscal policies will result in mass unemployment running into the tens of millions and the collapse of the ‘good life’ or what’s left of it. And of course, mass unemployment will lead to the collapse of largely consumer-powered economies. Such a policy could of course, trigger a reawakening of class consciousness, but don’t bank on it, even if the civil servants of the British government envisage such a scenario (we should be so lucky).
“The Middle Class Proletariat — The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.” — ‘UK Ministry of Defence report, The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036’ (Third Edition) p.96, March 2007The problem of course, is that for such a scenario to take shape requires not only time but the development of a coherent alternative to the current chaos. Slogans are all well and good when they represent the distillation of an existing economic and political alternative, but without such an alternative they will remain only empty slogans.
Thus I think it accurate to say that only the re-emergence of a revolutionary force composed of working people (whether they are so-called middle-class or the traditional working class) will be able to rescue us from this calamity.
Bowles also has an interesting comparison with the situation now as contrasted with after the second world war. It is true that there are differences but I think he is wrong that the war on terror cannot substitute for the war on communism. It can and does. In fact the wars associated with the war on terrorism represent a type of Military Keynesianism that keeps the economy in terms of the military industrial complex going. It remains to be seen whether there will be a stimulus program involving new large infrastructure projects in the U.S. but it is quite possible especially if Obama is elected.
Bowles is right that socialism hardly exists as an alternative now. As a result expenditures on social programs or other programs that are redistributive are probably not in the cards. The most one could expect are some crumbs in the way of checks to stimulate consumer spending. The coming crisis of debt in states and muncipalities will serve as an excuse to cut entitlements and social services. Contrast this with the necessity to bail out investment banks, insurance companies and mortgage lenders.
The quote from the UK ministry of defence is interesting. It seems unlikely that the middle classes become revolutionary. More likely they will become Fascist or counter-revolutionary. The naive patriotism of US citizens could easily be whipped up so that you have cries of Amerika Uber Alles. Remember that German Naziism and militarism arose partly as a reaction to the decline of German power and the feeling of humiliation and victimisation of the German people. There will be cries to restore America to its former imagined grandeur and greatness.
Let Us SpeculateBy William Bowles
October 28, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" -- --There’s an awful lot of speculation going on right now, from both the left and right about where the latest crisis of capital is headed, chief amongst them is the notion that this signals the end of the US Empire, that the so-called uni-polar world is over, that a new multi-polar world, headed by China, Russia, India and Brazil is emerging.
The theory is based upon the fact that the US is no longer the world’s numero uno economic power and it’s true that even an overwhelming military force is dependent on the economics that fuels it. But how true is this idea and even if it is true, over what timescale are we talking about here?
Moreover, it’s only one of a number of possible outcomes, much depends on how the leading capitalist countries deal with the crisis. One thing strikes me most forcefully and that is with all the talk of trillions being needed to save capitalism from itself, the ease with which these vast sums have been conjured up, reveals a striking fact about the role of money namely that the value being assigned to it is totally ficticious.
After all, it’s just paper that has long ceased to represent real wealth given that it exists only in the imagination of those who allegedly run the system. Of course, to those of us who possess only nominal amounts of the stuff, out here in the real world, it has a very real value, but let us not confuse the world of finance capital with the one we live in.
The problem boils down to the fact that a tiny percentage of the world’s population has effectively sucked the real wealth out of the system and replaced it with a notional money, this is the one we’re stuck with and it’s called debt and debts only make sense if we agree to pay them and unlike the banks we don’t have governments that are sympathetic to our needs.
But let us return for a mo’ to the idea that the new multi-polar world that is emerging is headed by China, the world’s industrial powerhouse. The problem with this idea is that it’s the developed world that created this situation in order to reduce the cost of production by exporting manufacturing to countries like China. In turn, the markets for China’s stupendous productive capacity is directly linked to Western consumption and to products that are so cheap as to be virtually given away. Perhaps over time, China’s domestic consumption could ‘take up the slack’ but it’s doubtful given the the pathetically low wages being paid to China’s working class.
And already, literally thousands of China’s sweatshops are going belly-up, not only because of the global recession but also because (predictably) wages are slowly rising in China and as the situation gets worse, we can expect major labour upheavals to increase and, it must be added, the major capitalist countries are rapidly running out of cheap labour countries in which to relocate production, just as Marx predicted over 150 years ago.
Worse still, the vast surplus that China has accumulated is denominated in dollars, thus the fate of China’s economy rests entirely on the future well-being of US capitalism, and in turn, because we are all tied to the US’s coattails in this global financial sting operation, so are the rest of us! Thus, China too, is tied to the US’s coattails! China's motto is no doubt 'don't rock the boat' (anymore than it is already).
The reaction of the (marginally) more savvy of the developed capitalist powers in the EU is to reinstate what appears to be the same Keynesian economic policies that happened after the end of WWII, making the state once again the major capital investor but there are major differences between the post-WWII situation and that of today:
1) Unlike the 1940s where the state was not only the major investor but also, and this is crucial, directed the nature of investment via state-owned institutions, and it was investment in major social projects, housing, education, transportation, health care, energy and communications (I might add that these were projects that private capital was unwilling to invest in due to the long term nature of any return on investment). Today, by contrast, we see a ‘hands-off’ approach being used, the money is being handed over effectively as a ‘gift’ from ‘us’ to the crooks and fraudsters to do with it as they want;
2) Unlike the situation in the 1940s, which following the destruction of WWII and powered by the wealth accumulated by the US through financing the war, needed rebuilding, we now live in a world of global over-production, so where and how is this new environment of capital accumulation going to take place?
3) Much of the boom of the post-war period resided in retooling war production for the new world of consumerism led by the automobile, television, consumer goods and ironically, housing (setting aside for the moment the emergence of the Cold War and the military-industrial complex which skewed economic development in so many disastrous ways, that we still live, and die, with its effects).
There is no equivalent in the current situation (the ‘War on Terror’ is simply no replacement for the war on communism), thus in the short term (at least) we are entering a world that has more in common with the world leading up to the outbreak of WWII not the one that followed it; mass unemployment, even more massive cuts in social spending and, if capitalism runs true to form, the need for WWIII to trigger a new round of capital destruction and accumulation.
Some have pointed to the need for some kind of ‘New Deal’ but is this possible? Where will the money come from after bailing out the banks? Moreover, the major capitalist powers are no longer industrial power houses, most of the ‘wealth’ generated comes from two sources: 1) consumer consumption and 2) financial services, both of which are going down the tubes right now.
The other crucial difference between the post-WWII period and today is that socialism was seen by many as a real alternative to capitalism, indeed, not only were Keynesian policies seen as a way of bailing out capitalism, it was also the appropriation of essentially socialist economic policies but geared toward maintaining capitalism when the capitalists failed to do it themselves.
No such luck today however and largely because we have no organized and progressive working class to mount such a programme following the adoption of the so-called neo-liberal economic and political programme, which came about for precisely the same reasons as today’s meltdown, over-production and a falling rate of profit (let us not confuse the vast profits made by sleight-of-hand in the financial sector with the production of real wealth, health care, housing, education and so forth).
In conclusion, what can we say about the nature of the capitalists’ responses to this crisis? Firstly, because the state has decided to try and maintain the current status quo but with some nods in the direction of establishing some kind of global financial order, we are as they say, in the hands of the gods. And judging by the current responses of the G-7, some kind of global set of rules governing the financial markets is simply not on the cards. Remember, these national economies are all competing one against the other but at the same time are tied to each other by the globalized nature of finance capital. All they have done so far is muck about with the system without any idea of the consequences except to try and save capitalism from itself.
Second, these fiscal policies will result in mass unemployment running into the tens of millions and the collapse of the ‘good life’ or what’s left of it. And of course, mass unemployment will lead to the collapse of largely consumer-powered economies. Such a policy could of course, trigger a reawakening of class consciousness, but don’t bank on it, even if the civil servants of the British government envisage such a scenario (we should be so lucky).
“The Middle Class Proletariat — The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.” — ‘UK Ministry of Defence report, The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036’ (Third Edition) p.96, March 2007The problem of course, is that for such a scenario to take shape requires not only time but the development of a coherent alternative to the current chaos. Slogans are all well and good when they represent the distillation of an existing economic and political alternative, but without such an alternative they will remain only empty slogans.
Thus I think it accurate to say that only the re-emergence of a revolutionary force composed of working people (whether they are so-called middle-class or the traditional working class) will be able to rescue us from this calamity.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The end of the road for the U.S. carmakers
Somehow I imagine that the taxpayer will end up bailing out at least some of the big three. Perhaps it will take the form of helping out financially with the merger of GM and Chrysler. As one wag described it: This is like thinking that if you tie two stones together and throw them in the water that being together will somehow keep them from sinking.
The failure of a big car maker could be the next big jolt to the economy.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-autos28-2008oct28,0,1118586.story
The end of the road for U.S. carmakers?
Some analysts suggest failure may not be such a bad thing for Detroit's Big Three. Others, especially Michigan politicians, warn of calamity.By Ken BensingerOctober 28, 2008
Are the Big Three worth saving?The U.S. auto industry's downward spiral has accelerated dramatically in recent weeks. In a desperate bid for solvency, General Motors Corp. is seeking a merger with Chrysler. Chrysler has talked with Renault and Nissan about partnerships. And now Ford Motor Co., GM and Chrysler -- backed by Michigan lawmakers -- are lobbying Washington to give them cash, implying that failure to provide a bailout could doom the industry to bankruptcy.Congress last month approved $25 billion in loan guarantees for automakers, and rules for those loans are being drafted. But the companies say they need more -- now. GM, Ford and Chrysler are burning through cash far more quickly than they're bringing it in, sales have fallen off a cliff, and none of them has been able to borrow money in months because of the credit crisis.White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that officials at the Treasury, Energy and Commerce departments were discussing aid to automakers. Options may include buying equity stakes in the companies, providing more loans, guaranteeing their borrowing or buying troubled auto loans. Bush administration officials, she added, were "working as quickly as we possibly can" to speed disbursement of the loans.A Ford Credit spokeswoman said Monday that the company had applied for new short-term loans offered by the Federal Reserve to businesses having trouble borrowing. Recent news reports indicate that GM and Chrysler are seeking about $10 billion in government funds to support their merger.Meanwhile, the drumbeat of bad news continued. Rating firm Moody's downgraded Chrysler and GM debt Monday for the second time in three months, as well as the debt of Ford's lending arm, citing "the pace and severity of erosion in the U.S. automotive sector" and suggesting that the companies may have difficulty remaining solvent through 2009.With about 200,000 U.S. employees, hundreds of thousands more abroad and $400 billion in annual revenue among the Big Three, the prospect of failure by any of them is worrisome. Yet there is considerable debate about what might happen if they did fail.Some analysts, economists and industry insiders predict a financial cataclysm, while others foresee little more than a shift of the industry to foreign companies such as Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. Some argue that, in the long term, the U.S. economy would be better off moving past automobile making."A failure from the Big Three would be a huge, huge hit," said Donald Grimes, a research specialist at the University of Michigan. "But there's a real question about whether there's room for all of them."Others posit that the failure of just one of the Big Three would send shock waves through the entire manufacturing sector that could devastate suppliers and freeze up the other two carmakers. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost."If Ford or GM goes down, you take a 2-million-job hit" that would also dump hundreds of thousands of retirees on the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research. Chrysler and GM will be responsible for an estimated $90 billion in pension and health insurance benefits by 2017.This month, the center began running what it calls catastrophe studies to predict the consequences of an automaker's failure. The studies project a toll of up to 2% of gross domestic product. "The hit to the economy is $200 [billion] to $300 billion," Cole said.The Big Three's slow loss of market share to foreign brands sped up in the 1990s. In the 1970s, GM controlled more than 40% of the U.S. market; today, foreign carmakers account for 51% of U.S. sales.What's more, most foreign automakers have plants in the U.S. So far this year, 27% of the cars bought in the United States were built in U.S. plants owned by foreign carmakers.That, says David Gregory, law professor at St. John's University and a former labor representative for Ford, clearly indicates where the industry is headed. Because companies such as Nissan Motor Co., with a huge operation in Tennessee, and BMW, which builds vehicles in South Carolina, have erected plants in areas where labor is inexpensive and local laws make it difficult to establish unions, they have a huge cost advantage over Detroit.Last fall the Big Three renegotiated their contracts with the United Auto Workers union, imposing a two-tier wage structure that is more competitive with foreign automakers. But they won't see most of the benefits until 2010."The reality is that Japanese and European automakers are already in the U.S. in a big way," Gregory said. "They can more than make up the capacity lost by the closure of the Big Three. I'd say they could do it in five years or less."He and others contend that companies such as Toyota would quickly fill the void for supplier giants such as Lear Corp. and Johnson Controls Inc., particularly if the economy recovers enough to boost sales to pre-2008 levels. For laid-off autoworkers willing to relocate, they might even offer employment. Essentially, the theory goes, the net effect on employment would be nil."After a period of adjustment, it would basically be a wash," said the University of Michigan's Grimes.Romain Wacziarg, economics professor at UCLA's Anderson School of Management, takes the premise a big step further. He suggests that building any cars -- be they Toyotas or Chevys -- in the U.S. no longer makes sense because they can be built more efficiently in semi-skilled labor markets such as Mexico.He compares automaking to shipbuilding and steelmaking, which were huge in the U.S. decades ago but ultimately moved overseas, forcing development of new industries or specialized remnants of the departed industries."You have very severe short-term effects on communities," Wacziarg said. "But in the long run, the economy learns to specialize in new activities that have a higher value. Pittsburgh reinvented itself after steel. Detroit may have to do the same."As U.S. bulk steelmaking ceded to specialty steels, so could U.S. automaking focus on cutting-edge vehicles such as hybrids and electric cars."I think carmaking in the U.S. will continue to exist in some form," said Elon Musk, chairman and chief executive of San Carlos-based electric carmaker Tesla Motors. "There's some fundamental restructuring to be done though."For those who work in the auto business, such a transition is unthinkable. "If you're looking at identifying an essential part of the economy, we would insist that this industry still plays a huge role," said Greg Martin, a GM spokesman. "Any plan to stabilize the economy would have to encompass the U.S. auto industry."That's very much on the mind of Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.). He joined seven other members of Michigan's congressional delegation in sending a letter last week to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke urging the two to "use their broad regulatory authority" to "promote liquidity" for U.S. carmakers."There's hardly a congressional district in the nation that isn't affected by the Big Three," said Kildee, the son of a UAW member who helped pass the $1.5-billion bailout of Chrysler in 1979. He said he'd push Congress to fast-track disbursement of the $25 billion in guaranteed loans and ask for $25 billion more. "It's not just the auto industry we're helping; it's the entire industry of this country."Michigan would be the epicenter of an automaker collapse. The state already has the second-highest unemployment rate in the country, 8.7%, compared with 6.1% nationwide. After years of job losses, much of the workforce has migrated elsewhere: Detroit's population is now barely 900,000, down from 1.8 million in 1950. Recent estimates suggest the state could lose 60,000 more jobs should one of the Big Three fall.In the wake of the federal bailouts of Wall Street and insurer American International Group Inc., experts feel little doubt that some sort of government aid to carmakers will be forthcoming. With GM and Ford spending cash at a rate of $1 billion a month, it remains to be seen whether an infusion of taxpayer dollars will stop the bleeding. Economist Gregory said any bailout might be pouring money down a hole."The damage to the public psyche of losing GM, Ford or Chrysler is incalculable, and the effect on whatever is left of the Rust Belt will be even worse," he said."But the truth is, our economy doesn't depend on cars, not anymore. The only question is how painful the transition will be."Bensinger is a Times staff writer.
The failure of a big car maker could be the next big jolt to the economy.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-autos28-2008oct28,0,1118586.story
The end of the road for U.S. carmakers?
Some analysts suggest failure may not be such a bad thing for Detroit's Big Three. Others, especially Michigan politicians, warn of calamity.By Ken BensingerOctober 28, 2008
Are the Big Three worth saving?The U.S. auto industry's downward spiral has accelerated dramatically in recent weeks. In a desperate bid for solvency, General Motors Corp. is seeking a merger with Chrysler. Chrysler has talked with Renault and Nissan about partnerships. And now Ford Motor Co., GM and Chrysler -- backed by Michigan lawmakers -- are lobbying Washington to give them cash, implying that failure to provide a bailout could doom the industry to bankruptcy.Congress last month approved $25 billion in loan guarantees for automakers, and rules for those loans are being drafted. But the companies say they need more -- now. GM, Ford and Chrysler are burning through cash far more quickly than they're bringing it in, sales have fallen off a cliff, and none of them has been able to borrow money in months because of the credit crisis.White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that officials at the Treasury, Energy and Commerce departments were discussing aid to automakers. Options may include buying equity stakes in the companies, providing more loans, guaranteeing their borrowing or buying troubled auto loans. Bush administration officials, she added, were "working as quickly as we possibly can" to speed disbursement of the loans.A Ford Credit spokeswoman said Monday that the company had applied for new short-term loans offered by the Federal Reserve to businesses having trouble borrowing. Recent news reports indicate that GM and Chrysler are seeking about $10 billion in government funds to support their merger.Meanwhile, the drumbeat of bad news continued. Rating firm Moody's downgraded Chrysler and GM debt Monday for the second time in three months, as well as the debt of Ford's lending arm, citing "the pace and severity of erosion in the U.S. automotive sector" and suggesting that the companies may have difficulty remaining solvent through 2009.With about 200,000 U.S. employees, hundreds of thousands more abroad and $400 billion in annual revenue among the Big Three, the prospect of failure by any of them is worrisome. Yet there is considerable debate about what might happen if they did fail.Some analysts, economists and industry insiders predict a financial cataclysm, while others foresee little more than a shift of the industry to foreign companies such as Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. Some argue that, in the long term, the U.S. economy would be better off moving past automobile making."A failure from the Big Three would be a huge, huge hit," said Donald Grimes, a research specialist at the University of Michigan. "But there's a real question about whether there's room for all of them."Others posit that the failure of just one of the Big Three would send shock waves through the entire manufacturing sector that could devastate suppliers and freeze up the other two carmakers. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost."If Ford or GM goes down, you take a 2-million-job hit" that would also dump hundreds of thousands of retirees on the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research. Chrysler and GM will be responsible for an estimated $90 billion in pension and health insurance benefits by 2017.This month, the center began running what it calls catastrophe studies to predict the consequences of an automaker's failure. The studies project a toll of up to 2% of gross domestic product. "The hit to the economy is $200 [billion] to $300 billion," Cole said.The Big Three's slow loss of market share to foreign brands sped up in the 1990s. In the 1970s, GM controlled more than 40% of the U.S. market; today, foreign carmakers account for 51% of U.S. sales.What's more, most foreign automakers have plants in the U.S. So far this year, 27% of the cars bought in the United States were built in U.S. plants owned by foreign carmakers.That, says David Gregory, law professor at St. John's University and a former labor representative for Ford, clearly indicates where the industry is headed. Because companies such as Nissan Motor Co., with a huge operation in Tennessee, and BMW, which builds vehicles in South Carolina, have erected plants in areas where labor is inexpensive and local laws make it difficult to establish unions, they have a huge cost advantage over Detroit.Last fall the Big Three renegotiated their contracts with the United Auto Workers union, imposing a two-tier wage structure that is more competitive with foreign automakers. But they won't see most of the benefits until 2010."The reality is that Japanese and European automakers are already in the U.S. in a big way," Gregory said. "They can more than make up the capacity lost by the closure of the Big Three. I'd say they could do it in five years or less."He and others contend that companies such as Toyota would quickly fill the void for supplier giants such as Lear Corp. and Johnson Controls Inc., particularly if the economy recovers enough to boost sales to pre-2008 levels. For laid-off autoworkers willing to relocate, they might even offer employment. Essentially, the theory goes, the net effect on employment would be nil."After a period of adjustment, it would basically be a wash," said the University of Michigan's Grimes.Romain Wacziarg, economics professor at UCLA's Anderson School of Management, takes the premise a big step further. He suggests that building any cars -- be they Toyotas or Chevys -- in the U.S. no longer makes sense because they can be built more efficiently in semi-skilled labor markets such as Mexico.He compares automaking to shipbuilding and steelmaking, which were huge in the U.S. decades ago but ultimately moved overseas, forcing development of new industries or specialized remnants of the departed industries."You have very severe short-term effects on communities," Wacziarg said. "But in the long run, the economy learns to specialize in new activities that have a higher value. Pittsburgh reinvented itself after steel. Detroit may have to do the same."As U.S. bulk steelmaking ceded to specialty steels, so could U.S. automaking focus on cutting-edge vehicles such as hybrids and electric cars."I think carmaking in the U.S. will continue to exist in some form," said Elon Musk, chairman and chief executive of San Carlos-based electric carmaker Tesla Motors. "There's some fundamental restructuring to be done though."For those who work in the auto business, such a transition is unthinkable. "If you're looking at identifying an essential part of the economy, we would insist that this industry still plays a huge role," said Greg Martin, a GM spokesman. "Any plan to stabilize the economy would have to encompass the U.S. auto industry."That's very much on the mind of Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.). He joined seven other members of Michigan's congressional delegation in sending a letter last week to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke urging the two to "use their broad regulatory authority" to "promote liquidity" for U.S. carmakers."There's hardly a congressional district in the nation that isn't affected by the Big Three," said Kildee, the son of a UAW member who helped pass the $1.5-billion bailout of Chrysler in 1979. He said he'd push Congress to fast-track disbursement of the $25 billion in guaranteed loans and ask for $25 billion more. "It's not just the auto industry we're helping; it's the entire industry of this country."Michigan would be the epicenter of an automaker collapse. The state already has the second-highest unemployment rate in the country, 8.7%, compared with 6.1% nationwide. After years of job losses, much of the workforce has migrated elsewhere: Detroit's population is now barely 900,000, down from 1.8 million in 1950. Recent estimates suggest the state could lose 60,000 more jobs should one of the Big Three fall.In the wake of the federal bailouts of Wall Street and insurer American International Group Inc., experts feel little doubt that some sort of government aid to carmakers will be forthcoming. With GM and Ford spending cash at a rate of $1 billion a month, it remains to be seen whether an infusion of taxpayer dollars will stop the bleeding. Economist Gregory said any bailout might be pouring money down a hole."The damage to the public psyche of losing GM, Ford or Chrysler is incalculable, and the effect on whatever is left of the Rust Belt will be even worse," he said."But the truth is, our economy doesn't depend on cars, not anymore. The only question is how painful the transition will be."Bensinger is a Times staff writer.
The attack on Syria and self defence
The Bush amplified definition of self-defense is simply a self interested definition that supports US aggression. It also removes any credibility that the US still has on the international scene. The same self-interested redefinition of terms has occured in the definition of torture. Experts can always be found to support these redefinitions and they are usually well rewarded for doing so. The second quote is from the NYTimes.
The first quote is from a widely accepted view of what would constitute justified anticipatory self-defence by the famous American Daniel Webster. The Syrian attack as the Pakistan attacks hardly fit the terms of this definition. Neither did the original invasion of Afghanistan let alone Iraq.
The most widely accepted modern standard for anticipatory self-defense was articulated by U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster in diplomatic correspondence with his British counterpart over the Caroline incident (often mischaracterized as the Caroline "case") and consisted of two prongs. One was that the need to use force in anticipatory self-defense must first rise to the level of being a necessity, and one that is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. The other requirement was that the action taken must be proportionate to the threat and not be excessive.
But in justifying the attack, American officials said the Bush administration was determined to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provided a rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries’ consent.
Together with a similar American commando raid into Pakistan more than seven weeks ago, the operation on Sunday appeared to reflect an intensifying effort by the Bush administration to find a way during its waning months to attack militants even beyond the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States is at war.
Administration officials declined to say whether the emerging application of self-defense could lead to strikes against camps inside Iran that have been used to train Shiite “special groups” that have fought with the American military and Iraqi security forces.
The first quote is from a widely accepted view of what would constitute justified anticipatory self-defence by the famous American Daniel Webster. The Syrian attack as the Pakistan attacks hardly fit the terms of this definition. Neither did the original invasion of Afghanistan let alone Iraq.
The most widely accepted modern standard for anticipatory self-defense was articulated by U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster in diplomatic correspondence with his British counterpart over the Caroline incident (often mischaracterized as the Caroline "case") and consisted of two prongs. One was that the need to use force in anticipatory self-defense must first rise to the level of being a necessity, and one that is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. The other requirement was that the action taken must be proportionate to the threat and not be excessive.
But in justifying the attack, American officials said the Bush administration was determined to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provided a rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries’ consent.
Together with a similar American commando raid into Pakistan more than seven weeks ago, the operation on Sunday appeared to reflect an intensifying effort by the Bush administration to find a way during its waning months to attack militants even beyond the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States is at war.
Administration officials declined to say whether the emerging application of self-defense could lead to strikes against camps inside Iran that have been used to train Shiite “special groups” that have fought with the American military and Iraqi security forces.
US faces International Condemnation in Wake of Syria Strike.
Interesting that Lebanon should condemn this attack. In spite of being supported strongly by the US the Lebanese government must show some independence or perhaps face civil war. The hostile stance of the US to Syria is causing Russia to move in to strengthen relations.
Notice that there is not any official comment upon the raid at all. There are just reports of anonymous US officials justifying the attack on grounds of self defence and on the basis of claims that are not at all verified. This does not keep them from being dutifully reported by an ''objective'' press. Not a single word of condemnation from European countries or South or North America. Surely Venezuela and Cuba will condemn the attacks at least.
US Faces International Condemnation in Wake of Syria Strike
Posted October 27, 2008
While the White House has declined comment and other US officials defended the strike on a Syrian border town yesterday which killed eight, international condemnation rained down on the strike from a number of sources.
The Syrian government, which already summoned the US Charges d’Affaires to complain about a strike which they labeled as “serious aggression,” had further condemnations and a warning today. Foreign Minister Wallid al-Muallem condemned the strike as an act of “criminal and terrorist aggression” and warned that his government “would defend our territories” in the event of a future attack.
The Lebanese government, which has been on shaky terms with Syria, also harshly condemned the move. Prime Minister Fouad Seniora released a statement condemning the attack as “dangerous” and “unacceptable” and “constitutes a violation of Syrian sovereignty.” Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh likewise condemned the raid as a violation of international law.
The Arab League took a similar position, with Secretary General Amr Mussa defending Syria’s “right to defend its land and people” and calling for an investigation into the strike. He also condemned the attack as “a violation of Syrian sovereignty.”
Russia, which had recently negotiated an arms deal with Syria, cautioned against attacks “on the territory of sovereign states under the slogan of the fight against terrorism” and that the attack would have a “sharply negative effect” on the region.
Unnamed US officials said the attack had targeted and killed a “smuggler of foreign fighters into Iraq” and said they didn’t kill any of the women and children found at the attacked site. US officials say the attack is justified under an “expansive definition of self-defense” similar to the argument made by Israel when it attacked a site in Syria last year.
Notice that there is not any official comment upon the raid at all. There are just reports of anonymous US officials justifying the attack on grounds of self defence and on the basis of claims that are not at all verified. This does not keep them from being dutifully reported by an ''objective'' press. Not a single word of condemnation from European countries or South or North America. Surely Venezuela and Cuba will condemn the attacks at least.
US Faces International Condemnation in Wake of Syria Strike
Posted October 27, 2008
While the White House has declined comment and other US officials defended the strike on a Syrian border town yesterday which killed eight, international condemnation rained down on the strike from a number of sources.
The Syrian government, which already summoned the US Charges d’Affaires to complain about a strike which they labeled as “serious aggression,” had further condemnations and a warning today. Foreign Minister Wallid al-Muallem condemned the strike as an act of “criminal and terrorist aggression” and warned that his government “would defend our territories” in the event of a future attack.
The Lebanese government, which has been on shaky terms with Syria, also harshly condemned the move. Prime Minister Fouad Seniora released a statement condemning the attack as “dangerous” and “unacceptable” and “constitutes a violation of Syrian sovereignty.” Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh likewise condemned the raid as a violation of international law.
The Arab League took a similar position, with Secretary General Amr Mussa defending Syria’s “right to defend its land and people” and calling for an investigation into the strike. He also condemned the attack as “a violation of Syrian sovereignty.”
Russia, which had recently negotiated an arms deal with Syria, cautioned against attacks “on the territory of sovereign states under the slogan of the fight against terrorism” and that the attack would have a “sharply negative effect” on the region.
Unnamed US officials said the attack had targeted and killed a “smuggler of foreign fighters into Iraq” and said they didn’t kill any of the women and children found at the attacked site. US officials say the attack is justified under an “expansive definition of self-defense” similar to the argument made by Israel when it attacked a site in Syria last year.
Claims of Syrian Nuclear Facility Falter over Lack of Evidence
So far no analysis has shown any evidence for US claims. No much in the news about this. If we hear anything it will be about Syrian intransigence in not allowing inspectors to visit three or four other sites. Apparently Western intelligence sources have infomed the IAEA that they are also suspect. What a wonderful way to get the IAEA to collect intelligence for free. Syria has denied the requests on security grounds. This sensible position will be spun as if it shows obvious guilt. This is from antiwar.com.
Claims of Syrian ‘Nuclear Facility’ Falter Over Lack of Evidence
Posted September 21, 2008
With the IAEA’s next Board of Governors meeting set to begin tomorrow, the probe into Syria’s alleged secret nuclear facility appears to be faltering over lack of evidence. While the analysis of the samples taken from the facility during the IAEA’s June visit to the site are only partially complete, the tests so far have found nothing to back up the US claims about the nature of the target.
Israeli planes attacked the site in September of last year, with the help of the United States. While Israel’s government has remained officially silent about the operation to this day, the Bush Administration told Congress in April that the facility was designed to produce small amounts of plutonium. Dana Perino also said the White House was convinced the facility “was not intended for peaceful purposes”.
But other than a handful of Israeli diplomats claiming to have overheard a Syrian admit the site was a “nuclear facility,” the evidence so far remains elusive. While a still-in-construction facility wouldn’t have had radioactive material yet, the Israeli strike should have strewn a significant amount of graphite around the area if the was truly being built for the alleged purpose.
The only explanation given for the lack of this evidence is a quote from an anonymous diplomat who claimed “the feeling is that the Syrians may have dumped all of it down the hole“. Syria built a new building over the top of the attacked site, which it insists was just an ordinary military building.
IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei condemned Israel and the US for their “unilateral use of force” and for withholding information on the site until seven months after the attack. Syria agreed to a single visit, but with it yielding no results the IAEA has reportedly asked to visit “three or four other sites“. Syria declined the request for additional visits to other sites, citing security concerns.
Related Stories
Claims of Syrian ‘Nuclear Facility’ Falter Over Lack of Evidence
Posted September 21, 2008
With the IAEA’s next Board of Governors meeting set to begin tomorrow, the probe into Syria’s alleged secret nuclear facility appears to be faltering over lack of evidence. While the analysis of the samples taken from the facility during the IAEA’s June visit to the site are only partially complete, the tests so far have found nothing to back up the US claims about the nature of the target.
Israeli planes attacked the site in September of last year, with the help of the United States. While Israel’s government has remained officially silent about the operation to this day, the Bush Administration told Congress in April that the facility was designed to produce small amounts of plutonium. Dana Perino also said the White House was convinced the facility “was not intended for peaceful purposes”.
But other than a handful of Israeli diplomats claiming to have overheard a Syrian admit the site was a “nuclear facility,” the evidence so far remains elusive. While a still-in-construction facility wouldn’t have had radioactive material yet, the Israeli strike should have strewn a significant amount of graphite around the area if the was truly being built for the alleged purpose.
The only explanation given for the lack of this evidence is a quote from an anonymous diplomat who claimed “the feeling is that the Syrians may have dumped all of it down the hole“. Syria built a new building over the top of the attacked site, which it insists was just an ordinary military building.
IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei condemned Israel and the US for their “unilateral use of force” and for withholding information on the site until seven months after the attack. Syria agreed to a single visit, but with it yielding no results the IAEA has reportedly asked to visit “three or four other sites“. Syria declined the request for additional visits to other sites, citing security concerns.
Related Stories
Analysis: Syrian raid suggests new US stance
This is from IHL.
This is not really a new stance. The Bush ultra rogue state doctrine has always been that the US has the right to strike anywhere in world be it territory of friend (Pakistan) or foe(Syria) on the grounds of self-defence or even more vaguely as part of the war against terror. It is so common that the press doesn't even bother to mention that the policy is a clear violation of the UN charter and international law. Notice that they do not do this in countries such as Russia which might not just reply with rhetoric. Nor do they do it in cases where the terrorists are helpful to the US as with MEK in Iraq and they certainly do not help out Turkey with the PKK. The raids can simply be seen as a symbol of US imperial supremacy showing others, especially those that are weak, that the US is the world boss and policeman. Or to put it in the moral crapology of the US itself: The leader of the free and democratic world in the war against terror and the dark forces of evil. The article is correct however in that there seems to be a new emphasis upon the doctrine in actual practice.
I am wondering if Obama will have anything to say about these policies. He certainly did not take the opportunity to condemn this raid. Perhaps Bush and McCain hoped that this would happen. As far as Pakistan attacks are concerned from Obama's own comments he probably thinks that this was a great idea! Whoever wins the presidency there is bipartisan agreement upon continued US military domination of the world and Obama wants to increase the size of the military.
Syria has been trying to mend relationships with the West and even with Israel. Perhaps the US thinks that this is a bad idea. There was even to be a meeting with a US official but this has now been cancelled by Syria. These policies are alienating Pakistan an ally and also Iraq. Iraq worries about the US using Iraq as a jumping off point to attack neighbours such as Iran or Syria. This action will just make that worry more real. Also, Iraq wants good relationships with Syria and this action will not help.
Note the way in which a detailed justification is given by anonymous US officials for the attack showing how valuable it was in the war on Al Qaeda. Of course nothing is verified! Officially nothing is even admitted. People should surely see through this transparent bit of psychological warfare and management of disinformation.
Analysis: Syria raid suggests new US stance
The Associated Press
Monday, October 27, 2008
WASHINGTON: Bold U.S. raids into Pakistan and Syria show the stark choice the Bush administration is putting to both friends and adversaries in its final weeks: Clamp down on militants and terrorists or we'll do it for you.
Raids like the one in Syria on Sunday hold the potential to kill or capture wanted al-Qaida terrorists or other militants, but they also risk killing civilians and angering foreign governments and their citizens.
Selective U.S. military action across the borders of nations friendly and unfriendly reflects increasing willingness to embrace what U.S. commanders consider a last resort: violating the sovereignty of a nation with whom the U.S. is not at war.
It's a demonstration of overt military strength that the U.S. has been reluctant to display in public for fear it would backfire on U.S. forces or supporters within the governments of the nations whose borders were breached.
Now, senior U.S. officials favor judicious use of the newly aggressive tactics, seeing more upsides than down. They reason that whatever diplomatic damage is done will be mitigated when Bush leaves office and a new president is inaugurated.
The raid in Syria also comes about a week before a presidential election that sees John McCain, the candidate of President George W. Bush's Republican Party, lagging behind Democrat Barack Obama. Such a show of strength could boost McCain's standing among some voters.
A new administration could, in fact, help mend fences with Syria, where the government has already said it is looking forward to a better relationship with the next U.S. president, said Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In Pakistan, however, special operations raids could box in the new American president by inflaming an already outraged public.
"Public opinion is already very strongly against the U.S. and 'anti' any U.S. role or interference," Cordesman said. "It's not clear that you are not building up a broad public resistance that will bind the next administration."
The target of Sunday's raid in Sukkariyeh, Syria, just over the Iraq border from Husaybah was a man known as Abu Ghadiyah, the leader of the most prolific network to move al-Qaida associated foreign fighters into Iraq.
The U.S. operation was precipitated by intelligence that he was planning an imminent attack in Iraq, a senior U.S. official told The Associated Press. U.S. intelligence picked up similar reports last spring. The information — not detailed enough to take action on — was followed by the killings of 11 Iraqi policemen just over the border from Abu Ghadiyah's Syrian compound. He personally led the attack, the official said.
"The trip wire was knowing an attack was imminent, and also being able to pinpoint his location," the official said.
Abu Ghadiyah, the nickname for Badran Turki Hishan Al Mazidih, was among those killed, a U.S. counterterrorism official confirmed Monday. All the officials spoke anonymously to discuss sensitive intelligence about the raid.
The attack was carried out at 4:45 p.m., timed to coincide with the customary afternoon rest period. A ground attack was chosen over a missile strike to reduce the chances of hurting civilians not associated with Abu Ghadiyah's network, the official said.
Syria said troops in four helicopters attacked a building and killed eight people, including four children.
The U.S. official confirmed that women and children were at the house, but he said "they were protected at the objective and left behind." He did not specifically address whether any women and children were among the casualties. He said "several" men were killed and identified them as Abu Ghadiyah's body guards.
The cross-border action from U.S. positions inside Iraq comes at a touchy time in U.S.-Iraqi relations. The two sides are negotiating an agreement to extend the legal basis for American forces in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.
Opponents led by Iran worry that a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq is an invitation to the Americans to use Iraq as a staging ground for attacks against its neighbors. The Iraqis insist they will not allow that.
The attack comes at time when Syria has been working to improve its image in the world. And periodically, U.S. commanders have noted that Damascus has worked harder to clamp down on the use of its country by terrorists.
Bush secretly approved a separate directive three months ago allowing special operations forces to cross the Afghan border to conduct raids inside Pakistan.
Just one such raid has been carried out, according to a senior Pakistan government official. Helicopter-borne U.S. special forces conducted a raid Sept. 3 inside Pakistan. Islamabad has complained bitterly about the move, which it says killed two dozen people, including civilians, and violated its sovereignty.
The raid capped nearly a year of debate among the CIA, U.S. special forces and commanders in Iraq about how to handle the Syrian tributary of the Iraq foreign fighter problem, according to a former intelligence official and a current U.S. military official who deals with Iraq.
The United States has been asking Syria to hand over, capture or kill Abu Ghadiyah for months or years. The U.S. Treasury Department claims he ran a resupply operation on the Syrian border.
Syria rebuffed the U.S. request, saying it was monitoring Abu Ghadiyah's activities, said two U.S. military officials with direct recent knowledge of U.S. intelligence in western Iraq.
The raid came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.
Syria called the raid a "serious aggression," and its foreign ministry summoned the charges d'affaires of the United States and Iraq in protest.
The U.S has become frustrated with the use of Pakistan's northwestern tribal areas as a safe haven for militants over the nearly seven years since the Taliban was rousted from Afghanistan for harboring Osama bin Laden.
U.S. forces, including the CIA, continue to conduct missile attacks inside the border region but is doing so in closer coordination with the Pakistan government, a Pakistani official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters.
On Monday, suspected U.S. missiles killed 20 people at the house of a Taliban commander near the Afghan border on Monday, the latest volley in a two-month onslaught on militant bases inside Pakistan, officials said.
Missile attacks have killed at least two senior al-Qaida commanders in Pakistan's wild border zone this year, putting some pressure on extremist groups accused of planning attacks in Afghanistan — and perhaps terror strikes in the West.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Pamela Hess has covered national security in Washington since 1993. AP writers Zeina Karam Albert Aji in Damascus, Hussein Malla in Sukkariyeh and Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report.
Correction:
Notes:
Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/
Monday, October 27, 2008
Philippines: Former official to be arrested on return from US.
This is from the Manila Tribune.
It will be interesting to see if Bolante is actually arrested or manages to disappear. His arrest and testimony could be embarassing to the government. He knows a lot about a longstanding scandal having to do with a fertilizer fund. Some urban politicians managed to get paid from this fertilizer fund. I suppose that was to grow Arroyo lots of votes!
DFA CLAIMS NO REPORT YET ON DEPORTATION
Senate to arrest Bolante; gov’t evasive on his arrival
By Michaela P. del Callar
10/27/2008
The government until yesterday remained tight-lipped on the arrival of controversial former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-joc” Bolante in the country, raising the specter of a repeat of the abduction of Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, a key Senate witness in the anomalous $320-million National Broadband Network (NBN) deal, upon his arrival from Hong Kong where he went to evade a Senate inquiry.
Lozada eventually revealed all that he knew about the controversial deal in the Senate inquiry and said that he was snatched by state agents from the airport.
Like Lozada, Bolante will likely be served a warrant of arrest from the Senate upon his arrival in Manila tomorrow because of his involvement in the P728-million fertilizer fund scam, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr said.
He added the Senate sergeant-at-arms can implement the arrest order against Bolante on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the Senate.
Pimentel also favors the re-opening of the investigation into the fertilizer fund scam if Bolante arrives in Manila.
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) was tight-lipped on details of
Bolante’s impending deportation of Bolante who was accused of diverting million of pesos supposedly for the purchase of fertilizers to the campaign fund of President Arroyo in 2004.
Foreign Affairs officials declined to give interviews and comments when asked about details and preparations being made by the government for Bolante’s on Tuesday.
DFA officials said they have not received an official report from the Philippine Consulate General in Chicago, Illinois on the deportation proceedings. The consulate in Chicago has jurisdiction on the case of Bolante, who is detained at the Kenosha county jail in the state of Wisconsin.
They said, however, the Philippine government will continue to provide assistance to Bolante until he is safely returned to Manila.
“We don’t have details of his arrival nor can we confirm that he really is coming back this week. However, the DFA, through its consulate in Chicago will provide him with whatever assistance that he needs and will ensure that his rights are protected because he is a Filipino citizen,” one official said.
DFA sources said Bolante will be escorted by US Marshals on his flight back to the Philippines.
The Tribune earlier reported that Bolante is arriving at 11 p.m. on Tuesday via Northwest Airlines Flight 71.
Bolante, who was arrested on July 7, 2006 in Los Angeles, California, was accused of diverting P728-million fertilizer funds of the Department of Agriculture to the campaign kitty of President Arroyo for her 2004 presidential bid.
In Aug. 27, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago denied the former Deaprtment of Agriculture official’s petition for review of his asylum claim.
The court ruled that Bolante “cannot meet his burden of proof on his asylum claim” and that his “fear of persecution is objectively unreasonable” after failing to provide specific information or details about it.
With Bolante’s deportation, the Senate is expected to revive its investigation on the fertilizer fund scandal involving the President, who is facing another impeachment complaint at the House of Representatives.
The impeachment charges were filed by opposition lawmakers and were recently endorsed by former staunch ally and ex-House speaker Jose De Venecia Jr. Although lacking in numbers in the administration-controlled Lower House, De Venecia’s support is expected to give voice to the complaint, which has been quashed thrice in the past.
Pimentel added if Sen. Edgardo Angara, chairman of the committee on agriculture and food, does not want to reopen the case, the Senate Blue Ribbon committee should investigate it motu proprio.
He added the Senate blue ribbon committee can assume jurisdiction of the case from the committee on agriculture which had conducted an exhausted probe of the anomaly under the chairmanship of former Senator Ramon Magsaysay Jr.
Pimentel noted the Office of the Ombudsman has not resolved the graft charges against Bolante.
Due to the failure of the Ombudsman to decide on the case, there is still no criminal case against Bolante that can serve as basis for his arrest by law enforcement agencies.
He added that some senators have urged the Department of Justice to issue a hold departure order against Bolante to prevent him from leaving the country again and evade investigation and prosecution.
Malacañang insisted that the government has not prepared any special arrangement for Bolante’s arrival.
Bolante fled to the United States two years ago to evade a Senate inquiry on the fertilizer fund scam.
“Why the need for special preparations? The government does not make such plans on the return to the country of an ordinary citizen,” Deputy Presidential spokesman Anthony Golez said on radio.
Golez said Bolante’s possible return is being hyped up by critics of Mrs. Arroyo.
Golez had said if parties are really after justice, then a case should be filed against Bolante in court to get to the bottom of the fertilizer fund controversy.
“As enshrined in the Constitution, if you want to know the truth and if you want to bring justice, then it has to be brought in the right courts, in the right forum,” he said.
It will be interesting to see if Bolante is actually arrested or manages to disappear. His arrest and testimony could be embarassing to the government. He knows a lot about a longstanding scandal having to do with a fertilizer fund. Some urban politicians managed to get paid from this fertilizer fund. I suppose that was to grow Arroyo lots of votes!
DFA CLAIMS NO REPORT YET ON DEPORTATION
Senate to arrest Bolante; gov’t evasive on his arrival
By Michaela P. del Callar
10/27/2008
The government until yesterday remained tight-lipped on the arrival of controversial former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-joc” Bolante in the country, raising the specter of a repeat of the abduction of Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, a key Senate witness in the anomalous $320-million National Broadband Network (NBN) deal, upon his arrival from Hong Kong where he went to evade a Senate inquiry.
Lozada eventually revealed all that he knew about the controversial deal in the Senate inquiry and said that he was snatched by state agents from the airport.
Like Lozada, Bolante will likely be served a warrant of arrest from the Senate upon his arrival in Manila tomorrow because of his involvement in the P728-million fertilizer fund scam, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr said.
He added the Senate sergeant-at-arms can implement the arrest order against Bolante on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the Senate.
Pimentel also favors the re-opening of the investigation into the fertilizer fund scam if Bolante arrives in Manila.
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) was tight-lipped on details of
Bolante’s impending deportation of Bolante who was accused of diverting million of pesos supposedly for the purchase of fertilizers to the campaign fund of President Arroyo in 2004.
Foreign Affairs officials declined to give interviews and comments when asked about details and preparations being made by the government for Bolante’s on Tuesday.
DFA officials said they have not received an official report from the Philippine Consulate General in Chicago, Illinois on the deportation proceedings. The consulate in Chicago has jurisdiction on the case of Bolante, who is detained at the Kenosha county jail in the state of Wisconsin.
They said, however, the Philippine government will continue to provide assistance to Bolante until he is safely returned to Manila.
“We don’t have details of his arrival nor can we confirm that he really is coming back this week. However, the DFA, through its consulate in Chicago will provide him with whatever assistance that he needs and will ensure that his rights are protected because he is a Filipino citizen,” one official said.
DFA sources said Bolante will be escorted by US Marshals on his flight back to the Philippines.
The Tribune earlier reported that Bolante is arriving at 11 p.m. on Tuesday via Northwest Airlines Flight 71.
Bolante, who was arrested on July 7, 2006 in Los Angeles, California, was accused of diverting P728-million fertilizer funds of the Department of Agriculture to the campaign kitty of President Arroyo for her 2004 presidential bid.
In Aug. 27, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago denied the former Deaprtment of Agriculture official’s petition for review of his asylum claim.
The court ruled that Bolante “cannot meet his burden of proof on his asylum claim” and that his “fear of persecution is objectively unreasonable” after failing to provide specific information or details about it.
With Bolante’s deportation, the Senate is expected to revive its investigation on the fertilizer fund scandal involving the President, who is facing another impeachment complaint at the House of Representatives.
The impeachment charges were filed by opposition lawmakers and were recently endorsed by former staunch ally and ex-House speaker Jose De Venecia Jr. Although lacking in numbers in the administration-controlled Lower House, De Venecia’s support is expected to give voice to the complaint, which has been quashed thrice in the past.
Pimentel added if Sen. Edgardo Angara, chairman of the committee on agriculture and food, does not want to reopen the case, the Senate Blue Ribbon committee should investigate it motu proprio.
He added the Senate blue ribbon committee can assume jurisdiction of the case from the committee on agriculture which had conducted an exhausted probe of the anomaly under the chairmanship of former Senator Ramon Magsaysay Jr.
Pimentel noted the Office of the Ombudsman has not resolved the graft charges against Bolante.
Due to the failure of the Ombudsman to decide on the case, there is still no criminal case against Bolante that can serve as basis for his arrest by law enforcement agencies.
He added that some senators have urged the Department of Justice to issue a hold departure order against Bolante to prevent him from leaving the country again and evade investigation and prosecution.
Malacañang insisted that the government has not prepared any special arrangement for Bolante’s arrival.
Bolante fled to the United States two years ago to evade a Senate inquiry on the fertilizer fund scam.
“Why the need for special preparations? The government does not make such plans on the return to the country of an ordinary citizen,” Deputy Presidential spokesman Anthony Golez said on radio.
Golez said Bolante’s possible return is being hyped up by critics of Mrs. Arroyo.
Golez had said if parties are really after justice, then a case should be filed against Bolante in court to get to the bottom of the fertilizer fund controversy.
“As enshrined in the Constitution, if you want to know the truth and if you want to bring justice, then it has to be brought in the right courts, in the right forum,” he said.
US threatens to halt services if Iraq rejects troop deal.
This is from antiwar.com.
This is a form of blackmail, no doubt about it. Sometimes the US simply ignores the political effects its actions cause. There are elections coming up in Iraq. Pro US groups will be left completely out in the cold except for the Kurds and even they may want to keep their distance.
If the Iraqi government were to sign SOFA without going through parliament as it could it would lose all credibility but this seems the only way that the agreement could be finalised without amendments. Does the US really want that?
US Threatens to Halt Services if Iraq Rejects Troop Deal
Posted October 26, 2008
As the United States struggles to get Iraqi officials to change their position on the all-but-dead Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) top US commander General Ray Odierno has issued a three-page letter to high ranking Iraqi officials. The letter includes a list of major services which the United States would halt if the Iraqi government does not approve the SOFA by the end of the year.
In addition to military functions, which would have no legal basis without an extension to the United Nations mandate, the letter threatens to cease all economic aid and aid to the Iraqi educational system. The letter includes an exhaustive list of “tens” of services which would be severed on January 1.
The move is “shocking” according to Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, whose Iraqi Islamic Party severed ties with the United States yesterday over the killing of a senior party member in a raid. Hashemi said many in the Iraqi government view the letter as a form of political “blackmail.”
As of this weekend, the SOFA is reported to be “dead in the water,” with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki having said he will not submit the agreement to parliament for consideration and an informal poll suggesting parliament would reject it by a wide margin at any rate. Other top US officials have issued warnings to the Iraqi government about the ramifications of rejecting the current draft of the deal, with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates saying the US was reluctant to consider further amendments to the deal.
It is unclear which portions of the current SOFA draft are unacceptable to the Iraqi government, but they are seeking several amendments. The United States has repeatedly blamed Iran for the delay, accusing them of bribing Iraqi officials. The Iraqi government has denied the accusations.
This is a form of blackmail, no doubt about it. Sometimes the US simply ignores the political effects its actions cause. There are elections coming up in Iraq. Pro US groups will be left completely out in the cold except for the Kurds and even they may want to keep their distance.
If the Iraqi government were to sign SOFA without going through parliament as it could it would lose all credibility but this seems the only way that the agreement could be finalised without amendments. Does the US really want that?
US Threatens to Halt Services if Iraq Rejects Troop Deal
Posted October 26, 2008
As the United States struggles to get Iraqi officials to change their position on the all-but-dead Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) top US commander General Ray Odierno has issued a three-page letter to high ranking Iraqi officials. The letter includes a list of major services which the United States would halt if the Iraqi government does not approve the SOFA by the end of the year.
In addition to military functions, which would have no legal basis without an extension to the United Nations mandate, the letter threatens to cease all economic aid and aid to the Iraqi educational system. The letter includes an exhaustive list of “tens” of services which would be severed on January 1.
The move is “shocking” according to Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, whose Iraqi Islamic Party severed ties with the United States yesterday over the killing of a senior party member in a raid. Hashemi said many in the Iraqi government view the letter as a form of political “blackmail.”
As of this weekend, the SOFA is reported to be “dead in the water,” with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki having said he will not submit the agreement to parliament for consideration and an informal poll suggesting parliament would reject it by a wide margin at any rate. Other top US officials have issued warnings to the Iraqi government about the ramifications of rejecting the current draft of the deal, with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates saying the US was reluctant to consider further amendments to the deal.
It is unclear which portions of the current SOFA draft are unacceptable to the Iraqi government, but they are seeking several amendments. The United States has repeatedly blamed Iran for the delay, accusing them of bribing Iraqi officials. The Iraqi government has denied the accusations.
What if ..?
What if the Iranians decided in self-defence to attack Ashraf city the home of an anti-Iranian terrorist group in Iraq. Ashraf city is protected by the Americans even though those same Americans have the terrorist group on their terrorist list! Boggles the mind? Usually of course terrorists who support the US are not called terrorists at all. But these terrorists are not pure US supporters. They are Marxists and socialists who fought against the Shah and who supported Saddam Hussein at times. But then so did the US. Anyway what would happen if the Iranians who rightly regard these terrorists as a threat to them attacked Asraf city in the name of self defence? Well of course the Iranian attackers would be shot down if they used air transport and the US would no doubt do more than send a stiff diplomatic note to Tehran!
The MEK or PMOI are worried that if jurisdiction of Ashraf city is given to the Iraqi authorities they will lose their protection. The Iraqi govt. does not look as kindly upon a terrorist group that helped Saddam Hussein and threatens their neighbour Iran as does the US. The US has found the PMOI useful as an intelligence gatherer and a pain in the neck to Iran.
Here are some relevant articles: from Unbossed.
For a long time Iraqis have been all too aware that the Bush administration sponsors a powerful group of Sunni terrorists in their midst, the MEK (or MOK), who are on the US State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Before the US invasion, these Marxist Iranian exiles had been sponsored by Saddam Hussein. But because the MEK enjoys American support, the Iraqi government has been unable to drive them out of the country
And this from the PMOI website:
Iraqi Prominent figure asks UN secretary general to guarantee protection of Ashraf City
-
In a letter to UN Secretary General, Ali Al-Qaisi, chairman of the Association of War Victims and member of Non-Governmental Organization’s Federation in the Islamic World, stressed on the necessity of guaranteeing Ashraf City protection.This letter partly reads: 'Camp Ashraf is the residence of more- than 3500 members of the PMOI, democratic opposition of the Iranian terrorist regime; in order to prevent the threats that have engulfed them, we ask you to intervene in order to provide their security and rights based on the international law.“On July 2, 2004, the US Government recognized the status of PMOI members in Camp Ashraf as 'protected persons' under the Geneva Convention and signed an agreement with each individual to assume protection of Ashraf until their final disposition is determined.”He added in his letter, “We want that the U. S. forces continue to protect the Ashraf residents. Under current conditions, transferring protection of Ashraf residents is nothing but welcoming a human catastrophe and violation of international conventions and covenants.”
The MEK or PMOI are worried that if jurisdiction of Ashraf city is given to the Iraqi authorities they will lose their protection. The Iraqi govt. does not look as kindly upon a terrorist group that helped Saddam Hussein and threatens their neighbour Iran as does the US. The US has found the PMOI useful as an intelligence gatherer and a pain in the neck to Iran.
Here are some relevant articles: from Unbossed.
For a long time Iraqis have been all too aware that the Bush administration sponsors a powerful group of Sunni terrorists in their midst, the MEK (or MOK), who are on the US State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Before the US invasion, these Marxist Iranian exiles had been sponsored by Saddam Hussein. But because the MEK enjoys American support, the Iraqi government has been unable to drive them out of the country
And this from the PMOI website:
Iraqi Prominent figure asks UN secretary general to guarantee protection of Ashraf City
-
In a letter to UN Secretary General, Ali Al-Qaisi, chairman of the Association of War Victims and member of Non-Governmental Organization’s Federation in the Islamic World, stressed on the necessity of guaranteeing Ashraf City protection.This letter partly reads: 'Camp Ashraf is the residence of more- than 3500 members of the PMOI, democratic opposition of the Iranian terrorist regime; in order to prevent the threats that have engulfed them, we ask you to intervene in order to provide their security and rights based on the international law.“On July 2, 2004, the US Government recognized the status of PMOI members in Camp Ashraf as 'protected persons' under the Geneva Convention and signed an agreement with each individual to assume protection of Ashraf until their final disposition is determined.”He added in his letter, “We want that the U. S. forces continue to protect the Ashraf residents. Under current conditions, transferring protection of Ashraf residents is nothing but welcoming a human catastrophe and violation of international conventions and covenants.”
The world's biggest and best armed Rogue State is at it again.
The everyday violation of international law by the U.S. is so normal now that commentary in the press does not even bring up the issue of these being violations. Of course if it were brought up nonsense would be brought up about the acts being self-defence. Here is a sampling of what is going on:
From antiwar.com. Of course no US official so far has given an official version just anonymous stuff that sounds like it might as well be an official version. The second article shows the Pakistani prime minister's reaction to drone attacks. It is likely that relations with Pakistan will go from bad to worse. This is happening at a time when Pakistan is taking serious casualties from its own war on terror but the US could care less about that.
Syria Condemns US Attack as “Serious Aggression”
Posted October 26, 2008
An unnamed US military official has confirmed the attack on the Syrian border town of al-Sukkariya earlier this evening, which killed at least eight and wounded 14 others. He said the attack targeted “elements of a robust foreign fighter logistics network” and that the US had decided to take matters “into our own hands.” US Marines Major General John Kelly had recently expressed discontent with Syria’s slow progress on constructing a physical barrier at the border, though as recently as Thursday he described security incidents in the border province as so uncommon as to be “almost meaningless,” making the timing of the attack puzzling.
Syria summoned the Charges d’Affaires of both the United States and Iraq to protest the attack, which it condemned as “serious aggression.” In a statement released through their state media they called on the Iraqi government to “assume its responsibilities and make an immediate investigation into the dangerous violation and prevent using the Iraqi lands from launching aggression on Syria.”
Iraqi officials have so far not publicly commented on the strike, but have consistently said that they would not allow the US to use their territory for attacks on neighboring countries. None of the reports suggest that Iraqi forces played any role in the raid, which may serve to further harm relations between the US and Iraq, already deteriorating over US warnings about the Status of Forces Agreement.
The attack may also have ramifications from US-ally Israel’s ongoing indirect peace talks with Syria. Israeli defense officials tried to distance themselves from the strike, saying it was in no way connected to Israel.
This article is also from antiwar.com. It would seem that the US wants to ensure that there is no peace deal with militants in the Tribal zone. In fact the US is pressing for enlisting tribespeople opposed to the militants to fight militancy. Whether this will work is moot. Perhaps in some areas but not in others. Certainly it will spill more Pakistani blood and provide more business for US arms suppliers.
Pakistan PM Slams US After Latest Drone Strike Kills 20
Posted October 26, 2008
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani publicly condemned the “intolerable” series of unilateral US drone strikes launched in North and South Waziristan in the past two months at a press conference today. He said the strike were an attack on Pakistan’s national sovereignty and were weakening the nation’s anti-terror efforts. He added that he had raised the issue at the latest Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Summit and they supported the Pakistani position.
The most recent strike came earlier today, when a US drone attacked a village in South Waziristan Agency, killing at least 20 people. The strike reportedly hit two houses in an area of South Waziristan known to be a stronghold of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.
This is the second reported US drone strike in the past few days, and the 12th in the past 10 weeks, with a strike on Thursday morning on a North Waziristan Agency religious school killing 10. The previous attack was publicly condemned by several Pakistani Senators as an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan’s parliament, which had recently passed a 14-point resolution criticizing the strikes and urging Pakistan to “de-link” its security policy from the US war on terror.
From antiwar.com. Of course no US official so far has given an official version just anonymous stuff that sounds like it might as well be an official version. The second article shows the Pakistani prime minister's reaction to drone attacks. It is likely that relations with Pakistan will go from bad to worse. This is happening at a time when Pakistan is taking serious casualties from its own war on terror but the US could care less about that.
Syria Condemns US Attack as “Serious Aggression”
Posted October 26, 2008
An unnamed US military official has confirmed the attack on the Syrian border town of al-Sukkariya earlier this evening, which killed at least eight and wounded 14 others. He said the attack targeted “elements of a robust foreign fighter logistics network” and that the US had decided to take matters “into our own hands.” US Marines Major General John Kelly had recently expressed discontent with Syria’s slow progress on constructing a physical barrier at the border, though as recently as Thursday he described security incidents in the border province as so uncommon as to be “almost meaningless,” making the timing of the attack puzzling.
Syria summoned the Charges d’Affaires of both the United States and Iraq to protest the attack, which it condemned as “serious aggression.” In a statement released through their state media they called on the Iraqi government to “assume its responsibilities and make an immediate investigation into the dangerous violation and prevent using the Iraqi lands from launching aggression on Syria.”
Iraqi officials have so far not publicly commented on the strike, but have consistently said that they would not allow the US to use their territory for attacks on neighboring countries. None of the reports suggest that Iraqi forces played any role in the raid, which may serve to further harm relations between the US and Iraq, already deteriorating over US warnings about the Status of Forces Agreement.
The attack may also have ramifications from US-ally Israel’s ongoing indirect peace talks with Syria. Israeli defense officials tried to distance themselves from the strike, saying it was in no way connected to Israel.
This article is also from antiwar.com. It would seem that the US wants to ensure that there is no peace deal with militants in the Tribal zone. In fact the US is pressing for enlisting tribespeople opposed to the militants to fight militancy. Whether this will work is moot. Perhaps in some areas but not in others. Certainly it will spill more Pakistani blood and provide more business for US arms suppliers.
Pakistan PM Slams US After Latest Drone Strike Kills 20
Posted October 26, 2008
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani publicly condemned the “intolerable” series of unilateral US drone strikes launched in North and South Waziristan in the past two months at a press conference today. He said the strike were an attack on Pakistan’s national sovereignty and were weakening the nation’s anti-terror efforts. He added that he had raised the issue at the latest Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Summit and they supported the Pakistani position.
The most recent strike came earlier today, when a US drone attacked a village in South Waziristan Agency, killing at least 20 people. The strike reportedly hit two houses in an area of South Waziristan known to be a stronghold of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.
This is the second reported US drone strike in the past few days, and the 12th in the past 10 weeks, with a strike on Thursday morning on a North Waziristan Agency religious school killing 10. The previous attack was publicly condemned by several Pakistani Senators as an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan’s parliament, which had recently passed a 14-point resolution criticizing the strikes and urging Pakistan to “de-link” its security policy from the US war on terror.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Report: 8 die in US attack inside Syria
This is from AFP.
No doubt there is little that Syria can do. Israel carried out an attack on a target in Syria and even then nothing happened. However in this case apparently there were actual troops involved on the ground. The US reserves the right to attack anywhere in the world without notice or sanction because it is the great beacon of freedom that brings blessings wherever its imperial light shines. So far the US has not admitted to even turning on the beacon in this case.
No doubt the Iraq government will be unhappy with this intrusion as well. It may very well complicate relations between it and Syria when Iraq is trying to normalise relations.
Eight die in US attack inside Syria: official media
2 hours ago
DAMASCUS (AFP) — American helicopter-borne troops launched an assault on Sunday on a building in a Syrian border village with Iraq, killing eight civilians, official Syrian media reported.
The government has summoned the official US and Iraqi representatives to protest, state television and the official SANA news agency said.
"Four American helicopters violated Syrian airspace around 16:45 local time (1345 GMT) on Sunday. They penetrated eight kilometres (five miles) into Syria," the official media said.
"American soldiers" who had emerged from helicopters "attacked a civilian building under construction and fired at workmen inside, causing eight deaths," the reports said.
"The helicopters then left Syrian territory towards Iraqi territory," SANA said.
The news agency said one person was also wounded in the attack on the village of Al-Sukkiraya, around 550 kilometres (340 miles) northeast of the capital in the Abu Kamal area.
Earlier, the private television channel al-Dunia said nine civilians had been killed in the attack.
The raid appears to have been the first of its type into Syrian territory.
Syria summoned the US and Iraqi envoys to Damascus to protest against what it called a US military attack and to demand that Iraq prevent US forces from "launching aggression against Syria" from its territory, official media said.
"Syria condemns and denounces this act of aggression and US forces will bear the responsibility for any consequences," SANA quoted an official as saying.
"Syria also demands that the Iraqi government accept its responsibilities and launches an immediate inquiry following this dangerous violation and forbids the use of Iraqi territory to launch attacks on Syria," it said.
"We are in the process of investigating this" reported attack, Sergeant Brooke Murphy, a US military spokeswoman, told AFP in Baghdad.
In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman declined to comment. Commander Darryn James told AFP that there was "no response" from the US Department of Defence about the Syrian reports.
The Iraqi defence ministry also refused to comment, on the grounds the incident took place inside Syria.
US commanders say Syria is the main transit point for foreign jihadists crossing into Iraq. Washington has blamed Damascus for turning a blind eye to the problem.
On October 16 Iraqi forces arrested seven Syrian "terrorist" suspects at a checkpoint near the city of Baquba, a hub of Al-Qaeda fighters, the Baghdad defence ministry said.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani told US President George W. Bush last month that Iran and Syria -- long targets of US blame over the deadly unrest in Iraq -- no longer pose a problem.
Iraqi officials have also said that Syria has been boosting border security.
Syria's first ambassador to Iraq in 26 years took up his post in Baghdad this month, marking the official end of more than two decades of icy relations.
On September 28 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirmed she had met her Syrian counterpart, Walid Muallem, to discuss Middle East peace efforts despite renewed criticism from Washington over Syrian policies.
Their talks came after Bush slammed Syria in his farewell address to the UN General Assembly. "A few nations -- regimes like Syria and Iran -- continue to sponsor terror," he charged.
Washington has also accused Damascus of failing to give adequate cooperation to the International Atomic Energy Agency in its investigation into a mystery facility bombed by Israel in September last year that US officials have charged was a nuclear plant.
No doubt there is little that Syria can do. Israel carried out an attack on a target in Syria and even then nothing happened. However in this case apparently there were actual troops involved on the ground. The US reserves the right to attack anywhere in the world without notice or sanction because it is the great beacon of freedom that brings blessings wherever its imperial light shines. So far the US has not admitted to even turning on the beacon in this case.
No doubt the Iraq government will be unhappy with this intrusion as well. It may very well complicate relations between it and Syria when Iraq is trying to normalise relations.
Eight die in US attack inside Syria: official media
2 hours ago
DAMASCUS (AFP) — American helicopter-borne troops launched an assault on Sunday on a building in a Syrian border village with Iraq, killing eight civilians, official Syrian media reported.
The government has summoned the official US and Iraqi representatives to protest, state television and the official SANA news agency said.
"Four American helicopters violated Syrian airspace around 16:45 local time (1345 GMT) on Sunday. They penetrated eight kilometres (five miles) into Syria," the official media said.
"American soldiers" who had emerged from helicopters "attacked a civilian building under construction and fired at workmen inside, causing eight deaths," the reports said.
"The helicopters then left Syrian territory towards Iraqi territory," SANA said.
The news agency said one person was also wounded in the attack on the village of Al-Sukkiraya, around 550 kilometres (340 miles) northeast of the capital in the Abu Kamal area.
Earlier, the private television channel al-Dunia said nine civilians had been killed in the attack.
The raid appears to have been the first of its type into Syrian territory.
Syria summoned the US and Iraqi envoys to Damascus to protest against what it called a US military attack and to demand that Iraq prevent US forces from "launching aggression against Syria" from its territory, official media said.
"Syria condemns and denounces this act of aggression and US forces will bear the responsibility for any consequences," SANA quoted an official as saying.
"Syria also demands that the Iraqi government accept its responsibilities and launches an immediate inquiry following this dangerous violation and forbids the use of Iraqi territory to launch attacks on Syria," it said.
"We are in the process of investigating this" reported attack, Sergeant Brooke Murphy, a US military spokeswoman, told AFP in Baghdad.
In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman declined to comment. Commander Darryn James told AFP that there was "no response" from the US Department of Defence about the Syrian reports.
The Iraqi defence ministry also refused to comment, on the grounds the incident took place inside Syria.
US commanders say Syria is the main transit point for foreign jihadists crossing into Iraq. Washington has blamed Damascus for turning a blind eye to the problem.
On October 16 Iraqi forces arrested seven Syrian "terrorist" suspects at a checkpoint near the city of Baquba, a hub of Al-Qaeda fighters, the Baghdad defence ministry said.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani told US President George W. Bush last month that Iran and Syria -- long targets of US blame over the deadly unrest in Iraq -- no longer pose a problem.
Iraqi officials have also said that Syria has been boosting border security.
Syria's first ambassador to Iraq in 26 years took up his post in Baghdad this month, marking the official end of more than two decades of icy relations.
On September 28 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirmed she had met her Syrian counterpart, Walid Muallem, to discuss Middle East peace efforts despite renewed criticism from Washington over Syrian policies.
Their talks came after Bush slammed Syria in his farewell address to the UN General Assembly. "A few nations -- regimes like Syria and Iran -- continue to sponsor terror," he charged.
Washington has also accused Damascus of failing to give adequate cooperation to the International Atomic Energy Agency in its investigation into a mystery facility bombed by Israel in September last year that US officials have charged was a nuclear plant.
SOFA deal with Iraq close to collapse
This is from the Times (UK)
The US press seems much too pre-occupied with the US election to bother itself with trivial matters such as this it seems. Although the US has modified the agreement considerably from its original form there is still not much Iraqi jurisdiction over US troops and defence contractors. It is on missions that most US troop and contractor crimes are committed. The depth of resentment of US occupation seem not to be appreciated in Washington or perhaps by the US populace either. It is ironic that the timing of troop withdrawal is debated vigorously in the US as if Iraq had nothing to with the matter.
Deal on American presence in Iraq close to collapseMarie Colvin
Senior Iraqi politicians have warned that a crucial deal between Baghdad and Washington governing the presence of American troops in the country is doomed to failure after eight months of talks.
“The Sofa [Status of Forces Agreement] is dead in the water,” said one Iraqi politician close to the talks.
He added that Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, believed that signing it would be “political suicide”.
The collapse of the deal would severely undermine American policy. An agreement is needed to put America’s presence on a legal basis after the United Nations mandate for its 154,000 troops in Iraq expires on December 31.
The draft pact, painstakingly negotiated in Baghdad by Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador, and US generals, calls for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq’s main cities by the end of 2009 and a complete withdrawal by 2011.
The Americans made what they considered to be a significant compromise by agreeing to Iraqi jurisdiction over any troops who committed “serious crimes” while off duty.
They also agreed that American soldiers acting on their own would no longer be able to arrest suspected insurgents. They would need Iraqi permission to make arrests.
Despite the concessions it emerged this weekend that Maliki, who has grown in stature as the Iraqi armed forces have taken control of security in the main cities of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul in the past year, would block the deal.
Two other serving members of Maliki’s government confirmed his view. Iraqi politics is focused on the forthcoming provincial elections, due early next year. Maliki also faces a general election in a year’s time.
Open support for the American presence is seen as a vote-loser, even though most Iraqis tacitly acknowledge the need for troops to remain in the country until their own army can enforce order.
An unofficial poll of MPs last week revealed that the deal would fall far short of gaining majority support in parliament.
“It is absolutely impossible under any circumstances that we will accept this booby-trapped agreement,” said Nasser al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the opposition group of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric.
“This is an agreement which takes Iraq out of direct occupation and puts it under colonialism with the help of the government of Iraq. It only serves the occupier,” said Rubaie, who is also an MP.
That view was echoed across the political spectrum. Politicians also pointed out that they saw no reason to sign such a contentious accord with the lame duck administration of President George W Bush.
“From a political point of view, how is it possible to sign an agreement with an administration which only has a few days left in power, taking into consideration the changes that will possibly take place if the Democrats were to come to power?” said Hussein al-Falluji, an MP for Iraqi Accord, a Sunni party.
If the deal fails the Americans may be forced to ask Iraq to return to the UN security council for a temporary renewal of their mandate, but the legal status of many of their actions will become uncertain.
Additional reporting: Ali Rifat in Am
The US press seems much too pre-occupied with the US election to bother itself with trivial matters such as this it seems. Although the US has modified the agreement considerably from its original form there is still not much Iraqi jurisdiction over US troops and defence contractors. It is on missions that most US troop and contractor crimes are committed. The depth of resentment of US occupation seem not to be appreciated in Washington or perhaps by the US populace either. It is ironic that the timing of troop withdrawal is debated vigorously in the US as if Iraq had nothing to with the matter.
Deal on American presence in Iraq close to collapseMarie Colvin
Senior Iraqi politicians have warned that a crucial deal between Baghdad and Washington governing the presence of American troops in the country is doomed to failure after eight months of talks.
“The Sofa [Status of Forces Agreement] is dead in the water,” said one Iraqi politician close to the talks.
He added that Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, believed that signing it would be “political suicide”.
The collapse of the deal would severely undermine American policy. An agreement is needed to put America’s presence on a legal basis after the United Nations mandate for its 154,000 troops in Iraq expires on December 31.
The draft pact, painstakingly negotiated in Baghdad by Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador, and US generals, calls for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq’s main cities by the end of 2009 and a complete withdrawal by 2011.
The Americans made what they considered to be a significant compromise by agreeing to Iraqi jurisdiction over any troops who committed “serious crimes” while off duty.
They also agreed that American soldiers acting on their own would no longer be able to arrest suspected insurgents. They would need Iraqi permission to make arrests.
Despite the concessions it emerged this weekend that Maliki, who has grown in stature as the Iraqi armed forces have taken control of security in the main cities of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul in the past year, would block the deal.
Two other serving members of Maliki’s government confirmed his view. Iraqi politics is focused on the forthcoming provincial elections, due early next year. Maliki also faces a general election in a year’s time.
Open support for the American presence is seen as a vote-loser, even though most Iraqis tacitly acknowledge the need for troops to remain in the country until their own army can enforce order.
An unofficial poll of MPs last week revealed that the deal would fall far short of gaining majority support in parliament.
“It is absolutely impossible under any circumstances that we will accept this booby-trapped agreement,” said Nasser al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the opposition group of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric.
“This is an agreement which takes Iraq out of direct occupation and puts it under colonialism with the help of the government of Iraq. It only serves the occupier,” said Rubaie, who is also an MP.
That view was echoed across the political spectrum. Politicians also pointed out that they saw no reason to sign such a contentious accord with the lame duck administration of President George W Bush.
“From a political point of view, how is it possible to sign an agreement with an administration which only has a few days left in power, taking into consideration the changes that will possibly take place if the Democrats were to come to power?” said Hussein al-Falluji, an MP for Iraqi Accord, a Sunni party.
If the deal fails the Americans may be forced to ask Iraq to return to the UN security council for a temporary renewal of their mandate, but the legal status of many of their actions will become uncertain.
Additional reporting: Ali Rifat in Am
Rich-Poor gap widens in Europe, North America
People ask why there are billions available to bail out banks but no money to eradicate poverty. There are billions upon billions spent on the war on terror but millions for the war on poverty.
The answer is surely that people including the poor elect governments that put the interests of the rich before those of the poor and middle class. Since globalisation, the decline of the welfare state, the absence of any socialist alternative, the decline of working class power, the state has become even more in the interests of the best off. However, there is some truth to the trickle down theory. To avoid a complete collapse in demand you can expect another couple of hundred dollars or a tax break to stimulate the economy so that the rich can continue to become richer and there will be a few more crumbs to trickle down.
Both presidential candidates are spending millions to sell the illusion that they are going to change this situation. You have a choice of two who are actually variations on the same brand but masquerade as great competing warriors for the public interest. This theatre of the absurd is promoted at great length as great entertainment by the mainstream media. The system ensures that things will not essentially change.
Rich-Poor Gap Widens in Europe, North America
By Dan Hamilton
The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a study Tuesday showing clearly that the gap between rich and poor is widening in Europe and North America. The report, which covers developments spanning 20 years in 30 countries, contains some interesting nuggets:
• The U.S. has the greatest inequality in the OECD after Mexico and Turkey -- and the gap has grown rapidly since 2000. The richest 10 percent of Americans earn an average of $93,000 (highest in the OECD) - whereas the poorest 10 percent of Americans earn an average of $5,800 (about 20 percent lower than the OECD average).• Since 2000, income inequality has grown fastest in Germany, although Germany's gap remains below the OECD average.• British inequalities have been falling since 2000, but the rich-poor gap there is still wider than in three-fourths of OECD countries.• The rise in inequality is generally due to the rich improving their incomes relative both to low- and middle-income people. • Older people are much less likely to be poor than in the past. Poverty has shifted from pensioners to young adults and families with children.
The report is likely to fuel popular resentment on both sides of the Atlantic about what is widely perceived to be the essential unfairness of this month's rapid, massive bank bailouts engineered by governments in response to the financial crisis. This week Ulrike Mascher, President of Germany's largest social welfare advocacy organization, drove the point home: "People ask themselves why 500 billion euros can be mobilized very quickly to recapitalize banks while an effective poverty-fighting program is rejected due to budgetary concerns."
The study offers fodder to those like Mascher who argue that the bailouts must now be followed by economic stimulus efforts. In the U.S., Democrats are pushing for such a package, and both President Bush and Fed Chairman Bernanke have voiced support. In Europe opinions are mixed, but many are watching the U.S. debate. Anticipation of a U.S. growth package has already pushed the dollar to its highest level against the euro since the summer of 2007.
The OECD report also offers a caution, however, to those arguing that the best way to curb poverty and reduce inequalities is for government simply to redistribute wealth through social policies. Such approaches are proving to be less effective because technological progress and globalization are making it harder for low-skilled workers to find work. Studies by the IMF and many other sources confirm that better access to education and training is more likely to close income disparities.
So who bucked the trend? According to the report, the big winner was France - where income inequalities have fallen as fast as the country's integration into the global economy has risen. C'est incroyable.
Dan Hamilton, director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins SAIS, is the host of Next Europe.
The answer is surely that people including the poor elect governments that put the interests of the rich before those of the poor and middle class. Since globalisation, the decline of the welfare state, the absence of any socialist alternative, the decline of working class power, the state has become even more in the interests of the best off. However, there is some truth to the trickle down theory. To avoid a complete collapse in demand you can expect another couple of hundred dollars or a tax break to stimulate the economy so that the rich can continue to become richer and there will be a few more crumbs to trickle down.
Both presidential candidates are spending millions to sell the illusion that they are going to change this situation. You have a choice of two who are actually variations on the same brand but masquerade as great competing warriors for the public interest. This theatre of the absurd is promoted at great length as great entertainment by the mainstream media. The system ensures that things will not essentially change.
Rich-Poor Gap Widens in Europe, North America
By Dan Hamilton
The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a study Tuesday showing clearly that the gap between rich and poor is widening in Europe and North America. The report, which covers developments spanning 20 years in 30 countries, contains some interesting nuggets:
• The U.S. has the greatest inequality in the OECD after Mexico and Turkey -- and the gap has grown rapidly since 2000. The richest 10 percent of Americans earn an average of $93,000 (highest in the OECD) - whereas the poorest 10 percent of Americans earn an average of $5,800 (about 20 percent lower than the OECD average).• Since 2000, income inequality has grown fastest in Germany, although Germany's gap remains below the OECD average.• British inequalities have been falling since 2000, but the rich-poor gap there is still wider than in three-fourths of OECD countries.• The rise in inequality is generally due to the rich improving their incomes relative both to low- and middle-income people. • Older people are much less likely to be poor than in the past. Poverty has shifted from pensioners to young adults and families with children.
The report is likely to fuel popular resentment on both sides of the Atlantic about what is widely perceived to be the essential unfairness of this month's rapid, massive bank bailouts engineered by governments in response to the financial crisis. This week Ulrike Mascher, President of Germany's largest social welfare advocacy organization, drove the point home: "People ask themselves why 500 billion euros can be mobilized very quickly to recapitalize banks while an effective poverty-fighting program is rejected due to budgetary concerns."
The study offers fodder to those like Mascher who argue that the bailouts must now be followed by economic stimulus efforts. In the U.S., Democrats are pushing for such a package, and both President Bush and Fed Chairman Bernanke have voiced support. In Europe opinions are mixed, but many are watching the U.S. debate. Anticipation of a U.S. growth package has already pushed the dollar to its highest level against the euro since the summer of 2007.
The OECD report also offers a caution, however, to those arguing that the best way to curb poverty and reduce inequalities is for government simply to redistribute wealth through social policies. Such approaches are proving to be less effective because technological progress and globalization are making it harder for low-skilled workers to find work. Studies by the IMF and many other sources confirm that better access to education and training is more likely to close income disparities.
So who bucked the trend? According to the report, the big winner was France - where income inequalities have fallen as fast as the country's integration into the global economy has risen. C'est incroyable.
Dan Hamilton, director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins SAIS, is the host of Next Europe.
Iraqi VP's party severs US ties over killing..
This just shows why the SOFA pact is dead in the water. On missions troops and defence contractors are still immune from Iraqi law. In spite of the lessening violence in Iraq there are still plenty of problems some of which could easily flare into renewed conflict. The issue of Kurdistani borders is one but the role of the Sunni groups formerly paid by the US is another.
It will be interesting what the US does about this case if anything.
Iraqi VP’s Party Severs US Ties Over Killing
Posted October 25, 2008
Hundreds of local residents took to the streets chanting slogans against US forces while Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi’s Iraqi Islamic Party announced that it was suspending all official contact with US civilian and military personnel after a Friday morning raid by Iraqi and Coalition forces in Fallujah.
The Iraqi Islamic Party says that the raid killed one of its senior members and was politically motivated. The official US account says the man was killed after opening fire on troops during a raid which netted a suspected Hamas al-Iraq leader and an “IED cache.” Fallujah police however labeled the slain man “an Iraqi civilian” and said the forces detained six others.
The party says it will not resume ties with the US until it received “a convincing explanation of what happened, accompanied by an official apology stressing that those who committed these attacks are turned over to justice.” Vice President Hashemi also wrote a letter to the tribe of the slain man condemning the raid and promising to “put all my effort into releasing the innocent brother detainees.”
Related Stories
It will be interesting what the US does about this case if anything.
Iraqi VP’s Party Severs US Ties Over Killing
Posted October 25, 2008
Hundreds of local residents took to the streets chanting slogans against US forces while Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi’s Iraqi Islamic Party announced that it was suspending all official contact with US civilian and military personnel after a Friday morning raid by Iraqi and Coalition forces in Fallujah.
The Iraqi Islamic Party says that the raid killed one of its senior members and was politically motivated. The official US account says the man was killed after opening fire on troops during a raid which netted a suspected Hamas al-Iraq leader and an “IED cache.” Fallujah police however labeled the slain man “an Iraqi civilian” and said the forces detained six others.
The party says it will not resume ties with the US until it received “a convincing explanation of what happened, accompanied by an official apology stressing that those who committed these attacks are turned over to justice.” Vice President Hashemi also wrote a letter to the tribe of the slain man condemning the raid and promising to “put all my effort into releasing the innocent brother detainees.”
Related Stories
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Maliki Won't Submit US Security Deal to Parliament
It will be interesting to see what happens now. Theoretically, Maliki can sign the deal without approval of parliament but that would probably be political suicide. Only US presidents can pull off stunts such as that! Interesting that Russia will not block any agreement through the UN as long as Iraq agrees. I suppose this makes sense since Russia wants in on oil deals so it wants good relations with the Iraqi government.
Maliki Won’t Submit US Security Deal to Parliament
Posted October 24, 2008
With political and popular support drying up and the Iraqi Council of Ministers unanimously demanding several amendments, the last draft of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the US seems all but dead as top Dawa party members say Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not submit the deal to parliament. The latest draft was reportedly finished last week, and at the time was said to be the final one.
The United States is reportedly unwilling to entertain further revisions to the SOFA, with Admiral Michael Mullen saying he was “increasingly concerned” that Iraqi officials were publicly criticizing the draft and Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell blaming Iran for the delays. The Iraqi government has condemned the warnings as “inappropriate.”
If the SOFA is not ratified by the end of the year, when the UN mandate expires, the United States will lose all legal authority for its military operation in Iraq. According to top Dawa party figure Sheikh Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, the government is considering asking the UN to extend its mandate for another 6 months to a year. It was previously speculated that Russia might be an obstacle to extending the mandate, but Russia has said they will not object so long as the request comes from the Iraqi government.
Maliki Won’t Submit US Security Deal to Parliament
Posted October 24, 2008
With political and popular support drying up and the Iraqi Council of Ministers unanimously demanding several amendments, the last draft of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the US seems all but dead as top Dawa party members say Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not submit the deal to parliament. The latest draft was reportedly finished last week, and at the time was said to be the final one.
The United States is reportedly unwilling to entertain further revisions to the SOFA, with Admiral Michael Mullen saying he was “increasingly concerned” that Iraqi officials were publicly criticizing the draft and Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell blaming Iran for the delays. The Iraqi government has condemned the warnings as “inappropriate.”
If the SOFA is not ratified by the end of the year, when the UN mandate expires, the United States will lose all legal authority for its military operation in Iraq. According to top Dawa party figure Sheikh Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, the government is considering asking the UN to extend its mandate for another 6 months to a year. It was previously speculated that Russia might be an obstacle to extending the mandate, but Russia has said they will not object so long as the request comes from the Iraqi government.
Philippine government luring rebels with cash..
This is from the Tribune.
50,000 pesos is roughly 1,000 dollars US. That is a large sum in the Philippines especially in the poorer areas where the rebels are concentrated. However, those who turn in their weapons may suffer from revenge attacks by the Maoist rebels. Who knows some of them also may use the funds to buy better weapons!
Gov’t starts reeling rebels in with ‘cash bait’
10/26/2008
If you can’t defeat your enemies, win them over — by dangling cash in their faces.
As part of its apparent two-pronged approach to achieve its goal of stamping out the communist insurgency in the country, the government has started to entice the “enemy” to surrender by offering payment of an amount of money under a program it created for so-called “rebel-returnees.”
Even as the proposed Amnesty Law is still pending approval in Congress, the Arroyo administration has announced that it has started to implement its Social Integration Program (SIP) for surrendering members of the communist rebel movement in the country and has been giving out P50,000 for every M-16 rifle that yielding guerrillas lay down.
In a press statement it issued out yesterday, Malacañang said it has recently welcomed the initial batch of 49 New People’s Army (NPA) rebel-returnees who received a total of P2.45 million worth of livelihood assistance under the SIP.
The Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) said each of the 49 who surrendered were given P50,000 to help them get reintegrated into the mainstream of society and to enable them to start a fresh life as “ordinary” and peace-loving citizens.
OPAPP chief Hermogenes Esperon Jr., a former Armed Forces chief, earlier revealed the government’s move to offer P50,000 for every M-16 assault rifle turned over by an NPA rebel returnee. He, however, did not say if the cash dole-out was strictly and exclusively to be given out to rebels who lay down an M-16, or Armalite rifle, or if it also applies to any other kind of surrendered firearm, including handguns.
Esperon moreover said the P50,000 is on top of a P20,000 immediate cash assistance an NPA rebel returnee would get from the government.
Meanwhile, NPA guerrillas ambushed Army troops in Compostela Valley province, killing six soldiers and wounding two others, the military reported yesterday.
According to Army 1001st Infantry Brigade commander, Col. Alan Luga, a 14-member military unit was going up the mountainous village of Manurigao, in New Bataan town around 1 p.m. Friday when NPA gunmen set off landmines that were buried in the soldiers’ path and started shooting at them. The soldiers fought back and a gun battle that lasted for 30 minutes ensued.
The attack killed six government troops, including an officer who had been assigned to liaise with local officials ahead of a planned mission next month by military doctors on the impoverished hamlet.
The fatalities were identified as a certain Lt. Domingo, a Cpl. Maglantay and certain Private First Classes Cino, Membrillos, Mohamadnur and Narval.
Two other soldiers, identified as certain Private First Class Espanola and Private Pabay, were wounded in the clash. With Gina Peralta-Elorde and AFP
50,000 pesos is roughly 1,000 dollars US. That is a large sum in the Philippines especially in the poorer areas where the rebels are concentrated. However, those who turn in their weapons may suffer from revenge attacks by the Maoist rebels. Who knows some of them also may use the funds to buy better weapons!
Gov’t starts reeling rebels in with ‘cash bait’
10/26/2008
If you can’t defeat your enemies, win them over — by dangling cash in their faces.
As part of its apparent two-pronged approach to achieve its goal of stamping out the communist insurgency in the country, the government has started to entice the “enemy” to surrender by offering payment of an amount of money under a program it created for so-called “rebel-returnees.”
Even as the proposed Amnesty Law is still pending approval in Congress, the Arroyo administration has announced that it has started to implement its Social Integration Program (SIP) for surrendering members of the communist rebel movement in the country and has been giving out P50,000 for every M-16 rifle that yielding guerrillas lay down.
In a press statement it issued out yesterday, Malacañang said it has recently welcomed the initial batch of 49 New People’s Army (NPA) rebel-returnees who received a total of P2.45 million worth of livelihood assistance under the SIP.
The Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) said each of the 49 who surrendered were given P50,000 to help them get reintegrated into the mainstream of society and to enable them to start a fresh life as “ordinary” and peace-loving citizens.
OPAPP chief Hermogenes Esperon Jr., a former Armed Forces chief, earlier revealed the government’s move to offer P50,000 for every M-16 assault rifle turned over by an NPA rebel returnee. He, however, did not say if the cash dole-out was strictly and exclusively to be given out to rebels who lay down an M-16, or Armalite rifle, or if it also applies to any other kind of surrendered firearm, including handguns.
Esperon moreover said the P50,000 is on top of a P20,000 immediate cash assistance an NPA rebel returnee would get from the government.
Meanwhile, NPA guerrillas ambushed Army troops in Compostela Valley province, killing six soldiers and wounding two others, the military reported yesterday.
According to Army 1001st Infantry Brigade commander, Col. Alan Luga, a 14-member military unit was going up the mountainous village of Manurigao, in New Bataan town around 1 p.m. Friday when NPA gunmen set off landmines that were buried in the soldiers’ path and started shooting at them. The soldiers fought back and a gun battle that lasted for 30 minutes ensued.
The attack killed six government troops, including an officer who had been assigned to liaise with local officials ahead of a planned mission next month by military doctors on the impoverished hamlet.
The fatalities were identified as a certain Lt. Domingo, a Cpl. Maglantay and certain Private First Classes Cino, Membrillos, Mohamadnur and Narval.
Two other soldiers, identified as certain Private First Class Espanola and Private Pabay, were wounded in the clash. With Gina Peralta-Elorde and AFP
Pakistani Senators Condemn US Drone Strike
This is from antiwar.com.
There has always been considerable resentment of US influence on Pakistan policy but with recent events the reaction is becoming much stronger. The Pakistani armed forces now seem to be pursuing an offensive against militant in the tribal areas but this along with the continuing drone and other attacks by the US may simply raise the level of conflict in Pakistan without solving much of anything. While the US may be strongly against peace talks the Pakistanis may in time decide differently rather than face civil war. The US is now encouraging Pakistan to arm and no doubt give rewards to anti-Taliban militias and is also training counter-insurgency forces but whether this will bring rewards or just increase conflict is still moot.
Whether the Pakistan govt. approves or not it is clear that the US is going to continue drone attacks at will.
Pakistani Senators Condemn US Drone Strike
Posted October 24, 2008
Numerous lawmakers from Pakistan’s Upper House of Parliament from several political parties condemned yesterday’s US drone strike in a village near Miramshah, North Waziristan, which killed at least 10 people and wounded an unknown number of others.
Leader Raza Rabbani said the Pakistani government stands behind its previous stance against such violations of its territory. He said the US had given his government assurances that the violations would not be repeated, and said it was “unfortunate” that the violations continue.
Senator Khursheed Ahmad said this was the 67th cross-border attack in the past two years, and the 32nd in the last seven months. He said the strike was particularly serious given the recent 14-point resolution passed by parliament, which he said stressed the need to de-link Pakistan’s security policy from the US war on terror.
Senator Tariq Azim said the attack, occurring just after the resolution’s passing, was an attack on the sovereignty of Parliament, and that he was concerned by the frequent visits by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, who has been warning the Pakistani government against moving forward with peace talks offered by the militant faction Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan.
There has always been considerable resentment of US influence on Pakistan policy but with recent events the reaction is becoming much stronger. The Pakistani armed forces now seem to be pursuing an offensive against militant in the tribal areas but this along with the continuing drone and other attacks by the US may simply raise the level of conflict in Pakistan without solving much of anything. While the US may be strongly against peace talks the Pakistanis may in time decide differently rather than face civil war. The US is now encouraging Pakistan to arm and no doubt give rewards to anti-Taliban militias and is also training counter-insurgency forces but whether this will bring rewards or just increase conflict is still moot.
Whether the Pakistan govt. approves or not it is clear that the US is going to continue drone attacks at will.
Pakistani Senators Condemn US Drone Strike
Posted October 24, 2008
Numerous lawmakers from Pakistan’s Upper House of Parliament from several political parties condemned yesterday’s US drone strike in a village near Miramshah, North Waziristan, which killed at least 10 people and wounded an unknown number of others.
Leader Raza Rabbani said the Pakistani government stands behind its previous stance against such violations of its territory. He said the US had given his government assurances that the violations would not be repeated, and said it was “unfortunate” that the violations continue.
Senator Khursheed Ahmad said this was the 67th cross-border attack in the past two years, and the 32nd in the last seven months. He said the strike was particularly serious given the recent 14-point resolution passed by parliament, which he said stressed the need to de-link Pakistan’s security policy from the US war on terror.
Senator Tariq Azim said the attack, occurring just after the resolution’s passing, was an attack on the sovereignty of Parliament, and that he was concerned by the frequent visits by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, who has been warning the Pakistani government against moving forward with peace talks offered by the militant faction Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan.
Justin Raimondo: Bailing out Georgia
This is from antiwar.com.
I find it truly amazing that U.S. citizens put up with what their own government does to them. This issue doesn't even seem to come up on the campaign trail from anything I have seen. Any expenses of U.S. imperialism are just translated into defence in the war against terror or against whatever bad guy is current on the scene in this case Russia. So while U.S. infrastructure crumbles and state governments face crushing deficits the US finds the money to rebuild Georgia! Of course many US companies some no doubt with ties to the Bush administration will profit from this billion dollar expenditure courtesy of US taxpayers.
Bailing Out Georgia
No, not our Georgia – the other one!
by Justin Raimondo
The US government is sending $1 billion to "rebuild" Georgia – no, not the Georgia located in the southern United States, where home foreclosure rates are double the national average, but the one located in the Caucasus, along Russia's southern frontier, where the President of the country launched a reckless invasion of a rebellious province, murdered thousands, and got his ass kicked by the rebels and their Russian protectors. Now we're sending him a billion dollars – by way of a reward.
Meeting in Brussels, Western donors pledged "more than $1 billion more than the World Bank's target." The announcement, as reported by the New York Times, "came as a financial crisis rattled the economies of donor nations. The United States pledged the largest amount, $1 billion over three years. An additional $642.8 million will be allocated by the European Commission over the next two years. Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said the pledge should send ‘a strong signal to the world' that its members stand with Georgia. ‘The international community believes in and upholds certain values and norms of conduct, and those include the peaceful resolution of disputes,' Mr. Barroso said."
Who is sending a signal to whom – and for what purpose?
On the surface, none of this makes any sense. To begin with, all the damage to civilians and infrastructure was done by the Georgians. They bombed the city of Tskhinvali, capital of the rebel province of South Ossetia, destroying the city center, killing thousands, and rendering many thousands more homeless. Rebuild Georgia? It's the Ossetians who need the rebuilding – not that anything or anyone on this earth can rebuild their broken lives.
This is one humanitarian catastrophe that has gone completely unacknowledged in the West: indeed, justice is not only denied, but inverted: the Georgians, the villains in this instance, are being sent the aid. Sounds like an incentive to commit yet more aggression – not that Saakashvili needs any encouragement.
He refuses to include the Ossetians or the rebel Abkhazians in any negotiations, and his government has broken off meetings with the Russians over the terms of a peace accord. Faced with protests over his increasingly authoritarian rule, as well as a backlash against his hot-headed recklessness in starting the war to begin with, the region's star "democrat" and staunch US ally is even now maneuvering to launch yet another provocation against Moscow. It would be a welcome diversion from his growing internal problem.
With the West and much of the world undergoing a financial paroxysm of unprecedented proportions, what in the name of all that's holy are we doing sending a billion bucks to some godforsaken ex-Soviet republic on the edge of nowhere? The Europeans are sinking, too, and yet they're chipping in. What's the story?
The signal that is being sent here, both by the US and Europe, is that we will fight, if necessary, to extend Western influence into the Caucasus. The gauntlet is thrown – and Putin is sure to pick it up.
Some of the Europeans may be a little skeptical of admitting Georgia (and Ukraine) into NATO, but the US government and its European allies are giving the Georgian government unconditional support in its ongoing efforts to confront the Russians in their own "near abroad." The Russians, for their part, are acting much as we did when the French – still suffering from the aftereffects of the French Revolution in its Napoleonic phase– set up Maximilian I as "Emperor" of Mexico and threatened to extend their sphere of influence north of the Rio Grande.
This signal of support for Tbilisi is for the benefit not only of the Russians, and the Georgian government, but is also meant to reassure big Western investors who have already poured billions into the lucrative Ceyhan-Tbilisi-Baku oil pipeline, which is competing with the Russians in transporting oil from the central Asian ‘stans to the European market. The Western oil giants, locked out of the Russian market by Putin, are desperate to outflank the Russkies and bypass Middle Eastern suppliers. Billions in profits hang in the balance.
The CTB pipeline is yet another investment that is threatening to go south, bigtime, as regional tensions threaten to disrupt the free flow of oil over the troubled lands it snakes through. Like AIG, Bear-Stearns, and the rest of the lords of Wall Street, this concern is "too big to fail," and you can bet that the US government will take every possible action – including military action – to protect the banks who are underwriting the project.
As the response of Western governments to the financial meltdown makes all too clear, here in the West we have socialism for investment bankers and their partners-in-crime, and "free enterprise" for the rest of us, who work hard, pay taxes, and live by the rules.
Oh, but not to worry: they're rebuilding Georgia – with your tax dollars.
The costs are socialized, and the profits are privatized – that's what they call "democratic capitalism," or, in Europe, "social democracy." In both cases, foreign policy is merely an overseas projection of domestic political arrangements.
In detailing how the aid money is going to be spent, the Times' reporting on the donors' powwow implicitly rationalizes the expenditure:
"After hostilities broke out on Aug. 7, transportation routes from Georgia's main Black Sea port were cut off, and dozens of importers defaulted on contracts. The stock market plummeted, and Georgians made a run on banks, wiping out $165 million in deposits at the Bank of Georgia. The country's scenic Black Sea resorts, once popular with Russians, sit largely empty."
Hefty costs, but who ought to pay? Why, the perpetrator of the violence, namely Mikhel Saakashvili. Instead, he's being sent a big fat check. Welcome to the Bizarro World of American foreign policy.
As Mark Ames points out in The Nation, the evil-authoritarian-Russia-attacked-poor-little-democratic-Georgia narrative has been completely debunked – check out Der Spiegel's "Did Saakashvili Lie?" (short answer: yes). As Antiwar.com reported as the crisis broke out, and subsequent reports confirm, the evidence is indisputable that the Georgians attacked the Russians first, killing over a dozen Russian peacekeepers legally stationed in South Ossetia in the course of a massive and deadly assault on the Ossetian capital. Not that the Western media, so easily manipulated by Georgia's amen corner, is acknowledging their initial "error," as Ames notes.
"Ever since I went down to South Ossetia to see the war for myself, I'd developed a kind of sick curiosity to see just how the Times and all the others were going to extricate themselves from the credibility-hole they'd dug. I had a feeling it was going to come, because Saakashvili was not only a blatant liar but an incredibly bad liar. I was in South Ossetia at the close of the war – I saw the destruction that the ‘freedom-loving' Georgians wreaked, and the bloated, rotting corpses on the streets of the province's capital city, Tskhinvali – so I was particularly interested in how long the sleazy tale of good vs. evil would last, and how the major media would squirm their way out of their biggest journalistic fiasco since the Iraqi-WMD blooper. Would the Times let their ombudsman out of the cage for another fake apology? ‘Oops! Who'da thunk our esteemed newspaper coulda screwed up this big twice in a row, dragging America into yet another war all on account of our inability to do our job as journalists?! Look, we just want to say we're sorry and move on, m'kay? So, have you moved on yet? Because we have'."
The lies spread by the mainstream media in the service of the War Party are bought and paid for by the corporate sponsors of the Russia encirclement project that has been the linchpin of our adversarial stance toward Moscow since Yeltsin's demise and Putin's rise. Having failed to pulverize the shattered Soviet colossus into the smallest possible splinters, the Western powers are now confronted with what they regard as a "resurgent" and inevitably revanchist Russia – which means that the Russians are no longer dirt poor and ruled by gangsters with American bank accounts. It also means they aren't going to be pushed around in their own back yard – at least not without putting up a heckuva fight.
Whether South Ossetia is Georgian, Russian, or none of the above – why is this any of our business? Who among us is qualified to untangle the interwoven threads of claims and counter-claims, extending back over hundreds of years, and come up with a just solution to the question of what constitutes Georgian "sovereignty"? Certainly no one who works for the US government.
Before one penny of "aid" is sent to Georgia, we should be asking: who will get this money? The Times gives us a breakdown:
"The World Bank had estimated that Georgia would need $3.25 billion "to cover budget support, social sector support and infrastructure development." Most of the aid, roughly $3.7 billion, will go to social and construction programs. An additional $850 million will be invested in the private sector, where donors hope it will offset the sharp drop in foreign direct investment."
None of this money is going to South Ossetia: it is all being funneled through Saakashvili and his cronies, who would rather leave the shattered infrastructure of bombed-out Tskhinvali as it is today, a stark reminder of what may very well reoccur should the Ossetians persist in going their own way. If anyone rebuilds, it will have to be the Russians. The private sector aid will be used to buy up Georgian assets on behalf of Western corporate interests. The difference between the World Bank figure and the number announced in Brussels – nearly half a billion – will cover bribes, covert action operations carried out by Western intelligence agencies, and other incidentals.
When challenged, proponents of foreign aid programs invariably reply: yes, but look at the minuscule numbers! Why, foreign aid is less than one percent of the total overseas budget, including, one supposes, military expenditures – but so what? The point is that these programs do real harm, in most cases achieving the exact opposite of their intended purpose. And in this particular case, the entire package is premised on a lie, and a freshly debunked one at that. What's really going on here is that the West is rewarding Saakashvili for his recklessness, and inciting him to commit fresh assaults. This course guarantees war. ~ Justin Raimondo
I find it truly amazing that U.S. citizens put up with what their own government does to them. This issue doesn't even seem to come up on the campaign trail from anything I have seen. Any expenses of U.S. imperialism are just translated into defence in the war against terror or against whatever bad guy is current on the scene in this case Russia. So while U.S. infrastructure crumbles and state governments face crushing deficits the US finds the money to rebuild Georgia! Of course many US companies some no doubt with ties to the Bush administration will profit from this billion dollar expenditure courtesy of US taxpayers.
Bailing Out Georgia
No, not our Georgia – the other one!
by Justin Raimondo
The US government is sending $1 billion to "rebuild" Georgia – no, not the Georgia located in the southern United States, where home foreclosure rates are double the national average, but the one located in the Caucasus, along Russia's southern frontier, where the President of the country launched a reckless invasion of a rebellious province, murdered thousands, and got his ass kicked by the rebels and their Russian protectors. Now we're sending him a billion dollars – by way of a reward.
Meeting in Brussels, Western donors pledged "more than $1 billion more than the World Bank's target." The announcement, as reported by the New York Times, "came as a financial crisis rattled the economies of donor nations. The United States pledged the largest amount, $1 billion over three years. An additional $642.8 million will be allocated by the European Commission over the next two years. Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said the pledge should send ‘a strong signal to the world' that its members stand with Georgia. ‘The international community believes in and upholds certain values and norms of conduct, and those include the peaceful resolution of disputes,' Mr. Barroso said."
Who is sending a signal to whom – and for what purpose?
On the surface, none of this makes any sense. To begin with, all the damage to civilians and infrastructure was done by the Georgians. They bombed the city of Tskhinvali, capital of the rebel province of South Ossetia, destroying the city center, killing thousands, and rendering many thousands more homeless. Rebuild Georgia? It's the Ossetians who need the rebuilding – not that anything or anyone on this earth can rebuild their broken lives.
This is one humanitarian catastrophe that has gone completely unacknowledged in the West: indeed, justice is not only denied, but inverted: the Georgians, the villains in this instance, are being sent the aid. Sounds like an incentive to commit yet more aggression – not that Saakashvili needs any encouragement.
He refuses to include the Ossetians or the rebel Abkhazians in any negotiations, and his government has broken off meetings with the Russians over the terms of a peace accord. Faced with protests over his increasingly authoritarian rule, as well as a backlash against his hot-headed recklessness in starting the war to begin with, the region's star "democrat" and staunch US ally is even now maneuvering to launch yet another provocation against Moscow. It would be a welcome diversion from his growing internal problem.
With the West and much of the world undergoing a financial paroxysm of unprecedented proportions, what in the name of all that's holy are we doing sending a billion bucks to some godforsaken ex-Soviet republic on the edge of nowhere? The Europeans are sinking, too, and yet they're chipping in. What's the story?
The signal that is being sent here, both by the US and Europe, is that we will fight, if necessary, to extend Western influence into the Caucasus. The gauntlet is thrown – and Putin is sure to pick it up.
Some of the Europeans may be a little skeptical of admitting Georgia (and Ukraine) into NATO, but the US government and its European allies are giving the Georgian government unconditional support in its ongoing efforts to confront the Russians in their own "near abroad." The Russians, for their part, are acting much as we did when the French – still suffering from the aftereffects of the French Revolution in its Napoleonic phase– set up Maximilian I as "Emperor" of Mexico and threatened to extend their sphere of influence north of the Rio Grande.
This signal of support for Tbilisi is for the benefit not only of the Russians, and the Georgian government, but is also meant to reassure big Western investors who have already poured billions into the lucrative Ceyhan-Tbilisi-Baku oil pipeline, which is competing with the Russians in transporting oil from the central Asian ‘stans to the European market. The Western oil giants, locked out of the Russian market by Putin, are desperate to outflank the Russkies and bypass Middle Eastern suppliers. Billions in profits hang in the balance.
The CTB pipeline is yet another investment that is threatening to go south, bigtime, as regional tensions threaten to disrupt the free flow of oil over the troubled lands it snakes through. Like AIG, Bear-Stearns, and the rest of the lords of Wall Street, this concern is "too big to fail," and you can bet that the US government will take every possible action – including military action – to protect the banks who are underwriting the project.
As the response of Western governments to the financial meltdown makes all too clear, here in the West we have socialism for investment bankers and their partners-in-crime, and "free enterprise" for the rest of us, who work hard, pay taxes, and live by the rules.
Oh, but not to worry: they're rebuilding Georgia – with your tax dollars.
The costs are socialized, and the profits are privatized – that's what they call "democratic capitalism," or, in Europe, "social democracy." In both cases, foreign policy is merely an overseas projection of domestic political arrangements.
In detailing how the aid money is going to be spent, the Times' reporting on the donors' powwow implicitly rationalizes the expenditure:
"After hostilities broke out on Aug. 7, transportation routes from Georgia's main Black Sea port were cut off, and dozens of importers defaulted on contracts. The stock market plummeted, and Georgians made a run on banks, wiping out $165 million in deposits at the Bank of Georgia. The country's scenic Black Sea resorts, once popular with Russians, sit largely empty."
Hefty costs, but who ought to pay? Why, the perpetrator of the violence, namely Mikhel Saakashvili. Instead, he's being sent a big fat check. Welcome to the Bizarro World of American foreign policy.
As Mark Ames points out in The Nation, the evil-authoritarian-Russia-attacked-poor-little-democratic-Georgia narrative has been completely debunked – check out Der Spiegel's "Did Saakashvili Lie?" (short answer: yes). As Antiwar.com reported as the crisis broke out, and subsequent reports confirm, the evidence is indisputable that the Georgians attacked the Russians first, killing over a dozen Russian peacekeepers legally stationed in South Ossetia in the course of a massive and deadly assault on the Ossetian capital. Not that the Western media, so easily manipulated by Georgia's amen corner, is acknowledging their initial "error," as Ames notes.
"Ever since I went down to South Ossetia to see the war for myself, I'd developed a kind of sick curiosity to see just how the Times and all the others were going to extricate themselves from the credibility-hole they'd dug. I had a feeling it was going to come, because Saakashvili was not only a blatant liar but an incredibly bad liar. I was in South Ossetia at the close of the war – I saw the destruction that the ‘freedom-loving' Georgians wreaked, and the bloated, rotting corpses on the streets of the province's capital city, Tskhinvali – so I was particularly interested in how long the sleazy tale of good vs. evil would last, and how the major media would squirm their way out of their biggest journalistic fiasco since the Iraqi-WMD blooper. Would the Times let their ombudsman out of the cage for another fake apology? ‘Oops! Who'da thunk our esteemed newspaper coulda screwed up this big twice in a row, dragging America into yet another war all on account of our inability to do our job as journalists?! Look, we just want to say we're sorry and move on, m'kay? So, have you moved on yet? Because we have'."
The lies spread by the mainstream media in the service of the War Party are bought and paid for by the corporate sponsors of the Russia encirclement project that has been the linchpin of our adversarial stance toward Moscow since Yeltsin's demise and Putin's rise. Having failed to pulverize the shattered Soviet colossus into the smallest possible splinters, the Western powers are now confronted with what they regard as a "resurgent" and inevitably revanchist Russia – which means that the Russians are no longer dirt poor and ruled by gangsters with American bank accounts. It also means they aren't going to be pushed around in their own back yard – at least not without putting up a heckuva fight.
Whether South Ossetia is Georgian, Russian, or none of the above – why is this any of our business? Who among us is qualified to untangle the interwoven threads of claims and counter-claims, extending back over hundreds of years, and come up with a just solution to the question of what constitutes Georgian "sovereignty"? Certainly no one who works for the US government.
Before one penny of "aid" is sent to Georgia, we should be asking: who will get this money? The Times gives us a breakdown:
"The World Bank had estimated that Georgia would need $3.25 billion "to cover budget support, social sector support and infrastructure development." Most of the aid, roughly $3.7 billion, will go to social and construction programs. An additional $850 million will be invested in the private sector, where donors hope it will offset the sharp drop in foreign direct investment."
None of this money is going to South Ossetia: it is all being funneled through Saakashvili and his cronies, who would rather leave the shattered infrastructure of bombed-out Tskhinvali as it is today, a stark reminder of what may very well reoccur should the Ossetians persist in going their own way. If anyone rebuilds, it will have to be the Russians. The private sector aid will be used to buy up Georgian assets on behalf of Western corporate interests. The difference between the World Bank figure and the number announced in Brussels – nearly half a billion – will cover bribes, covert action operations carried out by Western intelligence agencies, and other incidentals.
When challenged, proponents of foreign aid programs invariably reply: yes, but look at the minuscule numbers! Why, foreign aid is less than one percent of the total overseas budget, including, one supposes, military expenditures – but so what? The point is that these programs do real harm, in most cases achieving the exact opposite of their intended purpose. And in this particular case, the entire package is premised on a lie, and a freshly debunked one at that. What's really going on here is that the West is rewarding Saakashvili for his recklessness, and inciting him to commit fresh assaults. This course guarantees war. ~ Justin Raimondo
In the past 15 months markets siphoned 2 trillion from US retirement accounts.
This figure was when the DOW was at ten thousand. It is below that now. However, over time no doubt the value will recover but the problem is that people may need to draw out funds soon if they are retiring. Thus some are deciding not to retire yet. Both home ownership and private pensions may be turning into an American nightmare rather than an American dream.
"Retirees running out of time
Today's economic crisis is tomorrow's nightmare for millions of agingAmericans whose nest eggs are suddenly cracked.
By Ted C. Fishman
USA TodayOctober 23, 2008
In early October, on one of the days the stock market was falling to whereit was 10 years ago, I called my plumber in Chicago, Gil Boersma, to stop adrip in my sink, but he had another leak on his mind. Unlike "Joe theplumber" made famous in the last presidential debate, Boersma does own hisbusiness and, at 66, he is seeing his retirement fund dwindling. Made up ofmoney he had saved in cash and certificate of deposits, the fund wasrejiggered four months ago by a financial adviser to take advantage of the"income opportunities" of stocks. I caught him just as he was consideringhis next move."I thought I'd retire soon," Boersma said. "Now I'll keep working." Hepaused for a minute to consider the lot of his generation. "Americans needto see a total of all the retirement savings that have been lost in thismeltdown."The next day, when the Dow Jones Industrials were around 10,000, theCongressional Budget Office obliged with the figure: In the past 15 months,the markets have siphoned $2 trillion from U.S. retirement accounts. Thenumber leaves out trillions of dollars in assets that vaporized outsidethose accounts. The CBO also affirmed that many Americans will be forced toput off retirement.One of the sobering realities bared in the crisis is how the public andprivate guardians of our financial lives have long oversold the promise ofstock portfolios as the economic bedrock for our later years. Stocks havenever been the long-term wealth builders championed by the financial press,brokers, financial planners and even our political leaders.In Warren Buffett's 2007 letter to his investors, he dissects the voodooeconomics of mainstream retirement strategies. Most investment pros tellclients the stock market has reliably delivered returns of 10% or better toinvestors willing to stick it out for the long term. Over the century endingin 2007, which Buffett notes has been a very good century for investors, theDow Jones Industrials have delivered a compounded annual return of only5.3%. If you trade a moderate amount and pay commission, taxes or invest inmutual funds or other vehicles that demand small fees, you'll earn far lessin the long run.The waiting gameWhether the stock market delivers for your retirement depends very much onwhen you need to draw down the money you have invested. If you retire thismonth and move your money from stocks - money that over the past 10 yearshas delivered less than nothing in profit - into safe, but meagerlylucrative investments to preserve your nest egg, you might never get closeto whole. People who, late in their working careers, invested theirretirement money in stocks during the bear market of the late '60s and '70swere similarly trapped, because stocks didn't begin to move meaningfully upuntil the early '80s. Back then, conventional wisdom preached that prudentpeople exit stocks when they exited the workforce. Prudence is a bitter pillwhen one has to lock in big losses.Today, Americans live longer they did 30 years ago. Among husbands and wiveswho are both 65, for instance, there is roughly a 50-50 chance one will liveto 95. In recent years, financial advisers commonly told their retiredclients that unless they kept a good chunk of money in the stock market -and less in bonds - they risked running out of money in their frail old age.But history also shows that bear markets can also send stocks backward foryears.Of course, most retirees have to pull out money to live on. Most of us,unlike Buffet, occasionally need that cash to pay for things we requirebefore retirement, such as health care, education, care for a fragile parentor to pay bills between jobs. In the past year alone, one out of five U.S.workers stopped contributing to retirement plans because of financialhardship. Today, workers in retirement are required to pull money from theirtax-deferred retirement accounts, forcing them to cave at the current whimsof the market when they might otherwise choose to hang on. People near or atretirement realize the need to work. The fading of retirement security inthe U.S. is reflected in a recent AARP survey. Sixty-nine percent ofAmericans said they expect to spend less time in retirement.Workers are willing to work longer because they have to, but will employershire them? A higher percentage of Americans older than 65 is working than ageneration ago. Yet, in an economic downturn, companies are likely to try todrive down the age of retirement with employee buyouts, not push it up. Inthe past year, unemployment among workers 55 or older climbed 30%.Better incentives to save would help create a firmer safety net. The currentcrop of self-directed plans, such as IRAs and 401(k)s, do not encouragepeople to save enough to get through the multiyear economic lulls we know toexpect.In the Netherlands, the vast majority of workers are forced to save on thejob, and the system leaves the population on solid footing. The World Bankadvocates mandatory savings. Participants in traditional, defined-benefitpension plans are sleeping far easier than their self-directed peers. We cansteer the self-directed into hybrid financial tools that allow individualsto simulate the security and steady income of the defined-benefit plansstill available to employees of the government and many large corporations.Such tools exist today for individuals, but the high cost in fees andcommissions erodes their value.Keep seniors employedFostering a job market that allows older workers to stay active a few moreyears could make a huge difference. People who earn money in their 60s, 70sand beyond will not need to draw down their savings. And, they can ride outthe longer downturns to give markets a chance to bounce back.Finding work for millions of aging Boomers requires new thinking. My plumberowns his business, is in good health and has loyal customers, so he can keepgoing. One in six older workers is self-employed, but many risk all to starttheir businesses, and many fail.A support system for older entrepreneurs might boost the success rate.Micro-lending circles could spread the risk and expertise. Salaried jobsthat offer flexible and reduced hours could keep older workers employed. Agediscrimination hurts such workers, but some differentiation could also helpthem stay employed. If a 67-year-old makes five sales calls for every 10made by a 27-year-old, then perhaps the older worker's pay could be adjustedaccordingly.The presidential candidates have dodged the big questions on how they'dhandle the financial meltdown, ignoring altogether the plight of tens ofmillions of people in or near retirement. They dwell instead on tax breaksthat would deliver little to most families and less to people winding downtheir work lives.Time to call my plumber. He knows what happens if you ignore a leak.************Ted C. Fishman, author of the best-seller China, Inc.: How the Rise of theNext Superpower Challenges America and the World, is a member of USA TODAY'sboard of contributors.
"Retirees running out of time
Today's economic crisis is tomorrow's nightmare for millions of agingAmericans whose nest eggs are suddenly cracked.
By Ted C. Fishman
USA TodayOctober 23, 2008
In early October, on one of the days the stock market was falling to whereit was 10 years ago, I called my plumber in Chicago, Gil Boersma, to stop adrip in my sink, but he had another leak on his mind. Unlike "Joe theplumber" made famous in the last presidential debate, Boersma does own hisbusiness and, at 66, he is seeing his retirement fund dwindling. Made up ofmoney he had saved in cash and certificate of deposits, the fund wasrejiggered four months ago by a financial adviser to take advantage of the"income opportunities" of stocks. I caught him just as he was consideringhis next move."I thought I'd retire soon," Boersma said. "Now I'll keep working." Hepaused for a minute to consider the lot of his generation. "Americans needto see a total of all the retirement savings that have been lost in thismeltdown."The next day, when the Dow Jones Industrials were around 10,000, theCongressional Budget Office obliged with the figure: In the past 15 months,the markets have siphoned $2 trillion from U.S. retirement accounts. Thenumber leaves out trillions of dollars in assets that vaporized outsidethose accounts. The CBO also affirmed that many Americans will be forced toput off retirement.One of the sobering realities bared in the crisis is how the public andprivate guardians of our financial lives have long oversold the promise ofstock portfolios as the economic bedrock for our later years. Stocks havenever been the long-term wealth builders championed by the financial press,brokers, financial planners and even our political leaders.In Warren Buffett's 2007 letter to his investors, he dissects the voodooeconomics of mainstream retirement strategies. Most investment pros tellclients the stock market has reliably delivered returns of 10% or better toinvestors willing to stick it out for the long term. Over the century endingin 2007, which Buffett notes has been a very good century for investors, theDow Jones Industrials have delivered a compounded annual return of only5.3%. If you trade a moderate amount and pay commission, taxes or invest inmutual funds or other vehicles that demand small fees, you'll earn far lessin the long run.The waiting gameWhether the stock market delivers for your retirement depends very much onwhen you need to draw down the money you have invested. If you retire thismonth and move your money from stocks - money that over the past 10 yearshas delivered less than nothing in profit - into safe, but meagerlylucrative investments to preserve your nest egg, you might never get closeto whole. People who, late in their working careers, invested theirretirement money in stocks during the bear market of the late '60s and '70swere similarly trapped, because stocks didn't begin to move meaningfully upuntil the early '80s. Back then, conventional wisdom preached that prudentpeople exit stocks when they exited the workforce. Prudence is a bitter pillwhen one has to lock in big losses.Today, Americans live longer they did 30 years ago. Among husbands and wiveswho are both 65, for instance, there is roughly a 50-50 chance one will liveto 95. In recent years, financial advisers commonly told their retiredclients that unless they kept a good chunk of money in the stock market -and less in bonds - they risked running out of money in their frail old age.But history also shows that bear markets can also send stocks backward foryears.Of course, most retirees have to pull out money to live on. Most of us,unlike Buffet, occasionally need that cash to pay for things we requirebefore retirement, such as health care, education, care for a fragile parentor to pay bills between jobs. In the past year alone, one out of five U.S.workers stopped contributing to retirement plans because of financialhardship. Today, workers in retirement are required to pull money from theirtax-deferred retirement accounts, forcing them to cave at the current whimsof the market when they might otherwise choose to hang on. People near or atretirement realize the need to work. The fading of retirement security inthe U.S. is reflected in a recent AARP survey. Sixty-nine percent ofAmericans said they expect to spend less time in retirement.Workers are willing to work longer because they have to, but will employershire them? A higher percentage of Americans older than 65 is working than ageneration ago. Yet, in an economic downturn, companies are likely to try todrive down the age of retirement with employee buyouts, not push it up. Inthe past year, unemployment among workers 55 or older climbed 30%.Better incentives to save would help create a firmer safety net. The currentcrop of self-directed plans, such as IRAs and 401(k)s, do not encouragepeople to save enough to get through the multiyear economic lulls we know toexpect.In the Netherlands, the vast majority of workers are forced to save on thejob, and the system leaves the population on solid footing. The World Bankadvocates mandatory savings. Participants in traditional, defined-benefitpension plans are sleeping far easier than their self-directed peers. We cansteer the self-directed into hybrid financial tools that allow individualsto simulate the security and steady income of the defined-benefit plansstill available to employees of the government and many large corporations.Such tools exist today for individuals, but the high cost in fees andcommissions erodes their value.Keep seniors employedFostering a job market that allows older workers to stay active a few moreyears could make a huge difference. People who earn money in their 60s, 70sand beyond will not need to draw down their savings. And, they can ride outthe longer downturns to give markets a chance to bounce back.Finding work for millions of aging Boomers requires new thinking. My plumberowns his business, is in good health and has loyal customers, so he can keepgoing. One in six older workers is self-employed, but many risk all to starttheir businesses, and many fail.A support system for older entrepreneurs might boost the success rate.Micro-lending circles could spread the risk and expertise. Salaried jobsthat offer flexible and reduced hours could keep older workers employed. Agediscrimination hurts such workers, but some differentiation could also helpthem stay employed. If a 67-year-old makes five sales calls for every 10made by a 27-year-old, then perhaps the older worker's pay could be adjustedaccordingly.The presidential candidates have dodged the big questions on how they'dhandle the financial meltdown, ignoring altogether the plight of tens ofmillions of people in or near retirement. They dwell instead on tax breaksthat would deliver little to most families and less to people winding downtheir work lives.Time to call my plumber. He knows what happens if you ignore a leak.************Ted C. Fishman, author of the best-seller China, Inc.: How the Rise of theNext Superpower Challenges America and the World, is a member of USA TODAY'sboard of contributors.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Obama wants his very own surge--in Afghanistan.
These snippets are from the Globe and Mail. It seems that both candidates are keen to blow more money on expanding the US military, creating more US casualties, and public expenses to deal with the wounded. The change that Obama stands for is actually more of the same and an even more aggressive stance in Pakistan.
Sounding presidential, Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House....
And Obama sounds much like George Bush as well as following in his footsteps in a militaristic foreign policy....
“The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting,” he said, echoing Mr. Bush's oft-repeated refrain.....
This is all happening at a time when the US is facing a financial crisis and burgeoning debt.
“We can't afford another president who ignores the fundamentals of our economy while running up record deficits to fight a war without end in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday. .
Right! So Obama is going to do the same thing as Bush but in Afghanistan.
Sounding presidential, Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House....
And Obama sounds much like George Bush as well as following in his footsteps in a militaristic foreign policy....
“The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting,” he said, echoing Mr. Bush's oft-repeated refrain.....
This is all happening at a time when the US is facing a financial crisis and burgeoning debt.
“We can't afford another president who ignores the fundamentals of our economy while running up record deficits to fight a war without end in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday. .
Right! So Obama is going to do the same thing as Bush but in Afghanistan.
An Overbought dollar lurches even higher
This is from the Guardian(UK)
This article gives some of the reasons why the US dollar is high just now especially in relationship to many other currencies. However, given the huge increase in debt and the slumping US economy I would expect that there will be a decline in time. It seems as if there could be a US dollar bubble which will burst in the future.
An overbought dollar lurches even higher
Reuters
, Thursday October 23 2008
By Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss
NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Reuters) - A brutal global crisis has prompted investors around the world to dump their own currencies and seek shelter in the U.S. dollar, a trend many analysts see will carry on for some time.
The dollar has gained about 12 percent against the euro since the year began. It is on track for its best month versus the single currency since its launch in 1999.
The greenback has also surged against high yielders such as the Australian and New Zealand dollars, rising roughly 25 percent. It has punished emerging market currencies as well, once the darlings of the investing world because of their current account surpluses and competitive interest yields.
It's less about the United States and the dollar being a safe haven, some analysts say. After all, the storm started in this port, starting with the subprime credit crisis that erupted in the summer of 2007 as U.S. house prices fell.
Global deleveraging has been the culprit. Investors had used borrowed funds to increase their portfolio bets in recent years. These borrowings are now being called in by lenders and if the debt was priced in the U.S. currency -- and most of them were -- the result is a short squeeze, a scramble to find dollars to repay those loans.
"Foreign-exchange movements reflect major unwinding of positions and the need to cover losses on other dollar assets," said Avery Shenfeld, senior economist at CIBC World Markets in Toronto.
"The dollar could become significantly overvalued during this turmoil and there is nothing that could prevent the U.S. dollar from getting to $1.20 against the euro," he added.
EVEN 'PERMA BEARS' MAY CAVE
Still, technical indicators are suggesting that the U.S. dollar's blistering rally may have to take a breather soon, given how far it has advanced over the last three months.
According to the charts, the euro has been oversold across short and longer time frames. A technically overbought dollar tilts toward even more overbought territory.
"This is a dangerous game at the moment for a technical trader who may rely on oscillators, so be careful out there and keep your stops tight," said Jack Crooks, president of currency investment adviser Black Swan Capital in Palm City, Florida.
Crooks noted, however, that the dollar index is also at a level "where we just might get what we refer to as major capitulation to the trend by the perma bears."
He sees resistance at 87.30 in the dollar index. On Thursday, the ICE Futures dollar index was at 85.231 just before 4 p.m. in New York, after hitting a fresh two-year high at 86.120.
EURO-ZONE WOES
One of the most bearish forecasts on the euro came from BNP Paribas, which predicted a print of $1.13 by the first quarter of 2010. On Thursday, it traded below $1.28.
The euro has fallen more than 20 percent against the dollar since the single currency hit a a record high above $1.60 in mid-July.
And it's easy to see why.
In the past month, several European banks had to be bailed out, emphasizing the global nature of the credit crisis.
Economists also believe that unprecedented efforts by central banks and governments to shore up the global financial system, including some of Europe's biggest houses, will not be enough to prevent the euro zone from sliding into recession.
"The weakening of the European economy and by extension, the eastern and central European bloc has weighed on the euro. It's not looking very good at the moment," said Sebastien Galy, a currency strategist at BNP Paribas in New York.
He added that there's little hope for an inspired bailout for countries in central and eastern Europe, which have come under pressure as funds flow out of their markets.
Moreover, Galy said the European Monetary Union's budget has already been stretched to its limits. He also cited political opposition for creating a bailout program supported by public funds.
"The descent of the euro has been faster than we initially thought. We expect a further undershoot in the euro at least until the summit in mid-November," Galy said, referring to the conference organized by the White House to be held next month in Washington. The summit aims to further address the global financial crisis.
Yet despite heavy bets favoring the dollar, some analysts say the buck could use a breather and fall back for a few days.
"Even though we expect the dollar to climb plenty higher, we're at a point where a corrective move may be long overdue," said Black Swan's Crooks. (Editing by Jan Paschal)
This article gives some of the reasons why the US dollar is high just now especially in relationship to many other currencies. However, given the huge increase in debt and the slumping US economy I would expect that there will be a decline in time. It seems as if there could be a US dollar bubble which will burst in the future.
An overbought dollar lurches even higher
Reuters
, Thursday October 23 2008
By Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss
NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Reuters) - A brutal global crisis has prompted investors around the world to dump their own currencies and seek shelter in the U.S. dollar, a trend many analysts see will carry on for some time.
The dollar has gained about 12 percent against the euro since the year began. It is on track for its best month versus the single currency since its launch in 1999.
The greenback has also surged against high yielders such as the Australian and New Zealand dollars, rising roughly 25 percent. It has punished emerging market currencies as well, once the darlings of the investing world because of their current account surpluses and competitive interest yields.
It's less about the United States and the dollar being a safe haven, some analysts say. After all, the storm started in this port, starting with the subprime credit crisis that erupted in the summer of 2007 as U.S. house prices fell.
Global deleveraging has been the culprit. Investors had used borrowed funds to increase their portfolio bets in recent years. These borrowings are now being called in by lenders and if the debt was priced in the U.S. currency -- and most of them were -- the result is a short squeeze, a scramble to find dollars to repay those loans.
"Foreign-exchange movements reflect major unwinding of positions and the need to cover losses on other dollar assets," said Avery Shenfeld, senior economist at CIBC World Markets in Toronto.
"The dollar could become significantly overvalued during this turmoil and there is nothing that could prevent the U.S. dollar from getting to $1.20 against the euro," he added.
EVEN 'PERMA BEARS' MAY CAVE
Still, technical indicators are suggesting that the U.S. dollar's blistering rally may have to take a breather soon, given how far it has advanced over the last three months.
According to the charts, the euro has been oversold across short and longer time frames. A technically overbought dollar tilts toward even more overbought territory.
"This is a dangerous game at the moment for a technical trader who may rely on oscillators, so be careful out there and keep your stops tight," said Jack Crooks, president of currency investment adviser Black Swan Capital in Palm City, Florida.
Crooks noted, however, that the dollar index is also at a level "where we just might get what we refer to as major capitulation to the trend by the perma bears."
He sees resistance at 87.30 in the dollar index. On Thursday, the ICE Futures dollar index was at 85.231 just before 4 p.m. in New York, after hitting a fresh two-year high at 86.120.
EURO-ZONE WOES
One of the most bearish forecasts on the euro came from BNP Paribas, which predicted a print of $1.13 by the first quarter of 2010. On Thursday, it traded below $1.28.
The euro has fallen more than 20 percent against the dollar since the single currency hit a a record high above $1.60 in mid-July.
And it's easy to see why.
In the past month, several European banks had to be bailed out, emphasizing the global nature of the credit crisis.
Economists also believe that unprecedented efforts by central banks and governments to shore up the global financial system, including some of Europe's biggest houses, will not be enough to prevent the euro zone from sliding into recession.
"The weakening of the European economy and by extension, the eastern and central European bloc has weighed on the euro. It's not looking very good at the moment," said Sebastien Galy, a currency strategist at BNP Paribas in New York.
He added that there's little hope for an inspired bailout for countries in central and eastern Europe, which have come under pressure as funds flow out of their markets.
Moreover, Galy said the European Monetary Union's budget has already been stretched to its limits. He also cited political opposition for creating a bailout program supported by public funds.
"The descent of the euro has been faster than we initially thought. We expect a further undershoot in the euro at least until the summit in mid-November," Galy said, referring to the conference organized by the White House to be held next month in Washington. The summit aims to further address the global financial crisis.
Yet despite heavy bets favoring the dollar, some analysts say the buck could use a breather and fall back for a few days.
"Even though we expect the dollar to climb plenty higher, we're at a point where a corrective move may be long overdue," said Black Swan's Crooks. (Editing by Jan Paschal)
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Philippine Airlines Cuts fuel surcharges.
This is from the Tribune (Manila) . Maybe we should have bought our tickets for next March later! However, we bought them before the surcharge went on so we didn't lose from that. It is good that jet fuel will go down considerbly at least for a while. The airlines were getting a double whammy from sky high fuel prices and now from reduced travel because of global economic conditions. So far PAL has made profits up until March this year but much reduced from the year before. With reduced costs now it could perhaps turn a profit this next March.
Lower fuel costs enable PAL to cut surcharges
10/23/2008
The Philippine Airlines (PAL) said yesterday it was cutting fuel surcharges for every international return flight by as much as $20, due to a continued drop in world oil prices.
Surcharges for domestic round-trip flights will also be cut — by around $8 — effective early next month, PAL said in a statement.
“We are sharing with our passengers our fuel-cost savings,” said PAL president Jaime Bautista.
Bautists said more adjustments will be made in line with recent falls in the cost of oil.
The price of crude fell to less than $70 a barrel in New York trading last week “climaxing a stunning fall fro historic highs just three months ago,” PAL said.
PAL, however, said despite a softening in oil prices “airlines worldwide continue to bear the brunt of abnormally high fuel prices.”
Last month, the firm said it may revise its forecast of a net profit of $20 million for the fiscal year to March 2009 due to the volatility of oil prices.
PAL made a net profit of $30.6 million in the financial year ending March 31, 2008, dramatically down from $130.5 million the previous year. AFP
Lower fuel costs enable PAL to cut surcharges
10/23/2008
The Philippine Airlines (PAL) said yesterday it was cutting fuel surcharges for every international return flight by as much as $20, due to a continued drop in world oil prices.
Surcharges for domestic round-trip flights will also be cut — by around $8 — effective early next month, PAL said in a statement.
“We are sharing with our passengers our fuel-cost savings,” said PAL president Jaime Bautista.
Bautists said more adjustments will be made in line with recent falls in the cost of oil.
The price of crude fell to less than $70 a barrel in New York trading last week “climaxing a stunning fall fro historic highs just three months ago,” PAL said.
PAL, however, said despite a softening in oil prices “airlines worldwide continue to bear the brunt of abnormally high fuel prices.”
Last month, the firm said it may revise its forecast of a net profit of $20 million for the fiscal year to March 2009 due to the volatility of oil prices.
PAL made a net profit of $30.6 million in the financial year ending March 31, 2008, dramatically down from $130.5 million the previous year. AFP
Two articles on the SOFA with Iraq.
The first article regards the newest draft as a defeat for the Bush administration. It is a defeat in that a lot of the terms of the first draft have been changed at the insistence of the Iraqis but there are still provisions that are quite unacceptable. Most of the killings or maimings and wrongdoings of US troops and contractors has been on missions and in this case Iraqi law would not apply. They would have immunity. Without this being changed the agreement is unlikely to pass. Porter is simply wrong about the US not allowing any foreign country to have jurisdiction over their forces when not on a mission. The Philippines is one country where the troops are subject to Philippine law. I imagine there are other countries as well. Just recently a US soldier in the Philippines was tried by a Philippine court and found guilty of rape. Dyer rightly notes that much of the better security in Iraq is due to the purchase of Sunni militias to fight Al Qaeda. However, now they many of them may face loss of their jobs as the Iraqi govt. takes them over. Also, some of the peace has been created by ethnic cleansing of mixed Shia and Sunni neighbour hoods. The problem of the borders of Kurdistan are also an issue that could cause continuing difficulties.
Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle
by Gareth Porter
The final draft of the US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement on the US military presence represents an even more crushing defeat for the policy of the George W. Bush administration than previously thought, the final text reveals.
The final draft, dated Oct. 13, not only imposes unambiguous deadlines for withdrawal of US combat troops by 2011 but makes it extremely unlikely that a US non-combat presence will be allowed to remain in Iraq for training and support purposes beyond the 2011 deadline for withdrawal of all US combat forces.
Furthermore, Shiite opposition to the pact as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty makes the prospects for passage of even this agreement by the Iraqi parliament doubtful. Pro-government Shiite parties, the top Shiite clerical body in the country, and a powerful movement led by nationalist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that recently mobilized hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in protest against the pact, are all calling for its defeat.
At an Iraqi cabinet meeting Tuesday, ministers raised objections to the final draft, and a government spokesman said that the agreement would not submit it to the parliament in its current form. But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told three news agencies Tuesday that the door was "pretty far closed" on further negotiations.
In the absence of an agreement approved by the Iraqi parliament, US troops in Iraq will probably be confined to their bases once the United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31.
The clearest sign of the dramatically reduced US negotiating power in the final draft is the willingness of the United States to give up extraterritorial jurisdiction over US contractors and their employees and over US troops in the case of "major and intentional crimes" that occur outside bases and while off duty. The United States has never allowed a foreign country to have jurisdiction over its troops in any previous status of forces agreement.
But even that concession is not enough to satisfy anti-occupation sentiments across all Shiite political parties. Sunni politicians hold less decisive views on the pact, and Kurds are supportive.
Bush administration policymakers did not imagine when the negotiations began formally last March that its bargaining position on the issue of the US military presence could have turned out to be so weak in relation with its own "client" regime in Baghdad.
They were confident of being able to legitimize a US presence in Iraq for decades after the fighting had ended, just as they did in South Korea. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had declared in June 2007 that US troops would be in Iraq "for a protracted period of time".
The secret US draft handed to Iraqi officials Mar. 7 put no limit on either the number of US troops in Iraq or the duration of their presence or their activities. It would have authorized US forces to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain certain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security", according to an Apr. 8 article in The Guardian quoting from a leaked copy of the draft.
When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demanded a timetable for complete US withdrawal in early July, the White House insisted that it would not accept such a timetable and that any decision on withdrawal "will be conditions based". It was even hoping to avoid a requirement for complete withdrawal in the agreement, as reflected in false claims to media Jul. 17 that Bush and Maliki had agreed on the objective of "further reduction of US combat forces from Iraq" rather than complete withdrawal.
By early August, however, Bush had already reduced its negotiating aims. The US draft dated Aug. 6, which was translated and posted on the internet by Iraqi activist Raed Jarrar, demanded the inclusion of either "targeted times" or "time targets" to refer to the dates for withdrawal of US forces from all cities, town and villages and for complete combat troop withdrawal from Iraq, suggesting that they were not deadlines.
When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Baghdad Aug. 21, the United States accepted for the first time a firm date of 2011 for complete withdrawal, giving up the demand for ambiguous such terms. However, the Aug. 6 draft included a provision that the US could ask Iraq to "extend" the date for complete withdrawal of combat troops, based on mutual review of "progress" in achieving the withdrawal.
Because it had not yet been removed from the text, US officials continued to claim to reporters that the date was "conditions-based", as Karen DeYoung reported in the Washington Post Aug. 22.
The administration also continued to hope for approval of a residual force. US officials told DeYoung the deal would leave "tens of thousands of US troops inside Iraq in supporting roles...for an unspecified time". That hope was based on a paragraph of the Aug. 6 draft providing that the Iraqi government could request such a force, with the joint committee for operations and coordination determining the "tasks and level of the troops..."
But the Oct. 13 final draft, a translation of which was posted by Raed Jarrar on his website Oct. 20, reveals that the Bush administration has been forced to give up its aims of softening the deadline for withdrawal and of a residual non-combat force in the country. Unlike the Aug. 6 draft, the final text treats any extension of that date as a modification of the agreement, which could be done only "in accordance to constitutional procedures in both countries".
That is an obvious reference to approval by the Iraqi parliament.
Given the present level of opposition to the agreement within the Shiite community, that provision offers scant hope of a residual US non-combat force in Iraq after 2011.
Another signal of Iraqi intentions is a provision of the final draft limiting the duration of the agreement to three years -- a date coinciding with the deadline for complete withdrawal from Iraq. The date can be extended only by a decision made by the "constitutional procedures in both countries".
The final draft confirms the language of the Aug. 6 draft requiring that all US military operations be subject to the approval of the Iraqi government and coordinated with Iraqi authorities through a joint US-Iraqi committee.
The negotiating text had already established by Aug. 6 that US troops could not detain anyone in the country without a "warrant issued by the specialized Iraqi authorities in accordance with Iraqi law" and required that the detainees be turned over to Iraqi authorities within 24 hours. The Oct. 13 "final draft" goes even further, requiring that any detention by the United States, apart from its own personnel, must be "based on an Iraqi decision".
The collapse of the Bush administration's ambitious plan for a long-term US presence in Iraq highlights the degree of unreality that has prevailed among top US officials in both Washington and Baghdad on Iraqi politics. They continued to see the Maliki regime as a client which would cooperate with US aims even after it was clear that Maliki's agenda was sharply at odds with that of the United States.
They also refused to take seriously the opposition to such a presence even among the Shiite clerics who had tolerated it in order to obtain Shiite control over state power.
(Inter Press Service)
Gwyn Dyer article:
Dyer: Iraqi deal with the United States over troops isn't just for show
Gwynne Dyer
It has been a short hundred years. That's how long Republican presidential candidate John McCain said that American troops might have to stay in Iraq at the beginning of his campaign, but the deal that Washington concluded with the Iraqi government last week said that they must all be gone by 2011. And they must be off the streets of Iraqi cities by the middle of next year. That's not enough for a lot of Iraqis. Fifty thousand supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia leader who embodies the resentment of the poor against the Shia establishment, came out onto the streets of Baghdad on Saturday to protest against the deal signed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They want the Americans to leave now, which is also Sadr's position, and it may win him a commanding position in parliament when Iraq votes again next year. Maliki stood up for Iraqi sovereignty partly because he would pay for it in next year's election if he did not, but he was never just an American puppet. He opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and he also opposed the decision of his own party, al-Dawa, to join the first Iraqi "governing council" set up by occupation pro-consul Paul Bremer six months later. So the negotiations for a "status of forces agreement" to provide legal cover for the U.S. military presence in Iraq after the United Nations mandate expires in December were not just window-dressing. The Bush administration had to abandon
its quest for permanent military bases in Iraq, although there is a clause in the deal that allows for a change of mind in Baghdad. As Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh put it, "in 2011 the government at that time will determine whether it needs a new pact or not, and what type of pact will depend on the challenges it faces." But the shoe is definitely on the other foot now, with the American right to keep troops in Iraq lapsing automatically at the end of 2011 unless the Iraqi government wishes otherwise. Iraq was less successful in trying to make American troops responsible to Iraqi courts for their actions. The deal contains a clause saying that Iraqi law will apply "if they commit a serious and deliberate felony outside their bases and when off duty," but in practice no American soldiers leave their bases when off duty, and while on duty they can still kill any Iraqi who seems threatening with no questions asked. However, foreign civilian contractors will be subject to Iraqi law in future. It's not all that bad a deal, given the extent to which Maliki's government depends on American troops for survival. But even within the alliance of Shia parties that dominates the government it faces severe criticism and may not get through parliament. Outside, in the real world, it still feels like a fantasy. It is now an undisputed factoid in the American political debate that Iraq has been stabilized by last year's "surge" of U.S. troops. But the reality on the ground is rather different. There is less sectarian killing, but that is mainly because the ethnic cleansing of mixed neighbourhoods where Sunni and Shia Arabs used to live side by side is almost complete. Other major outbreaks of violence remain possible. The "Awakening" movement, in which tens of thousands of Sunni Arabs who had been fighting the American occupation went on the U.S. government payroll in order to fight the takeover of their community by al-Qaida extremists, is at a crossroads. Starting this month, the "Awakening" fighters are being paid by the Iraqi government, not by the Americans, and it has announced that only 20 percent of them will be absorbed into the Iraqi army. The other 60-odd thousand fighters of the "Awakening" will only be paid until they find civilian jobs - but there are almost no well-paying jobs available in Iraq apart from government work, which usually requires a recommendation from one of the big Shia parties. So what do the rest of the Sunni fighters do? Go back to fighting the Americans? It's not unimaginable. And the possibility of war between Arab Iraq and Kurdish Iraq over the border between the two regions is ever present: The promised referendum on the future of the city of Kirkuk and its surrounding oilfields is the sword of Damocles hanging over the whole of Iraqi politics. The relative calm that Iraq is experiencing at the moment may just be the eye of the hurricane. --- * GWYNNE DYER is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle
by Gareth Porter
The final draft of the US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement on the US military presence represents an even more crushing defeat for the policy of the George W. Bush administration than previously thought, the final text reveals.
The final draft, dated Oct. 13, not only imposes unambiguous deadlines for withdrawal of US combat troops by 2011 but makes it extremely unlikely that a US non-combat presence will be allowed to remain in Iraq for training and support purposes beyond the 2011 deadline for withdrawal of all US combat forces.
Furthermore, Shiite opposition to the pact as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty makes the prospects for passage of even this agreement by the Iraqi parliament doubtful. Pro-government Shiite parties, the top Shiite clerical body in the country, and a powerful movement led by nationalist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that recently mobilized hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in protest against the pact, are all calling for its defeat.
At an Iraqi cabinet meeting Tuesday, ministers raised objections to the final draft, and a government spokesman said that the agreement would not submit it to the parliament in its current form. But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told three news agencies Tuesday that the door was "pretty far closed" on further negotiations.
In the absence of an agreement approved by the Iraqi parliament, US troops in Iraq will probably be confined to their bases once the United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31.
The clearest sign of the dramatically reduced US negotiating power in the final draft is the willingness of the United States to give up extraterritorial jurisdiction over US contractors and their employees and over US troops in the case of "major and intentional crimes" that occur outside bases and while off duty. The United States has never allowed a foreign country to have jurisdiction over its troops in any previous status of forces agreement.
But even that concession is not enough to satisfy anti-occupation sentiments across all Shiite political parties. Sunni politicians hold less decisive views on the pact, and Kurds are supportive.
Bush administration policymakers did not imagine when the negotiations began formally last March that its bargaining position on the issue of the US military presence could have turned out to be so weak in relation with its own "client" regime in Baghdad.
They were confident of being able to legitimize a US presence in Iraq for decades after the fighting had ended, just as they did in South Korea. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had declared in June 2007 that US troops would be in Iraq "for a protracted period of time".
The secret US draft handed to Iraqi officials Mar. 7 put no limit on either the number of US troops in Iraq or the duration of their presence or their activities. It would have authorized US forces to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain certain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security", according to an Apr. 8 article in The Guardian quoting from a leaked copy of the draft.
When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demanded a timetable for complete US withdrawal in early July, the White House insisted that it would not accept such a timetable and that any decision on withdrawal "will be conditions based". It was even hoping to avoid a requirement for complete withdrawal in the agreement, as reflected in false claims to media Jul. 17 that Bush and Maliki had agreed on the objective of "further reduction of US combat forces from Iraq" rather than complete withdrawal.
By early August, however, Bush had already reduced its negotiating aims. The US draft dated Aug. 6, which was translated and posted on the internet by Iraqi activist Raed Jarrar, demanded the inclusion of either "targeted times" or "time targets" to refer to the dates for withdrawal of US forces from all cities, town and villages and for complete combat troop withdrawal from Iraq, suggesting that they were not deadlines.
When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Baghdad Aug. 21, the United States accepted for the first time a firm date of 2011 for complete withdrawal, giving up the demand for ambiguous such terms. However, the Aug. 6 draft included a provision that the US could ask Iraq to "extend" the date for complete withdrawal of combat troops, based on mutual review of "progress" in achieving the withdrawal.
Because it had not yet been removed from the text, US officials continued to claim to reporters that the date was "conditions-based", as Karen DeYoung reported in the Washington Post Aug. 22.
The administration also continued to hope for approval of a residual force. US officials told DeYoung the deal would leave "tens of thousands of US troops inside Iraq in supporting roles...for an unspecified time". That hope was based on a paragraph of the Aug. 6 draft providing that the Iraqi government could request such a force, with the joint committee for operations and coordination determining the "tasks and level of the troops..."
But the Oct. 13 final draft, a translation of which was posted by Raed Jarrar on his website Oct. 20, reveals that the Bush administration has been forced to give up its aims of softening the deadline for withdrawal and of a residual non-combat force in the country. Unlike the Aug. 6 draft, the final text treats any extension of that date as a modification of the agreement, which could be done only "in accordance to constitutional procedures in both countries".
That is an obvious reference to approval by the Iraqi parliament.
Given the present level of opposition to the agreement within the Shiite community, that provision offers scant hope of a residual US non-combat force in Iraq after 2011.
Another signal of Iraqi intentions is a provision of the final draft limiting the duration of the agreement to three years -- a date coinciding with the deadline for complete withdrawal from Iraq. The date can be extended only by a decision made by the "constitutional procedures in both countries".
The final draft confirms the language of the Aug. 6 draft requiring that all US military operations be subject to the approval of the Iraqi government and coordinated with Iraqi authorities through a joint US-Iraqi committee.
The negotiating text had already established by Aug. 6 that US troops could not detain anyone in the country without a "warrant issued by the specialized Iraqi authorities in accordance with Iraqi law" and required that the detainees be turned over to Iraqi authorities within 24 hours. The Oct. 13 "final draft" goes even further, requiring that any detention by the United States, apart from its own personnel, must be "based on an Iraqi decision".
The collapse of the Bush administration's ambitious plan for a long-term US presence in Iraq highlights the degree of unreality that has prevailed among top US officials in both Washington and Baghdad on Iraqi politics. They continued to see the Maliki regime as a client which would cooperate with US aims even after it was clear that Maliki's agenda was sharply at odds with that of the United States.
They also refused to take seriously the opposition to such a presence even among the Shiite clerics who had tolerated it in order to obtain Shiite control over state power.
(Inter Press Service)
Gwyn Dyer article:
Dyer: Iraqi deal with the United States over troops isn't just for show
Gwynne Dyer
It has been a short hundred years. That's how long Republican presidential candidate John McCain said that American troops might have to stay in Iraq at the beginning of his campaign, but the deal that Washington concluded with the Iraqi government last week said that they must all be gone by 2011. And they must be off the streets of Iraqi cities by the middle of next year. That's not enough for a lot of Iraqis. Fifty thousand supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia leader who embodies the resentment of the poor against the Shia establishment, came out onto the streets of Baghdad on Saturday to protest against the deal signed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They want the Americans to leave now, which is also Sadr's position, and it may win him a commanding position in parliament when Iraq votes again next year. Maliki stood up for Iraqi sovereignty partly because he would pay for it in next year's election if he did not, but he was never just an American puppet. He opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and he also opposed the decision of his own party, al-Dawa, to join the first Iraqi "governing council" set up by occupation pro-consul Paul Bremer six months later. So the negotiations for a "status of forces agreement" to provide legal cover for the U.S. military presence in Iraq after the United Nations mandate expires in December were not just window-dressing. The Bush administration had to abandon
its quest for permanent military bases in Iraq, although there is a clause in the deal that allows for a change of mind in Baghdad. As Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh put it, "in 2011 the government at that time will determine whether it needs a new pact or not, and what type of pact will depend on the challenges it faces." But the shoe is definitely on the other foot now, with the American right to keep troops in Iraq lapsing automatically at the end of 2011 unless the Iraqi government wishes otherwise. Iraq was less successful in trying to make American troops responsible to Iraqi courts for their actions. The deal contains a clause saying that Iraqi law will apply "if they commit a serious and deliberate felony outside their bases and when off duty," but in practice no American soldiers leave their bases when off duty, and while on duty they can still kill any Iraqi who seems threatening with no questions asked. However, foreign civilian contractors will be subject to Iraqi law in future. It's not all that bad a deal, given the extent to which Maliki's government depends on American troops for survival. But even within the alliance of Shia parties that dominates the government it faces severe criticism and may not get through parliament. Outside, in the real world, it still feels like a fantasy. It is now an undisputed factoid in the American political debate that Iraq has been stabilized by last year's "surge" of U.S. troops. But the reality on the ground is rather different. There is less sectarian killing, but that is mainly because the ethnic cleansing of mixed neighbourhoods where Sunni and Shia Arabs used to live side by side is almost complete. Other major outbreaks of violence remain possible. The "Awakening" movement, in which tens of thousands of Sunni Arabs who had been fighting the American occupation went on the U.S. government payroll in order to fight the takeover of their community by al-Qaida extremists, is at a crossroads. Starting this month, the "Awakening" fighters are being paid by the Iraqi government, not by the Americans, and it has announced that only 20 percent of them will be absorbed into the Iraqi army. The other 60-odd thousand fighters of the "Awakening" will only be paid until they find civilian jobs - but there are almost no well-paying jobs available in Iraq apart from government work, which usually requires a recommendation from one of the big Shia parties. So what do the rest of the Sunni fighters do? Go back to fighting the Americans? It's not unimaginable. And the possibility of war between Arab Iraq and Kurdish Iraq over the border between the two regions is ever present: The promised referendum on the future of the city of Kirkuk and its surrounding oilfields is the sword of Damocles hanging over the whole of Iraqi politics. The relative calm that Iraq is experiencing at the moment may just be the eye of the hurricane. --- * GWYNNE DYER is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
Justin Raimondo: The War Party Embraces Obama
So there you are. You have a "choice" between two war mongers. There is bipartisan support for a continuation of the aggressive PNAC program of imperial adventurism at a time when the national debt is soaring and the economy getting blood transfusions from the taxpayer. This is military Keynesianism on steroids. Vote for Nader or someone other than the main parties.
The War Party Embraces Obama
Just remember: you've been warned…
by Justin Raimondo
In the midst of a softball interview with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, New York Times reporter Deborah Solomon hurls this zinger:
"For all your lofty talk about democracy, last November you shut down the opposition television station in Tbilisi."
To the oily Saakashvili, however, this is water off a duck's back:
"The interference with Imedi TV was an exception, not a rule. This action was taken during mass riots when Imedi TV started to incite overthrow of the democratically elected government. It should be noted that the government did pay damages."
Do you suppose it would be okay if the FBI barged into the offices of, say, MSNBC, wrecked the place, hauled Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow out of the studio bodily, and shut down the station – as long as "damages" were paid?
The station, by the way, which was the only televised platform for the Georgian opposition, has since been handed over to a regime-friendly front man, who just happens to be an American citizen. Damages were paid, indeed…
This is the regime defended by Barack Obama, as Solomon points out, as well as (unsurprisingly) John McCain, and that's hardly the only case of bipartisan fealty to a U.S.-supported dictatorship.
There's Afghanistan, for example, where a young aspiring journalist has just been spared the death penalty for circulating an article about women's rights, and given 20 years in prison instead. This is the government Obama wants to strengthen and sacrifice more American lives for. From the Los Angeles Times piece on the trial and conviction by Laura King:
"In a case that has illustrated this country's drift toward a more radically conservative brand of Islam as well as the fragility of its legal system, an appeals court today overturned a death sentence for a student convicted of blasphemy but sentenced him instead to 20 years in prison."
So at a time when the U.S.-supported government is moving rapidly toward a Taliban-type theocracy – even as that government moves toward some type of accommodation with the radical Islamic former rulers of the country – Obama is telling us we must pour more troops, more money, and more of our hopes into the Afghan front, which has supposedly been "neglected" by the Bushies.
No wonder he's been endorsed by none other than Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman, and given support (albeit indirectly) by any number of neocons, such as Charles Krauthammer – who, after pummeling Obama for weeks, has suddenly discovered the Democratic candidate is possessed of a "first-class intellect and a first-class temperament," which "will likely be enough to make him president." And what more proof does anyone need that Obama is a disaster in the making other than that Andrew Sullivan, the former warlord of the blogosphere, has not only endorsed him, but fallen head over heels?
Ken Silverstein – Harper's columnist and author of a new book that looks to be hilariously informative – is scared:
"McCain's foreign policy crew has quite a few cranks (William Kristol, to state the most obvious) and his policies are generally scarier than Obama's. Agreed. But having Powell and Adelman sign up with the Obama movement is about as uplifting as when Obama endorsed ballistic missile defense (the scaled down version of Star Wars) during the second debate. It's conservatives who should be cheering."
To which Sullivan adds: "Yes. And we are."
(((Shudder)))
These "conservatives," you'll note, are all of the neo- variety, including Christopher Hitchens, who has also jumped on the Obama bandwagon, because, as he quite accurately writes:
"On 'the issues' in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, and their 'debates' have been cramped and boring affairs as a result."
Hitchens happily notes, also, that "the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one," by which he means our foreign policy of trigger-happy aggression will carry on, as before, albeit fronted by someone with a more pleasing personality than the Great Decider.
And if you're wondering what motivated a good many of these dyed-in-the-wool warmongers to suddenly turn on a dime and come out for the supposed "antiwar" candidate, you'll be on the right track if you consider who else is rooting for him:
"Defendants in the classified-information case involving two former pro-Israel lobbyists are hoping a change in administrations next year will bring a fresh review of their prosecution, according to sources on the defense team. The next attorney general, who will be nominated by Barack Obama or John McCain, is expected to reconsider the case of former American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, as part of general review of high-profile legal issues decided by the Bush administration.
"Sources on the defense team have speculated that a possible Obama nominee to head the justice system could be more receptive to pleas to dismiss the case."
Obama wants to invade Pakistan and flood Afghanistan with yet more U.S. troops, and he will likely let two spies who funneled top secret intelligence to Israel off scot-free. Why wouldn't the War Party be perfectly satisfied with the election? After all, they're done with Iraq, anyway. We're about to be invited to leave. And he's good – from their perspective – on the Russian question, which promises to be the key area of future neocon mischief-making.
Our war-birds are naturally migratory creatures, effortlessly moving from branch to branch, and party to party, with no compunction whatsoever about changing either their nesting habits or the color of their feathers, so long as their ultimate goal – promoting conflict, in whatever form – is achieved. Republicans, Democrats, independents, or whatever: it's the same program, with the same result – an America perpetually at war, defending and extending the frontiers of its empire, without regard for the costs, either financial or purely human.
Preoccupied as we are with the spectacle of "democracy" unfolding on the American stage, we fail to notice the contours of a new world conflict taking shape far from the media spotlight. From the steppes of Central Asia to the jungles of South America, the American colossus is being challenged by rising forces of nationalism, religious zeal, and sheer resentment of the heedless exercise of hegemonic power that is often mistranslated as "anti-Americanism." It will take more than the calm reassurances of Barack Obama to still these tides of discontent and rancor. If he defies the odds and actually makes it to the White House, Obama will merely put another face on the same old policies, albeit more friendly and less offensive to our own elites, who would rather not be so rudely confronted with the ruthlessness of their rulers.
As some of my readers may know, I recently moved to a small town in northern California, where antiwar feeling is high – and so is support for Obama. Everywhere I go I see Obama posters, bumper-stickers, etc. Why, just the other day, a gaggle of peace demonstrators gathered in the middle of the town's main street, holding up banners proclaiming their opposition to our government's foreign policy and their support for Obama. "Honk if you're for peace and Obama!" – and the resulting cacophony was audible for miles. I live next door to a couple that has festooned their home with peace signs, and their backyard is a veritable "peace garden," with peace signs sprouting up all over – and, yes, their car sports an Obama-Biden bumper-sticker. A house sign supporting the Democratic ticket has sprung up in their front yard, alongside the rhododendrons. I wonder how long it will take these well-meaning folks to become thoroughly disillusioned with their messiah. In the case of the more honest and intelligent, I give it a few weeks, a month or so at the outside. The rest, I'm afraid, will follow the Dear Leader to perdition…~ Justin Raimondo
The War Party Embraces Obama
Just remember: you've been warned…
by Justin Raimondo
In the midst of a softball interview with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, New York Times reporter Deborah Solomon hurls this zinger:
"For all your lofty talk about democracy, last November you shut down the opposition television station in Tbilisi."
To the oily Saakashvili, however, this is water off a duck's back:
"The interference with Imedi TV was an exception, not a rule. This action was taken during mass riots when Imedi TV started to incite overthrow of the democratically elected government. It should be noted that the government did pay damages."
Do you suppose it would be okay if the FBI barged into the offices of, say, MSNBC, wrecked the place, hauled Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow out of the studio bodily, and shut down the station – as long as "damages" were paid?
The station, by the way, which was the only televised platform for the Georgian opposition, has since been handed over to a regime-friendly front man, who just happens to be an American citizen. Damages were paid, indeed…
This is the regime defended by Barack Obama, as Solomon points out, as well as (unsurprisingly) John McCain, and that's hardly the only case of bipartisan fealty to a U.S.-supported dictatorship.
There's Afghanistan, for example, where a young aspiring journalist has just been spared the death penalty for circulating an article about women's rights, and given 20 years in prison instead. This is the government Obama wants to strengthen and sacrifice more American lives for. From the Los Angeles Times piece on the trial and conviction by Laura King:
"In a case that has illustrated this country's drift toward a more radically conservative brand of Islam as well as the fragility of its legal system, an appeals court today overturned a death sentence for a student convicted of blasphemy but sentenced him instead to 20 years in prison."
So at a time when the U.S.-supported government is moving rapidly toward a Taliban-type theocracy – even as that government moves toward some type of accommodation with the radical Islamic former rulers of the country – Obama is telling us we must pour more troops, more money, and more of our hopes into the Afghan front, which has supposedly been "neglected" by the Bushies.
No wonder he's been endorsed by none other than Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman, and given support (albeit indirectly) by any number of neocons, such as Charles Krauthammer – who, after pummeling Obama for weeks, has suddenly discovered the Democratic candidate is possessed of a "first-class intellect and a first-class temperament," which "will likely be enough to make him president." And what more proof does anyone need that Obama is a disaster in the making other than that Andrew Sullivan, the former warlord of the blogosphere, has not only endorsed him, but fallen head over heels?
Ken Silverstein – Harper's columnist and author of a new book that looks to be hilariously informative – is scared:
"McCain's foreign policy crew has quite a few cranks (William Kristol, to state the most obvious) and his policies are generally scarier than Obama's. Agreed. But having Powell and Adelman sign up with the Obama movement is about as uplifting as when Obama endorsed ballistic missile defense (the scaled down version of Star Wars) during the second debate. It's conservatives who should be cheering."
To which Sullivan adds: "Yes. And we are."
(((Shudder)))
These "conservatives," you'll note, are all of the neo- variety, including Christopher Hitchens, who has also jumped on the Obama bandwagon, because, as he quite accurately writes:
"On 'the issues' in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, and their 'debates' have been cramped and boring affairs as a result."
Hitchens happily notes, also, that "the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one," by which he means our foreign policy of trigger-happy aggression will carry on, as before, albeit fronted by someone with a more pleasing personality than the Great Decider.
And if you're wondering what motivated a good many of these dyed-in-the-wool warmongers to suddenly turn on a dime and come out for the supposed "antiwar" candidate, you'll be on the right track if you consider who else is rooting for him:
"Defendants in the classified-information case involving two former pro-Israel lobbyists are hoping a change in administrations next year will bring a fresh review of their prosecution, according to sources on the defense team. The next attorney general, who will be nominated by Barack Obama or John McCain, is expected to reconsider the case of former American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, as part of general review of high-profile legal issues decided by the Bush administration.
"Sources on the defense team have speculated that a possible Obama nominee to head the justice system could be more receptive to pleas to dismiss the case."
Obama wants to invade Pakistan and flood Afghanistan with yet more U.S. troops, and he will likely let two spies who funneled top secret intelligence to Israel off scot-free. Why wouldn't the War Party be perfectly satisfied with the election? After all, they're done with Iraq, anyway. We're about to be invited to leave. And he's good – from their perspective – on the Russian question, which promises to be the key area of future neocon mischief-making.
Our war-birds are naturally migratory creatures, effortlessly moving from branch to branch, and party to party, with no compunction whatsoever about changing either their nesting habits or the color of their feathers, so long as their ultimate goal – promoting conflict, in whatever form – is achieved. Republicans, Democrats, independents, or whatever: it's the same program, with the same result – an America perpetually at war, defending and extending the frontiers of its empire, without regard for the costs, either financial or purely human.
Preoccupied as we are with the spectacle of "democracy" unfolding on the American stage, we fail to notice the contours of a new world conflict taking shape far from the media spotlight. From the steppes of Central Asia to the jungles of South America, the American colossus is being challenged by rising forces of nationalism, religious zeal, and sheer resentment of the heedless exercise of hegemonic power that is often mistranslated as "anti-Americanism." It will take more than the calm reassurances of Barack Obama to still these tides of discontent and rancor. If he defies the odds and actually makes it to the White House, Obama will merely put another face on the same old policies, albeit more friendly and less offensive to our own elites, who would rather not be so rudely confronted with the ruthlessness of their rulers.
As some of my readers may know, I recently moved to a small town in northern California, where antiwar feeling is high – and so is support for Obama. Everywhere I go I see Obama posters, bumper-stickers, etc. Why, just the other day, a gaggle of peace demonstrators gathered in the middle of the town's main street, holding up banners proclaiming their opposition to our government's foreign policy and their support for Obama. "Honk if you're for peace and Obama!" – and the resulting cacophony was audible for miles. I live next door to a couple that has festooned their home with peace signs, and their backyard is a veritable "peace garden," with peace signs sprouting up all over – and, yes, their car sports an Obama-Biden bumper-sticker. A house sign supporting the Democratic ticket has sprung up in their front yard, alongside the rhododendrons. I wonder how long it will take these well-meaning folks to become thoroughly disillusioned with their messiah. In the case of the more honest and intelligent, I give it a few weeks, a month or so at the outside. The rest, I'm afraid, will follow the Dear Leader to perdition…~ Justin Raimondo
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Alain Badiou on the Financial Crisis
These are just a few excerpts from the much longer article. Some parts are amusing and even illustrated with photographs such as Sarkozy kissing Merkel! The whole article is at cinestatic.
His point about the practice of calling the financial system as not part of the real economy is telling. The same clowns tell us that finance is the life blood of capitalism. Badiou points out that it is absolutely necessary to bail out the financial system and money is found for that but on the other hand if we need to bail out social security or increase pensions there is no money for that!
Badiou is a French philosopher. See wikipedia.
18 October 2008
badiou on the financial crisis
[Hot off the keyboard, a quick translation of Badiou's piece from yesterday's Le Monde. Translation by myself and ICR.UPDATE: Badiou actually originally wrote this as a longer piece (which is here). We have added in the extra sections/noted changes in bold. As you can see, the original is quite a bit longer and includes a discussion of housing. Badiou on mortgages! Who'd have thought it?]Of Which Real is this Crisis the Spectacle? Alain Badiou, Le Monde, 17/10/08. As it is presented to us, the planetary financial crisis resembles one of those bad films concocted by that factory for the production of pre-packaged blockbusters that today we call the "cinema". Nothing is missing, the spectacle of mounting disaster, the feeling of being suspended from enormous puppet-strings, the exoticism of the identical – the Bourse of Jakarta placed under the same spectacular rubric as New York, the diagonal from Moscow to Sao Paulo, everywhere the same fire ravaging the same banks – not to mention terrifying plotlines: it is impossible to avert Black Friday, everything is collapsing, everything will collapse...But hope abides. In the foreground, wild-eyed and focussed, like in a disaster movie, we see the small gang of the powerful – Sarkozy, Paulson, Merkel, Brown, Trichet and others – trying to extinguish the monetary flames, stuffing tens of billions into the central Hole. We will have time later to wonder (the saga will surely continue) where these billions come from, given that for some years, at the least demand from the poor, the same characters responded by turning their pockets inside out, saying they hadn't a cent. For the time being, it doesn't matter. "Save the banks!" This noble, humanist and democratic cry surges forth from the mouths of every journalist and politician. Save them at any price! It's worth pointing this out, since the price is not insignificant. I have to confess: given the numbers that are being bandied about, whose meaning, like almost everyone else, I am incapable of representing to myself (what exactly is one thousand four hundred billion euros?), I too am confident. I put my full trust in our firemen. All together, I am sure, I can feel it, they will succeed. The banks will be even greater than before, while some of the smaller or medium-sized ones, having only been able to survive through the benevolence of states, will be sold to the bigger ones for a pittance. The collapse of capitalism? You must be kidding. Who wants it, after all? Who even knows what it would mean? Let's save the banks, I tell you, and the rest will follow. For the film's immediate protagonists – the rich, their servants, their parasites, those who envy them and those who acclaim them – a happy ending, perhaps a slightly melancholy one, is inevitable, bearing in mind the current state of the world, and the kinds of politics that take place within it............
In these past few weeks we have heard a lot about the "real economy" (the production and circulation of goods) and the – how should we call it? unreal? – economy which is the source of all evils, in that its agents had become "irresponsible", "irrational" and "predatory" – fuelling, first rapaciously, then in a panic, the now formless mass of stocks, securities and currencies. This distinction is obviously absurd, and is generally immediately contradicted, when, by way of an opposite metaphor, financial circulation and speculation are presented as the 'circulatory system' of capitalism. Are heart and blood perhaps subtracted from the living reality of a body? Is a financial stroke indifferent to the health of the economy as a whole? As we know, financial capitalism has always – which is to say for the past five centuries – been a major, central component of capitalism in general. As for the owners and managers of this system, by definition they are only "responsible" for profits, their "rationality" is to be measured by their earnings, and it is not just that they are predators, but that they have to be......
The ordinary citizen must ‘understand’ that it is impossible to make up the shortfall in social security, but that it is imperative to stuff untold billions into the banks’ financial hole? We must sombrely accept that no one imagines any longer that it’s possible to nationalise a factory hounded by competition, a factory employing thousands of workers, but that it is obvious to do so for a bank made penniless by speculation?.........
His point about the practice of calling the financial system as not part of the real economy is telling. The same clowns tell us that finance is the life blood of capitalism. Badiou points out that it is absolutely necessary to bail out the financial system and money is found for that but on the other hand if we need to bail out social security or increase pensions there is no money for that!
Badiou is a French philosopher. See wikipedia.
18 October 2008
badiou on the financial crisis
[Hot off the keyboard, a quick translation of Badiou's piece from yesterday's Le Monde. Translation by myself and ICR.UPDATE: Badiou actually originally wrote this as a longer piece (which is here). We have added in the extra sections/noted changes in bold. As you can see, the original is quite a bit longer and includes a discussion of housing. Badiou on mortgages! Who'd have thought it?]Of Which Real is this Crisis the Spectacle? Alain Badiou, Le Monde, 17/10/08. As it is presented to us, the planetary financial crisis resembles one of those bad films concocted by that factory for the production of pre-packaged blockbusters that today we call the "cinema". Nothing is missing, the spectacle of mounting disaster, the feeling of being suspended from enormous puppet-strings, the exoticism of the identical – the Bourse of Jakarta placed under the same spectacular rubric as New York, the diagonal from Moscow to Sao Paulo, everywhere the same fire ravaging the same banks – not to mention terrifying plotlines: it is impossible to avert Black Friday, everything is collapsing, everything will collapse...But hope abides. In the foreground, wild-eyed and focussed, like in a disaster movie, we see the small gang of the powerful – Sarkozy, Paulson, Merkel, Brown, Trichet and others – trying to extinguish the monetary flames, stuffing tens of billions into the central Hole. We will have time later to wonder (the saga will surely continue) where these billions come from, given that for some years, at the least demand from the poor, the same characters responded by turning their pockets inside out, saying they hadn't a cent. For the time being, it doesn't matter. "Save the banks!" This noble, humanist and democratic cry surges forth from the mouths of every journalist and politician. Save them at any price! It's worth pointing this out, since the price is not insignificant. I have to confess: given the numbers that are being bandied about, whose meaning, like almost everyone else, I am incapable of representing to myself (what exactly is one thousand four hundred billion euros?), I too am confident. I put my full trust in our firemen. All together, I am sure, I can feel it, they will succeed. The banks will be even greater than before, while some of the smaller or medium-sized ones, having only been able to survive through the benevolence of states, will be sold to the bigger ones for a pittance. The collapse of capitalism? You must be kidding. Who wants it, after all? Who even knows what it would mean? Let's save the banks, I tell you, and the rest will follow. For the film's immediate protagonists – the rich, their servants, their parasites, those who envy them and those who acclaim them – a happy ending, perhaps a slightly melancholy one, is inevitable, bearing in mind the current state of the world, and the kinds of politics that take place within it............
In these past few weeks we have heard a lot about the "real economy" (the production and circulation of goods) and the – how should we call it? unreal? – economy which is the source of all evils, in that its agents had become "irresponsible", "irrational" and "predatory" – fuelling, first rapaciously, then in a panic, the now formless mass of stocks, securities and currencies. This distinction is obviously absurd, and is generally immediately contradicted, when, by way of an opposite metaphor, financial circulation and speculation are presented as the 'circulatory system' of capitalism. Are heart and blood perhaps subtracted from the living reality of a body? Is a financial stroke indifferent to the health of the economy as a whole? As we know, financial capitalism has always – which is to say for the past five centuries – been a major, central component of capitalism in general. As for the owners and managers of this system, by definition they are only "responsible" for profits, their "rationality" is to be measured by their earnings, and it is not just that they are predators, but that they have to be......
The ordinary citizen must ‘understand’ that it is impossible to make up the shortfall in social security, but that it is imperative to stuff untold billions into the banks’ financial hole? We must sombrely accept that no one imagines any longer that it’s possible to nationalise a factory hounded by competition, a factory employing thousands of workers, but that it is obvious to do so for a bank made penniless by speculation?.........
Philippines mulls pump priming fund for economy
The entire article can be found at malaya.
It seems that more and more countries are developing pump priming programs. It seems that the US probably already has slipped into recession. The stock markets today seem to be anticipating a global recession and much less demand for oil. The US dollar remains quite strong for reasons I really don't fathom. Apparently investors see it as a refuge. I would think that is like taking refuge by booking on the Titanic.
P100B gov’t-privateshield fund mulledPackage seen priming economy
BY IRMA ISIP
THE Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) yesterday pushed for the creation of a P100 billion fund to shield the country in case the United States slips into recession, a plan supported by President Arroyo.
In her keynote speech at the conclusion of the 34th Philippine Business Conference at the Manila Hotel, Arroyo said she welcomes the proposal where government and private banks would contribute P50 billion each to finance projects for "human capital formation" that would address basic services to the poor including education, health, agriculture and infrastructure.
"We hope the private banking sector will join in this," she said.
It seems that more and more countries are developing pump priming programs. It seems that the US probably already has slipped into recession. The stock markets today seem to be anticipating a global recession and much less demand for oil. The US dollar remains quite strong for reasons I really don't fathom. Apparently investors see it as a refuge. I would think that is like taking refuge by booking on the Titanic.
P100B gov’t-privateshield fund mulledPackage seen priming economy
BY IRMA ISIP
THE Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) yesterday pushed for the creation of a P100 billion fund to shield the country in case the United States slips into recession, a plan supported by President Arroyo.
In her keynote speech at the conclusion of the 34th Philippine Business Conference at the Manila Hotel, Arroyo said she welcomes the proposal where government and private banks would contribute P50 billion each to finance projects for "human capital formation" that would address basic services to the poor including education, health, agriculture and infrastructure.
"We hope the private banking sector will join in this," she said.
US resists changing terms of SOFA with Iraq
This is from antiwar.com. This pressure could very well backfire. Perhaps the U.S. is pressuring Maliki to pull a Bush and simply sign the agreement without ratification as allowed under the draft. But this would be political suicide for Maliki. The Iraqis are not as tolerant of such undemocratic tactics as the US populace apparently: here are the ratification terms.
The Ratification:
Incredibly, the terms of the ratification appear identical to a previous draft leaked over a month ago, requiring only the exchange of diplomatic notes assuring the constitutionality of the ratification between the two parties for the agreement to come into force.
It has been speculated that under these terms Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could bypass parliament by simply claiming the agreement is a bilateral executive agreement not subject to parliamentary oversight. The Bush Administration has similarly claimed the agreement is an executive agreement and that Congressional approval will not be sought for it.
This seems a dangerous route for the Prime Minister to take, particularly with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani insisting on parliamentary approval of the agreement. His office has insisted on multiple occasions that the pact would be sent to parliament for a vote, and that he might even withhold a draft unless he was confident of a two-thirds majority in the vote.
What They’re Saying:
Much of Iraq’s government and opposition is arrayed against the present draft and Iraq’s Council of Ministers, one of the pact’s first stops on its way to parliament, has unanimously agreed that amendments need to be made to the agreement as presently written.
Political analyst Ibrahim al-Somaidaee, however, urged the Iraqi government to accept the pact while it still could, citing unprecedented concessions giving the Iraqi government significant authority over US forces. He warned that “neither Obama nor McCain will accept this issue” in the way President Bush is willing to.
To a Kurdistan Islamic Union MP however, the agreement is basically dead in the water. He urged the Bush Administration to stop pressing Iraqi factions to support the deal, saying “it is impossible (for the pact) to be signed and approved by the Parliament in the remaining months of the current year or during the remaining period of President Bush’s term.”
US Digs In as Iraq Voices SOFA Concerns
Posted October 21, 2008
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen issued an unusually harsh warning to Iraq regarding the growing resistance to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Though he acknowledged that Iraq should engage in “a healthy debate” on the pact, he said he was “increasingly concerned” by the public criticisms of the latest draft, and cautioned the Iraqis that they are “running out of time” to approve the deal.
This weekend, Iraq’s ruling coalition said that it would seek amendments to the latest draft of the deal, a draft previously reported to be the final one. The agreement has sparked massive opposition protests and has been criticized by influential Iraqi religious leaders both Sunni and Shi’ite, including today when Ayatollah Sayyed Kazem al-Husseini al-Haeri issued a fatwa condemning the pact as “humiliating.”
But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says that the US was reluctant “to engage further in the drafting process,” warning that the US would suspend military operations in the country unless Iraq agreed to the deal or got the UN to renew its mandate for US troops by the end of the year.
Instead, Gates advised letting “the Iraqi political process play out.” But in the week since the present draft was announced to be completed, the political process has taken the situation from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talking about the struggle for a two-thirds majority in parliament to the Iraqi Council of Ministers, who needs to sign off on the deal before it can even be submitted to parliament, unanimously demanding changes to the agreement, suggesting momentum is not on the secretary’s side.
The Ratification:
Incredibly, the terms of the ratification appear identical to a previous draft leaked over a month ago, requiring only the exchange of diplomatic notes assuring the constitutionality of the ratification between the two parties for the agreement to come into force.
It has been speculated that under these terms Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could bypass parliament by simply claiming the agreement is a bilateral executive agreement not subject to parliamentary oversight. The Bush Administration has similarly claimed the agreement is an executive agreement and that Congressional approval will not be sought for it.
This seems a dangerous route for the Prime Minister to take, particularly with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani insisting on parliamentary approval of the agreement. His office has insisted on multiple occasions that the pact would be sent to parliament for a vote, and that he might even withhold a draft unless he was confident of a two-thirds majority in the vote.
What They’re Saying:
Much of Iraq’s government and opposition is arrayed against the present draft and Iraq’s Council of Ministers, one of the pact’s first stops on its way to parliament, has unanimously agreed that amendments need to be made to the agreement as presently written.
Political analyst Ibrahim al-Somaidaee, however, urged the Iraqi government to accept the pact while it still could, citing unprecedented concessions giving the Iraqi government significant authority over US forces. He warned that “neither Obama nor McCain will accept this issue” in the way President Bush is willing to.
To a Kurdistan Islamic Union MP however, the agreement is basically dead in the water. He urged the Bush Administration to stop pressing Iraqi factions to support the deal, saying “it is impossible (for the pact) to be signed and approved by the Parliament in the remaining months of the current year or during the remaining period of President Bush’s term.”
US Digs In as Iraq Voices SOFA Concerns
Posted October 21, 2008
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen issued an unusually harsh warning to Iraq regarding the growing resistance to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Though he acknowledged that Iraq should engage in “a healthy debate” on the pact, he said he was “increasingly concerned” by the public criticisms of the latest draft, and cautioned the Iraqis that they are “running out of time” to approve the deal.
This weekend, Iraq’s ruling coalition said that it would seek amendments to the latest draft of the deal, a draft previously reported to be the final one. The agreement has sparked massive opposition protests and has been criticized by influential Iraqi religious leaders both Sunni and Shi’ite, including today when Ayatollah Sayyed Kazem al-Husseini al-Haeri issued a fatwa condemning the pact as “humiliating.”
But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says that the US was reluctant “to engage further in the drafting process,” warning that the US would suspend military operations in the country unless Iraq agreed to the deal or got the UN to renew its mandate for US troops by the end of the year.
Instead, Gates advised letting “the Iraqi political process play out.” But in the week since the present draft was announced to be completed, the political process has taken the situation from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talking about the struggle for a two-thirds majority in parliament to the Iraqi Council of Ministers, who needs to sign off on the deal before it can even be submitted to parliament, unanimously demanding changes to the agreement, suggesting momentum is not on the secretary’s side.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Gates: Door nearly closed on Iraq troop deal.
This is from Reuters via Yahoo.
I suppose this is meant as some sort of threat but if it is, it is not wise. There is already strong opposition to the deal, so much so that it is unlikely to pass parliament. It is not a great idea to threaten the Iraqis. The U.S. needs the deal just as much as the Iraqis.
Door nearly closed on Iraq troop deal, Gates says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday expressed "great reluctance" about altering a draft agreement with the Iraqi government that would govern the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq after December 31.
"There is great reluctance to engage further in the drafting process," Gates told reporters.
"I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed," he added, warning that failure to reach a new status of forces agreement (SOFA) or renew the current U.N. mandate for U.S. troops would mean "we basically stop doing anything."
(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Kristin Roberts)
I suppose this is meant as some sort of threat but if it is, it is not wise. There is already strong opposition to the deal, so much so that it is unlikely to pass parliament. It is not a great idea to threaten the Iraqis. The U.S. needs the deal just as much as the Iraqis.
Door nearly closed on Iraq troop deal, Gates says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday expressed "great reluctance" about altering a draft agreement with the Iraqi government that would govern the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq after December 31.
"There is great reluctance to engage further in the drafting process," Gates told reporters.
"I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed," he added, warning that failure to reach a new status of forces agreement (SOFA) or renew the current U.N. mandate for U.S. troops would mean "we basically stop doing anything."
(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Kristin Roberts)
Kargarlitsky: Blind Faith of Free-Market Cheerleaders
This is from the Moscowtimes. While Kargarlitsky's account of how free market ideology helped produce the global crisis he has little to say on how a new and better economy would look. He does not even mention the boo-word socialism! Defenders of market capitalism will simply maintain that there needs to be some reform of regulations to stop the unbridled greed that wrecked the system. Libertarians on the other hand will manage to blame government regulation such as mandating Freddie and Fannie to lend money to people who really couldn't afford to purchase the American Dream home.
Blind Faith of Free-Market Cheerleaders
16 October 2008
By Boris Kagarlitsky
Vasily Koltashov was relatively unknown among Moscow's economic analysts. That is, until the young journalist moved to Athens and began publishing his economic forecasts there -- each prediction was more dire than the last. Unfortunately, they all came true. After a closer reading of his analyses, it is possible to draw parallels with Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" and the theories of Soviet economist Nikolai Kondratyev, who argued that capitalist systems go through 50- to 60-year cycles of boom followed by depression.During the past decade, many economic analysts not only refused to consider the criticisms that leftist authors leveled at the global economic order, but they also ignored intrinsic contradictions and problems of the free market that even avowed supporters of capitalism articulated. As a result, economic advisers have tended to act as cheerleaders of the status quo economic model. In addition, politicians and business people, who also believed in the infallibility of the existing system, made one bad economic decision after another. They had blind faith in the virtue of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" -- that market mechanisms would somehow automatically correct their foolish decisions. In practice, however, the cult of the free market turned into a bacchanalia of greed, negligence, irresponsibility and deceit.
By nature, people like to believe that things will turn out well -- especially when it involves the consequences of their own decisions and actions. The flip side is also true: As an automatic self-defense mechanism, they tend to dismiss or diminish warnings from others that their actions may be risky. In Greek mythology, nobody listened to Cassandra and Laocoon's gloomy prophecies for the very reason that they spoke the truth. Similarly, liberal critics of globalization were dismissed and ridiculed, and their analyses and warnings were ignored or rejected outright. As a result, for the past 15 years, authorities failed to put even minimal economic safeguards in place. To make matters worse, many countries dismantled their economic and social regulatory agencies on the grounds that they obstructed the free market.Then, when the unobstructed free market finally led to an unprecedented global financial crash, politicians rushed in to save the economy by infusing of hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money to bail out the bankrupted private sector. Unfortunately, this life buoy won't save the sinking economy. Indeed, the United States' $700 billion and Russia's roughly $200 billion allocated for bailing out their respective economies will not accomplish much -- not only because the financial holes these funds are intended to fill will get bigger and bigger, but because there are no channels or mechanisms that can guarantee that the money will be delivered to the right place or used in the right way. We are witnessing a fundamental breakdown of the global financial system. Under such conditions, the usual cyclical recession turns into an uncontrollable disaster for which there is no miracle cure. And the problem is not how to stave off the crisis or soften its impact, but how to devise a new economic system to replace the ruins left by the current economic model.The attempt to build a world order based on a free market economy has turned into a catastrophe on a global scale. The only good news is that the global economy will collapse long before humanity has time to destroy the planet's ecology. Thus, we still have a chance to save Earth from physical extinction, and that is the best news to come out of all of this. Who knows, there may be a silver lining to the current global economic crisis after all. Our descendants may look back at it as marking the start of a new, more humane epoch in history.Boris Kagarlitsky is the director of the Institute of Globalization Studies.
Blind Faith of Free-Market Cheerleaders
16 October 2008
By Boris Kagarlitsky
Vasily Koltashov was relatively unknown among Moscow's economic analysts. That is, until the young journalist moved to Athens and began publishing his economic forecasts there -- each prediction was more dire than the last. Unfortunately, they all came true. After a closer reading of his analyses, it is possible to draw parallels with Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" and the theories of Soviet economist Nikolai Kondratyev, who argued that capitalist systems go through 50- to 60-year cycles of boom followed by depression.During the past decade, many economic analysts not only refused to consider the criticisms that leftist authors leveled at the global economic order, but they also ignored intrinsic contradictions and problems of the free market that even avowed supporters of capitalism articulated. As a result, economic advisers have tended to act as cheerleaders of the status quo economic model. In addition, politicians and business people, who also believed in the infallibility of the existing system, made one bad economic decision after another. They had blind faith in the virtue of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" -- that market mechanisms would somehow automatically correct their foolish decisions. In practice, however, the cult of the free market turned into a bacchanalia of greed, negligence, irresponsibility and deceit.
By nature, people like to believe that things will turn out well -- especially when it involves the consequences of their own decisions and actions. The flip side is also true: As an automatic self-defense mechanism, they tend to dismiss or diminish warnings from others that their actions may be risky. In Greek mythology, nobody listened to Cassandra and Laocoon's gloomy prophecies for the very reason that they spoke the truth. Similarly, liberal critics of globalization were dismissed and ridiculed, and their analyses and warnings were ignored or rejected outright. As a result, for the past 15 years, authorities failed to put even minimal economic safeguards in place. To make matters worse, many countries dismantled their economic and social regulatory agencies on the grounds that they obstructed the free market.Then, when the unobstructed free market finally led to an unprecedented global financial crash, politicians rushed in to save the economy by infusing of hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money to bail out the bankrupted private sector. Unfortunately, this life buoy won't save the sinking economy. Indeed, the United States' $700 billion and Russia's roughly $200 billion allocated for bailing out their respective economies will not accomplish much -- not only because the financial holes these funds are intended to fill will get bigger and bigger, but because there are no channels or mechanisms that can guarantee that the money will be delivered to the right place or used in the right way. We are witnessing a fundamental breakdown of the global financial system. Under such conditions, the usual cyclical recession turns into an uncontrollable disaster for which there is no miracle cure. And the problem is not how to stave off the crisis or soften its impact, but how to devise a new economic system to replace the ruins left by the current economic model.The attempt to build a world order based on a free market economy has turned into a catastrophe on a global scale. The only good news is that the global economy will collapse long before humanity has time to destroy the planet's ecology. Thus, we still have a chance to save Earth from physical extinction, and that is the best news to come out of all of this. Who knows, there may be a silver lining to the current global economic crisis after all. Our descendants may look back at it as marking the start of a new, more humane epoch in history.Boris Kagarlitsky is the director of the Institute of Globalization Studies.
On the Terms of the Powerful
This is an amusing dictionary of terms used in mainstream political discussion in the U.S. There is some hyperbole of course but a lot of truth as well in the definitions!
On the Terms of the Powerful
Translating Propaganda and Thinking the Unthinkable
By Max Kantar
October 20, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" --- When you go to a foreign country, it is common to bring a translation dictionary to help curb the confusion that comes with trying to understand a foreign language. Likewise, in American politics, we also need a translation guide to understand mainstream discussion given the universal double standards, egotistical national chauvinism, and internalized elite values.
Propaganda in the US rests mostly in what is not said, but rather assumed. Such a system of indoctrination is extremely powerful as it serves the purpose of making certain thoughts not so much undesirable, but unthinkable, strikingly reminiscent of Orwell's depiction of totalitarian control and manipulation of the English language in his novel, 1984.
The language of US propaganda is indeed a foreign tongue to anyone who takes seriously the factual historical record, the nature of powerful institutions, and fundamental human decency with respect for human rights.
Included here is a list of commonly used terminology in American politics and the mainstream media. The definitions provided are the unspoken, assumed meanings of the terms, which are in fact quite different, sometimes diametrically opposed to their dictionary definitions.
For any serious social and political discussion to materialize, it is imperative that we understand the vocabulary put forth by our cultural managers in order to dismantle the prevailing system of thought control and indoctrination.
US Foreign Policy, Israel, and International relations
Peace Process: Whatever the US is doing at the time [1]
Department of Defense: Department of aggression and acceptable terrorism
Terrorism: 1) Legitimate resistance to the terror/aggression of the US and its clients, or 2) Terrorism committed by those out of favor with Washington
Counter-Terrorism: Terrorism and aggression carried out by the US and its client states
War on Terrorism: Any violence the US or its client states use to advance the US agenda of global dominance by stifling independent nationalism, assuring control over natural resources, squashing 'good examples' of independent economic development, and creating conditions to benefit foreign (US) investors instead of the populations at hand. Basically the ideological twin and subsequent replacement of the rabid anti-communism of the Cold War.
Terrorist: 1) Anybody that the US fights against, 2) People who defend themselves from US attack, and 3) Perpetrators of terrorism whose terror doesn't serve US power
Privately Contracted Security Forces: Mercenaries or paid killers unaccountable to the public
"Protecting our way of life": A justification for US-based violence and economic exploitation that is driven by a desire to 'protect' private concentrated wealth of the richest 1% ('our') of the country.
"Failed policy": Usually refers to an unlawful war policy which has come to cost too much money. It reinforces yet again, the imperial rights of the US to use violence at will in violation of human rights, the public will, and international law.
Blunders, Mismanagement, Mistakes, etc: Terms used to describe US foreign policy when large sectors of business power and the population turn against [the respective policy]...the implication being clear that US initiatives are by definition, rooted in morality and altruism, despite natural human errors of strategy, not of motives, meaning that US foreign policy "means well."
To "Spread Democracy": To extend US control over a foreign country, usually in an attempt to undermine popular democratic efforts that threaten US political, business, and ideological interests.
"Support the Troops": Support our policy of unlawful aggression
"The Surge worked": The perceived success of the US escalation of the illegal occupation of Iraq renders our initial/continued illegal aggression legitimate according to this proclamation.
Nevertheless, this catchphrase also ignores the actual reasons for the decrease in violence including the non-related cease fire maintained by the Shia resistance, increased segregation through extensive ethnic cleansing, and most importantly, significantly less people to kill as half the country is dead, exiled, displaced, mangled, or in prison. [2]
Democracy: Refers to a foreign government that favors the interests of elite foreign (US) investors instead of the respective population
Moderate:a foreign leader who follows orders from Washington [1]
Extremist: a foreign leader who pursues a course independent from Washington's orders [1]
Human Rights: Things that the US supports and that our enemies violate
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Weapons (sometimes nonexistent ones) that are held by states out of favor with Washington. Notice that the US and its clients by definition do not possess anything or pursue anything that would cause "mass destruction." Therefore the definition of WMD's is purely ideological, void of physical facts.
Free/Fair Trade: Trade policies that favor the ultra wealthy and trample labor rights, ignore environmental regulations, and prevent independent development for the poor nations involved and prevent meaningful democracy for the populations of both the rich country and the poor country in any given case.
Communist, Marxist, Socialist (concerning foreign political parties or governments): Governments that pursue independent economic development without concern for foreign investor interests or the neoliberal development model.
Unilaterally: A term used to describe the final measure taken by the US resort to lawless violence. In other words, when the Clinton administration noted they would act "unilaterally" if they "must," they meant that the US will act in violation of the UN and international law if international law and the UN don't support and conform to US military actions and US will.
Anti-American (concerning various international opinion): 1) Those who oppose US crimes and exploitative economic policies, and 2) Open supporters of applying the standards of international law universally.
Anti-Semitism:An accusation usually used to deflect criticism of Israel's ongoing war crimes as cited uncontroversially by the UN, Israeli/Jewish human rights groups, and Amnesty International, all in accordance with the Geneva Conventions on human rights.
Israel's "Right to Exist": Israel's right to continue outwardly racist policies against its Palestinian-Arab citizens within its borders and Israel's right to maintain a racist apartheid civil/military system in the Palestinian West Bank, a genocidal siege on the heavily populated Gaza Strip, and an illegal military occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Hamas 'Militants' or 'Terrorists':Anybody Israel kills in the occupied territories
Nuclear weapons:Benevolent instruments of peace for US and client states, tyrannical instruments of genocide when held by everyone else.
Arab/Muslim: Terrorist, usually inherently irrational, violent, and deceitful. A hater of freedom, democracy, Christians, and Jews.
Well, who is NOT an Arab then?: According to the honorable McCain, "decent, family men" who we may or may not have "disagreements" with. By implication, an Arab then cannot be "decent" or family orientated. For further elaboration, see the above definition.
Domestic Politics: Economic policy and Authority
Wall Street Bailout:Well, this means exactly what it sounds like, which is why the public was opposed to the whole thing. Publicly funded (we pay) bailouts for wall street, and polite condolences for workers, children, the poor, and the sick.
Socialism, Communism, Marxism (concerning public policy and advocacy): Policies where the public's tax money is spent on the public welfare, as opposed to transferring public funds to the ultra wealthy.
Market Based Solutions: "Solutions" to social problems that put profit as the driving force, rather than human need by eliminating the public role in decision making, transferring additional and un-calculated costs to the public and forcing working families and the poor to bare most of the burden of market forces.
Business Community:The richest of the rich, the elite millionaire/billionaire corporations, investors, and banks—the ones who own the country and are unaccountable to the public. Not a "community" in the friendly sense that we understand it to be. (Does not include small business owners like your local friendly family-run restaurant.)
Labor Flexibility: Due to a significant level of desperation and sizable unemployment in the labor force, conditions are ripe for business managers and owners to slash living wages, cut benefits, disregard reasonable working condition standards, and destroy workers' unions in order to increase their power and profits.
Entitlement:The use of this word in referring to social programs for the public is chosen specifically to imply that those receiving the much needed social benefits are "freeloaders" and "sponging off of the government." Refers exclusively to the poor, working class, and middle class. Entitlements for the wealthy, such as tax breaks and other gifts, are not included in this categorization.
Welfare: Huge sums of money stolen from the pockets of taxpayers received mostly by rich blacks who cheat the government and are too lazy to work.
Corporate Welfare/Subsidies: What? There's no such thing! And if there was, it would never be exponentially larger than social welfare...
Personal Responsibility: Social Darwinism or the 'law of the jungle' for the working class, poor, uninsured, and disenfranchised. Note that "personal responsibility" doesn't apply to the elite, who enjoy government protection and public safety nets.
Economic Freedom: Unrestricted free reign for multinational corporations, billionaire investors, and massive banking institutions to run the country in their interests at the expense of the general population whose role is to work, go into debt, and supply the funds (taxes) to erect barriers to market forces for big business. Also commonly known as "liberty".
Small Government: A massive government designed in the interests of military dominance and in the interests of the rich, while making sure public dollars cannot be spent on public interests and much needed social programs. Simply put, big government for sectors of power, small government for the needy.
Free Enterprise, Free Market: An economic system of "public subsidy and private profit," where the government intervenes in the market regularly to protect elite business interests from market forces. [1]
Privatization:The removal of economic institutions from the public sphere into private, unaccountable hands. By definition, a radical reduction of democracy.
'Hope or Change':Change of face and rhetoric, maintenance of the status quo
Democracy, Democratic Process: Elections every few years between two factions of business representatives, public ratifications of concentrated power.
Balanced Media Coverage: A lively debate between a "liberal" and a "conservative" within a narrow framework of assumptions that serve the interests of power.
Crime:Refers exclusively to small criminals from the lower classes like drug dealers, petty thieves, some violent behavior. Does not include the massive crime and corruption on Wall Street, or the much bigger and more serious war crimes (which have kill millions of people) committed by presidents and congress.
War on Drugs:a one-trillion-dollar-and-climbing policy of insanity (by Albert Einstein's definition) which shamefully and disproportionally targets Blacks and Latinos...a policy which is no more a "war" on drug use than the t.v. show "Cheaters" is a "war" on infidelity.
Full Investigation: a term used by government officials to calm down an angry population in light of police brutality, political corruption, government misconduct, etc. The "investigation" either produces no results or simply sacrifices a scapegoat for PR reasons, while neglecting to address the deeply rooted institutional problems. [3]
Getting public unrest "under control": Subjugating, often using violence, those who attempt to participate in decision making outside the ballot box.
Anti-American (in the case that the accused is an American): 1) Those who love their country and aspire to improve it by challenging their government, and/or, 2) Americans who do not identify themselves or their moral values with the Washington-Wall Street power structure.
National Security: An all purpose catch phrase used to justify US military aggression and restriction of civil rights.
National Interest: Corporate interests [1]
and lastly,
Universities: Fronts for socializing the cost of Research and Development for corporations and the military. They also serve the invaluable function of making sure that the educated community understands the right version of history, world affairs, and of course, the proper meaning of relevant terminology and the rules of polite discussion.
On the Terms of the Powerful
Translating Propaganda and Thinking the Unthinkable
By Max Kantar
October 20, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" --- When you go to a foreign country, it is common to bring a translation dictionary to help curb the confusion that comes with trying to understand a foreign language. Likewise, in American politics, we also need a translation guide to understand mainstream discussion given the universal double standards, egotistical national chauvinism, and internalized elite values.
Propaganda in the US rests mostly in what is not said, but rather assumed. Such a system of indoctrination is extremely powerful as it serves the purpose of making certain thoughts not so much undesirable, but unthinkable, strikingly reminiscent of Orwell's depiction of totalitarian control and manipulation of the English language in his novel, 1984.
The language of US propaganda is indeed a foreign tongue to anyone who takes seriously the factual historical record, the nature of powerful institutions, and fundamental human decency with respect for human rights.
Included here is a list of commonly used terminology in American politics and the mainstream media. The definitions provided are the unspoken, assumed meanings of the terms, which are in fact quite different, sometimes diametrically opposed to their dictionary definitions.
For any serious social and political discussion to materialize, it is imperative that we understand the vocabulary put forth by our cultural managers in order to dismantle the prevailing system of thought control and indoctrination.
US Foreign Policy, Israel, and International relations
Peace Process: Whatever the US is doing at the time [1]
Department of Defense: Department of aggression and acceptable terrorism
Terrorism: 1) Legitimate resistance to the terror/aggression of the US and its clients, or 2) Terrorism committed by those out of favor with Washington
Counter-Terrorism: Terrorism and aggression carried out by the US and its client states
War on Terrorism: Any violence the US or its client states use to advance the US agenda of global dominance by stifling independent nationalism, assuring control over natural resources, squashing 'good examples' of independent economic development, and creating conditions to benefit foreign (US) investors instead of the populations at hand. Basically the ideological twin and subsequent replacement of the rabid anti-communism of the Cold War.
Terrorist: 1) Anybody that the US fights against, 2) People who defend themselves from US attack, and 3) Perpetrators of terrorism whose terror doesn't serve US power
Privately Contracted Security Forces: Mercenaries or paid killers unaccountable to the public
"Protecting our way of life": A justification for US-based violence and economic exploitation that is driven by a desire to 'protect' private concentrated wealth of the richest 1% ('our') of the country.
"Failed policy": Usually refers to an unlawful war policy which has come to cost too much money. It reinforces yet again, the imperial rights of the US to use violence at will in violation of human rights, the public will, and international law.
Blunders, Mismanagement, Mistakes, etc: Terms used to describe US foreign policy when large sectors of business power and the population turn against [the respective policy]...the implication being clear that US initiatives are by definition, rooted in morality and altruism, despite natural human errors of strategy, not of motives, meaning that US foreign policy "means well."
To "Spread Democracy": To extend US control over a foreign country, usually in an attempt to undermine popular democratic efforts that threaten US political, business, and ideological interests.
"Support the Troops": Support our policy of unlawful aggression
"The Surge worked": The perceived success of the US escalation of the illegal occupation of Iraq renders our initial/continued illegal aggression legitimate according to this proclamation.
Nevertheless, this catchphrase also ignores the actual reasons for the decrease in violence including the non-related cease fire maintained by the Shia resistance, increased segregation through extensive ethnic cleansing, and most importantly, significantly less people to kill as half the country is dead, exiled, displaced, mangled, or in prison. [2]
Democracy: Refers to a foreign government that favors the interests of elite foreign (US) investors instead of the respective population
Moderate:a foreign leader who follows orders from Washington [1]
Extremist: a foreign leader who pursues a course independent from Washington's orders [1]
Human Rights: Things that the US supports and that our enemies violate
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Weapons (sometimes nonexistent ones) that are held by states out of favor with Washington. Notice that the US and its clients by definition do not possess anything or pursue anything that would cause "mass destruction." Therefore the definition of WMD's is purely ideological, void of physical facts.
Free/Fair Trade: Trade policies that favor the ultra wealthy and trample labor rights, ignore environmental regulations, and prevent independent development for the poor nations involved and prevent meaningful democracy for the populations of both the rich country and the poor country in any given case.
Communist, Marxist, Socialist (concerning foreign political parties or governments): Governments that pursue independent economic development without concern for foreign investor interests or the neoliberal development model.
Unilaterally: A term used to describe the final measure taken by the US resort to lawless violence. In other words, when the Clinton administration noted they would act "unilaterally" if they "must," they meant that the US will act in violation of the UN and international law if international law and the UN don't support and conform to US military actions and US will.
Anti-American (concerning various international opinion): 1) Those who oppose US crimes and exploitative economic policies, and 2) Open supporters of applying the standards of international law universally.
Anti-Semitism:An accusation usually used to deflect criticism of Israel's ongoing war crimes as cited uncontroversially by the UN, Israeli/Jewish human rights groups, and Amnesty International, all in accordance with the Geneva Conventions on human rights.
Israel's "Right to Exist": Israel's right to continue outwardly racist policies against its Palestinian-Arab citizens within its borders and Israel's right to maintain a racist apartheid civil/military system in the Palestinian West Bank, a genocidal siege on the heavily populated Gaza Strip, and an illegal military occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Hamas 'Militants' or 'Terrorists':Anybody Israel kills in the occupied territories
Nuclear weapons:Benevolent instruments of peace for US and client states, tyrannical instruments of genocide when held by everyone else.
Arab/Muslim: Terrorist, usually inherently irrational, violent, and deceitful. A hater of freedom, democracy, Christians, and Jews.
Well, who is NOT an Arab then?: According to the honorable McCain, "decent, family men" who we may or may not have "disagreements" with. By implication, an Arab then cannot be "decent" or family orientated. For further elaboration, see the above definition.
Domestic Politics: Economic policy and Authority
Wall Street Bailout:Well, this means exactly what it sounds like, which is why the public was opposed to the whole thing. Publicly funded (we pay) bailouts for wall street, and polite condolences for workers, children, the poor, and the sick.
Socialism, Communism, Marxism (concerning public policy and advocacy): Policies where the public's tax money is spent on the public welfare, as opposed to transferring public funds to the ultra wealthy.
Market Based Solutions: "Solutions" to social problems that put profit as the driving force, rather than human need by eliminating the public role in decision making, transferring additional and un-calculated costs to the public and forcing working families and the poor to bare most of the burden of market forces.
Business Community:The richest of the rich, the elite millionaire/billionaire corporations, investors, and banks—the ones who own the country and are unaccountable to the public. Not a "community" in the friendly sense that we understand it to be. (Does not include small business owners like your local friendly family-run restaurant.)
Labor Flexibility: Due to a significant level of desperation and sizable unemployment in the labor force, conditions are ripe for business managers and owners to slash living wages, cut benefits, disregard reasonable working condition standards, and destroy workers' unions in order to increase their power and profits.
Entitlement:The use of this word in referring to social programs for the public is chosen specifically to imply that those receiving the much needed social benefits are "freeloaders" and "sponging off of the government." Refers exclusively to the poor, working class, and middle class. Entitlements for the wealthy, such as tax breaks and other gifts, are not included in this categorization.
Welfare: Huge sums of money stolen from the pockets of taxpayers received mostly by rich blacks who cheat the government and are too lazy to work.
Corporate Welfare/Subsidies: What? There's no such thing! And if there was, it would never be exponentially larger than social welfare...
Personal Responsibility: Social Darwinism or the 'law of the jungle' for the working class, poor, uninsured, and disenfranchised. Note that "personal responsibility" doesn't apply to the elite, who enjoy government protection and public safety nets.
Economic Freedom: Unrestricted free reign for multinational corporations, billionaire investors, and massive banking institutions to run the country in their interests at the expense of the general population whose role is to work, go into debt, and supply the funds (taxes) to erect barriers to market forces for big business. Also commonly known as "liberty".
Small Government: A massive government designed in the interests of military dominance and in the interests of the rich, while making sure public dollars cannot be spent on public interests and much needed social programs. Simply put, big government for sectors of power, small government for the needy.
Free Enterprise, Free Market: An economic system of "public subsidy and private profit," where the government intervenes in the market regularly to protect elite business interests from market forces. [1]
Privatization:The removal of economic institutions from the public sphere into private, unaccountable hands. By definition, a radical reduction of democracy.
'Hope or Change':Change of face and rhetoric, maintenance of the status quo
Democracy, Democratic Process: Elections every few years between two factions of business representatives, public ratifications of concentrated power.
Balanced Media Coverage: A lively debate between a "liberal" and a "conservative" within a narrow framework of assumptions that serve the interests of power.
Crime:Refers exclusively to small criminals from the lower classes like drug dealers, petty thieves, some violent behavior. Does not include the massive crime and corruption on Wall Street, or the much bigger and more serious war crimes (which have kill millions of people) committed by presidents and congress.
War on Drugs:a one-trillion-dollar-and-climbing policy of insanity (by Albert Einstein's definition) which shamefully and disproportionally targets Blacks and Latinos...a policy which is no more a "war" on drug use than the t.v. show "Cheaters" is a "war" on infidelity.
Full Investigation: a term used by government officials to calm down an angry population in light of police brutality, political corruption, government misconduct, etc. The "investigation" either produces no results or simply sacrifices a scapegoat for PR reasons, while neglecting to address the deeply rooted institutional problems. [3]
Getting public unrest "under control": Subjugating, often using violence, those who attempt to participate in decision making outside the ballot box.
Anti-American (in the case that the accused is an American): 1) Those who love their country and aspire to improve it by challenging their government, and/or, 2) Americans who do not identify themselves or their moral values with the Washington-Wall Street power structure.
National Security: An all purpose catch phrase used to justify US military aggression and restriction of civil rights.
National Interest: Corporate interests [1]
and lastly,
Universities: Fronts for socializing the cost of Research and Development for corporations and the military. They also serve the invaluable function of making sure that the educated community understands the right version of history, world affairs, and of course, the proper meaning of relevant terminology and the rules of polite discussion.
Philippines: Hunger index
This is from the Philippine newspaper Malaya. The situation seems to be getting considerably worse in metro Manila. Although there is much poverty in the rural areas at least people are able to get something to eat in most cases but in the city where people flock for a better life you need money to get food and it is scarcer without funds.
More families report days of hunger, says SWS
THE proportion of families experiencing involuntary hunger at least once in the past three months rose to 18.4 percent, or about 3.3 million households, according to the third quarter survey of the Social Weather Stations.
The survey conducted September 24 to 27 also showed "moderate hunger" up by 3 percent but "severe hunger" down by 1 percent.
The latest Hunger record is six points above the 10-year average of 12.3 percent, and is the highest in the four quarters after the record-high 21.5 percent in September 2007.
The Hunger average of 2008 is 16.8 percent, only slightly lower than the 2007 average of 17.9 percent.
The measure of Hunger refers to involuntary suffering. The survey question specified hunger due to lack of anything to eat.
Moderate Hunger, referring to those who experienced it "Only Once" or "A Few Times" in the last three months, rose from 12.1 percent (about 2.2 million families) in June to 15.2 percent (2.7 million families) in September. The latest score is six points above the 10-year average Moderate Hunger rate of 9 percent. The few who did not state their frequency of Hunger were also placed in this category.
Severe Hunger, referring to those who experienced it "Often" or "Always" in the last three months, went from 4.2 percent (about 760,000 families) in June to 3.2 percent (about 580,000 families) in September. The new rate is equal to the 10-year average Severe Hunger rate of 3.3 percent, SWS said.
The proportion of households experiencing Hunger has been highest in Metro Manila for the past two quarters, with the latest figure at 23 percent or about 560,000 families.
It is now 20 percent (1.6 million families) in Balance Luzon, 18.3 percent (750,000 families) in Mindanao, and 11.7 percent (420,000 families) in the Visayas.
Overall Hunger rose by 8 points in Luzon outside Metro Manila, from 12.3 percent in June to 20 percent in September. It rose by 1 point in Metro Manila, from 22 percent to 23 percent, and by about 1 point in Mindanao, from 17.7 percent to 18.3 percent.
It declined by 8 points in the Visayas, from 19.7 percent in the previous quarter to 11.7 percent now.
Moderate Hunger rose by 8 points in Balance Luzon, from 8.3 percent in June to 16.5 percent in September, and by 3 points in Mindanao, from 13.3 percent to 16.0 percent.
It declined by 5 points in the Visayas, from 16.3 percent to 11.3 percent, and by 1 point in Metro Manila, from 16 percent to 15 percent.
In all areas, the latest Moderate Hunger rates remain higher than their 10-year averages.
Severe Hunger went down in areas outside Metro Manila. It declined by 3 points in the Visayas (from 3.3 percent to 0.3 percent), by 2 points in Mindanao (from 4.3 percent to 2.3 percent), and by less than 1 point in Balance Luzon, from 4.0 percent to 3.5 percent.
It rose by 2 points in Metro Manila, from 6 percent in June to 8 percent in September.
The latest Severe Hunger figures remain higher than their 10-year averages in all areas except Visayas, where its latest score of 0.3 percent was well below its 10-year average of 3.1 percent
More families report days of hunger, says SWS
THE proportion of families experiencing involuntary hunger at least once in the past three months rose to 18.4 percent, or about 3.3 million households, according to the third quarter survey of the Social Weather Stations.
The survey conducted September 24 to 27 also showed "moderate hunger" up by 3 percent but "severe hunger" down by 1 percent.
The latest Hunger record is six points above the 10-year average of 12.3 percent, and is the highest in the four quarters after the record-high 21.5 percent in September 2007.
The Hunger average of 2008 is 16.8 percent, only slightly lower than the 2007 average of 17.9 percent.
The measure of Hunger refers to involuntary suffering. The survey question specified hunger due to lack of anything to eat.
Moderate Hunger, referring to those who experienced it "Only Once" or "A Few Times" in the last three months, rose from 12.1 percent (about 2.2 million families) in June to 15.2 percent (2.7 million families) in September. The latest score is six points above the 10-year average Moderate Hunger rate of 9 percent. The few who did not state their frequency of Hunger were also placed in this category.
Severe Hunger, referring to those who experienced it "Often" or "Always" in the last three months, went from 4.2 percent (about 760,000 families) in June to 3.2 percent (about 580,000 families) in September. The new rate is equal to the 10-year average Severe Hunger rate of 3.3 percent, SWS said.
The proportion of households experiencing Hunger has been highest in Metro Manila for the past two quarters, with the latest figure at 23 percent or about 560,000 families.
It is now 20 percent (1.6 million families) in Balance Luzon, 18.3 percent (750,000 families) in Mindanao, and 11.7 percent (420,000 families) in the Visayas.
Overall Hunger rose by 8 points in Luzon outside Metro Manila, from 12.3 percent in June to 20 percent in September. It rose by 1 point in Metro Manila, from 22 percent to 23 percent, and by about 1 point in Mindanao, from 17.7 percent to 18.3 percent.
It declined by 8 points in the Visayas, from 19.7 percent in the previous quarter to 11.7 percent now.
Moderate Hunger rose by 8 points in Balance Luzon, from 8.3 percent in June to 16.5 percent in September, and by 3 points in Mindanao, from 13.3 percent to 16.0 percent.
It declined by 5 points in the Visayas, from 16.3 percent to 11.3 percent, and by 1 point in Metro Manila, from 16 percent to 15 percent.
In all areas, the latest Moderate Hunger rates remain higher than their 10-year averages.
Severe Hunger went down in areas outside Metro Manila. It declined by 3 points in the Visayas (from 3.3 percent to 0.3 percent), by 2 points in Mindanao (from 4.3 percent to 2.3 percent), and by less than 1 point in Balance Luzon, from 4.0 percent to 3.5 percent.
It rose by 2 points in Metro Manila, from 6 percent in June to 8 percent in September.
The latest Severe Hunger figures remain higher than their 10-year averages in all areas except Visayas, where its latest score of 0.3 percent was well below its 10-year average of 3.1 percent
Bush and Big Government.
Economic growth has become more and more government spending. The huge expenditure on growing the American empire has made the U.S. number one by a country mile as far as military expenditures are concerned and added to all this are huge amounts spent on Homeland Security. Now bailing out the banks, insurance companies etc. and economic stimulus plans have added even more to government debt. So far the US dollar is holding up well but who knows how long that will last. This is from the WashingtonTimes.
Big government gets bigger
Under Bush, the cost of protection, war and economic collapse reach historic levels
Jon Ward (Contact)Sunday, October 19, 2008
BIG GOVERNMENT SERIES: First of three parts
George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.
Not since World War II, when the nation mobilized to fight a global war against fascism and recover from the Great Depression, has government spending played as large a role in the economy as it does today.
This time, it is a rapid mobilization against another global enemy — Islamist terrorism — that lies behind much of the growth. But rising spending on discretionary domestic programs has also played its part.
"We have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society," said Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate vying to replace Mr. Bush in the White House, during the first presidential debate.
That, in fact, was an understatement. No president since FDR — who offered a New Deal to pull the nation out of the Great Depression and then fought World War II — has presided over as rapid a growth in government when measured as a percentage of the total economy.
And now comes the Next Deal — the rapid-fire series of programs announced in recent weeks to deal with a global financial crisis that few Americans even understand. It has begun with a decision to use $700 billion in taxpayer money to buy up financial assets and take an ownership stake in the nation's largest banks and could be followed by a stimulus program of up to $300 billion driven by congressional Democrats.
As a result, Mr. Bush already is the first president in history to implement budgets that crossed the $2 trillion a year and $3 trillion a year marks. His final budget, which comes to an end Sept. 30, conceivably could near $4 trillion, depending on the final tab for the financial rescue.
Mr. Bush campaigned in 2000 on a pledge to reduce the size of government, continuing a trend that had been under way since the end of the Cold War. But since terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, he has done what he thought was necessary to keep the country safe. That commitment became a centerpiece of his 2004 convention speech: "Whatever it takes."
The White House does not contest the numbers showing near-record growth in the size of government on its watch, but says it has no regrets about the president's decision to eschew a limited government agenda in favor of homeland security and defense spending.
Big government gets bigger
Under Bush, the cost of protection, war and economic collapse reach historic levels
Jon Ward (Contact)Sunday, October 19, 2008
BIG GOVERNMENT SERIES: First of three parts
George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.
Not since World War II, when the nation mobilized to fight a global war against fascism and recover from the Great Depression, has government spending played as large a role in the economy as it does today.
This time, it is a rapid mobilization against another global enemy — Islamist terrorism — that lies behind much of the growth. But rising spending on discretionary domestic programs has also played its part.
"We have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society," said Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate vying to replace Mr. Bush in the White House, during the first presidential debate.
That, in fact, was an understatement. No president since FDR — who offered a New Deal to pull the nation out of the Great Depression and then fought World War II — has presided over as rapid a growth in government when measured as a percentage of the total economy.
And now comes the Next Deal — the rapid-fire series of programs announced in recent weeks to deal with a global financial crisis that few Americans even understand. It has begun with a decision to use $700 billion in taxpayer money to buy up financial assets and take an ownership stake in the nation's largest banks and could be followed by a stimulus program of up to $300 billion driven by congressional Democrats.
As a result, Mr. Bush already is the first president in history to implement budgets that crossed the $2 trillion a year and $3 trillion a year marks. His final budget, which comes to an end Sept. 30, conceivably could near $4 trillion, depending on the final tab for the financial rescue.
Mr. Bush campaigned in 2000 on a pledge to reduce the size of government, continuing a trend that had been under way since the end of the Cold War. But since terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, he has done what he thought was necessary to keep the country safe. That commitment became a centerpiece of his 2004 convention speech: "Whatever it takes."
The White House does not contest the numbers showing near-record growth in the size of government on its watch, but says it has no regrets about the president's decision to eschew a limited government agenda in favor of homeland security and defense spending.
State Department Official Praises Pakistan Strikes, Cautions Against Peace Talks
Obviously the US has persuaded Pakistan to carry out air strikes in the Tribal Areas avoiding the inevitable reaction to US attacks although drone attacks by the US seem to still be going on. There will be inevitable civilian casualties from the Pakistan bombings and reaction against the government. In fact some opposition figures are already claiming that this is just US policy foisted upon Pakistan. If there are no peace talks there is likely to be civil war. Some of the Pakistani offensive is actually forcing residents into Afghanistan!
State Department Official Praises Pakistan Strikes, Cautions Against Peace Talks
Posted October 20, 2008
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher met with top Pakistani leaders today, praising the country’s military offensives in its tribal areas. Boucher also lauded the government’s effort to recruit local tribes to assist in fighting against militants. He said he believes that only ‘harsh military means‘ can solve Pakistan’s problems, and cautioned against talks with militants which he referred to as “people whose only goal seems to be to blow up the Pakistan state and society.”
The Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the organization against whom the Pakistani offensive is primarily directed, has offered multiple ceasefires as the military’s offensive has dragged on, most recently last week when spokesman Maulvi Omar offered unconditional talks and said the TTP would lay down arms in return for a ceasefire. The Pakistani government has not officially responded to the offer, but has launched several major air strikes since the announcement.
Boucher’s visit has also been an opportunity for officials from both the ruling coalition and the opposition to express their growing discontent with Pakistan’s terror policy. Chief Minister of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) Ameer Haider Khan Hoti urged dialogue and tribal jirgas to solve disagreements, and said guns were no solution to peace. The NWFP has been the site of some of Pakistan’s most recent fighting. Minister Hoti also called for major democratic reforms in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the neighboring region which is where the bulk of the fighting has taken place.
Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif also met with Boucher, and reportedly urged the secretary to accept whatever policy Pakistan’s parliament chooses within its territory. He also is said to have expressed concern over US violations of Pakistani sovereignty and urged the US to resolve its conflicts through dialogue, not force.
And though nothing from the government has yet indicated that this is or is not the case, outspoken opposition figure Imran Khan said the government had assured Boucher that the US-urged policies in the tribal areas would continue. Khan has been a vocal critic of US policy in the war on terror for years, and has often come out in favor of peace talks.
State Department Official Praises Pakistan Strikes, Cautions Against Peace Talks
Posted October 20, 2008
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher met with top Pakistani leaders today, praising the country’s military offensives in its tribal areas. Boucher also lauded the government’s effort to recruit local tribes to assist in fighting against militants. He said he believes that only ‘harsh military means‘ can solve Pakistan’s problems, and cautioned against talks with militants which he referred to as “people whose only goal seems to be to blow up the Pakistan state and society.”
The Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the organization against whom the Pakistani offensive is primarily directed, has offered multiple ceasefires as the military’s offensive has dragged on, most recently last week when spokesman Maulvi Omar offered unconditional talks and said the TTP would lay down arms in return for a ceasefire. The Pakistani government has not officially responded to the offer, but has launched several major air strikes since the announcement.
Boucher’s visit has also been an opportunity for officials from both the ruling coalition and the opposition to express their growing discontent with Pakistan’s terror policy. Chief Minister of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) Ameer Haider Khan Hoti urged dialogue and tribal jirgas to solve disagreements, and said guns were no solution to peace. The NWFP has been the site of some of Pakistan’s most recent fighting. Minister Hoti also called for major democratic reforms in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the neighboring region which is where the bulk of the fighting has taken place.
Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif also met with Boucher, and reportedly urged the secretary to accept whatever policy Pakistan’s parliament chooses within its territory. He also is said to have expressed concern over US violations of Pakistani sovereignty and urged the US to resolve its conflicts through dialogue, not force.
And though nothing from the government has yet indicated that this is or is not the case, outspoken opposition figure Imran Khan said the government had assured Boucher that the US-urged policies in the tribal areas would continue. Khan has been a vocal critic of US policy in the war on terror for years, and has often come out in favor of peace talks.
Monday, October 20, 2008
More Bailout Obscenity: Rewriting the tax code
These tax measures while costing the public millions or more likely billions are hidden from view and virtually undiscussed. I wonder if either of the two presidential contenders will bother to mention this issue.
Michael Perelman: More Bailout Obscenity"
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-bailout-obscenity.htmlAs if the bailout were not bad enough, the Wall Street Journalreports that the Treasury Department is, in effect, rewriting the tax codeto give away what will easily be tens of billions of dollars.On the opposite page, the paper reports that the Fannie and Freddie bailoutis likely to cost the government considerably more than expected because ofcourt suits charging, probably correctly, that management misled investors.One can safely say that more will be discovered later.Drucker, Jesse. 2008. "Obscure Tax Breaks Increase Cost of FinancialRescue." Wall Street Journal (10 October).http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428410507346351.html?mod=todays_us_page_oneSaha-Bubna, Aparajita. 2008. "Fannie Suit Vexes Regulator, May PayShareholders." Wall Street Journal (10 October).http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428804156146581.html?mod=todays_us_page_oneThe $700 billion financial rescue package approved by Congress to shore upbanks also carries a parallel bailout of the financial sector and otherindustries through a series of obscure tax breaks.Operating mostly under the radar screen, Congress, the Treasury Departmentand the Internal Revenue Service have been rolling back various provisionsof the tax code to help out industries and investors caught up in theturmoil.The most costly -- and most controversial -- of the moves provide billionsin extra tax relief to big banks such as Wells Fargo & Co. and Spain's BancoSantander SA. Another change gives aid to investors stung by theauction-rate securities meltdown. Still another shift relaxes tax rules tohelp big multinationals bring back cash from overseas.The total sums involved aren't clear, but the cost will easily amount totens of billions of dollars, tax experts say.The latest such move was unveiled on Tuesday, when the Treasury Departmentdeclared that the cash infusions for banks won't be considered "federalfinancial assistance." Normally, that type of funding would count as taxableincome for the recipients, and could trigger other unfavorable taxconsequences for banks receiving assistance that take part in mergers.A Treasury Department spokesman said the agency is seeking to "provideclarity and certainty regarding tax issues that have come up during marketturmoil."Tax experts say some of the changes are justified, including a number oftechnical fixes to protect taxpayers from unintended consequences related togovernment actions, such as the takeovers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, orthe substantial investments in banks. Plus, the broader bailout legislationpassed by Congress earlier this month shut some other tax loopholes,including one that permitted offshore hedge-fund managers to get favorabletreatment for deferred compensation.The most controversial move so far is an obscure IRS ruling that gives banksthe unfettered ability to use the "tax losses" of banks they acquired.Typically, companies are permitted to carry over tax benefits from yearswhen they lose money to help offset taxes when they return to profitability.However, for decades, Congress has restricted the amount of those lossesthat can be used in a given year, to prevent companies from buying andselling other firms solely to benefit from the tax strategy.In a one-sentence ruling issued on Sept. 30, the Treasury Departmenteffectively lifted that restriction if the company being bought is a bankand the losses are attributable to a portfolio of loans.Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate FinanceCommittee, has complained about the sudden loosening of the rules. "Congressshould have been informed and consulted before Treasury took such anextraordinary action that likely will add billions of dollars to thedeficit," he said.Some experts argue that the Treasury has effectively shifted fromadministering parts of the tax code to changing tax laws on its own. "Itdoesn't seem possible that they have this authority," said Robert Willens,an independent corporate tax analyst.The biggest beneficiary so far is likely to be Wells Fargo. The big SanFrancisco-based bank recently agreed to buy Wachovia Corp. of Charlotte,N.C., which has been hammered by huge losses on mortgage-related securitiesand loans. Wells Fargo has said it expects to take $74 billion inwrite-downs on the Wachovia portfolio.Under the old rules, Wells Fargo would have been limited to annual taxdeductions stemming from the Wachovia losses of roughly $930 million overthe next 20 years, or a total of $18.6 billion, estimates Mr. Willens. WellsFargo will now be able to use all $74 billion in losses. That will likelymean additional tax savings to Wells Fargo of about $19.4 billion -- or morethan the total purchase price for Wachovia's common stock, currently about$14.3 billion.A Wells Fargo spokeswoman wouldn't comment on the role of the tax change inits decision to bid for Wachovia, which bested an earlier offer by CitigroupInc. Wells Fargo's offer took place two days after Treasury's move.The new tax benefit applies to already-completed bank deals done in the pastthree years, and possibly even older ones, according to the TreasuryDepartment.Another winner from the new rule is Banco Santander, which recently agreedto buy the rest of Sovereign Bancorp. The Spanish bank will be able to takeadvantage of Sovereign's $2 billion in tax losses more quickly than underthe old regime, which would have required it to wait nearly two decades touse up the losses.Because of the Sovereign purchase, Banco Santander also will be one of themany beneficiaries of a separate break, aimed at hundreds of banks that lostmoney on preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The shift allows thebanks to count those losses as ordinary losses, rather than less-usefulcapital losses. The change is expected to cost the federal government $3billion, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.[Bailout]Many investors were caught by surprise when the auctions for auction-ratesecurites began to fail, leaving them holding notes for which there was nomarket. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo brokered settlements withinvestment banks and brokerage houses, in which the banks effectively agreedto cover any losses suffered by the investors.A recent ruling by the Treasury protects the investors in thosearrangements, in part by making clear that an agreement by a bank to coverthe losses isn't akin to taxable income. Another ruling protects investorswho loaned shares to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. from being taxed on thetransactions. Ordinarily, they are required to get the shares back within aprescribed time frame to avoid owing taxes. That rule isn't normally waived,even if the borrower of the shares goes bankrupt. But the IRS made anexception that effectively applies to transactions with Lehman, which filedfor bankruptcy protection last month.And earlier this month, the IRS relaxed the rules covering how U.S.corporations can repatriate cash parked overseas. The ruling allowscompanies to bring back money for months at a time without incurring a 35%corporate income tax they normally would owe. It is intended to make iteasier for companies to borrow money directly from their foreignsubsidiaries, instead of in the uncertain short-term lending market. It isunclear how much this will cost the government.___________________________________
Michael Perelman: More Bailout Obscenity"
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-bailout-obscenity.htmlAs if the bailout were not bad enough, the Wall Street Journalreports that the Treasury Department is, in effect, rewriting the tax codeto give away what will easily be tens of billions of dollars.On the opposite page, the paper reports that the Fannie and Freddie bailoutis likely to cost the government considerably more than expected because ofcourt suits charging, probably correctly, that management misled investors.One can safely say that more will be discovered later.Drucker, Jesse. 2008. "Obscure Tax Breaks Increase Cost of FinancialRescue." Wall Street Journal (10 October).http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428410507346351.html?mod=todays_us_page_oneSaha-Bubna, Aparajita. 2008. "Fannie Suit Vexes Regulator, May PayShareholders." Wall Street Journal (10 October).http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428804156146581.html?mod=todays_us_page_oneThe $700 billion financial rescue package approved by Congress to shore upbanks also carries a parallel bailout of the financial sector and otherindustries through a series of obscure tax breaks.Operating mostly under the radar screen, Congress, the Treasury Departmentand the Internal Revenue Service have been rolling back various provisionsof the tax code to help out industries and investors caught up in theturmoil.The most costly -- and most controversial -- of the moves provide billionsin extra tax relief to big banks such as Wells Fargo & Co. and Spain's BancoSantander SA. Another change gives aid to investors stung by theauction-rate securities meltdown. Still another shift relaxes tax rules tohelp big multinationals bring back cash from overseas.The total sums involved aren't clear, but the cost will easily amount totens of billions of dollars, tax experts say.The latest such move was unveiled on Tuesday, when the Treasury Departmentdeclared that the cash infusions for banks won't be considered "federalfinancial assistance." Normally, that type of funding would count as taxableincome for the recipients, and could trigger other unfavorable taxconsequences for banks receiving assistance that take part in mergers.A Treasury Department spokesman said the agency is seeking to "provideclarity and certainty regarding tax issues that have come up during marketturmoil."Tax experts say some of the changes are justified, including a number oftechnical fixes to protect taxpayers from unintended consequences related togovernment actions, such as the takeovers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, orthe substantial investments in banks. Plus, the broader bailout legislationpassed by Congress earlier this month shut some other tax loopholes,including one that permitted offshore hedge-fund managers to get favorabletreatment for deferred compensation.The most controversial move so far is an obscure IRS ruling that gives banksthe unfettered ability to use the "tax losses" of banks they acquired.Typically, companies are permitted to carry over tax benefits from yearswhen they lose money to help offset taxes when they return to profitability.However, for decades, Congress has restricted the amount of those lossesthat can be used in a given year, to prevent companies from buying andselling other firms solely to benefit from the tax strategy.In a one-sentence ruling issued on Sept. 30, the Treasury Departmenteffectively lifted that restriction if the company being bought is a bankand the losses are attributable to a portfolio of loans.Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate FinanceCommittee, has complained about the sudden loosening of the rules. "Congressshould have been informed and consulted before Treasury took such anextraordinary action that likely will add billions of dollars to thedeficit," he said.Some experts argue that the Treasury has effectively shifted fromadministering parts of the tax code to changing tax laws on its own. "Itdoesn't seem possible that they have this authority," said Robert Willens,an independent corporate tax analyst.The biggest beneficiary so far is likely to be Wells Fargo. The big SanFrancisco-based bank recently agreed to buy Wachovia Corp. of Charlotte,N.C., which has been hammered by huge losses on mortgage-related securitiesand loans. Wells Fargo has said it expects to take $74 billion inwrite-downs on the Wachovia portfolio.Under the old rules, Wells Fargo would have been limited to annual taxdeductions stemming from the Wachovia losses of roughly $930 million overthe next 20 years, or a total of $18.6 billion, estimates Mr. Willens. WellsFargo will now be able to use all $74 billion in losses. That will likelymean additional tax savings to Wells Fargo of about $19.4 billion -- or morethan the total purchase price for Wachovia's common stock, currently about$14.3 billion.A Wells Fargo spokeswoman wouldn't comment on the role of the tax change inits decision to bid for Wachovia, which bested an earlier offer by CitigroupInc. Wells Fargo's offer took place two days after Treasury's move.The new tax benefit applies to already-completed bank deals done in the pastthree years, and possibly even older ones, according to the TreasuryDepartment.Another winner from the new rule is Banco Santander, which recently agreedto buy the rest of Sovereign Bancorp. The Spanish bank will be able to takeadvantage of Sovereign's $2 billion in tax losses more quickly than underthe old regime, which would have required it to wait nearly two decades touse up the losses.Because of the Sovereign purchase, Banco Santander also will be one of themany beneficiaries of a separate break, aimed at hundreds of banks that lostmoney on preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The shift allows thebanks to count those losses as ordinary losses, rather than less-usefulcapital losses. The change is expected to cost the federal government $3billion, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.[Bailout]Many investors were caught by surprise when the auctions for auction-ratesecurites began to fail, leaving them holding notes for which there was nomarket. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo brokered settlements withinvestment banks and brokerage houses, in which the banks effectively agreedto cover any losses suffered by the investors.A recent ruling by the Treasury protects the investors in thosearrangements, in part by making clear that an agreement by a bank to coverthe losses isn't akin to taxable income. Another ruling protects investorswho loaned shares to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. from being taxed on thetransactions. Ordinarily, they are required to get the shares back within aprescribed time frame to avoid owing taxes. That rule isn't normally waived,even if the borrower of the shares goes bankrupt. But the IRS made anexception that effectively applies to transactions with Lehman, which filedfor bankruptcy protection last month.And earlier this month, the IRS relaxed the rules covering how U.S.corporations can repatriate cash parked overseas. The ruling allowscompanies to bring back money for months at a time without incurring a 35%corporate income tax they normally would owe. It is intended to make iteasier for companies to borrow money directly from their foreignsubsidiaries, instead of in the uncertain short-term lending market. It isunclear how much this will cost the government.___________________________________
No joy in Hooverville
There doesn't seem to be any rush to bailout these tent city tenants and find them decent but affordable accomodation. There were no golden parachutes for these folk.
Economy-US: No Joy in HoovervilleBy Heike BarkawitzInter Press ServiceOctober 17, 2008New York - With a massive spike in the number of foreclosures and evictionsover the past two years, communities throughout the U.S. have witnessed thesprouting of tent cities -- many of them home to once middle-class citizensfallen victim to the economic downturn.Encampments have formed in or near large urban areas including Reno, LosAngeles, Chattanooga, Columbus, St. Petersburg, Seattle and Portland."[Starting] about four years ago, there has been an outbreak of tent citiespopping up across the country. Today, we observe a slow but steady increasein homeless people," Michael Stoops, acting executive director of theNational Coalition for the Homeless (NCFTH), told IPS.According to a report by NCFTH, almost 61 percent of local and statehomeless coalitions say that they have seen a growth in homelessness sincethe foreclosure crisis -- now at 10,000 homes per week -- began in 2007.The phenomenon is similar to the social upheavals of the Great Depression ofthe 1930s -- an era frequently referenced these days -- when "Hooverville"ad-hoc shanty towns, some as big as 15,000 people, were erected around thecountry, named after the president at the time, Herbert Hoover.Scott, a resident of the tent city in Los Angeles, told a televisionreporter, "I had one of those escalating, finance-charge, balloon-thingsthat steps up every year and the payment just got too much so that Icouldn't afford it anymore. I tried to work with the bank and they workedwith me, gave me some extra time, but it's just getting too big. So theyforeclosed."Many residents of tent cities share Scott's fate. One woman told BBC thatshe used to live in a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house. When her husbandfell ill, it became impossible to make ends meet."We have a lot of grandkids, too. They used to always come over and stay.They don't come here anymore, I don't want them to come here. We go thereand see them at their house," she said. She and her husband now live in amobile home at a camp.Most tent cities have a community-spirit and are self-regulated, saidStoops, who has visited many of the encampments. "In most tent cities, thereare certain rules -- like for instance no drugs, no alcohol and noviolence," he told IPS.He and his organization supported the formation of tent cities. "[They] areof course not the solution, but necessary until adequate shelters andhousing are found," he added."The tent city in St. Petersburg, Florida, is even supported by thegovernment and some local, non-profit organisations provide support for tentcities across the country," Stoops said.Jeremy Rosen, executive director of the National Policy and Advocacy Councilon Homelessness (NPACH), expected a mild growth in the number of tent citiesin the future due to the weak economy. "On the other hand, I suspect we'llsee a definite rise in homelessness," he told IPS.According to a document published by NPACH, the U.S. Department of Housingand Urban Development's (HUD) definition of homelessness "does not includechildren and families who have lost their homes but are temporarily stayingin motels or with other people because other shelter is not available orappropriate."These families have often lost their homes due to an event like eviction,foreclosure or a family crisis, but cannot find available and appropriateshelter."They become the 'hidden homeless', moving around from place to place --sleeping in cars, on couches, sometimes in shelters, sometimes with friendsand sometimes with family. Unfortunately, our country chooses to deny thisreality and doesn't define many of these people as homeless," Rosen toldIPS.There are an estimated 600,000 children and youths who are consideredhomeless by other agencies, but not by HUD. "More than 60 percent of thehomeless students identified by public schools are ineligible for HUDHomeless Assistance," the NPACH's report states."During the last seven years, we have seen homelessness increase. This isdue to, for example, hurricanes or the unofficial economic recession with aforeclosure crisis," Stoops told IPS. "A month ago, over 900,000 homes wereforeclosed and some of the people concerned will wind up homeless."While "there exists more [government] sympathy for banks and people on WallStreet", he wryly added that "the capitalist society will allow even thosepeople to wind up homeless."In Chicago, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has taken unusual action andannounced last week that he was suspending all foreclosure evictions."The move comes as a result of the growing number of evictions that involverenters, most of whom are dutifully paying their rent every month, only tolater learn their landlord has fallen behind on mortgage payments and thebuilding has gone into foreclosure," Spokesman Steve Patterson told IPS."These mortgage companies only see pieces of paper, not people, and don'tcare who's in the building. They simply want their money and don't care whogets hurt along the way," Dart said in an interview.Dart wants mortgage companies to be forced to provide sufficient informationto the Sheriff's Office in order to conduct an eviction.According to a press release by the Cook County Sheriff's Office,foreclosure filings have steadily climbed in Cook County since 1999. In justtwo years, the number of foreclosure evictions has almost tripled.The data firm RealtyTrac recently published a report stating thatforeclosures were at an unparalleled high nationally, filings were up nearly100 percent from a year ago and officials estimate that approximately half amillion people could lose their homes as adjustable mortgage rates rise overthe next two years. Many of those affected might eventually end up homeless,seeking help in a tent city or elsewhere.As there are not nearly enough shelter beds for all the homeless people inthe U.S., Stoops appealed for government compassion, saying that "every cityshould have one park or another space where homeless people are allowed toerect their tents.""It is hard for homeless people to set up a homeless campsite because copscome and make them move on. The most recent count from the government, whichis from 2005, says that 44 percent of the nation's homeless areunsheltered," he said.(END/2008)http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44322
Economy-US: No Joy in HoovervilleBy Heike BarkawitzInter Press ServiceOctober 17, 2008New York - With a massive spike in the number of foreclosures and evictionsover the past two years, communities throughout the U.S. have witnessed thesprouting of tent cities -- many of them home to once middle-class citizensfallen victim to the economic downturn.Encampments have formed in or near large urban areas including Reno, LosAngeles, Chattanooga, Columbus, St. Petersburg, Seattle and Portland."[Starting] about four years ago, there has been an outbreak of tent citiespopping up across the country. Today, we observe a slow but steady increasein homeless people," Michael Stoops, acting executive director of theNational Coalition for the Homeless (NCFTH), told IPS.According to a report by NCFTH, almost 61 percent of local and statehomeless coalitions say that they have seen a growth in homelessness sincethe foreclosure crisis -- now at 10,000 homes per week -- began in 2007.The phenomenon is similar to the social upheavals of the Great Depression ofthe 1930s -- an era frequently referenced these days -- when "Hooverville"ad-hoc shanty towns, some as big as 15,000 people, were erected around thecountry, named after the president at the time, Herbert Hoover.Scott, a resident of the tent city in Los Angeles, told a televisionreporter, "I had one of those escalating, finance-charge, balloon-thingsthat steps up every year and the payment just got too much so that Icouldn't afford it anymore. I tried to work with the bank and they workedwith me, gave me some extra time, but it's just getting too big. So theyforeclosed."Many residents of tent cities share Scott's fate. One woman told BBC thatshe used to live in a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house. When her husbandfell ill, it became impossible to make ends meet."We have a lot of grandkids, too. They used to always come over and stay.They don't come here anymore, I don't want them to come here. We go thereand see them at their house," she said. She and her husband now live in amobile home at a camp.Most tent cities have a community-spirit and are self-regulated, saidStoops, who has visited many of the encampments. "In most tent cities, thereare certain rules -- like for instance no drugs, no alcohol and noviolence," he told IPS.He and his organization supported the formation of tent cities. "[They] areof course not the solution, but necessary until adequate shelters andhousing are found," he added."The tent city in St. Petersburg, Florida, is even supported by thegovernment and some local, non-profit organisations provide support for tentcities across the country," Stoops said.Jeremy Rosen, executive director of the National Policy and Advocacy Councilon Homelessness (NPACH), expected a mild growth in the number of tent citiesin the future due to the weak economy. "On the other hand, I suspect we'llsee a definite rise in homelessness," he told IPS.According to a document published by NPACH, the U.S. Department of Housingand Urban Development's (HUD) definition of homelessness "does not includechildren and families who have lost their homes but are temporarily stayingin motels or with other people because other shelter is not available orappropriate."These families have often lost their homes due to an event like eviction,foreclosure or a family crisis, but cannot find available and appropriateshelter."They become the 'hidden homeless', moving around from place to place --sleeping in cars, on couches, sometimes in shelters, sometimes with friendsand sometimes with family. Unfortunately, our country chooses to deny thisreality and doesn't define many of these people as homeless," Rosen toldIPS.There are an estimated 600,000 children and youths who are consideredhomeless by other agencies, but not by HUD. "More than 60 percent of thehomeless students identified by public schools are ineligible for HUDHomeless Assistance," the NPACH's report states."During the last seven years, we have seen homelessness increase. This isdue to, for example, hurricanes or the unofficial economic recession with aforeclosure crisis," Stoops told IPS. "A month ago, over 900,000 homes wereforeclosed and some of the people concerned will wind up homeless."While "there exists more [government] sympathy for banks and people on WallStreet", he wryly added that "the capitalist society will allow even thosepeople to wind up homeless."In Chicago, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has taken unusual action andannounced last week that he was suspending all foreclosure evictions."The move comes as a result of the growing number of evictions that involverenters, most of whom are dutifully paying their rent every month, only tolater learn their landlord has fallen behind on mortgage payments and thebuilding has gone into foreclosure," Spokesman Steve Patterson told IPS."These mortgage companies only see pieces of paper, not people, and don'tcare who's in the building. They simply want their money and don't care whogets hurt along the way," Dart said in an interview.Dart wants mortgage companies to be forced to provide sufficient informationto the Sheriff's Office in order to conduct an eviction.According to a press release by the Cook County Sheriff's Office,foreclosure filings have steadily climbed in Cook County since 1999. In justtwo years, the number of foreclosure evictions has almost tripled.The data firm RealtyTrac recently published a report stating thatforeclosures were at an unparalleled high nationally, filings were up nearly100 percent from a year ago and officials estimate that approximately half amillion people could lose their homes as adjustable mortgage rates rise overthe next two years. Many of those affected might eventually end up homeless,seeking help in a tent city or elsewhere.As there are not nearly enough shelter beds for all the homeless people inthe U.S., Stoops appealed for government compassion, saying that "every cityshould have one park or another space where homeless people are allowed toerect their tents.""It is hard for homeless people to set up a homeless campsite because copscome and make them move on. The most recent count from the government, whichis from 2005, says that 44 percent of the nation's homeless areunsheltered," he said.(END/2008)http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44322
Rebuffed by China, Pakistan may seek IMF aid.
This is from the NY Times. This article is in conflict with an earlier one in the Financial Times that indicates that China was coming to the rescue for Pakistan. The conditions imposed by an IMF loan are not just embarassing for Pakistan they are likely to increase unrest and threaten government stability. The situation does not look promising for Zardari's government. Perhaps we will see the military intervene as has happened before.
October 19, 2008
Rebuffed by China, Pakistan May Seek I.M.F. Aid
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — President Asif Ali Zardari returned from China late Friday without a commitment for cash needed to shore up Pakistan’s crumbling economy, leaving him with the politically unpopular prospect of having to ask the International Monetary Fund for help.
Pakistan was seeking the aid from China, an important ally, as it faces the possibility of defaulting on its current account payments.
With the United States and other nations preoccupied by a financial crisis, and Saudi Arabia, another traditional ally, refusing to offer concessions on oil, China was seen as the last port of call before the I.M.F.
Accepting a rescue package from the fund would be seen as humiliating for Mr. Zardari’s government, which took office this year.
An I.M.F.-backed plan would require Pakistan’s government to cut spending and raise taxes, among other measures, which could hurt the poor, officials said.
The Bush administration is concerned that Pakistan’s economic meltdown will provide an opportunity for Islamic militants to capitalize on rising poverty and frustration.
The Pakistanis have not been shy about exploiting the terrorist threat to try to win financial support, a senior official at the I.M.F. said.
But because of the dire global financial situation, and the reluctance of donor nations to provide money without strict economic reforms by Pakistan, the terrorist argument has not been fully persuasive, he said.
“A selling point to us even has been, if the economy really collapses this is going to mean civil strife, and strikes, and put the war on terror in jeopardy,” said the official, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the news media.
“They are saying, ‘We are a strategic country, the world needs to come to our aid,’ ” he said.
Pakistani officials said they had received promises from the Chinese to help build two nuclear power plants, and pledges for business investment in the coming year.
But Pakistan had also hoped China would deposit $1.5 billion to $3 billion in its central bank, according to senior officials at the I.M.F. and Western donor countries.
The infusion of cash would have helped with payments for oil and food as currency reserves dwindle, officials said.
Shaukat Tareen, the new Pakistani financial adviser who accompanied Mr. Zardari to China, began to prepare the public for an I.M.F. program on Saturday, saying for the first time at a news conference that if Pakistan could not stabilize its economy within 30 days, it “can go to the I.M.F. as a backup.”
“We may have to go to Plan B,” he said.
Economic hardship has been mounting across Pakistan for several months. Electricity shortages have become so dire that even middle-class families in big cities have to ration supply, with power cuts for 12 of every 24 hours, with one hour on, and one hour off.
Food prices have soared, making some basics, even flour, too expensive for the poorest to afford. No large-scale riots have occurred, but concern is mounting that such protests are not far off.
The new government has reduced subsidies on fuel and food, and the central bank moved on Friday to ease an intrabank liquidity crisis.
In addition, new rules were imposed several weeks ago on the Karachi stock exchange to stop sell-offs.
But none of those steps have stanched the crisis in confidence.
The central bank’s currency reserves have dipped to $4 billion, enough to cover payments for oil and other imports for about two months. As it became clear over the past two days that the Chinese were not going to provide a cushion for Pakistan, the rupee slumped to a record low.
The thin results from the China trip were of little surprise to Western donors.
Asked about the likelihood of Pakistan winning the direct cash infusion it was seeking, a senior Chinese diplomat was reported by Western officials to have said, “We have done our due diligence, and it isn’t happening.”
“What we needed is $3-to-$4 billion,” said Sakib Sherani, a member of the government’s economic advisory panel and chief economist at ABN Amro Bank in Pakistan. That amount was necessary “to build confidence,” he said.
The central bank governor, Shamshad Akhtar, said in a telephone interview on Saturday, “We are very open to all kinds of financial support.” She added, “We’ve taken a lot of corrective actions, and we plan to take more.”
But Zubair Khan, a former commerce minister and a critic of the government’s economic management, said confidence would improve once Pakistan arranged an I.M.F. rescue package. Mr. Khan said that the alternative would be the imposition of controls on imports and capital flows that could do long-term harm to the economy.
Meanwhile, the American financial crisis is also expected to hurt ordinary Pakistanis.
Remittances from Pakistanis living abroad to their relatives in Pakistan were expected to be about $7 billion this year, about $3 billion of that from Pakistanis living in the United States. But those remittances are likely to dwindle, affecting real estate values in Pakistani cities and families who live in poorer rural areas.
Mr. Zardari had approached the China trip with considerable fanfare, saying he was looking forward to visiting a country that had enjoyed a warm relationship with Pakistan, particularly during the rule of his father-in-law, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
His visit to Beijing followed a trip there by the chief of the army, Gen. Parvez Kayani, and came at a time when the relationship between Washington and Pakistan was strained over how to deal with the escalating threat from the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Javed Burki, a former Pakistani finance minister, said China had provided $500 million in balance-of-payments support in 1996, when Pakistan was on the brink of default. He had flown to Beijing to ask for the money and his request was fulfilled.
But those days are over, he said, because China is no longer inclined to grant cash outright without structural reforms from the receiving government, he said.
October 19, 2008
Rebuffed by China, Pakistan May Seek I.M.F. Aid
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — President Asif Ali Zardari returned from China late Friday without a commitment for cash needed to shore up Pakistan’s crumbling economy, leaving him with the politically unpopular prospect of having to ask the International Monetary Fund for help.
Pakistan was seeking the aid from China, an important ally, as it faces the possibility of defaulting on its current account payments.
With the United States and other nations preoccupied by a financial crisis, and Saudi Arabia, another traditional ally, refusing to offer concessions on oil, China was seen as the last port of call before the I.M.F.
Accepting a rescue package from the fund would be seen as humiliating for Mr. Zardari’s government, which took office this year.
An I.M.F.-backed plan would require Pakistan’s government to cut spending and raise taxes, among other measures, which could hurt the poor, officials said.
The Bush administration is concerned that Pakistan’s economic meltdown will provide an opportunity for Islamic militants to capitalize on rising poverty and frustration.
The Pakistanis have not been shy about exploiting the terrorist threat to try to win financial support, a senior official at the I.M.F. said.
But because of the dire global financial situation, and the reluctance of donor nations to provide money without strict economic reforms by Pakistan, the terrorist argument has not been fully persuasive, he said.
“A selling point to us even has been, if the economy really collapses this is going to mean civil strife, and strikes, and put the war on terror in jeopardy,” said the official, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the news media.
“They are saying, ‘We are a strategic country, the world needs to come to our aid,’ ” he said.
Pakistani officials said they had received promises from the Chinese to help build two nuclear power plants, and pledges for business investment in the coming year.
But Pakistan had also hoped China would deposit $1.5 billion to $3 billion in its central bank, according to senior officials at the I.M.F. and Western donor countries.
The infusion of cash would have helped with payments for oil and food as currency reserves dwindle, officials said.
Shaukat Tareen, the new Pakistani financial adviser who accompanied Mr. Zardari to China, began to prepare the public for an I.M.F. program on Saturday, saying for the first time at a news conference that if Pakistan could not stabilize its economy within 30 days, it “can go to the I.M.F. as a backup.”
“We may have to go to Plan B,” he said.
Economic hardship has been mounting across Pakistan for several months. Electricity shortages have become so dire that even middle-class families in big cities have to ration supply, with power cuts for 12 of every 24 hours, with one hour on, and one hour off.
Food prices have soared, making some basics, even flour, too expensive for the poorest to afford. No large-scale riots have occurred, but concern is mounting that such protests are not far off.
The new government has reduced subsidies on fuel and food, and the central bank moved on Friday to ease an intrabank liquidity crisis.
In addition, new rules were imposed several weeks ago on the Karachi stock exchange to stop sell-offs.
But none of those steps have stanched the crisis in confidence.
The central bank’s currency reserves have dipped to $4 billion, enough to cover payments for oil and other imports for about two months. As it became clear over the past two days that the Chinese were not going to provide a cushion for Pakistan, the rupee slumped to a record low.
The thin results from the China trip were of little surprise to Western donors.
Asked about the likelihood of Pakistan winning the direct cash infusion it was seeking, a senior Chinese diplomat was reported by Western officials to have said, “We have done our due diligence, and it isn’t happening.”
“What we needed is $3-to-$4 billion,” said Sakib Sherani, a member of the government’s economic advisory panel and chief economist at ABN Amro Bank in Pakistan. That amount was necessary “to build confidence,” he said.
The central bank governor, Shamshad Akhtar, said in a telephone interview on Saturday, “We are very open to all kinds of financial support.” She added, “We’ve taken a lot of corrective actions, and we plan to take more.”
But Zubair Khan, a former commerce minister and a critic of the government’s economic management, said confidence would improve once Pakistan arranged an I.M.F. rescue package. Mr. Khan said that the alternative would be the imposition of controls on imports and capital flows that could do long-term harm to the economy.
Meanwhile, the American financial crisis is also expected to hurt ordinary Pakistanis.
Remittances from Pakistanis living abroad to their relatives in Pakistan were expected to be about $7 billion this year, about $3 billion of that from Pakistanis living in the United States. But those remittances are likely to dwindle, affecting real estate values in Pakistani cities and families who live in poorer rural areas.
Mr. Zardari had approached the China trip with considerable fanfare, saying he was looking forward to visiting a country that had enjoyed a warm relationship with Pakistan, particularly during the rule of his father-in-law, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
His visit to Beijing followed a trip there by the chief of the army, Gen. Parvez Kayani, and came at a time when the relationship between Washington and Pakistan was strained over how to deal with the escalating threat from the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Javed Burki, a former Pakistani finance minister, said China had provided $500 million in balance-of-payments support in 1996, when Pakistan was on the brink of default. He had flown to Beijing to ask for the money and his request was fulfilled.
But those days are over, he said, because China is no longer inclined to grant cash outright without structural reforms from the receiving government, he said.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The opportunity costs of the US 750 billion bailout
These are a few of the things that the bailout amount could have accomplished. Now foreign aid is actually being cut because of all the money being devoted to the financial bailout. Even this huge amount will not come near paying the cost of the Iraq war. This shows that the opportunity costs of that war are even much larger than the bailout!
· Would clear the accumulated debt of the 49 poorest countries in the world($375bn<http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:21725423~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html>)twice over· Is almost 5 times the annual amount of extra aid needed to achieve all theMillennium Development Goals <http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/> onpoverty, health, education etc ($150bn ayear<http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/bp113_credibility_crunch.html>)· Is about 7 years of current global aid levels ($104bn in2007<http://www.oecd.org/document/8/0,3343,en_2649_34447_40381960_1_1_1_1,00.html>)· Is enough to eradicate all world poverty for over two years (UNDPcalculates it would take $300bn<http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2005/>to get the entire worldpopulation over the $1 a day poverty line).On the other hand it's· only a quarter of the cost of the Iraq war ($3trillion<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/1846141281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222593629&sr=8-1>onJoseph Stiglitz' calculation )· a half of annual global military spending ($1339 bn<http://www.sipri.org/>)http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=50
· Would clear the accumulated debt of the 49 poorest countries in the world($375bn<http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:21725423~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html>)twice over· Is almost 5 times the annual amount of extra aid needed to achieve all theMillennium Development Goals <http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/> onpoverty, health, education etc ($150bn ayear<http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/debt_aid/bp113_credibility_crunch.html>)· Is about 7 years of current global aid levels ($104bn in2007<http://www.oecd.org/document/8/0,3343,en_2649_34447_40381960_1_1_1_1,00.html>)· Is enough to eradicate all world poverty for over two years (UNDPcalculates it would take $300bn<http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2005/>to get the entire worldpopulation over the $1 a day poverty line).On the other hand it's· only a quarter of the cost of the Iraq war ($3trillion<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/1846141281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222593629&sr=8-1>onJoseph Stiglitz' calculation )· a half of annual global military spending ($1339 bn<http://www.sipri.org/>)http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=50
Excerpts from draft SOFA with Iraq
This is from the Information Clearing house (from AP)
Quite a bit more power is given to Iraqi authorities compared to what they have at present but there are some issues that no doubt will cause trouble as far as passage through parliament is concerned. There is still a wide immunity for US forces and contractors so wide as not to be acceptable to many Iraqis. There have already been large demonstrations against the agreement.
Excerpts From Draft U.S.-Iraqi "Security" AgreementBy The Associated PressOctober 18, 2008 -- -October 17, 2008 -- (AP) - Excerpts from the draft U.S.-Iraqi security agreement meant to replace the U.N. mandate for American-led forces in Iraq, which expires on Dec. 31. The Associated Press obtained a copy and translated the material from Arabic._
U.S. armed forces personnel and civilian elements commit to respect Iraqi laws, customs, traditions and charters during the execution of military operations under this agreement, and they refrain from any activity that does not agree with the spirit and text of this agreement, and the United States is obliged to take all the necessary measures in this respect.___For the purpose of deterring internal and external threats against the Republic of Iraq and to cement cooperation to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq and other outlawed groups, the two parties agreed on a temporary basis on the following:_ The Iraqi government requests the temporary assistance of U.S. forces for the purpose of supporting its effort to safeguard security and stability in Iraq including cooperation in carrying out operations against al-Qaida, other terror groups and outlawed groups, including remnants of the former regime._ All military operations under this agreement are carried out with the agreement of the Iraqi government and full coordination with Iraqi authorities. Supervising all these military operations will be a joint committee to coordinate military operations (JMOCC), which will be set up under this agreement. Issues related to the proposed military operations that the joint committee cannot resolve are referred to the joint ministerial committee._ All these operations must be executed with full respect to the Iraqi constitution and Iraqi laws and in line with Iraq's sovereignty and national interests as outlined by the Iraqi government. It is the duty of the U.S. forces to respect Iraq's laws, customs, traditions and international law._ The two sides agree to continue their efforts to cooperate on bolstering the security capabilities of Iraq according to what they agree on, including training, equipping, support, supply, building and modernizing logistical structures (transport, housing and supplying troops).___The control and monitoring of Iraqi air space is handed over to Iraqi authorities once this agreement is in force.___The United States has the primary right to exercise judicial jurisdiction over (U.S.) military personnel and civilians (contracted by the U.S. Defense Department) as far as incidents that take place inside the agreed facilities and areas and in the case of missions outside the agreed facilities and areas and under conditions not covered by the text of the second clause of this article._Iraq has the primary right to exercise judicial jurisdiction over (U.S.) military personnel and civilians (contracted by the Defense Department) in respect of premeditated and gross felonies mentioned in clause 8 of this article and which are committed outside the agreed facilities and areas and when not on a mission.
Quite a bit more power is given to Iraqi authorities compared to what they have at present but there are some issues that no doubt will cause trouble as far as passage through parliament is concerned. There is still a wide immunity for US forces and contractors so wide as not to be acceptable to many Iraqis. There have already been large demonstrations against the agreement.
Excerpts From Draft U.S.-Iraqi "Security" AgreementBy The Associated PressOctober 18, 2008 -- -October 17, 2008 -- (AP) - Excerpts from the draft U.S.-Iraqi security agreement meant to replace the U.N. mandate for American-led forces in Iraq, which expires on Dec. 31. The Associated Press obtained a copy and translated the material from Arabic._
U.S. armed forces personnel and civilian elements commit to respect Iraqi laws, customs, traditions and charters during the execution of military operations under this agreement, and they refrain from any activity that does not agree with the spirit and text of this agreement, and the United States is obliged to take all the necessary measures in this respect.___For the purpose of deterring internal and external threats against the Republic of Iraq and to cement cooperation to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq and other outlawed groups, the two parties agreed on a temporary basis on the following:_ The Iraqi government requests the temporary assistance of U.S. forces for the purpose of supporting its effort to safeguard security and stability in Iraq including cooperation in carrying out operations against al-Qaida, other terror groups and outlawed groups, including remnants of the former regime._ All military operations under this agreement are carried out with the agreement of the Iraqi government and full coordination with Iraqi authorities. Supervising all these military operations will be a joint committee to coordinate military operations (JMOCC), which will be set up under this agreement. Issues related to the proposed military operations that the joint committee cannot resolve are referred to the joint ministerial committee._ All these operations must be executed with full respect to the Iraqi constitution and Iraqi laws and in line with Iraq's sovereignty and national interests as outlined by the Iraqi government. It is the duty of the U.S. forces to respect Iraq's laws, customs, traditions and international law._ The two sides agree to continue their efforts to cooperate on bolstering the security capabilities of Iraq according to what they agree on, including training, equipping, support, supply, building and modernizing logistical structures (transport, housing and supplying troops).___The control and monitoring of Iraqi air space is handed over to Iraqi authorities once this agreement is in force.___The United States has the primary right to exercise judicial jurisdiction over (U.S.) military personnel and civilians (contracted by the U.S. Defense Department) as far as incidents that take place inside the agreed facilities and areas and in the case of missions outside the agreed facilities and areas and under conditions not covered by the text of the second clause of this article._Iraq has the primary right to exercise judicial jurisdiction over (U.S.) military personnel and civilians (contracted by the Defense Department) in respect of premeditated and gross felonies mentioned in clause 8 of this article and which are committed outside the agreed facilities and areas and when not on a mission.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Big rewards for losing billions...
Executives working for firms that are being bailed out and who have helped the firms lose billions nevertheless get millions in pay and bonuses. This is the democratic capitalism and free enterprise that Bush is so anxious to save apparently. This is from the Guardian.
.....Much of the anger about investment banking bonuses has focused on boardroom executives such as former Lehman boss Dick Fuld, who was paid $485m in salary, bonuses and options between 2000 and 2007.
Last year Merrill Lynch's chairman Stan O'Neal retired after announcing losses of $8bn, taking a final pay deal worth $161m. Citigroup boss Chuck Prince left last year with a $38m in bonuses, shares and options after multibillion-dollar write-downs. In Britain, Bob Diamond, Barclays president, is one of the few investment bankers whose pay is public. Last year he received a salary of £250,000, but his total pay, including bonuses, reached £36m.......
.....Much of the anger about investment banking bonuses has focused on boardroom executives such as former Lehman boss Dick Fuld, who was paid $485m in salary, bonuses and options between 2000 and 2007.
Last year Merrill Lynch's chairman Stan O'Neal retired after announcing losses of $8bn, taking a final pay deal worth $161m. Citigroup boss Chuck Prince left last year with a $38m in bonuses, shares and options after multibillion-dollar write-downs. In Britain, Bob Diamond, Barclays president, is one of the few investment bankers whose pay is public. Last year he received a salary of £250,000, but his total pay, including bonuses, reached £36m.......
Philippines: Moscow junket gone wrong.
This is from the Manila Tribune.
This is just a small sample of rather suspect goings on involving the Philippine police. I recall reading a survey a long while back in which Filipinos ranked organisations according to how corrupt they were. The top two were the National Police and the Armed Forces followed closely by politicians. The Roman Catholic Church was among the least corrupt according to the survey.
I imagine in the US that politicians would probably be ranked more corrupt than the armed forces or police! When I was in the Philippines I didn't experience any corruption, have any trouble with the police, armed forces, or bureaucrats!
It is a bit ironic that the police should get into trouble at a police conference. The 6.9 million pesos is just over 143 thousand US dollars quite a nice bit of pocket money for the 8 policemen. However this seems a lot less flagrant than the case of Carlos Garcia of the AFP as described in the article.
Moscow junket gone wrong
EDITORIAL
10/19/2008
Nobody, it seems, is ready to give up on the belief that nothing underhand was behind the detention of Philippine National Police (PNP) officials and their wives, including a retired officer and his wife carrying euros equivalent to P6.9 million in Moscow.
The incident has created another sorry addition to the corrupt image of the country despite the assertions of the government that there was nothing irregular in it.
It is hard to justify P6.9 million as expenses and pocket money for eight PNP officials. That would mean an equivalent of a little less than P1 million for each of the policemen who are supposedly attending the 77th Interpol General Assembly in Moscow.
With the perennial complaint about the local police lacking funds to purchase essential equipment, the allocation of such a huge amount for just one overseas trip or junket is seen as highly anomalous by most.
A cover up, some say, is very evident in the way PNP officials and the Palace had responded to the shameful Moscow incident.
The PNP had insisted that the money was a contingent fund for the delegates in the Moscow police convention while retired PNP comptroller Director Eliseo dela Paz who was held by Russian customs officials for carrying 105,000 euros said that some of the money was meant for the purchase of goods ordered by some family friends.
The incident again reminded many of a similar incident involving Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Comptroller Gen. Carlos Garcia, who was removed from the service after being charged with plunder.
Garcia’s two children were detained in a United States airport in 2003 after being caught with $100,000 in cash by US authorities in San Francisco without the necessary Customs declaration.
In April 2004, their mother and Garcia’s wife Clarita, signed a sworn statement before US authorities admitting much more money was brought to the United States but only that the money previously brought into the country was all declared by her.
It was later found that the Garcias owned properties in the US, including a $765,000 condominium on 502 Park Avenue; a $750,000 apartment at 222 East 34th Street, both in New York; and a house and lot in Westerville, Ohio.
While the similarity does not necessarily insinuate that comptrollers, whether in the PNP or the AFP, are all corrupt, the two incidents showed that Garcia and Dela Paz do not go around traipsing in foreign countries with loose change.
The fact that Garcia got away with merely a removal from service, caring none for the paltry P37,000 a month salary he had as comptroller, and now the defense from the Palace that Dela Paz was not carrying the P6.9 million illegally, gives a glimpse on the high tolerance of mischief in government under the Arroyo administration.
Dela Paz, who was under the custody of Russian authorities despite the government vouching for what was found in his possession, he and his wife are back at the hotel, but cannot leave Moscow, and that the Philippine Embassy will make sure of his presence when needed by Russian authorities. As of the latest report, Moscow authorities have cleared the documents sent by the Philippine government and Dela Paz and his wife are free to return home.
To consider that the event happened in the country where an Interpol meeting was being held and the ones apprehended were the country’s police officials again gives the country a huge blackeye.
The solution put forward by the PNP to address the problem was also more for show than anything else.
PNP chief, Director Gen. Jesus Verzosa said all foreign travels of police personnel are being suspended pending a review of existing policies on travels. The very next day, the PNP said that a handful of police officials were going to the United States for training.
The PNP also said it will hold seminars for its personnel to acclimatize them on rules and procedures in traveling to other countries.
The Moscow incident was not a situation involving an unintended violation of a rule on the carrying of currencies that is particular to Russia. A police officer should know this, even a retired one.
If indeed nothing is at fault in that incident, still it remains an indictment on the quality of the country’s police force.
This is just a small sample of rather suspect goings on involving the Philippine police. I recall reading a survey a long while back in which Filipinos ranked organisations according to how corrupt they were. The top two were the National Police and the Armed Forces followed closely by politicians. The Roman Catholic Church was among the least corrupt according to the survey.
I imagine in the US that politicians would probably be ranked more corrupt than the armed forces or police! When I was in the Philippines I didn't experience any corruption, have any trouble with the police, armed forces, or bureaucrats!
It is a bit ironic that the police should get into trouble at a police conference. The 6.9 million pesos is just over 143 thousand US dollars quite a nice bit of pocket money for the 8 policemen. However this seems a lot less flagrant than the case of Carlos Garcia of the AFP as described in the article.
Moscow junket gone wrong
EDITORIAL
10/19/2008
Nobody, it seems, is ready to give up on the belief that nothing underhand was behind the detention of Philippine National Police (PNP) officials and their wives, including a retired officer and his wife carrying euros equivalent to P6.9 million in Moscow.
The incident has created another sorry addition to the corrupt image of the country despite the assertions of the government that there was nothing irregular in it.
It is hard to justify P6.9 million as expenses and pocket money for eight PNP officials. That would mean an equivalent of a little less than P1 million for each of the policemen who are supposedly attending the 77th Interpol General Assembly in Moscow.
With the perennial complaint about the local police lacking funds to purchase essential equipment, the allocation of such a huge amount for just one overseas trip or junket is seen as highly anomalous by most.
A cover up, some say, is very evident in the way PNP officials and the Palace had responded to the shameful Moscow incident.
The PNP had insisted that the money was a contingent fund for the delegates in the Moscow police convention while retired PNP comptroller Director Eliseo dela Paz who was held by Russian customs officials for carrying 105,000 euros said that some of the money was meant for the purchase of goods ordered by some family friends.
The incident again reminded many of a similar incident involving Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Comptroller Gen. Carlos Garcia, who was removed from the service after being charged with plunder.
Garcia’s two children were detained in a United States airport in 2003 after being caught with $100,000 in cash by US authorities in San Francisco without the necessary Customs declaration.
In April 2004, their mother and Garcia’s wife Clarita, signed a sworn statement before US authorities admitting much more money was brought to the United States but only that the money previously brought into the country was all declared by her.
It was later found that the Garcias owned properties in the US, including a $765,000 condominium on 502 Park Avenue; a $750,000 apartment at 222 East 34th Street, both in New York; and a house and lot in Westerville, Ohio.
While the similarity does not necessarily insinuate that comptrollers, whether in the PNP or the AFP, are all corrupt, the two incidents showed that Garcia and Dela Paz do not go around traipsing in foreign countries with loose change.
The fact that Garcia got away with merely a removal from service, caring none for the paltry P37,000 a month salary he had as comptroller, and now the defense from the Palace that Dela Paz was not carrying the P6.9 million illegally, gives a glimpse on the high tolerance of mischief in government under the Arroyo administration.
Dela Paz, who was under the custody of Russian authorities despite the government vouching for what was found in his possession, he and his wife are back at the hotel, but cannot leave Moscow, and that the Philippine Embassy will make sure of his presence when needed by Russian authorities. As of the latest report, Moscow authorities have cleared the documents sent by the Philippine government and Dela Paz and his wife are free to return home.
To consider that the event happened in the country where an Interpol meeting was being held and the ones apprehended were the country’s police officials again gives the country a huge blackeye.
The solution put forward by the PNP to address the problem was also more for show than anything else.
PNP chief, Director Gen. Jesus Verzosa said all foreign travels of police personnel are being suspended pending a review of existing policies on travels. The very next day, the PNP said that a handful of police officials were going to the United States for training.
The PNP also said it will hold seminars for its personnel to acclimatize them on rules and procedures in traveling to other countries.
The Moscow incident was not a situation involving an unintended violation of a rule on the carrying of currencies that is particular to Russia. A police officer should know this, even a retired one.
If indeed nothing is at fault in that incident, still it remains an indictment on the quality of the country’s police force.
Civilian dead are a trade-off in NATO's war of barbarity in Afghanistan
It is heartening to find someone else who thinks exactly the same as I do on the air war in Afghanistan. The so-called collateral damage of civilian deaths is the result of a deliberate policy of giving priority to minimising coalition casualties over the deaths of the Afghan people that ISAF is supposed to protect. This policy is pursued even though the result may be even more coalition casualties since the Afghan tribes have a culture of revenge. Every civilian death demands retribution upon those who caused it and so the Taliban gain recruits with ever casualty. These deaths are not even counted by those supposedly protecting the security of the Afghan people.
Civilian dead are a trade-off in Nato's war of barbarity
The killing of innocent Afghans by US bombs is the result of a calculation, not just a mistake. And it is fuelling resistance
Seumas Milne
The Guardian,
Thursday October 16 2008
While the eyes of the western world have been fixed on the global financial crisis, the military campaign that launched the war on terror has been spinning out of control. Seven years after the US and Britain began their onslaught on Afghanistan to oust the Taliban and capture Osama bin Laden, the Taliban surround the capital, al-Qaida is flourishing in Pakistan and the war's sponsors have publicly fallen out about whether it has already been lost.
As the US joint chiefs of staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen concedes that the country is locked into a "downward spiral" of corruption, lawlessness and insurgency, Britain's ambassador in Kabul, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, is quoted in a leaked briefing as declaring that "American strategy is destined to fail". The same diplomat who told us last year that British forces would be in Afghanistan for decades now believes foreign troops are "part of the problem, not the solution".
The British commander Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith was last week even blunter. "We're not going to win this war," he said, adding that if the Taliban were prepared to "talk about a political settlement", that was "precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this". The double-barrelled duo were duly slapped down by US defence secretary Robert Gates for defeatism. But even Gates now publicly backs talks with the Taliban, which are in fact already taking place under Saudi sponsorship.
This is the conflict western politicians and media continue to urge their reluctant populations to support as a war for civilisation. In reality, it is a war of barbarity, whose contempt for the value of Afghan life has fuelled the very resistance that western military and political leaders are now unable to contain.
In this year alone, for every occupation soldier killed, at least three Afghan civilians have died at the hands of occupation forces. They include the 95 people, 60 of them children, killed by a US air assault in Azizabad in August; the 47 wedding guests dismembered by US bombardment in Nangarhar in July - US forces have a particular habit of attacking weddings; and the four women and children killed in a British rocket barrage six weeks ago in Sangin.
By far the most comprehensive research into Afghan casualties over the past seven years has been carried out by Marc Herold, a US professor at the University of New Hampshire. In his latest findings, Herold estimates that the number of civilians directly killed by the US and other Nato forces since 2006, up to 3,273, is already higher than the toll exacted by the devastating three-month bombardment that ousted the Taliban regime in 2001. And over the past year civilian deaths at the hands of Nato forces have tripled, despite changes in rules of engagement.
But most telling is the political and military calculation that underlies the Afghan civilian bloodletting. "Close air support" bomb attacks called in by ground forces - which rose from 176 in 2005 to 2,926 in 2007 and are now the US tactic of choice - are between four and 10 times as deadly for Afghan civilians as ground attacks, the figures show, and air strikes now account for 80% of those killed by the occupation forces.
But while 242 US and Nato ground troops have died in the war with the Taliban this year, not a single pilot has been killed in action. The trade-off could not be clearer. With troops thin on the ground and the US military up to their necks in Iraq and elsewhere, US and Nato reliance on air attacks minimises their own casualties while guaranteeing that Afghan civilians will die in far larger numbers.
It is that equation that makes a nonsense of US and British claims that their civilian victims are accidental "collateral damage", while the Taliban's use of roadside bombs, suicide attacks and classic guerrilla operations from civilian areas are a sign of their moral depravity. In real life, the escalating civilian death toll is not a mistake, but the result of a clear decision to put the lives of occupation troops before civilians; westerners before Afghans.
Dependence on air power is also a reflection of US imperial overstretch and the reluctance of Nato states to put more boots on the ground. But however much the nominal Afghan president Hamid Karzai rails against Nato's recklessness with Afghan blood, the indiscriminate air war carries on regardless. Given that the US government spent 10 times more on every sea otter affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill than it does in "condolence payments" to Afghans for the killing of a family member, perhaps that shouldn't come as a surprise.
But nor should it be that the occupation's cruelty is a recruiting sergeant for the Taliban. As Aga Lalai, who lost both grandparents, his wife, father, three brothers and four sisters in a US bombing in Helmand last summer, put it: "So long as there is just one 40-day-old boy remaining alive, Afghans will fight against the people who do this to us."
That doesn't just go for Afghanistan. Gordon Brown recently told British troops in Helmand: "What you are doing here prevents terrorism coming to the streets of Britain." The opposite is the case. The occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq - and the atrocities carried out against their people - are a crucial motivation for those planning terror attacks in Britain, as case after case has shown. Now the US is launching attacks inside Pakistan, the risks of further terror and destabilisation can only grow.
Senior Pakistani officials are convinced Nato is preparing to throw in the towel in Afghanistan. Both Bush and the two US presidential candidates are committed to an Iraq-style surge, though the number of troops being talked about cannot possibly make a decisive difference to the conflict - and in Barack Obama's case may be as much about providing political cover for his plans for Iraq. But the strategic importance of Afghanistan doesn't suggest any early US withdrawal: more likely an attempt to co-opt sections of the Taliban as part of a messy and protracted attempt to rearrange the occupation.
It will fail. The US and its allies cannot pacify Afghanistan nor seal the border with the Taliban's Pakistani sanctuary. Eventually there is bound to be some sort of negotiated withdrawal as part of a wider regional and domestic settlement. But many thousands of Afghans - as well as occupying troops - look certain to be sacrificed in the meantime.
s.milne@guardian.co.uk
Civilian dead are a trade-off in Nato's war of barbarity
The killing of innocent Afghans by US bombs is the result of a calculation, not just a mistake. And it is fuelling resistance
Seumas Milne
The Guardian,
Thursday October 16 2008
While the eyes of the western world have been fixed on the global financial crisis, the military campaign that launched the war on terror has been spinning out of control. Seven years after the US and Britain began their onslaught on Afghanistan to oust the Taliban and capture Osama bin Laden, the Taliban surround the capital, al-Qaida is flourishing in Pakistan and the war's sponsors have publicly fallen out about whether it has already been lost.
As the US joint chiefs of staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen concedes that the country is locked into a "downward spiral" of corruption, lawlessness and insurgency, Britain's ambassador in Kabul, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, is quoted in a leaked briefing as declaring that "American strategy is destined to fail". The same diplomat who told us last year that British forces would be in Afghanistan for decades now believes foreign troops are "part of the problem, not the solution".
The British commander Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith was last week even blunter. "We're not going to win this war," he said, adding that if the Taliban were prepared to "talk about a political settlement", that was "precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this". The double-barrelled duo were duly slapped down by US defence secretary Robert Gates for defeatism. But even Gates now publicly backs talks with the Taliban, which are in fact already taking place under Saudi sponsorship.
This is the conflict western politicians and media continue to urge their reluctant populations to support as a war for civilisation. In reality, it is a war of barbarity, whose contempt for the value of Afghan life has fuelled the very resistance that western military and political leaders are now unable to contain.
In this year alone, for every occupation soldier killed, at least three Afghan civilians have died at the hands of occupation forces. They include the 95 people, 60 of them children, killed by a US air assault in Azizabad in August; the 47 wedding guests dismembered by US bombardment in Nangarhar in July - US forces have a particular habit of attacking weddings; and the four women and children killed in a British rocket barrage six weeks ago in Sangin.
By far the most comprehensive research into Afghan casualties over the past seven years has been carried out by Marc Herold, a US professor at the University of New Hampshire. In his latest findings, Herold estimates that the number of civilians directly killed by the US and other Nato forces since 2006, up to 3,273, is already higher than the toll exacted by the devastating three-month bombardment that ousted the Taliban regime in 2001. And over the past year civilian deaths at the hands of Nato forces have tripled, despite changes in rules of engagement.
But most telling is the political and military calculation that underlies the Afghan civilian bloodletting. "Close air support" bomb attacks called in by ground forces - which rose from 176 in 2005 to 2,926 in 2007 and are now the US tactic of choice - are between four and 10 times as deadly for Afghan civilians as ground attacks, the figures show, and air strikes now account for 80% of those killed by the occupation forces.
But while 242 US and Nato ground troops have died in the war with the Taliban this year, not a single pilot has been killed in action. The trade-off could not be clearer. With troops thin on the ground and the US military up to their necks in Iraq and elsewhere, US and Nato reliance on air attacks minimises their own casualties while guaranteeing that Afghan civilians will die in far larger numbers.
It is that equation that makes a nonsense of US and British claims that their civilian victims are accidental "collateral damage", while the Taliban's use of roadside bombs, suicide attacks and classic guerrilla operations from civilian areas are a sign of their moral depravity. In real life, the escalating civilian death toll is not a mistake, but the result of a clear decision to put the lives of occupation troops before civilians; westerners before Afghans.
Dependence on air power is also a reflection of US imperial overstretch and the reluctance of Nato states to put more boots on the ground. But however much the nominal Afghan president Hamid Karzai rails against Nato's recklessness with Afghan blood, the indiscriminate air war carries on regardless. Given that the US government spent 10 times more on every sea otter affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill than it does in "condolence payments" to Afghans for the killing of a family member, perhaps that shouldn't come as a surprise.
But nor should it be that the occupation's cruelty is a recruiting sergeant for the Taliban. As Aga Lalai, who lost both grandparents, his wife, father, three brothers and four sisters in a US bombing in Helmand last summer, put it: "So long as there is just one 40-day-old boy remaining alive, Afghans will fight against the people who do this to us."
That doesn't just go for Afghanistan. Gordon Brown recently told British troops in Helmand: "What you are doing here prevents terrorism coming to the streets of Britain." The opposite is the case. The occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq - and the atrocities carried out against their people - are a crucial motivation for those planning terror attacks in Britain, as case after case has shown. Now the US is launching attacks inside Pakistan, the risks of further terror and destabilisation can only grow.
Senior Pakistani officials are convinced Nato is preparing to throw in the towel in Afghanistan. Both Bush and the two US presidential candidates are committed to an Iraq-style surge, though the number of troops being talked about cannot possibly make a decisive difference to the conflict - and in Barack Obama's case may be as much about providing political cover for his plans for Iraq. But the strategic importance of Afghanistan doesn't suggest any early US withdrawal: more likely an attempt to co-opt sections of the Taliban as part of a messy and protracted attempt to rearrange the occupation.
It will fail. The US and its allies cannot pacify Afghanistan nor seal the border with the Taliban's Pakistani sanctuary. Eventually there is bound to be some sort of negotiated withdrawal as part of a wider regional and domestic settlement. But many thousands of Afghans - as well as occupying troops - look certain to be sacrificed in the meantime.
s.milne@guardian.co.uk
Iraqi Clerics Speak Out against SOFA
This is from antiwar.com.
It is not clear that the agreement is even finalised yet according to a New York Times article.
As this article points out even if it is finally agreed the opposition is likely to be so strong within Iraq that it can never pass parliament. Both Sistani and Al Sadr plus some Sunnis oppose the agreement even as it is now. The U.S. is insistent that there be considerable immunity for its soldiers from Iraqi law and also perhaps for others working for the defence department. The Iraqis are unlikely to allow that. The details of the agreement are secret so discussion is only about leaked terms in draft agreements. Of course the US government is not about to let the US legislature to discuss the terms. This doesn't seem to be a big issue in the U.S.
Iraqi Clerics Speak Out Against SOFA
Posted October 17, 2008
There aren’t many things that a confidant of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a council of Iraqi Sunni religious leaders and the followers of firebrand Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr can all agree on, but they seem to have found common ground on one thing: they all oppose the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States.
Imam al-Qabanji told a crowd of hundreds in the Shi’ite holy city of Najaf today that the Shi’ite clergy is “very worried” about the SOFA. A Sunni council issued an anti-SOFA fatwa, and followers of al-Sadr are planning a massive demonstration tomorrow to call for the withdrawal of US forces.
Earlier in the week the SOFA was reportedly finalized, though White House Press Secretary Dana Perino insisted today that this was not the case. She anticipated a final agreement “soon.” It is unclear what if any terms remain to be hashed out, and details of the finished or nearly-finished deal have yet to be made public. The question of US troop immunity was among the last contentious issues.
Even once the terms are finalized, the agreement will face several stages of review in the Iraqi government, culminating with what is expected to be a very difficult vote in the Iraqi parliament. Given the ever-widening array of forces united against the pact, it is unclear whether the Maliki government will even submit it for a vote. In the past Maliki has said he would only submit the draft to parliament if he was confident of two-thirds support.
It is not clear that the agreement is even finalised yet according to a New York Times article.
As this article points out even if it is finally agreed the opposition is likely to be so strong within Iraq that it can never pass parliament. Both Sistani and Al Sadr plus some Sunnis oppose the agreement even as it is now. The U.S. is insistent that there be considerable immunity for its soldiers from Iraqi law and also perhaps for others working for the defence department. The Iraqis are unlikely to allow that. The details of the agreement are secret so discussion is only about leaked terms in draft agreements. Of course the US government is not about to let the US legislature to discuss the terms. This doesn't seem to be a big issue in the U.S.
Iraqi Clerics Speak Out Against SOFA
Posted October 17, 2008
There aren’t many things that a confidant of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a council of Iraqi Sunni religious leaders and the followers of firebrand Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr can all agree on, but they seem to have found common ground on one thing: they all oppose the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States.
Imam al-Qabanji told a crowd of hundreds in the Shi’ite holy city of Najaf today that the Shi’ite clergy is “very worried” about the SOFA. A Sunni council issued an anti-SOFA fatwa, and followers of al-Sadr are planning a massive demonstration tomorrow to call for the withdrawal of US forces.
Earlier in the week the SOFA was reportedly finalized, though White House Press Secretary Dana Perino insisted today that this was not the case. She anticipated a final agreement “soon.” It is unclear what if any terms remain to be hashed out, and details of the finished or nearly-finished deal have yet to be made public. The question of US troop immunity was among the last contentious issues.
Even once the terms are finalized, the agreement will face several stages of review in the Iraqi government, culminating with what is expected to be a very difficult vote in the Iraqi parliament. Given the ever-widening array of forces united against the pact, it is unclear whether the Maliki government will even submit it for a vote. In the past Maliki has said he would only submit the draft to parliament if he was confident of two-thirds support.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Philippines: GSIS state run pension fund stocks lose value.
The declines in value are hardly surprising given the state of world stock markets. These stocks are of companies in many different countries and show that stock declines are global not just in the U.S. Some of the declines are very steep but pension funds are invested over the long haul so in time they should recover.
Crash pummels GSIS foreign portfolio
By Daxim LucasPhilippine Daily Inquirer
Posted date: October 18, 2008
MANILA, Philippines—The state-run pension fund Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) may have incurred more losses due to the sharp decline in stock prices around the world in recent weeks, an examination of its portfolio of stock holdings revealed.
The “global property securities” held by the GSIS also showed marked drops in their values in the weeks following the GSIS declared profits from its overseas investments.
One particular investment — in Helsinki-listed Citycon OYJ — showed an 85-percent drop in its value since the GSIS began its foreign investment program. Other property investments, such as in Brazil’s BR Malls Participacoes SA and Singapore-based property fund Capitamall Reit, showed declines of over 50 percent.
At the height of the global stock market meltdown last week, some of the GSIS holdings in its global investment program (GIP) lost more than three-fourths of their value, according to published stock prices.
The biggest losers in the GSIS portfolio included UK-based consumer credit firm Cattles Plc, which lost 77 percent of its value, Singapore-listed real estate investment fund CDL Hospitality Trust (down 71.7 percent), New York-listed Allied Irish Bank (down 73.8 percent) and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (down 76.2 percent).
Other large losers included Singapore-based manufacturer Hong Leong Asia Ltd. (down 69.7 percent), China Coal Energy (down 65.7 percent) and the world’s biggest telecommunications firm China Mobile Ltd. (down 45 percent).
The GSIS has said it had acquired 123 stocks under the GIP. It listed its holdings in a paid advertisement published last week.
The GSIS earlier announced that its foreign investment activities began around April.
A survey of the performance of GSIS’ stocks showed that the prices of at least 82 stocks retreated in value from April 1 to Sept. 30, 2008 — the cut-off date for the pension fund’s published report — and only 15 stocks registered gains.
During this period, at least eight stocks lost more than half their value, with Cattles Plc performing the worst. Eleven other stocks on the GSIS portfolio lost between 30 and 40 percent during this period, and at least two stocks showed double-digit gains.
Earlier this year, GSIS allotted $600 million for foreign investments to be managed by ING Investment Management and Credit Agricole Asset Management.
GSIS president and general manager Winston Garcia earlier said the recent declines in stock markets around the world presented the pension fund with fresh buying opportunities. He said the investments were long-term in nature.
Its published investments last week also showed the GSIS earned the bulk of its declared gains from foreign exchange fluctuations — a result of the weaker peso against the dollar in which the investments were denominated.
The GSIS said it had earned P1.4 billion as of the end of September from an initial investment of P25.12 billion, for a return of 5.65 percent.
When computed in dollar terms, the figures showed that the pension fund may have incurred losses of as high as $48.9 million, or about P2.33 billion, using the latest foreign exchange rate.
In dollar terms, the GSIS may be actually losing eight percent as against a five-percent gain in peso terms.
As of late Friday, GSIS officials had yet to respond to the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s requests for clarifications on its foreign investments. Edited by INQUIRER.net
©Copyright 2001-2008 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company
Crash pummels GSIS foreign portfolio
By Daxim LucasPhilippine Daily Inquirer
Posted date: October 18, 2008
MANILA, Philippines—The state-run pension fund Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) may have incurred more losses due to the sharp decline in stock prices around the world in recent weeks, an examination of its portfolio of stock holdings revealed.
The “global property securities” held by the GSIS also showed marked drops in their values in the weeks following the GSIS declared profits from its overseas investments.
One particular investment — in Helsinki-listed Citycon OYJ — showed an 85-percent drop in its value since the GSIS began its foreign investment program. Other property investments, such as in Brazil’s BR Malls Participacoes SA and Singapore-based property fund Capitamall Reit, showed declines of over 50 percent.
At the height of the global stock market meltdown last week, some of the GSIS holdings in its global investment program (GIP) lost more than three-fourths of their value, according to published stock prices.
The biggest losers in the GSIS portfolio included UK-based consumer credit firm Cattles Plc, which lost 77 percent of its value, Singapore-listed real estate investment fund CDL Hospitality Trust (down 71.7 percent), New York-listed Allied Irish Bank (down 73.8 percent) and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (down 76.2 percent).
Other large losers included Singapore-based manufacturer Hong Leong Asia Ltd. (down 69.7 percent), China Coal Energy (down 65.7 percent) and the world’s biggest telecommunications firm China Mobile Ltd. (down 45 percent).
The GSIS has said it had acquired 123 stocks under the GIP. It listed its holdings in a paid advertisement published last week.
The GSIS earlier announced that its foreign investment activities began around April.
A survey of the performance of GSIS’ stocks showed that the prices of at least 82 stocks retreated in value from April 1 to Sept. 30, 2008 — the cut-off date for the pension fund’s published report — and only 15 stocks registered gains.
During this period, at least eight stocks lost more than half their value, with Cattles Plc performing the worst. Eleven other stocks on the GSIS portfolio lost between 30 and 40 percent during this period, and at least two stocks showed double-digit gains.
Earlier this year, GSIS allotted $600 million for foreign investments to be managed by ING Investment Management and Credit Agricole Asset Management.
GSIS president and general manager Winston Garcia earlier said the recent declines in stock markets around the world presented the pension fund with fresh buying opportunities. He said the investments were long-term in nature.
Its published investments last week also showed the GSIS earned the bulk of its declared gains from foreign exchange fluctuations — a result of the weaker peso against the dollar in which the investments were denominated.
The GSIS said it had earned P1.4 billion as of the end of September from an initial investment of P25.12 billion, for a return of 5.65 percent.
When computed in dollar terms, the figures showed that the pension fund may have incurred losses of as high as $48.9 million, or about P2.33 billion, using the latest foreign exchange rate.
In dollar terms, the GSIS may be actually losing eight percent as against a five-percent gain in peso terms.
As of late Friday, GSIS officials had yet to respond to the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s requests for clarifications on its foreign investments. Edited by INQUIRER.net
©Copyright 2001-2008 INQUIRER.net, An Inquirer Company
Pakistani Govt. Split on Terror Policy
This is from antiwar.com. While at present Pakistan may not be able to do much but look as if it is carrying out US demands the fact that China is helping out in the Pakistani financial crisis is significant. Pakistan may be able to call upon countries not all that favorable to the US for aid. Even by threatening to do so they may obtain some leverage over their treatment by the US but probably not much. The Pakistani military depends upon the US almost entirely I expect.
The Zardari government seems as if it is doomed. Perhaps Zardari himself will meet the same fate as his wife Benadir Bhutto.
Pakistani Govt Split on Terror Policy
Posted October 17, 2008
Last week’s rare intelligence briefing for the Pakistani parliament was meant to unite MPs behind President Asif Ali Zardari’s terror strategy, but seems to have been an utter failure. While members of the opposition were already calling for an end to cooperation with the US and peace talks to end the rising violence in the country, the briefing seems to have polarized even what’s left of the President’s tenuous coalition government.
Though only a small part of the current coalition since most of the party boycotted the 2008 elections over Musharraf’s state of emergency, the Jamiat Ulema-e Islam (JUI) is a highly influential party in Pakistan. They demanded, while the Pakistani Army was presenting information to the parliament, that the Tehreek-e Taliban (TTP) be allowed to address the parliament as well.
The TTP offered unconditional talks to the Pakistani government earlier this week, and offered once again to lay down their arms in return for an end to the military’s offensives against them. There are reports that the government has turned down this latest offer as well, and the military claims to have killed another 60 militants in the latest air strike in Swat Valley.
The opposition has also increased its criticism. Former Musharraf government minister Tariq Azim says “the majority of the people of Pakistan do not see it as our war,” while an MP from Nawaz Sharif’s powerful PML-N complained that “the US are trying to externalize their failure in Afghanistan by dumping it on us.”
Pakistan’s terror policy seems all the more pressing as the global economic crisis leaves the nation teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. This led Pakistani Defense Secretary Kamran Rasool to warn last week that the government could not abandon the terror war without facing sanctions and financial ruin. This may be a less convincing argument since Pakistan secured significant financial help from China this week
The Zardari government seems as if it is doomed. Perhaps Zardari himself will meet the same fate as his wife Benadir Bhutto.
Pakistani Govt Split on Terror Policy
Posted October 17, 2008
Last week’s rare intelligence briefing for the Pakistani parliament was meant to unite MPs behind President Asif Ali Zardari’s terror strategy, but seems to have been an utter failure. While members of the opposition were already calling for an end to cooperation with the US and peace talks to end the rising violence in the country, the briefing seems to have polarized even what’s left of the President’s tenuous coalition government.
Though only a small part of the current coalition since most of the party boycotted the 2008 elections over Musharraf’s state of emergency, the Jamiat Ulema-e Islam (JUI) is a highly influential party in Pakistan. They demanded, while the Pakistani Army was presenting information to the parliament, that the Tehreek-e Taliban (TTP) be allowed to address the parliament as well.
The TTP offered unconditional talks to the Pakistani government earlier this week, and offered once again to lay down their arms in return for an end to the military’s offensives against them. There are reports that the government has turned down this latest offer as well, and the military claims to have killed another 60 militants in the latest air strike in Swat Valley.
The opposition has also increased its criticism. Former Musharraf government minister Tariq Azim says “the majority of the people of Pakistan do not see it as our war,” while an MP from Nawaz Sharif’s powerful PML-N complained that “the US are trying to externalize their failure in Afghanistan by dumping it on us.”
Pakistan’s terror policy seems all the more pressing as the global economic crisis leaves the nation teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. This led Pakistani Defense Secretary Kamran Rasool to warn last week that the government could not abandon the terror war without facing sanctions and financial ruin. This may be a less convincing argument since Pakistan secured significant financial help from China this week
SOFA faces increasingly thorny path in Iraqi parliament.
This is from antiwar.com.
It is not clear whether Maliki is just going to have cabinet ratify the agreement if he can't get a two thirds majority in parliament or just give up on the agreement. I assume the latter. It is rather ironic that in this case the Iraqi system is more accountable than the US system. Bush will not bring the agreement before US legislators. You would think there would be a huge outcry in the US about this, but I guess other issues are much more urgent.
SOFA Faces Increasingly Thorny Path in Iraqi Parliament
Posted October 16, 2008
The Bush Administration and Iraqi negotiators may have completed a final draft of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), but its prospects for approval in the Iraqi parliament seem to grow more questionable by the minute.
Aides of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki say that he will only submit the agreement to parliament if he is convinced it will receive two thirds support, unlikely given the growing split between Maliki’s Dawa Party and rival Shi’ite faction the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. The split may threaten the coalition government after the next round of elections, but votes on the controversial SOFA will likely be a first test of how strong the ties between the two remain.
But while Maliki hopes to keep his coalition together by reconciling with the bloc of MPs still loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, they are unlikely to help the Prime Minister rescue the faltering SOFA before the December 31 deadline given outspoken opposition from Sadr’s supporters. The bloc was also invited to a meeting to discuss the pact, but declined to attend, claiming the pact aims at “legitimizing the presence of occupation troops” and that they don’t believe there is a reason for foreign troops to remain in the country.
If Iraq is unable to approve the SOFA by the deadline, they will reportedly consider asking the United Nations Security Council to renew its mandate for foreign forces to remain in the country. Getting Security Council approval for the continued presence may be difficult given the increasing tense relations between the United States and Russia.
US Senators have expressed concern with subjecting US troops to Iraqi legal jurisdiction for crimes committed off duty and off base, though Defense Secretary Robert Gates is attempting to reassure them that it provides “adequately” for the protection of troops. Administration officials have said repeatedly that they don’t intend to submit the deal to Congress for approval, making the Senate concerns little more than an aside.
It is not clear whether Maliki is just going to have cabinet ratify the agreement if he can't get a two thirds majority in parliament or just give up on the agreement. I assume the latter. It is rather ironic that in this case the Iraqi system is more accountable than the US system. Bush will not bring the agreement before US legislators. You would think there would be a huge outcry in the US about this, but I guess other issues are much more urgent.
SOFA Faces Increasingly Thorny Path in Iraqi Parliament
Posted October 16, 2008
The Bush Administration and Iraqi negotiators may have completed a final draft of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), but its prospects for approval in the Iraqi parliament seem to grow more questionable by the minute.
Aides of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki say that he will only submit the agreement to parliament if he is convinced it will receive two thirds support, unlikely given the growing split between Maliki’s Dawa Party and rival Shi’ite faction the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. The split may threaten the coalition government after the next round of elections, but votes on the controversial SOFA will likely be a first test of how strong the ties between the two remain.
But while Maliki hopes to keep his coalition together by reconciling with the bloc of MPs still loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, they are unlikely to help the Prime Minister rescue the faltering SOFA before the December 31 deadline given outspoken opposition from Sadr’s supporters. The bloc was also invited to a meeting to discuss the pact, but declined to attend, claiming the pact aims at “legitimizing the presence of occupation troops” and that they don’t believe there is a reason for foreign troops to remain in the country.
If Iraq is unable to approve the SOFA by the deadline, they will reportedly consider asking the United Nations Security Council to renew its mandate for foreign forces to remain in the country. Getting Security Council approval for the continued presence may be difficult given the increasing tense relations between the United States and Russia.
US Senators have expressed concern with subjecting US troops to Iraqi legal jurisdiction for crimes committed off duty and off base, though Defense Secretary Robert Gates is attempting to reassure them that it provides “adequately” for the protection of troops. Administration officials have said repeatedly that they don’t intend to submit the deal to Congress for approval, making the Senate concerns little more than an aside.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Philippines: Supreme Court rules on future MILF agreement
There must be consultation and the agreement must be constitutional. Arroyo had been trying to negotiate more or less in secret and with no consultation. The MILF will no doubt be very upset and feel that Arroyo has been negotiating in bad faith. No doubt she was with respect to the rest of the Philippine people. With respect to the MILF it is less clear. She should have known that the agreement would be unconstitutional but maybe she thought the supreme court would go along with her. It was close. Unfortunately the end result will be as the editorial claims: renewed armed conflict.
A welcome ruling
Editorial
‘The guidelines are prescriptive. The ruling, thus, has the effect of setting the ground rules for a possible resumption of negotiations. Now, the question: Is the executive prepared to go back to the negotiating table based on these clear-cut instructions?’
The Supreme Court has struck down the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain which was drawn up by the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in what both sides said was a big step toward ending the Muslim insurgency in Mindanao.
The vote was a tight 8-7. It could have gone the other way, with the minority’s position anchored on Malacañang’s stand that the issue was moot and academic because Gloria Arroyo had already given the assurance that her administration would not sign the agreement in its present or any other form.
The majority’s ruling should be welcome. It lays down the parameters for any negotiations that the Executive department may pursue in the future. There must be public consultation and any and all concessions granted to the MILF must be within the bounds of the Constitution.
Negotiating in furtive secrecy amounts to a whimsical, capricious, oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise of legal authority, the court said. The Executive also cannot enter into an agreement which commits itself to seek changes in the charter to accommodate the terms of that very agreement, for the power to propose amendments resides exclusively on Congress.
(Beyond the specific issues, the ruling was also welcome in that it dispels suspicion that the highest court is now in the pocket of Malacañang following the upholding of the claim of executive privilege on the Neri case.)
The guidelines are prescriptive. The ruling, thus, has the effect of setting the ground rules for a possible resumption of negotiations. Now, the question: Is the executive prepared to go back to the negotiating table based on these clear-cut instructions? And corollary to that, is the MILF agreeable to entering into negotiations in the full knowledge of such instructions upon the other party?
As we see it, the Supreme Court ruling has nil effect on the position already adopted by the Executive. Arroyo has already said her new peace tack calls for disarmament, demobilization and re-integration. DDR or by any other name demands the surrender of the arms and disbandment of the armed units of the MILF.
We also already know what the MILF response to Arroyo’s position is. What the government cannot win in the battlefield, it cannot gain on the negotiating table.
Both sides are already headed for a collision course. The Supreme Court ruling merely firms up the trajectory already adopted and announced by Arroyo. Even if the minority opinion had prevailed, the effect would have been the same.
It’s war then. We can only pray it does not consume us all.
A welcome ruling
Editorial
‘The guidelines are prescriptive. The ruling, thus, has the effect of setting the ground rules for a possible resumption of negotiations. Now, the question: Is the executive prepared to go back to the negotiating table based on these clear-cut instructions?’
The Supreme Court has struck down the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain which was drawn up by the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in what both sides said was a big step toward ending the Muslim insurgency in Mindanao.
The vote was a tight 8-7. It could have gone the other way, with the minority’s position anchored on Malacañang’s stand that the issue was moot and academic because Gloria Arroyo had already given the assurance that her administration would not sign the agreement in its present or any other form.
The majority’s ruling should be welcome. It lays down the parameters for any negotiations that the Executive department may pursue in the future. There must be public consultation and any and all concessions granted to the MILF must be within the bounds of the Constitution.
Negotiating in furtive secrecy amounts to a whimsical, capricious, oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise of legal authority, the court said. The Executive also cannot enter into an agreement which commits itself to seek changes in the charter to accommodate the terms of that very agreement, for the power to propose amendments resides exclusively on Congress.
(Beyond the specific issues, the ruling was also welcome in that it dispels suspicion that the highest court is now in the pocket of Malacañang following the upholding of the claim of executive privilege on the Neri case.)
The guidelines are prescriptive. The ruling, thus, has the effect of setting the ground rules for a possible resumption of negotiations. Now, the question: Is the executive prepared to go back to the negotiating table based on these clear-cut instructions? And corollary to that, is the MILF agreeable to entering into negotiations in the full knowledge of such instructions upon the other party?
As we see it, the Supreme Court ruling has nil effect on the position already adopted by the Executive. Arroyo has already said her new peace tack calls for disarmament, demobilization and re-integration. DDR or by any other name demands the surrender of the arms and disbandment of the armed units of the MILF.
We also already know what the MILF response to Arroyo’s position is. What the government cannot win in the battlefield, it cannot gain on the negotiating table.
Both sides are already headed for a collision course. The Supreme Court ruling merely firms up the trajectory already adopted and announced by Arroyo. Even if the minority opinion had prevailed, the effect would have been the same.
It’s war then. We can only pray it does not consume us all.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Crimea calls for recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Enclaves
This is from antiwar.com.
Crimea itself may be seeking more autonomy from the Ukraine and hoping to ally itself with Russia. The U.S. is getting itself in a more and more confrontational position vis-a-vis Russia. The idea that Russia will ever allow either of the two enclaves to become part of Georgia again is pure fantasy. The fact is that the majority in each region do not want to be part of Georgia and Russia will back up that majority with force if Georgia tries again to retake them by military means.
Crimea Calls for Recognition of South Ossetia, Abkhazia as Enclaves Sign Russia Defense Deal
Posted September 17, 2008
The Crimean Parliament voted today 79-8 to press the Ukrainian government to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It seems highly unlikely that the Ukrainian government will act on the call given the collapse of its coalition government and the strongly anti-Russian sentiment of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.
The move would also have serious ramifications within the Crimea, which enjoys a large measure of independence already and might be seen to move in the direction of separation in light of its large Russian population and the Ukrainian government’s stated desire to expel the Russian Navy from a base rented in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.
And even though the vote is non-binding it does add to the credibility of the independence of the enclaves, which formally separated themselves from Georgia after the brief Georgia-Russia war in August. Russia is the only power in the region to recognize the move, and the United States has promised to use its status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to ensure that the enclaves are forever seen as Georgian provinces in the eyes of the world.
The status of the enclaves is a major bone of contention in Russia’s increasingly tense relationship with the West. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has vowed to return the regions to Georgian control. This seems increasingly unlikely however, as today Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed formal treaties with both enclaves promising to defend them from any future attack.
NATO has supported Georgia’s position on the lost territories, and publicly denounced a EU-brokered peace deal which would allow Russia to keep troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as a hedge against future Georgian attacks. They also are moving cautiously toward offering Georgia membership, though questions about President Saakashvili’s penchant for anti-opposition crackdowns has delayed any formal offer to join. Russia has criticized NATO for its “Cold War-era reflexes“.
Crimea itself may be seeking more autonomy from the Ukraine and hoping to ally itself with Russia. The U.S. is getting itself in a more and more confrontational position vis-a-vis Russia. The idea that Russia will ever allow either of the two enclaves to become part of Georgia again is pure fantasy. The fact is that the majority in each region do not want to be part of Georgia and Russia will back up that majority with force if Georgia tries again to retake them by military means.
Crimea Calls for Recognition of South Ossetia, Abkhazia as Enclaves Sign Russia Defense Deal
Posted September 17, 2008
The Crimean Parliament voted today 79-8 to press the Ukrainian government to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It seems highly unlikely that the Ukrainian government will act on the call given the collapse of its coalition government and the strongly anti-Russian sentiment of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.
The move would also have serious ramifications within the Crimea, which enjoys a large measure of independence already and might be seen to move in the direction of separation in light of its large Russian population and the Ukrainian government’s stated desire to expel the Russian Navy from a base rented in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.
And even though the vote is non-binding it does add to the credibility of the independence of the enclaves, which formally separated themselves from Georgia after the brief Georgia-Russia war in August. Russia is the only power in the region to recognize the move, and the United States has promised to use its status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to ensure that the enclaves are forever seen as Georgian provinces in the eyes of the world.
The status of the enclaves is a major bone of contention in Russia’s increasingly tense relationship with the West. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has vowed to return the regions to Georgian control. This seems increasingly unlikely however, as today Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed formal treaties with both enclaves promising to defend them from any future attack.
NATO has supported Georgia’s position on the lost territories, and publicly denounced a EU-brokered peace deal which would allow Russia to keep troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as a hedge against future Georgian attacks. They also are moving cautiously toward offering Georgia membership, though questions about President Saakashvili’s penchant for anti-opposition crackdowns has delayed any formal offer to join. Russia has criticized NATO for its “Cold War-era reflexes“.
US Iraq negotiators finalize SOFA but pact still faces approval by Cabinet and parliament.
Strange that the Pact is not publicly disclosed. Although this is a pact that will have consequences for all Iraqis it is apparently not the sort of thing that should be made public and discussed in newspapers etc. At least it seems that pact will go through the Iraqi parliament. The US legislature and senate on the other hand will not get to pass judgment on the pact! This is from antiwar.com.
US, Iraqi Negotiators Finalize SOFA, Pact Still Faces Long Road to Final Approval
Posted October 15, 2008
US and Iraqi officials say that the final draft of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) has been completed, and has been submitted to Iraq’s political leadership for a long, arduous approval process. While the overall terms of the agreement were not publicly disclosed as of yet, they reportedly included a firm end of 2011 deadline (barring a future agreement) and an unspecified compromise agreement on the question of troop immunity.
While the Bush Administration insists that the president can approve the long-term deal without any Congressional oversight or approval, the road for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a complex one indeed. The draft must first be reviewed by a body of political leaders including Maliki, President Jalal Talabani, and several other high ranking officials. If they approve, it moves along to the Iraqi Cabinet for review.
But it doesn’t stop there. Even if Iraq’s Cabinet approves of the deal, it would then have to be submitted to the Iraqi Parliament for final approval. There was talk, stemming from a previous draft of the agreement, that Prime Minister Maliki might bypass the final step of parliamentary approval. This seems highly unlikely at this point however, as Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has reportedly demanded that parliament be involved in the final decision.
There is no guarantee that parliament will sign off on the controversial agreement, which has much popular opposition. General Raymond Odierno has also accused Iran of attempting to bribe members of parliament in an attempt to influence any vote, but the Iraqi government slammed the general, saying it upsets relations with the Multi-National Troops.
If the Iraqi parliament doesn’t approve of the SOFA, the government has said it will consider approaching the United Nations Security Council to expand its mandate, which expires on December 31.
US, Iraqi Negotiators Finalize SOFA, Pact Still Faces Long Road to Final Approval
Posted October 15, 2008
US and Iraqi officials say that the final draft of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) has been completed, and has been submitted to Iraq’s political leadership for a long, arduous approval process. While the overall terms of the agreement were not publicly disclosed as of yet, they reportedly included a firm end of 2011 deadline (barring a future agreement) and an unspecified compromise agreement on the question of troop immunity.
While the Bush Administration insists that the president can approve the long-term deal without any Congressional oversight or approval, the road for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a complex one indeed. The draft must first be reviewed by a body of political leaders including Maliki, President Jalal Talabani, and several other high ranking officials. If they approve, it moves along to the Iraqi Cabinet for review.
But it doesn’t stop there. Even if Iraq’s Cabinet approves of the deal, it would then have to be submitted to the Iraqi Parliament for final approval. There was talk, stemming from a previous draft of the agreement, that Prime Minister Maliki might bypass the final step of parliamentary approval. This seems highly unlikely at this point however, as Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has reportedly demanded that parliament be involved in the final decision.
There is no guarantee that parliament will sign off on the controversial agreement, which has much popular opposition. General Raymond Odierno has also accused Iran of attempting to bribe members of parliament in an attempt to influence any vote, but the Iraqi government slammed the general, saying it upsets relations with the Multi-National Troops.
If the Iraqi parliament doesn’t approve of the SOFA, the government has said it will consider approaching the United Nations Security Council to expand its mandate, which expires on December 31.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
No accord yet on SOFA with Iraq.
THis is from the Washington Post.
The discussions began with the U.S. hardly ceding any authority to the Iraq govt. in key areas.
The discussions began badly, with Iraqi negotiators rejecting an initial administration draft. The insistence of the United States on retaining complete command over its military operations and detention of Iraqi citizens, as well as control over borders and airspace, was a "dead end," Maliki said.
So much for creating a sovereign Iraq. Although many compromises were made the issue of complete US forces and defence employees immunity from Iraq law is one that the U.S. will not compromise on apparently. It remains to be seen what Plan B will be.
Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B
By Karen DeYoungWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, October 14, 2008; A01
With time running out for the conclusion of an agreement governing American forces in Iraq, nervous negotiators have begun examining alternatives that would allow U.S. troops to stay beyond the Dec. 31 deadline, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.
Neither side finds the options attractive. One possibility is an extension of the United Nations mandate that expires at the end of the year. That would require a Security Council vote that both governments believe could be complicated by Russia or others opposed to the U.S.-led war. Another alternative would amount to a simple handshake agreement between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush to leave things as they are until a new deal, under a new U.S. administration, can be negotiated.
Negotiators have been stuck for months on the question of legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and immunity for possible crimes. But even if the sides reach a deal in the next few days or weeks, it is not clear that a formal status-of-forces agreement could be approved by the end of the year. Maliki has pledged to submit an accord to Iraq's divided parliament before he signs it -- a promise he reaffirmed last week during a visit to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric. Sistani has said he will not endorse any document without the support of Iraq's population and political factions.
If the parliament refuses, Maliki would have "no choice" but to request a U.N. extension "because the American forces will lose their legal cover on Dec. 31," he told the Times of London in a weekend interview. "If that happens, according to international law, Iraqi law and American law, the U.S. forces will be confined to their bases and have to withdraw from Iraq," Maliki said.
U.S. officials do not dispute that the absence of an agreement would probably require an immediate end to combat operations and, at a minimum, confinement to bases on Jan. 1. Officials refused to discuss the sensitive issue on the record while negotiations are ongoing.
"I am actually reasonably optimistic we will come to closure on this in a very near future," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters Friday as he returned from a five-day trip to Europe. A month earlier, on Sept. 8, Gates told Congress that he expected an agreement "within the next few weeks."
"But I had hoped that some weeks ago," Gates added.
Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi said yesterday that an accord is unlikely before the end of the year, citing the number of parties that must sign off on the deal. "I'm not sure that the time we have left is enough for all of these organizations to study it, revise it and agree on the text," Hashimi told McClatchy Newspapers.
Frustrated over what they consider Iraqi intransigence, administration officials have said Iranian meddling is keeping Shiite leaders from accommodating U.S. bottom lines. The government-sanctioned Iranian media have charged repeatedly that Washington is trying to force Maliki to sell out Iraqi sovereignty. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, with a bloc of supporters in Iraq's parliament and a powerful militia currently under a cease-fire, has called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal.
Other Shiite political groups are divided over the deal, and some, including Maliki's Dawa party, disagree internally. But U.S. officials, uncertain of where Maliki really stands, tell themselves that ultimately he cannot afford for U.S. operations to shut down.
The U.S. military has repeatedly described security gains over the past year as "fragile" and "reversible." The main concerns, a senior officer said, are that the Sons of Iraq security forces -- largely Sunni groups now being paid by and under the control of the Maliki government -- will revert to insurgency and that "special groups" of Shiite militia members, tied to Iran, will relaunch an offensive in Baghdad and other population centers.
Maliki himself said Saturday that "a sudden withdrawal may harm security." But the game of chicken his government appears to be playing has continued as the U.S. election approaches. Any new administration, whether Republican or Democratic, would need to start negotiations from scratch, with different priorities on a possible withdrawal timeline and the ongoing mission for U.S. troops.
The Iraqi prime minister in August twice assured Bush -- once personally via videoconference and again through Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a visit to Baghdad -- that the deal was done, Iraqi and U.S. officials said. Since midsummer, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has made repeated public statements confirming agreement on a draft.
The prospect that no deal would be reached, or that negotiations would come so close to the wire, was unthinkable when talks began in March, four months after Bush and Maliki signed a declaration of principles outlining a future U.S. military presence in Iraq. The declaration set a deadline of July 31.
The discussions began badly, with Iraqi negotiators rejecting an initial administration draft. The insistence of the United States on retaining complete command over its military operations and detention of Iraqi citizens, as well as control over borders and airspace, was a "dead end," Maliki said.
When the stalemate continued through May, Bush ordered U.S. negotiators to show more flexibility, and compromises were quickly reached giving Iraqis at least some say in U.S. operations and detentions. Joint control of airspace -- recognizing that Iraq was not yet capable of handling it alone and that U.S. controllers needed to be in charge of U.S. military aircraft -- was also worked out.
Disagreement then centered on a timeline for U.S. withdrawal. Maliki said that the end of 2010 was a reasonable goal, a public statement that appeared more consistent with the position of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama -- who has called for an even earlier withdrawal -- than that of Republican Sen. John McCain, who has opposed a firm timeline.
During Rice's Aug. 21 visit to Baghdad, the two sides agreed on withdrawal of combat forces by the end of 2011. But U.S. officials continue to speak of an "aspirational" date depending on ground conditions, while Maliki said Saturday that the agreement is for "final withdrawal by the end of 2011." Both have said that U.S. combat troops will be drawn back from Iraqi cities by mid-2009.
The two governments put an optimistic public spin on their progress, with Zebari previewing a political discussion among Iraqi parties and factions over an agreed draft, and the Americans congratulating Iraq on the health of its democracy. "There's actually a great debate about this right now," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Sept. 2. Maliki was determined to attain full Iraqi sovereignty and independence, Mullen said, and "that's one of the things that we've encouraged as his burgeoning democracy comes forward."
Behind the scenes, however, the negotiating teams remained deadlocked on a question that had long been set aside as too hard: whether the Iraqi government would have any legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and civilian Defense Department personnel. U.S. officials have consistently said that it is a redline issue for them, with no compromise possible over total U.S. jurisdiction.
Iraq's position seemed to have hardened by early September: Maliki fired his chief negotiator and "retired" most of the team the Americans had worked with throughout the summer, instead installing two officials seen as political confidants. The two senior U.S. negotiators -- David M. Satterfield of the State Department and Brett McGurk of the National Security Council -- took a break after months in Baghdad to regroup and seek new instructions.
Satterfield and McGurk returned to Baghdad two weeks ago with a new formulation of the U.S. demand that any alleged crime by U.S. defense personnel would be judged by U.S. courts and U.S. law. For major offenses committed off-base and outside U.S. military operations, the Iraqi judiciary would have consultative input.
On Saturday, Maliki outlined a somewhat different position. "If Iraqi and American soldiers move in an operation that is pre-agreed by both sides, then they have immunity unless [an American] commits a deliberate crime during the operation."
"The sticking point," he said, "is about if the American soldier was not on a mission and commits a crime that is accountable to the Iraqi judicial system, whether small or big. The Iraqi judicial system should have jurisdiction over the American soldier. This is the point of difference."
The discussions began with the U.S. hardly ceding any authority to the Iraq govt. in key areas.
The discussions began badly, with Iraqi negotiators rejecting an initial administration draft. The insistence of the United States on retaining complete command over its military operations and detention of Iraqi citizens, as well as control over borders and airspace, was a "dead end," Maliki said.
So much for creating a sovereign Iraq. Although many compromises were made the issue of complete US forces and defence employees immunity from Iraq law is one that the U.S. will not compromise on apparently. It remains to be seen what Plan B will be.
Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B
By Karen DeYoungWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, October 14, 2008; A01
With time running out for the conclusion of an agreement governing American forces in Iraq, nervous negotiators have begun examining alternatives that would allow U.S. troops to stay beyond the Dec. 31 deadline, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.
Neither side finds the options attractive. One possibility is an extension of the United Nations mandate that expires at the end of the year. That would require a Security Council vote that both governments believe could be complicated by Russia or others opposed to the U.S.-led war. Another alternative would amount to a simple handshake agreement between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush to leave things as they are until a new deal, under a new U.S. administration, can be negotiated.
Negotiators have been stuck for months on the question of legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and immunity for possible crimes. But even if the sides reach a deal in the next few days or weeks, it is not clear that a formal status-of-forces agreement could be approved by the end of the year. Maliki has pledged to submit an accord to Iraq's divided parliament before he signs it -- a promise he reaffirmed last week during a visit to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric. Sistani has said he will not endorse any document without the support of Iraq's population and political factions.
If the parliament refuses, Maliki would have "no choice" but to request a U.N. extension "because the American forces will lose their legal cover on Dec. 31," he told the Times of London in a weekend interview. "If that happens, according to international law, Iraqi law and American law, the U.S. forces will be confined to their bases and have to withdraw from Iraq," Maliki said.
U.S. officials do not dispute that the absence of an agreement would probably require an immediate end to combat operations and, at a minimum, confinement to bases on Jan. 1. Officials refused to discuss the sensitive issue on the record while negotiations are ongoing.
"I am actually reasonably optimistic we will come to closure on this in a very near future," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters Friday as he returned from a five-day trip to Europe. A month earlier, on Sept. 8, Gates told Congress that he expected an agreement "within the next few weeks."
"But I had hoped that some weeks ago," Gates added.
Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi said yesterday that an accord is unlikely before the end of the year, citing the number of parties that must sign off on the deal. "I'm not sure that the time we have left is enough for all of these organizations to study it, revise it and agree on the text," Hashimi told McClatchy Newspapers.
Frustrated over what they consider Iraqi intransigence, administration officials have said Iranian meddling is keeping Shiite leaders from accommodating U.S. bottom lines. The government-sanctioned Iranian media have charged repeatedly that Washington is trying to force Maliki to sell out Iraqi sovereignty. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, with a bloc of supporters in Iraq's parliament and a powerful militia currently under a cease-fire, has called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal.
Other Shiite political groups are divided over the deal, and some, including Maliki's Dawa party, disagree internally. But U.S. officials, uncertain of where Maliki really stands, tell themselves that ultimately he cannot afford for U.S. operations to shut down.
The U.S. military has repeatedly described security gains over the past year as "fragile" and "reversible." The main concerns, a senior officer said, are that the Sons of Iraq security forces -- largely Sunni groups now being paid by and under the control of the Maliki government -- will revert to insurgency and that "special groups" of Shiite militia members, tied to Iran, will relaunch an offensive in Baghdad and other population centers.
Maliki himself said Saturday that "a sudden withdrawal may harm security." But the game of chicken his government appears to be playing has continued as the U.S. election approaches. Any new administration, whether Republican or Democratic, would need to start negotiations from scratch, with different priorities on a possible withdrawal timeline and the ongoing mission for U.S. troops.
The Iraqi prime minister in August twice assured Bush -- once personally via videoconference and again through Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a visit to Baghdad -- that the deal was done, Iraqi and U.S. officials said. Since midsummer, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has made repeated public statements confirming agreement on a draft.
The prospect that no deal would be reached, or that negotiations would come so close to the wire, was unthinkable when talks began in March, four months after Bush and Maliki signed a declaration of principles outlining a future U.S. military presence in Iraq. The declaration set a deadline of July 31.
The discussions began badly, with Iraqi negotiators rejecting an initial administration draft. The insistence of the United States on retaining complete command over its military operations and detention of Iraqi citizens, as well as control over borders and airspace, was a "dead end," Maliki said.
When the stalemate continued through May, Bush ordered U.S. negotiators to show more flexibility, and compromises were quickly reached giving Iraqis at least some say in U.S. operations and detentions. Joint control of airspace -- recognizing that Iraq was not yet capable of handling it alone and that U.S. controllers needed to be in charge of U.S. military aircraft -- was also worked out.
Disagreement then centered on a timeline for U.S. withdrawal. Maliki said that the end of 2010 was a reasonable goal, a public statement that appeared more consistent with the position of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama -- who has called for an even earlier withdrawal -- than that of Republican Sen. John McCain, who has opposed a firm timeline.
During Rice's Aug. 21 visit to Baghdad, the two sides agreed on withdrawal of combat forces by the end of 2011. But U.S. officials continue to speak of an "aspirational" date depending on ground conditions, while Maliki said Saturday that the agreement is for "final withdrawal by the end of 2011." Both have said that U.S. combat troops will be drawn back from Iraqi cities by mid-2009.
The two governments put an optimistic public spin on their progress, with Zebari previewing a political discussion among Iraqi parties and factions over an agreed draft, and the Americans congratulating Iraq on the health of its democracy. "There's actually a great debate about this right now," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Sept. 2. Maliki was determined to attain full Iraqi sovereignty and independence, Mullen said, and "that's one of the things that we've encouraged as his burgeoning democracy comes forward."
Behind the scenes, however, the negotiating teams remained deadlocked on a question that had long been set aside as too hard: whether the Iraqi government would have any legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and civilian Defense Department personnel. U.S. officials have consistently said that it is a redline issue for them, with no compromise possible over total U.S. jurisdiction.
Iraq's position seemed to have hardened by early September: Maliki fired his chief negotiator and "retired" most of the team the Americans had worked with throughout the summer, instead installing two officials seen as political confidants. The two senior U.S. negotiators -- David M. Satterfield of the State Department and Brett McGurk of the National Security Council -- took a break after months in Baghdad to regroup and seek new instructions.
Satterfield and McGurk returned to Baghdad two weeks ago with a new formulation of the U.S. demand that any alleged crime by U.S. defense personnel would be judged by U.S. courts and U.S. law. For major offenses committed off-base and outside U.S. military operations, the Iraqi judiciary would have consultative input.
On Saturday, Maliki outlined a somewhat different position. "If Iraqi and American soldiers move in an operation that is pre-agreed by both sides, then they have immunity unless [an American] commits a deliberate crime during the operation."
"The sticking point," he said, "is about if the American soldier was not on a mission and commits a crime that is accountable to the Iraqi judicial system, whether small or big. The Iraqi judicial system should have jurisdiction over the American soldier. This is the point of difference."
Is U.S. fighting force big enough.
The idea that the U.S. can simply invade and stabilize weak or potentially threatening nations is just a cover for U.S. imperialism and it is a task that is likely to bankrupt the U.S. At a time when it looks very much as if the U.S. could be entering a depression it seems that both Obama and McCain are for a larger military. Already there are pressures on U.S. entitlements such as social security and medicare and state and local governments facing budget pressures. At the same time there are huge expenditures to bail out the capitalist financial system. Now there will be added increased military spending. This may help ease unemployment problems but U.S. debt will soar and will not be offset by increased tax revenues.
Is US fighting force big enough?
America needs a bigger military to stabilize weak or potentially threatening nations, some analysts argue.
By Gordon Lubold Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 14, 2008 edition
Washington - American's armed forces are growing bigger to reduce the strains from seven years of war, but if the US is confronting an era of "persistent conflict," as some experts believe, it will need an even bigger military.
A larger military could more easily conduct military and nation-building operations around the world. But whether the American public has the appetite to pursue and pay for such a foreign-policy agenda, especially after more than five years of an unpopular war in Iraq, is far from clear.
Last week, the Army released a new manual on "stability operations" that outlines for the Army a prominent global role as a nation-builder. The service will maintain its ability to fight conventional land wars, but the manual's release signals that it expects future conflicts to look more like Iraq or Afghanistan than World War II. While Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not publicly supported expanding the force beyond what is already planned, he has said the United States must prepare for more counterinsurgency wars like the ones it is fighting now – a hint that a larger military may be necessary.
Some analysts are certain of that need.
The Army currently has about 540,000 active-duty soldiers and is expected to attain its goal of 547,000 by 2011. The Marine Corps, also tapped to expand, should top 202,000 within the next couple of years. The total American force – including active-duty, reserve, and guard – is about 2.2 million.
John Nagl, a counterinsurgency expert and a retired Army officer, says in coming years the Army should grow to 750,000 and the Marine Corps to 250,000. Demand for troops is already high, and it won't abate anytime soon even if substantial numbers of troops return from Iraq, he recently said at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank in Washington.
Meanwhile, the top US commander in Afghanistan has asked for more American troops that the US simply can't produce until more leave Iraq.
"We don't have enough brigades to fight – that is an inconvertible fact," says Mr. Nagl.
If the US is to remain a superpower in a world in which weak nations, not strong ones, are the big threats, then it must expand its forces so it won't again enter a conflict using too few troops, as it did in Iraq, say other experts. America must stay engaged in nations with weak or nonexistent governments to prevent extremism from taking root and threatening the US.
"This is not a prediction of conflicts to come, but a recognition that the potential for stabilization and reconstruction missions remains high," writes Fred Kagan, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, a think tank here, in a book he cowrote called "Ground Truth." Mr. Kagan and Thomas Donnelly argue for a total force of about 2.8 million, which includes an active Army of about 800,000 and a Marine Corps of about 200,000.
"We may not want these missions, but they might be thrust upon us; and they certainly might appear to a future president as the least-bad outcome," Kagan writes.
Despite warnings against allowing the military to become the face of US foreign policy, more analysts are arguing that the resource- and manpower-rich armed forces are in the best position to fulfill any US policy pertaining to strengthening and stabilizing troubled nations.
Meanwhile, the State Department has pledged to hire 600 new foreign-service officers by next year to join the military in countries where stability operations are the main focus.
"The military is definitely out front. They are faster than [civilians] are, they are alert, and they have a lot of resources," says Daniel Serwer, a vice president at the United States Institute of Peace, which supports the Army's new manual.
The cost of all this gives some analysts pause.
Frank Hoffman, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, says the new manual may represent a shift for the Army, but he has yet to see major changes in the overall Army approach. "The Army is not fundamentally investing in new capabilities or creating any unique skill sets, or reducing training requirements or workload from conventional fighting," he says. It has yet to reevaluate its expensive future combat system, a cornerstone of Army modernization, he notes.
In Congress, which a few years ago was bipartisan in its support for a larger military, some are adjusting their view. Rep. Jack Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania recently argued that the cost of a bigger force is too much and could prevent the military from buying equipment.
Whatever happens, Pentagon officials know they may be charged with expanding the military beyond current growth goals.
David Chu, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, says meeting higher recruiting goals would require a basic shift in the way the nation views the military. He says he bristles when discussions in Washington about encouraging Americans to participate in national service programs omit the military.
"Few of those attempts, and fewer of those legislative proposals, ever mention the military," he says. If the country were to reverse that stand, "there won't be serious recruiting issues."
Is US fighting force big enough?
America needs a bigger military to stabilize weak or potentially threatening nations, some analysts argue.
By Gordon Lubold Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 14, 2008 edition
Washington - American's armed forces are growing bigger to reduce the strains from seven years of war, but if the US is confronting an era of "persistent conflict," as some experts believe, it will need an even bigger military.
A larger military could more easily conduct military and nation-building operations around the world. But whether the American public has the appetite to pursue and pay for such a foreign-policy agenda, especially after more than five years of an unpopular war in Iraq, is far from clear.
Last week, the Army released a new manual on "stability operations" that outlines for the Army a prominent global role as a nation-builder. The service will maintain its ability to fight conventional land wars, but the manual's release signals that it expects future conflicts to look more like Iraq or Afghanistan than World War II. While Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not publicly supported expanding the force beyond what is already planned, he has said the United States must prepare for more counterinsurgency wars like the ones it is fighting now – a hint that a larger military may be necessary.
Some analysts are certain of that need.
The Army currently has about 540,000 active-duty soldiers and is expected to attain its goal of 547,000 by 2011. The Marine Corps, also tapped to expand, should top 202,000 within the next couple of years. The total American force – including active-duty, reserve, and guard – is about 2.2 million.
John Nagl, a counterinsurgency expert and a retired Army officer, says in coming years the Army should grow to 750,000 and the Marine Corps to 250,000. Demand for troops is already high, and it won't abate anytime soon even if substantial numbers of troops return from Iraq, he recently said at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank in Washington.
Meanwhile, the top US commander in Afghanistan has asked for more American troops that the US simply can't produce until more leave Iraq.
"We don't have enough brigades to fight – that is an inconvertible fact," says Mr. Nagl.
If the US is to remain a superpower in a world in which weak nations, not strong ones, are the big threats, then it must expand its forces so it won't again enter a conflict using too few troops, as it did in Iraq, say other experts. America must stay engaged in nations with weak or nonexistent governments to prevent extremism from taking root and threatening the US.
"This is not a prediction of conflicts to come, but a recognition that the potential for stabilization and reconstruction missions remains high," writes Fred Kagan, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, a think tank here, in a book he cowrote called "Ground Truth." Mr. Kagan and Thomas Donnelly argue for a total force of about 2.8 million, which includes an active Army of about 800,000 and a Marine Corps of about 200,000.
"We may not want these missions, but they might be thrust upon us; and they certainly might appear to a future president as the least-bad outcome," Kagan writes.
Despite warnings against allowing the military to become the face of US foreign policy, more analysts are arguing that the resource- and manpower-rich armed forces are in the best position to fulfill any US policy pertaining to strengthening and stabilizing troubled nations.
Meanwhile, the State Department has pledged to hire 600 new foreign-service officers by next year to join the military in countries where stability operations are the main focus.
"The military is definitely out front. They are faster than [civilians] are, they are alert, and they have a lot of resources," says Daniel Serwer, a vice president at the United States Institute of Peace, which supports the Army's new manual.
The cost of all this gives some analysts pause.
Frank Hoffman, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, says the new manual may represent a shift for the Army, but he has yet to see major changes in the overall Army approach. "The Army is not fundamentally investing in new capabilities or creating any unique skill sets, or reducing training requirements or workload from conventional fighting," he says. It has yet to reevaluate its expensive future combat system, a cornerstone of Army modernization, he notes.
In Congress, which a few years ago was bipartisan in its support for a larger military, some are adjusting their view. Rep. Jack Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania recently argued that the cost of a bigger force is too much and could prevent the military from buying equipment.
Whatever happens, Pentagon officials know they may be charged with expanding the military beyond current growth goals.
David Chu, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, says meeting higher recruiting goals would require a basic shift in the way the nation views the military. He says he bristles when discussions in Washington about encouraging Americans to participate in national service programs omit the military.
"Few of those attempts, and fewer of those legislative proposals, ever mention the military," he says. If the country were to reverse that stand, "there won't be serious recruiting issues."
Bank stocks surge on $250 billion investment plan;
Here we have administrations that want to privatise everything including prisons and roads now happy as can be that the bad old government buys equity in a number of large U.S. banks. Free enterprise is a fraud. What is important is capitalism and profit.
If governments are so inefficient and markets so efficient why is that the government--ie. you the taxpayer--have to rush in to save the financial system and why is it that the market is not working to solve the financial markets crisis. It is because conventional economics is a now bankrupt theology. We may get some change in theology as a result although even that is not at all certain, but the system is basically the same. The US will be in for increased pressure on budgets at every level of government except when it comes to bailing out the system or financing the military.
Banks surge on $250B investment plan
Shares of nine major banks that agreed to participate in plan soar at the start of the session.
By David Ellis, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: October 14, 2008: 11:06 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Bank stocks surged following Tuesday's opening bell as top regulatory officials unveiled a sweeping plan to invest up to $250 billion in shares of ailing financial institutions.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair announced details of the proposal Tuesday morning. The hope is that injecting $250 billion into the nation's financial system will get banks to lend to one another and ultimately thaw frozen credit markets.
The money will be doled out to banks of all stripes and sizes in exchange for preferred shares of the banks, i.e. stocks that pay special dividends.
Regulators said the plan will begin with nine large institutions who agreed to participate in the government program on Monday.
Included in that group were commercial banking giants Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), each of which would get an investment worth $25 billion from the Treasury Department, according to two individuals familiar with the matter.
Shares of the four banks, except JPMorgan Chase, surged in morning trading on the news, building on Monday's massive market rally in which the Dow Jones industrial average gained 936 points, or 11.1%.
Also included in that group were Wall Street firms Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) and Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), both of which converted recently from stand-alone investment banks into bank holding companies as a result of the recent market turmoil.
Shares of the two firms extended their previous session gains on the news, gaining 9% and 21% respectively.
Brokerage giant Merrill Lynch (MER, Fortune 500), which agreed in mid-September to sell itself to Bank of America, would also receive capital, according to sources. The news sent it shares nearly 16% higher.
Rounding out the group were State Street (STT, Fortune 500) and Bank of New York Mellon (BK, Fortune 500), both of which primarily focus on processing bank transactions instead of consumer accounts. Shares of the two firms gained nearly 14% and 6% in late morning trading. Bank of New York Mellon said in a statement that it would receive $3 billion from the Treasury Department in exchange for preferred stock.
"It is time to get the markets working again for borrowers and investors," Robert Kelly, chairman and chief executive officer of The Bank of New York Mellon said in a statement.
The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve were not immediately available for comment about which firms were in fact on the list of nine that will receive investments.
The government's plan to inject capital, which would be drawn from the recently approved $700 billion government rescue package, were supplemented by other remedies, including the removal of insurance limits on some bank accounts and a pledge to guarantee new debt issued by banks.
First Published: October 14, 2008: 9:28 AM ET
If governments are so inefficient and markets so efficient why is that the government--ie. you the taxpayer--have to rush in to save the financial system and why is it that the market is not working to solve the financial markets crisis. It is because conventional economics is a now bankrupt theology. We may get some change in theology as a result although even that is not at all certain, but the system is basically the same. The US will be in for increased pressure on budgets at every level of government except when it comes to bailing out the system or financing the military.
Banks surge on $250B investment plan
Shares of nine major banks that agreed to participate in plan soar at the start of the session.
By David Ellis, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: October 14, 2008: 11:06 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Bank stocks surged following Tuesday's opening bell as top regulatory officials unveiled a sweeping plan to invest up to $250 billion in shares of ailing financial institutions.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair announced details of the proposal Tuesday morning. The hope is that injecting $250 billion into the nation's financial system will get banks to lend to one another and ultimately thaw frozen credit markets.
The money will be doled out to banks of all stripes and sizes in exchange for preferred shares of the banks, i.e. stocks that pay special dividends.
Regulators said the plan will begin with nine large institutions who agreed to participate in the government program on Monday.
Included in that group were commercial banking giants Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), each of which would get an investment worth $25 billion from the Treasury Department, according to two individuals familiar with the matter.
Shares of the four banks, except JPMorgan Chase, surged in morning trading on the news, building on Monday's massive market rally in which the Dow Jones industrial average gained 936 points, or 11.1%.
Also included in that group were Wall Street firms Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) and Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), both of which converted recently from stand-alone investment banks into bank holding companies as a result of the recent market turmoil.
Shares of the two firms extended their previous session gains on the news, gaining 9% and 21% respectively.
Brokerage giant Merrill Lynch (MER, Fortune 500), which agreed in mid-September to sell itself to Bank of America, would also receive capital, according to sources. The news sent it shares nearly 16% higher.
Rounding out the group were State Street (STT, Fortune 500) and Bank of New York Mellon (BK, Fortune 500), both of which primarily focus on processing bank transactions instead of consumer accounts. Shares of the two firms gained nearly 14% and 6% in late morning trading. Bank of New York Mellon said in a statement that it would receive $3 billion from the Treasury Department in exchange for preferred stock.
"It is time to get the markets working again for borrowers and investors," Robert Kelly, chairman and chief executive officer of The Bank of New York Mellon said in a statement.
The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve were not immediately available for comment about which firms were in fact on the list of nine that will receive investments.
The government's plan to inject capital, which would be drawn from the recently approved $700 billion government rescue package, were supplemented by other remedies, including the removal of insurance limits on some bank accounts and a pledge to guarantee new debt issued by banks.
First Published: October 14, 2008: 9:28 AM ET
Monday, October 13, 2008
A Marx quote from 1894
This is an interesting quote from Marx but there is no mention of the state rushing in to help bail out the miscreants. I saw the quote in Rabble. Also, it is the large concentrated capitals in huge financial institutions that were the speculators and guilty of credit frauds not smaller capitalists I should think. The partial destruction of capital has already happened as evidenced in the precipitous decline of share values for threatened institutions. This is what the market would do as Marx saw but then he did not seem to see the state rescue or at least not in this passage. However he did see that the capitalists would try to shove off the losses upon another. In this case it has been the taxpayer!
Capital Vol. III Part III (1894) - The Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall.
“The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa…
At a certain high point this increasing concentration in its turn causes a new fall in the rate of profit. The mass of small dispersed capitals is thereby driven along the adventurous road of speculation, credit frauds, stock swindles, and crises…
But as soon as it no longer is a question of sharing profits, but of sharing losses, everyone tries to reduce his own share to a minimum and to shove it off upon another. The class, as such, must inevitably lose. How much the individual capitalist must bear of the loss, i.e., to what extent he must share in it at all, is decided by strength and cunning, and competition then becomes a fight among hostile brothers. The antagonism between each individual capitalist’s interests and those of the capitalist class as a whole, then comes to the surface, just as previously the identity of these interests operated in practice through competition. How is this conflict settled and the conditions restored which correspond to the “sound” operation of capitalist production? The mode of settlement is already indicated in the very emergence of the conflict whose settlement is under discussion. It implies the withdrawal and even the partial destruction of capital…”
Pretty good for 1894.
Capital Vol. III Part III (1894) - The Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall.
“The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa…
At a certain high point this increasing concentration in its turn causes a new fall in the rate of profit. The mass of small dispersed capitals is thereby driven along the adventurous road of speculation, credit frauds, stock swindles, and crises…
But as soon as it no longer is a question of sharing profits, but of sharing losses, everyone tries to reduce his own share to a minimum and to shove it off upon another. The class, as such, must inevitably lose. How much the individual capitalist must bear of the loss, i.e., to what extent he must share in it at all, is decided by strength and cunning, and competition then becomes a fight among hostile brothers. The antagonism between each individual capitalist’s interests and those of the capitalist class as a whole, then comes to the surface, just as previously the identity of these interests operated in practice through competition. How is this conflict settled and the conditions restored which correspond to the “sound” operation of capitalist production? The mode of settlement is already indicated in the very emergence of the conflict whose settlement is under discussion. It implies the withdrawal and even the partial destruction of capital…”
Pretty good for 1894.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Somali government on brink after Ethiopian troop pull-out
This is a horror show that is very much in the background of the news. More attention is paid to the Ukrainian vessel hijacked by pirates. The US intervention in Somalia has been a complete disaster. As this article points out the U.S. is now in talks with groups that before the Ethiopian proxy invasion were called terrorists and supporters of Al Qaeda. Meanwhile groups actually associated with Al Qaeda have gained enough strength to occupy large portions of the country.
Troop pull-out leaves government on brink
Ethiopian withdrawal marks end of disastrous intervention that sparked new violence and suffering
From Steve Bloomfield in Nairobi
SOMALIA'S FRAGILE government appears to be on the brink of collapse. Islamist insurgents now controls large parts of southern and central Somalia - and are continuing to launch attacks inside the capital, Mogadishu.
Ethiopia, which launched a US-backed military intervention in Somalia in December 2006 in an effort to drive out an Islamist authority in Mogadishu, is now pulling out its troops.
Diplomats and analysts in neighbouring Nairobi believe the government will fall once Ethiopia completes its withdrawal, and secret plans have been made to evacuate government ministers to neighbouring Kenya.
That may happen sooner rather than later. A shipment of Ethiopian weapons, including tanks, left Mogadishu port last month as part of the withdrawal. Bringing the equipment back to Ethiopia by land would have been impossible - analysts believe Ethiopian troops and their Somali government allies control just three small areas in Mogadishu and a few streets in Baidoa, the seat of parliament. There are now estimated to be just 2500 Ethiopian soldiers left inside Somalia, down from 15,000-18,000 at the height of the war.
Somalia's overlapping conflicts go back, at the very least, to 1991, the year the country's last recognised government was overthrown. Men and women who were children then have since given birth to a second generation of Somalis who have known only war.
But analysts believe Somalia is now in the midst of its worst ever crisis. The ongoing conflict, which has claimed the lives of at least 9000 civilians and forced more than 1.1 million to flee their homes, has combined with devastating droughts and rocketing food prices to create one of the world's worst humanitarian catastrophes.
Almost half the population - 3.2m people - are in need of emergency aid (the figure has almost doubled in the last 12 months). One in six children is thought to be malnourished.
"This crisis is broadening as well as deepening," said Mark Bowden, the head of the UN's humanitarian effort. "It is now the world's most complicated crisis."
Violence and insecurity have made it almost impossible for aid to get through, and 24 aid workers have been killed in Somalia so far this year. A recent shipment of food aid needed a military escort to navigate Somalia's pirate-infested waters. But within hours of the food being unloaded in Mogadishu's port most of it was stolen by gun-toting gangs.
Oxfam, Save The Children and 50 other aid agencies working in Somalia last week said the international community had "completely failed Somali civilians".
As the crisis worsens thousands are trying to leave the country every week. Around 6000 people are now crossing the border into Kenya every month - despite the Kenyan government's decision to close the border. Some are arriving at the overcrowded Dadaab refugee camp in eastern Kenya, which is now one of the largest refugee camps in the world with nearly 250,000 people.
Others try to leave by sea, travelling to the northern town of Bosasso and paying $100 to people smugglers who ram more than 100 people onto a small fishing boat and set sail for Yemen.
Many do not make it. Smugglers last week forced 150 people off the boat three miles off the Yemeni coast. Only 47 made it to shore.
Attempts to find a political solution have stalled. The UN claims progress has been made, citing an agreement signed in neighbouring Djibouti by the Somali government and the opposition Alliance for the Reliberation of Somalia (ARS).
But the deal has been signed only by the moderates on each side: Prime Minister Nur Adde and the ARS's Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed.
President Abdullahi Yusuf, a former warlord who controls the government's security forces, has refused to get involved. Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, the hardline Islamic leader of another faction of the ARS, has denounced the deal, as have the leaders of the insurgents, a group called Al Shabaab.
Since the deal was struck in June, the level of violence has increased.
Few Somalis will weep if the government falls. In most respects it is a government in name only. Few ministries have offices, let alone civil servants to fill them. There are no real policies - and no real way to implement any.
Worst of all, this government, which is backed by the United Nations and funded by Western donors including Britain and the EU, has been accused of committing a litany of war crimes. Its police force, many of whom were trained under a UN programme part-funded by Britain, has carried out extrajudicial killings, raped women and fired indiscriminately on crowds at markets. Militias aligned to the government have killed journalists and attacked aid workers.
The government's fall would mark the end of a disastrous US-backed intervention. For six months in 2006, Somalia was relatively calm. A semblance of peace and security had returned to Mogadishu. The reason was the rise of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), a loose coalition of Islamist leaders who had driven out Mogadishu's warlords.
Hardline elements within the UIC vowed to launch a jihad against Somalia's traditional enemy, Ethiopia. The US viewed the UIC has an "al-Qaeda cell" - a belief not shared by the majority of analysts and diplomats.
Ethiopia, with the support of the US, sent thousands of troops across the border to drive out the UIC. It took just a few days to defeat them. Their leaders fled towards the border with Kenya, while many of the fighters took off their uniforms and melted into Mogadishu.
Within weeks, an Iraq-style insurgency had begun, targeting Somali government and Ethiopian troops. Al Shabaab began laying roadside bombs and firing at Ethiopian troops from inside civilian areas.
The Ethiopians responded by bombarding residential areas. Hundreds were killed and hundreds of thousands fled Mogadishu. Human rights groups accused Ethiopia of committing war crimes.
The US must now be wondering whether it was all worth it. Western backing for the unpopular Somali government and US support for the Ethiopian intervention has created a groundswell of anti-West sentiment in Somalia.
The Islamist leaders they were so keen to oust are the same ones they are now engaged in negotiations with. US officials have met both Sheikh Sharif and the more hardline Sheikh Aweys in an effort to find a peace deal.
Meanwhile, in Somalia, the Islamists taking control of towns and villages across the country are considered far more extremist than Aweys. "They are real international jihadis," said one Nairobi-based diplomat. "The Americans' fear of al-Qaeda in Somalia is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy."
!
Troop pull-out leaves government on brink
Ethiopian withdrawal marks end of disastrous intervention that sparked new violence and suffering
From Steve Bloomfield in Nairobi
SOMALIA'S FRAGILE government appears to be on the brink of collapse. Islamist insurgents now controls large parts of southern and central Somalia - and are continuing to launch attacks inside the capital, Mogadishu.
Ethiopia, which launched a US-backed military intervention in Somalia in December 2006 in an effort to drive out an Islamist authority in Mogadishu, is now pulling out its troops.
Diplomats and analysts in neighbouring Nairobi believe the government will fall once Ethiopia completes its withdrawal, and secret plans have been made to evacuate government ministers to neighbouring Kenya.
That may happen sooner rather than later. A shipment of Ethiopian weapons, including tanks, left Mogadishu port last month as part of the withdrawal. Bringing the equipment back to Ethiopia by land would have been impossible - analysts believe Ethiopian troops and their Somali government allies control just three small areas in Mogadishu and a few streets in Baidoa, the seat of parliament. There are now estimated to be just 2500 Ethiopian soldiers left inside Somalia, down from 15,000-18,000 at the height of the war.
Somalia's overlapping conflicts go back, at the very least, to 1991, the year the country's last recognised government was overthrown. Men and women who were children then have since given birth to a second generation of Somalis who have known only war.
But analysts believe Somalia is now in the midst of its worst ever crisis. The ongoing conflict, which has claimed the lives of at least 9000 civilians and forced more than 1.1 million to flee their homes, has combined with devastating droughts and rocketing food prices to create one of the world's worst humanitarian catastrophes.
Almost half the population - 3.2m people - are in need of emergency aid (the figure has almost doubled in the last 12 months). One in six children is thought to be malnourished.
"This crisis is broadening as well as deepening," said Mark Bowden, the head of the UN's humanitarian effort. "It is now the world's most complicated crisis."
Violence and insecurity have made it almost impossible for aid to get through, and 24 aid workers have been killed in Somalia so far this year. A recent shipment of food aid needed a military escort to navigate Somalia's pirate-infested waters. But within hours of the food being unloaded in Mogadishu's port most of it was stolen by gun-toting gangs.
Oxfam, Save The Children and 50 other aid agencies working in Somalia last week said the international community had "completely failed Somali civilians".
As the crisis worsens thousands are trying to leave the country every week. Around 6000 people are now crossing the border into Kenya every month - despite the Kenyan government's decision to close the border. Some are arriving at the overcrowded Dadaab refugee camp in eastern Kenya, which is now one of the largest refugee camps in the world with nearly 250,000 people.
Others try to leave by sea, travelling to the northern town of Bosasso and paying $100 to people smugglers who ram more than 100 people onto a small fishing boat and set sail for Yemen.
Many do not make it. Smugglers last week forced 150 people off the boat three miles off the Yemeni coast. Only 47 made it to shore.
Attempts to find a political solution have stalled. The UN claims progress has been made, citing an agreement signed in neighbouring Djibouti by the Somali government and the opposition Alliance for the Reliberation of Somalia (ARS).
But the deal has been signed only by the moderates on each side: Prime Minister Nur Adde and the ARS's Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed.
President Abdullahi Yusuf, a former warlord who controls the government's security forces, has refused to get involved. Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, the hardline Islamic leader of another faction of the ARS, has denounced the deal, as have the leaders of the insurgents, a group called Al Shabaab.
Since the deal was struck in June, the level of violence has increased.
Few Somalis will weep if the government falls. In most respects it is a government in name only. Few ministries have offices, let alone civil servants to fill them. There are no real policies - and no real way to implement any.
Worst of all, this government, which is backed by the United Nations and funded by Western donors including Britain and the EU, has been accused of committing a litany of war crimes. Its police force, many of whom were trained under a UN programme part-funded by Britain, has carried out extrajudicial killings, raped women and fired indiscriminately on crowds at markets. Militias aligned to the government have killed journalists and attacked aid workers.
The government's fall would mark the end of a disastrous US-backed intervention. For six months in 2006, Somalia was relatively calm. A semblance of peace and security had returned to Mogadishu. The reason was the rise of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), a loose coalition of Islamist leaders who had driven out Mogadishu's warlords.
Hardline elements within the UIC vowed to launch a jihad against Somalia's traditional enemy, Ethiopia. The US viewed the UIC has an "al-Qaeda cell" - a belief not shared by the majority of analysts and diplomats.
Ethiopia, with the support of the US, sent thousands of troops across the border to drive out the UIC. It took just a few days to defeat them. Their leaders fled towards the border with Kenya, while many of the fighters took off their uniforms and melted into Mogadishu.
Within weeks, an Iraq-style insurgency had begun, targeting Somali government and Ethiopian troops. Al Shabaab began laying roadside bombs and firing at Ethiopian troops from inside civilian areas.
The Ethiopians responded by bombarding residential areas. Hundreds were killed and hundreds of thousands fled Mogadishu. Human rights groups accused Ethiopia of committing war crimes.
The US must now be wondering whether it was all worth it. Western backing for the unpopular Somali government and US support for the Ethiopian intervention has created a groundswell of anti-West sentiment in Somalia.
The Islamist leaders they were so keen to oust are the same ones they are now engaged in negotiations with. US officials have met both Sheikh Sharif and the more hardline Sheikh Aweys in an effort to find a peace deal.
Meanwhile, in Somalia, the Islamists taking control of towns and villages across the country are considered far more extremist than Aweys. "They are real international jihadis," said one Nairobi-based diplomat. "The Americans' fear of al-Qaeda in Somalia is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy."
!
Assyrian Christians fight to save themselves from the new Islamic Iraq.
This is from the Telegraph.
There has been considerable oppression of Christians in post-Saddam Iraq. Just recently a number of Christians fled Mosul after several religiously motivated killings. Ironically, Christians were protected under Saddam, of course subject to accepting his rule!
Assyrian Christians fight to save themselves from the new Islamic Iraq
Posted By: Damian Thompson at Oct 11, 2008 at 10:28:41 [General]
Assyrian Christians - members of a Church so ancient that it still speaks Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ - will demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy in London tomorrow (Sunday) against a sneaky change to the law of Iraq that will hasten their extinction.
Arab Muslims, it seems, simply cannot bear the idea that Christian communities far older than Islam should remain in the Middle East. So we shouldn't be surprised that, on September 24, the Iraqi Parliament removed Article 50 of the provincial elections law guaranteeing reserved seats for vulnerable minorities, including Assyrians.
The expulsion and suppression of the indigenous Christians of the lands of the Bible is one of the tragedies of our age. And it's a disgrace. Let's list the powerful forces that, even if they are not actively conspiring to make it happen, seem perfectly willing to sit back and watch.
First and foremost, Arab governments and the Muslim ideologues who dictate their actions: Mohammed didn't want Christians polluting sacred land and neither do they. The United States: the only Christians American Protestants care about are "Bible-believing" evangelicals who support Israel, not the apostolic Churches founded by Jesus's original followers. And, yes, Israel: please don't tell me that it gives a monkey's about ancient Christian communities.
So the Assyrians have the cards stacked against them. And, daily, they are humiliated by their Muslim persecutors. Now they won't have elected politicians to represent them in Iraq, only people who hate them.
No wonder the Assyrian Society of the United Kingdom is protesting. To be precise, it is demonstrating to reinstate Article 50 at the Embassy of the Republic of Iraq, 9 Holland Villas Road, London W14 8BP, at 2pm on Sunday. I wonder if any indigenous London Christians can be bothered to join them.
There has been considerable oppression of Christians in post-Saddam Iraq. Just recently a number of Christians fled Mosul after several religiously motivated killings. Ironically, Christians were protected under Saddam, of course subject to accepting his rule!
Assyrian Christians fight to save themselves from the new Islamic Iraq
Posted By: Damian Thompson at Oct 11, 2008 at 10:28:41 [General]
Assyrian Christians - members of a Church so ancient that it still speaks Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ - will demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy in London tomorrow (Sunday) against a sneaky change to the law of Iraq that will hasten their extinction.
Arab Muslims, it seems, simply cannot bear the idea that Christian communities far older than Islam should remain in the Middle East. So we shouldn't be surprised that, on September 24, the Iraqi Parliament removed Article 50 of the provincial elections law guaranteeing reserved seats for vulnerable minorities, including Assyrians.
The expulsion and suppression of the indigenous Christians of the lands of the Bible is one of the tragedies of our age. And it's a disgrace. Let's list the powerful forces that, even if they are not actively conspiring to make it happen, seem perfectly willing to sit back and watch.
First and foremost, Arab governments and the Muslim ideologues who dictate their actions: Mohammed didn't want Christians polluting sacred land and neither do they. The United States: the only Christians American Protestants care about are "Bible-believing" evangelicals who support Israel, not the apostolic Churches founded by Jesus's original followers. And, yes, Israel: please don't tell me that it gives a monkey's about ancient Christian communities.
So the Assyrians have the cards stacked against them. And, daily, they are humiliated by their Muslim persecutors. Now they won't have elected politicians to represent them in Iraq, only people who hate them.
No wonder the Assyrian Society of the United Kingdom is protesting. To be precise, it is demonstrating to reinstate Article 50 at the Embassy of the Republic of Iraq, 9 Holland Villas Road, London W14 8BP, at 2pm on Sunday. I wonder if any indigenous London Christians can be bothered to join them.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Pakistan Foreign Ministry: US Strikes help Terrorists
Pakistan has continually complained about the U.S. attacks to no avail. Although there have been no ground attacks lately, drone attacks occur with regularity. Apparently the U.S. prefers all out civil war in Pakistan to any peace deal that might stabilise the situation but allow militants to regroup and threaten the occupiers of Afghanistan.
Foreign Ministry: US Strikes In Pakistan “Helping the Terrorists”
Posted October 10, 2008
One day after a US drone strike in North Waziristan killed at least nine people, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry has issued a harshly worded condemnation of the repeated strikes, warning that they are undermining the war on terror and “helping the terrorists.”
Spokesman Mohammed Sadiq also cautioned that the attacks are “destabilizing the situation.” This echoes the sentiment from a report earlier this week that North Waziristan’s Taliban were behaving more aggressively in the wake of a previous US strike.
The US has launched a number of unilateral strikes in North and South Waziristan over the past month and a half, part of a reported “the gloves have come off” strategy in the region, seen by many officials as a key base for militants launching attacks across the porous border into southern Afghanistan.
The Pakistani government has complained regularly about the strikes, but US officials have vowed they will continue. This has raised tensions along the border between Waziristan and Afghanistan, with Pakistani forces reportedly opening fire on invading US helicopters on multiple occasions, and ground troops from the two nations briefly exchanging fire across the border last month.
Related Stories
Foreign Ministry: US Strikes In Pakistan “Helping the Terrorists”
Posted October 10, 2008
One day after a US drone strike in North Waziristan killed at least nine people, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry has issued a harshly worded condemnation of the repeated strikes, warning that they are undermining the war on terror and “helping the terrorists.”
Spokesman Mohammed Sadiq also cautioned that the attacks are “destabilizing the situation.” This echoes the sentiment from a report earlier this week that North Waziristan’s Taliban were behaving more aggressively in the wake of a previous US strike.
The US has launched a number of unilateral strikes in North and South Waziristan over the past month and a half, part of a reported “the gloves have come off” strategy in the region, seen by many officials as a key base for militants launching attacks across the porous border into southern Afghanistan.
The Pakistani government has complained regularly about the strikes, but US officials have vowed they will continue. This has raised tensions along the border between Waziristan and Afghanistan, with Pakistani forces reportedly opening fire on invading US helicopters on multiple occasions, and ground troops from the two nations briefly exchanging fire across the border last month.
Related Stories
Australian housing debt crisis.
Problems with mortgage payments are not restricted to the United States. There is a huge problem in some European countries such as Spain and far on the other side of the world in Australia. This is an interview with Steven Keen an expert on Australian household debt.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The 7.30 ReportSteven Keen talks to 7.30 ReportBroadcast: 08/10/2008
Reporter: Kerry O'BrienAssociate Professor Steven Keen has come increasingly to prominence over the past couple of years specialising in the economics of Australia's spiralling household debt burden. He spoke to 7.30 Report tonight.KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: We've now seen how the one percentage point interest rate cut has impacted on the Australian stock market today; a 5 per cent drop in the value of Australian shares.Another big question now is how is the cut going to impact on the housing market, which has long been at the heart of Australia's social and economic culture?For decades Australia had been... or had one of the highest home ownership rates in the world.In fact for many until the recent explosion in superfunds, it's been the only way they have been able to accumulate any personal wealth at all.Associate Professor Steven Keen has come to prominence specialising in the economics of Australia's household debt burden.Initially he was almost a lone voice with his pessimistic view of how dramatically that burden could impact on us all. He's not alone now.And believes Australia faces a savage correction including an inevitable housing slump.I spoke with Professor Keen earlier tonight.Steve Keen, I would think that when the Reserve Bank announced its interest rate cut yesterday the first reaction if most Australians, the first reaction, would have been to work out what the saving was on their mortgage repayments.The next question for many homeowners would be will the value of their home start to go up again?What is going to happen to the housing market now particularly with the assumption we will see more interest rate cuts?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Well I think for a while there will be people that do the calculations and think happy days are here again onto the next housing bubble.But the reality is housing prices in Australia run at seven times the median incomes, when the affordable level which the demographic survey works out rather well, is about three times.And to put that in context the American market, after all the crashing it's been through is down to three and a half times median income level.So we're talking about a house price level in Australia which is twice the level that America got to. And that means, I think unfortunately, the only direction in the long-term for house prices is down.KERRY O'BRIEN: And yet the local wisdom that has emerged from America's credit crunch, its sub-prime crisis is that our problems, whatever they are, are nothing like theirs.That the sub-prime crisis has been a very dramatic collapse in the housing marketPROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Incredibly dramatic. And the reason was, the sub-prime was about lending to money to people who had a record of not repaying it and claiming it could make money out of doing it.Which was a classic American scam and its now falling apart, of course it's not just in the hands of the poor Americans, but in the hands of the scam merchants as well.So, that's something that is peculiarly American. But at the same time here our debt levels here are in fact slightly higher than those in America.KERRY O'BRIEN: So in other words you are saying that there is a significant way for Australia's housing market to drop?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: It has to be; it's simply unaffordable at the level it is now. The only way you can get your house to be sold for a higher price than you bought it for is that if somebody takes out more debt than you did relative the their incomes.And that's got to the point where it's simply unsustainable. The proportion of Australians that can afford the pay for the median home has dropped well below the actual median of the population.KERRY O'BRIEN: Are we going to see home building start up again, or is that going to continue to slump? Are we likely to see those spiralling rents stabilise, or is that going to keep going up?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Well I think Kerry I can actually make a reference to what's happened to the Australian dollar say every price you see is crazy.There is no way the prices of anything make any sense at the moment. However, I think ultimately the most senseless prices are our house prices; they have to fall.In that environment nobody is going into trying to build properties when there's the expectation ever losing rather than capital gain.This has happened in New Zealand, it's happened in England, happening in America. The ratio of house builds to population has dropped dramatically once this crisis has hit; even when they've been housing shortages.KERRY O'BRIEN: In your latest Debt Watch blog you compare private debt ratios with the US and Australia with the same debt ratios at the time of the great depression. How valid is that comparison? How do they compare, and what do you draw from it?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Well if you look back to 1929 when the stock market bubble burst in America the ratio of debt to GDP was 150 per cent.It rose to 215 per cent as the economy collapsed, not because debt was rising any more but because prices were falling and output was also falling.It is now 290 per cent. That is gigantic, virtually twice the level. Australia had a lower level of debt back at the start of the Great Depression; our debt ratio was 64 per cent.It is now 165 per cent. So we have that much more debt than we had, and really the only sensible explanation of what caused the Great Depression is a combination of excessive debt and falling prices.Now we have one of those two in spades now, twice as bad as during the Great Depression on the OECD scale. So for that reason I think the comparison is extremely valid and the prognosis is extremely bleak.KERRY O'BRIEN: So within the landscape of the global economy, which again we're not sure... nobody really seems to be able to say with confidence where it is going. What do you think is likely... most likely to happen to the Australian economy now over the short to medium term?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: I can see us going into a serious increase in unemployment, a serious economic slowdown.Credit level's collapsing; we've already seen that starting to happen in the most recent figures.And a credit driven downturn in the economy, driven largely through a collapse in retail sales, because this time around the part of society carrying the debt is the household sector; it business sector in the 1920s and also of course in the 1990s.Households can't sack the kids; they can't declare themselves bankrupt anywhere near as easily as a corporation can do. So the only thing they can do to control their situation is to cut back drastically on retail spending; and that will of course mean the retail sector is the first one to collapse.KERRY O'BRIEN: Well the household squeeze in the past year has been driven by rising interest rates and rising petrol prices; both those are now coming down quite dramatically.Won't that combine with the big tax cut now flowing through into household pockets to free up consumer spending again against what you are suggesting?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: It certainly will help. And we're lucky in one sense that we have, first of all, a higher reserve rate than America so we've further to drop that reserve rate.And our mortgages are closer to the reserve rate. In America there's absolutely no relationship between then the reserve rate and mortgage rates.Reserve rates there have fallen from 6 per cent to 2 per cent and mortgage rates have actually gone up across that period. So America's got a much worse situation than we have.But even if you do have a dramatic drop in the interest rates that's nothing in terms of its impact on spending compared to what's happening to people deciding they will no longer borrow.This is where you need a monetary perspective on the economy. Our total spending is the sum of GDP plus the change in debt. Last year our GDP was roughly a trillion dollars, and the increase in debt was roughly a quarter of trillion dollars.Now if we suddenly had people deciding not to borrow anymore, that means 250 billion of spending power, even though it's borrowed money, disappears from the economy.If you're trying to top them up on the other side by reducing the interest payment burden, even knocking off 1 per cent off the rates reduces the debt repayment burden by $18 billion, because that now is roughly $1.9 trillion in this economy.$18 billion, if an increase in spending power, versus $250 billion of a fall in spending power; I'm sorry, the nays have it.KERRY O'BRIEN: In your scenario it would seem likely interest rates will fall significantly beyond what they have already done?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: I was saying even when the first rates were being talked about the last quarter of a per cent cut that I expected the reserve be down 2 per cent at the end of 2009 and probably zero by 2010.KERRY O'BRIEN: The share market... we saw Australia's share market tumble 5 per cent again today. Over the course of this calendar year Australia is down 31 per cent this year in share market value, Europe 33, America down 32 per cent. Has that got a long way to run?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Unfortunately yes. The American market is more over valued than we are. Australian stock market isn't as big as... the bubble there isn't as big as the American stock market bubble got to be.But in the case of Japan again... the Nikkei was 38,500 points right at the very end of 1989, and fell down to 7,000; it's now bouncing around 10,000 having reached 15,000. That's the scale of drop we can expect to see in America; and it's the same scale of drop they got back in 1929 when it fell from 380 to 44.KERRY O'BRIEN: Very briefly your best case scenario for Australia out of this; your worst case scenario?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Best case scenario is a recession more severe than 1990 and lasting one and a half times as long.Worst case is something up to the level of the Great Depression which was 20 per cent unemployment and lasting up to a decade.KERRY O'BRIEN: What's your advice to individual Australians right now?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Get out of debt, simple as that.KERRY O'BRIEN: It is not that simple though is it?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: It isn't that simple, it takes difficult decisions to get out of debt, but that's the only thing to do.If you're liquid and if you have a secure job, you will do well out of the coming environment, but if you are not liquid, if your assets are tied up and your job is at all vulnerable, then it can be dark times ahead.But it involves political shift; we have to get away whether the acquisitive society we've been part of, which really is driven by speculation rather than genuine production.KERRY O'BRIEN: Steven Keen thanks for talking with us.PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: You're welcome Kerry.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The 7.30 ReportSteven Keen talks to 7.30 ReportBroadcast: 08/10/2008
Reporter: Kerry O'BrienAssociate Professor Steven Keen has come increasingly to prominence over the past couple of years specialising in the economics of Australia's spiralling household debt burden. He spoke to 7.30 Report tonight.KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: We've now seen how the one percentage point interest rate cut has impacted on the Australian stock market today; a 5 per cent drop in the value of Australian shares.Another big question now is how is the cut going to impact on the housing market, which has long been at the heart of Australia's social and economic culture?For decades Australia had been... or had one of the highest home ownership rates in the world.In fact for many until the recent explosion in superfunds, it's been the only way they have been able to accumulate any personal wealth at all.Associate Professor Steven Keen has come to prominence specialising in the economics of Australia's household debt burden.Initially he was almost a lone voice with his pessimistic view of how dramatically that burden could impact on us all. He's not alone now.And believes Australia faces a savage correction including an inevitable housing slump.I spoke with Professor Keen earlier tonight.Steve Keen, I would think that when the Reserve Bank announced its interest rate cut yesterday the first reaction if most Australians, the first reaction, would have been to work out what the saving was on their mortgage repayments.The next question for many homeowners would be will the value of their home start to go up again?What is going to happen to the housing market now particularly with the assumption we will see more interest rate cuts?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Well I think for a while there will be people that do the calculations and think happy days are here again onto the next housing bubble.But the reality is housing prices in Australia run at seven times the median incomes, when the affordable level which the demographic survey works out rather well, is about three times.And to put that in context the American market, after all the crashing it's been through is down to three and a half times median income level.So we're talking about a house price level in Australia which is twice the level that America got to. And that means, I think unfortunately, the only direction in the long-term for house prices is down.KERRY O'BRIEN: And yet the local wisdom that has emerged from America's credit crunch, its sub-prime crisis is that our problems, whatever they are, are nothing like theirs.That the sub-prime crisis has been a very dramatic collapse in the housing marketPROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Incredibly dramatic. And the reason was, the sub-prime was about lending to money to people who had a record of not repaying it and claiming it could make money out of doing it.Which was a classic American scam and its now falling apart, of course it's not just in the hands of the poor Americans, but in the hands of the scam merchants as well.So, that's something that is peculiarly American. But at the same time here our debt levels here are in fact slightly higher than those in America.KERRY O'BRIEN: So in other words you are saying that there is a significant way for Australia's housing market to drop?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: It has to be; it's simply unaffordable at the level it is now. The only way you can get your house to be sold for a higher price than you bought it for is that if somebody takes out more debt than you did relative the their incomes.And that's got to the point where it's simply unsustainable. The proportion of Australians that can afford the pay for the median home has dropped well below the actual median of the population.KERRY O'BRIEN: Are we going to see home building start up again, or is that going to continue to slump? Are we likely to see those spiralling rents stabilise, or is that going to keep going up?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Well I think Kerry I can actually make a reference to what's happened to the Australian dollar say every price you see is crazy.There is no way the prices of anything make any sense at the moment. However, I think ultimately the most senseless prices are our house prices; they have to fall.In that environment nobody is going into trying to build properties when there's the expectation ever losing rather than capital gain.This has happened in New Zealand, it's happened in England, happening in America. The ratio of house builds to population has dropped dramatically once this crisis has hit; even when they've been housing shortages.KERRY O'BRIEN: In your latest Debt Watch blog you compare private debt ratios with the US and Australia with the same debt ratios at the time of the great depression. How valid is that comparison? How do they compare, and what do you draw from it?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Well if you look back to 1929 when the stock market bubble burst in America the ratio of debt to GDP was 150 per cent.It rose to 215 per cent as the economy collapsed, not because debt was rising any more but because prices were falling and output was also falling.It is now 290 per cent. That is gigantic, virtually twice the level. Australia had a lower level of debt back at the start of the Great Depression; our debt ratio was 64 per cent.It is now 165 per cent. So we have that much more debt than we had, and really the only sensible explanation of what caused the Great Depression is a combination of excessive debt and falling prices.Now we have one of those two in spades now, twice as bad as during the Great Depression on the OECD scale. So for that reason I think the comparison is extremely valid and the prognosis is extremely bleak.KERRY O'BRIEN: So within the landscape of the global economy, which again we're not sure... nobody really seems to be able to say with confidence where it is going. What do you think is likely... most likely to happen to the Australian economy now over the short to medium term?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: I can see us going into a serious increase in unemployment, a serious economic slowdown.Credit level's collapsing; we've already seen that starting to happen in the most recent figures.And a credit driven downturn in the economy, driven largely through a collapse in retail sales, because this time around the part of society carrying the debt is the household sector; it business sector in the 1920s and also of course in the 1990s.Households can't sack the kids; they can't declare themselves bankrupt anywhere near as easily as a corporation can do. So the only thing they can do to control their situation is to cut back drastically on retail spending; and that will of course mean the retail sector is the first one to collapse.KERRY O'BRIEN: Well the household squeeze in the past year has been driven by rising interest rates and rising petrol prices; both those are now coming down quite dramatically.Won't that combine with the big tax cut now flowing through into household pockets to free up consumer spending again against what you are suggesting?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: It certainly will help. And we're lucky in one sense that we have, first of all, a higher reserve rate than America so we've further to drop that reserve rate.And our mortgages are closer to the reserve rate. In America there's absolutely no relationship between then the reserve rate and mortgage rates.Reserve rates there have fallen from 6 per cent to 2 per cent and mortgage rates have actually gone up across that period. So America's got a much worse situation than we have.But even if you do have a dramatic drop in the interest rates that's nothing in terms of its impact on spending compared to what's happening to people deciding they will no longer borrow.This is where you need a monetary perspective on the economy. Our total spending is the sum of GDP plus the change in debt. Last year our GDP was roughly a trillion dollars, and the increase in debt was roughly a quarter of trillion dollars.Now if we suddenly had people deciding not to borrow anymore, that means 250 billion of spending power, even though it's borrowed money, disappears from the economy.If you're trying to top them up on the other side by reducing the interest payment burden, even knocking off 1 per cent off the rates reduces the debt repayment burden by $18 billion, because that now is roughly $1.9 trillion in this economy.$18 billion, if an increase in spending power, versus $250 billion of a fall in spending power; I'm sorry, the nays have it.KERRY O'BRIEN: In your scenario it would seem likely interest rates will fall significantly beyond what they have already done?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: I was saying even when the first rates were being talked about the last quarter of a per cent cut that I expected the reserve be down 2 per cent at the end of 2009 and probably zero by 2010.KERRY O'BRIEN: The share market... we saw Australia's share market tumble 5 per cent again today. Over the course of this calendar year Australia is down 31 per cent this year in share market value, Europe 33, America down 32 per cent. Has that got a long way to run?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Unfortunately yes. The American market is more over valued than we are. Australian stock market isn't as big as... the bubble there isn't as big as the American stock market bubble got to be.But in the case of Japan again... the Nikkei was 38,500 points right at the very end of 1989, and fell down to 7,000; it's now bouncing around 10,000 having reached 15,000. That's the scale of drop we can expect to see in America; and it's the same scale of drop they got back in 1929 when it fell from 380 to 44.KERRY O'BRIEN: Very briefly your best case scenario for Australia out of this; your worst case scenario?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Best case scenario is a recession more severe than 1990 and lasting one and a half times as long.Worst case is something up to the level of the Great Depression which was 20 per cent unemployment and lasting up to a decade.KERRY O'BRIEN: What's your advice to individual Australians right now?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: Get out of debt, simple as that.KERRY O'BRIEN: It is not that simple though is it?PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: It isn't that simple, it takes difficult decisions to get out of debt, but that's the only thing to do.If you're liquid and if you have a secure job, you will do well out of the coming environment, but if you are not liquid, if your assets are tied up and your job is at all vulnerable, then it can be dark times ahead.But it involves political shift; we have to get away whether the acquisitive society we've been part of, which really is driven by speculation rather than genuine production.KERRY O'BRIEN: Steven Keen thanks for talking with us.PROFESSOR STEVEN KEEN: You're welcome Kerry.
Mordechai Vanunu
From time to time we need to be reminded of this whistleblower. Israel would never submit to the type of inspections that Iran is subject to but than it need not since it has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and indeed has nuclear weapons. The US never says boo about this. The US and some of its allies refuse to sign on to the idea of a nuclear free Middle East. The problem for the US is not nuclear proliferation but proliferation to regimes hostile to the US.
Unrepentant and Unbreakable The Time for Mordechai Vanunu is Now
By Rannie AmiriI 09/10/08 "Counterpunch" -- - As the world awaits the announcement of this year’s recipient(s) of the Nobel Peace Prize, there is no doubt 2008 has been witness to a call to war. The pressure exerted by Israel in goading the United States to attack Iran has been relentless, and thankfully, resisted up to now. In this context, is there any better person to receive the Peace Prize than the man who initially exposed the Middle East’s first—and only—nuclear power over two decades ago? After divulging pictures related to Israel’s clandestine atomic stockpile during a 1986 interview with The Sunday Times, Mordechai Vanunu was lured back to Israel by the Mossad and subsequently spent the next 18 years in prison (11 of them in solitary confinement) before being released in 2004. "I am proud and happy to do what I did,” he said at the time. He had remained unrepentant and indeed, unbreakable. Life after release has not been easy, however. In flagrant violation of Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Israelis placed numerous prohibitions and restrictions on Vanunu’s movements and travels. His freedom to speak with the press or any non-Israeli citizen for that matter was also severely curtailed. In 2007, he was found to be in violation of his parole, in part for attempting to leave Jerusalem in order to visit Bethlehem, and sentenced to six months in prison. The sentence was suspended pending appeals, and this past September an Israeli court reduced the term to three months, citing “…the absence of indications that his actions put the country’s security at risk.”As many are no doubt keenly aware, unlike Iran, Israel is a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and prohibits full inspection of its Dimona reactor by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) personnel. At the IAEA’s 52nd General Conference of Member States which recently concluded in Vienna, a resolution was passed calling for a Middle East nuclear-free zone. It implored countries "not to develop, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons” until such a zone is established and demanded all Middle East nations open up suspected facilities to the agency’s inspectors. The vote was 82-0 in favor of the resolution. The United States and Israel were among the 13 countries abstaining. Although a second resolution more critical of Israel was narrowly defeated after opposition by the United States and the European Union, a clear message was nonetheless sent to the region’s only true rogue nuclear state.All of this would not have been possible without the courage of Vanunu 20 years ago and today. Although often described as a mere “whistleblower”, the term does not do him justice. He was rather the “siren” who first alerted the world that nuclear weapons had found their way into the volatile Middle East. As he sits incarcerated, and as the nuclear outlier that imprisoned him manufactures the casus belli required to plunge the region into a war ironically over non-existent nuclear weapons, there can be no more a compelling set of circumstances than these needed to award the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize to Mordechai Vanunu. The overdue recipient should wait no longer. His time has come and it is now.Rannie Amiri is an independent commentator on the Arab and Islamic worlds. He may be reached at: rbamiri yahoo.com.
Unrepentant and Unbreakable The Time for Mordechai Vanunu is Now
By Rannie AmiriI 09/10/08 "Counterpunch" -- - As the world awaits the announcement of this year’s recipient(s) of the Nobel Peace Prize, there is no doubt 2008 has been witness to a call to war. The pressure exerted by Israel in goading the United States to attack Iran has been relentless, and thankfully, resisted up to now. In this context, is there any better person to receive the Peace Prize than the man who initially exposed the Middle East’s first—and only—nuclear power over two decades ago? After divulging pictures related to Israel’s clandestine atomic stockpile during a 1986 interview with The Sunday Times, Mordechai Vanunu was lured back to Israel by the Mossad and subsequently spent the next 18 years in prison (11 of them in solitary confinement) before being released in 2004. "I am proud and happy to do what I did,” he said at the time. He had remained unrepentant and indeed, unbreakable. Life after release has not been easy, however. In flagrant violation of Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Israelis placed numerous prohibitions and restrictions on Vanunu’s movements and travels. His freedom to speak with the press or any non-Israeli citizen for that matter was also severely curtailed. In 2007, he was found to be in violation of his parole, in part for attempting to leave Jerusalem in order to visit Bethlehem, and sentenced to six months in prison. The sentence was suspended pending appeals, and this past September an Israeli court reduced the term to three months, citing “…the absence of indications that his actions put the country’s security at risk.”As many are no doubt keenly aware, unlike Iran, Israel is a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and prohibits full inspection of its Dimona reactor by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) personnel. At the IAEA’s 52nd General Conference of Member States which recently concluded in Vienna, a resolution was passed calling for a Middle East nuclear-free zone. It implored countries "not to develop, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons” until such a zone is established and demanded all Middle East nations open up suspected facilities to the agency’s inspectors. The vote was 82-0 in favor of the resolution. The United States and Israel were among the 13 countries abstaining. Although a second resolution more critical of Israel was narrowly defeated after opposition by the United States and the European Union, a clear message was nonetheless sent to the region’s only true rogue nuclear state.All of this would not have been possible without the courage of Vanunu 20 years ago and today. Although often described as a mere “whistleblower”, the term does not do him justice. He was rather the “siren” who first alerted the world that nuclear weapons had found their way into the volatile Middle East. As he sits incarcerated, and as the nuclear outlier that imprisoned him manufactures the casus belli required to plunge the region into a war ironically over non-existent nuclear weapons, there can be no more a compelling set of circumstances than these needed to award the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize to Mordechai Vanunu. The overdue recipient should wait no longer. His time has come and it is now.Rannie Amiri is an independent commentator on the Arab and Islamic worlds. He may be reached at: rbamiri
Anger against US mounts as Iraq Shiites bury slain MP
This is from AFP via Yahoo.
This MP was strongly anti-American and a strong critic of the SOFA (status of forces agreement) now being negotiated with the Americans. However it is quite possible that the was by Al Qaeda or other Sunni groups but who knows it could be courtesy of the US dept. of dirty tricks. The US has refused to give up immunity for their soldiers in Iraq and perhaps they are still trying to protect contractors as well.
Time is running out for the UN mandate at the end of December.
Anger against US mounts as Iraq Shiites bury slain MP
by Karim Talbi Fri Oct 10, 1:53 PM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Mourners shouted anti-US slogans and torched American and Israeli flags in Baghdad's Shiite bastion after a radical MP was buried Friday, as fresh attacks killed at least 19 people across Iraq.
"Down with Americans, down with the occupation," Shiite youngsters shouted while burning US and Israeli flags at a public square in Sadr City after weekly prayers.
Car bombs, roadside blasts and a shooting near the capital and the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk killed at least 19 people and wounded at least another 66 on Friday, police and security officials said.
The worst single attack was in Baghdad's mainly Sunni quarter of Dora where a car bomb blast at a crowded market killed 13 people and wounded 27, police and the defence ministry said.
In the northern city of Kirkuk, claimed by Arabs and Kurds, Iraqi journalist Diyar Abbas Ahmed, 28, was gunned down, police Brigadier General Torhan Yusuf said.
Also targeted was an Iraqi military base in Habaniyah, near the city of Fallujah, where a car bomb wounded seven soldiers, two of them seriously.
Earlier in the day, gunfire rattled through the impoverished Shiite stronghold of Sadr City where 41-year-old anti-American Shiite MP Saleh al-Ogayly was killed Thursday in a roadside bomb attack.
Special UN representative for Iraq, Staffan de Mistura, denounced the murder in a statement calling it an "outrageous crime aimed at perpetuating instability in Iraq."
Supporters of the MP from the radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's party called for a nationwide "demonstration" on October 18 to protest the assassination, the first of an Iraqi lawmaker in 18 months.
Iraqi troops and the US military stepped up security in Sadr City after Thursday's high-profile bomb attack.
"Americans get out. Americans get out," shouted mourners as relatives hugged each other and wept while Ogayly's wooden coffin was brought out of his home draped in the tri-colour Iraqi flag.
Ogayly was later buried in the holy shrine city of Najaf.
His party blamed the killing on the US military and said Ogayly had been a vociferous critic of the proposed military pact between the Shiite-led government of Premier Nuri al-Maliki and the Americans.
"What happened indicates that the occupation (US forces) was behind the attack," said Sheikh Salah al Obeidi, a spokesman for Sadr.
"He has criticised severely the weakest points in the (US) agreement which led to the embarrassment of the Americans," Obeidi told AFP in Najaf. "So we see that it was in their interest to get rid of Ogayly."
The US military strongly denied any involvement in Ogayly's killing.
"We are not behind this event," the US military said in response to allegations by Sadr's faction. The assassination was also condemned by US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, and General Raymond Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq.
The Sadrists have rejected the proposed Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which would provide the legal basis for a US troop presence beyond December when a UN mandate runs out.
Obeidi said Ogayly was a key figure in negotiations with the government on the SOFA.
Prime Minister Maliki, who has condemned the assassination and vowed to get the killers, travelled to Najaf on Friday to discuss the proposed military deal with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most respected Shiite cleric.
Maliki told reporters that Sistani would support a consensus in parliament. Washington has made "big concessions," but immunity issues remained a problem, he said.
In Sadr City itself, people returned to the streets and markets were packed with people on Friday, the weekly religious holiday, amid tightened security.
The Shiite district was the site of heavy fighting between US troops and Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in March and April.
This MP was strongly anti-American and a strong critic of the SOFA (status of forces agreement) now being negotiated with the Americans. However it is quite possible that the was by Al Qaeda or other Sunni groups but who knows it could be courtesy of the US dept. of dirty tricks. The US has refused to give up immunity for their soldiers in Iraq and perhaps they are still trying to protect contractors as well.
Time is running out for the UN mandate at the end of December.
Anger against US mounts as Iraq Shiites bury slain MP
by Karim Talbi Fri Oct 10, 1:53 PM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Mourners shouted anti-US slogans and torched American and Israeli flags in Baghdad's Shiite bastion after a radical MP was buried Friday, as fresh attacks killed at least 19 people across Iraq.
"Down with Americans, down with the occupation," Shiite youngsters shouted while burning US and Israeli flags at a public square in Sadr City after weekly prayers.
Car bombs, roadside blasts and a shooting near the capital and the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk killed at least 19 people and wounded at least another 66 on Friday, police and security officials said.
The worst single attack was in Baghdad's mainly Sunni quarter of Dora where a car bomb blast at a crowded market killed 13 people and wounded 27, police and the defence ministry said.
In the northern city of Kirkuk, claimed by Arabs and Kurds, Iraqi journalist Diyar Abbas Ahmed, 28, was gunned down, police Brigadier General Torhan Yusuf said.
Also targeted was an Iraqi military base in Habaniyah, near the city of Fallujah, where a car bomb wounded seven soldiers, two of them seriously.
Earlier in the day, gunfire rattled through the impoverished Shiite stronghold of Sadr City where 41-year-old anti-American Shiite MP Saleh al-Ogayly was killed Thursday in a roadside bomb attack.
Special UN representative for Iraq, Staffan de Mistura, denounced the murder in a statement calling it an "outrageous crime aimed at perpetuating instability in Iraq."
Supporters of the MP from the radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's party called for a nationwide "demonstration" on October 18 to protest the assassination, the first of an Iraqi lawmaker in 18 months.
Iraqi troops and the US military stepped up security in Sadr City after Thursday's high-profile bomb attack.
"Americans get out. Americans get out," shouted mourners as relatives hugged each other and wept while Ogayly's wooden coffin was brought out of his home draped in the tri-colour Iraqi flag.
Ogayly was later buried in the holy shrine city of Najaf.
His party blamed the killing on the US military and said Ogayly had been a vociferous critic of the proposed military pact between the Shiite-led government of Premier Nuri al-Maliki and the Americans.
"What happened indicates that the occupation (US forces) was behind the attack," said Sheikh Salah al Obeidi, a spokesman for Sadr.
"He has criticised severely the weakest points in the (US) agreement which led to the embarrassment of the Americans," Obeidi told AFP in Najaf. "So we see that it was in their interest to get rid of Ogayly."
The US military strongly denied any involvement in Ogayly's killing.
"We are not behind this event," the US military said in response to allegations by Sadr's faction. The assassination was also condemned by US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, and General Raymond Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq.
The Sadrists have rejected the proposed Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which would provide the legal basis for a US troop presence beyond December when a UN mandate runs out.
Obeidi said Ogayly was a key figure in negotiations with the government on the SOFA.
Prime Minister Maliki, who has condemned the assassination and vowed to get the killers, travelled to Najaf on Friday to discuss the proposed military deal with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most respected Shiite cleric.
Maliki told reporters that Sistani would support a consensus in parliament. Washington has made "big concessions," but immunity issues remained a problem, he said.
In Sadr City itself, people returned to the streets and markets were packed with people on Friday, the weekly religious holiday, amid tightened security.
The Shiite district was the site of heavy fighting between US troops and Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in March and April.
Friday, October 10, 2008
NATO to Hit Drug Trade in Afghanistan.
This is from the NYTimes.
This article makes no mention of the Afghan government. Apparently NATO has decided to attack the drug trade without even bothering to ask or get permission to do so from the Afghan government. This is an occupation not a liberation and Afghan is not a sovereign country. The occupiers do what they want whether bombing targets that harbour civilians or fighting the drug trade. This will make for big trouble. The attacks are to leave the corrupt trade of those associated with the government alone. At best the attacks will lead to more joint ventures between the Taliban and the government drug lords to ensure that their production is safe!
It certainly will turn every opium farmer who is attacked into a Taliban supporter, just what is needed when the whole mission is going downhill.
October 11, 2008
NATO to Hit Drug Trade in Afghanistan
By JUDY DEMPSEY
BUDAPEST, Hungary — NATO defense ministers agreed Friday to allow attacks on Afghanistan’s drug trade , after the United States reached a compromise with its other 25 allies in a major shift in strategy for the alliance.
The accord, accepted with some misgivings by several European countries, including Germany and Spain, means that troops will be able to attack facilities connected to opium production but they must obtain authorization from national governments.
NATO officials stressed that only drug producers known to be supporting the insurgency will be singled out. The operation will not be open-ended and will end when the Afghan security forces are able to take on the task themselves.
The decision, which could include bombing laboratories that convert opium to heroin, was reached under considerable pressure from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and NATO’s Supreme commander, General John Craddock. Throughout the two-day meeting in Budapest, they had argued that the drug trade was helping to fund the Taliban insurgency.
“Secretary Gates is extremely pleased that, after two days of thoughtful discussion, NATO has decided to allow ISAF forces to take on the drug traffickers who are fueling the insurgency, destabilizing Afghanistan and killing our troops,” said the Pentagon spokesman, Geoff Morrell. NATO’s 37,000 troops are part of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF.
Afghanistan produces about 90 percent of the heroin on world markets.
NATO’s troops, particularly those in the south of Afghanistan, have come under such sustained attack from the insurgents over the past few months that the British commander, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, warned it would be impossible to defeat the Taliban.
NATO defense ministers will review the success of the mission when they next meet February in Poland.
This article makes no mention of the Afghan government. Apparently NATO has decided to attack the drug trade without even bothering to ask or get permission to do so from the Afghan government. This is an occupation not a liberation and Afghan is not a sovereign country. The occupiers do what they want whether bombing targets that harbour civilians or fighting the drug trade. This will make for big trouble. The attacks are to leave the corrupt trade of those associated with the government alone. At best the attacks will lead to more joint ventures between the Taliban and the government drug lords to ensure that their production is safe!
It certainly will turn every opium farmer who is attacked into a Taliban supporter, just what is needed when the whole mission is going downhill.
October 11, 2008
NATO to Hit Drug Trade in Afghanistan
By JUDY DEMPSEY
BUDAPEST, Hungary — NATO defense ministers agreed Friday to allow attacks on Afghanistan’s drug trade , after the United States reached a compromise with its other 25 allies in a major shift in strategy for the alliance.
The accord, accepted with some misgivings by several European countries, including Germany and Spain, means that troops will be able to attack facilities connected to opium production but they must obtain authorization from national governments.
NATO officials stressed that only drug producers known to be supporting the insurgency will be singled out. The operation will not be open-ended and will end when the Afghan security forces are able to take on the task themselves.
The decision, which could include bombing laboratories that convert opium to heroin, was reached under considerable pressure from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and NATO’s Supreme commander, General John Craddock. Throughout the two-day meeting in Budapest, they had argued that the drug trade was helping to fund the Taliban insurgency.
“Secretary Gates is extremely pleased that, after two days of thoughtful discussion, NATO has decided to allow ISAF forces to take on the drug traffickers who are fueling the insurgency, destabilizing Afghanistan and killing our troops,” said the Pentagon spokesman, Geoff Morrell. NATO’s 37,000 troops are part of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF.
Afghanistan produces about 90 percent of the heroin on world markets.
NATO’s troops, particularly those in the south of Afghanistan, have come under such sustained attack from the insurgents over the past few months that the British commander, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, warned it would be impossible to defeat the Taliban.
NATO defense ministers will review the success of the mission when they next meet February in Poland.
A Solution to the Banking Crisis
No doubt in the U.S. this solution would be called socialism by many. It is nothing of the sort of course. Socialists call this use of state ownership to rescue failing institutions hospitalisation. The taxpayer injects cash into the corporations, banks in this case, until it is cured and begins to be profitable. After that the corporation is privatised again to make profits that go to shareholders and not to taxpayers. This is a case of socialising risk but privatising profits. Socialism involves both risk and surplus being socialised and replaces the capitalist system rather than rescuing it.
Temporary full state ownership is only solution
By Paul De Grauwe
Financial Times
October 9 2008The essence of what banks do in normal times is to borrow short and lendlong. In doing so, they transform short-term assets into long ones, therebycreating credit and liquidity. Put differently, by borrowing short andlending long, banks become less liquid, thereby making it possible for thenon-banking sector to become more liquid; that is, have assets that areshorter than their liabilities. This is essential for the non-banking sectorto run smoothly.This credit transformation model performed by banks only works if there isconfidence in the banks and, more importantly, if banks trust each other.This confidence has now evaporated and, as a result, the model fails. Thegeneralised distrust within the banking system has led to a situation wherebanks do not want to lend any more. That means that they continue to borrowshort but lend equally short; that is, acquire the most liquid assets.The result is a massive destruction of credit and liquidity in the economy.The non-banking sector cannot borrow long so as to acquire liquid assetsthat they need to run their business, because banks do not lend longanymore. This risks bringing the economy to a standstill. A depression islooming.It is important to realise that this liquidity crisis is the result of aco-ordination failure: bank A does not want to lend to bank B, notnecessarily because it fears insolvency of bank B but because it fears otherbanks will not lend to bank B, thereby creating insolvency of bank B out ofthe blue. Thus bank lending comes to a standstill because banks expect banklending to come to a standstill.How to get out of this bad equilibrium? There is only one way. Thegovernments of the big countries (US, UK, the eurozone, possibly Japan) musttake over their banking systems (or at least the significant banks).Governments are the only institutions that can solve the co-ordinationfailure at the heart of the liquidity crisis. They can do this because oncethe banks are in the hands of the state, they can be ordered to trust eachother and to lend to each other. The faster governments take these steps,the better.Government interventions have consisted of recapitalising banks. These havenot worked. The main reason is that they have been triggered by bankfailures as they pop up and, as a result, have only dealt with the symptoms.The liquidity crisis is pulling down asset prices in an indiscriminate way,thereby transforming the liquidity crisis into solvency problems ofindividual banks. The governments, then, are forced to step in and torecapitalise the bank only to find out later that when the liquidity crisisstrikes again, the capital has evaporated. The governments throw freshcapital into a black hole, where it disappears quickly.Central bank liquidity provision, although necessary, has also failed toaddress the co-ordination failure and has only made it easier for banks todispose of long assets to acquire short ones (cash). Thus central banks’liquidity provisions do not stop the massive destruction of credit andliquidity that is going on in the economy.The recent decision of the US Federal Reserve to bypass the banking systemand to lend directly to the non-banking sector by buying commercial paper isa step in the right direction. It allows companies to obtain cash byborrowing long; a service banks do not want to provide anymore. The steptaken by the Fed is insufficient, however. The Fed cannot take over all banklending operations. Only the government can do this by temporarilytransforming private banks into public ones. It can then order themanagement of these state banks to lend to each other.Such a transformation (call it a temporary nationalisation) will make itpossible to jump start the interbank market and allow the normal flow ofcredit to be activated. Nationalising the banking system is not the onlyintervention necessary. There is today a general distrust of private debt.This will force the government to substitute private debt for public debt.The Paulson plan does just that. More Paulson plans will be necessary to puta floor on the price of private debt and to prevent a meltdown.The temporary nationalisation of the banking system and the substitution ofprivate debt by public debt will allow us to reach a new equilibrium. Whenthis happens, a fundamental reform of the banking system will be necessaryin order to remain in this benign equilibrium. When this is achieved thegovernments will be able to privatise the banking system again.The writer is professor of economics at the university of Leuven and Centrefor European Policy Studies___________________________________
Temporary full state ownership is only solution
By Paul De Grauwe
Financial Times
October 9 2008The essence of what banks do in normal times is to borrow short and lendlong. In doing so, they transform short-term assets into long ones, therebycreating credit and liquidity. Put differently, by borrowing short andlending long, banks become less liquid, thereby making it possible for thenon-banking sector to become more liquid; that is, have assets that areshorter than their liabilities. This is essential for the non-banking sectorto run smoothly.This credit transformation model performed by banks only works if there isconfidence in the banks and, more importantly, if banks trust each other.This confidence has now evaporated and, as a result, the model fails. Thegeneralised distrust within the banking system has led to a situation wherebanks do not want to lend any more. That means that they continue to borrowshort but lend equally short; that is, acquire the most liquid assets.The result is a massive destruction of credit and liquidity in the economy.The non-banking sector cannot borrow long so as to acquire liquid assetsthat they need to run their business, because banks do not lend longanymore. This risks bringing the economy to a standstill. A depression islooming.It is important to realise that this liquidity crisis is the result of aco-ordination failure: bank A does not want to lend to bank B, notnecessarily because it fears insolvency of bank B but because it fears otherbanks will not lend to bank B, thereby creating insolvency of bank B out ofthe blue. Thus bank lending comes to a standstill because banks expect banklending to come to a standstill.How to get out of this bad equilibrium? There is only one way. Thegovernments of the big countries (US, UK, the eurozone, possibly Japan) musttake over their banking systems (or at least the significant banks).Governments are the only institutions that can solve the co-ordinationfailure at the heart of the liquidity crisis. They can do this because oncethe banks are in the hands of the state, they can be ordered to trust eachother and to lend to each other. The faster governments take these steps,the better.Government interventions have consisted of recapitalising banks. These havenot worked. The main reason is that they have been triggered by bankfailures as they pop up and, as a result, have only dealt with the symptoms.The liquidity crisis is pulling down asset prices in an indiscriminate way,thereby transforming the liquidity crisis into solvency problems ofindividual banks. The governments, then, are forced to step in and torecapitalise the bank only to find out later that when the liquidity crisisstrikes again, the capital has evaporated. The governments throw freshcapital into a black hole, where it disappears quickly.Central bank liquidity provision, although necessary, has also failed toaddress the co-ordination failure and has only made it easier for banks todispose of long assets to acquire short ones (cash). Thus central banks’liquidity provisions do not stop the massive destruction of credit andliquidity that is going on in the economy.The recent decision of the US Federal Reserve to bypass the banking systemand to lend directly to the non-banking sector by buying commercial paper isa step in the right direction. It allows companies to obtain cash byborrowing long; a service banks do not want to provide anymore. The steptaken by the Fed is insufficient, however. The Fed cannot take over all banklending operations. Only the government can do this by temporarilytransforming private banks into public ones. It can then order themanagement of these state banks to lend to each other.Such a transformation (call it a temporary nationalisation) will make itpossible to jump start the interbank market and allow the normal flow ofcredit to be activated. Nationalising the banking system is not the onlyintervention necessary. There is today a general distrust of private debt.This will force the government to substitute private debt for public debt.The Paulson plan does just that. More Paulson plans will be necessary to puta floor on the price of private debt and to prevent a meltdown.The temporary nationalisation of the banking system and the substitution ofprivate debt by public debt will allow us to reach a new equilibrium. Whenthis happens, a fundamental reform of the banking system will be necessaryin order to remain in this benign equilibrium. When this is achieved thegovernments will be able to privatise the banking system again.The writer is professor of economics at the university of Leuven and Centrefor European Policy Studies___________________________________
More Newspeak on Afghanistan from the Pentagon
The Pentagon notes that sometimes the truth can change. It is impossible for the Pentagon original reports to be wrong. When a new one comes out the truth changes. But the Pentagon still does not admit the number of civilian casualties assessed by the UN and Afghan govts. Only the Pentagon reports constitute "the truth" even though they change. This is Orwellian Newspeak at its best or worst. This is from antiwar.com.
US Report Declares Herat Strike “Legitimate Self-Defense”
Posted October 9, 2008
A late August US air strike in Herat Province which killed at least 90 civilians, most of them children, according to both the United Nations and the Afghan government has been a matter of continuing embarrassment for international forces and a source of tension between the troops and the Afghan populace. The United States long disputed the civilian toll, saying even after condemnations by Afghan President Hamid Karzai that they were “very confident” that only militants were killed, but finally has raised the number of civilians killed to 33.
Rather than admitting that their initial findings were in error however, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said simply that “sometimes the truth can change.” They had previously accused Afghans who spoke of a higher death toll of spreading “outrageous Taliban propaganda.”
And indeed, even now that they are conceding to killing at least dozens of Afghan civilians (though still a far lower number than the other investigations), the report maintains that the killings were legitimate self-defense. Rear Admiral Greg Smith says the matter is now closed and no disciplinary action will be taken against those involved in the killings.
Lt. General Martin Dempsey blamed the toll on a “ruthless enemy” who “routinely surround themselves with innocents.” This is in stark contrast to an Afghan inquiry which ruled the attack was based on a false tip by a rival tribesman. The Afghan government has maintained that not a single militant was killed in the strike.
Related Stories
US Report Declares Herat Strike “Legitimate Self-Defense”
Posted October 9, 2008
A late August US air strike in Herat Province which killed at least 90 civilians, most of them children, according to both the United Nations and the Afghan government has been a matter of continuing embarrassment for international forces and a source of tension between the troops and the Afghan populace. The United States long disputed the civilian toll, saying even after condemnations by Afghan President Hamid Karzai that they were “very confident” that only militants were killed, but finally has raised the number of civilians killed to 33.
Rather than admitting that their initial findings were in error however, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said simply that “sometimes the truth can change.” They had previously accused Afghans who spoke of a higher death toll of spreading “outrageous Taliban propaganda.”
And indeed, even now that they are conceding to killing at least dozens of Afghan civilians (though still a far lower number than the other investigations), the report maintains that the killings were legitimate self-defense. Rear Admiral Greg Smith says the matter is now closed and no disciplinary action will be taken against those involved in the killings.
Lt. General Martin Dempsey blamed the toll on a “ruthless enemy” who “routinely surround themselves with innocents.” This is in stark contrast to an Afghan inquiry which ruled the attack was based on a false tip by a rival tribesman. The Afghan government has maintained that not a single militant was killed in the strike.
Related Stories
Philippines: Corrupt Image Sticks
This is from the Tribune.(Manila)
Even though corrupt Arroyo is certainly a survivor! The Tribune never misses an opportunity to lambaste Arroyo and her government. If there is another state of emergency the Tribune can expect to be occupied again as it was the last time around. The article lists a few of the many scandals that have plagued the regime. Now Arroyo is busy trying to change the constitution so she can enrage the Tribune and many Filipinos for years to come! The press in the Philippines is not easily silenced.
Corrupt image sticks
EDITORIAL
10/10/2008
The world’s view on the country as being in a sorry state due to corruption and an ineffective government reverberates every single time a survey on the Philippines is done.
The uniformity of such views has become so regular that survey results on the country under the Arroyo administration have become so predictable.
The Global Competitiveness Report released the other day by the World Economic Forum (WEF) was no exception.
As expected, the country fared poorly in the annual survey, landing 71st out of 134 countries.
The only consolation, if it can be called that, was that the Philippines obtained the same ranking last year.
Under Gloria, however, maintaining a poor ranking on such surveys and not have it worsen over a year is perhaps already an achievement for her and her mediocre administration.
Those who participated in the survey, who are mostly prominent business figures in the 134 countries included, cited three major problems hobbling the country’s competitiveness. These are corruption, inefficient government bureaucracy and inadequate supply of infrastructure.
Time and again, it is these three major problems that have been cited, which can only mean that there has been no improvement or even effort at all in addressing in a concrete way, and not via propaganda on Gloria and her administration having made giant strides in curbing corruption, in their elimination of red tape and the claimed all-out move for mega infrastructure projects.
The three problems were again cited by 56.7 of those survey respondents asked to cite the most problematic factors for doing business in the country.
Common in the three problems cited was that all three involve the quality of governance under the Arroyo administration.
The WEF survey would be hard to refute and cannot be dismissed by Gloria and her cabal with stock responses such as the survey being based on outdated data or that it did not consider the supposed actions being taken to address the problem.
With the regularity of the indicting reports on the country, the Palace may have finally realized the inanity of disputing the unassailable since it has lately been admitting that a lot is needed to be done about corruption, but admitted as if Gloria and her cabal are not a major part of the problem.
The absolutely corrupt image of the country built up over the years as Gloria and her cabal shifted to high gear the plunder of government resources and the economy. And there is enough evidence on this, to name a few, the P3 billion fertilizer fund scam, the Northrail scam and the ZTE National Broadband Network project that was tainted with over a hundred million dollars in kickbacks and commissions.
While reports of corruption in the past were received by the public with incredulity, instances of government funds being ripped off by Gloria and her associates have become so common that resignation has become the usual public reaction.
The frequency of such irregularities has raised public tolerance on these crimes, making these part of Filipinos’ daily existence under Gloria.
While the whole nation stands aghast at the way corruption is eating away at the fiber of the Philippine society, courtesy of Gloria’s plunder-filled rule, most Filipinos, particularly the young, are unfortunately learning to accept it as given for those working in government.
Gloria’s patronage politics has engendered the growth of corruption in government.
Being in the good graces of Gloria assures people that corrupt ways are overlooked.
The promise of making a big killing while being on the side of Gloria has become the main draw of those wanting to join government.
The corrupt image on the country will stick until Gloria leaves government and will be remembered for decades and decades to come.
She is, after all, already branded as the “most corrupt” president the country has ever had.
Even though corrupt Arroyo is certainly a survivor! The Tribune never misses an opportunity to lambaste Arroyo and her government. If there is another state of emergency the Tribune can expect to be occupied again as it was the last time around. The article lists a few of the many scandals that have plagued the regime. Now Arroyo is busy trying to change the constitution so she can enrage the Tribune and many Filipinos for years to come! The press in the Philippines is not easily silenced.
Corrupt image sticks
EDITORIAL
10/10/2008
The world’s view on the country as being in a sorry state due to corruption and an ineffective government reverberates every single time a survey on the Philippines is done.
The uniformity of such views has become so regular that survey results on the country under the Arroyo administration have become so predictable.
The Global Competitiveness Report released the other day by the World Economic Forum (WEF) was no exception.
As expected, the country fared poorly in the annual survey, landing 71st out of 134 countries.
The only consolation, if it can be called that, was that the Philippines obtained the same ranking last year.
Under Gloria, however, maintaining a poor ranking on such surveys and not have it worsen over a year is perhaps already an achievement for her and her mediocre administration.
Those who participated in the survey, who are mostly prominent business figures in the 134 countries included, cited three major problems hobbling the country’s competitiveness. These are corruption, inefficient government bureaucracy and inadequate supply of infrastructure.
Time and again, it is these three major problems that have been cited, which can only mean that there has been no improvement or even effort at all in addressing in a concrete way, and not via propaganda on Gloria and her administration having made giant strides in curbing corruption, in their elimination of red tape and the claimed all-out move for mega infrastructure projects.
The three problems were again cited by 56.7 of those survey respondents asked to cite the most problematic factors for doing business in the country.
Common in the three problems cited was that all three involve the quality of governance under the Arroyo administration.
The WEF survey would be hard to refute and cannot be dismissed by Gloria and her cabal with stock responses such as the survey being based on outdated data or that it did not consider the supposed actions being taken to address the problem.
With the regularity of the indicting reports on the country, the Palace may have finally realized the inanity of disputing the unassailable since it has lately been admitting that a lot is needed to be done about corruption, but admitted as if Gloria and her cabal are not a major part of the problem.
The absolutely corrupt image of the country built up over the years as Gloria and her cabal shifted to high gear the plunder of government resources and the economy. And there is enough evidence on this, to name a few, the P3 billion fertilizer fund scam, the Northrail scam and the ZTE National Broadband Network project that was tainted with over a hundred million dollars in kickbacks and commissions.
While reports of corruption in the past were received by the public with incredulity, instances of government funds being ripped off by Gloria and her associates have become so common that resignation has become the usual public reaction.
The frequency of such irregularities has raised public tolerance on these crimes, making these part of Filipinos’ daily existence under Gloria.
While the whole nation stands aghast at the way corruption is eating away at the fiber of the Philippine society, courtesy of Gloria’s plunder-filled rule, most Filipinos, particularly the young, are unfortunately learning to accept it as given for those working in government.
Gloria’s patronage politics has engendered the growth of corruption in government.
Being in the good graces of Gloria assures people that corrupt ways are overlooked.
The promise of making a big killing while being on the side of Gloria has become the main draw of those wanting to join government.
The corrupt image on the country will stick until Gloria leaves government and will be remembered for decades and decades to come.
She is, after all, already branded as the “most corrupt” president the country has ever had.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Report: Intelligence study finds chaos in Afghanistan
There is increasing criticism of Karzai from the west. Karzai's administration has always been corrupt. The reason there is more criticism now is that the U.S. is probably hoping to replace him, perhaps with Zalmay Khalilzad. Karzai is becoming a very bad puppet, often criticising NATO and the US for civilian deaths.
In spite of the huge U.S. debt both Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum the presidential candidates agree that there should be more troops sent to Afghanistan. NATO allies may be unwilling to help out much if at all. Maybe the US can bribe Georgia into sending more or the Ukraine. The Russians must find it amusing to see the U.S. flounder in Afghanistan just as the Soviets did. The difference is that there is no evidence that Russia is funding or supplying the Taliban. The U.S. is fortunate that Russia does not seem to shown any inclination to make things worse for the U.S. by helping the Taliban.
Intelligence study finds chaos in Afghanistan: report
Thu Oct 9, 2008 2:52pm EDT
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies conclude in a draft report that Afghanistan is in a downward spiral and they doubt whether the Kabul government can stem the Taliban's rise, The New York Times reported on Thursday.
The classified report says corruption inside President Hamid Karzai's government and an increase in attacks by militants operating from Pakistan have accelerated the breakdown in central authority in Afghanistan, the Times said, citing U.S. officials familiar with the document.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said intelligence agencies had been asked to have a close look at Afghanistan, but said she had not seen the report. The White House said the document, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, had not been finalized.
"Afghanistan is a difficult place. It has made progress since 2001. We have all talked about new circumstances that have arisen there and we are doing a review to look to see what more we can do," Rice told reporters.
Agencies across the U.S. government, including the State Department and Pentagon, have launched a review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan seven years after U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban government.
"We are looking also at what we can do to be both supportive of the ministers that President Karzai has put up. We are looking to see where some of the strengths are and how we need to support those strengths and also how we can help the Afghans where there are weaknesses," Rice said.
The New York Times said the estimate, or NIE, is set to be finished after the November elections and will be the most comprehensive U.S. assessment in years on Afghanistan.
An NIE is a formal document that reflects the consensus judgments of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, often based on separate intelligence reports previously given to policymakers.
Most NIEs remain classified. A senior official said last month estimates for many parts of the world were being updated for use by the next U.S. president, who will take office in January.
Intelligence agencies declined to discuss the new report, but a U.S. counterterrorism official said: "We've been saying for some time that the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border are a source of serious concern. That's where a lot of terrorists who wish us and our allies harm are holed up and are involved in training and planning for terrorist operations."
CONCERN VOICED
The Pentagon has also voiced concern about deteriorating security in Afghanistan, where an intensifying insurgency in recent months has helped make the country deadlier than Iraq for U.S. troops.
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress a month ago he was not convinced the U.S.-led effort was winning in Afghanistan. He and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have said more development and investment aid are needed to buttress security operations.
Beyond the cross-border attacks launched by militants from Pakistan, the intelligence report asserts that many of Afghanistan's most vexing problems are of the country's own making, the Times quoted the officials as saying.
The report cites gains in the building of Afghanistan's army. But the officials said it also laid out starkly what it described as the destabilizing impact of the booming heroin trade, which by some estimates accounts for 50 percent of Afghanistan's economy.
U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus said on Wednesday that negotiations with some members of the Taliban could provide a way to reduce violence in sections of Afghanistan gripped by the intensifying insurgency.
Petraeus, the former commander in Iraq who is credited by U.S. officials with saving that country from civil war, is scheduled to take over U.S. Central Command on October 31. In his new post, he will oversee American military interests across the Middle East and into South and Central Asia.
(Additional reporting by David Morgan, Randall Mikkelsen and World Desk Americas; editing by Mohammad Zargham)
In spite of the huge U.S. debt both Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum the presidential candidates agree that there should be more troops sent to Afghanistan. NATO allies may be unwilling to help out much if at all. Maybe the US can bribe Georgia into sending more or the Ukraine. The Russians must find it amusing to see the U.S. flounder in Afghanistan just as the Soviets did. The difference is that there is no evidence that Russia is funding or supplying the Taliban. The U.S. is fortunate that Russia does not seem to shown any inclination to make things worse for the U.S. by helping the Taliban.
Intelligence study finds chaos in Afghanistan: report
Thu Oct 9, 2008 2:52pm EDT
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies conclude in a draft report that Afghanistan is in a downward spiral and they doubt whether the Kabul government can stem the Taliban's rise, The New York Times reported on Thursday.
The classified report says corruption inside President Hamid Karzai's government and an increase in attacks by militants operating from Pakistan have accelerated the breakdown in central authority in Afghanistan, the Times said, citing U.S. officials familiar with the document.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said intelligence agencies had been asked to have a close look at Afghanistan, but said she had not seen the report. The White House said the document, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, had not been finalized.
"Afghanistan is a difficult place. It has made progress since 2001. We have all talked about new circumstances that have arisen there and we are doing a review to look to see what more we can do," Rice told reporters.
Agencies across the U.S. government, including the State Department and Pentagon, have launched a review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan seven years after U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban government.
"We are looking also at what we can do to be both supportive of the ministers that President Karzai has put up. We are looking to see where some of the strengths are and how we need to support those strengths and also how we can help the Afghans where there are weaknesses," Rice said.
The New York Times said the estimate, or NIE, is set to be finished after the November elections and will be the most comprehensive U.S. assessment in years on Afghanistan.
An NIE is a formal document that reflects the consensus judgments of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, often based on separate intelligence reports previously given to policymakers.
Most NIEs remain classified. A senior official said last month estimates for many parts of the world were being updated for use by the next U.S. president, who will take office in January.
Intelligence agencies declined to discuss the new report, but a U.S. counterterrorism official said: "We've been saying for some time that the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border are a source of serious concern. That's where a lot of terrorists who wish us and our allies harm are holed up and are involved in training and planning for terrorist operations."
CONCERN VOICED
The Pentagon has also voiced concern about deteriorating security in Afghanistan, where an intensifying insurgency in recent months has helped make the country deadlier than Iraq for U.S. troops.
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress a month ago he was not convinced the U.S.-led effort was winning in Afghanistan. He and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have said more development and investment aid are needed to buttress security operations.
Beyond the cross-border attacks launched by militants from Pakistan, the intelligence report asserts that many of Afghanistan's most vexing problems are of the country's own making, the Times quoted the officials as saying.
The report cites gains in the building of Afghanistan's army. But the officials said it also laid out starkly what it described as the destabilizing impact of the booming heroin trade, which by some estimates accounts for 50 percent of Afghanistan's economy.
U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus said on Wednesday that negotiations with some members of the Taliban could provide a way to reduce violence in sections of Afghanistan gripped by the intensifying insurgency.
Petraeus, the former commander in Iraq who is credited by U.S. officials with saving that country from civil war, is scheduled to take over U.S. Central Command on October 31. In his new post, he will oversee American military interests across the Middle East and into South and Central Asia.
(Additional reporting by David Morgan, Randall Mikkelsen and World Desk Americas; editing by Mohammad Zargham)
Arroyo: Philippines can weather financial storm
Compared to some countries such as Iceland, the Philippines so far has not encountered a crisis but the article points out some of the negative effects of the downturn on the economy. Naturally as president and being Arroyo she puts a somewhat positive spin on the situation in the Philippines. At the very least growth will be much slower next year.