This is from malaya.com.
Surely the guerrilas and AFP could agree to a longer holiday truce instead of breaking up the holiday truces with a three day period of hostilities in between Xmas and New Year's.
The NPA thinks that if you use NPA territory and don't pay revolutionary taxes then you must suffer the consequences. Probably the NPA is a more efficient tax collector than the Arroyo administration!
Communist guerrillas resume hostilities
COMMUNIST New People’s Army guerillas have resumed hostilities with the end of their three-day Christmas truce last Friday.
The rebels toppled a communications tower in Quezon and engaged troops in a firefight in Agusan del Sur, killing a soldier and wounding two others.
The communist-declared truce ended December 26. A New Year’s truce will take effect December 31 and January 1.
Lt. Col. Ernesto Torres, chief of the AFP public affairs office, said he was optimistic no untoward incident would occur during the New Year’s truce as in the Christmas cease-fire.
In Quezon, an undetermined number of NPA rebels swooped down on the Globe cell site compound in Sampaloc town, disarmed the firm’s security guard Eduardo Litaw, and then torched the cell site’s cabin, generator set, and other equipment.
1Lt. Celeste Frank Sayson, spokesman of the Army’s 2nd Infantry Division, said the attack on the cell site adversely affected the residents, considering the volume of people sending text messages during the holidays.
Sayson praised Globe executives for continuously rejecting the NPA’s demand for "revolutionary tax."
In Agusan del Sur Saturday, a soldier died and another was injured in a clash with at least 20 communist insurgents in Tagmamarkay village in Tubay town.
The casualties are from the Army’s 30th Battalion.
In Western Samar also on Saturday, troops from the 34th IB clashed with NPA rebels in Layo village, Pinabacdao town.
There was no casualty in the 15-minute firefight. –
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Israeli Military Declares Online Media Ánother war zone''.
The press coverage in the West is almost universally pro-Israel with the occasional note that perhaps the Israeli response to the Hamas rockets is somewhat unproportional. But then the blame is always based squarely on Hamas as if by attacks on militants Israel does not provoke Hamas!
The Hamas rockets are indeed to be deplored but the damage they inflict is minimal compared to that inflicted by Israel on the Palestinians. Israel of course does very well at controlling the spin and what the media reports. Journalists are not allowed in Gaza to report firsthand what is happening. Even the warfare within the media is asymmetric with the Palestinian side having little power whereas Israel has plenty of power and control.
This is from antiwar.com.
Israeli Military Declare Online Media ''Another war zone.''
Journalists Kept Carefully Away From Gaza as Israel Tries to Restrict Coverage
Posted December 30, 2008
Across the world, mainstream journalists are expressing increasing disquiet at the way the Israeli government is trying to manage international coverage of its war on the Gaza Strip. Journalists have been barred not just from the strip itself, but the government is now prohibiting journalists from going to parts of Israel near the Gaza Strip.
The Foreign Press Association is petitioning the Israeli Supreme Court to overturn the ban, which is limiting the ability of media outlets to cover the attacks, and forces them to rely on second and third hand reports from Israeli military and Hamas spokesmen regarding the situation on the ground.
As the media struggles to get up-to-date information, television news coverage is narrow, and often relies on interviews with Israeli government officials explaining why the killings are righteous and legitimate expressions of democracy and freedom, more and more people are turning to online news sites (like Antiwar.com) for their war coverage.
The Israeli military has therefore announced that online media and the blogosphere are another warzone for the military to manage. To that end, the military is launching its own Youtube channel to bring the viewing public footage of “precision bombing operations” in the strip.
In ensuring that the only footage of their military operation is provided directly from them, the Israeli military is another step closer to completely managing public perception of the ongoing attacks. The military says the footage will allow the public to “know that people killed did not have peaceful intentions toward Israel,” which presumably means coverage of the killing of five children in their beds in a refugee camp last night, and the scores of other civilian deaths, will be carefully omitted from the official coverage.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
The Hamas rockets are indeed to be deplored but the damage they inflict is minimal compared to that inflicted by Israel on the Palestinians. Israel of course does very well at controlling the spin and what the media reports. Journalists are not allowed in Gaza to report firsthand what is happening. Even the warfare within the media is asymmetric with the Palestinian side having little power whereas Israel has plenty of power and control.
This is from antiwar.com.
Israeli Military Declare Online Media ''Another war zone.''
Journalists Kept Carefully Away From Gaza as Israel Tries to Restrict Coverage
Posted December 30, 2008
Across the world, mainstream journalists are expressing increasing disquiet at the way the Israeli government is trying to manage international coverage of its war on the Gaza Strip. Journalists have been barred not just from the strip itself, but the government is now prohibiting journalists from going to parts of Israel near the Gaza Strip.
The Foreign Press Association is petitioning the Israeli Supreme Court to overturn the ban, which is limiting the ability of media outlets to cover the attacks, and forces them to rely on second and third hand reports from Israeli military and Hamas spokesmen regarding the situation on the ground.
As the media struggles to get up-to-date information, television news coverage is narrow, and often relies on interviews with Israeli government officials explaining why the killings are righteous and legitimate expressions of democracy and freedom, more and more people are turning to online news sites (like Antiwar.com) for their war coverage.
The Israeli military has therefore announced that online media and the blogosphere are another warzone for the military to manage. To that end, the military is launching its own Youtube channel to bring the viewing public footage of “precision bombing operations” in the strip.
In ensuring that the only footage of their military operation is provided directly from them, the Israeli military is another step closer to completely managing public perception of the ongoing attacks. The military says the footage will allow the public to “know that people killed did not have peaceful intentions toward Israel,” which presumably means coverage of the killing of five children in their beds in a refugee camp last night, and the scores of other civilian deaths, will be carefully omitted from the official coverage.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
Monday, December 29, 2008
Palestinian negotiator says peace talks with Israel ''suspended'
This is hardly surprising. In any event the last thing that Israel is interested in at this point is negotiating peace. It is interested in doing as much damage as it can on Hamas before reacting to international condemnation for the attacks on its own Gaza prison. There are bound to be numerous Palestinians who have only revenge in mind and heart after this so that even if Israel does manage to find some Palestinians to bargain with it will not stop the counter attacks since no Palestinian authority will have the power to control these militants as Israeli seems to demand. It would seem that Israel is also contemplating a ground invasion. This is bound to cause more losses for the Israelis and of course many for the Palestinian side in this very asymmetric warfare.
Palestinian negotiator says peace talks with Israel "suspended"
www.chinaview.cn 2008-12-29 22:19:29
RAMALLAH, Dec. 29 (Xinhua) -- Chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia said on Monday the peace negotiations with Israel "are suspended" in protest against the intensive Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip.
"It is impossible to hold peace negotiations with Israel, while its army is committing massacres against our people in the Gaza Strip," Qureia told reporters in the West bank city of Ramallah.
The "talks with Israel which are sponsored and supported by the United States are now suspended due to the awful bloody scene that the Gaza Strip is witnessing these days," he said.
Hamas, which has been ruling the Gaza Strip since mid June last year after it routed President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah security forces, has slammed the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) for not stopping the talks with Israel.
"There are no peace negotiations and there will be no negotiations at this time while Israel is attacking the Palestinian people," said Qureia, who is also a senior Fatah movement leader.
On Monday, five Palestinians were killed, including a senior leader of the Islamic Jihad (Holy War) movement's armed wing, in the latest Israeli air strike on southeast Gaza Strip, medics and witnesses said.
The witnesses said an Israeli air-to-ground rocket struck a car in the village of Abbasan, east of the southern Gaza town of Khan Younis, killing at least five people, two of them militants.
Meanwhile, the Islamic Jihad said in a statement sent to reporters that Ziad Abu Tir, a senior militant leader of the group's armed wing, Saraya al-Quds, was killed in an Israeli air strike on his car in the village.
Mo'aweya Hassanein, chief of emergency and ambulance services in the Palestinian Health ministry, said 320 Palestinians were killed and over than 1,400 wounded since Saturday morning in the Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip.
Israel on Saturday launched an unprecedented and intensive operation on the Gaza Strip, saying the operation targets Hamas movement and all its political and military arms.
Since Saturday morning, Israel carried out over 300 air strikes on security buildings, mosques, metal workshops, underground tunnels near Gaza-Egypt borders and houses.
Palestinian negotiator says peace talks with Israel "suspended"
www.chinaview.cn 2008-12-29 22:19:29
RAMALLAH, Dec. 29 (Xinhua) -- Chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia said on Monday the peace negotiations with Israel "are suspended" in protest against the intensive Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip.
"It is impossible to hold peace negotiations with Israel, while its army is committing massacres against our people in the Gaza Strip," Qureia told reporters in the West bank city of Ramallah.
The "talks with Israel which are sponsored and supported by the United States are now suspended due to the awful bloody scene that the Gaza Strip is witnessing these days," he said.
Hamas, which has been ruling the Gaza Strip since mid June last year after it routed President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah security forces, has slammed the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) for not stopping the talks with Israel.
"There are no peace negotiations and there will be no negotiations at this time while Israel is attacking the Palestinian people," said Qureia, who is also a senior Fatah movement leader.
On Monday, five Palestinians were killed, including a senior leader of the Islamic Jihad (Holy War) movement's armed wing, in the latest Israeli air strike on southeast Gaza Strip, medics and witnesses said.
The witnesses said an Israeli air-to-ground rocket struck a car in the village of Abbasan, east of the southern Gaza town of Khan Younis, killing at least five people, two of them militants.
Meanwhile, the Islamic Jihad said in a statement sent to reporters that Ziad Abu Tir, a senior militant leader of the group's armed wing, Saraya al-Quds, was killed in an Israeli air strike on his car in the village.
Mo'aweya Hassanein, chief of emergency and ambulance services in the Palestinian Health ministry, said 320 Palestinians were killed and over than 1,400 wounded since Saturday morning in the Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip.
Israel on Saturday launched an unprecedented and intensive operation on the Gaza Strip, saying the operation targets Hamas movement and all its political and military arms.
Since Saturday morning, Israel carried out over 300 air strikes on security buildings, mosques, metal workshops, underground tunnels near Gaza-Egypt borders and houses.
Somali president resigns.
This is from AFP.
This resignation is just a further sign of the weakness and virtual irrelevance of the internationally recognised Somalia govt. Meanwhile the Islamists are re-establishing their power base throughout most of the country. Once Ethiopian troops withdraw the Islamists will further consolidate their power. It will be interesting to see what Obama will do in relation to Somalia.
Somali president resigns
7 hours ago
BAIDOA, Somalia (AFP) — Somalia's President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed resigned Monday following a bitter power struggle, adding political uncertainty to the war-ravaged country's security vacuum.
"I had promised to return the power if I could not bring peace, stability and democracy where people can elect their leader," Yusuf told a special meeting of parliament.
"I have handed over my letter of resignation to the speaker of parliament who will be the president in line with the transitional federal charter. I don't want to violate and never violated the charter," he added.
Elected in 2004, the 74-year-old former warlord headed a fractious administration. In recent months he had been embroiled in in-fighting which further weakened a government unable to assert its authority.
But Yusuf blamed the international community for failing to support his government, leading to its inability to effectively rule.
"The international community had promised more help to the people of Somalia, but that pledge was not honoured," he said.
"We were unable to pay salaries and other required logistics to the armed forces of Somalia because of lack of finance. Then the army disintegrated, unable to fight extremists."
Yusuf had been at loggerheads with Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein whom he sacked and replaced with a little-known lawmaker, who also resigned last week.
Hussein was appointed in November 2007 after his predecessor, Ali Mohamed Gedi, was also forced to resign over a bruising power struggle with Yusuf.
Yusuf differed with his premier over reconciliation efforts with the moderate Islamist-dominated opposition group following UN-sponsored peace talks in Djibouti.
The African Union's Peace and Security Commissioner Ramtane Lamamra urged Somali authorities to "make sure that there's no vacuum."
"We certainly hope that this development would help in bringing together the Somali stakeholders and in giving them the opportunity to implememnt what they have agreed in the Djibouti process ... to put in place a government of national unity and an expanded parliament," he said.
Yusuf's administration was the only one to receive international recognition since 1991, when dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was toppled, sparking bloody clan fighting.
In 2006, his government faced a huge threat from a powerful Islamist movement that had taken control of much of south and central Somalia, prompting Ethiopia to send troops to back the government.
Now Ethiopia's plan to withdraw by the end of the month has sparked fears of security vacuum. A small African Union force in Mogadishu has failed to halt the violence.
Since the ousting of the Islamists in early 2007, the Shebab -- the military wing of the movement -- has waged relentless war against the Ethiopia-backed government forces and has retaken much of the territory it lost to its rivals.
Today, the government is only present in the capital Mogadishu and in the south-central town of Baidoa, where the parliament is based.
Parliament speaker Aden Mohamed Nur, who under the country's transitional charter steps in as interim president, called for unity.
"I have received and accepted the resignation letter of President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed," Nur told parliament. "I congratulate the president for the bold step he has taken in respect of the transitional federal charter."
Yusuf then left Baidoa for the northern breakaway state of Puntland, of which he became the president when it declared its autonomy in 1998.
Somalia's parliament now has 30 days to elect a new president by secret ballot.
The winner must win a two-thirds majority of the votes. If not, a second and third round of voting is called. In the last round, the winner would only need a simple majority.
Conflict in Somalia and power struggles that erupted since 1991 have scuppered numerous initiatives to restore national stability.
This resignation is just a further sign of the weakness and virtual irrelevance of the internationally recognised Somalia govt. Meanwhile the Islamists are re-establishing their power base throughout most of the country. Once Ethiopian troops withdraw the Islamists will further consolidate their power. It will be interesting to see what Obama will do in relation to Somalia.
Somali president resigns
7 hours ago
BAIDOA, Somalia (AFP) — Somalia's President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed resigned Monday following a bitter power struggle, adding political uncertainty to the war-ravaged country's security vacuum.
"I had promised to return the power if I could not bring peace, stability and democracy where people can elect their leader," Yusuf told a special meeting of parliament.
"I have handed over my letter of resignation to the speaker of parliament who will be the president in line with the transitional federal charter. I don't want to violate and never violated the charter," he added.
Elected in 2004, the 74-year-old former warlord headed a fractious administration. In recent months he had been embroiled in in-fighting which further weakened a government unable to assert its authority.
But Yusuf blamed the international community for failing to support his government, leading to its inability to effectively rule.
"The international community had promised more help to the people of Somalia, but that pledge was not honoured," he said.
"We were unable to pay salaries and other required logistics to the armed forces of Somalia because of lack of finance. Then the army disintegrated, unable to fight extremists."
Yusuf had been at loggerheads with Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein whom he sacked and replaced with a little-known lawmaker, who also resigned last week.
Hussein was appointed in November 2007 after his predecessor, Ali Mohamed Gedi, was also forced to resign over a bruising power struggle with Yusuf.
Yusuf differed with his premier over reconciliation efforts with the moderate Islamist-dominated opposition group following UN-sponsored peace talks in Djibouti.
The African Union's Peace and Security Commissioner Ramtane Lamamra urged Somali authorities to "make sure that there's no vacuum."
"We certainly hope that this development would help in bringing together the Somali stakeholders and in giving them the opportunity to implememnt what they have agreed in the Djibouti process ... to put in place a government of national unity and an expanded parliament," he said.
Yusuf's administration was the only one to receive international recognition since 1991, when dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was toppled, sparking bloody clan fighting.
In 2006, his government faced a huge threat from a powerful Islamist movement that had taken control of much of south and central Somalia, prompting Ethiopia to send troops to back the government.
Now Ethiopia's plan to withdraw by the end of the month has sparked fears of security vacuum. A small African Union force in Mogadishu has failed to halt the violence.
Since the ousting of the Islamists in early 2007, the Shebab -- the military wing of the movement -- has waged relentless war against the Ethiopia-backed government forces and has retaken much of the territory it lost to its rivals.
Today, the government is only present in the capital Mogadishu and in the south-central town of Baidoa, where the parliament is based.
Parliament speaker Aden Mohamed Nur, who under the country's transitional charter steps in as interim president, called for unity.
"I have received and accepted the resignation letter of President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed," Nur told parliament. "I congratulate the president for the bold step he has taken in respect of the transitional federal charter."
Yusuf then left Baidoa for the northern breakaway state of Puntland, of which he became the president when it declared its autonomy in 1998.
Somalia's parliament now has 30 days to elect a new president by secret ballot.
The winner must win a two-thirds majority of the votes. If not, a second and third round of voting is called. In the last round, the winner would only need a simple majority.
Conflict in Somalia and power struggles that erupted since 1991 have scuppered numerous initiatives to restore national stability.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Grief and Fear in Gaza.
The blame for this tit for tat is mutual and not just to be put on Hamas as there is a tendency to do in the west. Israel has been targetting Hamas members for some time and the rocket attacks have been in response to these. The attacks then cause Israel to escalate resulting in more rocket attacks. Israel is punishing the whole population of Gaza and has been for some time. In fact Gaza is a huge prison controlled by Israel but also a democratically elected group of inmates Hamas!
Bombing in built up areas is bound to cause civilian casualties and the deaths of innocents indeed many more than the inefficient primitive rockets launched by Hamas into Israel.
The best we can hope for is that the US and others are able to pressure Israel sufficiently to arrange another ceasefire that will at least reduce the level of mutual violence. However, that is a very faint hope. The Israelis seem to think that this attack and a ground invasion will be a final solution to the problem of Hamas.
Grief and fear in Gaza
BBC journalist and Gaza resident Hamada Abu Qammar describes the impact of the current wave of Israeli airstrikes against Hamas targets.
The streets of Gaza are deserted, apart from a few cars taking urgent cases to hospital and families screaming and shouting as they take bodies to the cemetery to be buried.
This morning I visited Shifa Hospital, the main one in Gaza.
I spoke to one man, a civilian, and also a 14-year-old boy who were injured in an airstrike on a police station in the east of Gaza City this morning.
The man said he had been going to work in a clinic when he heard the sound of planes and turned back. But after that he cannot remember what happened - he just woke up injured, with wounds in his hand, leg and stomach.
The teenage boy had blood on his head and was in a lot of pain. He could not even remember his own name. "I don't even know where I am," he said to me.
I saw a body too, in the emergency room, with a stick of wood stuck through the chest.
Yesterday I also went into the hospital; the morgue was full and bodies were left in the streets. Parents were scouring the hospital for their children.
I followed one woman who was screaming "my son, my son" as she searched the building.
Eventually they located him, a young man was in his twenties. The staff would not let her see the body, but I saw it. It didn't have a head and there was no stomach. She fainted on top of the remains of her son, which were covered with a white sheet.
The relatives in the hospital scream and scream. They don't have words to express their feelings, they just say "God help us", over and over.
'Sitting and waiting'
I have seen several Israeli airstrikes this morning - one on a Hamas police post on the coastal road, another on a house about 200m from the BBC office. Smoke pours into the sky. The largest so far today was on the Hamas security headquarters, which is also near to our office, a few hundred metres away.
I was watching it from the window. There were three very loud bangs and a power cut. I could hear women screaming in their houses, and gunshots from Hamas men surrounding the area to keep people way.
The compound was in a big residential area, with lots of high buildings and apartments. Some of the homes are only about 5m from the site - and of course those buildings were damaged, with windows shattered and falling to the ground.
Electricity comes and goes as usual. Most shops are closed. There is a lack of everything - the UN relief agency UNRWA has not been able to deliver food aid for about 750,000 people.
There are shortages of anaesthetic gas, medical supplies, flour and milk - but many of the people I have spoken to say they don't feel like eating while this is going on.
Families are just sitting in their homes. I spoke to one of my neighbours, Iman, a 14-year-old-girl. She was so scared she could barely speak.
"I don't know where to go. I don't know where is a safe place to stay. We don't know when they will strike again," she said.
Israel is not currently permitting international journalists to cross into Gaza
Bombing in built up areas is bound to cause civilian casualties and the deaths of innocents indeed many more than the inefficient primitive rockets launched by Hamas into Israel.
The best we can hope for is that the US and others are able to pressure Israel sufficiently to arrange another ceasefire that will at least reduce the level of mutual violence. However, that is a very faint hope. The Israelis seem to think that this attack and a ground invasion will be a final solution to the problem of Hamas.
Grief and fear in Gaza
BBC journalist and Gaza resident Hamada Abu Qammar describes the impact of the current wave of Israeli airstrikes against Hamas targets.
The streets of Gaza are deserted, apart from a few cars taking urgent cases to hospital and families screaming and shouting as they take bodies to the cemetery to be buried.
This morning I visited Shifa Hospital, the main one in Gaza.
I spoke to one man, a civilian, and also a 14-year-old boy who were injured in an airstrike on a police station in the east of Gaza City this morning.
The man said he had been going to work in a clinic when he heard the sound of planes and turned back. But after that he cannot remember what happened - he just woke up injured, with wounds in his hand, leg and stomach.
The teenage boy had blood on his head and was in a lot of pain. He could not even remember his own name. "I don't even know where I am," he said to me.
I saw a body too, in the emergency room, with a stick of wood stuck through the chest.
Yesterday I also went into the hospital; the morgue was full and bodies were left in the streets. Parents were scouring the hospital for their children.
I followed one woman who was screaming "my son, my son" as she searched the building.
Eventually they located him, a young man was in his twenties. The staff would not let her see the body, but I saw it. It didn't have a head and there was no stomach. She fainted on top of the remains of her son, which were covered with a white sheet.
The relatives in the hospital scream and scream. They don't have words to express their feelings, they just say "God help us", over and over.
'Sitting and waiting'
I have seen several Israeli airstrikes this morning - one on a Hamas police post on the coastal road, another on a house about 200m from the BBC office. Smoke pours into the sky. The largest so far today was on the Hamas security headquarters, which is also near to our office, a few hundred metres away.
I was watching it from the window. There were three very loud bangs and a power cut. I could hear women screaming in their houses, and gunshots from Hamas men surrounding the area to keep people way.
The compound was in a big residential area, with lots of high buildings and apartments. Some of the homes are only about 5m from the site - and of course those buildings were damaged, with windows shattered and falling to the ground.
Electricity comes and goes as usual. Most shops are closed. There is a lack of everything - the UN relief agency UNRWA has not been able to deliver food aid for about 750,000 people.
There are shortages of anaesthetic gas, medical supplies, flour and milk - but many of the people I have spoken to say they don't feel like eating while this is going on.
Families are just sitting in their homes. I spoke to one of my neighbours, Iman, a 14-year-old-girl. She was so scared she could barely speak.
"I don't know where to go. I don't know where is a safe place to stay. We don't know when they will strike again," she said.
Israel is not currently permitting international journalists to cross into Gaza
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Philippines: Hospitals Ready for New Year casualties.
When I first arrived as a visitor in Legazpi in October a few years ago,the first night I thought that we must live in a dangerous neighbourhood since I heard what I thought were gunshots in the evening. I was soon set straight that it was simply noisy firecrackers. The climax came on New Years when the noise lasted all night along with rockets and flares that seemed to go up from everywhere. It seems that there are few rules about fireworks in the Philippines and there are always accidents.
DOH readies hospitals
WITH Christmas over, the Department of Health is gearing for the New Year revelry by ensuring that hospitals have enough supply of medicines and equipment for victims of firecracker-related injuries.
"We have to make sure government hospitals, doctors, medical technicians and x-ray radiologists are ready," said Health Secretary Francisco Duque.
"We would want to know if there are hospitals needing added support in terms of medicines and equipment," he said.
He said in 2007, there were over 750 injury cases recorded by DOH sentinel hospitals.
Duque appealed to the public to use noise-makers instead of firecrackers and fireworks.
The National Capital Region Police Office said police will continue tandem patrols with the military until the New Year to ensure a crime-free celebration of the holiday season.
NCRPO chief Leopoldo Bataoil said the AFP-National Capital Region Command under Maj. Gen. Arsenio Arugay has deployed two companies to bolster police presence in the metropolis, with emphasis on security of vital installations, bus terminals, airports, seaport, shopping malls and other public places.
Traffic will be rerouted in the Makati Central Business District starting 10 p.m. today for the city’s New Year countdown.
Both lanes of Ayala avenue, from EDSA to Herrera street, will be closed to traffic.
The Department of Public Service advised motorists to take the following alternate routes:
For passenger buses coming from South Luzon Expressway and LRT, take Gil Puyat Avenue, left at EDSA to destination. Buses coming from EDSA/Ayala Avenue turn right to Gil Puyat Avenue to destination.
For passenger jeepneys and light vehicles coming from Washington Street, turn right to Gil Puyat, right to Ayala Avenue, right to Salcedo Street, left to Benavidez toward Esperanza, right turn to Makati avenue, right to Arnaiz avenue, right turn to Paseo de Roxas, left turn to Dela Rosa, right to Salcedo, left to Ayala avenue to destination.
For jeepneys and light vehicles coming from J.P. Rizal, turn right to Makati avenue, right turn to Paseo de Roxas, right turn to Ayala avenue to destination.
Both lanes of Makati avenue, from Paseo de Roxas to North Drive, will also be closed to traffic to make way for ground preparations.
The event features top rock acts with a laser lights extravaganza and a 10-minute fireworks display.
The event is presented by Mayor Jejomar Binay and the city government of Makati, the Makati Festivals Foundation, Ayala Land, Makati Commercial Estate Association, and ABS-CBN Foundation Sagip-Kapamilya.
This year, the event will also highlight the joint fund-raising drive of the Makati city government and the Sagip Kapamilya program. Cash donations will be collected at Sagip Kapamilya booths during the event.
Parking areas have been designated along the stretch of De la Rosa street and Paseo de Roxas. – Gerard Naval and Raymond Africa
DOH readies hospitals
WITH Christmas over, the Department of Health is gearing for the New Year revelry by ensuring that hospitals have enough supply of medicines and equipment for victims of firecracker-related injuries.
"We have to make sure government hospitals, doctors, medical technicians and x-ray radiologists are ready," said Health Secretary Francisco Duque.
"We would want to know if there are hospitals needing added support in terms of medicines and equipment," he said.
He said in 2007, there were over 750 injury cases recorded by DOH sentinel hospitals.
Duque appealed to the public to use noise-makers instead of firecrackers and fireworks.
The National Capital Region Police Office said police will continue tandem patrols with the military until the New Year to ensure a crime-free celebration of the holiday season.
NCRPO chief Leopoldo Bataoil said the AFP-National Capital Region Command under Maj. Gen. Arsenio Arugay has deployed two companies to bolster police presence in the metropolis, with emphasis on security of vital installations, bus terminals, airports, seaport, shopping malls and other public places.
Traffic will be rerouted in the Makati Central Business District starting 10 p.m. today for the city’s New Year countdown.
Both lanes of Ayala avenue, from EDSA to Herrera street, will be closed to traffic.
The Department of Public Service advised motorists to take the following alternate routes:
For passenger buses coming from South Luzon Expressway and LRT, take Gil Puyat Avenue, left at EDSA to destination. Buses coming from EDSA/Ayala Avenue turn right to Gil Puyat Avenue to destination.
For passenger jeepneys and light vehicles coming from Washington Street, turn right to Gil Puyat, right to Ayala Avenue, right to Salcedo Street, left to Benavidez toward Esperanza, right turn to Makati avenue, right to Arnaiz avenue, right turn to Paseo de Roxas, left turn to Dela Rosa, right to Salcedo, left to Ayala avenue to destination.
For jeepneys and light vehicles coming from J.P. Rizal, turn right to Makati avenue, right turn to Paseo de Roxas, right turn to Ayala avenue to destination.
Both lanes of Makati avenue, from Paseo de Roxas to North Drive, will also be closed to traffic to make way for ground preparations.
The event features top rock acts with a laser lights extravaganza and a 10-minute fireworks display.
The event is presented by Mayor Jejomar Binay and the city government of Makati, the Makati Festivals Foundation, Ayala Land, Makati Commercial Estate Association, and ABS-CBN Foundation Sagip-Kapamilya.
This year, the event will also highlight the joint fund-raising drive of the Makati city government and the Sagip Kapamilya program. Cash donations will be collected at Sagip Kapamilya booths during the event.
Parking areas have been designated along the stretch of De la Rosa street and Paseo de Roxas. – Gerard Naval and Raymond Africa
Russian prophecies.
This is from Moscow Times. Interesting tidbits of prophecies including one about Russian world domination! In the short term though as the price of oil and gas declines the Big Russian Bear is facing a big deficit in 2009 According to the official news agency, the deficit will be 70 billion. Even in its deficit Russia does not come close to the USA.
http://mnweekly.rian.ru/local/20080606/55332043.html
06/06/2008
But the lives of people and the fortune of nations are very different stories. While the fortune of a person is his or her own affair, those of countries, and of the world, are the problems of mankind. Philosophers, astrologers, and fortune-tellers have been giveing advice on these matters through the ages. Yes, people may have different attitudes to prophecies, but regardless of one's opinions about them, one thing is for sure: they are fascinating.
One historical figure that has come to be synonymous with prophecies is Nostradamus, whose name happens to be one of the most frequently searched on the Internet. His "Centuries" are said to have prophesied the burning and devastation of Moscow in 1571, Napoleon's defeat in 1812, the victory of communism in Russia and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.
Recently, Russia pulled off a hat trick: hockey, football and Eurovision. The country was ecstatic and there was jubilation in the air. The press was obsessed about it, and still are. Among all the chaos I read the following comment on the Internet: When the Northern Empire wins on Ice and Grass and its Clown sings his song, Red Clouds will cover the Sky and the Apocalypse will come. This grim prophecy was said to have been one of the Bulgarian prophetess Vanga's predictions, and that made me think about Russia's future. Searching for some evidence to substantiate the claim, I found out the passage was a harmless joke. Still, there are lots of prophecies about Russia that make people sit up and pay attention.
Vanga was born at the turn of the 20th century and died 12 years ago at the age of 84. Her gift of prophesy made her popular, and soon politicians visited her to have their fortunes told.
Among her most shocking predictions is what she had predicted in 1980: In August of 1999 or 2000, Kursk will be covered with water and the whole world will be weeping over it. Twenty years later, the nuclear submarine "Kursk" perished in an accident.
In January 1988 she said: We are witnessing events of paramount significance. Two big leaders shake hands. But we have to wait for a long time before the Eighth one will come forth and sign a final peace agreement on Earth. The first part of the prediction made reference to Gorbachev and Reagan, and the second to the fact that Russia joined the Group of Seven, now the G-8.
In the same way, she predicted some other events of world history. In 1989: The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel bird. The wolves will howl in the bush, and innocent blood will flow. It happened as predicted: The "Twin" towers of the World Trade Center in New York collapsed apparently because two commercial planes - "steel birds" - were flown into them. She predicted lots of things - the Chernobyl disaster, Boris Yeltsin's election win and so on. It is even said that Adolf Hitler left a visit with her looking very upset.
One of the popular predictions about Russia is that when the permafrost thaws and the floods come, nothing will survive on Earth but Russia. The climate will change and Russia will occupy the best inhabitable zone. Plus, Russia is predicted to herald in world peace and flourish in the face of good fortune.
Vanga also once said: "Everything melts away like ice yet the glory of Vladimir, the glory of Russia are the only things that will remain. Russia will not only survive, it will dominate the world."
Russia is on a roll with assorted victories. Whether we can believe that Russia will initiate world peace, however, remains to be seen.
By Daria Chernyshova
© 2007 Moscow News
http://mnweekly.rian.ru/local/20080606/55332043.html
06/06/2008
But the lives of people and the fortune of nations are very different stories. While the fortune of a person is his or her own affair, those of countries, and of the world, are the problems of mankind. Philosophers, astrologers, and fortune-tellers have been giveing advice on these matters through the ages. Yes, people may have different attitudes to prophecies, but regardless of one's opinions about them, one thing is for sure: they are fascinating.
One historical figure that has come to be synonymous with prophecies is Nostradamus, whose name happens to be one of the most frequently searched on the Internet. His "Centuries" are said to have prophesied the burning and devastation of Moscow in 1571, Napoleon's defeat in 1812, the victory of communism in Russia and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.
Recently, Russia pulled off a hat trick: hockey, football and Eurovision. The country was ecstatic and there was jubilation in the air. The press was obsessed about it, and still are. Among all the chaos I read the following comment on the Internet: When the Northern Empire wins on Ice and Grass and its Clown sings his song, Red Clouds will cover the Sky and the Apocalypse will come. This grim prophecy was said to have been one of the Bulgarian prophetess Vanga's predictions, and that made me think about Russia's future. Searching for some evidence to substantiate the claim, I found out the passage was a harmless joke. Still, there are lots of prophecies about Russia that make people sit up and pay attention.
Vanga was born at the turn of the 20th century and died 12 years ago at the age of 84. Her gift of prophesy made her popular, and soon politicians visited her to have their fortunes told.
Among her most shocking predictions is what she had predicted in 1980: In August of 1999 or 2000, Kursk will be covered with water and the whole world will be weeping over it. Twenty years later, the nuclear submarine "Kursk" perished in an accident.
In January 1988 she said: We are witnessing events of paramount significance. Two big leaders shake hands. But we have to wait for a long time before the Eighth one will come forth and sign a final peace agreement on Earth. The first part of the prediction made reference to Gorbachev and Reagan, and the second to the fact that Russia joined the Group of Seven, now the G-8.
In the same way, she predicted some other events of world history. In 1989: The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel bird. The wolves will howl in the bush, and innocent blood will flow. It happened as predicted: The "Twin" towers of the World Trade Center in New York collapsed apparently because two commercial planes - "steel birds" - were flown into them. She predicted lots of things - the Chernobyl disaster, Boris Yeltsin's election win and so on. It is even said that Adolf Hitler left a visit with her looking very upset.
One of the popular predictions about Russia is that when the permafrost thaws and the floods come, nothing will survive on Earth but Russia. The climate will change and Russia will occupy the best inhabitable zone. Plus, Russia is predicted to herald in world peace and flourish in the face of good fortune.
Vanga also once said: "Everything melts away like ice yet the glory of Vladimir, the glory of Russia are the only things that will remain. Russia will not only survive, it will dominate the world."
Russia is on a roll with assorted victories. Whether we can believe that Russia will initiate world peace, however, remains to be seen.
By Daria Chernyshova
© 2007 Moscow News
Israel's Gaza Assault
This is from Aljazeera.
In one attack Israel has probably caused more casualties than the Hamas rockets have in years. Israel intends to overthrow the Hamas govt. in Gaza but even if it should achieve this which is not at all certain the desire for revenge is not about to evaporate. In the short term there could be even more attacks on Israel just to demonstrate that Israeli attacks cannot guarantee security. The outlook for peace between Palestinians and Israelis looks quite dim as we approach the New Year.
Analysis: Israel's Gaza assault
Osama Hamdan, the Palestinian Islamist Hamas representative in LebanonInterior ministry buildings were targeted in the raid [AFP]
Speaking to Al Jazeera, commentators and political figures share their thoughts on the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.
Osama Hamdan, Hamas representative in Lebanon
"I believe what happened today is a continuity of the Israeli collective crime against the Palestinians.
What happened in the last three years, the Palestinians were suffering under the siege.
"The Israelis expected that the people will react against the resistance and against Hamas which didn't happen in the past three years. That means they have to start very tough actions against Hamas.
"They attack 32 positions in Gaza, we expect the casualties will ... reach 200 killings.
"There is a clear reaction of the Palestinians in Gaza. They are calling for revenge. They are asking for the Palestinian resistance to react against the occupation.
"I believe Israel is not learning the lesson. They don't know that this kind of aggressive attack against the Palestinians creates a new cycle of violence inside Palestine. It will not defeat the Palestinian resistance.
"We are talking about six decades of occupation and, until now, the Palestinian people are resisting. What has happened today in Gaza will not stop the resistance, will not defeat the Palestinian people. They will find themselves under a reaction from the resistance.
"The peace process has completely failed, so we have to talk about a new process in the region which is supposed to start from the restoring of Palestinian rights and the commitment towards those rights.
"No one will accept now any talk about a peace process, because everyone knows that the Palestinian people are fed up with 17 years of negotiation without any result.
"The second thing which I believe is happening every morning is that Palestinians believe that there is no solution unless there is a resistance."
Azzam Tamimi, director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought
"If you remember what Tzipi Livni said in Egypt after her meeting with President Hosni Mubarak and the foreign minister, she made a clear warning, not just about a tit-for-tat attitude, but about a change in Gaza.
"That's why I suspect that the operation is not only intended to be limited, but aimed at toppling the regime in Gaza altogether, otherwise why would Israel target the police force?
"They are not the ones firing missiles in Israel - the police force keeps the order in Gaza. This is an operation that will create disorder and I suspect that Egypt and Ramallah are colluding in this.
"Israel would never have carried out such a massive attack had it not been for a green light from people that matter - for instance the United States, some of the European powers and also from Egypt and Ramallah.
"Hamas did not say it wanted the truce to be renewed, it wanted to renegotiate new terms for the truce. Hamas wanted a truce with the Israelis that would bring about the end to the siege.
"Unfortunately, because the Egyptian broker was a dishonest broker, siding by Israel and siding by Ramallah, the truce did not bring the most important dividend which was ending the siege.
"So Hamas said 'if you want to renew the truce, let's end the siege and open the crossings.' The Egyptians would not agree to this. The Israelis would not agree to this.
"The Israelis were not interested in renewing a truce. Cairo was determined to give Hamas a fatal blow and they gave the green light to Israel I suspect
In one attack Israel has probably caused more casualties than the Hamas rockets have in years. Israel intends to overthrow the Hamas govt. in Gaza but even if it should achieve this which is not at all certain the desire for revenge is not about to evaporate. In the short term there could be even more attacks on Israel just to demonstrate that Israeli attacks cannot guarantee security. The outlook for peace between Palestinians and Israelis looks quite dim as we approach the New Year.
Analysis: Israel's Gaza assault
Osama Hamdan, the Palestinian Islamist Hamas representative in LebanonInterior ministry buildings were targeted in the raid [AFP]
Speaking to Al Jazeera, commentators and political figures share their thoughts on the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.
Osama Hamdan, Hamas representative in Lebanon
"I believe what happened today is a continuity of the Israeli collective crime against the Palestinians.
What happened in the last three years, the Palestinians were suffering under the siege.
"The Israelis expected that the people will react against the resistance and against Hamas which didn't happen in the past three years. That means they have to start very tough actions against Hamas.
"They attack 32 positions in Gaza, we expect the casualties will ... reach 200 killings.
"There is a clear reaction of the Palestinians in Gaza. They are calling for revenge. They are asking for the Palestinian resistance to react against the occupation.
"I believe Israel is not learning the lesson. They don't know that this kind of aggressive attack against the Palestinians creates a new cycle of violence inside Palestine. It will not defeat the Palestinian resistance.
"We are talking about six decades of occupation and, until now, the Palestinian people are resisting. What has happened today in Gaza will not stop the resistance, will not defeat the Palestinian people. They will find themselves under a reaction from the resistance.
"The peace process has completely failed, so we have to talk about a new process in the region which is supposed to start from the restoring of Palestinian rights and the commitment towards those rights.
"No one will accept now any talk about a peace process, because everyone knows that the Palestinian people are fed up with 17 years of negotiation without any result.
"The second thing which I believe is happening every morning is that Palestinians believe that there is no solution unless there is a resistance."
Azzam Tamimi, director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought
"If you remember what Tzipi Livni said in Egypt after her meeting with President Hosni Mubarak and the foreign minister, she made a clear warning, not just about a tit-for-tat attitude, but about a change in Gaza.
"That's why I suspect that the operation is not only intended to be limited, but aimed at toppling the regime in Gaza altogether, otherwise why would Israel target the police force?
"They are not the ones firing missiles in Israel - the police force keeps the order in Gaza. This is an operation that will create disorder and I suspect that Egypt and Ramallah are colluding in this.
"Israel would never have carried out such a massive attack had it not been for a green light from people that matter - for instance the United States, some of the European powers and also from Egypt and Ramallah.
"Hamas did not say it wanted the truce to be renewed, it wanted to renegotiate new terms for the truce. Hamas wanted a truce with the Israelis that would bring about the end to the siege.
"Unfortunately, because the Egyptian broker was a dishonest broker, siding by Israel and siding by Ramallah, the truce did not bring the most important dividend which was ending the siege.
"So Hamas said 'if you want to renew the truce, let's end the siege and open the crossings.' The Egyptians would not agree to this. The Israelis would not agree to this.
"The Israelis were not interested in renewing a truce. Cairo was determined to give Hamas a fatal blow and they gave the green light to Israel I suspect
Bush's 1 Trillion War on Terror: Even Costlier Than Expected
This is from Yahoo.
The absolute amount of US debt will be staggering when the hundreds of billions in bailout costs is added to these war costs. Once attempts are made to reduce these deficits wages and social programs will be the first to suffer. There will be continual clamour about unsustainable social security, unsustainable medicare and aid, unsustainable welfare, and on and on. What must be sustained however are profits because that is the sine qua non of capitalist production.
Once the economy begins to turn around watch for inflation and decrease in value of the US dollar.
Bush's $1 Trillion War on Terror: Even Costlier Than Expected
By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington Fri Dec 26, 4:30 am ET
The news that President Bush's war on terror will soon have cost the U.S. taxpayer $1 trillion - and counting - is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times. A trio of recent reports - none by the Bush Administration - suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991's Persian Gulf War (90 percent of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on terror looks set to surpass the cost the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, to be topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion.
The cost of sending a single soldier to fight for a year in Afghanistanor Iraq is about $775,000 - three times more than in other recent wars, says a new report from the private but authoritative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A large chunk of the increase is a result of the Administration cramming new military hardware into the emergency budget bills it has been using to pay for the wars. (See pictures of U.S. troops in Iraq)
These costs, of course, pale alongside the price paid by the nearly 5,000 U.S. troops who have lost their lives in the conflicts - not to mention the wounded - and the families of all the casualties. And President Bush insists that their sacrifice, and the expenditure on the wars, has helped prevent a recurrence of 9/11. "We could not afford to wait for the terrorists to attack again," he said last week at the Army War College. "So we launched a global campaign to take the fight to the terrorists abroad, to dismantle their networks, to dry up their financing and find their leaders and bring them to justice."
But many Americans may suffer a moment of sticker shock from the conclusions of the CSBA report, and similar assessments from the Government Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service, which make clear that the nearly $1 trillion already spent is only a down payment on the war's long-term costs. The trillion-dollare figure does not, for example, include long-term health care for veterans, thousands of whom have suffered crippling wounds, or the interest payments on the money borrowed by the Federal government to fund the war. The bottom lines of the three assessments vary: The CSBA study says $904 billion has been spent so far, while the GAO says the Pentagon alone has spent $808 billion through last September. The CRS study says the wars have cost $864 billion, but it didn't factor inflation into its calculations.
Sifting through Pentagon data, the CSBA study breaks down the total cost for the war on terror as $687 billion for Iraq, $184 billion for Afghanistan, and $33 billion for homeland security. By 2018, depending on how many U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan and Iraq, the total cost is projected likely to be between $1.3 trillion and $1.7 trillion. On the safe assumption that the wars are being waged with borrowed money, interest payments raise the cost by an additional $600 billion through 2018.
Shortly before the Iraq war began, White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey earned a rebuke from within the Administration when he said the war could cost as much as $200 billion. "It's not knowable what a war or conflict like that would cost," Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld said. "You don't know if it's going to last two days or two weeks or two months. It certainly isn't going to last two years."
According to the CSBA study, the Administration has fudged the war's true costs in two ways: Borrowing money to fund the wars is one way of conducting it on the cheap, at least in the short term. But just as pernicious has been the Administration's novel way of budgeting for them. Previous wars were funded through the annual appropriations process, with emergency spending - which gets far less congressional scrutiny - only used for the initial stages of a conflict. But the Bush Administration relied on such supplemental appropriations to fund the wars until 2008, seven years after invading Afghanistan and five years after storming Iraq.
"For these wars we have relied on supplemental appropriations for far longer than in the case of past conflicts," says Steven Kosiak of the CSBA, one of Washington's top defense-budget analysts. "Likewise, we have relied on borrowing to cover more of these costs than we have in earlier wars - which will likely increase the ultimate price we have to pay." That refusal to spell out the full cost can lead to unwise spending increases elsewhere in the federal budget or unwarranted tax cuts. "A sound budgeting process forces policymakers to recognize the true costs of their policy choices," Kosiak adds. "Not only did we not raise taxes, we cut taxes and significantly expanded spending."
The bottom line: Bush's projections of future defense spending "substantially understate" just how much money it will take to run Obama's Pentagon, Kosiak says in his report. Luckily, Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to hang around to try to iron out the problem.
The absolute amount of US debt will be staggering when the hundreds of billions in bailout costs is added to these war costs. Once attempts are made to reduce these deficits wages and social programs will be the first to suffer. There will be continual clamour about unsustainable social security, unsustainable medicare and aid, unsustainable welfare, and on and on. What must be sustained however are profits because that is the sine qua non of capitalist production.
Once the economy begins to turn around watch for inflation and decrease in value of the US dollar.
Bush's $1 Trillion War on Terror: Even Costlier Than Expected
By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington Fri Dec 26, 4:30 am ET
The news that President Bush's war on terror will soon have cost the U.S. taxpayer $1 trillion - and counting - is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times. A trio of recent reports - none by the Bush Administration - suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991's Persian Gulf War (90 percent of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on terror looks set to surpass the cost the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, to be topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion.
The cost of sending a single soldier to fight for a year in Afghanistanor Iraq is about $775,000 - three times more than in other recent wars, says a new report from the private but authoritative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A large chunk of the increase is a result of the Administration cramming new military hardware into the emergency budget bills it has been using to pay for the wars. (See pictures of U.S. troops in Iraq)
These costs, of course, pale alongside the price paid by the nearly 5,000 U.S. troops who have lost their lives in the conflicts - not to mention the wounded - and the families of all the casualties. And President Bush insists that their sacrifice, and the expenditure on the wars, has helped prevent a recurrence of 9/11. "We could not afford to wait for the terrorists to attack again," he said last week at the Army War College. "So we launched a global campaign to take the fight to the terrorists abroad, to dismantle their networks, to dry up their financing and find their leaders and bring them to justice."
But many Americans may suffer a moment of sticker shock from the conclusions of the CSBA report, and similar assessments from the Government Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service, which make clear that the nearly $1 trillion already spent is only a down payment on the war's long-term costs. The trillion-dollare figure does not, for example, include long-term health care for veterans, thousands of whom have suffered crippling wounds, or the interest payments on the money borrowed by the Federal government to fund the war. The bottom lines of the three assessments vary: The CSBA study says $904 billion has been spent so far, while the GAO says the Pentagon alone has spent $808 billion through last September. The CRS study says the wars have cost $864 billion, but it didn't factor inflation into its calculations.
Sifting through Pentagon data, the CSBA study breaks down the total cost for the war on terror as $687 billion for Iraq, $184 billion for Afghanistan, and $33 billion for homeland security. By 2018, depending on how many U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan and Iraq, the total cost is projected likely to be between $1.3 trillion and $1.7 trillion. On the safe assumption that the wars are being waged with borrowed money, interest payments raise the cost by an additional $600 billion through 2018.
Shortly before the Iraq war began, White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey earned a rebuke from within the Administration when he said the war could cost as much as $200 billion. "It's not knowable what a war or conflict like that would cost," Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld said. "You don't know if it's going to last two days or two weeks or two months. It certainly isn't going to last two years."
According to the CSBA study, the Administration has fudged the war's true costs in two ways: Borrowing money to fund the wars is one way of conducting it on the cheap, at least in the short term. But just as pernicious has been the Administration's novel way of budgeting for them. Previous wars were funded through the annual appropriations process, with emergency spending - which gets far less congressional scrutiny - only used for the initial stages of a conflict. But the Bush Administration relied on such supplemental appropriations to fund the wars until 2008, seven years after invading Afghanistan and five years after storming Iraq.
"For these wars we have relied on supplemental appropriations for far longer than in the case of past conflicts," says Steven Kosiak of the CSBA, one of Washington's top defense-budget analysts. "Likewise, we have relied on borrowing to cover more of these costs than we have in earlier wars - which will likely increase the ultimate price we have to pay." That refusal to spell out the full cost can lead to unwise spending increases elsewhere in the federal budget or unwarranted tax cuts. "A sound budgeting process forces policymakers to recognize the true costs of their policy choices," Kosiak adds. "Not only did we not raise taxes, we cut taxes and significantly expanded spending."
The bottom line: Bush's projections of future defense spending "substantially understate" just how much money it will take to run Obama's Pentagon, Kosiak says in his report. Luckily, Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to hang around to try to iron out the problem.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Pakistan deploys soldiers to Indian border
This is from the Guardian (UK)
The US wants to defuse the tension between India and Pakistan so that Pakistan can concentrate on the war on terror but it seems that this is not to be. I suppose India believes that if the US can use drones to attack jihadists in the territories then India should be able to use air attacks against suspected jihadist sites in Pakistan.
Pakistan 'deploys soldiers to Indian border'
Saeed Shah in Islamabad, Maseeh Rahman in Delhi
The Guardian, Saturday 27 December 2008
Pakistan moved troops away from its western border with Afghanistan, amid reports that thousands of soldiers were being redeployed along the eastern frontier with India yesterday, in what would be a major escalation of the confrontation between the two countries after the Mumbai terrorist attack last month.
Most experts still believe that war between the nuclear-armed adversaries is unlikely but, if confirmed, the troop movements risk triggering a conflict, with both sides in a state of nervous high alert.
A Pakistani defence official said: "Troops in snowbound areas and places where operational commitments were less [in the west], have been pulled back."
The official denied that the soldiers had been sent to the Indian border. However, media reports quoted witnesses who had seen long convoys of trucks carrying troops, passing through towns.
Pakistan has cancelled leave for all its soldiers, while India has told its citizens not to travel to Pakistan. "We are at the cusp of war," said Zafar Hilaly, a retired Pakistani ambassador turned analyst. "I really do think there is a chance. We shouldn't, by any means, rule out some kind of hostile action on the part of India."
Washington reacted with alarm at the reports, contacting Islamabad and New Delhi. "We hope that both sides will avoid taking steps that will unnecessarily raise tensions during these already tense times," said a US national security council spokesman, Gordon Johndroe.
New Delhi has blamed "elements from Pakistan" for the assault on Mumbai, hinting that the Pakistani-based extremist outfit that carried out the attack had support from a section of the army. Islamabad has offered to co-operate but says that no evidence has been shared by India.
A terrorist attack in India in late 2001, again blamed on Pakistani militants, triggered a massive build-up of troops on both sides of the border, with US intervention needed to avert the possibility of war.
Analysts believe that India's military options are limited to air strikes, but they are likely to be counter-productive and risk setting off a full-scale conflict. India would lose any moral high ground, and air strikes could not destroy the jihadist network.
There have been unconfirmed reports in recent days that India has moved troops to Rajasthan, which borders Pakistan. New Delhi was also reported to have cancelled all military leave until April after the attacks on Mumbai on November 26. The Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, met the army, navy and air force chiefs yesterday for the second time in a week.
Pakistan fears that India could launch an invasion from Rajasthan into Sindh province, aiming to cut off the north from the southern half of Pakistan. The calculation from India is thought to be that going into Sindh would not trigger a nuclear response from Pakistan - unlike the risk posed from invading the country's heartland Punjab province.
"Pakistan and India are at some distance from war, but when troops start moving, any misperception, or any miscalculation, can be dangerous," said Hasan Askari Rizvi, an analyst based in Lahore.
The Indian government has at times ruled out war, while at other points suggested that "all options" are open.
Since the Mumbai incident, India has demanded that Pakistan crack down on militant groups and believes that Islamabad's actions so far have not been genuine. "The issue is not war," Singh told reporters earlier this week. "The issue is terror, and territory in Pakistan being used to promote, aid and abet terror here."
Pakistan maintains that it cannot act without evidence. "There is not much that Pakistan will or can do to address Indian demands," said Kamran Bokhari, head of Middle East analysis at Stratfor, a private US geopolitical intelligence firm. "There are signs from both countries of preparation for war. Unilateral military action on the part of New Delhi appears quite likely."
India's foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, said yesterday that "instead of raising war hysteria, they [Pakistan], should address this [militant] problem".
"We are for peace, not conflict," said Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani. "But if there is any action, we will retaliate."
)
The US wants to defuse the tension between India and Pakistan so that Pakistan can concentrate on the war on terror but it seems that this is not to be. I suppose India believes that if the US can use drones to attack jihadists in the territories then India should be able to use air attacks against suspected jihadist sites in Pakistan.
Pakistan 'deploys soldiers to Indian border'
Saeed Shah in Islamabad, Maseeh Rahman in Delhi
The Guardian, Saturday 27 December 2008
Pakistan moved troops away from its western border with Afghanistan, amid reports that thousands of soldiers were being redeployed along the eastern frontier with India yesterday, in what would be a major escalation of the confrontation between the two countries after the Mumbai terrorist attack last month.
Most experts still believe that war between the nuclear-armed adversaries is unlikely but, if confirmed, the troop movements risk triggering a conflict, with both sides in a state of nervous high alert.
A Pakistani defence official said: "Troops in snowbound areas and places where operational commitments were less [in the west], have been pulled back."
The official denied that the soldiers had been sent to the Indian border. However, media reports quoted witnesses who had seen long convoys of trucks carrying troops, passing through towns.
Pakistan has cancelled leave for all its soldiers, while India has told its citizens not to travel to Pakistan. "We are at the cusp of war," said Zafar Hilaly, a retired Pakistani ambassador turned analyst. "I really do think there is a chance. We shouldn't, by any means, rule out some kind of hostile action on the part of India."
Washington reacted with alarm at the reports, contacting Islamabad and New Delhi. "We hope that both sides will avoid taking steps that will unnecessarily raise tensions during these already tense times," said a US national security council spokesman, Gordon Johndroe.
New Delhi has blamed "elements from Pakistan" for the assault on Mumbai, hinting that the Pakistani-based extremist outfit that carried out the attack had support from a section of the army. Islamabad has offered to co-operate but says that no evidence has been shared by India.
A terrorist attack in India in late 2001, again blamed on Pakistani militants, triggered a massive build-up of troops on both sides of the border, with US intervention needed to avert the possibility of war.
Analysts believe that India's military options are limited to air strikes, but they are likely to be counter-productive and risk setting off a full-scale conflict. India would lose any moral high ground, and air strikes could not destroy the jihadist network.
There have been unconfirmed reports in recent days that India has moved troops to Rajasthan, which borders Pakistan. New Delhi was also reported to have cancelled all military leave until April after the attacks on Mumbai on November 26. The Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, met the army, navy and air force chiefs yesterday for the second time in a week.
Pakistan fears that India could launch an invasion from Rajasthan into Sindh province, aiming to cut off the north from the southern half of Pakistan. The calculation from India is thought to be that going into Sindh would not trigger a nuclear response from Pakistan - unlike the risk posed from invading the country's heartland Punjab province.
"Pakistan and India are at some distance from war, but when troops start moving, any misperception, or any miscalculation, can be dangerous," said Hasan Askari Rizvi, an analyst based in Lahore.
The Indian government has at times ruled out war, while at other points suggested that "all options" are open.
Since the Mumbai incident, India has demanded that Pakistan crack down on militant groups and believes that Islamabad's actions so far have not been genuine. "The issue is not war," Singh told reporters earlier this week. "The issue is terror, and territory in Pakistan being used to promote, aid and abet terror here."
Pakistan maintains that it cannot act without evidence. "There is not much that Pakistan will or can do to address Indian demands," said Kamran Bokhari, head of Middle East analysis at Stratfor, a private US geopolitical intelligence firm. "There are signs from both countries of preparation for war. Unilateral military action on the part of New Delhi appears quite likely."
India's foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, said yesterday that "instead of raising war hysteria, they [Pakistan], should address this [militant] problem".
"We are for peace, not conflict," said Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani. "But if there is any action, we will retaliate."
)
Samir Amin: There is no alternative to Socialism.
This is from hinduonnet.
Samir Amin is a well known Egyptian left wing economist.
Amin takes a very different view of the present crisis than many leftist. For example many leftists consider the present crisis to be caused by a lack of regulation to a considerable extent. Amin considers the crisis one of the distribution of profits among oligolopolies. Deregulation is a product of the competition for profits. It should be noted that as the crisis continues large corporations often become larger by gobbling up failing competitors or merging often with the aid of governments.
Amin sees countries of the South possibly decoupling from the western global finance system. He believes that China has already done so to some extent and by concentrating its stimulus finance on internal markets will do so even more. India is moving in the direction of further integration with the west. I am not sure how far China can decouple as its development has been strongly linked to export development and it has also encouraged foreign capital to invest in China.
‘There is no alternative to socialism’
SMITU KOTHARI & BENNY KURUVILLA
Interview with Egyptian economist Samir Amin.
SMITU KOTHARI Samir Amin: “It was the financial corporations that asked the governments to step in and ‘nationalise’ them. The rescue package was drafted by them, and they are in control of most of the bailout money.”
THE financial crisis continues to spread rapidly across the world, crippling banks, stock markets and manufacturing industries and leaving hundreds of thousands jobless in its wake. Two days after the much hyped meeting of the Group of 20 in Washington, D.C., economist Samir Amin shared his insights into and analysis of the arduous road ahead for economic globalisation and the urgent need for a course change from capitalism and the possibilities of a new internationalism in the form of a Bandung II initiative. The dominant view in the media and in policymaking circles is that the current financial crisis is the result of undue deregulation and the greed of a few in Wall Street. We feel that we need to go beyond the superficial and descriptive framing of the crisis and understand it historically and politically. What is your analysis?
The financial collapse is only the tip of the iceberg. Under the surface there is a deep crisis of accumulation of capital in the real productive economy, and deeper even there is a systemic crisis of capitalism itself. Let us look at the tip of the iceberg first – the so-called financial crisis. This is not the result of mistakes or irresponsibilities of the banking system operating freely in a deregulated environment. This flawed analysis gives the impression that if regulations are put in place the crisis will be corrected. This has been the expected response of the G-20 in Washington, D.C. And this should not be surprising since the G-20’s feeble declaration has been prepared beforehand by the International Monetary Fund [IMF] in concert with the G8.
I would like to submit another vision of this crisis, and for this we have to get rid of the notion of seeing this as a result of neoliberal globalisation. This is limiting because it is descriptive and not analytical. The reality of the current system is the extreme centralisation of capital and a limited number of large oligopolies, some 5,000 in number across the world, that control power at the global, regional and national levels. It is their decisions that are shaping the world. We are at a level of centralisation that is far higher and stronger than we were just 50 years ago. This extreme centralisation of capital has led to a fundamental shift in the logic of the management of the system – instead of investing in the productive economy to produce surplus value, of course with the exploitation of labour, the focus is now on the struggle to redistribute the profits of that surplus value between the oligopolies. This redistribution of profits among them is done through financial investments. Each one of them tries to widen its sphere of financial investment in order to redistribute the profits in its favour. These profits are of another nature – they are monopoly rents. And this is what is being called “financialisation”. And deregulation is essential in this struggle by the oligopolies for more profits through financialisation. And deregulation is not being fundamentally questioned as one can see from the new rules articulated in the November 15 G-20 communique.
The attempt of the oligopolies and their Western governments is to restore the system as it was, and this is not impossible in the short run. Let us assume that the injection of billions of dollars will avoid the breakdown of the major financial institutions and restore a minimum credibility of the monetary and financial system. The second condition for the system being restored is that protests of the victims of this crisis will be manageable. Through inflation, unemployment and reduced pensions, common people will pay, and their protests will be manageable, fragmented and will not disrupt the system. The third condition is that the global South accepts and plays by the rules of the game – that is, the need to maintain the globalisation of the monetary and financial system by being part of it. And that restoring the monetary and financial system needs the inclusion of the monetary and financial systems of the South into the global integrated one. That is the target of the meeting of the G-20 – to bring key emerging economies such as China, India, South Africa, Brazil and others into this project of restoring the system to what it was. Without having these countries on board, any restoration will not last long. Without having a crystal ball, I would say that even if it is restored it will not be for long. We will have another and deeper crisis within a few months, a few years, not much more than that.
What needs more research and more debate among us, people of the Left, is that the current breakdown is not the result of mistakes on regulation, etc. (which is the mainstream view), but a logic that is innate by the very centrality of the struggle for the redistribution of profits among the oligopolies. So the solution to this problem requires radical change, is long term and will come about when the oligopolies are nationalised with the objective of socialisation. This is, of course, not on the present agenda. And, therefore, we continue to be in a serious and continuous crisis of capitalism and imperialism, and not just of the financial markets. And this need not be the last one, and capitalism could come out of it sooner or later, but as long as cosmetic changes are applied, the world will continue to go from crisis to crisis. There is an impression that this crisis offers new possibilities for the global South. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh claims that a significant shift is taking place, and emerging economies such as Brazil, China and India now have an equal standing at the high table of geopolitics. He has also claimed credit for anticipating the global crisis, stating that several protective measures have been put in place in India. And in this context, the reformist calls for the reorganisation of the World Bank and the IMF so that they reflect the current global stature of developing countries have gotten louder. Will the presidency of Barack Obama listen to any of this and be any different?
The last question first. For sure, Barack Obama is better than a John McCain. Also, from the point of view of the evolution of U.S. society, it is something positive for an African American to be elected President. But from the point of view of policies and politics of the U.S. vis-a-vis the rest of the world, little will change. Perhaps the tonality, the language will change but the targets will be the same. Remember that during the campaign, while Obama promised many changes on the domestic social front, he did not say anything important in respect to the U.S.’ global geopolitical strategy. So I do not expect any major shift in policy with regard to Iraq, Afghanistan nor for that matter with China and Russia.
Now to the earlier set of questions, which are more important and complex. On the G-20, there is no need to go into details of the communique. I hold that the set of policies which aims to restore the system was already decided on at the onset of the financial crisis a few months ago. And this was not decided by the governments of the U.S., Japan and Europe (the triad) but by the oligopolies themselves and accepted later by the former. It was the financial corporations that asked the governments to step in and “nationalise” them. The rescue package was drafted by them, and they are in control of most of the bailout money.
And simultaneously the calls for reform of the IMF are essentially moves to help the organisation function in a changed environment. In the past 10 years or so, several Southern countries have exited from IMF programmes because they got rid of their debt through export surpluses, etc. So the IMF became irrelevant, and the language of reform is now being used to integrate key emerging economies into the financial system. This way, the countries of the South will pay their share for restoring the system when they should logically be using the opportunity of the crisis to decouple and move out of the system. So you find the masquerade of the G-20 and the key countries of the South rubber-stamping the decisions of finance capital.
Let’s look at why China agreed to the G-20 measures. The G-20 communique is unimportant for China. It does not want a political conflict with the West and the U.S. in particular. China is not integrated in the global monetary and financial system and it is unlikely that it will move towards integration, so the decisions taken in the November 15 summit will have little consequence for it. There will be pressure on China to integrate with the system but it is unlikely to, and government officials have repeated this in the recent past.
But that is not the case for other countries of the South. Take India which is partially integrated with the global monetary and financial system. It has maintained exchange control, does not have capital account convertibility, has a number of major nationalised banks and has limited the operations of foreign banks. Instead of taking the opportunity of the crisis to move out of the system, the choice of the Government of India has been the opposite, that is, to move deeper into the system and accept empty flattery from the West of being an emerging global power with a seat at the high table. This is also related to political issues such as the nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S. and the ambition of India to be a counter force to China in Asia with the support of the U.S. This is the choice of the ruling class in India. Whether this decision can be challenged by the Left and progressive forces and maybe even some sections of the ruling Congress party remains to be seen. If this remains unchallenged, it is very dangerous.
With respect to other countries in the G-20 such as South Africa, South Korea and Brazil, they are completely integrated with the system. Their only hope is that the system will not have them pay too much because of the current crisis. Malaysia did move out partially after the 1997 Asian financial crisis and could be in a situation similar to India’s.
This situation is indicative of the loss of legitimacy of the ruling classes in the South. One more related point on Prime Minister Singh’s statement that he had anticipated the crisis and had taken precautionary measures: this is pure political rhetoric, and to say that the crisis was expected is a lie. In terms of precautionary measures, the fiscal stimulus initiated by the Government of India is exactly what finance capital and big business wants.
All the conventional economists and therefore governments did not expect such a crisis. Even among the Left economists, there were very few who saw this coming. I wrote in 2003 in Obsolescent Capitalism that this continuous search for a redistribution of profits will lead to a breakdown of the financial system, but I also wrote that I did not have a crystal ball to predict when that would happen. Even before the crisis broke out, trade liberalisation was having a rough time. The World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Doha Round of negotiations continue to flounder into its 8th year. The WTO plus bilateral and regional free trade agreements are being negotiated but at a very slow pace. The crisis is likely to see a wave of protectionism in the developed world. President Obama will inherit an anti-trade U.S. Congress. Given this context, what do you see as possibilities for alternative frameworks outside of free trade such as the UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development)-led General System of Trade Preferences (GSTP) and the Latin American experiment with the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, or ALBA?
At a conceptual level we should distinguish trade from free trade. Being against free trade does not mean that you are against any kind of trade. Delinking from the free-trade paradigm does not mean moving to the moon. Unfortunately, for most Southern governments, speaking of trade has become synonymous with free trade. Free trade can be multilateral, regional or bilateral and it is undesirable in all three scenarios for the countries of the South. A third point is that the U.S. has been pro-free trade both at the multilateral and bilateral level, not for them but for their trading partners. The current U.S. Congress is opposed to free-trade rules being applied to the U.S. but it wants the same rules to access markets in the global South. This is very typical behaviour of a hegemonic power, that is, “you have to comply with international law, but I won’t”.
In all cases, free trade – multilateral or bilateral – is being questioned for a number of years. The blind alley into which the Doha Round has moved is just one example. The conflicts on agriculture subsidies and exports and services liberalisation will continue. So the current crisis is also a very good opportunity to move out of the concept of free trade to regulated and negotiated trade. This negotiation must be asymmetric because there is an objective asymmetry between the North and the South. This reminds me of a joke about the fisheries agreement between France and Senegal. “The French fleets are allowed to fish in the Senegalese waters and vice versa.” [Laughs] This kind of hypocrisy is not acceptable.
Indeed, UNCTAD has always suggested principles for global and regional trade negotiations. Among the proposals from the South, ALBA is the best and most advanced of the lot. ALBA is a project not of economic market integration of South America but of building complementarities that are planned, decided and negotiated by governments. This, importantly, also includes a common political stand. Unfortunately, ALBA is not effective yet because Brazil rejects the logic of ALBA. And an ALBA without Brazil means Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia and this is not enough to change the balance of forces in Latin America. You have been talking about the need for a Bandung II. Bandung I was underlined by a deep sense of idealism, with the participating leaders influenced by different kinds of socialisms. There is also a decline of the Left and its role as an emancipatory political force forging an alternative to capitalism. How do you see these processes?
When you say that there was a moral content in Bandung I, I would qualify it as nationalist. There was a nationalist feeling precisely because the states of Bandung were coming out of an emancipatory history of struggle for national independence, associated with radical reform like in China, or with semi-radical reform in some other countries, or with very little reform but still, nationalism. We can call it positive nationalism. But that was the limit of Bandung because it meant that nationalism was operated by the ruling classes, in the larger sense.
Today, most people have lost their confidence in nationalism. Bharat? What does it mean for an Indian child? Nothing. Other identities – Hinduism, regionalism, etc. – have become more important. This is a proof that the good nationalism which played its positive role in bringing together the peoples of India against the British is now losing credibility, but what is replacing it is not internationalism of working people; it is illusions of pseudo-nationalism, we could call them new nationalisms. This is a very dangerous trend.
This is what I am calling the liberal virus. The Left must get rid of this liberal virus. The liberal virus is the belief in two or three things. One – that there is something called a market system.
There is nothing which would qualify as a market economy. Markets exist, but there are capitalist markets, there could be socialist markets. There were markets even before capitalism as in India and elsewhere. There are market subsystems in an overall system, and we are dealing with capitalist markets, not markets. That is one dimension of the virus – accepting the language of the dominant powers that there are two types of economy, planned, that is, administratively managed, or market managed. There is nothing of the two. These are two ideological pictures of reality. Let us get rid of that and understand that there is nothing called the market economy. There is a capitalist economy, of course with markets, but markets are submitted to the logic of accumulation of capital. It’s not a market which produces, as a by-product, capitalist accumulation. Capital accumulation commands and controls the market.
The second belief is democracy separated from social questions. Today, democracy is being defined through parties, elections, fair elections more or less and some basic political rights. There is less concern about whether it is leading to social progress. What we need is democratisation of society, associated with social progress, not disassociated from it – associated with the task of giving full importance to social rights, to the right to food, to shelter, to employment, to education, to health, etc. This does not mean only putting them in the Constitution but creating the conditions where the exercise of those rights in order to achieve social progress limits the rights of property. The right of property can be recognised but [should be] submitted to the social rights.
This is a real revolution in the concept of democracy. Even the Left today accepts that pattern of, let’s call it bourgeois democracy if you want, or representative democracy or some caricature of democracy or masquerade. It accepts it as if socialism should be submitted to the absolute recognition of property rights. There is an absolute contradiction there. Socialism is socialisation of property; it’s not the absolute respect of property rights.
There are other dimensions to the liberal virus. The liberal virus is also working at the global level – that there is no alternative but to operate within the global system as it is dominated by imperialism; we have to unilaterally adjust to it.
That is part of the liberal virus, which has also been called structural adjustment; which is structural adjustment of India today to the requirement of accumulation of capital in the United States and not the opposite, of course. Not the adjustment of the United States to the needs of development in India. Now that is also something the Left has to get rid of. You have been saying for several decades now that capitalism is on the decline – with indicators such as the polarisation of wealth, the loss of productive capacities of peoples and the destruction of the environment – but the fact is that it is still hegemonic. So where do you see the impulses of a people-centred socialism coming from in this hegemonic environment?
I am optimistic because I think we are moving towards the possibility of a Bandung II. That is, of a common front, an alliance, a rapprochement and a convergence of most of the countries of the South against the North or independent from the North at least to a certain degree. The content of such an alliance should be the following. One, it should move out of the current monetary and financial system as far as possible. Some countries will be able to do this. China is an example and perhaps Malaysia too. Perhaps, this will encourage other countries to move in this direction.
Second is to give priority to shift their internal development policies from outward-oriented export strategies towards the domestic popular market or the masses as far as possible. This is easy for continental countries such as China and India. There are signs that China is already doing this by moving out of the logic of global markets. India can do this but it is doing the opposite. China has six-odd special economic zones [SEZs] and they are highly regulated, and India is on the flawed path to set up some 500 SEZs, which will be practically open and unregulated. The other countries that are not as big as these two should give priority to regional cooperation instead of focussing on the markets of the North. Regional cooperation is not easy in South Asia because you have India, which is big, and the rest are small countries. And there is a rightful fear of Indian sub-imperialism in the region. But if you take Asia with China, India, South Asia and South-east Asia, then you get a more balanced picture and there is more room for genuine trade and economic cooperation. Such a response with key countries from Africa and South America is what I would like to call Bandung II.
And this will be different from the first Bandung conference with Asian and African states in 1955. The focus now can also be on issues like technology. These states, especially China, India and Brazil, are now in a position to develop technologies by themselves. This is a huge difference from the 1955 meeting because at that time these countries had hardly any industries and the level of technical and scientific knowledge was very low. So despite the lofty goals of the conclave, they had to import technologies and submit to the conditions of the West. UNCTAD did try to set up initiatives to absorb and learn from technologies and some countries did benefit.
Now the situation is different, and the challenge of the monopoly of technologies by the North can now be countered by the South. It is therefore no surprise that the WTO (through the Agreement on TRIPS [trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights]) is being used by the North to overprotect that monopoly. I think China is de facto using mechanisms to overturn this monopoly, and this is why you hear protests on China not protecting intellectual property rights. India could also do this but it is not. The city of Bangalore is a services powerhouse but sadly not geared towards the development of India but for the primary benefit of transnational corporations and raising their monopoly rents. And this is done with cheap but highly educated Indian professionals.
So Bandung II should be conceived very differently even at a political level. Bandung I was a meeting of the states and its peoples. China had just come out of a revolution, and India, Indonesia and Egypt were newly independent from colonialism. So to a large extent, these governments were legitimate in the eyes of their own people and there was a progressive nationalistic outlook. But now we are faced with ruling classes that are much more comprador and that benefit from their integration with the global system. And, therefore, they have little legitimacy, and Bandung II must be a Bandung of the people. If this popular mobilisation of the people can happen, maybe some governments will change.
In other words, this means it has to be a Bandung of the Left. And this obviously means that the Left does not act like it does now, that is, that there is no alternative to capitalism. What I am trying to say here is that the clear message should be that “there is no alternative to socialism” in the long run. And this is where the importance of internationalism comes in. If a new internationalism does not happen we will be faced with more of the crisis situations of the rise of political Islam, political Hinduism, political ethnicism and the like. This is an imminent danger because when people lose confidence in the power structures they will be easily manipulated by those illusions. And we should bear in mind that this is absolutely acceptable by imperialism, provided they don’t go too far into so-called “terrorism”. The World Social Forum is entering its ninth year. It is going to be held in Belem. You have been quite critical about the WSF. What are your thoughts on that, as well as the role the WSF should be playing given the current crisis? Given that across the world, even in pockets, even if it is fragmented and disorganised, there is growing resistance to capitalism, how do you see us building the transitions? Institutionally, politically, organisationally, in terms of a new internationalism – somewhere you called this the fifth international?
Well, this also relates to the question of the World Social Forum. I think the gloomy years were very short. The first half of the 1990s, from the breakdown of freely existing socialism, the move on the capitalist road by China. Then movements of resistance and of protest started again. Everywhere in the world, in the North and in the South, in the East and in the West. Because the consequences of the implementation of the so-called neoliberal – it’s not neoliberal, its ultra reactionary, full stop.
Whether it was growing pauperisation, growing inequality, growing unemployment, growing precariousness, etc., it’s only normal that the people started resisting and organising themselves and protesting. It’s also absolutely normal that the resistance and its beginning is one, fragmented; because everyone is fighting on the immediate front to which he or she is confronted. Two, that they remain basically defensive that they want to defend what was acquired before, whether in the North defending the social democratic welfare state or in the South defending land reforms or the rights to education, free public health and free education or against privatisation and all that.
Now, the World Social Forum came naturally as a result of that growing protest and resistance as a forum open to all movements of protest. I’m not negative about it. I’m considering that it is positive to the extent that we, the World Forum for Alternatives, existed before the World Social Forum and played a role in it and will continue to do so. But, we believe that this is not enough, and that the challenge is far more serious than many of the social movements believe. They believe that through their fragmented resistance they can change the balance of forces.
I feel that this is wrong. The balance of forces cannot be changed unless those fragmented movements forge a common platform based on some common grounds. We, the World Forum for Alternatives, call it convergence with diversity, that is, recognising the diversity, not only of movements which are fragmented but of political forces which are operating with them, of ideologies and even visions of the future of those political forces; and that this has to be accepted and respected. We are no more in the situation where a leading party alone was creating the common front with transmission belts, etc. etc. It’s very difficult building that convergence in diversity, but unless this is achieved, I think the balance of forces will shift in favour of the popular classes.In India, there is a growing trend of religion playing a more strident and aggressive role in politics, often deciding its course. And there is, therefore, a growing shift towards the Right, towards greater social conflict and violence, towards the kind of fragmentation that we are seeing. We are also witnessing a marriage of convenience between this religious Right and the forces of economic globalisation. Where do you see the potential for democratic political forces to intervene in this, to bring some constructive political outcome?
That’s a very difficult question. My judgment on this political Islam, political Hinduism is very negative. They are reactionary. It’s not because they are religions. It’s because of the content. And they are manipulated by the ruling classes.
I don’t think that this political Islam, political Hinduism has been the spontaneous product of the popular classes. To a great extent, they are operated and mobilised in order to avoid the Left. With a view to creating a wall which prevents the Left from penetrating the popular classes. It’s an illusion. It has worked precisely because the political elite has lost its credibility and its legitimacy. And these forces appear as alternatives.
If we look within their programmes, these are not only socially and culturally, in most cases, reactionary but they are economically and socially reactionary. They accept, de facto, existing capitalism, existing imperialism, and they compensate their submission to them by creating an internal enemy. Whether the Muslims here, the Hindus there or the Christians elsewhere. And this is really dangerous.
Now, how do we deal with this reality? It’s not easy for the Left. It’s a real challenge. And the Left cannot just remain at the level of principles. To say that the alternative is a secular state which separates itself from religion is not enough. It has also to develop how the influence of those reactionary forces on the popular classes can be defeated. Through the Left moving into the masses to defend, not in rhetoric but in fact in action and through action, their real economic and social interests. This is the only way to marginalise the centrist and reactionary forces. As long as the Left is doing nothing within the popular classes, as long as most of their analyses and programmes are only on paper or in their political rhetoric, they will continue to be a marginal force. Nothing more than that.
Samir Amin is a well known Egyptian left wing economist.
Amin takes a very different view of the present crisis than many leftist. For example many leftists consider the present crisis to be caused by a lack of regulation to a considerable extent. Amin considers the crisis one of the distribution of profits among oligolopolies. Deregulation is a product of the competition for profits. It should be noted that as the crisis continues large corporations often become larger by gobbling up failing competitors or merging often with the aid of governments.
Amin sees countries of the South possibly decoupling from the western global finance system. He believes that China has already done so to some extent and by concentrating its stimulus finance on internal markets will do so even more. India is moving in the direction of further integration with the west. I am not sure how far China can decouple as its development has been strongly linked to export development and it has also encouraged foreign capital to invest in China.
‘There is no alternative to socialism’
SMITU KOTHARI & BENNY KURUVILLA
Interview with Egyptian economist Samir Amin.
SMITU KOTHARI Samir Amin: “It was the financial corporations that asked the governments to step in and ‘nationalise’ them. The rescue package was drafted by them, and they are in control of most of the bailout money.”
THE financial crisis continues to spread rapidly across the world, crippling banks, stock markets and manufacturing industries and leaving hundreds of thousands jobless in its wake. Two days after the much hyped meeting of the Group of 20 in Washington, D.C., economist Samir Amin shared his insights into and analysis of the arduous road ahead for economic globalisation and the urgent need for a course change from capitalism and the possibilities of a new internationalism in the form of a Bandung II initiative. The dominant view in the media and in policymaking circles is that the current financial crisis is the result of undue deregulation and the greed of a few in Wall Street. We feel that we need to go beyond the superficial and descriptive framing of the crisis and understand it historically and politically. What is your analysis?
The financial collapse is only the tip of the iceberg. Under the surface there is a deep crisis of accumulation of capital in the real productive economy, and deeper even there is a systemic crisis of capitalism itself. Let us look at the tip of the iceberg first – the so-called financial crisis. This is not the result of mistakes or irresponsibilities of the banking system operating freely in a deregulated environment. This flawed analysis gives the impression that if regulations are put in place the crisis will be corrected. This has been the expected response of the G-20 in Washington, D.C. And this should not be surprising since the G-20’s feeble declaration has been prepared beforehand by the International Monetary Fund [IMF] in concert with the G8.
I would like to submit another vision of this crisis, and for this we have to get rid of the notion of seeing this as a result of neoliberal globalisation. This is limiting because it is descriptive and not analytical. The reality of the current system is the extreme centralisation of capital and a limited number of large oligopolies, some 5,000 in number across the world, that control power at the global, regional and national levels. It is their decisions that are shaping the world. We are at a level of centralisation that is far higher and stronger than we were just 50 years ago. This extreme centralisation of capital has led to a fundamental shift in the logic of the management of the system – instead of investing in the productive economy to produce surplus value, of course with the exploitation of labour, the focus is now on the struggle to redistribute the profits of that surplus value between the oligopolies. This redistribution of profits among them is done through financial investments. Each one of them tries to widen its sphere of financial investment in order to redistribute the profits in its favour. These profits are of another nature – they are monopoly rents. And this is what is being called “financialisation”. And deregulation is essential in this struggle by the oligopolies for more profits through financialisation. And deregulation is not being fundamentally questioned as one can see from the new rules articulated in the November 15 G-20 communique.
The attempt of the oligopolies and their Western governments is to restore the system as it was, and this is not impossible in the short run. Let us assume that the injection of billions of dollars will avoid the breakdown of the major financial institutions and restore a minimum credibility of the monetary and financial system. The second condition for the system being restored is that protests of the victims of this crisis will be manageable. Through inflation, unemployment and reduced pensions, common people will pay, and their protests will be manageable, fragmented and will not disrupt the system. The third condition is that the global South accepts and plays by the rules of the game – that is, the need to maintain the globalisation of the monetary and financial system by being part of it. And that restoring the monetary and financial system needs the inclusion of the monetary and financial systems of the South into the global integrated one. That is the target of the meeting of the G-20 – to bring key emerging economies such as China, India, South Africa, Brazil and others into this project of restoring the system to what it was. Without having these countries on board, any restoration will not last long. Without having a crystal ball, I would say that even if it is restored it will not be for long. We will have another and deeper crisis within a few months, a few years, not much more than that.
What needs more research and more debate among us, people of the Left, is that the current breakdown is not the result of mistakes on regulation, etc. (which is the mainstream view), but a logic that is innate by the very centrality of the struggle for the redistribution of profits among the oligopolies. So the solution to this problem requires radical change, is long term and will come about when the oligopolies are nationalised with the objective of socialisation. This is, of course, not on the present agenda. And, therefore, we continue to be in a serious and continuous crisis of capitalism and imperialism, and not just of the financial markets. And this need not be the last one, and capitalism could come out of it sooner or later, but as long as cosmetic changes are applied, the world will continue to go from crisis to crisis. There is an impression that this crisis offers new possibilities for the global South. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh claims that a significant shift is taking place, and emerging economies such as Brazil, China and India now have an equal standing at the high table of geopolitics. He has also claimed credit for anticipating the global crisis, stating that several protective measures have been put in place in India. And in this context, the reformist calls for the reorganisation of the World Bank and the IMF so that they reflect the current global stature of developing countries have gotten louder. Will the presidency of Barack Obama listen to any of this and be any different?
The last question first. For sure, Barack Obama is better than a John McCain. Also, from the point of view of the evolution of U.S. society, it is something positive for an African American to be elected President. But from the point of view of policies and politics of the U.S. vis-a-vis the rest of the world, little will change. Perhaps the tonality, the language will change but the targets will be the same. Remember that during the campaign, while Obama promised many changes on the domestic social front, he did not say anything important in respect to the U.S.’ global geopolitical strategy. So I do not expect any major shift in policy with regard to Iraq, Afghanistan nor for that matter with China and Russia.
Now to the earlier set of questions, which are more important and complex. On the G-20, there is no need to go into details of the communique. I hold that the set of policies which aims to restore the system was already decided on at the onset of the financial crisis a few months ago. And this was not decided by the governments of the U.S., Japan and Europe (the triad) but by the oligopolies themselves and accepted later by the former. It was the financial corporations that asked the governments to step in and “nationalise” them. The rescue package was drafted by them, and they are in control of most of the bailout money.
And simultaneously the calls for reform of the IMF are essentially moves to help the organisation function in a changed environment. In the past 10 years or so, several Southern countries have exited from IMF programmes because they got rid of their debt through export surpluses, etc. So the IMF became irrelevant, and the language of reform is now being used to integrate key emerging economies into the financial system. This way, the countries of the South will pay their share for restoring the system when they should logically be using the opportunity of the crisis to decouple and move out of the system. So you find the masquerade of the G-20 and the key countries of the South rubber-stamping the decisions of finance capital.
Let’s look at why China agreed to the G-20 measures. The G-20 communique is unimportant for China. It does not want a political conflict with the West and the U.S. in particular. China is not integrated in the global monetary and financial system and it is unlikely that it will move towards integration, so the decisions taken in the November 15 summit will have little consequence for it. There will be pressure on China to integrate with the system but it is unlikely to, and government officials have repeated this in the recent past.
But that is not the case for other countries of the South. Take India which is partially integrated with the global monetary and financial system. It has maintained exchange control, does not have capital account convertibility, has a number of major nationalised banks and has limited the operations of foreign banks. Instead of taking the opportunity of the crisis to move out of the system, the choice of the Government of India has been the opposite, that is, to move deeper into the system and accept empty flattery from the West of being an emerging global power with a seat at the high table. This is also related to political issues such as the nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S. and the ambition of India to be a counter force to China in Asia with the support of the U.S. This is the choice of the ruling class in India. Whether this decision can be challenged by the Left and progressive forces and maybe even some sections of the ruling Congress party remains to be seen. If this remains unchallenged, it is very dangerous.
With respect to other countries in the G-20 such as South Africa, South Korea and Brazil, they are completely integrated with the system. Their only hope is that the system will not have them pay too much because of the current crisis. Malaysia did move out partially after the 1997 Asian financial crisis and could be in a situation similar to India’s.
This situation is indicative of the loss of legitimacy of the ruling classes in the South. One more related point on Prime Minister Singh’s statement that he had anticipated the crisis and had taken precautionary measures: this is pure political rhetoric, and to say that the crisis was expected is a lie. In terms of precautionary measures, the fiscal stimulus initiated by the Government of India is exactly what finance capital and big business wants.
All the conventional economists and therefore governments did not expect such a crisis. Even among the Left economists, there were very few who saw this coming. I wrote in 2003 in Obsolescent Capitalism that this continuous search for a redistribution of profits will lead to a breakdown of the financial system, but I also wrote that I did not have a crystal ball to predict when that would happen. Even before the crisis broke out, trade liberalisation was having a rough time. The World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Doha Round of negotiations continue to flounder into its 8th year. The WTO plus bilateral and regional free trade agreements are being negotiated but at a very slow pace. The crisis is likely to see a wave of protectionism in the developed world. President Obama will inherit an anti-trade U.S. Congress. Given this context, what do you see as possibilities for alternative frameworks outside of free trade such as the UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development)-led General System of Trade Preferences (GSTP) and the Latin American experiment with the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, or ALBA?
At a conceptual level we should distinguish trade from free trade. Being against free trade does not mean that you are against any kind of trade. Delinking from the free-trade paradigm does not mean moving to the moon. Unfortunately, for most Southern governments, speaking of trade has become synonymous with free trade. Free trade can be multilateral, regional or bilateral and it is undesirable in all three scenarios for the countries of the South. A third point is that the U.S. has been pro-free trade both at the multilateral and bilateral level, not for them but for their trading partners. The current U.S. Congress is opposed to free-trade rules being applied to the U.S. but it wants the same rules to access markets in the global South. This is very typical behaviour of a hegemonic power, that is, “you have to comply with international law, but I won’t”.
In all cases, free trade – multilateral or bilateral – is being questioned for a number of years. The blind alley into which the Doha Round has moved is just one example. The conflicts on agriculture subsidies and exports and services liberalisation will continue. So the current crisis is also a very good opportunity to move out of the concept of free trade to regulated and negotiated trade. This negotiation must be asymmetric because there is an objective asymmetry between the North and the South. This reminds me of a joke about the fisheries agreement between France and Senegal. “The French fleets are allowed to fish in the Senegalese waters and vice versa.” [Laughs] This kind of hypocrisy is not acceptable.
Indeed, UNCTAD has always suggested principles for global and regional trade negotiations. Among the proposals from the South, ALBA is the best and most advanced of the lot. ALBA is a project not of economic market integration of South America but of building complementarities that are planned, decided and negotiated by governments. This, importantly, also includes a common political stand. Unfortunately, ALBA is not effective yet because Brazil rejects the logic of ALBA. And an ALBA without Brazil means Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia and this is not enough to change the balance of forces in Latin America. You have been talking about the need for a Bandung II. Bandung I was underlined by a deep sense of idealism, with the participating leaders influenced by different kinds of socialisms. There is also a decline of the Left and its role as an emancipatory political force forging an alternative to capitalism. How do you see these processes?
When you say that there was a moral content in Bandung I, I would qualify it as nationalist. There was a nationalist feeling precisely because the states of Bandung were coming out of an emancipatory history of struggle for national independence, associated with radical reform like in China, or with semi-radical reform in some other countries, or with very little reform but still, nationalism. We can call it positive nationalism. But that was the limit of Bandung because it meant that nationalism was operated by the ruling classes, in the larger sense.
Today, most people have lost their confidence in nationalism. Bharat? What does it mean for an Indian child? Nothing. Other identities – Hinduism, regionalism, etc. – have become more important. This is a proof that the good nationalism which played its positive role in bringing together the peoples of India against the British is now losing credibility, but what is replacing it is not internationalism of working people; it is illusions of pseudo-nationalism, we could call them new nationalisms. This is a very dangerous trend.
This is what I am calling the liberal virus. The Left must get rid of this liberal virus. The liberal virus is the belief in two or three things. One – that there is something called a market system.
There is nothing which would qualify as a market economy. Markets exist, but there are capitalist markets, there could be socialist markets. There were markets even before capitalism as in India and elsewhere. There are market subsystems in an overall system, and we are dealing with capitalist markets, not markets. That is one dimension of the virus – accepting the language of the dominant powers that there are two types of economy, planned, that is, administratively managed, or market managed. There is nothing of the two. These are two ideological pictures of reality. Let us get rid of that and understand that there is nothing called the market economy. There is a capitalist economy, of course with markets, but markets are submitted to the logic of accumulation of capital. It’s not a market which produces, as a by-product, capitalist accumulation. Capital accumulation commands and controls the market.
The second belief is democracy separated from social questions. Today, democracy is being defined through parties, elections, fair elections more or less and some basic political rights. There is less concern about whether it is leading to social progress. What we need is democratisation of society, associated with social progress, not disassociated from it – associated with the task of giving full importance to social rights, to the right to food, to shelter, to employment, to education, to health, etc. This does not mean only putting them in the Constitution but creating the conditions where the exercise of those rights in order to achieve social progress limits the rights of property. The right of property can be recognised but [should be] submitted to the social rights.
This is a real revolution in the concept of democracy. Even the Left today accepts that pattern of, let’s call it bourgeois democracy if you want, or representative democracy or some caricature of democracy or masquerade. It accepts it as if socialism should be submitted to the absolute recognition of property rights. There is an absolute contradiction there. Socialism is socialisation of property; it’s not the absolute respect of property rights.
There are other dimensions to the liberal virus. The liberal virus is also working at the global level – that there is no alternative but to operate within the global system as it is dominated by imperialism; we have to unilaterally adjust to it.
That is part of the liberal virus, which has also been called structural adjustment; which is structural adjustment of India today to the requirement of accumulation of capital in the United States and not the opposite, of course. Not the adjustment of the United States to the needs of development in India. Now that is also something the Left has to get rid of. You have been saying for several decades now that capitalism is on the decline – with indicators such as the polarisation of wealth, the loss of productive capacities of peoples and the destruction of the environment – but the fact is that it is still hegemonic. So where do you see the impulses of a people-centred socialism coming from in this hegemonic environment?
I am optimistic because I think we are moving towards the possibility of a Bandung II. That is, of a common front, an alliance, a rapprochement and a convergence of most of the countries of the South against the North or independent from the North at least to a certain degree. The content of such an alliance should be the following. One, it should move out of the current monetary and financial system as far as possible. Some countries will be able to do this. China is an example and perhaps Malaysia too. Perhaps, this will encourage other countries to move in this direction.
Second is to give priority to shift their internal development policies from outward-oriented export strategies towards the domestic popular market or the masses as far as possible. This is easy for continental countries such as China and India. There are signs that China is already doing this by moving out of the logic of global markets. India can do this but it is doing the opposite. China has six-odd special economic zones [SEZs] and they are highly regulated, and India is on the flawed path to set up some 500 SEZs, which will be practically open and unregulated. The other countries that are not as big as these two should give priority to regional cooperation instead of focussing on the markets of the North. Regional cooperation is not easy in South Asia because you have India, which is big, and the rest are small countries. And there is a rightful fear of Indian sub-imperialism in the region. But if you take Asia with China, India, South Asia and South-east Asia, then you get a more balanced picture and there is more room for genuine trade and economic cooperation. Such a response with key countries from Africa and South America is what I would like to call Bandung II.
And this will be different from the first Bandung conference with Asian and African states in 1955. The focus now can also be on issues like technology. These states, especially China, India and Brazil, are now in a position to develop technologies by themselves. This is a huge difference from the 1955 meeting because at that time these countries had hardly any industries and the level of technical and scientific knowledge was very low. So despite the lofty goals of the conclave, they had to import technologies and submit to the conditions of the West. UNCTAD did try to set up initiatives to absorb and learn from technologies and some countries did benefit.
Now the situation is different, and the challenge of the monopoly of technologies by the North can now be countered by the South. It is therefore no surprise that the WTO (through the Agreement on TRIPS [trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights]) is being used by the North to overprotect that monopoly. I think China is de facto using mechanisms to overturn this monopoly, and this is why you hear protests on China not protecting intellectual property rights. India could also do this but it is not. The city of Bangalore is a services powerhouse but sadly not geared towards the development of India but for the primary benefit of transnational corporations and raising their monopoly rents. And this is done with cheap but highly educated Indian professionals.
So Bandung II should be conceived very differently even at a political level. Bandung I was a meeting of the states and its peoples. China had just come out of a revolution, and India, Indonesia and Egypt were newly independent from colonialism. So to a large extent, these governments were legitimate in the eyes of their own people and there was a progressive nationalistic outlook. But now we are faced with ruling classes that are much more comprador and that benefit from their integration with the global system. And, therefore, they have little legitimacy, and Bandung II must be a Bandung of the people. If this popular mobilisation of the people can happen, maybe some governments will change.
In other words, this means it has to be a Bandung of the Left. And this obviously means that the Left does not act like it does now, that is, that there is no alternative to capitalism. What I am trying to say here is that the clear message should be that “there is no alternative to socialism” in the long run. And this is where the importance of internationalism comes in. If a new internationalism does not happen we will be faced with more of the crisis situations of the rise of political Islam, political Hinduism, political ethnicism and the like. This is an imminent danger because when people lose confidence in the power structures they will be easily manipulated by those illusions. And we should bear in mind that this is absolutely acceptable by imperialism, provided they don’t go too far into so-called “terrorism”. The World Social Forum is entering its ninth year. It is going to be held in Belem. You have been quite critical about the WSF. What are your thoughts on that, as well as the role the WSF should be playing given the current crisis? Given that across the world, even in pockets, even if it is fragmented and disorganised, there is growing resistance to capitalism, how do you see us building the transitions? Institutionally, politically, organisationally, in terms of a new internationalism – somewhere you called this the fifth international?
Well, this also relates to the question of the World Social Forum. I think the gloomy years were very short. The first half of the 1990s, from the breakdown of freely existing socialism, the move on the capitalist road by China. Then movements of resistance and of protest started again. Everywhere in the world, in the North and in the South, in the East and in the West. Because the consequences of the implementation of the so-called neoliberal – it’s not neoliberal, its ultra reactionary, full stop.
Whether it was growing pauperisation, growing inequality, growing unemployment, growing precariousness, etc., it’s only normal that the people started resisting and organising themselves and protesting. It’s also absolutely normal that the resistance and its beginning is one, fragmented; because everyone is fighting on the immediate front to which he or she is confronted. Two, that they remain basically defensive that they want to defend what was acquired before, whether in the North defending the social democratic welfare state or in the South defending land reforms or the rights to education, free public health and free education or against privatisation and all that.
Now, the World Social Forum came naturally as a result of that growing protest and resistance as a forum open to all movements of protest. I’m not negative about it. I’m considering that it is positive to the extent that we, the World Forum for Alternatives, existed before the World Social Forum and played a role in it and will continue to do so. But, we believe that this is not enough, and that the challenge is far more serious than many of the social movements believe. They believe that through their fragmented resistance they can change the balance of forces.
I feel that this is wrong. The balance of forces cannot be changed unless those fragmented movements forge a common platform based on some common grounds. We, the World Forum for Alternatives, call it convergence with diversity, that is, recognising the diversity, not only of movements which are fragmented but of political forces which are operating with them, of ideologies and even visions of the future of those political forces; and that this has to be accepted and respected. We are no more in the situation where a leading party alone was creating the common front with transmission belts, etc. etc. It’s very difficult building that convergence in diversity, but unless this is achieved, I think the balance of forces will shift in favour of the popular classes.In India, there is a growing trend of religion playing a more strident and aggressive role in politics, often deciding its course. And there is, therefore, a growing shift towards the Right, towards greater social conflict and violence, towards the kind of fragmentation that we are seeing. We are also witnessing a marriage of convenience between this religious Right and the forces of economic globalisation. Where do you see the potential for democratic political forces to intervene in this, to bring some constructive political outcome?
That’s a very difficult question. My judgment on this political Islam, political Hinduism is very negative. They are reactionary. It’s not because they are religions. It’s because of the content. And they are manipulated by the ruling classes.
I don’t think that this political Islam, political Hinduism has been the spontaneous product of the popular classes. To a great extent, they are operated and mobilised in order to avoid the Left. With a view to creating a wall which prevents the Left from penetrating the popular classes. It’s an illusion. It has worked precisely because the political elite has lost its credibility and its legitimacy. And these forces appear as alternatives.
If we look within their programmes, these are not only socially and culturally, in most cases, reactionary but they are economically and socially reactionary. They accept, de facto, existing capitalism, existing imperialism, and they compensate their submission to them by creating an internal enemy. Whether the Muslims here, the Hindus there or the Christians elsewhere. And this is really dangerous.
Now, how do we deal with this reality? It’s not easy for the Left. It’s a real challenge. And the Left cannot just remain at the level of principles. To say that the alternative is a secular state which separates itself from religion is not enough. It has also to develop how the influence of those reactionary forces on the popular classes can be defeated. Through the Left moving into the masses to defend, not in rhetoric but in fact in action and through action, their real economic and social interests. This is the only way to marginalise the centrist and reactionary forces. As long as the Left is doing nothing within the popular classes, as long as most of their analyses and programmes are only on paper or in their political rhetoric, they will continue to be a marginal force. Nothing more than that.
Gaza braces for Israel attack.
This is from AFP.
It seems that another ceasefire is not likely. Note this article speaks of Hamas violently ceasing power but in fact Hamas was elected and the power seizure was to stop a potential seizure by Abbas supporters. The innocents and children will be in danger of course because of Israeli attacks which pay little attention to collateral damage. Both sides are guilty of not concerning themselves with innocents and there is a never ending tit for tat as Israel targets militants and the militants respond with rockets, most of them ineffective and just prompting more Israeli reaction.
Gaza braces for Israeli offensive
4 hours ago
JERUSALEM (AFP) — The spectre of a military invasion loomed large over Gaza on Friday as militants fired another volley of rockets despite Israeli warnings that failure to stop the attacks would lead to bloodshed.
"Army preparing for combined ground, air operation in Gaza," declared the front-page headline in Israel's Haaretz newspaper.
Media speculated that Israeli forces were likely to conduct limited military operations rather than a full-scale invasion of the Palestinian enclave that is controlled by the Islamist movement Hamas.
The Israeli authorities nonetheless opened crossings to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid and vital supplies, including fuel and medicine, to the aid-dependent population.
Violence in and around Gaza has flared since a six-month ceasefire ended on December 19, and escalated dramatically on Wednesday when militants fired more than 80 rockets and mortar rounds after Israeli forces conducted deadly air strikes over the coastal strip.
Five rockets and two mortar rounds were fired by militants before dawn on Firday, but caused no casualties.
One mortar shell hit a house which was not occupied at the time, near the Kerem Shalom crossing between Israel and the besieged Palestinian territory, causing some damage, residents said.
Israel has responded to the rocket attacks by tightening the blockade it has imposed since Hamas, which is branded a terrorist outfit by Israel and the West, violently seized power in Gaza in June 2007.
But on Friday, officials said about 90 truckloads of supplies, including some sent from Egypt, were being delivered to the impoverished and overcrowded territory of 1.5 million people.
At the same time, the Israeli government issued dire warnings to Gaza militants, saying the Jewish state would strike back hard if attacks continue.
"I will not hesitate to use Israel's strength to strike at Hamas and Islamic Jihad," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview with Al-Arabiya television on Thursday, adding ominously: "We have very great and destructive strength which we do not wish to use."
"I think of the tens of thousands of children and innocents who will be in danger as a result of Hamas' actions," he said.
Since the Egyptian-mediated truce ended last week, Israel has threatened to launch a major offensive on Gaza, and top leaders called for the toppling of Hamas.
The Islamist movement -- which is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state -- has warned in turn that it would retaliate by resuming suicide bombings inside Israel. The last such attack claimed by Hamas was in January 2005.
Egypt boosted security along its border with Gaza in anticipation of an offensive, while popular pressure for a military operation is mounting in Israel.
"The systematic shelling of civilians in Israel's communities is a war crime and a crime against humanity. The state of Israel has to protect its citizens," the mass-selling Yediot Aharonot said.
The conservative Jerusalem Post called for the "methodical elimination" of Hamas leaders.
"Once begun, Israel's battle against Hamas must be terminated only when the Islamists lose their governing capacity," the English-language newspaper said.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who hopes to replace Olmert as prime minister after the February 10 election, warned that the situation in Gaza "has become an obstacle on the way of the Palestinians toward a state."
"Enough is enough. The situation is going to change," she said in after meeting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo on Thursday.
Livni has vowed to topple Hamas if her Kadima party wins the February election.
Under former prime minister Ariel Sharon, the centrist party orchestrated the pullout of Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 after 38 years of occupation but Israel retains control of the borders.
It seems that another ceasefire is not likely. Note this article speaks of Hamas violently ceasing power but in fact Hamas was elected and the power seizure was to stop a potential seizure by Abbas supporters. The innocents and children will be in danger of course because of Israeli attacks which pay little attention to collateral damage. Both sides are guilty of not concerning themselves with innocents and there is a never ending tit for tat as Israel targets militants and the militants respond with rockets, most of them ineffective and just prompting more Israeli reaction.
Gaza braces for Israeli offensive
4 hours ago
JERUSALEM (AFP) — The spectre of a military invasion loomed large over Gaza on Friday as militants fired another volley of rockets despite Israeli warnings that failure to stop the attacks would lead to bloodshed.
"Army preparing for combined ground, air operation in Gaza," declared the front-page headline in Israel's Haaretz newspaper.
Media speculated that Israeli forces were likely to conduct limited military operations rather than a full-scale invasion of the Palestinian enclave that is controlled by the Islamist movement Hamas.
The Israeli authorities nonetheless opened crossings to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid and vital supplies, including fuel and medicine, to the aid-dependent population.
Violence in and around Gaza has flared since a six-month ceasefire ended on December 19, and escalated dramatically on Wednesday when militants fired more than 80 rockets and mortar rounds after Israeli forces conducted deadly air strikes over the coastal strip.
Five rockets and two mortar rounds were fired by militants before dawn on Firday, but caused no casualties.
One mortar shell hit a house which was not occupied at the time, near the Kerem Shalom crossing between Israel and the besieged Palestinian territory, causing some damage, residents said.
Israel has responded to the rocket attacks by tightening the blockade it has imposed since Hamas, which is branded a terrorist outfit by Israel and the West, violently seized power in Gaza in June 2007.
But on Friday, officials said about 90 truckloads of supplies, including some sent from Egypt, were being delivered to the impoverished and overcrowded territory of 1.5 million people.
At the same time, the Israeli government issued dire warnings to Gaza militants, saying the Jewish state would strike back hard if attacks continue.
"I will not hesitate to use Israel's strength to strike at Hamas and Islamic Jihad," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview with Al-Arabiya television on Thursday, adding ominously: "We have very great and destructive strength which we do not wish to use."
"I think of the tens of thousands of children and innocents who will be in danger as a result of Hamas' actions," he said.
Since the Egyptian-mediated truce ended last week, Israel has threatened to launch a major offensive on Gaza, and top leaders called for the toppling of Hamas.
The Islamist movement -- which is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state -- has warned in turn that it would retaliate by resuming suicide bombings inside Israel. The last such attack claimed by Hamas was in January 2005.
Egypt boosted security along its border with Gaza in anticipation of an offensive, while popular pressure for a military operation is mounting in Israel.
"The systematic shelling of civilians in Israel's communities is a war crime and a crime against humanity. The state of Israel has to protect its citizens," the mass-selling Yediot Aharonot said.
The conservative Jerusalem Post called for the "methodical elimination" of Hamas leaders.
"Once begun, Israel's battle against Hamas must be terminated only when the Islamists lose their governing capacity," the English-language newspaper said.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who hopes to replace Olmert as prime minister after the February 10 election, warned that the situation in Gaza "has become an obstacle on the way of the Palestinians toward a state."
"Enough is enough. The situation is going to change," she said in after meeting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo on Thursday.
Livni has vowed to topple Hamas if her Kadima party wins the February election.
Under former prime minister Ariel Sharon, the centrist party orchestrated the pullout of Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 after 38 years of occupation but Israel retains control of the borders.
U.S. Russia, China in Dogfight over Jet Sales
It seems the an economic downturn does little to cool down very costly jet sales. Countries such as India, Malaysia, and Indonesia have populations with many whose basic needs are not met but the military will gobble up available resources to get the latest high tech jet planes.
US, Russia, China in Dogfight Over Jet Sales
http://mnweekly.rian.ru/business/20080327/55319264.html
27/03/2008
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is bracing for tough competition from Russia and China as cash-flush Asian economies look up to the trio for a new breed of fighter jets to beef up their air forces, experts say.
Japan, India, Australia and South Korea are keen to have the most modern, fifth generation, jet fighters while Southeast Asian nations such as Malaysia and Indonesia are reportedly eyeing fourth generation fighters from China.
With Asia powering ahead with military modernization and capability growth, the United States wants to maintain leadership in defense sales in the region attracted by low cost offerings from Russia and China, experts said.
"The Americans and Russians are competing hard for the Asian fighter aircraft market, but everybody is also watching to see how aggressively the Chinese will be entering this market," Richard Fisher, an expert with the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, said.
The tight competition comes as Asian economies move ahead "much more aggressively" to upgrade their air defense capabilities, he said.
"It's not quite right to say an arms race, but there is an arms jog in Asia," Fisher said.
The United States is currently the sole producer of fifth generation fighters - the F-22s and F-35s. Export of F-22s is barred by law while the lower cost F-35s have just started flight testing ahead of deployment around 2012.
Russia and China's fifth generation fighter offerings could well be on the market between 2015 and 2020, a time frame experts say is not very far away in terms of defense planning.
"I don't want to get into the numbers because they were given to me in confidence but the price the Russians are estimating for their fifth generation fighter is substantially less than the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) and substantially less than F-22," U.S. aviation expert Reuben Johnson told a Washington forum last week on "challenges to the Asian air power balance."
He said the Russian arms industry was grappling with high production costs.
Russian weapon exports to China have also plunged as Beijing became more wary over Moscow's sales of its most advanced weaponry to neighbor India, Johnson said.
"What is really the challenge is we have two very large countries, China and India, whose economies are booming and who are buying lots of hardware and we are looking at a situation down the road where they are going to have very, very sophisticated air forces," he said.
Russia had already teamed up with India to co-develop and co-produce a version of Moscow's fifth generation fighter, but Fisher said that given the Indian preference of diversifying its weapons sources, it was possible New Delhi could purchase a U.S. fifth generation fighter at some point.
The United States is also vying with Russia and others for a 12-billion-dollar contract to sell 126 fourth generation fighter jets to the Indian air force.
The competition from Russia could prod the Americans to lift an export ban on F-22s, eyed by Australia and Japan, top U.S. allies in the region, experts said.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates hinted during a recent Australian visit that Congress may be asked to reconsider the ban.
"It is imperative that the United States consider selling some version of the F-22 to maintain a strong deterrent posture in Asia," Fisher said.
"I would say categorically that Japan requires a capability of the level of the F-22 in order to sustain a sufficient position to deter China," he said.
© 2007 Moscow News
US, Russia, China in Dogfight Over Jet Sales
http://mnweekly.rian.ru/business/20080327/55319264.html
27/03/2008
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is bracing for tough competition from Russia and China as cash-flush Asian economies look up to the trio for a new breed of fighter jets to beef up their air forces, experts say.
Japan, India, Australia and South Korea are keen to have the most modern, fifth generation, jet fighters while Southeast Asian nations such as Malaysia and Indonesia are reportedly eyeing fourth generation fighters from China.
With Asia powering ahead with military modernization and capability growth, the United States wants to maintain leadership in defense sales in the region attracted by low cost offerings from Russia and China, experts said.
"The Americans and Russians are competing hard for the Asian fighter aircraft market, but everybody is also watching to see how aggressively the Chinese will be entering this market," Richard Fisher, an expert with the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, said.
The tight competition comes as Asian economies move ahead "much more aggressively" to upgrade their air defense capabilities, he said.
"It's not quite right to say an arms race, but there is an arms jog in Asia," Fisher said.
The United States is currently the sole producer of fifth generation fighters - the F-22s and F-35s. Export of F-22s is barred by law while the lower cost F-35s have just started flight testing ahead of deployment around 2012.
Russia and China's fifth generation fighter offerings could well be on the market between 2015 and 2020, a time frame experts say is not very far away in terms of defense planning.
"I don't want to get into the numbers because they were given to me in confidence but the price the Russians are estimating for their fifth generation fighter is substantially less than the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) and substantially less than F-22," U.S. aviation expert Reuben Johnson told a Washington forum last week on "challenges to the Asian air power balance."
He said the Russian arms industry was grappling with high production costs.
Russian weapon exports to China have also plunged as Beijing became more wary over Moscow's sales of its most advanced weaponry to neighbor India, Johnson said.
"What is really the challenge is we have two very large countries, China and India, whose economies are booming and who are buying lots of hardware and we are looking at a situation down the road where they are going to have very, very sophisticated air forces," he said.
Russia had already teamed up with India to co-develop and co-produce a version of Moscow's fifth generation fighter, but Fisher said that given the Indian preference of diversifying its weapons sources, it was possible New Delhi could purchase a U.S. fifth generation fighter at some point.
The United States is also vying with Russia and others for a 12-billion-dollar contract to sell 126 fourth generation fighter jets to the Indian air force.
The competition from Russia could prod the Americans to lift an export ban on F-22s, eyed by Australia and Japan, top U.S. allies in the region, experts said.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates hinted during a recent Australian visit that Congress may be asked to reconsider the ban.
"It is imperative that the United States consider selling some version of the F-22 to maintain a strong deterrent posture in Asia," Fisher said.
"I would say categorically that Japan requires a capability of the level of the F-22 in order to sustain a sufficient position to deter China," he said.
© 2007 Moscow News
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Philippines: Hunger at new record-high
This is from bayanihanpost.
The economic downturn plus the continuing high price of staples such as rice no doubt are contributing to this situation.
Hunger at new record-high 23.7% of families, Moderate Hunger at 18.5%, Severe Hunger at 5.2%
by SWS
The proportion of families experiencing involuntary hunger at least once in the past three months reached a new record-high of 23.7%, or an estimated 4.3 million households, according to the final Social Weather Survey for 2008, fielded over November 28-December 1, 2008.The latest Hunger record is 11 points above the ten-year average of 12.6%. It has surpassed the previous record-high incidence of 21.5% in September 2007 [Chart 1, Table 1].Hunger has now been at double-digits for over four years, since June 2004. The Hunger average of 2008 is 18.5%, higher than the 2007 average of 17.9%. The measure of Hunger refers to involuntary suffering because the respondents answer a survey question that specifies hunger due to lack of anything to eat. Record-high Moderate Hunger, Severe Hunger upThe rise in Total Hunger by 5 points between September and December resulted from a 3-point increase in Moderate Hunger, combined with a 2-point increase in Severe Hunger.Moderate Hunger, referring to those who experienced it "Only Once" or "A Few Times" in the last three months, rose from 15.2% (estimated 2.7 million families) in September to a new record-high 18.5% (estimated 3.3 million families) in December. The latest score is nine points above the ten-year average Moderate Hunger rate of 9.2%. 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 3.2% (about 580,000 families) in September to 5.2% (about 940,000 families) in December. The new rate is two points above the ten-year average Severe Hunger rate of 3.3% [Table 1].Hunger jumps to record-highs in Mindanao and Metro ManilaThe proportion of households experiencing Hunger is now highest in Mindanao, with the latest figure jumping to 33.7% (estimated 1.4 million families), a new record-high in that area. It is now at record-high 23.3% (estimated 570,000 families) in Metro Manila, 20.7% (estimated 750,000 families) in the Visayas, and 20.0% (estimated 1.6 million families) in Balance Luzon [Chart 2, Table 2].Overall Hunger rose by 15 points in Mindanao, from 18.3% in September to 33.7% in December. It rose by 9 points in the Visayas, from 11.7% to 20.7%.It barely changed in Metro Manila, from 23.0% in the previous quarter to 23.3% now, while it stayed at 20.0% in Balance Luzon.Moderate Hunger rose by almost 12 points in Mindanao, from 16.0% in September to a record-high 27.7%, by 7 points in the Visayas, from 11.3% to a record-high 18.0%, and by 3 points in Metro Manila, from 15.0% to 18.3% [Charts 3 to 6, Tables 3 to 6]. It declined by 2 points in Balance Luzon, from 16.5% to 14.0%.In all areas, the latest Moderate Hunger rates remain higher than their ten-year averages.Severe Hunger declined by 3 points in Metro Manila, from 8.0% in September to 5.0% in December.It rose by almost 4 points in Mindanao, from 2.3% to 6.0%, by almost 3 points in Balance Luzon, from 3.5% to a new record-high 6.0%, and by 2 points in the Visayas, from 0.3% to 2.7%. The latest Severe Hunger figures remain higher than their ten-year averages in all areas except Visayas, where its latest score of 2.7% was slightly lower than its ten-year average of 3.1%.Survey Background The SWS survey questions about household hunger are directed to the household head, using the phrase "nakaranas ng gutom at wala kayong makain" or "experienced hunger, and did not have anything to eat." The Fourth Quarter of 2008 Social Weather Survey was conducted over November 28-December 1, 2008 using face-to-face interviews of 1,500 adults divided into random samples of 300 each in Metro Manila, Visayas, and Mindanao, and 600 in Balance Luzon (sampling error margins of ±2.5% for national percentages, ±6% for Metro Manila, Visayas and Mindanao, and ±4% for Balance Luzon). The area estimates were weighted by National Statistics Office medium-population projections for 2008 to obtain the national estimates.The quarterly Social Weather Surveys on household hunger are not commissioned, but are done on SWS's own initiative and released as a public service, with first printing rights assigned to BusinessWorld.
The economic downturn plus the continuing high price of staples such as rice no doubt are contributing to this situation.
Hunger at new record-high 23.7% of families, Moderate Hunger at 18.5%, Severe Hunger at 5.2%
by SWS
The proportion of families experiencing involuntary hunger at least once in the past three months reached a new record-high of 23.7%, or an estimated 4.3 million households, according to the final Social Weather Survey for 2008, fielded over November 28-December 1, 2008.The latest Hunger record is 11 points above the ten-year average of 12.6%. It has surpassed the previous record-high incidence of 21.5% in September 2007 [Chart 1, Table 1].Hunger has now been at double-digits for over four years, since June 2004. The Hunger average of 2008 is 18.5%, higher than the 2007 average of 17.9%. The measure of Hunger refers to involuntary suffering because the respondents answer a survey question that specifies hunger due to lack of anything to eat. Record-high Moderate Hunger, Severe Hunger upThe rise in Total Hunger by 5 points between September and December resulted from a 3-point increase in Moderate Hunger, combined with a 2-point increase in Severe Hunger.Moderate Hunger, referring to those who experienced it "Only Once" or "A Few Times" in the last three months, rose from 15.2% (estimated 2.7 million families) in September to a new record-high 18.5% (estimated 3.3 million families) in December. The latest score is nine points above the ten-year average Moderate Hunger rate of 9.2%. 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 3.2% (about 580,000 families) in September to 5.2% (about 940,000 families) in December. The new rate is two points above the ten-year average Severe Hunger rate of 3.3% [Table 1].Hunger jumps to record-highs in Mindanao and Metro ManilaThe proportion of households experiencing Hunger is now highest in Mindanao, with the latest figure jumping to 33.7% (estimated 1.4 million families), a new record-high in that area. It is now at record-high 23.3% (estimated 570,000 families) in Metro Manila, 20.7% (estimated 750,000 families) in the Visayas, and 20.0% (estimated 1.6 million families) in Balance Luzon [Chart 2, Table 2].Overall Hunger rose by 15 points in Mindanao, from 18.3% in September to 33.7% in December. It rose by 9 points in the Visayas, from 11.7% to 20.7%.It barely changed in Metro Manila, from 23.0% in the previous quarter to 23.3% now, while it stayed at 20.0% in Balance Luzon.Moderate Hunger rose by almost 12 points in Mindanao, from 16.0% in September to a record-high 27.7%, by 7 points in the Visayas, from 11.3% to a record-high 18.0%, and by 3 points in Metro Manila, from 15.0% to 18.3% [Charts 3 to 6, Tables 3 to 6]. It declined by 2 points in Balance Luzon, from 16.5% to 14.0%.In all areas, the latest Moderate Hunger rates remain higher than their ten-year averages.Severe Hunger declined by 3 points in Metro Manila, from 8.0% in September to 5.0% in December.It rose by almost 4 points in Mindanao, from 2.3% to 6.0%, by almost 3 points in Balance Luzon, from 3.5% to a new record-high 6.0%, and by 2 points in the Visayas, from 0.3% to 2.7%. The latest Severe Hunger figures remain higher than their ten-year averages in all areas except Visayas, where its latest score of 2.7% was slightly lower than its ten-year average of 3.1%.Survey Background The SWS survey questions about household hunger are directed to the household head, using the phrase "nakaranas ng gutom at wala kayong makain" or "experienced hunger, and did not have anything to eat." The Fourth Quarter of 2008 Social Weather Survey was conducted over November 28-December 1, 2008 using face-to-face interviews of 1,500 adults divided into random samples of 300 each in Metro Manila, Visayas, and Mindanao, and 600 in Balance Luzon (sampling error margins of ±2.5% for national percentages, ±6% for Metro Manila, Visayas and Mindanao, and ±4% for Balance Luzon). The area estimates were weighted by National Statistics Office medium-population projections for 2008 to obtain the national estimates.The quarterly Social Weather Surveys on household hunger are not commissioned, but are done on SWS's own initiative and released as a public service, with first printing rights assigned to BusinessWorld.
Contract Point to Significant US Commitment in Afghanistan.
This is from the Washington Post.
Plenty of money for new construction to house occupying troops but there is no mention of how much is being spent to rebuild for Afghan civilians. As in Iraq there are plenty of facilities and services for the foreign occupiers but most Afghans remain without basic services.
This commitment also shows the seamless foreign policy continuity between the Obama and Bush administration further illustrated by the fact that Obama has retained the services of Gates as minister of defence.
Contracts Point to Significant U.S. Commitment in Afghanistan
By Walter PincusWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, December 25, 2008; A05
Earlier this month, standing at Kandahar Air Field in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the United States is making a "sustained commitment" to that country, one that will last "some protracted period of time."
A series of new proposals coming out of the Pentagon make clear a significant aspect of that commitment: up to $300 million in construction projects at the base, in order to house more than 5,000 additional American forces. And the timeline of the proposals appears to indicate that these troops would arrive in Afghanistan much later in 2009 than U.S. officials have announced thus far.
Gates has talked of sending up to four additional brigade combat teams to Afghanistan early next year. One brigade, consisting normally of around 3,500 soldiers, is due to arrive in January. Gates said recently that he hoped another two brigades would be sent by spring. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last Saturday that by next summer, up to 30,000 U.S. troops would join the 31,000 already in Afghanistan.
The indication of additional troop deployments in the works for next winter comes in three solicitations from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for military housing contracts. Each could cost up to $100 million, with two of the three scheduled for completion by late next year.
The most recent of these solicitations came this week, when the Corps of Engineers sought bids on design and construction of two barracks to hold 2,000 members of a future Army brigade. The project also includes constructing guard stations and towers and perimeter fencing around the barracks area; putting in vehicle inspection areas; renovating a building to house administration offices; and constructing a separate office building and a cold-storage warehouse.
The proposal, which was updated Monday, also allows for the winning contractor to offer an "optional" bid on constructing a third barracks for another 1,000 troops -- something that was not part of the original proposal. The contractor would have a year to complete the project from the time it is awarded, so the new barracks could not be fully occupied until the end of 2009.
Another project, put out for bid earlier this month, involves construction of a new power plant for the Kandahar base, as well as electrical and water distribution systems and communications lines. In addition, it calls for relocating housing for the approximately 1,500 personnel who sustain the systems, a headquarters building and other storage, maintenance shops, warehouses and other supporting infrastructure. Scheduled to be awarded at the end of February, that project also is supposed to be completed by the end of 2009.
At another section of Kandahar Air Field, the Corps of Engineers is proposing an installation to house a corps support battalion, adjacent to an Afghan National Army garrison. The structure will initially house 665 soldiers, but eventually, according to the notice, 1,640 will live there.
Another indication of the Pentagon's expanding, long-term involvement in Afghanistan comes in a pre-solicitation proposal from the Corps of Engineers to supply operation and maintenance services for Afghan National Army installations around the country. The contract could run as high as $500 million over five years, beginning next October. The Army Corps said it is looking for qualified firms that would provide all public works functions for the Afghan National Army at its bases, even to the point of keeping its utilities and other infrastructure fully operational.
Plenty of money for new construction to house occupying troops but there is no mention of how much is being spent to rebuild for Afghan civilians. As in Iraq there are plenty of facilities and services for the foreign occupiers but most Afghans remain without basic services.
This commitment also shows the seamless foreign policy continuity between the Obama and Bush administration further illustrated by the fact that Obama has retained the services of Gates as minister of defence.
Contracts Point to Significant U.S. Commitment in Afghanistan
By Walter PincusWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, December 25, 2008; A05
Earlier this month, standing at Kandahar Air Field in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the United States is making a "sustained commitment" to that country, one that will last "some protracted period of time."
A series of new proposals coming out of the Pentagon make clear a significant aspect of that commitment: up to $300 million in construction projects at the base, in order to house more than 5,000 additional American forces. And the timeline of the proposals appears to indicate that these troops would arrive in Afghanistan much later in 2009 than U.S. officials have announced thus far.
Gates has talked of sending up to four additional brigade combat teams to Afghanistan early next year. One brigade, consisting normally of around 3,500 soldiers, is due to arrive in January. Gates said recently that he hoped another two brigades would be sent by spring. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last Saturday that by next summer, up to 30,000 U.S. troops would join the 31,000 already in Afghanistan.
The indication of additional troop deployments in the works for next winter comes in three solicitations from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for military housing contracts. Each could cost up to $100 million, with two of the three scheduled for completion by late next year.
The most recent of these solicitations came this week, when the Corps of Engineers sought bids on design and construction of two barracks to hold 2,000 members of a future Army brigade. The project also includes constructing guard stations and towers and perimeter fencing around the barracks area; putting in vehicle inspection areas; renovating a building to house administration offices; and constructing a separate office building and a cold-storage warehouse.
The proposal, which was updated Monday, also allows for the winning contractor to offer an "optional" bid on constructing a third barracks for another 1,000 troops -- something that was not part of the original proposal. The contractor would have a year to complete the project from the time it is awarded, so the new barracks could not be fully occupied until the end of 2009.
Another project, put out for bid earlier this month, involves construction of a new power plant for the Kandahar base, as well as electrical and water distribution systems and communications lines. In addition, it calls for relocating housing for the approximately 1,500 personnel who sustain the systems, a headquarters building and other storage, maintenance shops, warehouses and other supporting infrastructure. Scheduled to be awarded at the end of February, that project also is supposed to be completed by the end of 2009.
At another section of Kandahar Air Field, the Corps of Engineers is proposing an installation to house a corps support battalion, adjacent to an Afghan National Army garrison. The structure will initially house 665 soldiers, but eventually, according to the notice, 1,640 will live there.
Another indication of the Pentagon's expanding, long-term involvement in Afghanistan comes in a pre-solicitation proposal from the Corps of Engineers to supply operation and maintenance services for Afghan National Army installations around the country. The contract could run as high as $500 million over five years, beginning next October. The Army Corps said it is looking for qualified firms that would provide all public works functions for the Afghan National Army at its bases, even to the point of keeping its utilities and other infrastructure fully operational.
Somali president resigns under US pressure.
This is from antiwar.com.
As usual the US is intervening in Somalia. This intervention is not likely to further US policy very much as the Islamists continue to take over more territory while the recognised govt. is little recognised on the ground.
It would be nice if the US could force Robert Mugabe to resign. Mugabe is now even losing support among key anti-colonial figures such as Desmond Tutu.
Somali President Yusuf Resigns Under US Pressure
New Prime Minister Also Steps Down
Posted December 24, 2008
Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf announced the he intends to formally resign as of Saturday in a move praised by the African Union as a way to strengthen the mandate (such as it is) of the floudering Somali government and allow Yusuf to “go with some sort of dignity.”
The announcement came just hours after Prime Minister Mohamed Guled, himself in power for only a week after Yusuf dismissed the former prime minister, announced his own resignation. While Yusuf gave no official reason for his resignation, Guled said his own decision was based on a desire “to end infighting among the government.” Guled’s resignation likely opens the way for former Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein to return to power.
But the source of Yusuf’s resignation isn’t a total mystery. The move came in the wake of a meeting with US under-secretary for African affairs Jendayi Frazer, who reportedly ordered the Somali President to restore former Prime Minister Nur to power or resign. If he refused, the US would reportedly back sanctions against him.
So Yusuf is out, and talks are now of a power-sharing deal in the Somali government. But with the Islamist insurgency seizing ever more of the country, the question much be asked: what power is there left for this self-proclaimed government to share, and how long will anyone be able to keep it?
As usual the US is intervening in Somalia. This intervention is not likely to further US policy very much as the Islamists continue to take over more territory while the recognised govt. is little recognised on the ground.
It would be nice if the US could force Robert Mugabe to resign. Mugabe is now even losing support among key anti-colonial figures such as Desmond Tutu.
Somali President Yusuf Resigns Under US Pressure
New Prime Minister Also Steps Down
Posted December 24, 2008
Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf announced the he intends to formally resign as of Saturday in a move praised by the African Union as a way to strengthen the mandate (such as it is) of the floudering Somali government and allow Yusuf to “go with some sort of dignity.”
The announcement came just hours after Prime Minister Mohamed Guled, himself in power for only a week after Yusuf dismissed the former prime minister, announced his own resignation. While Yusuf gave no official reason for his resignation, Guled said his own decision was based on a desire “to end infighting among the government.” Guled’s resignation likely opens the way for former Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein to return to power.
But the source of Yusuf’s resignation isn’t a total mystery. The move came in the wake of a meeting with US under-secretary for African affairs Jendayi Frazer, who reportedly ordered the Somali President to restore former Prime Minister Nur to power or resign. If he refused, the US would reportedly back sanctions against him.
So Yusuf is out, and talks are now of a power-sharing deal in the Somali government. But with the Islamist insurgency seizing ever more of the country, the question much be asked: what power is there left for this self-proclaimed government to share, and how long will anyone be able to keep it?
Southeast Asia economies declining and still coupled to US.
THis is from the Asiatimes.
Interesting that it is the most open of these Asian economies that are most effected. Singapore in particular is actually in recession while most others are simply showing declines in growth. It seems that Indonesia might require loans from the IMF. The terms would no doubt limit severely freedom for Indonesia to set its own financial policies.
Down and still coupled
By Shawn W Crispin BANGKOK - With falling exports, declining confidence and tight liquidity squeezed by fleeing foreign capital, Southeast Asia has wholly failed to decouple from the mounting downturns in the United States and Europe. Looking ahead to 2009, the question is not if, but rather how far, the trade-geared economies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members will fall in line with the global economy. As global trade collapses, some of ASEAN's 10 members will be hit harder than others, economists predict. The region's most open economies, namely Singapore and Malaysia, where merchandise exports respectively represent around 200% and 100% of gross domestic product (GDP), will be particularly hard
hit. Others including Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, where exports represent a smaller, but still substantial, percentage of GDP will also see declining growth. Hopes that China - with which ASEAN has a trade surplus driven by exports of raw materials and component electronics and computer parts for re-export to third countries - might buoy the region's economies have faltered with recent softening in China's export figures. Meanwhile, economists say that the stimulus package announced last month by China has been tailored mainly to tide over the domestic economy and Beijing has indicated no plans or extraordinary measures to lift the region's sinking economies. Swiss investment bank UBS said in a recent note to clients that for the first half of next year it expects China's "appetite for FDI in the region will remain quite low" and that China "would be only a marginal positive factor for Asia and ASEAN commodity exporters in 2009". That analysis underscores now prescient Credit Suisse quantitative research from November 2007, which demonstrated that recent strong growth in ASEAN exports to China were largely intermediate goods intended for final export to now-slumping US, Europe and Japan. The same research questioned how much ASEAN had really decoupled from US demand, noting that 70% of intra-Asia trade was in intermediate goods and that more than half of China's total imports were destined for re-export to mainly Western markets. As such, slackening commodity demand, including from China, will impact adversely on several economies in the region. Earlier this year, certain Asian countries reaped huge profits from fast-rising global commodity prices but are now doubly exposed to deteriorating global demand and declining terms of trade. Malaysia and Indonesia, ASEAN's top commodity exporters, are expected to take the biggest hits on this front. Thailand, despite its position as the world's leading exporter of rice, tapioca and raw rubber, is because of even higher oil and gas imports a net commodity importer and so less exposed to global price swings. Net fuel and food importing Philippines, which earlier this year experienced the highest local inflation rates in 17 years at 12.2%, will also net-net benefit economically from softening global commodity prices. Policy mattersWhile all economies in the region are expected to fall, how hard they actually land will depend on individual governments' policy responses. Some are better placed than others to ramp fiscal spending and slash interest rates to spark more domestic demand and locally oriented investment
. How well governments devise and implement those policies will go a long way in determining the extent of individual countries' slowdowns in 2009. Indonesia, which faces severe budget deficit financing issues and has in recent months been hounded by rumors it may seek an International Monetary Fund rescue package, is seen as the most wobbly of the regional lot. Faced with stubbornly high inflation, current account deficits and a depreciating currency, the government's fiscal options and Bank Indonesia's monetary maneuverability will both be limited in their scope to stimulate economic growth. UBS notes that around 50% of Indonesian government bonds are now owned by local banks and few wish to increase that share, as seen earlier this year when foreigners wishing to dump their local positions sold mainly to the central bank and local pension funds. Should its terms of trade decline further in 2009, some analysts fear Indonesia could be pushed into a 1997-style crisis, driven by both foreign and domestic capital flight. Barring that worst-case scenario, UBS predicts growth will fall to 3% next year, or nearly half this year's 5.8%. Thailand is in better shape financially but faces uncertain political risks, which took a sharp toll on the economy in 2008. Those risks were underscored when anti-government protesters besieged Bangkok's main international airport for eight days beginning in late November. The closure caused exports - which currently represent around 65% of GDP - to fall 18.6% year-on-year in November, resulting in a US$1.3 billion loss in overseas sales, according to Commerce Ministry figures. A new Thai government installed in December has raised hopes for stability and has already indicated plans to double the outgoing administration's extra-budgetary spending to 200 billion baht (US$5.8 billion), including funds to prop up falling agricultural prices. Fiscal stimulus will be paired with monetary loosening, signaled by the Bank of Thailand's drastic 100 basis point benchmark interest rate cut on December 3. While many economists predict Thai growth of around 2%, others believe the stimulus won't prevent the economy from tilting negative in 2009. As perhaps Asia's most trade-dependent economy, Singapore had already slipped into recession by the third quarter of 2008, with - 0.6% year-on-year GDP growth. With global trade forecast to contract further in the quarters ahead, economists expect Singapore's growth to remain in negative territory through 2009. Given the government's perceived penchant for sometimes overstating growth on the upside, the actual economic situation next year could be worse than official statistics indicate. Declining export volumes are expected to ripple adversely through the local economy, leading to significant lay-offs in the manufacturing sector and dampened consumer sentiment, including towards the crucial property sector. The government is expected to provide substantial fiscal support, including through the use of off-budget measures such as tax rebates, micro-loans and rental rebates, according to UBS. The establishment of a US$30 billion "swap line" between the US Federal Reserve and the Monetary Authority of Singapore has alleviated earlier dollar liquidity concerns and set the stage for monetary loosening at the MAS's next policy meeting in April. But with global trade faltering, local demand for US dollars should decline, depending, of course, on how deeply MAS cuts interest rates and whether monetary easing can spark a new investment cycle, which seems doubtful for 2009. Malaysia will face similar if not tougher economic challenges. UBS predicts economic growth will drop drastically from 5.4% in 2008 to 0% in 2009, driven down by the double whammy of declining exports and terms of trade in line with falling global commodity prices. Commodity exports represented 26% of GDP in 2007, driving a balance of payment surplus of $13.2 billion. This year's balance of payments is on course to just break even, and economists expect that statistic will likely turn negative in 2009. Credit Suisse noted in the aforementioned 2007 research that for every percentage point drop in US GDP growth, Malaysia's will fall 1.6%. That's led some economists to contend the government has moved too timidly in using fiscal and monetary policy to offset the negative impact of collapsing exports. The perceived inaction is reflective of the government's still bullish forecast for 3.5% economic growth next year, optimism aimed at deflecting growing criticism from a more assertive political opposition. For all the bad news, there is some upside - at least for the brave of heart. ASEAN stock markets collapsed across the board in 2008, with many losing around half their market capitalization year-on-year due to foreign investor flight. That's driven average share prices down to near 20-25 year lows on price-to-book valuations and exceptionally low price-to-equity ratios of around 8.6 times earnings, according to UBS. For those with the liquidity and patience beyond 2009, the region's battered, yet comparatively deleveraged equities are trading at bargain basement prices. Shawn W Crispin is Asia Times Online's Southeast Asia Editor. He may be reached at swcrispin@atimes.com.
Interesting that it is the most open of these Asian economies that are most effected. Singapore in particular is actually in recession while most others are simply showing declines in growth. It seems that Indonesia might require loans from the IMF. The terms would no doubt limit severely freedom for Indonesia to set its own financial policies.
Down and still coupled
By Shawn W Crispin BANGKOK - With falling exports, declining confidence and tight liquidity squeezed by fleeing foreign capital, Southeast Asia has wholly failed to decouple from the mounting downturns in the United States and Europe. Looking ahead to 2009, the question is not if, but rather how far, the trade-geared economies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members will fall in line with the global economy. As global trade collapses, some of ASEAN's 10 members will be hit harder than others, economists predict. The region's most open economies, namely Singapore and Malaysia, where merchandise exports respectively represent around 200% and 100% of gross domestic product (GDP), will be particularly hard
hit. Others including Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, where exports represent a smaller, but still substantial, percentage of GDP will also see declining growth. Hopes that China - with which ASEAN has a trade surplus driven by exports of raw materials and component electronics and computer parts for re-export to third countries - might buoy the region's economies have faltered with recent softening in China's export figures. Meanwhile, economists say that the stimulus package announced last month by China has been tailored mainly to tide over the domestic economy and Beijing has indicated no plans or extraordinary measures to lift the region's sinking economies. Swiss investment bank UBS said in a recent note to clients that for the first half of next year it expects China's "appetite for FDI in the region will remain quite low" and that China "would be only a marginal positive factor for Asia and ASEAN commodity exporters in 2009". That analysis underscores now prescient Credit Suisse quantitative research from November 2007, which demonstrated that recent strong growth in ASEAN exports to China were largely intermediate goods intended for final export to now-slumping US, Europe and Japan. The same research questioned how much ASEAN had really decoupled from US demand, noting that 70% of intra-Asia trade was in intermediate goods and that more than half of China's total imports were destined for re-export to mainly Western markets. As such, slackening commodity demand, including from China, will impact adversely on several economies in the region. Earlier this year, certain Asian countries reaped huge profits from fast-rising global commodity prices but are now doubly exposed to deteriorating global demand and declining terms of trade. Malaysia and Indonesia, ASEAN's top commodity exporters, are expected to take the biggest hits on this front. Thailand, despite its position as the world's leading exporter of rice, tapioca and raw rubber, is because of even higher oil and gas imports a net commodity importer and so less exposed to global price swings. Net fuel and food importing Philippines, which earlier this year experienced the highest local inflation rates in 17 years at 12.2%, will also net-net benefit economically from softening global commodity prices. Policy mattersWhile all economies in the region are expected to fall, how hard they actually land will depend on individual governments' policy responses. Some are better placed than others to ramp fiscal spending and slash interest rates to spark more domestic demand and locally oriented investment
. How well governments devise and implement those policies will go a long way in determining the extent of individual countries' slowdowns in 2009. Indonesia, which faces severe budget deficit financing issues and has in recent months been hounded by rumors it may seek an International Monetary Fund rescue package, is seen as the most wobbly of the regional lot. Faced with stubbornly high inflation, current account deficits and a depreciating currency, the government's fiscal options and Bank Indonesia's monetary maneuverability will both be limited in their scope to stimulate economic growth. UBS notes that around 50% of Indonesian government bonds are now owned by local banks and few wish to increase that share, as seen earlier this year when foreigners wishing to dump their local positions sold mainly to the central bank and local pension funds. Should its terms of trade decline further in 2009, some analysts fear Indonesia could be pushed into a 1997-style crisis, driven by both foreign and domestic capital flight. Barring that worst-case scenario, UBS predicts growth will fall to 3% next year, or nearly half this year's 5.8%. Thailand is in better shape financially but faces uncertain political risks, which took a sharp toll on the economy in 2008. Those risks were underscored when anti-government protesters besieged Bangkok's main international airport for eight days beginning in late November. The closure caused exports - which currently represent around 65% of GDP - to fall 18.6% year-on-year in November, resulting in a US$1.3 billion loss in overseas sales, according to Commerce Ministry figures. A new Thai government installed in December has raised hopes for stability and has already indicated plans to double the outgoing administration's extra-budgetary spending to 200 billion baht (US$5.8 billion), including funds to prop up falling agricultural prices. Fiscal stimulus will be paired with monetary loosening, signaled by the Bank of Thailand's drastic 100 basis point benchmark interest rate cut on December 3. While many economists predict Thai growth of around 2%, others believe the stimulus won't prevent the economy from tilting negative in 2009. As perhaps Asia's most trade-dependent economy, Singapore had already slipped into recession by the third quarter of 2008, with - 0.6% year-on-year GDP growth. With global trade forecast to contract further in the quarters ahead, economists expect Singapore's growth to remain in negative territory through 2009. Given the government's perceived penchant for sometimes overstating growth on the upside, the actual economic situation next year could be worse than official statistics indicate. Declining export volumes are expected to ripple adversely through the local economy, leading to significant lay-offs in the manufacturing sector and dampened consumer sentiment, including towards the crucial property sector. The government is expected to provide substantial fiscal support, including through the use of off-budget measures such as tax rebates, micro-loans and rental rebates, according to UBS. The establishment of a US$30 billion "swap line" between the US Federal Reserve and the Monetary Authority of Singapore has alleviated earlier dollar liquidity concerns and set the stage for monetary loosening at the MAS's next policy meeting in April. But with global trade faltering, local demand for US dollars should decline, depending, of course, on how deeply MAS cuts interest rates and whether monetary easing can spark a new investment cycle, which seems doubtful for 2009. Malaysia will face similar if not tougher economic challenges. UBS predicts economic growth will drop drastically from 5.4% in 2008 to 0% in 2009, driven down by the double whammy of declining exports and terms of trade in line with falling global commodity prices. Commodity exports represented 26% of GDP in 2007, driving a balance of payment surplus of $13.2 billion. This year's balance of payments is on course to just break even, and economists expect that statistic will likely turn negative in 2009. Credit Suisse noted in the aforementioned 2007 research that for every percentage point drop in US GDP growth, Malaysia's will fall 1.6%. That's led some economists to contend the government has moved too timidly in using fiscal and monetary policy to offset the negative impact of collapsing exports. The perceived inaction is reflective of the government's still bullish forecast for 3.5% economic growth next year, optimism aimed at deflecting growing criticism from a more assertive political opposition. For all the bad news, there is some upside - at least for the brave of heart. ASEAN stock markets collapsed across the board in 2008, with many losing around half their market capitalization year-on-year due to foreign investor flight. That's driven average share prices down to near 20-25 year lows on price-to-book valuations and exceptionally low price-to-equity ratios of around 8.6 times earnings, according to UBS. For those with the liquidity and patience beyond 2009, the region's battered, yet comparatively deleveraged equities are trading at bargain basement prices. Shawn W Crispin is Asia Times Online's Southeast Asia Editor. He may be reached at swcrispin@atimes.com.
Pilger: In the Great Tradition Obama is a Hawk
In effect there has always been a bipartisan agreement on US expansionism and hegemony that goes unquestioned within the two main parties. There is of course opposition to this viewpoint on both left and right but it is not part of the two mainstream parties. Even though some who support those parties do oppose that agreement it seems to be of no avail. In Obama's case there seems a great deal of denial among many leftists. I have heard some US leftists say that they voted for him without any illusions. If they had no illusions they would not have voted for him in the first place.
In The Great Tradition
Obama Is A Hawk
In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger reaches back into the history of the Democratic Party and describes the tradition of war-making and expansionism that Barack Obama has now left little doubt he will honour.
By John Pilger14/06/08 "ICH" -- -In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.The foregone nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history", is a product of the new delusion. Actually, it just seems new. Truly exciting and historic moments have been fabricated around US presidential campaigns for as long as I can recall, generating what can only be described as bullshit on a grand scale. Race, gender, appearance, body language, rictal spouses and offspring, even bursts of tragic grandeur, are all subsumed by marketing and "image-making", now magnified by "virtual" technology. Thanks to an undemocratic electoral college system (or, in Bush's case, tampered voting machines) only those who both control and obey the system can win. This has been the case since the truly historic and exciting victory of Harry Truman, the liberal Democrat said to be a humble man of the people, who went on to show how tough he was by obliterating two cities with the atomic bomb.Understanding Obama as a likely president of the United States is not possible without understanding the demands of an essentially unchanged system of power: in effect a great media game. For example, since I compared Obama with Robert Kennedy in these pages, he has made two important statements, the implications of which have not been allowed to intrude on the celebrations. The first was at the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the Zionist lobby, which, as Ian Williams has pointed out, "will get you accused of anti-Semitism if you quote its own website about its power". Obama had already offered his genuflection, but on 4 June went further. He promised to support an "undivided Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. Not a single government on earth supports the Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem, including the Bush regime, which recognises the UN resolution designating Jerusalem an international city.His second statement, largely ignored, was made in Miami on 23 May. Speaking to the expatriate Cuban community – which over the years has faithfully produced terrorists, assassins and drug runners for US administrations – Obama promised to continue a 47-year crippling embargo on Cuba that has been declared illegal by the UN year after year.Again, Obama went further than Bush. He said the United States had "lost Latin America". He described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua as a "vacuum" to be filled. He raised the nonsense of Iranian influence in Latin America, and he endorsed Colombia's "right to strike terrorists who seek safe-havens across its borders". Translated, this means the "right" of a regime, whose president and leading politicians are linked to death squads, to invade its neighbours on behalf of Washington. He also endorsed the so-called Merida Initiative, which Amnesty International and others have condemned as the US bringing the "Colombian solution" to Mexico. He did not stop there. "We must press further south as well," he said. Not even Bush has said that.It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The "truly exciting and historic moment in US history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged.www.johnpilger.com
In The Great Tradition
Obama Is A Hawk
In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger reaches back into the history of the Democratic Party and describes the tradition of war-making and expansionism that Barack Obama has now left little doubt he will honour.
By John Pilger14/06/08 "ICH" -- -In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.The foregone nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history", is a product of the new delusion. Actually, it just seems new. Truly exciting and historic moments have been fabricated around US presidential campaigns for as long as I can recall, generating what can only be described as bullshit on a grand scale. Race, gender, appearance, body language, rictal spouses and offspring, even bursts of tragic grandeur, are all subsumed by marketing and "image-making", now magnified by "virtual" technology. Thanks to an undemocratic electoral college system (or, in Bush's case, tampered voting machines) only those who both control and obey the system can win. This has been the case since the truly historic and exciting victory of Harry Truman, the liberal Democrat said to be a humble man of the people, who went on to show how tough he was by obliterating two cities with the atomic bomb.Understanding Obama as a likely president of the United States is not possible without understanding the demands of an essentially unchanged system of power: in effect a great media game. For example, since I compared Obama with Robert Kennedy in these pages, he has made two important statements, the implications of which have not been allowed to intrude on the celebrations. The first was at the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the Zionist lobby, which, as Ian Williams has pointed out, "will get you accused of anti-Semitism if you quote its own website about its power". Obama had already offered his genuflection, but on 4 June went further. He promised to support an "undivided Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. Not a single government on earth supports the Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem, including the Bush regime, which recognises the UN resolution designating Jerusalem an international city.His second statement, largely ignored, was made in Miami on 23 May. Speaking to the expatriate Cuban community – which over the years has faithfully produced terrorists, assassins and drug runners for US administrations – Obama promised to continue a 47-year crippling embargo on Cuba that has been declared illegal by the UN year after year.Again, Obama went further than Bush. He said the United States had "lost Latin America". He described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua as a "vacuum" to be filled. He raised the nonsense of Iranian influence in Latin America, and he endorsed Colombia's "right to strike terrorists who seek safe-havens across its borders". Translated, this means the "right" of a regime, whose president and leading politicians are linked to death squads, to invade its neighbours on behalf of Washington. He also endorsed the so-called Merida Initiative, which Amnesty International and others have condemned as the US bringing the "Colombian solution" to Mexico. He did not stop there. "We must press further south as well," he said. Not even Bush has said that.It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The "truly exciting and historic moment in US history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged.www.johnpilger.com
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Philippine peso, stocks slide this year...
This is from Bloomberg.
As with most currencies except the US dollar and the Yen most are lower including the Canadian dollar. The stock market too shares in the global meltdown of stocks.
Philippine Peso, Stocks Slide in Year as Slump Hurts Exports
By Clarissa Batino
Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The Philippine peso headed for its worst year since 2000 and stocks had their biggest annual loss in at least two decades on signs the global slowdown is hurting sales of the nation’s exports.
The peso fell for a fourth day after a government report showed imports contracted for the first time in 17 months in October, signaling exports may also shrink. The central bank yesterday predicted that growth in overseas shipments will halve this year, which would widen the trade deficit to $13.1 billion, according to Bloomberg calculations.
“The drop in trade flows is a bad sign that the economy will be slowing pretty rapidly,” said Simon Wong, an economist at Standard Chartered Plc in Hong Kong. “The global downturn puts pressure on Asian economies and currencies, including the peso.”
The currency lost 0.4 percent to 47.625 per dollar as of 2:25 p.m. in Manila, according to Tullett Prebon Plc. It’s poised for a 13.4 percent loss this year, the most since shortly before former President Joseph Estrada was ousted in a revolt. South Korea’s won slid 28.5 percent this year.
Local markets will be closed for Christmas holidays starting tomorrow through Jan. 2 and trading resumes Jan. 5.
The Philippine Stock Exchange Index slumped 48 percent this year to 1,872.85, the biggest annual drop since Bloomberg started tracking the data in 1988.
Ten-year bond yields, which move opposite to prices, rose 85 basis points this year, the most since 2004. Philippine government securities handed investors a return of 1.5 percent in 2008, the least among the 10 local-currency debt markets, according to indexes compiled by HSBC Holdings Plc.
Slowing Growth
Overseas sales account for a third of the $144 billion economy. The Philippines imports electronics components and exports mobile-phone chips and computer parts.
Gross domestic product may expand 0.7 percent next year, compared with an estimated 3.8 percent this year, Wong said, citing contractions in exports and remittances in 2009. The government expects growth of as little as 4.1 percent this year and 3.7 percent in 2009, versus last year’s three-decade high of 7.2 percent.
Imports slipped 11.1 percent to $4.58 billion in October after climbing 2.5 percent in September, the National Statistics Office said in Manila. Exports dropped 14.9 percent in October, the most in seven years, the agency said earlier this month.
Rate Cuts
The World Bank expects global trade to shrink in 2009 for the first time in more than 25 years, threatening export-reliant economies in Asia. The Philippines last week cut interest rates to support growth as the global slump weakened demand for Intel Corp.’s computer chips and other electronics goods, which account for two-thirds of the nation’s overseas sales.
The peso may weaken to around 50 per dollar next year but will probably recover to 46 by the end of 2009, Wong said.
“To the extent that all major economies would contract and demand would drop in 2009, then the Philippines and the region are vulnerable,” Wong said.
Slowing growth and receding inflation may allow the central bank to cut interest rates by another 50 basis points in each of the first two quarters, said the Standard Chartered economist, who was one of four who correctly predicted Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ half-point rate cut last week.
Bangko Sentral reduced its overnight borrowing rate to 5.5 percent on Dec. 18, the first cut in 11 months. Governor Amando Tetangco this week said he has “greater latitude to ease policy rates,” supporting gains in bonds.
The yield on the 8.875 percent note maturing in November 2018 dropped 28 basis points to 7.44 percent today, the lowest since Sept. 15, according to the 11:15 a.m. fixing at Philippine Dealing & Exchange Corp. The price gained 2, or 200 pesos per 10,000 pesos face amount, to 109.93. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point.
Ten-year bonds yielded 6.58 percent at the end of last year. The main stock index gained 0.6 percent as of the noon close of trading in Manila.
To contact the reporter on this story: Clarissa Batino in Manila at cbatino@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: December 24, 2008 01:26 EST
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Trademarks
As with most currencies except the US dollar and the Yen most are lower including the Canadian dollar. The stock market too shares in the global meltdown of stocks.
Philippine Peso, Stocks Slide in Year as Slump Hurts Exports
By Clarissa Batino
Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The Philippine peso headed for its worst year since 2000 and stocks had their biggest annual loss in at least two decades on signs the global slowdown is hurting sales of the nation’s exports.
The peso fell for a fourth day after a government report showed imports contracted for the first time in 17 months in October, signaling exports may also shrink. The central bank yesterday predicted that growth in overseas shipments will halve this year, which would widen the trade deficit to $13.1 billion, according to Bloomberg calculations.
“The drop in trade flows is a bad sign that the economy will be slowing pretty rapidly,” said Simon Wong, an economist at Standard Chartered Plc in Hong Kong. “The global downturn puts pressure on Asian economies and currencies, including the peso.”
The currency lost 0.4 percent to 47.625 per dollar as of 2:25 p.m. in Manila, according to Tullett Prebon Plc. It’s poised for a 13.4 percent loss this year, the most since shortly before former President Joseph Estrada was ousted in a revolt. South Korea’s won slid 28.5 percent this year.
Local markets will be closed for Christmas holidays starting tomorrow through Jan. 2 and trading resumes Jan. 5.
The Philippine Stock Exchange Index slumped 48 percent this year to 1,872.85, the biggest annual drop since Bloomberg started tracking the data in 1988.
Ten-year bond yields, which move opposite to prices, rose 85 basis points this year, the most since 2004. Philippine government securities handed investors a return of 1.5 percent in 2008, the least among the 10 local-currency debt markets, according to indexes compiled by HSBC Holdings Plc.
Slowing Growth
Overseas sales account for a third of the $144 billion economy. The Philippines imports electronics components and exports mobile-phone chips and computer parts.
Gross domestic product may expand 0.7 percent next year, compared with an estimated 3.8 percent this year, Wong said, citing contractions in exports and remittances in 2009. The government expects growth of as little as 4.1 percent this year and 3.7 percent in 2009, versus last year’s three-decade high of 7.2 percent.
Imports slipped 11.1 percent to $4.58 billion in October after climbing 2.5 percent in September, the National Statistics Office said in Manila. Exports dropped 14.9 percent in October, the most in seven years, the agency said earlier this month.
Rate Cuts
The World Bank expects global trade to shrink in 2009 for the first time in more than 25 years, threatening export-reliant economies in Asia. The Philippines last week cut interest rates to support growth as the global slump weakened demand for Intel Corp.’s computer chips and other electronics goods, which account for two-thirds of the nation’s overseas sales.
The peso may weaken to around 50 per dollar next year but will probably recover to 46 by the end of 2009, Wong said.
“To the extent that all major economies would contract and demand would drop in 2009, then the Philippines and the region are vulnerable,” Wong said.
Slowing growth and receding inflation may allow the central bank to cut interest rates by another 50 basis points in each of the first two quarters, said the Standard Chartered economist, who was one of four who correctly predicted Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ half-point rate cut last week.
Bangko Sentral reduced its overnight borrowing rate to 5.5 percent on Dec. 18, the first cut in 11 months. Governor Amando Tetangco this week said he has “greater latitude to ease policy rates,” supporting gains in bonds.
The yield on the 8.875 percent note maturing in November 2018 dropped 28 basis points to 7.44 percent today, the lowest since Sept. 15, according to the 11:15 a.m. fixing at Philippine Dealing & Exchange Corp. The price gained 2, or 200 pesos per 10,000 pesos face amount, to 109.93. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point.
Ten-year bonds yielded 6.58 percent at the end of last year. The main stock index gained 0.6 percent as of the noon close of trading in Manila.
To contact the reporter on this story: Clarissa Batino in Manila at cbatino@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: December 24, 2008 01:26 EST
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Trademarks
House party on US Health Care.
This is from NY Times.
The existing health care system has so many powerful players that it is very difficult to reform. It is doubtful that Obama is willing to really cut out the big players and opt for a single payer system.
At House Party on Health Care, the Diagnosis Is It’s Broken
By ROBERT PEAR
VIENNA, Va. — When a dozen consumers gathered over the weekend to discuss health care at the behest of President-elect Barack Obama, they quickly agreed on one point: they despise health insurance companies.
They also agreed that health care was a right; that insurance should cover “everything,” not just some services; and that coverage should be readily available from the government, as well as from employers.
Those were the conclusions of a house party held here in Northern Virginia at the home of Karima Hijane and Theodore A. Kolovos, information technology consultants who have been married for seven years. It was one of more than 4,200 such events being held around the country from Dec. 15 to 31, as part of an experiment in grass-roots politics and policy-making, to provide recommendations to the president-elect.
“We have to keep the momentum going,” said Ms. Hijane, 34, who was a volunteer in the Obama campaign and is active in women’s health advocacy. “We are not lobbyists. We are simple citizens. We want to make sure that our voices are heard and that health care is reformed.”
One of the people seated around Ms. Hijane’s dining room table, Bruce D. Chatman, worked for I.B.M. for 29 years. Corporations, he said, have too much influence in the legislative process and the health care system. He wants to counterbalance their power with the energy and passion of citizens lobbying for themselves.
Mr. Chatman, a Chicago native who lives in Fort Washington, Md., said he had been inspired by Mr. Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope” and started working for his campaign as a volunteer in April 2007.
“I don’t believe health care should depend on people making money,” Mr. Chatman said. “The profit motive has to be tempered, especially on the administrative side of the health care business.”
Shiva S. Makki, an economist, complained that in many cases, insurers did not cover the costs of screening procedures and preventive care.
Dr. Lawrence M. Nelson, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health who emphasized that he was speaking as a private citizen, said: “The incentives in the current health insurance system are upside down. The less care you provide, the bigger your profits.”
Dr. Nelson said he liked Mr. Obama’s proposal to create a new public plan, similar to Medicare, that would compete with private insurance companies.
Alex R. Lawson, a volunteer in the Obama campaign now trying to build public support for Mr. Obama’s agenda, said a public plan would give people a choice they do not have.
“A public insurance plan would not take anything away,” Mr. Lawson said. “It just adds another option.”
After one speaker expressed a mild concern about too much involvement by the government, Mr. Kolovos said: “Everyone is afraid of government bureaucracy. But what we have now, with the filing and adjudication of insurance claims, is also bureaucratic.”
Several people at the health care forum said they were frustrated by the current arrangement under which health insurance is tied closely to the workplace.
Hamudi Almasri, a 35-year-old information technology consultant at a small company that does work for the Labor Department, said that when he changed jobs, he had to change health plans and doctors.
“If I change employers, why should it be such a hassle?” Mr. Almasri asked.
His wife, Li Yang, said: “When I move from one doctor to another, my information is lost. In many cases, the doctors don’t talk to each other. In a country where information technology is so advanced, there’s no system linking all these doctors together. It’s a hindrance to treatment.”
Ms. Li said she and her husband “had a few surprises” when they started shopping for a better health insurance policy on their own.
“If we wanted a baby,” Ms. Li said, “insurers would not cover the maternity care if conception occurred within six months after we purchased the insurance. We were shocked.”
In many cases, the standard individual insurance policy does not cover maternity care, though such coverage can be bought for an additional premium. Even then, some insurers stipulate that maternity benefits will be available only if a woman waits for a certain amount of time before becoming pregnant.
The Obama transition team asked for “particularly poignant stories to highlight the need for health care reform,” and such stories were abundant at the round table here.
Mr. Almasri said that when his infant daughter had severe eczema, she had to wait several months to see a dermatologist in their H.M.O. network. By then, he said, “the symptoms were all cleared up.”
Ms. Hijane said she had gone from doctor to doctor for more than a year before she got correct diagnoses for premature ovarian failure and celiac disease, a digestive disorder.
“Instead of being able to focus on my health,” Ms. Hijane said, “I focused on insurance to cover the tests and treatments. Everything we did was designed to find a job with good health insurance.”
The Obama transition team did not ask people how a new health care system should be financed, but several people here said that individuals and businesses should have to pay a small health care tax — some preferred to call it a “contribution” — so that everyone could be covered.
Mr. Chatman said he expected insurance companies and others in the health care industry to resist many of Mr. Obama’s proposals.
“This is warfare for the health care of our country,” Mr. Chatman said. “The question is, Will money win, or will the people win? If we lose, we’ll be a second-class country.”
The existing health care system has so many powerful players that it is very difficult to reform. It is doubtful that Obama is willing to really cut out the big players and opt for a single payer system.
At House Party on Health Care, the Diagnosis Is It’s Broken
By ROBERT PEAR
VIENNA, Va. — When a dozen consumers gathered over the weekend to discuss health care at the behest of President-elect Barack Obama, they quickly agreed on one point: they despise health insurance companies.
They also agreed that health care was a right; that insurance should cover “everything,” not just some services; and that coverage should be readily available from the government, as well as from employers.
Those were the conclusions of a house party held here in Northern Virginia at the home of Karima Hijane and Theodore A. Kolovos, information technology consultants who have been married for seven years. It was one of more than 4,200 such events being held around the country from Dec. 15 to 31, as part of an experiment in grass-roots politics and policy-making, to provide recommendations to the president-elect.
“We have to keep the momentum going,” said Ms. Hijane, 34, who was a volunteer in the Obama campaign and is active in women’s health advocacy. “We are not lobbyists. We are simple citizens. We want to make sure that our voices are heard and that health care is reformed.”
One of the people seated around Ms. Hijane’s dining room table, Bruce D. Chatman, worked for I.B.M. for 29 years. Corporations, he said, have too much influence in the legislative process and the health care system. He wants to counterbalance their power with the energy and passion of citizens lobbying for themselves.
Mr. Chatman, a Chicago native who lives in Fort Washington, Md., said he had been inspired by Mr. Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope” and started working for his campaign as a volunteer in April 2007.
“I don’t believe health care should depend on people making money,” Mr. Chatman said. “The profit motive has to be tempered, especially on the administrative side of the health care business.”
Shiva S. Makki, an economist, complained that in many cases, insurers did not cover the costs of screening procedures and preventive care.
Dr. Lawrence M. Nelson, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health who emphasized that he was speaking as a private citizen, said: “The incentives in the current health insurance system are upside down. The less care you provide, the bigger your profits.”
Dr. Nelson said he liked Mr. Obama’s proposal to create a new public plan, similar to Medicare, that would compete with private insurance companies.
Alex R. Lawson, a volunteer in the Obama campaign now trying to build public support for Mr. Obama’s agenda, said a public plan would give people a choice they do not have.
“A public insurance plan would not take anything away,” Mr. Lawson said. “It just adds another option.”
After one speaker expressed a mild concern about too much involvement by the government, Mr. Kolovos said: “Everyone is afraid of government bureaucracy. But what we have now, with the filing and adjudication of insurance claims, is also bureaucratic.”
Several people at the health care forum said they were frustrated by the current arrangement under which health insurance is tied closely to the workplace.
Hamudi Almasri, a 35-year-old information technology consultant at a small company that does work for the Labor Department, said that when he changed jobs, he had to change health plans and doctors.
“If I change employers, why should it be such a hassle?” Mr. Almasri asked.
His wife, Li Yang, said: “When I move from one doctor to another, my information is lost. In many cases, the doctors don’t talk to each other. In a country where information technology is so advanced, there’s no system linking all these doctors together. It’s a hindrance to treatment.”
Ms. Li said she and her husband “had a few surprises” when they started shopping for a better health insurance policy on their own.
“If we wanted a baby,” Ms. Li said, “insurers would not cover the maternity care if conception occurred within six months after we purchased the insurance. We were shocked.”
In many cases, the standard individual insurance policy does not cover maternity care, though such coverage can be bought for an additional premium. Even then, some insurers stipulate that maternity benefits will be available only if a woman waits for a certain amount of time before becoming pregnant.
The Obama transition team asked for “particularly poignant stories to highlight the need for health care reform,” and such stories were abundant at the round table here.
Mr. Almasri said that when his infant daughter had severe eczema, she had to wait several months to see a dermatologist in their H.M.O. network. By then, he said, “the symptoms were all cleared up.”
Ms. Hijane said she had gone from doctor to doctor for more than a year before she got correct diagnoses for premature ovarian failure and celiac disease, a digestive disorder.
“Instead of being able to focus on my health,” Ms. Hijane said, “I focused on insurance to cover the tests and treatments. Everything we did was designed to find a job with good health insurance.”
The Obama transition team did not ask people how a new health care system should be financed, but several people here said that individuals and businesses should have to pay a small health care tax — some preferred to call it a “contribution” — so that everyone could be covered.
Mr. Chatman said he expected insurance companies and others in the health care industry to resist many of Mr. Obama’s proposals.
“This is warfare for the health care of our country,” Mr. Chatman said. “The question is, Will money win, or will the people win? If we lose, we’ll be a second-class country.”
Philippine stock market tumbles
This is from google.
Obviously stock market downturns are virtually global these days.
Philippine stock index tumbles 3.3 percent
1 day ago
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — Philippine shares tumbled Monday as investors pocketed profits ahead of a long Christmas break.
The Philippine Stock Exchange index fell 62.59 points, 3.3 percent, at 1,840.
"Investors are a little bit trigger happy, even for small profits," said Jose Vistan Jr., head of research of AB Capital Securities Inc.
James Lago, PCCI Securities Inc. research head, said most investors stayed on the sidelines and opted to take profit because of the long holidays. Markets will be closed Dec. 25 through Jan. 2.
Top-traded Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. fell 3.11 percent at 2,020 pesos.
Bank of the Philippine Islands slid 5.13 percent at 37 pesos. Geothermal producer Energy Development Corp. plunged 7.27 percent at 2.04 pesos.
Decliners outnumbered gainers 61 to 21, with 36 issues unchanged
Obviously stock market downturns are virtually global these days.
Philippine stock index tumbles 3.3 percent
1 day ago
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — Philippine shares tumbled Monday as investors pocketed profits ahead of a long Christmas break.
The Philippine Stock Exchange index fell 62.59 points, 3.3 percent, at 1,840.
"Investors are a little bit trigger happy, even for small profits," said Jose Vistan Jr., head of research of AB Capital Securities Inc.
James Lago, PCCI Securities Inc. research head, said most investors stayed on the sidelines and opted to take profit because of the long holidays. Markets will be closed Dec. 25 through Jan. 2.
Top-traded Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. fell 3.11 percent at 2,020 pesos.
Bank of the Philippine Islands slid 5.13 percent at 37 pesos. Geothermal producer Energy Development Corp. plunged 7.27 percent at 2.04 pesos.
Decliners outnumbered gainers 61 to 21, with 36 issues unchanged
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Philippines: Process starts for sale of Petron stake to San Miguel
Seems like beer sales may be running out of gas so that San Miguel is getting in the gas business. The government is selling its stake in Petron. It is not right I guess for government to share in profits only the capitalist friends of governments. This is from the Tribune.
Process starts for sale of Petron stake to SMC
12/24/2008
The process for the likely sale of the controlling ownership in Petron to diversified conglomerate San Miguel Corp. has started with the Petron major stockholder
SEA Refinery Holdings B.V. selling 947 million shares equivalent to 10.1 percent of the total outstanding shares in Petron at P6.85 per share through the stock exchange.
State-owned Philippine National Oil Co. (PNOC) also sold yesterday its shareholdings in Petron consisting of 3.75 billion shares or roughly 40 percent of the total outstanding shares in Petron.
“SMC is in the final stages of its negotiations with (British group) Ashmore for an option to purchase up to 50.1 percent of the latter’s stake in Petron Corp.,” SMC said in a statement.
Ashmore unit SEA Refinery Corp. was the likely buyer of the 40 percent Petron stake through the bourse that would raise its ownership to 90.57 percent. The 40 percent Petron had has an estimated value of $541 million.
SMC last week signed a deal with Qatar Telecom to launch wireless broadband and mobile services in the Philippines. It also bought 27 percent of utility Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) for about $607 million in late October.
SMC is diversifying its core food and beverage businesses to shield it from cyclical drops in the sector and fuel stronger growth in the future.
SMC will dip into its huge war chest, which it accumulated from divestments from major overseas businesses and some local units in recent years, to fund its purchases.
SMC, which is involved in beer, beverages, dairy products and food processing, had earlier said it may bid for the government’s stake in the oil refiner.
The company has previously said it intends to venture into such areas as utilities, oil, power and mining.
The deal will give SMC a foothold in the oil industry and comes more than a month after it bought a 27 percent stake in utility firm Meralco for about P30 billion as part of a long-standing plan to exit the food and beverage business in favor of heavy industry.
“The deal will be good for Petron because it is now out of government hands,” an analyst said.
Process starts for sale of Petron stake to SMC
12/24/2008
The process for the likely sale of the controlling ownership in Petron to diversified conglomerate San Miguel Corp. has started with the Petron major stockholder
SEA Refinery Holdings B.V. selling 947 million shares equivalent to 10.1 percent of the total outstanding shares in Petron at P6.85 per share through the stock exchange.
State-owned Philippine National Oil Co. (PNOC) also sold yesterday its shareholdings in Petron consisting of 3.75 billion shares or roughly 40 percent of the total outstanding shares in Petron.
“SMC is in the final stages of its negotiations with (British group) Ashmore for an option to purchase up to 50.1 percent of the latter’s stake in Petron Corp.,” SMC said in a statement.
Ashmore unit SEA Refinery Corp. was the likely buyer of the 40 percent Petron stake through the bourse that would raise its ownership to 90.57 percent. The 40 percent Petron had has an estimated value of $541 million.
SMC last week signed a deal with Qatar Telecom to launch wireless broadband and mobile services in the Philippines. It also bought 27 percent of utility Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) for about $607 million in late October.
SMC is diversifying its core food and beverage businesses to shield it from cyclical drops in the sector and fuel stronger growth in the future.
SMC will dip into its huge war chest, which it accumulated from divestments from major overseas businesses and some local units in recent years, to fund its purchases.
SMC, which is involved in beer, beverages, dairy products and food processing, had earlier said it may bid for the government’s stake in the oil refiner.
The company has previously said it intends to venture into such areas as utilities, oil, power and mining.
The deal will give SMC a foothold in the oil industry and comes more than a month after it bought a 27 percent stake in utility firm Meralco for about P30 billion as part of a long-standing plan to exit the food and beverage business in favor of heavy industry.
“The deal will be good for Petron because it is now out of government hands,” an analyst said.
''Abusive" coalition raids stoking anger in Afghanistan: Report
This report confirms the complaints made by Karzai and others. Although most emphais has been upon the air raids as this report points out often there are night raids by ground that ransack homes and cause injuries with no accountability. No doubt special forces carry out such raids and often on the basis of unverified intelligence. These types of action are great for recruiting to the Taliban cause.
'Abusive' coalition raids stoking anger in Afghanistan: report
Last Updated: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:18 AM ET
CBC News
The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has issued a scathing report on the use of air strikes and nighttime raids by international forces in the country.
The report, which was released in Kabul on Tuesday, suggests that NATO is undermining its own mission by stoking resentment in the local population.
Air strikes and nighttime searches of civilian homes are the two main causes of resentment and anger among the local population, according to the 55-page report.
"Afghan families experienced their family members killed or injured, their houses or other property destroyed, or homes invaded at night without any perceived justification or legal authorization," the report says.
"They often did not know who perpetrated the acts against the family or why.… To their knowledge and perception, those who perpetrated the acts were never punished, nor prevented from repeating them."
The report characterizes incursions into homes as violent break-ins that reportedly include "abusive behaviour" and cultural insensitivity, particularly toward women.
The document acknowledges that it is difficult to verify the truthfulness of individual reports of home incursions but the number of reported instances suggests the night raids occur regularly.
'No accountability' for raids: report
The report suggests international forces often rely on unreliable sources or faulty intelligence when launching the incursions into homes, and there is little public accountability for the raids, which also appears to increase local anger.
There is a lack of co-ordination between coalition forces, foreign soldiers and local authorities, the report says.
"Ordinary people believe that there is no accountability or justice in respect of these violations, regardless of who [has] committed [them]. The overall picture is that … continuing support for Afghan government and international military has been eroded as … consequences of the not carefully planned night raids," the report says.
Canadian military officials at Kandahar Airfield and NATO officials in Kabul were not immediately available to comment.
Monthly tracking information from the United Nations' human rights unit shows air strikes have been responsible for 25 per cent of all civilian deaths in Afghanistan this year. Coalition forces caused the majority of those civilian casualties.
The report said that the lack of recognition of the victims, apology or compensation has also caused anger and resentment in the local community.
"Ignoring the damage to civilians and lack of transparent and public investigations have contributed to the picture that the international forces are not interested and concerned about their activities causing damage to ordinary people," the document states.
The commission, which is funded by the countries involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, made a deal with Canada last year to monitor the condition of all detainees seized by the Canadian military and handed over to Afghan officials.
To compile the report, investigators from the commission spent three weeks gathering 74 testimonies from witnesses, military personnel, local authorities and government officials. The commission also analyzed information from its regular reporting and incident monitoring, and scoured media reports and investigations by other human rights organizations.With files from the Associated Press
'Abusive' coalition raids stoking anger in Afghanistan: report
Last Updated: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:18 AM ET
CBC News
The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has issued a scathing report on the use of air strikes and nighttime raids by international forces in the country.
The report, which was released in Kabul on Tuesday, suggests that NATO is undermining its own mission by stoking resentment in the local population.
Air strikes and nighttime searches of civilian homes are the two main causes of resentment and anger among the local population, according to the 55-page report.
"Afghan families experienced their family members killed or injured, their houses or other property destroyed, or homes invaded at night without any perceived justification or legal authorization," the report says.
"They often did not know who perpetrated the acts against the family or why.… To their knowledge and perception, those who perpetrated the acts were never punished, nor prevented from repeating them."
The report characterizes incursions into homes as violent break-ins that reportedly include "abusive behaviour" and cultural insensitivity, particularly toward women.
The document acknowledges that it is difficult to verify the truthfulness of individual reports of home incursions but the number of reported instances suggests the night raids occur regularly.
'No accountability' for raids: report
The report suggests international forces often rely on unreliable sources or faulty intelligence when launching the incursions into homes, and there is little public accountability for the raids, which also appears to increase local anger.
There is a lack of co-ordination between coalition forces, foreign soldiers and local authorities, the report says.
"Ordinary people believe that there is no accountability or justice in respect of these violations, regardless of who [has] committed [them]. The overall picture is that … continuing support for Afghan government and international military has been eroded as … consequences of the not carefully planned night raids," the report says.
Canadian military officials at Kandahar Airfield and NATO officials in Kabul were not immediately available to comment.
Monthly tracking information from the United Nations' human rights unit shows air strikes have been responsible for 25 per cent of all civilian deaths in Afghanistan this year. Coalition forces caused the majority of those civilian casualties.
The report said that the lack of recognition of the victims, apology or compensation has also caused anger and resentment in the local community.
"Ignoring the damage to civilians and lack of transparent and public investigations have contributed to the picture that the international forces are not interested and concerned about their activities causing damage to ordinary people," the document states.
The commission, which is funded by the countries involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, made a deal with Canada last year to monitor the condition of all detainees seized by the Canadian military and handed over to Afghan officials.
To compile the report, investigators from the commission spent three weeks gathering 74 testimonies from witnesses, military personnel, local authorities and government officials. The commission also analyzed information from its regular reporting and incident monitoring, and scoured media reports and investigations by other human rights organizations.With files from the Associated Press
Petras: Madoff Strikes Powerful Blows for Social Justice.
As usal Petras mixes quite a bit of hyberbole into his meanderings but nevertheless there is some point to his points. However, not all Madoff's clients were rich but certainly most were. At least Madoff does not seem to have been part of a Jewish conspiracy unless one to defraud rich Jewish charities.
Bernard Madoff:
Wall Street Swindler Strikes Powerful Blows for Social JusticeBy James Petras
“We never thought he would do this to us, he was one of our people”, member of Palm Beach Country Club.
December 22, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" --- Wall Street broker Bernard (‘Bernie’) Madoff, former president of NASDAQ, revered and respected investor confessed to pulling off the biggest fraud in history, a $50 billion dollar scam. Bernie was known for his generous philanthropy, especially to Zionist, Jewish and Israeli causes. A one time life-guard on Long Island in the 1960’s, Bernie launched his financial career by raising money from colleagues, friends and relatives among wealthier Jews in the Long Island suburbs, Palm Beach, Florida and in Manhattan, promising a modest, steady and secure return of between 10 to 12%, covering any withdrawals in typical Ponzi fashion by drawing on funds from new investors who literally pleaded for Bernie to fleece them. Madoff personally managed at least $17 billion dollars. For almost four decades he built up a clientele, which came to include some of the biggest banks and investment houses in Scotland, Spain, England and France; as well as major hedge funds in the United States. Madoff drew almost all of the funds from high net-worth private clients who were recruited by brokers working on commission. Bernie’s clients included many multi-millionaires and billionaires from Switzerland, Israel and elsewhere, as well as the US’s largest hedge funds (RMF Division of the Man Group and the Tremont). Many of the swindled super-rich clients forced their money on Madoff, who sternly imposed rigorous conditions on potential clients: He insisted they have recommendations from existing investors, deposit a substantial amount and guarantee their own solvency. Most considered themselves lucky to have their funds taken by the highly respected Wall Street…swindler. Madoff’s standard message was that the fund was closed…but because they came from the same world (board members of Jewish charities, pro-Israel fund raising organizations or the ‘right’ country clubs) or were related to a friend, colleague or existing clients, he would take their money.
Madoff set up advisory councils with distinguished members, contributed heavily to museums, hospitals and upscale cultural organizations. He was a prominent member of exclusive country clubs in Palm Beach and Long Island. His reputation was enhanced by his funds record of never having a losing year – a big selling point in luring millionaire investors. Madoff shared with his super-rich clients (Jews and Gentiles) a common upper class life style, and mix of cultural philanthropy with low key financial profiteering. Madoff ‘played’ his colleagues with a soft-spoken, but authoritative, appearance of ‘expertise’, covered by a veneer of upper class collegiality, deep commitment to Zionism and long-term friendships.
Bernie’s mega-fund shared many signs with recent high level scams: The constant high returns, unmatched by any other broker; a lack of third party oversight; a backroom accounting firm physically incapable of auditing the multi-billion dollar operation; a broker-dealer operation directly under his thumb and the total obfuscation of what he was actually investing in. The obvious similarity of signs with other fraudsters were overlooked by the rich and famous, the sophisticated investors and high paid consultants, the Harvard MBA’s and the entire army of regulators from the Security and Exchange Commissions (SEC) because they were totally embedded in the corrupt culture of ‘take the money and run’ and ‘if you’re making it, don’t ask questions’. The reputation of the superior wisdom of a seemingly successful Jewish Wall Streeter fed into the self-delusions of the wealthy and the stereotypes held by millionaire Gentiles.
The Big Swindle
Madoff’s investment fund only dealt with a limited clientele of multi-millionaire and billionaires who kept their funds in for the long haul; the occasional withdrawal were limited in amount and were easily covered by soliciting new funds from new investors fighting to have access to Madoff’s money management. The long-term big investors looked toward passing their investments to their kin or eventual retirement. The wealthy lawyers, dentists, surgeons, distinguished Ivy league professors and others who might need to draw from their funds for an occasional fancy wedding or celebrity-studded bar-mitzvah, could draw from their funds because Madoff had no problem covering the withdrawal by attracting funds from rich owners of sweat shop garment factories, dangerous meat packing outfits and slumlords. Madoff was no Robin Hood, his philanthropic and charity contributions facilitated access to the rich and wealthy who served on the boards of the recipient institutions and proved that he was ‘one of them’ a kind of super-rich ‘intimate’ of the same elite class. The shock, awe and heart attacks that followed Madoff’s confession that he was ‘running a Ponzi scheme’ drew as much anger for the money lost and the fall from the moneyed class as for the embarrassment of knowing that the world’s biggest exploiters and smartest swindlers on Wall Street, were completely ‘taken’ by one of their own. Not only did they suffer big losses but their self-image of themselves as rich because they are so smart and of ‘superior stock’ was utterly shattered: They saw themselves as suffering the same fate as all the schmucks they had previously swindled, exploited and dispossessed in their climb to the top. There is nothing worse for the ego of a respectable swindler than to be trumped by a bigger swindler. As a result, a number of the biggest losers have so far refused to give their names or the amount they lost, working instead through lawyers fighting off other losers.
The Positive Side of Madoff’s Mega-Swindle (The Inadvertent Hand of Justice)
While it is understandable that the super-rich and wealthy, who have lost a large portion of their retirement and investment funds are unanimous in their condemnation and cries of betrayal of trust, and the editorials of all the prestigious newspapers and weeklies have joined the chorus of moral critics, there is much to praise in Madoff’s deeds, even if such praise was not at the heart of his fraudulent endeavor.
It is worthwhile to list the inadvertent positive outcomes of Madoff’s mega-swindle. First of all the swindle of $50 plus billion dollars may make a big dent on US Zionist funding of illegal Israeli colonial settlements in the Occupied Territories, lessen funding for AIPAC’s purchase of Congressional influence and financing of propaganda campaigns in favor of a pre-emptive US military attack against Iran. Most investors will have to lower or eliminate their purchase of Israel bonds, which subsidize the Jewish State’s military budget.
Secondly, the swindle has further discredited the highly speculative hedge funds already reeling from massive withdrawals because of deep losses. Madoff’s funds were one of the last ‘respected’ operations still drawing new investors, but with the latest revelations it may accelerate their demise. The dismissed promoters may finally have to perform an honest, productive day’s work.
Thirdly, Madoff’s long-term, large-scale fraud was not detected by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) despite its claims of at least two investigations. As a result, there is a total loss of credibility. More generally, the SEC’s failure demonstrates the incapacity of capitalist government regulatory agencies to detect mega frauds. This failure raises the question of whether alternatives to investing in Wall Street are better suited to protect savings and pension funds.
Fourthly, Madoff’s long-term association with NASDAQ, including his chairmanship, while he was defrauding his clients of billions, strongly suggests that the members and leaders of this stock exchange are incapable of recognizing a crook, and are prone to overlook felonious behavior of ‘one of their own’. In other words, the investing public can no longer look to holders of high posts in NASDAQ as a sign of probity. After Madoff it may signal time to look for a king-size mattress for safe keeping of what remains of a family’s wealth.
The fifth point is that the investment advisors from top banks in Europe, Asia and the US managing billions of funds did not carry out the most elementary due diligence of Madoff’s operation. Apart from severe bank losses, tens of thousands of influential, affluent and super-rich lost their entire accumulated wealth. The result is total loss of confidence in the leading banks and financial instruments as well as the general discrediting of ‘expert knowledge’. The result is a weakening of the financial stranglehold over investor behavior and the demise of an important sector of the parasitic ‘rentier’ class, which gains without producing any useful commodities or providing needed services.
The sixth point is that since most of the money stolen by Madoff came from the upper classes around the world, his behavior has reduced inequalities – he is the ‘greatest leveler’ since the introduction of the progressive income tax. By ruining billionaires and bankrupting millionaires, Madoff has lessened their capacity to use their wealth to influence politicians in their favor – thus increasing the potential political influence of the less affluent sectors of class society…and inadvertently strengthening democracy against the financial oligarchs.
A seventh point can be made that by swindling life-long friends, self-same ethno-religious investors, narrow ethnically defined country club members and close family members, Madoff demonstrates that finance capital shows no respect for any of the pieties of everyday life: Great and small, holy and profane, all are subordinated to the rule of capital.
Eighth, among the many ruined investors in New York and New England, there are a number of mega slumlords (real estate moguls), sweatshop owners (fancy name-brand clothes and toy manufacturers) and others who barely paid the minimum wage to their women and immigrant laborers, evicted poor tenants and swindled employees out of their pensions before moving their operations to China. In other words, Madoff’s swindle was a kind of secular ‘divine’ retribution for past and present crimes against labor and the poor. Needless to say, this ‘unconscious Robin Hood’ did not redistribute the money fleeced from the employers to their workers, he reinvested part of it in charities which enhanced his philanthropic image and to payout to some of his early investors so sustain the overall Ponzi scam.
Point number nine is that Madoff struck a severe blow against anti-Semites who claim that there is a ‘close-knit Jewish conspiracy to defraud the Gentiles’, laying that canard to rest once and for all. Among Bernard Madoff’s principle victims were his closest Jewish friends and colleagues, people who shared Seder meals and frequented the same upscale temples in Long Island and Palm Beach.
Bernie was discriminating in accepting clients, but it was on the basis of their wealth and not their national origin, race, religion or sexual preference. He was very ecumenical and a strong backer of globalization. There was nothing ethnocentric about Madoff: He defrauded the Anglo-Chinese bank HSBC of $1 billion dollars and several billions from the Dutch arm of the Belgian bank Fortes. $1.4 billion was from the Royal Bank of Scotland, the French bank BNP Paribas, the Spanish bank, Banco Santander, the Japanese Nomura; not to mention hedge funds in London and the US, which have admitted holdings in Bernard Madoff Investment Securities. Indeed Bernie was emblematic of the modern up-to-date, politically correct, multicultural, international…swindler. The ease with which the super rich of Europe forked their fortunes over caused one Madrid-based business consultant to observe that, “picking off Spain’s wealthiest was like clubbing seals…” (Financial Times, December 18, 2008 p.16)
The tenth point is that Madoff’s swindle will likely promote greater self-criticism and a more distrustful attitude toward other potential confidence people posing as reliable financial know-it-alls. Among self-critical Jews, they are less likely to confide in brokers simply because they are zealous backers of Israel and generous contributors to Zionist fund drives. That is no longer an adequate guarantee of ethical behavior and a certificate of good conduct. In fact it may raise suspicion of brokers who are excessively ardent boosters of Israel and promise consistent high returns to local Zionist affiliates – asking themselves whether this business about ‘what is good for the …’ is really a cover for another scam.
The final and 11th point is the demise of Madoff’s enterprise and his wealthy liberal Jewish victims will adversely affect contributions to the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations, numerous foundations in Boston, Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere, as well as the Clinton/Schumer militarist wing of the Democratic Party (Madoff bankrolled both of them as well as other unconditional Congressional supporters of Israel). This may open Congress to greater debate on Middle East policy without the usual high volume attacks.
Conclusion
Madoff’s swindle and fraudulent behavior is not the result of a personal moral failure. It is the product of a systemic imperative and the economic culture, which informs the highest circles of our class structure. The paper economy, hedge funds and all the ‘sophisticated financial instruments’ are all ‘Ponzi schemes’ – they are not based on producing and selling goods and services. They are financial bets on future financial paper growth based on securing future buyers to pay off earlier cash ins.
The ‘failure’ of the SEC is totally predictable and systemic: The regulators are selected from the regulatees, are beholden to them and defer to their judgments, claims and audit sheets. They are structured to ‘miss the signs’ and to avoid ‘over-regulating’ their financial superiors. Madoff operated in a milieu of a Wall Street where everything goes, where impunity for mega-bailouts for mega swindlers is the norm. As an individual swindler, he out-defrauded some of his bigger institutional competitors on the Street. The whole system of rewards and prestige goes to those best able to juggle the books, to cover the paper trails and who have willing victims begging to get fleeced. What a mensch, this Madoff!
In a few days, one individual, Bernard Madoff, has struck a bigger blow against global financial capital, Wall Street and the US Zionist Lobby/Israel-First Agenda than the entire US and European left combined over the past half century! He has been more successful in reducing vast wealth disparities in New York than all the white, black, Christian and Jewish, reform and mainline Democratic and Republican governors and Mayors over the past two centuries.
Some right-wing conspiracy theorists are claiming that Bernie is a secret Islamic-Palestinian agent (from Hamas) who set out to deliberately undermine the financial base of the Jewish State of Israel and its most powerful, affluent and generous US backers and foundations. Others claim that he is a closet Marxist whose swindles were carefully designed to discredit Wall Street and to funnel billions into clandestine radical organizations – after all… does anyone know where the lost billions have gone? Unlike the leftist pundits, bloggers and protest marchers, whose earnest and public activities have had no effect on the rich and powerful, Madoff has aimed his blows where it hurts the most: Their mega-bank accounts, their confidence in the capitalist system, their self-esteem and, yes, even their cardiac well-being.
Does that mean we on the left should form a Bernie Madoff Defense Committee and call for a bailout in line with Paulson’s bailout of his Citibank cronies? Should we proclaim “Equal bailout for equal swindlers!”? Should we advocate his flight (or his right of return) to Israel to avoid a trial? It might not fly with his many Jewish victims to make the case for an Israeli retirement for Bernie.
There is no reason to mount the barricades for Bernard Madoff. It’s enough to recognize that he has inadvertently rendered an historic service to popular justice by undermining some of the financial props of a class-ridden injustice system.
Postscript
Was it out of sheer admiration or because of some covert linkages with Madoff that our current Attorney General Michael Mukasey is removing himself from the investigation? Others of equal importance and influence are most certainly tied in the Madoff Affair, and not just the ‘victims’. We are facing a serious case of matters of State … No one can believe that a single person could by himself pull off a scam of this size and duration. Nor can any serious investigator believe that $50 billion dollars has simply ‘disappeared’ or been squirreled into personal accounts.
Bernard Madoff:
Wall Street Swindler Strikes Powerful Blows for Social JusticeBy James Petras
“We never thought he would do this to us, he was one of our people”, member of Palm Beach Country Club.
December 22, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" --- Wall Street broker Bernard (‘Bernie’) Madoff, former president of NASDAQ, revered and respected investor confessed to pulling off the biggest fraud in history, a $50 billion dollar scam. Bernie was known for his generous philanthropy, especially to Zionist, Jewish and Israeli causes. A one time life-guard on Long Island in the 1960’s, Bernie launched his financial career by raising money from colleagues, friends and relatives among wealthier Jews in the Long Island suburbs, Palm Beach, Florida and in Manhattan, promising a modest, steady and secure return of between 10 to 12%, covering any withdrawals in typical Ponzi fashion by drawing on funds from new investors who literally pleaded for Bernie to fleece them. Madoff personally managed at least $17 billion dollars. For almost four decades he built up a clientele, which came to include some of the biggest banks and investment houses in Scotland, Spain, England and France; as well as major hedge funds in the United States. Madoff drew almost all of the funds from high net-worth private clients who were recruited by brokers working on commission. Bernie’s clients included many multi-millionaires and billionaires from Switzerland, Israel and elsewhere, as well as the US’s largest hedge funds (RMF Division of the Man Group and the Tremont). Many of the swindled super-rich clients forced their money on Madoff, who sternly imposed rigorous conditions on potential clients: He insisted they have recommendations from existing investors, deposit a substantial amount and guarantee their own solvency. Most considered themselves lucky to have their funds taken by the highly respected Wall Street…swindler. Madoff’s standard message was that the fund was closed…but because they came from the same world (board members of Jewish charities, pro-Israel fund raising organizations or the ‘right’ country clubs) or were related to a friend, colleague or existing clients, he would take their money.
Madoff set up advisory councils with distinguished members, contributed heavily to museums, hospitals and upscale cultural organizations. He was a prominent member of exclusive country clubs in Palm Beach and Long Island. His reputation was enhanced by his funds record of never having a losing year – a big selling point in luring millionaire investors. Madoff shared with his super-rich clients (Jews and Gentiles) a common upper class life style, and mix of cultural philanthropy with low key financial profiteering. Madoff ‘played’ his colleagues with a soft-spoken, but authoritative, appearance of ‘expertise’, covered by a veneer of upper class collegiality, deep commitment to Zionism and long-term friendships.
Bernie’s mega-fund shared many signs with recent high level scams: The constant high returns, unmatched by any other broker; a lack of third party oversight; a backroom accounting firm physically incapable of auditing the multi-billion dollar operation; a broker-dealer operation directly under his thumb and the total obfuscation of what he was actually investing in. The obvious similarity of signs with other fraudsters were overlooked by the rich and famous, the sophisticated investors and high paid consultants, the Harvard MBA’s and the entire army of regulators from the Security and Exchange Commissions (SEC) because they were totally embedded in the corrupt culture of ‘take the money and run’ and ‘if you’re making it, don’t ask questions’. The reputation of the superior wisdom of a seemingly successful Jewish Wall Streeter fed into the self-delusions of the wealthy and the stereotypes held by millionaire Gentiles.
The Big Swindle
Madoff’s investment fund only dealt with a limited clientele of multi-millionaire and billionaires who kept their funds in for the long haul; the occasional withdrawal were limited in amount and were easily covered by soliciting new funds from new investors fighting to have access to Madoff’s money management. The long-term big investors looked toward passing their investments to their kin or eventual retirement. The wealthy lawyers, dentists, surgeons, distinguished Ivy league professors and others who might need to draw from their funds for an occasional fancy wedding or celebrity-studded bar-mitzvah, could draw from their funds because Madoff had no problem covering the withdrawal by attracting funds from rich owners of sweat shop garment factories, dangerous meat packing outfits and slumlords. Madoff was no Robin Hood, his philanthropic and charity contributions facilitated access to the rich and wealthy who served on the boards of the recipient institutions and proved that he was ‘one of them’ a kind of super-rich ‘intimate’ of the same elite class. The shock, awe and heart attacks that followed Madoff’s confession that he was ‘running a Ponzi scheme’ drew as much anger for the money lost and the fall from the moneyed class as for the embarrassment of knowing that the world’s biggest exploiters and smartest swindlers on Wall Street, were completely ‘taken’ by one of their own. Not only did they suffer big losses but their self-image of themselves as rich because they are so smart and of ‘superior stock’ was utterly shattered: They saw themselves as suffering the same fate as all the schmucks they had previously swindled, exploited and dispossessed in their climb to the top. There is nothing worse for the ego of a respectable swindler than to be trumped by a bigger swindler. As a result, a number of the biggest losers have so far refused to give their names or the amount they lost, working instead through lawyers fighting off other losers.
The Positive Side of Madoff’s Mega-Swindle (The Inadvertent Hand of Justice)
While it is understandable that the super-rich and wealthy, who have lost a large portion of their retirement and investment funds are unanimous in their condemnation and cries of betrayal of trust, and the editorials of all the prestigious newspapers and weeklies have joined the chorus of moral critics, there is much to praise in Madoff’s deeds, even if such praise was not at the heart of his fraudulent endeavor.
It is worthwhile to list the inadvertent positive outcomes of Madoff’s mega-swindle. First of all the swindle of $50 plus billion dollars may make a big dent on US Zionist funding of illegal Israeli colonial settlements in the Occupied Territories, lessen funding for AIPAC’s purchase of Congressional influence and financing of propaganda campaigns in favor of a pre-emptive US military attack against Iran. Most investors will have to lower or eliminate their purchase of Israel bonds, which subsidize the Jewish State’s military budget.
Secondly, the swindle has further discredited the highly speculative hedge funds already reeling from massive withdrawals because of deep losses. Madoff’s funds were one of the last ‘respected’ operations still drawing new investors, but with the latest revelations it may accelerate their demise. The dismissed promoters may finally have to perform an honest, productive day’s work.
Thirdly, Madoff’s long-term, large-scale fraud was not detected by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) despite its claims of at least two investigations. As a result, there is a total loss of credibility. More generally, the SEC’s failure demonstrates the incapacity of capitalist government regulatory agencies to detect mega frauds. This failure raises the question of whether alternatives to investing in Wall Street are better suited to protect savings and pension funds.
Fourthly, Madoff’s long-term association with NASDAQ, including his chairmanship, while he was defrauding his clients of billions, strongly suggests that the members and leaders of this stock exchange are incapable of recognizing a crook, and are prone to overlook felonious behavior of ‘one of their own’. In other words, the investing public can no longer look to holders of high posts in NASDAQ as a sign of probity. After Madoff it may signal time to look for a king-size mattress for safe keeping of what remains of a family’s wealth.
The fifth point is that the investment advisors from top banks in Europe, Asia and the US managing billions of funds did not carry out the most elementary due diligence of Madoff’s operation. Apart from severe bank losses, tens of thousands of influential, affluent and super-rich lost their entire accumulated wealth. The result is total loss of confidence in the leading banks and financial instruments as well as the general discrediting of ‘expert knowledge’. The result is a weakening of the financial stranglehold over investor behavior and the demise of an important sector of the parasitic ‘rentier’ class, which gains without producing any useful commodities or providing needed services.
The sixth point is that since most of the money stolen by Madoff came from the upper classes around the world, his behavior has reduced inequalities – he is the ‘greatest leveler’ since the introduction of the progressive income tax. By ruining billionaires and bankrupting millionaires, Madoff has lessened their capacity to use their wealth to influence politicians in their favor – thus increasing the potential political influence of the less affluent sectors of class society…and inadvertently strengthening democracy against the financial oligarchs.
A seventh point can be made that by swindling life-long friends, self-same ethno-religious investors, narrow ethnically defined country club members and close family members, Madoff demonstrates that finance capital shows no respect for any of the pieties of everyday life: Great and small, holy and profane, all are subordinated to the rule of capital.
Eighth, among the many ruined investors in New York and New England, there are a number of mega slumlords (real estate moguls), sweatshop owners (fancy name-brand clothes and toy manufacturers) and others who barely paid the minimum wage to their women and immigrant laborers, evicted poor tenants and swindled employees out of their pensions before moving their operations to China. In other words, Madoff’s swindle was a kind of secular ‘divine’ retribution for past and present crimes against labor and the poor. Needless to say, this ‘unconscious Robin Hood’ did not redistribute the money fleeced from the employers to their workers, he reinvested part of it in charities which enhanced his philanthropic image and to payout to some of his early investors so sustain the overall Ponzi scam.
Point number nine is that Madoff struck a severe blow against anti-Semites who claim that there is a ‘close-knit Jewish conspiracy to defraud the Gentiles’, laying that canard to rest once and for all. Among Bernard Madoff’s principle victims were his closest Jewish friends and colleagues, people who shared Seder meals and frequented the same upscale temples in Long Island and Palm Beach.
Bernie was discriminating in accepting clients, but it was on the basis of their wealth and not their national origin, race, religion or sexual preference. He was very ecumenical and a strong backer of globalization. There was nothing ethnocentric about Madoff: He defrauded the Anglo-Chinese bank HSBC of $1 billion dollars and several billions from the Dutch arm of the Belgian bank Fortes. $1.4 billion was from the Royal Bank of Scotland, the French bank BNP Paribas, the Spanish bank, Banco Santander, the Japanese Nomura; not to mention hedge funds in London and the US, which have admitted holdings in Bernard Madoff Investment Securities. Indeed Bernie was emblematic of the modern up-to-date, politically correct, multicultural, international…swindler. The ease with which the super rich of Europe forked their fortunes over caused one Madrid-based business consultant to observe that, “picking off Spain’s wealthiest was like clubbing seals…” (Financial Times, December 18, 2008 p.16)
The tenth point is that Madoff’s swindle will likely promote greater self-criticism and a more distrustful attitude toward other potential confidence people posing as reliable financial know-it-alls. Among self-critical Jews, they are less likely to confide in brokers simply because they are zealous backers of Israel and generous contributors to Zionist fund drives. That is no longer an adequate guarantee of ethical behavior and a certificate of good conduct. In fact it may raise suspicion of brokers who are excessively ardent boosters of Israel and promise consistent high returns to local Zionist affiliates – asking themselves whether this business about ‘what is good for the …’ is really a cover for another scam.
The final and 11th point is the demise of Madoff’s enterprise and his wealthy liberal Jewish victims will adversely affect contributions to the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations, numerous foundations in Boston, Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere, as well as the Clinton/Schumer militarist wing of the Democratic Party (Madoff bankrolled both of them as well as other unconditional Congressional supporters of Israel). This may open Congress to greater debate on Middle East policy without the usual high volume attacks.
Conclusion
Madoff’s swindle and fraudulent behavior is not the result of a personal moral failure. It is the product of a systemic imperative and the economic culture, which informs the highest circles of our class structure. The paper economy, hedge funds and all the ‘sophisticated financial instruments’ are all ‘Ponzi schemes’ – they are not based on producing and selling goods and services. They are financial bets on future financial paper growth based on securing future buyers to pay off earlier cash ins.
The ‘failure’ of the SEC is totally predictable and systemic: The regulators are selected from the regulatees, are beholden to them and defer to their judgments, claims and audit sheets. They are structured to ‘miss the signs’ and to avoid ‘over-regulating’ their financial superiors. Madoff operated in a milieu of a Wall Street where everything goes, where impunity for mega-bailouts for mega swindlers is the norm. As an individual swindler, he out-defrauded some of his bigger institutional competitors on the Street. The whole system of rewards and prestige goes to those best able to juggle the books, to cover the paper trails and who have willing victims begging to get fleeced. What a mensch, this Madoff!
In a few days, one individual, Bernard Madoff, has struck a bigger blow against global financial capital, Wall Street and the US Zionist Lobby/Israel-First Agenda than the entire US and European left combined over the past half century! He has been more successful in reducing vast wealth disparities in New York than all the white, black, Christian and Jewish, reform and mainline Democratic and Republican governors and Mayors over the past two centuries.
Some right-wing conspiracy theorists are claiming that Bernie is a secret Islamic-Palestinian agent (from Hamas) who set out to deliberately undermine the financial base of the Jewish State of Israel and its most powerful, affluent and generous US backers and foundations. Others claim that he is a closet Marxist whose swindles were carefully designed to discredit Wall Street and to funnel billions into clandestine radical organizations – after all… does anyone know where the lost billions have gone? Unlike the leftist pundits, bloggers and protest marchers, whose earnest and public activities have had no effect on the rich and powerful, Madoff has aimed his blows where it hurts the most: Their mega-bank accounts, their confidence in the capitalist system, their self-esteem and, yes, even their cardiac well-being.
Does that mean we on the left should form a Bernie Madoff Defense Committee and call for a bailout in line with Paulson’s bailout of his Citibank cronies? Should we proclaim “Equal bailout for equal swindlers!”? Should we advocate his flight (or his right of return) to Israel to avoid a trial? It might not fly with his many Jewish victims to make the case for an Israeli retirement for Bernie.
There is no reason to mount the barricades for Bernard Madoff. It’s enough to recognize that he has inadvertently rendered an historic service to popular justice by undermining some of the financial props of a class-ridden injustice system.
Postscript
Was it out of sheer admiration or because of some covert linkages with Madoff that our current Attorney General Michael Mukasey is removing himself from the investigation? Others of equal importance and influence are most certainly tied in the Madoff Affair, and not just the ‘victims’. We are facing a serious case of matters of State … No one can believe that a single person could by himself pull off a scam of this size and duration. Nor can any serious investigator believe that $50 billion dollars has simply ‘disappeared’ or been squirreled into personal accounts.
Israel launches global PR campaign ahead of Gaza Invasion
This is from antiwar.com. It seems that Israel is bound and determined to try and defeat Hamas but an invasion may backfire ultimately. In spite of all the suffering the Palestinians have suffered they still are unwilling to elect the sort of co-operative and weak leaders the Israelis would like to deal with although Abbas and company come much closer to the ideal than Hamas!
Israel Launches Global PR Campaign Ahead of Gaza Invasion
Israeli Envoys Instructed to Shore Up International Support for Attack
Posted December 21, 2008
Tonight it is being reported that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has instructed diplomats across the globe to launch what is being described as a “PR blitz” to shore up international support for an Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. To that end Livni, the Kadima Party’s pick for Prime Minister in the upcoming election, will reportedly make phone calls to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and the foreign ministers of several major nations.
A six-month ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas-run Gaza Strip formally ended on Thursday, though in reality the two sides had been exchanging intermittent fire (and diplomatic accusations) since an early November Israeli raid on a house in central Gaza. Both sides have traded air strikes over the weekend, causing damage but no apparent deaths.
And while Israeli diplomats will be struggling to shore up international support for a prospective invasion, reports suggest that the decision has already been made. Citing a secret meeting on Thursday between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Israel’s Ynet says the policy on Gaza is set, and actions will “depend only on the tactical conditions and the operational possibilities.” It also claims that it was at this meeting that the two agreed on the need to create an “international umbrella” of support for the attacks.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
Israel Launches Global PR Campaign Ahead of Gaza Invasion
Israeli Envoys Instructed to Shore Up International Support for Attack
Posted December 21, 2008
Tonight it is being reported that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has instructed diplomats across the globe to launch what is being described as a “PR blitz” to shore up international support for an Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. To that end Livni, the Kadima Party’s pick for Prime Minister in the upcoming election, will reportedly make phone calls to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and the foreign ministers of several major nations.
A six-month ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas-run Gaza Strip formally ended on Thursday, though in reality the two sides had been exchanging intermittent fire (and diplomatic accusations) since an early November Israeli raid on a house in central Gaza. Both sides have traded air strikes over the weekend, causing damage but no apparent deaths.
And while Israeli diplomats will be struggling to shore up international support for a prospective invasion, reports suggest that the decision has already been made. Citing a secret meeting on Thursday between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Israel’s Ynet says the policy on Gaza is set, and actions will “depend only on the tactical conditions and the operational possibilities.” It also claims that it was at this meeting that the two agreed on the need to create an “international umbrella” of support for the attacks.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
Rice: Obama to follow Bush foreign policy
Rice is probably bang on but it is certainly ironic that the Great Agent of Change is carrying on with an imperialist foreign policy that is seamlessly connected with that of Bush even to having the same Defence Minister in charge. Rice could have pointed out that there is also continuity in that Obama is going to move forward with more emphasis upon Afghanistan and also with continuing to press Pakistan for stronger action. I expect that drones will continue their overflights in Pakistan under Obama. In fact Obama could be even more warlike in his approach to Pakistan than Bush and push for more direct interventions from Afghanistan. The new beginning in Afghanistan will be Obama's own surge even though Bush seems to be already starting it.
Rice: Obama to follow Bush foreign policy
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: December 21 2008 23:19 Last updated: December 21 2008 23:19
Barack Obama might have little option but to follow George W. Bush’s approach on a range of foreign policy issues, including Iran, said Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state.
Ms Rice told the Financial Times the new administration was likely to follow Mr Bush’s lead in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme. During the president’s second term, the US has co-ordinated its approach with the European Union, Russia and China.
“When I talk to our allies they believe that that is the structure with which this is ultimately going to be resolved,” Ms Rice said, while acknowledging that the Obama administration would generally “do things in their own way”.
She said: “The reason why there might be some elements of continuity is that what we’ve tried to do is to arrange or organise international groupings that can first manage and then resolve these very difficult problems in a multilateral way.” She was referring not just to the administration’s efforts over Iran but also its approach to North Korea and the Israel-Palestinian issue.
Ms Rice’s words could damp expectations that the incoming administration will represent a complete break with its predecessor on foreign policy.
They also highlight the obstacles facing the new team as it seeks breakthroughs for problems the Bush administration has failed to resolve. In an echo of the current administration’s rhetoric, Mr Obama promises to use carrots and sticks to push Iran to rein in its nuclear programme.
But in spite of a sustained sanctions drive by the US and its allies and an offer of talks, Iran has stepped up uranium enrichment and is widely reckoned to be moving closer to nuclear weapons capability.
While Mr Obama has promised a radically different approach to the outgoing administration on issues such as climate change, and Guantanamo Bay, many of his cabinet picks are centrists who have won praise from Republicans.
Although Ms Rice has described herself as “especially proud” of Mr Obama’s election as the first African American president, she consistently declines to say for whom she voted.
Ms Rice expressed concern over the expected appointment of a series of special envoys for world hotspots, saying it was important not to cut ambassadors and diplomats out of the loop.
Rice: Obama to follow Bush foreign policy
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: December 21 2008 23:19 Last updated: December 21 2008 23:19
Barack Obama might have little option but to follow George W. Bush’s approach on a range of foreign policy issues, including Iran, said Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state.
Ms Rice told the Financial Times the new administration was likely to follow Mr Bush’s lead in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme. During the president’s second term, the US has co-ordinated its approach with the European Union, Russia and China.
“When I talk to our allies they believe that that is the structure with which this is ultimately going to be resolved,” Ms Rice said, while acknowledging that the Obama administration would generally “do things in their own way”.
She said: “The reason why there might be some elements of continuity is that what we’ve tried to do is to arrange or organise international groupings that can first manage and then resolve these very difficult problems in a multilateral way.” She was referring not just to the administration’s efforts over Iran but also its approach to North Korea and the Israel-Palestinian issue.
Ms Rice’s words could damp expectations that the incoming administration will represent a complete break with its predecessor on foreign policy.
They also highlight the obstacles facing the new team as it seeks breakthroughs for problems the Bush administration has failed to resolve. In an echo of the current administration’s rhetoric, Mr Obama promises to use carrots and sticks to push Iran to rein in its nuclear programme.
But in spite of a sustained sanctions drive by the US and its allies and an offer of talks, Iran has stepped up uranium enrichment and is widely reckoned to be moving closer to nuclear weapons capability.
While Mr Obama has promised a radically different approach to the outgoing administration on issues such as climate change, and Guantanamo Bay, many of his cabinet picks are centrists who have won praise from Republicans.
Although Ms Rice has described herself as “especially proud” of Mr Obama’s election as the first African American president, she consistently declines to say for whom she voted.
Ms Rice expressed concern over the expected appointment of a series of special envoys for world hotspots, saying it was important not to cut ambassadors and diplomats out of the loop.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Fisk: Security council resolution 242
An interesting article showing how Israel managed to lobby for loose wording in a resolution and ever since has used that wording to justify not withdrawing from territories taken in war. Of course Israel has also simply ignored many UN resolutions whenever it sees fit.
Robert Fisk’s World: One missing word sowed the seeds of catastrophe
No one in 1967 thought the Arab-Israeli conflict would still be in progress 41 years later
Saturday, 20 December 2008
A nit-picker this week. And given the fact that we're all remembering human rights, the Palestinians come to mind since they have precious few of them, and the Israelis because they have the luxury of a lot of them.
And Lord Blair, since he'll be communing with God next week, might also reflect that he still – to his shame – hasn't visited Gaza. But the nit-picking has got to be our old friend United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. This, you'll recall, was supposed to be the resolution that would guide all future peace efforts in the Middle East; Oslo was supposed to have been founded on it and all sorts of other processes and summits and road maps.
It was passed in November 1967, after Israel had occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai and Golan, and it emphasises "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and calls for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
Readers who know the problem here will be joined by those who will immediately pick it up. The Israelis say that they are not required to withdraw from all the territories – because the word "all" is missing and since the definite article "the" is missing before the word "territories", its up to Israel to decide which bits of the occupied territories it gives up and which bits it keeps.
Hence Israel can say it gave up Sinai in accordance with 242 but is going to keep East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank for its settlers. Golan depends on negotiations with Syria. And Gaza? Well, 242 doesn't say anything about imprisoning one and a half million civilians because they voted for the wrong people. No one in 1967 dreamed that the Israeli-Arab conflict would still be in ferocious progress 41 years later. And as an Independent reader pointed out a couple of years ago, the Security Council clearly never intended the absence of a definite article to give Israel an excuse to stay in the West Bank. Alas, our reader was wrong.
I've been going back through my files on 242 and discovered a most elucidating paper by John McHugo, who was a visiting fellow at the Scottish Centre for International Law at Edinburgh University. He points out that pro-Israeli lawyers have been saying for some years that "Resolution 242 unanimously called for withdrawal from 'territories' rather than withdrawal from 'all the territories'. Its choice of words was deliberate... they signify that withdrawal if required from some but not all the territories".
McHugo is, so far as I know, the only man to re-examine the actual UN debates on 242 and they make very unhappy reading. The French and Spanish versions of the text actually use the definite article. But the Brits – apparently following a bit of strong-arm tactics from the Americans – did not use "the". Lord Caradon, our man at the UN, insisted on putting in the phrase about the "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war" in order to stop the Israelis claiming that they could cherry-pick which lands to return and which to hand on to. Britain accepted Jordan's rule over the West Back – the PLO were still shunned as super-terrorists at the time – but it did no good. Abba Eban, Israel's man on the East River, did his best to persuade Caradon to delete both "the" and the bit about the inadmissability of territory through war. He won the first battle, but not the second.
That great American statesman George Ball was to recount how, when the Arabs negotiated over 242 in early November of 1967 – at the Waldorf Astoria (these guys knew how to pick the swankiest hotels for political betrayal) – the US ambassador to the UN, Arthur Goldberg, told King Hussein that America "could not guarantee that everything would be returned by Israel". The Arabs distrusted Goldberg because he was known to be pro-Zionist, but Hussein was much comforted when US Secretary of State Dean Rusk assured him in Washington that the US "did not approve of Israeli retention of the West Bank". Hussein was further encouraged when he met President Johnson who told him that Israeli withdrawal might take place in "six months". Goldberg further boosted his confidence. "Don't worry. They're on board," he said of the Israelis. Ho ho.
It's intriguing to note that several other nations at the UN were troubled by the absence of "the". The Indian delegate, for example, pointed out that the resolution referred to "all the territories – I repeat all the territories – occupied by Israel..." while the Soviet Union (which knew all about occupying other people's countries) stated that "we understand the decision to mean the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab states and seized by Israel...". President Johnson rebuffed the Soviets and bluntly refused to put the word "all" in the resolution. Bulgaria, not surprisingly, said much the same as the Soviets. Brazil expressed reservations – rightly so – about "the clarity of the wording". The Argentinians "would have preferred a clearer text". In other words, the future tragedy was spotted at the time. But we did nothing. The Americans had stitched it up and the Brits went along with it. The Arabs were not happy but foolishly – and typically – relied on Caradon's assurances that "all" the territories was what 242 meant, even if it didn't say so. Israel still fought hard to get rid of the "inadmissability" bit, even when it had got "the" out.
Ye gods! Talk about sewing the seeds of future catastrophe. Well, Colin Powell, when he was George W Bush's secretary of state, gutlessly told US diplomats to call the West Bank "disputed" rather than "occupied" – which suited the Israelis just fine although, as McHugo pointed out, the Israelis might like to consider what would happen if the Arabs talked about those bits of Israel which were not included in the original UN partition plan as "disputed" as well. Besides, George W's infamous letter to Ariel Sharon, saying he could, in effect, keep large bits of the West Bank, set the seal on Johnson's deception.
McHugo mischievously adds that a mandatory warning in a city that says "dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park" clearly means that "all" dogs and "all" ponds are intended. These days, of course, we use walls to keep dogs out. Palestinians, too.
Robert Fisk’s World: One missing word sowed the seeds of catastrophe
No one in 1967 thought the Arab-Israeli conflict would still be in progress 41 years later
Saturday, 20 December 2008
A nit-picker this week. And given the fact that we're all remembering human rights, the Palestinians come to mind since they have precious few of them, and the Israelis because they have the luxury of a lot of them.
And Lord Blair, since he'll be communing with God next week, might also reflect that he still – to his shame – hasn't visited Gaza. But the nit-picking has got to be our old friend United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. This, you'll recall, was supposed to be the resolution that would guide all future peace efforts in the Middle East; Oslo was supposed to have been founded on it and all sorts of other processes and summits and road maps.
It was passed in November 1967, after Israel had occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai and Golan, and it emphasises "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and calls for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
Readers who know the problem here will be joined by those who will immediately pick it up. The Israelis say that they are not required to withdraw from all the territories – because the word "all" is missing and since the definite article "the" is missing before the word "territories", its up to Israel to decide which bits of the occupied territories it gives up and which bits it keeps.
Hence Israel can say it gave up Sinai in accordance with 242 but is going to keep East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank for its settlers. Golan depends on negotiations with Syria. And Gaza? Well, 242 doesn't say anything about imprisoning one and a half million civilians because they voted for the wrong people. No one in 1967 dreamed that the Israeli-Arab conflict would still be in ferocious progress 41 years later. And as an Independent reader pointed out a couple of years ago, the Security Council clearly never intended the absence of a definite article to give Israel an excuse to stay in the West Bank. Alas, our reader was wrong.
I've been going back through my files on 242 and discovered a most elucidating paper by John McHugo, who was a visiting fellow at the Scottish Centre for International Law at Edinburgh University. He points out that pro-Israeli lawyers have been saying for some years that "Resolution 242 unanimously called for withdrawal from 'territories' rather than withdrawal from 'all the territories'. Its choice of words was deliberate... they signify that withdrawal if required from some but not all the territories".
McHugo is, so far as I know, the only man to re-examine the actual UN debates on 242 and they make very unhappy reading. The French and Spanish versions of the text actually use the definite article. But the Brits – apparently following a bit of strong-arm tactics from the Americans – did not use "the". Lord Caradon, our man at the UN, insisted on putting in the phrase about the "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war" in order to stop the Israelis claiming that they could cherry-pick which lands to return and which to hand on to. Britain accepted Jordan's rule over the West Back – the PLO were still shunned as super-terrorists at the time – but it did no good. Abba Eban, Israel's man on the East River, did his best to persuade Caradon to delete both "the" and the bit about the inadmissability of territory through war. He won the first battle, but not the second.
That great American statesman George Ball was to recount how, when the Arabs negotiated over 242 in early November of 1967 – at the Waldorf Astoria (these guys knew how to pick the swankiest hotels for political betrayal) – the US ambassador to the UN, Arthur Goldberg, told King Hussein that America "could not guarantee that everything would be returned by Israel". The Arabs distrusted Goldberg because he was known to be pro-Zionist, but Hussein was much comforted when US Secretary of State Dean Rusk assured him in Washington that the US "did not approve of Israeli retention of the West Bank". Hussein was further encouraged when he met President Johnson who told him that Israeli withdrawal might take place in "six months". Goldberg further boosted his confidence. "Don't worry. They're on board," he said of the Israelis. Ho ho.
It's intriguing to note that several other nations at the UN were troubled by the absence of "the". The Indian delegate, for example, pointed out that the resolution referred to "all the territories – I repeat all the territories – occupied by Israel..." while the Soviet Union (which knew all about occupying other people's countries) stated that "we understand the decision to mean the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab states and seized by Israel...". President Johnson rebuffed the Soviets and bluntly refused to put the word "all" in the resolution. Bulgaria, not surprisingly, said much the same as the Soviets. Brazil expressed reservations – rightly so – about "the clarity of the wording". The Argentinians "would have preferred a clearer text". In other words, the future tragedy was spotted at the time. But we did nothing. The Americans had stitched it up and the Brits went along with it. The Arabs were not happy but foolishly – and typically – relied on Caradon's assurances that "all" the territories was what 242 meant, even if it didn't say so. Israel still fought hard to get rid of the "inadmissability" bit, even when it had got "the" out.
Ye gods! Talk about sewing the seeds of future catastrophe. Well, Colin Powell, when he was George W Bush's secretary of state, gutlessly told US diplomats to call the West Bank "disputed" rather than "occupied" – which suited the Israelis just fine although, as McHugo pointed out, the Israelis might like to consider what would happen if the Arabs talked about those bits of Israel which were not included in the original UN partition plan as "disputed" as well. Besides, George W's infamous letter to Ariel Sharon, saying he could, in effect, keep large bits of the West Bank, set the seal on Johnson's deception.
McHugo mischievously adds that a mandatory warning in a city that says "dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park" clearly means that "all" dogs and "all" ponds are intended. These days, of course, we use walls to keep dogs out. Palestinians, too.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Karzai: US forces alienated Afghans.
This is from presstv.
Karzai has been complaining of US air attacks and other attacks for ages but it seems to have no effect on US policy. Karzai really has little or no control on what the US does and often will not even be informed of what is happening in case govt. sources might inform the Taliban or other insurgents.
Karzai: US forces alienated Afghans Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:10:26 GMT
President Hamid Karzai takes harsh view of US strategiesAfghan President Hamid Karzai has criticized the US strategy in troop deployment, admitting his government's mistake concerning security. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Karzai blamed US operational strategy as a key element in alienating the Afghan tribes with "extrajudicial killings", leading to the fragile security condition in the country. He said the NATO forces should have focused on fighting insurgents in their hideouts in neighboring Pakistan. "For years, I've been saying that the war on terrorism is not in Afghanistan, that it's in the training camps, it's in sanctuaries," Karzai noted, adding that the US officials ignored the warnings. Karzai reiterated that concentrating more troops around the Afghan capital was not a good idea and called for clarification of responsibilities of the ISAF forces and the Afghan government. President Hamid Karzai has grown increasingly impatient with the American-led war effort against the Taliban insurgency and has repeatedly condemned the US strikes against the Afghan civilians. A deadly US military raid on a house near Afghanistan's border with Pakistan became a new source of tension on Thursday, with the Americans calling it a successful counterterrorism strike and the Afghans saying it left three innocent civilians dead and two wounded, including a 4-year-old boy bitten by an attack dog. RZS/HAR
Karzai has been complaining of US air attacks and other attacks for ages but it seems to have no effect on US policy. Karzai really has little or no control on what the US does and often will not even be informed of what is happening in case govt. sources might inform the Taliban or other insurgents.
Karzai: US forces alienated Afghans Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:10:26 GMT
President Hamid Karzai takes harsh view of US strategiesAfghan President Hamid Karzai has criticized the US strategy in troop deployment, admitting his government's mistake concerning security. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Karzai blamed US operational strategy as a key element in alienating the Afghan tribes with "extrajudicial killings", leading to the fragile security condition in the country. He said the NATO forces should have focused on fighting insurgents in their hideouts in neighboring Pakistan. "For years, I've been saying that the war on terrorism is not in Afghanistan, that it's in the training camps, it's in sanctuaries," Karzai noted, adding that the US officials ignored the warnings. Karzai reiterated that concentrating more troops around the Afghan capital was not a good idea and called for clarification of responsibilities of the ISAF forces and the Afghan government. President Hamid Karzai has grown increasingly impatient with the American-led war effort against the Taliban insurgency and has repeatedly condemned the US strikes against the Afghan civilians. A deadly US military raid on a house near Afghanistan's border with Pakistan became a new source of tension on Thursday, with the Americans calling it a successful counterterrorism strike and the Afghans saying it left three innocent civilians dead and two wounded, including a 4-year-old boy bitten by an attack dog. RZS/HAR
Study: Bailed-out bank executives get $1.6B.
This is from AP.
Obviously the UAW should negotiate a reduction in hourly wages to please the government during the auto industry restructuring. They should ask that they be compensated by bonuses and worker retention payments! This would give a level playing field with compensation awarded to financial institution executives and employees!
AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs
By FRANK BASS and RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writers Frank Bass And Rita Beamish, Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals.
The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages.
Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found.
The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines.
Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services committee and a long-standing critic of executive largesse, said the bonuses tallied by the AP review amount to a bribe "to get them to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place.
"Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them best we can," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!"
The AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so far received $188 billion in taxpayer help. Among the findings:
_The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.
_Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million.
This year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels." Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report.
The New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money on Oct. 28.
_Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Va.-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money on Nov. 14.
_John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options.
Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28.
The AP review comes amid sharp questions about the banks' commitment to the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a law designed to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets. Last month, the Bush administration changed the program's goals, instructing the Treasury Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent wholesale economic collapse.
The program set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from giving golden parachutes to departing executives and deducting some executive pay for tax purposes.
Banks that got bailout funds also paid out millions for home security systems, private chauffeured cars, and club dues. Some banks even paid for financial advisers. Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners.
At Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said.
Goldman Sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its shareholders this year that financial counseling and chauffeurs are important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs.
JPMorgan Chase chairman James Dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in Chicago and he was commuting to New York. The company got $25 billion in bailout funds.
Banks cite security to justify personal use of company aircraft for some executives. But Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., questioned that rationale, saying executives visit many locations more vulnerable than the nation's security-conscious commercial air terminals.
Sherman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said pay excesses undermine development of good bank economic policies and promote an escalating pay spiral among competing financial institutions — something particularly hard to take when banks then ask for rescue money.
He wants them to come before Congress, like the automakers did, and spell out their spending plans for bailout funds.
"The tougher we are on the executives that come to Washington, the fewer will come for a bailout
Obviously the UAW should negotiate a reduction in hourly wages to please the government during the auto industry restructuring. They should ask that they be compensated by bonuses and worker retention payments! This would give a level playing field with compensation awarded to financial institution executives and employees!
AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs
By FRANK BASS and RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writers Frank Bass And Rita Beamish, Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals.
The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages.
Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found.
The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines.
Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services committee and a long-standing critic of executive largesse, said the bonuses tallied by the AP review amount to a bribe "to get them to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place.
"Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them best we can," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!"
The AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so far received $188 billion in taxpayer help. Among the findings:
_The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.
_Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million.
This year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels." Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report.
The New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money on Oct. 28.
_Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Va.-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money on Nov. 14.
_John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options.
Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28.
The AP review comes amid sharp questions about the banks' commitment to the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a law designed to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets. Last month, the Bush administration changed the program's goals, instructing the Treasury Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent wholesale economic collapse.
The program set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from giving golden parachutes to departing executives and deducting some executive pay for tax purposes.
Banks that got bailout funds also paid out millions for home security systems, private chauffeured cars, and club dues. Some banks even paid for financial advisers. Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners.
At Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said.
Goldman Sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its shareholders this year that financial counseling and chauffeurs are important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs.
JPMorgan Chase chairman James Dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in Chicago and he was commuting to New York. The company got $25 billion in bailout funds.
Banks cite security to justify personal use of company aircraft for some executives. But Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., questioned that rationale, saying executives visit many locations more vulnerable than the nation's security-conscious commercial air terminals.
Sherman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said pay excesses undermine development of good bank economic policies and promote an escalating pay spiral among competing financial institutions — something particularly hard to take when banks then ask for rescue money.
He wants them to come before Congress, like the automakers did, and spell out their spending plans for bailout funds.
"The tougher we are on the executives that come to Washington, the fewer will come for a bailout
Philippines: More witnesses in fertilizer fund scam at Senate inquiry
This is from Malaya newspaper.
This scam involves a tangled web of relations between numerous people as this article shows.
To give the wrong testimony could very well put ones life in danger.
Joc Joc ‘pal’ set to bare allGordon starts connecting the dots
BY JP LOPEZ
THE Senate Blue Ribbon committee is gearing for an explosive testimony from Maritess Aytona, the alleged runner of former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn "Joc Joc" Bolante, in today’s resumption of the investigation on the P728-million fertilizer mess.
"This is Ms. Aytona’s chance to clear her name. But she has to be ready because certainly a lot of questions will be thrown at her. We only want to hear the truth, and we do hope she would cooperate with our investigation," said panel chair Sen. Richard Gordon.
Gordon said Aytona denied she was a runner of Bolante but appeared to have transacted instead with alleged Malacañang liaison Jaime Paule and alleged financier Leonicia Llarena.
Gordon said Aytona is a combination of a runner and packager. "She was a runner of Paule and Llarena. She got 3 percent of a P40-million deal cornered by the foundation she was connected with," Gordon said.
He said Aytona and Bolante may not be directly linked to the fund mess but "Aytona is connected to Paule. Paule is connected to Llarena and Paule is connected by (agriculture undersecretary Belinda) Gonzales to Bolante."
Gordon said Aytona told him that Paule in February 2004 asked her to become a consultant of the foundation which would be a proponent and implementor of the Department of Agriculture project on distribution of farm inputs and implements.
Gordon said Aytona, the "packager" of proposals on the fertilizer project, should prepare herself for tough grilling especially after she snubbed the Senate hearings several times.
Senate witness Jose Barredo claimed he worked with Aytona who on the other hand worked as Bolante’s runner.
Aytona last Thursday surrendered to Gordon, a day after she was cited for contempt and ordered arrested for repeated refusal to attend hearings despite summonses.
Aytona has claimed she along with her brother Ramon and Eduardo were on their way to the Senate last Wednesday when motorcycle-riding men tried to ambush them.
Gordon said Paule’s life is also in great danger.
"Mr. Paule should come out in the open because if he has some knowledge on this multi-million fertilizer fund scam, he may be in great danger. But if he surrenders to the Senate, we can even give him protection," he said.
Gordon said the statements of Gonzales, Llarena and Aytona all point to Paule as a big part of the implementation of the fertilizer project.
"Mr. Paule has a lot of explaining to do. That could be the reason behind his continuous hiding, because he knows a lot about this and he may not have a good explanation on his actions," he said.
"Paule has been in the system of entering into transactions with the government. And I think this guy is apparently embedded in the system of corruption," he added.
Gonzales had testified that Paule was one of the people who were at the meeting with Bolante at the New World Hotel in Makati City sometime in 2002.
Gonzales said Paule’s group was seeking assistance against some people who had claimed connections with the DA and who had duped them.
Llarena, owner of Dane Publishing Inc., said she has known Paule and Aytona since 1998 and had been giving them loans for their projects with the government.
She said Paule had sought financial assistance from her regarding the fertilizer project.
She said she issued 10 personal checks from March 25 to September 30, 2004 amounting to P12.695 million to enable Paule to get fertilizers from Feshan Philippines Inc, the biggest supplier in the project.
Sen. Manuel Roxas II urged Bolante to stop covering up for his and his bosses’ role in the fund mess.
"Joc Joc’s options are getting fewer. Evidence is piling up that he is just inventing his alibi in the Senate. If I were Joc Joc, I’d tell the truth now and admit everything he knows about this scam," he said.
He said it would be Joc Joc’s Christmas gift not only to himself and his family but to the entire nation if he becomes truthful, admits the irregularities in the fertilizer program and spills the "real" brains behind it.
"His Christmas will be sad because he has fear and guilt in his heart. It is better to tell the truth during the hearing on Monday so he can have a more meaningful celebration of the holidays with his family," he also said.
Roxas warned the former agriculture undersecretary could be arrested and detained anew at the Senate if he continues to be elusive and if he sticks to his fabricated story.
"The committee will not hesitate to cite him in contempt again and order his arrest and detention at the Senate if he continues to be elusive and (continues) to tell us lies," he said.
This scam involves a tangled web of relations between numerous people as this article shows.
To give the wrong testimony could very well put ones life in danger.
Joc Joc ‘pal’ set to bare allGordon starts connecting the dots
BY JP LOPEZ
THE Senate Blue Ribbon committee is gearing for an explosive testimony from Maritess Aytona, the alleged runner of former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn "Joc Joc" Bolante, in today’s resumption of the investigation on the P728-million fertilizer mess.
"This is Ms. Aytona’s chance to clear her name. But she has to be ready because certainly a lot of questions will be thrown at her. We only want to hear the truth, and we do hope she would cooperate with our investigation," said panel chair Sen. Richard Gordon.
Gordon said Aytona denied she was a runner of Bolante but appeared to have transacted instead with alleged Malacañang liaison Jaime Paule and alleged financier Leonicia Llarena.
Gordon said Aytona is a combination of a runner and packager. "She was a runner of Paule and Llarena. She got 3 percent of a P40-million deal cornered by the foundation she was connected with," Gordon said.
He said Aytona and Bolante may not be directly linked to the fund mess but "Aytona is connected to Paule. Paule is connected to Llarena and Paule is connected by (agriculture undersecretary Belinda) Gonzales to Bolante."
Gordon said Aytona told him that Paule in February 2004 asked her to become a consultant of the foundation which would be a proponent and implementor of the Department of Agriculture project on distribution of farm inputs and implements.
Gordon said Aytona, the "packager" of proposals on the fertilizer project, should prepare herself for tough grilling especially after she snubbed the Senate hearings several times.
Senate witness Jose Barredo claimed he worked with Aytona who on the other hand worked as Bolante’s runner.
Aytona last Thursday surrendered to Gordon, a day after she was cited for contempt and ordered arrested for repeated refusal to attend hearings despite summonses.
Aytona has claimed she along with her brother Ramon and Eduardo were on their way to the Senate last Wednesday when motorcycle-riding men tried to ambush them.
Gordon said Paule’s life is also in great danger.
"Mr. Paule should come out in the open because if he has some knowledge on this multi-million fertilizer fund scam, he may be in great danger. But if he surrenders to the Senate, we can even give him protection," he said.
Gordon said the statements of Gonzales, Llarena and Aytona all point to Paule as a big part of the implementation of the fertilizer project.
"Mr. Paule has a lot of explaining to do. That could be the reason behind his continuous hiding, because he knows a lot about this and he may not have a good explanation on his actions," he said.
"Paule has been in the system of entering into transactions with the government. And I think this guy is apparently embedded in the system of corruption," he added.
Gonzales had testified that Paule was one of the people who were at the meeting with Bolante at the New World Hotel in Makati City sometime in 2002.
Gonzales said Paule’s group was seeking assistance against some people who had claimed connections with the DA and who had duped them.
Llarena, owner of Dane Publishing Inc., said she has known Paule and Aytona since 1998 and had been giving them loans for their projects with the government.
She said Paule had sought financial assistance from her regarding the fertilizer project.
She said she issued 10 personal checks from March 25 to September 30, 2004 amounting to P12.695 million to enable Paule to get fertilizers from Feshan Philippines Inc, the biggest supplier in the project.
Sen. Manuel Roxas II urged Bolante to stop covering up for his and his bosses’ role in the fund mess.
"Joc Joc’s options are getting fewer. Evidence is piling up that he is just inventing his alibi in the Senate. If I were Joc Joc, I’d tell the truth now and admit everything he knows about this scam," he said.
He said it would be Joc Joc’s Christmas gift not only to himself and his family but to the entire nation if he becomes truthful, admits the irregularities in the fertilizer program and spills the "real" brains behind it.
"His Christmas will be sad because he has fear and guilt in his heart. It is better to tell the truth during the hearing on Monday so he can have a more meaningful celebration of the holidays with his family," he also said.
Roxas warned the former agriculture undersecretary could be arrested and detained anew at the Senate if he continues to be elusive and if he sticks to his fabricated story.
"The committee will not hesitate to cite him in contempt again and order his arrest and detention at the Senate if he continues to be elusive and (continues) to tell us lies," he said.
US approves combat aviation troops for Afghanistan
With more air attacks there are bound to me more civilian casualties. Karzai's efforts to restrain NATO forces in the use of air attacks has been useless and unavailing even though such attacks may very well fuel the insurgency and help recruit jihadis.
US approves combat aviation troops for Afghanistan
REUTERSReuters North American News Service
Dec 19, 2008 14:06 EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates has approved the deployment of a combat aviation brigade to Afghanistan as part of a buildup of forces to counter a growing insurgency, a U.S. military official said Friday.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. Army brigade of about 2,800 soldiers, equipped with both attack and transport helicopters, would deploy next year. (Reporting by Andrew Gray; Editing by Kristin Roberts)
US approves combat aviation troops for Afghanistan
REUTERSReuters North American News Service
Dec 19, 2008 14:06 EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates has approved the deployment of a combat aviation brigade to Afghanistan as part of a buildup of forces to counter a growing insurgency, a U.S. military official said Friday.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. Army brigade of about 2,800 soldiers, equipped with both attack and transport helicopters, would deploy next year. (Reporting by Andrew Gray; Editing by Kristin Roberts)
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Buchanan: Obama's War
Buchanan points out what should have been obvious to any antiwar or anti-imperialist lefties in the US namely that Obama is carrying out the same basic policies in Afghanistan as Bush. Actually Obama is placing more emphasis upon Afghanistan and also upping the ante both in Afghanistan and probably in Pakistan. It remains to be seen if Obama decides to change course but at this stage Buchanan's description is bang on. The only new beginnings in Afghanistan are new troops. Obama has even retained Bush's Defence Secretary Gates to ensure what Buchanan calls seamless continuity.
Obama's War
By Patrick J. BuchananDecember 19, 2008 "Creators Syndicate" -- -
- Just two months after the twin towers fell, the armies of the Northern Alliance marched into Kabul. The Taliban fled.The triumph was total in the "splendid little war" that had cost one U.S. casualty. Or so it seemed. Yet, last month, the war against the Taliban entered its eighth year, the second longest war in our history, and America and NATO have never been nearer to strategic defeat.So critical is the situation that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in Kandahar last week, promised rapid deployment, before any Taliban spring offensive, of two and perhaps three combat brigades of the 20,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan. The first 4,000, from the 10th Mountain, are expected in January.With 34,000 U.S. soldiers already in country, half under NATO command, the 20,000 will increase U.S. forces there to 54,000, a 60 percent ratcheting up. Shades of LBJ, 1964-65. Afghanistan is going to be Obama's War. And upon its outcome will hang the fate of his presidency. Has he thought this through?How do we win this war, if by winning we mean establishing a pro-Western democratic government in control of the country that has the support of the people and loyalty of an Afghan army strong enough to defend the nation from a resurgent Taliban?We are further from that goal going into 2009 than we were five years ago.What are the long-term prospects for any such success?Each year, the supply of opium out of Afghanistan, from which most of the world's heroin comes, sets a new record. Payoffs by narcotics traffickers are corrupting the government. The fanatically devout Taliban had eradicated the drug trade, but is now abetting the drug lords in return for money for weapons to kill the Americans.Militarily, the Taliban forces are stronger than they have been since 2001, moving out of the south and east and infesting half the country. They have sanctuaries in Pakistan and virtually ring Kabul.U.S. air strikes have killed so many Afghan civilians that President Karzai, who controls little more than Kabul, has begun to condemn the U.S. attacks. Predator attacks on Taliban and al-Qaida in Pakistan have inflamed the population there.And can pinprick air strikes win a war of this magnitude?The supply line for our troops in Afghanistan, which runs from Karachi up to Peshawar through the Khyber Pass to Kabul, is now a perilous passage. Four times this month, U.S. transport depots in Pakistan have been attacked, with hundreds of vehicles destroyed.Before arriving in Kandahar, Gates spoke grimly of a "sustained commitment for some protracted period of time. How many years that is, and how many troops that is ... nobody knows."Gen. McKiernan says it will be at least three or four years before the Afghan army and police can handle the Taliban.But why does it take a dozen years to get an Afghan army up to where it can defend the people and regime against a Taliban return? Why do our Afghans seem less disposed to fight and die for democracy than the Taliban are to fight and die for theocracy? Does their God, Allah, command a deeper love and loyalty than our god, democracy?McKiernan says the situation may get worse before it gets better. Gates compares Afghanistan to the Cold War. "(W)e are in many respects in an ideological conflict with violent extremists. ... The last ideological conflict we were in lasted about 45 years."That would truly be, in Donald Rumsfeld's phrase, "a long, hard slog."America, without debate, is about to invest blood and treasure, indefinitely, in a war to which no end seems remotely in sight, if the commanding general is talking about four years at least and the now-and-future war minister is talking about four decades.What is there to win in Afghanistan to justify doubling down our investment? If our vital interest is to deny a sanctuary there to al-Qaida, do we have to build a new Afghanistan to accomplish that? Did not al-Qaeda depart years ago for a new sanctuary in Pakistan?What hope is there of creating in this tribal land a democracy committed to freedom, equality and human rights that Afghans have never known? What is the expectation that 54,000 or 75,000 U.S. troops can crush an insurgency that enjoys a privileged sanctuary to which it can return, to rest, recuperate and recruit for next year's offensive?Of all the lands of the earth, Afghanistan has been among the least hospitable to foreigners who come to rule, or to teach them how they should rule themselves.Would Dwight D. Eisenhower – who settled for the status quo ante in Korea, an armistice at the line of scrimmage – commit his country to such an open-ended war? Would Richard Nixon? Would Ronald Reagan?Hard to believe. George W. Bush would. But did not America vote against Bush? Why is America getting seamless continuity when it voted for significant change?
By Patrick J. Buchanan newest book "Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World"COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Obama's War
By Patrick J. BuchananDecember 19, 2008 "Creators Syndicate" -- -
- Just two months after the twin towers fell, the armies of the Northern Alliance marched into Kabul. The Taliban fled.The triumph was total in the "splendid little war" that had cost one U.S. casualty. Or so it seemed. Yet, last month, the war against the Taliban entered its eighth year, the second longest war in our history, and America and NATO have never been nearer to strategic defeat.So critical is the situation that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in Kandahar last week, promised rapid deployment, before any Taliban spring offensive, of two and perhaps three combat brigades of the 20,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan. The first 4,000, from the 10th Mountain, are expected in January.With 34,000 U.S. soldiers already in country, half under NATO command, the 20,000 will increase U.S. forces there to 54,000, a 60 percent ratcheting up. Shades of LBJ, 1964-65. Afghanistan is going to be Obama's War. And upon its outcome will hang the fate of his presidency. Has he thought this through?How do we win this war, if by winning we mean establishing a pro-Western democratic government in control of the country that has the support of the people and loyalty of an Afghan army strong enough to defend the nation from a resurgent Taliban?We are further from that goal going into 2009 than we were five years ago.What are the long-term prospects for any such success?Each year, the supply of opium out of Afghanistan, from which most of the world's heroin comes, sets a new record. Payoffs by narcotics traffickers are corrupting the government. The fanatically devout Taliban had eradicated the drug trade, but is now abetting the drug lords in return for money for weapons to kill the Americans.Militarily, the Taliban forces are stronger than they have been since 2001, moving out of the south and east and infesting half the country. They have sanctuaries in Pakistan and virtually ring Kabul.U.S. air strikes have killed so many Afghan civilians that President Karzai, who controls little more than Kabul, has begun to condemn the U.S. attacks. Predator attacks on Taliban and al-Qaida in Pakistan have inflamed the population there.And can pinprick air strikes win a war of this magnitude?The supply line for our troops in Afghanistan, which runs from Karachi up to Peshawar through the Khyber Pass to Kabul, is now a perilous passage. Four times this month, U.S. transport depots in Pakistan have been attacked, with hundreds of vehicles destroyed.Before arriving in Kandahar, Gates spoke grimly of a "sustained commitment for some protracted period of time. How many years that is, and how many troops that is ... nobody knows."Gen. McKiernan says it will be at least three or four years before the Afghan army and police can handle the Taliban.But why does it take a dozen years to get an Afghan army up to where it can defend the people and regime against a Taliban return? Why do our Afghans seem less disposed to fight and die for democracy than the Taliban are to fight and die for theocracy? Does their God, Allah, command a deeper love and loyalty than our god, democracy?McKiernan says the situation may get worse before it gets better. Gates compares Afghanistan to the Cold War. "(W)e are in many respects in an ideological conflict with violent extremists. ... The last ideological conflict we were in lasted about 45 years."That would truly be, in Donald Rumsfeld's phrase, "a long, hard slog."America, without debate, is about to invest blood and treasure, indefinitely, in a war to which no end seems remotely in sight, if the commanding general is talking about four years at least and the now-and-future war minister is talking about four decades.What is there to win in Afghanistan to justify doubling down our investment? If our vital interest is to deny a sanctuary there to al-Qaida, do we have to build a new Afghanistan to accomplish that? Did not al-Qaeda depart years ago for a new sanctuary in Pakistan?What hope is there of creating in this tribal land a democracy committed to freedom, equality and human rights that Afghans have never known? What is the expectation that 54,000 or 75,000 U.S. troops can crush an insurgency that enjoys a privileged sanctuary to which it can return, to rest, recuperate and recruit for next year's offensive?Of all the lands of the earth, Afghanistan has been among the least hospitable to foreigners who come to rule, or to teach them how they should rule themselves.Would Dwight D. Eisenhower – who settled for the status quo ante in Korea, an armistice at the line of scrimmage – commit his country to such an open-ended war? Would Richard Nixon? Would Ronald Reagan?Hard to believe. George W. Bush would. But did not America vote against Bush? Why is America getting seamless continuity when it voted for significant change?
By Patrick J. Buchanan newest book "Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World"COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
US defiant on key terms of Iraqi pact.
This is from anti-war.com
This seems a classic dodge that will actually not violate the letter of the agreement. I assume only combat troops need to withdraw from cities by mid-2009. As far as Obama's promise to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months it makes that easier. Everyone should be happy except maybe the Iraqis and they don't count. Even if they have a referendum and reject SOFA next summer the US will still have a year to get out or draft a new agreement.
US Military Defiant on Key Terms of Iraqi Pact
by Gareth Porter
US military leaders and Pentagon officials have made it clear through public statements and deliberately leaked stories in recent weeks that they plan to violate a central provision of the US-Iraq withdrawal agreement requiring the complete withdrawal of all US combat troops from Iraqi cities by mid-2009 by reclassifying combat troops as support troops.
The scheme to engage in chicanery in labeling US troops represents both open defiance of an agreement which the US military has never accepted and a way of blocking President-elect Barack Obama's proposed plan for withdrawal of all US combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office.
By redesignating tens of thousands of combat troops as support troops, those officials apparently hope to make it difficult, if not impossible, for Obama to insist on getting all combat troops out of the country by mid-2010.
Gen. David Petraeus, now commander of CENTCOM, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq, who opposed Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan during the election campaign, have drawn up their own alternative withdrawal plan rejecting that timeline, as the New York Times reported Thursday. That plan was communicated to Obama in general terms by Secretary of Defense Robert M.Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen when he met with his national security team in Chicago on Dec. 15, according to the Times.
The determination of the military leadership to ignore the US-Iraq agreement and to pressure Obama on his withdrawal policy was clear from remarks made by Mullen in a news conference on Nov. 17 – after US Ambassador Ryan Crocker had signed the agreement in Baghdad.
Mullen declared that he considered it "important" that withdrawal of US forces from Iraq "be conditions-based". That position directly contradicted the terms of the agreement, and Mullen was asked whether the agreement required all US troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, regardless of the security conditions. He answered "Yes," but then added, "Three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time..."
Mullen said US officials would "continue to have discussions with them over time, as conditions continue to evolve", and said that reversing the outcome of the negotiations was "theoretically possible".
Obama's decision to keep Gates, who was known to be opposed to Obama's withdrawal timetable, as defense secretary confirmed the belief of the Pentagon leadership that Obama would not resist the military effort to push back against his Iraq withdrawal plan. A source close to the Obama transition team has told IPS that Obama had made the decision for a frankly political reason. Obama and his advisers believed the administration would be politically vulnerable on national security and viewed the Gates nomination as a way of blunting political criticism of its policies.
The Gates decision was followed immediately by the leak of a major element in the military plan to push back against a 16-month withdrawal plan – a scheme to keep US combat troops in Iraqi cities after mid-2009, in defiance of the terms of the withdrawal agreement.
The New York Times first revealed that "Pentagon planners" were proposing the "relabeling" of US combat units as "training and support" units in a Dec. 4 story. The Times story also revealed that Pentagon planners were projecting that as many as 70,000 US troops would be maintained in Iraq "for a substantial time even beyond 2011", despite the agreement's explicit requirement that all US troops would have to be withdrawn by then.
Odierno provided a further hint Dec. 13 that the US military intends to ignore the provision of the agreement requiring withdrawal of all US combat troops from cities and towns by the end of May 2009. Odierno told reporters flatly that US troops would not move from numerous security posts in cities beyond next summer's deadline for their removal, saying "We believe that's part of our transition teams."
His spokesman, Lt. Col. James Hutton, explained that these "transition teams" would consist of "enablers" rather than "combat forces", and that this would be consistent with the withdrawal agreement.
But both Odierno's and Hutton's remarks were clearly based on the Pentagon plan for the "relabeling" of US combat forces as support forces in order to evade a key constraint in the pact that the Times had reported earlier. In an article in The New Republic dated Dec. 24, Eli Lake writes that three military sources told him that the US "Military Transition Teams", which who have been fighting alongside Iraqi units, as well as force-protection units and "quick-reaction forces", are all being redesignated as "support units", despite their obvious combat functions, "in order to skirt the language of the SOFA [status of forces agreement]".
US commanders have not bothered to claim that this is anything but a semantic trick, since the redesignated units would continue to participate in combat patrols, as confirmed by New York Times reporters Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker Thursday.
The question of whether Iraqis would permit such "relabeled" combat forces to remain after next June was discussed with Obama on Monday, according to the Times report. One participant reportedly said Gates and Mullen "did not rule out the idea that Iraqis might permit such troops..."
Despite Odierno's assertion of the US military's prerogative to unilaterally determine what US troops may remain Iraqi cities, the Iraqi government has already made it clear that the US military has no such right. Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mohammed al Askari, responded to Odierno's and Hutton's statements by saying that US commanders would have to get permission from the Iraqi government to station any non-combat troops in cities beyond the deadline.
The signals from Odierno of US military defiance of the withdrawal agreement suggest that the Pentagon and military leadership still do not take seriously the views of the Iraqi public as having any role in determining the matter of foreign troops in their country. Nevertheless, the withdrawal agreement is still subject to a popular referendum next July, and Iraqi politicians have already warned that evidence of US refusal to abide by its terms will affect the outcome of that vote.
Washington Post reporters quoted Sunni legislator Shata al-Obusi as saying that Iraqis "will see this procrastination and they will vote no against the agreement, and after that the government should cancel it according to its provision".
Beyond the aim of getting Obama to abandon his 16-month plan, the military and Pentagon group still hopes to pressure Obama to agree to a long-term US military presence in Iraq.
Further evidence emerged last week that Gates is a central figure in that effort. In a Washington Post column Dec. 11, George Will quoted Gates as saying that there is bipartisan congressional support for "a long-term residual presence" of as many as 40,000 US troops in Iraq, and such a presence for "decades" has been the standard practice following "major US military operations" since the beginning of the Cold War.
Those statements evidently represent part of the case Gates, Mullen and the military commanders are already making behind the scenes to get Obama to acquiesce in the subversion of the intent of the US-Iraq agreement.
(Inter Press Service)
This seems a classic dodge that will actually not violate the letter of the agreement. I assume only combat troops need to withdraw from cities by mid-2009. As far as Obama's promise to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months it makes that easier. Everyone should be happy except maybe the Iraqis and they don't count. Even if they have a referendum and reject SOFA next summer the US will still have a year to get out or draft a new agreement.
US Military Defiant on Key Terms of Iraqi Pact
by Gareth Porter
US military leaders and Pentagon officials have made it clear through public statements and deliberately leaked stories in recent weeks that they plan to violate a central provision of the US-Iraq withdrawal agreement requiring the complete withdrawal of all US combat troops from Iraqi cities by mid-2009 by reclassifying combat troops as support troops.
The scheme to engage in chicanery in labeling US troops represents both open defiance of an agreement which the US military has never accepted and a way of blocking President-elect Barack Obama's proposed plan for withdrawal of all US combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office.
By redesignating tens of thousands of combat troops as support troops, those officials apparently hope to make it difficult, if not impossible, for Obama to insist on getting all combat troops out of the country by mid-2010.
Gen. David Petraeus, now commander of CENTCOM, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq, who opposed Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan during the election campaign, have drawn up their own alternative withdrawal plan rejecting that timeline, as the New York Times reported Thursday. That plan was communicated to Obama in general terms by Secretary of Defense Robert M.Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen when he met with his national security team in Chicago on Dec. 15, according to the Times.
The determination of the military leadership to ignore the US-Iraq agreement and to pressure Obama on his withdrawal policy was clear from remarks made by Mullen in a news conference on Nov. 17 – after US Ambassador Ryan Crocker had signed the agreement in Baghdad.
Mullen declared that he considered it "important" that withdrawal of US forces from Iraq "be conditions-based". That position directly contradicted the terms of the agreement, and Mullen was asked whether the agreement required all US troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, regardless of the security conditions. He answered "Yes," but then added, "Three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time..."
Mullen said US officials would "continue to have discussions with them over time, as conditions continue to evolve", and said that reversing the outcome of the negotiations was "theoretically possible".
Obama's decision to keep Gates, who was known to be opposed to Obama's withdrawal timetable, as defense secretary confirmed the belief of the Pentagon leadership that Obama would not resist the military effort to push back against his Iraq withdrawal plan. A source close to the Obama transition team has told IPS that Obama had made the decision for a frankly political reason. Obama and his advisers believed the administration would be politically vulnerable on national security and viewed the Gates nomination as a way of blunting political criticism of its policies.
The Gates decision was followed immediately by the leak of a major element in the military plan to push back against a 16-month withdrawal plan – a scheme to keep US combat troops in Iraqi cities after mid-2009, in defiance of the terms of the withdrawal agreement.
The New York Times first revealed that "Pentagon planners" were proposing the "relabeling" of US combat units as "training and support" units in a Dec. 4 story. The Times story also revealed that Pentagon planners were projecting that as many as 70,000 US troops would be maintained in Iraq "for a substantial time even beyond 2011", despite the agreement's explicit requirement that all US troops would have to be withdrawn by then.
Odierno provided a further hint Dec. 13 that the US military intends to ignore the provision of the agreement requiring withdrawal of all US combat troops from cities and towns by the end of May 2009. Odierno told reporters flatly that US troops would not move from numerous security posts in cities beyond next summer's deadline for their removal, saying "We believe that's part of our transition teams."
His spokesman, Lt. Col. James Hutton, explained that these "transition teams" would consist of "enablers" rather than "combat forces", and that this would be consistent with the withdrawal agreement.
But both Odierno's and Hutton's remarks were clearly based on the Pentagon plan for the "relabeling" of US combat forces as support forces in order to evade a key constraint in the pact that the Times had reported earlier. In an article in The New Republic dated Dec. 24, Eli Lake writes that three military sources told him that the US "Military Transition Teams", which who have been fighting alongside Iraqi units, as well as force-protection units and "quick-reaction forces", are all being redesignated as "support units", despite their obvious combat functions, "in order to skirt the language of the SOFA [status of forces agreement]".
US commanders have not bothered to claim that this is anything but a semantic trick, since the redesignated units would continue to participate in combat patrols, as confirmed by New York Times reporters Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker Thursday.
The question of whether Iraqis would permit such "relabeled" combat forces to remain after next June was discussed with Obama on Monday, according to the Times report. One participant reportedly said Gates and Mullen "did not rule out the idea that Iraqis might permit such troops..."
Despite Odierno's assertion of the US military's prerogative to unilaterally determine what US troops may remain Iraqi cities, the Iraqi government has already made it clear that the US military has no such right. Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mohammed al Askari, responded to Odierno's and Hutton's statements by saying that US commanders would have to get permission from the Iraqi government to station any non-combat troops in cities beyond the deadline.
The signals from Odierno of US military defiance of the withdrawal agreement suggest that the Pentagon and military leadership still do not take seriously the views of the Iraqi public as having any role in determining the matter of foreign troops in their country. Nevertheless, the withdrawal agreement is still subject to a popular referendum next July, and Iraqi politicians have already warned that evidence of US refusal to abide by its terms will affect the outcome of that vote.
Washington Post reporters quoted Sunni legislator Shata al-Obusi as saying that Iraqis "will see this procrastination and they will vote no against the agreement, and after that the government should cancel it according to its provision".
Beyond the aim of getting Obama to abandon his 16-month plan, the military and Pentagon group still hopes to pressure Obama to agree to a long-term US military presence in Iraq.
Further evidence emerged last week that Gates is a central figure in that effort. In a Washington Post column Dec. 11, George Will quoted Gates as saying that there is bipartisan congressional support for "a long-term residual presence" of as many as 40,000 US troops in Iraq, and such a presence for "decades" has been the standard practice following "major US military operations" since the beginning of the Cold War.
Those statements evidently represent part of the case Gates, Mullen and the military commanders are already making behind the scenes to get Obama to acquiesce in the subversion of the intent of the US-Iraq agreement.
(Inter Press Service)
Friday, December 19, 2008
Cardinal: Legislators opposing Ag Reform bill in Philippines traitors.
Many in the Catholic Church are social activists often it would seem in ways that might not please the Vatican! It seems that the Philippine legislators are not that keen on addressing rural problems but more interested in spreading political pork through the fertilizer fund!
Cardinal: Solons opposing bill on CARP 'traitors'
12/19/2008 06:42 AM
MANILA, Philippines – “Traitors." This was how Manila archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales tagged lawmakers who blocked the extension of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) with reforms.An article on the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines website Friday said Rosales was disappointed over the six-month extension of CARP, calling it very insufficient.Rosales said the kind of "help" provided by legislators to the poor farmers is treachery because they set aside the appeal of the protesting farmers and the bishops.He said it was unfortunate that the solons violated their mandates to help the people, especially the poor."The situation is so unfortunate. These representatives were suppose to help you but instead slyly did not grant the pleas of the farmers and the bishops," he said.Rosales lamented farmers who staged a hunger strike for several days were exploited "like children who can be easily fooled.""They belittled you, thinking that they can fool you," he told some 300 farmers in his homily at a mass held at his residence in Intramuros, Manila Thursday.He asked the farmers and their sympathizers to go home to their families and share the good experiences they had while they were expressing their demands.Rosales said that while they failed to have a meaningful extension of CARP, the farmers still earned the respect and support of the Catholic Church, non-government organizations and the public.The prelate also asked them to never stop fighting and keep their faith that their aspirations will one day be granted.A bus of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines brought the farmers to Intramuros. They were treated to bowls of porridge and bottles of mineral water outside Congress.Before the Mass, all the farmers received rosaries from priests of the Manila archdiocese.For his part, Manila auxiliary bishop Broderick Pabillo said he is disappointed with the way the legislators "trampled" on the rights of the poor farmers.He said it is sad that most of the lawmakers are not pro-poor and against genuine and sustainable agricultural development."Their world is so different from our world. They adjourned their meeting early to attend the Christmas party," he said.But Pabillo, who joined the farmers in hunger strike on Monday, vowed never-ending support to the cause of the farmers.He also called on the public to unite with them in beating various forms of human rights abuse in the rural areas. - GMANews.TV
Cardinal: Solons opposing bill on CARP 'traitors'
12/19/2008 06:42 AM
MANILA, Philippines – “Traitors." This was how Manila archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales tagged lawmakers who blocked the extension of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) with reforms.An article on the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines website Friday said Rosales was disappointed over the six-month extension of CARP, calling it very insufficient.Rosales said the kind of "help" provided by legislators to the poor farmers is treachery because they set aside the appeal of the protesting farmers and the bishops.He said it was unfortunate that the solons violated their mandates to help the people, especially the poor."The situation is so unfortunate. These representatives were suppose to help you but instead slyly did not grant the pleas of the farmers and the bishops," he said.Rosales lamented farmers who staged a hunger strike for several days were exploited "like children who can be easily fooled.""They belittled you, thinking that they can fool you," he told some 300 farmers in his homily at a mass held at his residence in Intramuros, Manila Thursday.He asked the farmers and their sympathizers to go home to their families and share the good experiences they had while they were expressing their demands.Rosales said that while they failed to have a meaningful extension of CARP, the farmers still earned the respect and support of the Catholic Church, non-government organizations and the public.The prelate also asked them to never stop fighting and keep their faith that their aspirations will one day be granted.A bus of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines brought the farmers to Intramuros. They were treated to bowls of porridge and bottles of mineral water outside Congress.Before the Mass, all the farmers received rosaries from priests of the Manila archdiocese.For his part, Manila auxiliary bishop Broderick Pabillo said he is disappointed with the way the legislators "trampled" on the rights of the poor farmers.He said it is sad that most of the lawmakers are not pro-poor and against genuine and sustainable agricultural development."Their world is so different from our world. They adjourned their meeting early to attend the Christmas party," he said.But Pabillo, who joined the farmers in hunger strike on Monday, vowed never-ending support to the cause of the farmers.He also called on the public to unite with them in beating various forms of human rights abuse in the rural areas. - GMANews.TV
Arrests in Iraq seen as politically motivated.
It seems as if Al Maliki is simply trying to consolidate his power by purging the Interior Ministry of opponents. Apparently the arrest was carried out with even informing his closest allies. There could be more political infighting in days to come.
Arrests in Iraq Seen as Politically Motivated
Government Offers Contradictory Explanations for Interior Ministry Detentions
By Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais MizherWashington Post Foreign ServiceFriday, December 19, 2008; A24
BAGHDAD, Dec. 18 -- Iraqi politicians said Thursday that the arrests of government officials accused of supporting a group linked to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party was an attempt by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to demonstrate his power.
Members of parliament charged Thursday that the prime minister was using Iraq's security forces to instill fear in his rivals ahead of provincial elections set for next month. Critics noted pointedly that a special counterterrorism task force that reports to Maliki made the arrests.
"Forces under the direct control of the prime minister engaged in these arrests. This is not something normal in a democratic process," said Mithal al-Alusi, an independent Sunni lawmaker.
Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman said members of Iraq's political establishment believe the arrests "may be politically motivated and used as a force to get votes."
Yaseen Majeed, Maliki's top media adviser, said the arrests were no different from previous efforts to eliminate corruption in the Interior Ministry. "The prime minister has strong support from all Iraqis. He does not need these kinds of operations to gain more power," Majeed said.
On Thursday, senior government officials continued to provide contradictory explanations for the detentions.
Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal, deputy interior minister for intelligence affairs, said in an interview that those arrested had no links to the Baath Party and described media reports about such links as "propaganda" and "entirely baseless."
"The number of officers who are being investigated is small and not worthy of mention," said Kamal, declining to provide a reason for the arrests.
But Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the senior spokesman at the Interior Ministry, told reporters Thursday that 23 of the ministry's officials were in custody under suspicion of being members of al-Awda, or the Return, a banned political party with links to the Baath Party. Khalaf, who said the probe might lead to more arrests, denied that those arrested were plotting a coup. Interior Ministry officials said at least 34 people had been arrested, including several generals and officials of other agencies.
Majeed, the media adviser to Maliki, said those detained -- his number was 24 -- were affiliated with al-Awda and included officers who he said were helping insurgent and criminal groups. Most of them, he added, were traffic police officers. Earlier, other Interior Ministry officials had said the officers were arrested on suspicion of forging documents and license plates to bring cars into Iraq illegally.
"They are from different groups and helping different kinds of insurgents," Majeed said.
Maliki has steadily consolidated his power this year. In March, he ordered the military to combat Shiite militias and assert government control over the southern city of Basra, a goal that Iraqi forces accomplished with help from the U.S.-led coalition. Since then, Maliki has sought to tighten his grip across the country. His brokering of a U.S-Iraq security pact that requires the American forces to withdraw by the end of 2011 has bolstered his popularity among many Iraqis.
But he has also angered political opponents as well as allies with his plan to create government-financed tribal support councils that appear designed to enhance his authority in areas where he lacks support.
"He feels stronger but should not forget that he became prime minister because of a concession by other political groups," Othman said. "The people who brought him to power could bring a vote of no-confidence against him."
Adding to the concern of Maliki's critics is his secretive style, a legacy of the days when his Dawa party resisted Hussein's autocratic government. Maliki and his inner circle continue to operate covertly, often without informing their closest allies.
Jalaledin Saghir, a senior lawmaker with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a Shiite political bloc that is part of Maliki's ruling coalition, said the party had not been notified of the arrests.
"We need more information about this operation to be sure it did not break any laws," Saghir said. "If there were any kind of mistakes, we will speak out at the appropriate time."
The operation's secrecy fueled speculation that a power struggle over the Interior Ministry had erupted between the Dawa party and the Supreme Council. In recent weeks, tensions have grown between the two parties over Maliki's tribal support councils. The ministry is widely believed to be controlled by the Supreme Council and its armed wing, the Badr Organization.
"This operation might have been done for political reasons," said Ahmed al-Masudi, a lawmaker loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who helped bring Maliki to power but has opposed many of his policies. "The Dawa party thinks this is the best time to increase their influence in this ministry."
Iraq's largest Sunni political bloc expressed outrage at the arrests. "It's tension between these two sides. Each side is trying to push each other out," said Saleem Abdullah al-Jubouri, a spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, referring to Dawa and the Islamic Council.
Saghir and Majeed said the arrests were not related to a contest for power between the two parties.
Some Shiites have questioned the allegiance of Hussein-era military and police officers who are members of Iraq's current security forces. "There is a fear that some of the commanders are loyal to the Baath Party, so the government is working under this guise, to find a reason for the arrests," Jubouri said.
The Sunni bloc, he said, is waiting to see who was arrested; then it will demand evidence that the detainees were trying to reconstitute the Baath Party. Officials said those arrested included Sunnis and Shiites.
Some Shiite lawmakers applauded the arrests and said they were convinced that those detained were plotting against the government. "We have confirmed information that members of the Baath Party are trying to rearrange and reorganize themselves and are seeking support to achieve their aims," said Samira al-Musawi, a Shiite lawmaker.
On Thursday, some officials in the Interior Ministry expressed concern. "The majority of the officers arrested are Sunnis," said an official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the comments. "I think this crisis was done for political reasons, especially because it happened before the provincial election."
Other lawmakers said they doubt that any loyalists of the Baath Party could infiltrate the ministry.
"We, who are inside the political process and the government, know that all the important and critical posts inside the Interior Ministry hierarchy are connected to the Iranian intelligence," said Mohammed al-Dayeni, a Sunni member of parliament. "I don't believe any of these charges because I know who is in the Ministry of Interior and who is running it."
Special correspondents K.I. Ibrahim, Aziz Alwan and Dalya Hassan in Baghdad contributed
Arrests in Iraq Seen as Politically Motivated
Government Offers Contradictory Explanations for Interior Ministry Detentions
By Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais MizherWashington Post Foreign ServiceFriday, December 19, 2008; A24
BAGHDAD, Dec. 18 -- Iraqi politicians said Thursday that the arrests of government officials accused of supporting a group linked to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party was an attempt by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to demonstrate his power.
Members of parliament charged Thursday that the prime minister was using Iraq's security forces to instill fear in his rivals ahead of provincial elections set for next month. Critics noted pointedly that a special counterterrorism task force that reports to Maliki made the arrests.
"Forces under the direct control of the prime minister engaged in these arrests. This is not something normal in a democratic process," said Mithal al-Alusi, an independent Sunni lawmaker.
Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman said members of Iraq's political establishment believe the arrests "may be politically motivated and used as a force to get votes."
Yaseen Majeed, Maliki's top media adviser, said the arrests were no different from previous efforts to eliminate corruption in the Interior Ministry. "The prime minister has strong support from all Iraqis. He does not need these kinds of operations to gain more power," Majeed said.
On Thursday, senior government officials continued to provide contradictory explanations for the detentions.
Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal, deputy interior minister for intelligence affairs, said in an interview that those arrested had no links to the Baath Party and described media reports about such links as "propaganda" and "entirely baseless."
"The number of officers who are being investigated is small and not worthy of mention," said Kamal, declining to provide a reason for the arrests.
But Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the senior spokesman at the Interior Ministry, told reporters Thursday that 23 of the ministry's officials were in custody under suspicion of being members of al-Awda, or the Return, a banned political party with links to the Baath Party. Khalaf, who said the probe might lead to more arrests, denied that those arrested were plotting a coup. Interior Ministry officials said at least 34 people had been arrested, including several generals and officials of other agencies.
Majeed, the media adviser to Maliki, said those detained -- his number was 24 -- were affiliated with al-Awda and included officers who he said were helping insurgent and criminal groups. Most of them, he added, were traffic police officers. Earlier, other Interior Ministry officials had said the officers were arrested on suspicion of forging documents and license plates to bring cars into Iraq illegally.
"They are from different groups and helping different kinds of insurgents," Majeed said.
Maliki has steadily consolidated his power this year. In March, he ordered the military to combat Shiite militias and assert government control over the southern city of Basra, a goal that Iraqi forces accomplished with help from the U.S.-led coalition. Since then, Maliki has sought to tighten his grip across the country. His brokering of a U.S-Iraq security pact that requires the American forces to withdraw by the end of 2011 has bolstered his popularity among many Iraqis.
But he has also angered political opponents as well as allies with his plan to create government-financed tribal support councils that appear designed to enhance his authority in areas where he lacks support.
"He feels stronger but should not forget that he became prime minister because of a concession by other political groups," Othman said. "The people who brought him to power could bring a vote of no-confidence against him."
Adding to the concern of Maliki's critics is his secretive style, a legacy of the days when his Dawa party resisted Hussein's autocratic government. Maliki and his inner circle continue to operate covertly, often without informing their closest allies.
Jalaledin Saghir, a senior lawmaker with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a Shiite political bloc that is part of Maliki's ruling coalition, said the party had not been notified of the arrests.
"We need more information about this operation to be sure it did not break any laws," Saghir said. "If there were any kind of mistakes, we will speak out at the appropriate time."
The operation's secrecy fueled speculation that a power struggle over the Interior Ministry had erupted between the Dawa party and the Supreme Council. In recent weeks, tensions have grown between the two parties over Maliki's tribal support councils. The ministry is widely believed to be controlled by the Supreme Council and its armed wing, the Badr Organization.
"This operation might have been done for political reasons," said Ahmed al-Masudi, a lawmaker loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who helped bring Maliki to power but has opposed many of his policies. "The Dawa party thinks this is the best time to increase their influence in this ministry."
Iraq's largest Sunni political bloc expressed outrage at the arrests. "It's tension between these two sides. Each side is trying to push each other out," said Saleem Abdullah al-Jubouri, a spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, referring to Dawa and the Islamic Council.
Saghir and Majeed said the arrests were not related to a contest for power between the two parties.
Some Shiites have questioned the allegiance of Hussein-era military and police officers who are members of Iraq's current security forces. "There is a fear that some of the commanders are loyal to the Baath Party, so the government is working under this guise, to find a reason for the arrests," Jubouri said.
The Sunni bloc, he said, is waiting to see who was arrested; then it will demand evidence that the detainees were trying to reconstitute the Baath Party. Officials said those arrested included Sunnis and Shiites.
Some Shiite lawmakers applauded the arrests and said they were convinced that those detained were plotting against the government. "We have confirmed information that members of the Baath Party are trying to rearrange and reorganize themselves and are seeking support to achieve their aims," said Samira al-Musawi, a Shiite lawmaker.
On Thursday, some officials in the Interior Ministry expressed concern. "The majority of the officers arrested are Sunnis," said an official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the comments. "I think this crisis was done for political reasons, especially because it happened before the provincial election."
Other lawmakers said they doubt that any loyalists of the Baath Party could infiltrate the ministry.
"We, who are inside the political process and the government, know that all the important and critical posts inside the Interior Ministry hierarchy are connected to the Iranian intelligence," said Mohammed al-Dayeni, a Sunni member of parliament. "I don't believe any of these charges because I know who is in the Ministry of Interior and who is running it."
Special correspondents K.I. Ibrahim, Aziz Alwan and Dalya Hassan in Baghdad contributed
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Iraqi ministry says US troops kill employees, burn office.
This seems weird. It will do nothing to make the US occupation more palatable for sure. Maybe we will hear more about this but then maybe we wont. The moral of the story is that guards should not sleep on the job I guess.
Iraq Ministry Says US Troops Kill Employees, Burn Office
Reason for Pre-Dawn Raid on Iraqi Grain Board Unclear
Posted December 18, 2008
Iraq’s Trade Ministry issued a statement condemned a pre-dawn raid by US forces on a flour mill belong to the Iraqi Grain Board, and demanding an apology.
During the raid, the ministry says US forces killed at least three of the mill’s security guards in their sleep, set fire to offices and searched through files and computers. It was unclear what prompted the raid and the US military declined to confirm the incident, though the statement claims a US officer returned to the scene later to apologize, saying the raid was a mistake.
compiled by Jason Ditz [email the author]
Find this article at: http://news.antiwar.com/2008/12/18/iraq-ministry-says-us-troops-kill-employees-burn-office
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
A case study of a Madoff victim: Alexandra Penney
This is a well written interesting study of one of Bernard Madoff's victims. As the case shows not all his clients were rich. Many Jewish charities lost money as well.
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-17/the-bag-lady-papers/1>The Bag Lady Papers
by Alexandra PenneyDecember 17, 2008 7:42am
Alexandra Penney—a NY artist and former editor of Self Magazine—lost her life savings in the Madoff debacle. Now, she shares her wrenching trauma in a Daily Beast exclusive.Last Thursday at around 5 p.m., I had just checked on a rising cheese soufflé in my oven when my best friend called."Heard Madoff's been arrested," she said. "I hope it's a rumor. Doesn't he handle most of your money?"Indeed, he did. More than a decade ago, when I was in my late 40s, I handed over my life savings to Madoff's firm. It was money I'd been tucking away since I was 16-years-old, when I began working summers in Lord & Taylor, earning about $65 a week. Not a penny was inherited. Not one cent was from my divorce. I earned all of it myself, through a long string of jobs that included working as a cashier at Rosedale fish market in New York City in my twenties, and later, writing bestselling sex books.When I hung up with my friend, I turned on the TV, and began to scour Google for news until the message became nauseatingly clear: Forty years of savings—the money I'd counted on to take me comfortably through the next thirty years—had likely evaporated in Madoff's scheme.THAT MOTHERFUCKER!! The soufflé fell.I called Dennis, my consort of 16 years, and he canceled the dinner guests. I took half of a very strong tranquilizer that I'd been stashing for years in case of a death in the family.My son, in his late-thirties and my only child, called from California. "You can live in the back house, mom," he told me, referring to the cottage behind his Santa Monica home. I was immensely grateful to the point of tears. But I am not going to be a burden to anyone. I never have been and I never will be.I'd imagined living out my so-called "Golden Years" working on my art, living in my east side apartment, and god forbid having to hire an aide should I ever need one. Now, what will happen to me? The only thing I have left is the contents of one small bank account I'd saved for a rainy day. Terrifying thoughts of state-run old people's homes, and those slow-eyed attendants that drug you and strap you to wheelchairs suddenly became horribly vivid in my mind.I had a great fear of being alone that night, and Dennis came right over. He walked in the door and gave me biggest bear hug of my life and said "everything will be fine." Dennis is a well-known artist, but the art market is dead, dead, dead, right now.I began to think about my options: I'd have to sell the cottage in West Palm Beach immediately. I'd need to lay off Yolanda. I could cancel the newspaper subscriptions and read everything online. I only needed a cellphone. I'd have to stop taking taxis. And who could highlight my hair for almost no money? And how hard was it to give yourself a really good pedicure?Then, there is my jewelry. I've always collected nice watches and pearls. In the back of my mind I'd think "buy good stuff because if you're ever a bag lady, you can sell it." It might have been a rationalization then—but here I am now: the nightmare may be coming true.Before I reached for a bedtime Tylenol PM that night, I Googled the Hemlock society. I wanted to know a painless way to die. Would you believe the Hemlock society no longer exists?Park Ave. and the Fish MarketI was brought up in very comfortable circumstances in a Waspy Connecticut suburb. My mother was a descendent of Greek royalty, an intellectual grande dame who wore elegant shaded glasses. But my father, a Greek immigrant, was a product of the Depression. He was a smart, strict Harvard lawyer who had seen bad times. I learned to save pennies from the minute I got an allowance.After graduating from Smith, I moved to New York, dreamed of being a painter, but needed money. I began to work at Vogue magazine and was married briefly to a talented industrial designer. We lived right off Park Avenue and had a son. But the chichi uptown lifestyle was not for me.My husband and I divorced, and I walked out without a penny. It was the 1970s, I was a feminist and I would make it on my own.I took three jobs to support myself and my son, including cashiering at the fish market, where my new style included rubber boots, overalls and a wrap-around aprons. I also wrote ad copy for Bloomingdales, and freelanced for the New York Times Magazine.We lived in a tiny two room apartment on West Broadway before it became SoHo, where I slept on a mattress on the floor so my son could have his own room with his toys.We lived cheaply, ate a lot of interesting pasta, but I always wanted my surroundings to be beautiful. Our life was more dash than cash.In the early 1980s, needing more money, I came up with a book idea: How to Make Love to a Man. My parents told me I'd lost my dignity and didn't speak to me for nine years. Lawyers have advised me not to speak in specific numbers, but the book sold millions of copies worldwide. Four others followed; all hit the New York Times bestseller list.Checks started rolling in. I bought a one bedroom apartment on Fifth Ave., the first thing I'd ever owned. A few years later, Si Newhouse offered me a job as editor-in-chief of Self Magazine. I worked there until the mid 1990s, when I left to pursue my art full time.The Madoff ConnectionI suddenly had a lot of money. I was in my late forties, and I felt that I was just too old to have it in a plain old bank account. But I was a creative person, not a savvy investor, so I asked around and talked to my smartest friends with Harvard and Wharton MBAs. There appeared to be a secret society of Madoff investors. A friend who was older, wealthier and more established somehow got me in. I've always had good luck, and I thought it was another stroke of good fortune to be invested with the legendary Bernard Madoff.Every month I got detailed statements, and my money looked to be growing around 9 to 11%. It didn't seem greedy because I knew people other people who were making 15 or 20%. I thought "this is just a very smart investor."I never even knew what Madoff looked like. But now I obliterate his face when I see it on television. I think he's a sociopath who said he lost $50 billion bucks for self aggrandizement, when it was probably closer to the bandied about number of $17 billion.The StudioI woke up Friday, the day after the news broke, at 4:46 a.m. in my pretty bedroom. (How much longer will I be able to stay here?) It takes a moment, but then I remember: Ohmygod, something TERRIBLE HAS HAPPENED! For several seconds I can't remember. And then: dear god! I HAVE NOTHING.It is too painful to think I will lose my Florida cottage, maybe my studio. This is everything I have worked for.I started out life as a painter. Since those days, my dream has been to have a studio to do the work I want to do, to be my own boss, to make the smartest art I can conceive.I finally found my studio two years ago: a small SoHo space awash in light and sun and energy and hope.I will almost surely have to give it up: it is an amputation I may not be able to bear. Not hearing the click of the key to "AP Studio" room 803 makes my thoughts turn to those sweet almondy cyanide capsules.White Shirts and Telling YolandaI wear a classic clean white shirt every day of the week. I have about 40 white shirts. They make me feel fresh and ready to face whatever battles I may be fighting in the studio to get the best out of my work.How am I going to iron those shirts so I can still feel like a poor civilized person? Even the no iron ones need touching up.Yolanda makes my life work. She comes in three mornings a week, whirlwinds around and voila! The shirts are ironed, the sheets are changed, the floors are vacuumed. She's worked with me for seven years and is a big part of my life. She needs money. She sends it to her family in Colombia. I have more than affection for Yolanda, I love her as part of my family.On Friday, I tell her I have had a disastrous thing happen to me, but I don't have the guts to tell her I cannot keep her with me any longer. I'll wait til Wednesday.How will I make money?The art market, as everyone pretty much knows, is dead. If I can't sell my work, I am going to have to find some way to make money.I've lived a great and interesting life. I love beautiful things: high thread count sheets, old china, watches, jewelry, Hermes purses and Louboutin shoes. I like expensive French milled soap, good wines and white truffles. I have given extravagant gifts like diamond earrings. I traveled a lot. In this last year, I've been Laos, Cambodia, India, Russia, and Berlin for my first solo art show. Will I ever be able to explore exotic places again?Since this happened last Thursday, I have barely left my apartment, I haven't been out for dinner; haven't bought groceries. Can't remember the last time I ate a full meal. Food, which is one of my most favorite things in the world, has become meaningless. But I look on that as an upside.Yesterday, I took my first subway in 30 years. Dennis came with me to show me how to get a MetroCard. The world looks very different from a crowded Lexington Avenue number 6 train.Alexandra Penney is an artist, best-selling author, former editor-in-chief of Self magazine, and originator, with Evelyn Lauder, of the Pink Ribbon for breast cancer awareness. She had a one-person show at Galerie in Berlin in April and her work was shown at Miami's Art Basel. She lives in New York, has one treasured son in Los Angeles and more amazing friends than could ever be imagined.
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-17/the-bag-lady-papers/1>The Bag Lady Papers
by Alexandra PenneyDecember 17, 2008 7:42am
Alexandra Penney—a NY artist and former editor of Self Magazine—lost her life savings in the Madoff debacle. Now, she shares her wrenching trauma in a Daily Beast exclusive.Last Thursday at around 5 p.m., I had just checked on a rising cheese soufflé in my oven when my best friend called."Heard Madoff's been arrested," she said. "I hope it's a rumor. Doesn't he handle most of your money?"Indeed, he did. More than a decade ago, when I was in my late 40s, I handed over my life savings to Madoff's firm. It was money I'd been tucking away since I was 16-years-old, when I began working summers in Lord & Taylor, earning about $65 a week. Not a penny was inherited. Not one cent was from my divorce. I earned all of it myself, through a long string of jobs that included working as a cashier at Rosedale fish market in New York City in my twenties, and later, writing bestselling sex books.When I hung up with my friend, I turned on the TV, and began to scour Google for news until the message became nauseatingly clear: Forty years of savings—the money I'd counted on to take me comfortably through the next thirty years—had likely evaporated in Madoff's scheme.THAT MOTHERFUCKER!! The soufflé fell.I called Dennis, my consort of 16 years, and he canceled the dinner guests. I took half of a very strong tranquilizer that I'd been stashing for years in case of a death in the family.My son, in his late-thirties and my only child, called from California. "You can live in the back house, mom," he told me, referring to the cottage behind his Santa Monica home. I was immensely grateful to the point of tears. But I am not going to be a burden to anyone. I never have been and I never will be.I'd imagined living out my so-called "Golden Years" working on my art, living in my east side apartment, and god forbid having to hire an aide should I ever need one. Now, what will happen to me? The only thing I have left is the contents of one small bank account I'd saved for a rainy day. Terrifying thoughts of state-run old people's homes, and those slow-eyed attendants that drug you and strap you to wheelchairs suddenly became horribly vivid in my mind.I had a great fear of being alone that night, and Dennis came right over. He walked in the door and gave me biggest bear hug of my life and said "everything will be fine." Dennis is a well-known artist, but the art market is dead, dead, dead, right now.I began to think about my options: I'd have to sell the cottage in West Palm Beach immediately. I'd need to lay off Yolanda. I could cancel the newspaper subscriptions and read everything online. I only needed a cellphone. I'd have to stop taking taxis. And who could highlight my hair for almost no money? And how hard was it to give yourself a really good pedicure?Then, there is my jewelry. I've always collected nice watches and pearls. In the back of my mind I'd think "buy good stuff because if you're ever a bag lady, you can sell it." It might have been a rationalization then—but here I am now: the nightmare may be coming true.Before I reached for a bedtime Tylenol PM that night, I Googled the Hemlock society. I wanted to know a painless way to die. Would you believe the Hemlock society no longer exists?Park Ave. and the Fish MarketI was brought up in very comfortable circumstances in a Waspy Connecticut suburb. My mother was a descendent of Greek royalty, an intellectual grande dame who wore elegant shaded glasses. But my father, a Greek immigrant, was a product of the Depression. He was a smart, strict Harvard lawyer who had seen bad times. I learned to save pennies from the minute I got an allowance.After graduating from Smith, I moved to New York, dreamed of being a painter, but needed money. I began to work at Vogue magazine and was married briefly to a talented industrial designer. We lived right off Park Avenue and had a son. But the chichi uptown lifestyle was not for me.My husband and I divorced, and I walked out without a penny. It was the 1970s, I was a feminist and I would make it on my own.I took three jobs to support myself and my son, including cashiering at the fish market, where my new style included rubber boots, overalls and a wrap-around aprons. I also wrote ad copy for Bloomingdales, and freelanced for the New York Times Magazine.We lived in a tiny two room apartment on West Broadway before it became SoHo, where I slept on a mattress on the floor so my son could have his own room with his toys.We lived cheaply, ate a lot of interesting pasta, but I always wanted my surroundings to be beautiful. Our life was more dash than cash.In the early 1980s, needing more money, I came up with a book idea: How to Make Love to a Man. My parents told me I'd lost my dignity and didn't speak to me for nine years. Lawyers have advised me not to speak in specific numbers, but the book sold millions of copies worldwide. Four others followed; all hit the New York Times bestseller list.Checks started rolling in. I bought a one bedroom apartment on Fifth Ave., the first thing I'd ever owned. A few years later, Si Newhouse offered me a job as editor-in-chief of Self Magazine. I worked there until the mid 1990s, when I left to pursue my art full time.The Madoff ConnectionI suddenly had a lot of money. I was in my late forties, and I felt that I was just too old to have it in a plain old bank account. But I was a creative person, not a savvy investor, so I asked around and talked to my smartest friends with Harvard and Wharton MBAs. There appeared to be a secret society of Madoff investors. A friend who was older, wealthier and more established somehow got me in. I've always had good luck, and I thought it was another stroke of good fortune to be invested with the legendary Bernard Madoff.Every month I got detailed statements, and my money looked to be growing around 9 to 11%. It didn't seem greedy because I knew people other people who were making 15 or 20%. I thought "this is just a very smart investor."I never even knew what Madoff looked like. But now I obliterate his face when I see it on television. I think he's a sociopath who said he lost $50 billion bucks for self aggrandizement, when it was probably closer to the bandied about number of $17 billion.The StudioI woke up Friday, the day after the news broke, at 4:46 a.m. in my pretty bedroom. (How much longer will I be able to stay here?) It takes a moment, but then I remember: Ohmygod, something TERRIBLE HAS HAPPENED! For several seconds I can't remember. And then: dear god! I HAVE NOTHING.It is too painful to think I will lose my Florida cottage, maybe my studio. This is everything I have worked for.I started out life as a painter. Since those days, my dream has been to have a studio to do the work I want to do, to be my own boss, to make the smartest art I can conceive.I finally found my studio two years ago: a small SoHo space awash in light and sun and energy and hope.I will almost surely have to give it up: it is an amputation I may not be able to bear. Not hearing the click of the key to "AP Studio" room 803 makes my thoughts turn to those sweet almondy cyanide capsules.White Shirts and Telling YolandaI wear a classic clean white shirt every day of the week. I have about 40 white shirts. They make me feel fresh and ready to face whatever battles I may be fighting in the studio to get the best out of my work.How am I going to iron those shirts so I can still feel like a poor civilized person? Even the no iron ones need touching up.Yolanda makes my life work. She comes in three mornings a week, whirlwinds around and voila! The shirts are ironed, the sheets are changed, the floors are vacuumed. She's worked with me for seven years and is a big part of my life. She needs money. She sends it to her family in Colombia. I have more than affection for Yolanda, I love her as part of my family.On Friday, I tell her I have had a disastrous thing happen to me, but I don't have the guts to tell her I cannot keep her with me any longer. I'll wait til Wednesday.How will I make money?The art market, as everyone pretty much knows, is dead. If I can't sell my work, I am going to have to find some way to make money.I've lived a great and interesting life. I love beautiful things: high thread count sheets, old china, watches, jewelry, Hermes purses and Louboutin shoes. I like expensive French milled soap, good wines and white truffles. I have given extravagant gifts like diamond earrings. I traveled a lot. In this last year, I've been Laos, Cambodia, India, Russia, and Berlin for my first solo art show. Will I ever be able to explore exotic places again?Since this happened last Thursday, I have barely left my apartment, I haven't been out for dinner; haven't bought groceries. Can't remember the last time I ate a full meal. Food, which is one of my most favorite things in the world, has become meaningless. But I look on that as an upside.Yesterday, I took my first subway in 30 years. Dennis came with me to show me how to get a MetroCard. The world looks very different from a crowded Lexington Avenue number 6 train.Alexandra Penney is an artist, best-selling author, former editor-in-chief of Self magazine, and originator, with Evelyn Lauder, of the Pink Ribbon for breast cancer awareness. She had a one-person show at Galerie in Berlin in April and her work was shown at Miami's Art Basel. She lives in New York, has one treasured son in Los Angeles and more amazing friends than could ever be imagined.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Pakistani Opposition Party to start blocking NATO supplies to Afghanistan
This is just a sign of more problems to come as Pakistan turns a blind eye to drone attacks in the tribal areas. There is greater and greater opposition to Pakistan's alignment with US policy. Already NATO and the US are developing alternate routes into Afghanistan. These routes however are longer and no doubt transportation costs will be high however perhaps not as high as going through Pakistan and having trucks constantly destroyed.
Pakistani Opposition Party to Start Blocking NATO Supplies to Afghanistan
JI to Announce Blockade Strategy on Thursday
Over a week of attacks by Peshawar-area militants on NATO vehicles and supply containers was already having a noticeable impact on the ability to ship supplies across the Khyber Pass, through which three-quarters of supplies for the international military operation reach Afghanistan. And while NATO insists that “for the moment the supplies are passing,” one of Pakistan’s oldest political parties may soon put a stop to that.
Jamaat-e Islami (JI), a religious party that boycotted the most recent elections over then-President Musharraf’s State of Emergency, remains an influential opposition voice, particularly in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Flexing some of that authority, JI announced today that it intends to begin blocking NATO supplies on Thursday.
A long-time critic of American air-strikes into Pakistan, top JI leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed last month threatened to organize civilians to “create hurdles” against NATO supplies if the strikes continued. JI provincial president Sirajul Haq said that the strategy for blocking the supplies will be revealed at the end of a protest march already planned for Thursday.
Given the contentiousness of the US air strikes, JI is likely to find plenty of civilian recruits for creating hurdles along the route. If they are able to bring NATO shipments to a halt, they may wind up doing what seven years of insurgency have not, crippling the Afghan war effort.
Related Stories
Pakistani Opposition Party to Start Blocking NATO Supplies to Afghanistan
JI to Announce Blockade Strategy on Thursday
Over a week of attacks by Peshawar-area militants on NATO vehicles and supply containers was already having a noticeable impact on the ability to ship supplies across the Khyber Pass, through which three-quarters of supplies for the international military operation reach Afghanistan. And while NATO insists that “for the moment the supplies are passing,” one of Pakistan’s oldest political parties may soon put a stop to that.
Jamaat-e Islami (JI), a religious party that boycotted the most recent elections over then-President Musharraf’s State of Emergency, remains an influential opposition voice, particularly in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Flexing some of that authority, JI announced today that it intends to begin blocking NATO supplies on Thursday.
A long-time critic of American air-strikes into Pakistan, top JI leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed last month threatened to organize civilians to “create hurdles” against NATO supplies if the strikes continued. JI provincial president Sirajul Haq said that the strategy for blocking the supplies will be revealed at the end of a protest march already planned for Thursday.
Given the contentiousness of the US air strikes, JI is likely to find plenty of civilian recruits for creating hurdles along the route. If they are able to bring NATO shipments to a halt, they may wind up doing what seven years of insurgency have not, crippling the Afghan war effort.
Related Stories
US costs of Iraq, Afghan wars top 900 billion:CSBA
This military Keynesianism has obviously not been enough to keep the US economy humming so that now further stimulus packages are needed. Eventually these expenditures will be inflationary and make the national debt difficult to sustain. Tax revenue will decrease with tax cuts and the slowing economy increasing the debt. This will bring demands for cuts to govt. services and social programs erasing whatever is left of already weak welfare programs in the US.
U.S. costs of Iraq, Afghan wars top $900 billion: report
Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:54pm EST
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. military operations, including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, have cost $904 billion since 2001 and could top $1.7 trillion by 2018, even with big cuts in overseas troop deployments, a report said on Monday.
A new study released by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, or CSBA, said the Iraq conflict's $687 billion price tag alone now exceeds the cost of every past U.S. war except for World War II, when expenditures are adjusted for inflation.
With another $184 billion in spending for Afghanistan included, the two conflicts surpass the cost of the Vietnam War by about 50 percent, the report said.
CSBA said U.S. military operations have already reached $904 billion since 2001, including the two wars as well as stepped-up military security activities at home and the payout in war-related veterans' benefits. The estimate includes allocated spending into 2009.
In contrast, a separate Government Accountability Office study released on Monday said Congress has provided the Pentagon with $808 billion for the Bush administration's global war on terrorism from 2001 through September 30, 2008, including $508 billion for Iraq and $118 billion for Afghanistan, the Philippines and the Horn of Africa.
The CSBA study said U.S. taxpayers could pay another $416 billion to $817 billion over the next decade, even if the combined troop deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan were slashed to between 30,000 and 75,000.
That would bring the cost for both wars to between $1.3 trillion and $1.72 trillion for 2001 through 2018, and even higher when federal borrowing costs are included, CSBA said.
The United States has 143,000 troops in Iraq and 31,000 in Afghanistan. Washington has agreed to withdraw its forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, under a newly signed agreement with the Iraqi government. But U.S. officials are planning to add more than 20,000 forces in Afghanistan within 12 to 18 months.
One reason for the ballooning costs is the Bush administration's habit of funding the wars through supplemental budget requests, a practice that CSBA said has eroded congressional oversight and weakened the Pentagon's long-term planning and budgeting processes.
The Bush administration and Congress have also pursued significant tax cuts since 2001 and robust spending increases, rather than following the established approach of funding war costs by combining tax increases with curbs on domestic spending and borrowing.
"The Bush administration has taken a starkly different approach to financing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," the CSBA study said in its executive summary.
In fact, CSBA said war cost projections rise significantly when interest payments on the federal debt are included in the calculations.
Overall costs would reach $1.4 trillion to $1.8 trillion from 2001 through 2018 if borrowing were assumed to cover 10 percent of underlying military operations.
CSBA said war cost projections would climb to between $2 trillion and $2.5 trillion, if all costs were covered by borrowing.
(Editing by David Alexander and David Wiessler)
U.S. costs of Iraq, Afghan wars top $900 billion: report
Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:54pm EST
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. military operations, including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, have cost $904 billion since 2001 and could top $1.7 trillion by 2018, even with big cuts in overseas troop deployments, a report said on Monday.
A new study released by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, or CSBA, said the Iraq conflict's $687 billion price tag alone now exceeds the cost of every past U.S. war except for World War II, when expenditures are adjusted for inflation.
With another $184 billion in spending for Afghanistan included, the two conflicts surpass the cost of the Vietnam War by about 50 percent, the report said.
CSBA said U.S. military operations have already reached $904 billion since 2001, including the two wars as well as stepped-up military security activities at home and the payout in war-related veterans' benefits. The estimate includes allocated spending into 2009.
In contrast, a separate Government Accountability Office study released on Monday said Congress has provided the Pentagon with $808 billion for the Bush administration's global war on terrorism from 2001 through September 30, 2008, including $508 billion for Iraq and $118 billion for Afghanistan, the Philippines and the Horn of Africa.
The CSBA study said U.S. taxpayers could pay another $416 billion to $817 billion over the next decade, even if the combined troop deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan were slashed to between 30,000 and 75,000.
That would bring the cost for both wars to between $1.3 trillion and $1.72 trillion for 2001 through 2018, and even higher when federal borrowing costs are included, CSBA said.
The United States has 143,000 troops in Iraq and 31,000 in Afghanistan. Washington has agreed to withdraw its forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, under a newly signed agreement with the Iraqi government. But U.S. officials are planning to add more than 20,000 forces in Afghanistan within 12 to 18 months.
One reason for the ballooning costs is the Bush administration's habit of funding the wars through supplemental budget requests, a practice that CSBA said has eroded congressional oversight and weakened the Pentagon's long-term planning and budgeting processes.
The Bush administration and Congress have also pursued significant tax cuts since 2001 and robust spending increases, rather than following the established approach of funding war costs by combining tax increases with curbs on domestic spending and borrowing.
"The Bush administration has taken a starkly different approach to financing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," the CSBA study said in its executive summary.
In fact, CSBA said war cost projections rise significantly when interest payments on the federal debt are included in the calculations.
Overall costs would reach $1.4 trillion to $1.8 trillion from 2001 through 2018 if borrowing were assumed to cover 10 percent of underlying military operations.
CSBA said war cost projections would climb to between $2 trillion and $2.5 trillion, if all costs were covered by borrowing.
(Editing by David Alexander and David Wiessler)
Cheney lauds Obama's choice of national security team.
Given Cheney approves of the national security team chosen by Obama this will give some idea of what Obama's new beginnings in this area will mean: a surge in Afghanistan, perhaps further engagement in Pakistan. More orders for body bags.
Cheney continues to approve torture in the form of waterboarding but of course in Cheneyspeak this would not be called torture. We will see how quickly Obama moves on closing Guantanamo. It probably will not be a first priority.
VP lauds Obama's choice of national security team
(12-16) 05:13 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Vice President Dick Cheney is calling President-elect Barack Obama's national security lineup "a pretty good team."
In a wide-ranging interview with ABC News with 35 days left in the Bush administration, Cheney also again vehemently defended going to war in Iraq, said waterboarding of suspects in the war on terror was justified in some instances and opposed closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"I must say, I think it's a pretty good team," Cheney said of Obama's national security choices, in a segment of the interview broadcast Tuesday on "Good Morning America."
"I'm not close to Barack Obama, obviously, nor do I identify with him politically. He's a liberal. I'm a conservative," he said.
But the vice president also said he thinks "the idea of keeping (Bob) Gates at defense is excellent. I think (retired Gen.) Jim Jones will be very, very effective as the national security adviser."
And Cheney said that while "I would not have hired" Hillary Rodham Clinton to be secretary of state, "I think she's tough. She's smart, she works very hard and she may turn out to be just what President Obama needs."
Cheney also urged the incoming administration to "carefully assess the tools put in place to fight terror" and to not cast aside strategies he said worked for the current administration.
Of waterboarding, Cheney said it was an appropriate means of getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States.
He said he is against closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, saying it can only be shut down responsibly once the war on terrorism has ended.
Asked when that might be, he replied, "Well, nobody knows. Nobody can specify that."
Cheney continues to approve torture in the form of waterboarding but of course in Cheneyspeak this would not be called torture. We will see how quickly Obama moves on closing Guantanamo. It probably will not be a first priority.
VP lauds Obama's choice of national security team
(12-16) 05:13 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Vice President Dick Cheney is calling President-elect Barack Obama's national security lineup "a pretty good team."
In a wide-ranging interview with ABC News with 35 days left in the Bush administration, Cheney also again vehemently defended going to war in Iraq, said waterboarding of suspects in the war on terror was justified in some instances and opposed closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"I must say, I think it's a pretty good team," Cheney said of Obama's national security choices, in a segment of the interview broadcast Tuesday on "Good Morning America."
"I'm not close to Barack Obama, obviously, nor do I identify with him politically. He's a liberal. I'm a conservative," he said.
But the vice president also said he thinks "the idea of keeping (Bob) Gates at defense is excellent. I think (retired Gen.) Jim Jones will be very, very effective as the national security adviser."
And Cheney said that while "I would not have hired" Hillary Rodham Clinton to be secretary of state, "I think she's tough. She's smart, she works very hard and she may turn out to be just what President Obama needs."
Cheney also urged the incoming administration to "carefully assess the tools put in place to fight terror" and to not cast aside strategies he said worked for the current administration.
Of waterboarding, Cheney said it was an appropriate means of getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States.
He said he is against closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, saying it can only be shut down responsibly once the war on terrorism has ended.
Asked when that might be, he replied, "Well, nobody knows. Nobody can specify that."
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Tariq Ali: Brown's Al Qaida blame game.
Although as this article shows some of the responsibility for terror attacks does indeed rest with Pakistani organisations the west refuses to recognise that its own policies often aid in the recruitment of jihadis. Ali notes in particular the problem of Kashmir but one could also mention the drone attacks and in Afghanistan air attacks that kill civilians. These all help recruitment to radical Islamist insurgencies.
Brown's al-Qaida blame game
He should accept Britain's responsibility for encouraging terror attacks rather than pointing the finger of blame at Pakistan
Tariq Ali
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 14 December 2008 16.19 GMT
Gordon Brown is targeting Pakistan. His claim that 75% of UK terror plots originate there is now part of a common western stance that refuses to accept any responsibility for encouraging the growth of recruits to jihadi organisations. Just as the events of Bloody Sunday helped IRA recruitment, the New Labour-supported wars in Iraq and Afghanistan play an important part in encouraging young Muslims to sacrifice their lives. The London bombings, which Brown mentioned in Pakistan, were the direct result of Labour's foreign policy. There is near unanimity on this within the British intelligence community. Had Britain not participated in occupying two countries, there would have been no attacks and no training trips to Pakistan or elsewhere.
The US intelligence agencies are close to agreeing that the war in Afghanistan has become a disaster. Some of Obama's advisers are recommending an exit strategy. Washington's hawks (backed by Brown) argue that, while bad, the military situation is still salvageable. This may be technically accurate, but it would require the carpet-bombing of southern Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, the destruction of scores of villages and small towns, the killing of untold numbers of Pashtuns and the dispatch to the region of at least 200,000 more troops with all their equipment, air and logistical support. The political consequences of such a course are so dire that even Dick Cheney, the closest thing to Dr Strangelove that Washington has produced, has been uncharacteristically cautious when it comes to suggesting a military solution to the conflict.
Al-Qaida, as the CIA recently made clear, is on the decline. It has never come close to repeating anything resembling the strikes of 9/11. Its principal leader Osama bin Laden may well be dead (he did not make his trademark video intervention in this year's US presidential election) and his deputy has fallen back on threats and bravado. Now Gordon Brown appears to have discovered the existence of the long-established Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (Soldiers of Medina). This is one of the more virulent jihadi groups created by the ISI, Pakistan's security service, in the mid-90s. Its aim (as I pointed out in 2000) was to repeat the mujahideen's successful war against the Russians in Afghanistan by opening a new front in Indian-held Kashmir. It could not exist without the patronage of the army. It had a membership of 50,000 militants, foot-soldiers trained in camps in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, bankrolled by the Saudis and the Pakistani government. Teenagers are recruited from poor families, while state payouts for martyrs help fund the organisation.
After 9/11 Pervez Musharraf sidelined them and funding was drastically reduced, but they were not disbanded. Were they involved in the assault on Mumbai? Possibly, but they could not have acted on their own. They needed help inside India, a fact the Indian elite and its western apologists shy away from. Why should it be such a surprise if some of the perpetrators are Indian Muslims? There has been much anger within the poorest sections of the Muslim community against the systematic discrimination and acts of violence carried out against them, of which the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat was only the most blatant.
Add to this the continuing sore of Kashmir, which has for decades been treated as a colony by Indian troops with random arrests, torture and rape an everyday occurrence. Conditions have been much worse than in Tibet, but have aroused little sympathy in the west. Being tough on terror but not on the causes of terror is, as we have seen since 9/11, a road to nowhere.
Brown's al-Qaida blame game
He should accept Britain's responsibility for encouraging terror attacks rather than pointing the finger of blame at Pakistan
Tariq Ali
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 14 December 2008 16.19 GMT
Gordon Brown is targeting Pakistan. His claim that 75% of UK terror plots originate there is now part of a common western stance that refuses to accept any responsibility for encouraging the growth of recruits to jihadi organisations. Just as the events of Bloody Sunday helped IRA recruitment, the New Labour-supported wars in Iraq and Afghanistan play an important part in encouraging young Muslims to sacrifice their lives. The London bombings, which Brown mentioned in Pakistan, were the direct result of Labour's foreign policy. There is near unanimity on this within the British intelligence community. Had Britain not participated in occupying two countries, there would have been no attacks and no training trips to Pakistan or elsewhere.
The US intelligence agencies are close to agreeing that the war in Afghanistan has become a disaster. Some of Obama's advisers are recommending an exit strategy. Washington's hawks (backed by Brown) argue that, while bad, the military situation is still salvageable. This may be technically accurate, but it would require the carpet-bombing of southern Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, the destruction of scores of villages and small towns, the killing of untold numbers of Pashtuns and the dispatch to the region of at least 200,000 more troops with all their equipment, air and logistical support. The political consequences of such a course are so dire that even Dick Cheney, the closest thing to Dr Strangelove that Washington has produced, has been uncharacteristically cautious when it comes to suggesting a military solution to the conflict.
Al-Qaida, as the CIA recently made clear, is on the decline. It has never come close to repeating anything resembling the strikes of 9/11. Its principal leader Osama bin Laden may well be dead (he did not make his trademark video intervention in this year's US presidential election) and his deputy has fallen back on threats and bravado. Now Gordon Brown appears to have discovered the existence of the long-established Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (Soldiers of Medina). This is one of the more virulent jihadi groups created by the ISI, Pakistan's security service, in the mid-90s. Its aim (as I pointed out in 2000) was to repeat the mujahideen's successful war against the Russians in Afghanistan by opening a new front in Indian-held Kashmir. It could not exist without the patronage of the army. It had a membership of 50,000 militants, foot-soldiers trained in camps in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, bankrolled by the Saudis and the Pakistani government. Teenagers are recruited from poor families, while state payouts for martyrs help fund the organisation.
After 9/11 Pervez Musharraf sidelined them and funding was drastically reduced, but they were not disbanded. Were they involved in the assault on Mumbai? Possibly, but they could not have acted on their own. They needed help inside India, a fact the Indian elite and its western apologists shy away from. Why should it be such a surprise if some of the perpetrators are Indian Muslims? There has been much anger within the poorest sections of the Muslim community against the systematic discrimination and acts of violence carried out against them, of which the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat was only the most blatant.
Add to this the continuing sore of Kashmir, which has for decades been treated as a colony by Indian troops with random arrests, torture and rape an everyday occurrence. Conditions have been much worse than in Tibet, but have aroused little sympathy in the west. Being tough on terror but not on the causes of terror is, as we have seen since 9/11, a road to nowhere.
Philippines: Bolante (Joc-joc) to be charged with false testimony.
It remains to be seen whether these charges actually stick. The inquiry is still going on and no doubt there could be more damaging testimony. Bolante will held by Senate until the case if filed.
Press ReleaseDecember 9, 2008
Gordon to charge Bolante for false testimony
Independent Senator Richard J. Gordon today said he will file charges for false testimony--and not perjury--against former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante for falsely and evasively testifying on his alleged involvement in the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.
Gordon, chairman of the Senate blue ribbon committee, made the clarification as the Senate panel resumes its hearing on the fertilizer fund mess at noontime tomorrow (Dec.. 10).
"We have a plethora of evidence that warrants the filing of charges against Mr. Bolante. Clearly, he violates the rules of the Senate and its blue ribbon committee and once a criminal case is filed against him, it is now up to the court to decide," he said.
"The Senate meanwhile will not be sidelined from holding these hearings in aid of legislation, since its principal responsibility is to address loopholes in government procurement projects," he added.
Gordon said he will formally file charges for violation of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, or false testimony, against Bolante, citing his eight statements majority senators deemed false and evasive during the hearings last Nov. 13, 25 and 28.
He explained that under the law, false testimony is committed by a person who, being under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a certain matter at a hearing before a competent authority, shall deny the truth or say something contrary to it.
False testimony, a bailable offense, is punishable by four months and one day (arresto mayor, maximum period) up to two years and four months (prision correccional, minimum period) imprisonment. Each false testimony is considered a separate and distinct offense.
Gordon added that the case would be filed before the DOJ, and not the Office of the Ombudsman, since Bolante is no longer a public official when he made the false statements before the panel.
"Aside from the fact that the Ombudsman seems to be sitting on the case that was filed by the Senate of the 13th Congress against Mr. Bolante, we considered his status as a private individual when making those false statements," he said.
He also said, once the case is filed, Bolante would be released from detention in the Senate, consistent with the contempt order the Senate blue ribbon committee has issued against him last Dec. 3.
The contempt order was overwhelmingly approved by 13 senators led by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile.
Press ReleaseDecember 9, 2008
Gordon to charge Bolante for false testimony
Independent Senator Richard J. Gordon today said he will file charges for false testimony--and not perjury--against former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante for falsely and evasively testifying on his alleged involvement in the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.
Gordon, chairman of the Senate blue ribbon committee, made the clarification as the Senate panel resumes its hearing on the fertilizer fund mess at noontime tomorrow (Dec.. 10).
"We have a plethora of evidence that warrants the filing of charges against Mr. Bolante. Clearly, he violates the rules of the Senate and its blue ribbon committee and once a criminal case is filed against him, it is now up to the court to decide," he said.
"The Senate meanwhile will not be sidelined from holding these hearings in aid of legislation, since its principal responsibility is to address loopholes in government procurement projects," he added.
Gordon said he will formally file charges for violation of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, or false testimony, against Bolante, citing his eight statements majority senators deemed false and evasive during the hearings last Nov. 13, 25 and 28.
He explained that under the law, false testimony is committed by a person who, being under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a certain matter at a hearing before a competent authority, shall deny the truth or say something contrary to it.
False testimony, a bailable offense, is punishable by four months and one day (arresto mayor, maximum period) up to two years and four months (prision correccional, minimum period) imprisonment. Each false testimony is considered a separate and distinct offense.
Gordon added that the case would be filed before the DOJ, and not the Office of the Ombudsman, since Bolante is no longer a public official when he made the false statements before the panel.
"Aside from the fact that the Ombudsman seems to be sitting on the case that was filed by the Senate of the 13th Congress against Mr. Bolante, we considered his status as a private individual when making those false statements," he said.
He also said, once the case is filed, Bolante would be released from detention in the Senate, consistent with the contempt order the Senate blue ribbon committee has issued against him last Dec. 3.
The contempt order was overwhelmingly approved by 13 senators led by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile.
Poll: US public generally backs Obama on Iraq, Afghanistan.
This is from the Washington Post.
The US public opinion is quite at variance with opinion in most countries who share in the Afghan mission. Especially in some European countries there is little support for sending troops to Afghanistan. Once the casualties begin to mount for the US perhaps the US support will dwindle as well. There seems little discussion of the cost of such misadventures. Obama is likely to extend the mission even more into Pakistan. Even now it seems that drone attacks take place daily in the Tribal Areas. There could easily be civil war in Pakistan.
Poll: U.S. Public Generally Backs Obama on Iraq, AfghanistanMost Americans Want U.S. to Pull Out of Iraq, but Stay Committed to Afghanistan
By Michael A. Fletcher and Jon CohenWashington Post Staff WritersMonday, December 15, 2008; 5:00 PM
Americans are more upbeat about U.S. prospects in Iraq than at any time in the past five years, but nearly two thirds continue to believe the war is not worth fighting and 70 percent say President-elect Barack Obama should fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw U.S. forces from the country within 16 months, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Meanwhile, most Americans support the war in Afghanistan and a slim majority say the conflict there is essential to battling global terrorism, the poll found. Yet, a majority of Americans also believe that the U.S. military action there has been unsuccessful.
Public perceptions of the two wars appear to largely dovetail with the views expressed by Obama, who has promised to begin withdrawing most combat troops from Iraq shortly after he takes office on Jan. 20. Obama has advocated shifting more U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the U.S.-led coalition has been struggling to quell resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda forces.
Over the weekend, President Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad, where he met with Iraqi leaders about the recently completed security agreement, which calls for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. Bush's visit was aimed in part at highlighting vastly improved security conditions in Iraq since he ordered additional U.S. troops there nearly two years ago. But that symbolic moment was largely overshadowed by an incident where an Iraqi television journalist, angry about the U.S. invasion, threw two shoes at Bush during a news conference.
Iraqis demonstrated in the streets yesterday demanding the release of the journalist after he was detained by authorities, as Arabs across the Middle East hailed him as a hero who reflected their anger at American policies.
Still, much of the American public agrees that security is improving in Iraq, a view that does not change their basic opposition to the war. Fifty-six percent said the U.S. is making significant progress toward restoring order in Iraq. Overall, two thirds of Americans are optimistic about U.S. prospects in Iraq over the next year, a rising level of confidence that is rooted in both improved assessments of security on the ground and widespread expectations that Obama will be able to wind down the U.S. role there once he becomes president.
Two years ago, 57 percent of Americans held a negative outlook on the situation in Iraq; now just 30 percent are downbeat about the next 12 months there. The growing optimism was most pronounced among Democrats, two-thirds of whom are upbeat about the future in Iraq. Over the past year, the percentage of Democrats seeing significant progress in Iraq has more than doubled to 39 percent, the poll found.
Despite growing perceptions of progress, most Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq. The poll found that seven in 10 Americans believe Obama should stick to his plan to withdraw most U.S. forces within 16 months, although there is some division about how quickly he should move on that promise. A majority of those who say the war not worth its costs want Obama to focus on it immediately, while those who support the war think he should move more slowly, if at all.
The mounting confidence in U.S. efforts in Iraq stands in contrast to views about the war in Afghanistan, which 51 percent of those surveyed said is not going well. With violence in Afghanistan now at levels not seen since the U.S. invasion was launched in 2001, the public is almost evenly divided about U.S. prospects there: 49 percent are optimistic and 47 percent said they are pessimistic. Still, 55 percent of Americans said the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting -- a view far fewer Americans share about the war in Iraq, which since the 2003 invasion has cost the lives of more than 4,200 members of the U.S. military, while costing U.S. taxpayers nearly $600 billion.
Public views about Iraq are central to assessments of Bush's job performance and his legacy. From the outset of the war, negative attitudes about the U.S. war in Iraq have moved higher in near lock-step with public disapproval of the president -- as views of the value of fighting the war deteriorated, so did opinions about Bush's performance.
Today, just 30 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is doing his job; 68 percent disapprove. Bush's approval numbers are up somewhat from the fall presidential campaign when they bottomed out at a career low of 23 percent in Post-ABC News polling, but he gets little direct credit for improved perceptions of the situation in Iraq now.
Bush has been below 50 percent in approval ratings for nearly four years now, a record in presidential public opinion polls dating back 70 years. The last time a majority called the war worth fighting was in September 2004.
The poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Dec. 11 to 14 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Error margins for subgroups are larger.
Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.
The US public opinion is quite at variance with opinion in most countries who share in the Afghan mission. Especially in some European countries there is little support for sending troops to Afghanistan. Once the casualties begin to mount for the US perhaps the US support will dwindle as well. There seems little discussion of the cost of such misadventures. Obama is likely to extend the mission even more into Pakistan. Even now it seems that drone attacks take place daily in the Tribal Areas. There could easily be civil war in Pakistan.
Poll: U.S. Public Generally Backs Obama on Iraq, AfghanistanMost Americans Want U.S. to Pull Out of Iraq, but Stay Committed to Afghanistan
By Michael A. Fletcher and Jon CohenWashington Post Staff WritersMonday, December 15, 2008; 5:00 PM
Americans are more upbeat about U.S. prospects in Iraq than at any time in the past five years, but nearly two thirds continue to believe the war is not worth fighting and 70 percent say President-elect Barack Obama should fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw U.S. forces from the country within 16 months, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Meanwhile, most Americans support the war in Afghanistan and a slim majority say the conflict there is essential to battling global terrorism, the poll found. Yet, a majority of Americans also believe that the U.S. military action there has been unsuccessful.
Public perceptions of the two wars appear to largely dovetail with the views expressed by Obama, who has promised to begin withdrawing most combat troops from Iraq shortly after he takes office on Jan. 20. Obama has advocated shifting more U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the U.S.-led coalition has been struggling to quell resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda forces.
Over the weekend, President Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad, where he met with Iraqi leaders about the recently completed security agreement, which calls for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. Bush's visit was aimed in part at highlighting vastly improved security conditions in Iraq since he ordered additional U.S. troops there nearly two years ago. But that symbolic moment was largely overshadowed by an incident where an Iraqi television journalist, angry about the U.S. invasion, threw two shoes at Bush during a news conference.
Iraqis demonstrated in the streets yesterday demanding the release of the journalist after he was detained by authorities, as Arabs across the Middle East hailed him as a hero who reflected their anger at American policies.
Still, much of the American public agrees that security is improving in Iraq, a view that does not change their basic opposition to the war. Fifty-six percent said the U.S. is making significant progress toward restoring order in Iraq. Overall, two thirds of Americans are optimistic about U.S. prospects in Iraq over the next year, a rising level of confidence that is rooted in both improved assessments of security on the ground and widespread expectations that Obama will be able to wind down the U.S. role there once he becomes president.
Two years ago, 57 percent of Americans held a negative outlook on the situation in Iraq; now just 30 percent are downbeat about the next 12 months there. The growing optimism was most pronounced among Democrats, two-thirds of whom are upbeat about the future in Iraq. Over the past year, the percentage of Democrats seeing significant progress in Iraq has more than doubled to 39 percent, the poll found.
Despite growing perceptions of progress, most Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq. The poll found that seven in 10 Americans believe Obama should stick to his plan to withdraw most U.S. forces within 16 months, although there is some division about how quickly he should move on that promise. A majority of those who say the war not worth its costs want Obama to focus on it immediately, while those who support the war think he should move more slowly, if at all.
The mounting confidence in U.S. efforts in Iraq stands in contrast to views about the war in Afghanistan, which 51 percent of those surveyed said is not going well. With violence in Afghanistan now at levels not seen since the U.S. invasion was launched in 2001, the public is almost evenly divided about U.S. prospects there: 49 percent are optimistic and 47 percent said they are pessimistic. Still, 55 percent of Americans said the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting -- a view far fewer Americans share about the war in Iraq, which since the 2003 invasion has cost the lives of more than 4,200 members of the U.S. military, while costing U.S. taxpayers nearly $600 billion.
Public views about Iraq are central to assessments of Bush's job performance and his legacy. From the outset of the war, negative attitudes about the U.S. war in Iraq have moved higher in near lock-step with public disapproval of the president -- as views of the value of fighting the war deteriorated, so did opinions about Bush's performance.
Today, just 30 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is doing his job; 68 percent disapprove. Bush's approval numbers are up somewhat from the fall presidential campaign when they bottomed out at a career low of 23 percent in Post-ABC News polling, but he gets little direct credit for improved perceptions of the situation in Iraq now.
Bush has been below 50 percent in approval ratings for nearly four years now, a record in presidential public opinion polls dating back 70 years. The last time a majority called the war worth fighting was in September 2004.
The poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Dec. 11 to 14 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Error margins for subgroups are larger.
Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Hayden-Obama briefing stirs speculation
Hayden does not sound as bad as Obama's own first choice, John Brennan, who was a defender of Bush's severe interrogation techniques aka torture as well as rendition etc. Although Hayden supported warrantless wiretaps and Obama voted against his appointment Obama has changed his tune on that tune. Welcome new beginnings aka Bush lite. This is from the Washington Times.
Hayden-Obama briefing stirs speculation
Meeting comes as rumors swirl over Hayden's future
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden flew to Chicago on Tuesday to give a full intelligence briefing to President-elect Barack Obama, The Washington Times has learned.
It was not clear whether Mr. Obama discussed Mr. Hayden's future as director of the agency in the new administration, but the focus of the private meeting, which also included Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, centered on the state of national security and was considered classified.
Speculation is growing among intelligence experts and officials that Mr. Obama will ask Mr. Hayden to stay on.
Congress Daily reported Tuesday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat, supported the continuation of Mr. Hayden and Mr. McConnell in their positions.
In an e-mail statement sent to The Times on Friday, Mr. Reyes said recent media reports suggesting "that I believe Directors McConnell and Hayden must be retained in their posts rather than appointing new leadership in the intelligence community" is not accurate.
BLOOMBERG NEWS CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, who is gaining support from the intelligence community to continue in his post in the Obama administration, met Tuesday with the president-elect in Chicago. The Obama transition team Friday declined to comment.
"In fact, what I stated to Congress Daily and to President-elect Obama is that if the president-elect decides to keep Director McConnell or Director Hayden for a transition period, in order to provide continuity of management of our intelligence operations, I would fully support that decision."
Mr. Reyes said he has met with Obama transition officials who have sought his advice on the choice of intelligence chiefs.
On Sunday, The Times reported that intelligence officers were rallying support for Mr. Hayden to continue in his post in the Obama administration after John Brennan, a counterterrorism specialist and former director for the National Counterterrorism Center who reportedly was Mr. Obama's first choice for the CIA post, withdrew his name from consideration in November following criticism from liberal bloggers regarding his support for the Bush administration's unpopular interrogation, detention and rendition policies.
Brooke Anderson, national security spokeswoman for the Obama transition team, declined to comment Friday about Mr. Hayden.
Mr. Hayden's role in the warrantless surveillance program as the director of the National Security Agency before his move to the CIA in 2006 was a main topic during his confirmation hearings. Mr. Obama, then a senator, voted against Mr. Hayden's confirmation. He also has had disagreements with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on issues, including a withdrawal timetable from Iraq, but asked him recently to stay at his post.
Hayden-Obama briefing stirs speculation
Meeting comes as rumors swirl over Hayden's future
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden flew to Chicago on Tuesday to give a full intelligence briefing to President-elect Barack Obama, The Washington Times has learned.
It was not clear whether Mr. Obama discussed Mr. Hayden's future as director of the agency in the new administration, but the focus of the private meeting, which also included Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, centered on the state of national security and was considered classified.
Speculation is growing among intelligence experts and officials that Mr. Obama will ask Mr. Hayden to stay on.
Congress Daily reported Tuesday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat, supported the continuation of Mr. Hayden and Mr. McConnell in their positions.
In an e-mail statement sent to The Times on Friday, Mr. Reyes said recent media reports suggesting "that I believe Directors McConnell and Hayden must be retained in their posts rather than appointing new leadership in the intelligence community" is not accurate.
BLOOMBERG NEWS CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, who is gaining support from the intelligence community to continue in his post in the Obama administration, met Tuesday with the president-elect in Chicago. The Obama transition team Friday declined to comment.
"In fact, what I stated to Congress Daily and to President-elect Obama is that if the president-elect decides to keep Director McConnell or Director Hayden for a transition period, in order to provide continuity of management of our intelligence operations, I would fully support that decision."
Mr. Reyes said he has met with Obama transition officials who have sought his advice on the choice of intelligence chiefs.
On Sunday, The Times reported that intelligence officers were rallying support for Mr. Hayden to continue in his post in the Obama administration after John Brennan, a counterterrorism specialist and former director for the National Counterterrorism Center who reportedly was Mr. Obama's first choice for the CIA post, withdrew his name from consideration in November following criticism from liberal bloggers regarding his support for the Bush administration's unpopular interrogation, detention and rendition policies.
Brooke Anderson, national security spokeswoman for the Obama transition team, declined to comment Friday about Mr. Hayden.
Mr. Hayden's role in the warrantless surveillance program as the director of the National Security Agency before his move to the CIA in 2006 was a main topic during his confirmation hearings. Mr. Obama, then a senator, voted against Mr. Hayden's confirmation. He also has had disagreements with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on issues, including a withdrawal timetable from Iraq, but asked him recently to stay at his post.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Qatar firms to hire 37,000 Filipinos
This is from the peninsulaqatar.
This may be a bit optimistic and Arroyo may be trying to sugar coat the fact that many overseas Filipino workers are losing jobs. I have posted another item underneath from the Kippreport.
Qatari firms to hire 37,000 Filipinos Monday, December 15, 2008-->Web posted at: 12/14/2008 5:50:10Source ::: By JOYCE C ABAÑO
The Emir H H Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani meeting Filipino officials in Doha yesterday.
DOHA: Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who is visiting Doha for the first time, announced there will be 37,000 jobs available for Filipinos in Doha over the next few years.
“I am glad to hear that there are 37,000 more job openings here for Filipinos. It just confirms the information we have from all over the world that employment among our workers is strong,” said Arroyo. She was speaking at a meeting at the Sheraton Doha with chief executive officers and high-level executives of several companies that employ Filipino workers.
Arroyo said the available jobs, offered by the companies whose representatives were present during the meeting, would make up for the loss of jobs suffered by a thousand or so Filipinos in other countries.
“For the few Filipinos who have lost their jobs — so far our count is only 1,000, those that are confirmed, and around 500 who may lose their jobs — the 37,000 jobs offered by these companies here in Qatar will make up for whoever loses or may lose their jobs,” said Arroyo. She emphasized that the placement of Filipino workers in overseas jobs in various countries remained robust even during the global financial crisis.
Labour Secretary Marianito Roque, who is accompanying the president during her three-day visit, said in an interview that the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) continues to process the placement of close to 3,000 Filipino workers who leave the country for overseas employment on a daily basis.
“And now we have this 37,000 projected demand for Filipino manpower,” said Roque.
A minimum salary of 250 dollars a month is hardly a princely sum. Other countries are ready to in effect allow their citizens to become slaves on starvation salaries. The Philippines should be commended for not allowing their citizens to become part of the race to the bottom and degradation.
from the Kippreport:
- Dubai Business Kippreport - http://www.kippreport.com/kipp -
Mayday for Philippines modern heroes?
Posted By Dana El Baltaji On December 11, 2008 @ 10:43 am In Cover Story, Money, The Work
Around 1,200 Filipinos have lost their overseas jobs this year and as many as 50,000 more may be laid off next year as the global recession cuts demand for workers in Asia and elsewhere, the Philippines labor secretary Marianito Roque told [1] Bloomberg recently.
That’s not very heartening news for an economy that is particularly dependent on foreign remittances, and calls its foreign workers “modern heroes.” Around 1.08 million Filipino workers immigrated last year, according to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA); money sent home from abroad accounts for 11.6 percent of the Philippine economy. Worldwide remittances in 2007 reached $14.4 billion, 13.2 percent higher than 2006. The largest remittances come from US, followed by Saudi Arabia.
While the US employs the largest number of overseas Filipinio workers (OFW’s), the Middle East comes next. In 2007, the number of OFWs in the region stood at more than 2.1 million.
According to the [2] POEA, the Middle East also accounted for 45 percent of the total number of hires and re-hires of OFWs in 2007, the largest in the world. The number indicated a 5.5 percent increase over 2006.
Saudi Arabia topped the list, followed by the UAE. Qatar and Kuwait also came within the top ten destinations for OFWs.
That being the case, the region will play an important role in determining the future of the “modern heroes.” [3] According to the the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank of the Philippines), money sent home by UAE-based Filipinos through banks was $502.1 million in 2007. That was 32.9 per cent higher than the previous year.
Most of the countries in the region have already starting hiring less domestic helpers from the Philippines; Saudi hired just 2,581 helpers in 2007, as compared to 11,898 in 2006, a decline of more than 78 percent. In the UAE, the rate fell by 73 percent, and in Qatar it fell by 70 percent.According to the report, the Philippine government’s salary regulations have also made Filipinos more expensive compared with workers from India and elsewhere; for instance, Filipinos working as construction laborers in Saudi Arabia have a minimum salary of $250 a month, compared with as little as $110 a month for other nationalities.
While the Philippines is not the only country affected by the credit crunch, the island nation may have to take some steps, like alter its salary regulations, to help its heroes battle the crisis Article printed from Dubai Business Kippreport: http://www.kippreport.com/kipp
Copyright © 2008 Kippreport. All rights reserved.
This may be a bit optimistic and Arroyo may be trying to sugar coat the fact that many overseas Filipino workers are losing jobs. I have posted another item underneath from the Kippreport.
Qatari firms to hire 37,000 Filipinos Monday, December 15, 2008-->Web posted at: 12/14/2008 5:50:10Source ::: By JOYCE C ABAÑO
The Emir H H Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani meeting Filipino officials in Doha yesterday.
DOHA: Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who is visiting Doha for the first time, announced there will be 37,000 jobs available for Filipinos in Doha over the next few years.
“I am glad to hear that there are 37,000 more job openings here for Filipinos. It just confirms the information we have from all over the world that employment among our workers is strong,” said Arroyo. She was speaking at a meeting at the Sheraton Doha with chief executive officers and high-level executives of several companies that employ Filipino workers.
Arroyo said the available jobs, offered by the companies whose representatives were present during the meeting, would make up for the loss of jobs suffered by a thousand or so Filipinos in other countries.
“For the few Filipinos who have lost their jobs — so far our count is only 1,000, those that are confirmed, and around 500 who may lose their jobs — the 37,000 jobs offered by these companies here in Qatar will make up for whoever loses or may lose their jobs,” said Arroyo. She emphasized that the placement of Filipino workers in overseas jobs in various countries remained robust even during the global financial crisis.
Labour Secretary Marianito Roque, who is accompanying the president during her three-day visit, said in an interview that the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) continues to process the placement of close to 3,000 Filipino workers who leave the country for overseas employment on a daily basis.
“And now we have this 37,000 projected demand for Filipino manpower,” said Roque.
A minimum salary of 250 dollars a month is hardly a princely sum. Other countries are ready to in effect allow their citizens to become slaves on starvation salaries. The Philippines should be commended for not allowing their citizens to become part of the race to the bottom and degradation.
from the Kippreport:
- Dubai Business Kippreport - http://www.kippreport.com/kipp -
Mayday for Philippines modern heroes?
Posted By Dana El Baltaji On December 11, 2008 @ 10:43 am In Cover Story, Money, The Work
Around 1,200 Filipinos have lost their overseas jobs this year and as many as 50,000 more may be laid off next year as the global recession cuts demand for workers in Asia and elsewhere, the Philippines labor secretary Marianito Roque told [1] Bloomberg recently.
That’s not very heartening news for an economy that is particularly dependent on foreign remittances, and calls its foreign workers “modern heroes.” Around 1.08 million Filipino workers immigrated last year, according to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA); money sent home from abroad accounts for 11.6 percent of the Philippine economy. Worldwide remittances in 2007 reached $14.4 billion, 13.2 percent higher than 2006. The largest remittances come from US, followed by Saudi Arabia.
While the US employs the largest number of overseas Filipinio workers (OFW’s), the Middle East comes next. In 2007, the number of OFWs in the region stood at more than 2.1 million.
According to the [2] POEA, the Middle East also accounted for 45 percent of the total number of hires and re-hires of OFWs in 2007, the largest in the world. The number indicated a 5.5 percent increase over 2006.
Saudi Arabia topped the list, followed by the UAE. Qatar and Kuwait also came within the top ten destinations for OFWs.
That being the case, the region will play an important role in determining the future of the “modern heroes.” [3] According to the the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank of the Philippines), money sent home by UAE-based Filipinos through banks was $502.1 million in 2007. That was 32.9 per cent higher than the previous year.
Most of the countries in the region have already starting hiring less domestic helpers from the Philippines; Saudi hired just 2,581 helpers in 2007, as compared to 11,898 in 2006, a decline of more than 78 percent. In the UAE, the rate fell by 73 percent, and in Qatar it fell by 70 percent.According to the report, the Philippine government’s salary regulations have also made Filipinos more expensive compared with workers from India and elsewhere; for instance, Filipinos working as construction laborers in Saudi Arabia have a minimum salary of $250 a month, compared with as little as $110 a month for other nationalities.
While the Philippines is not the only country affected by the credit crunch, the island nation may have to take some steps, like alter its salary regulations, to help its heroes battle the crisis Article printed from Dubai Business Kippreport: http://www.kippreport.com/kipp
Copyright © 2008 Kippreport. All rights reserved.
Senator Schumer and Wall Street.
This is from the NYtimes.
The same people who plumped for deregulation are now steering through the bailout. It is no wonder that there are so few strings attached to the Wall Street bailout. It seems the Wall Street Lobby is far more powerful than that of the ailing Big Three automakers. Of course in the case of the auto bailout there is an opportunity to attack labor that is lacking in the Wall Street bailout. This article goes into considerable detail about the machinations of democrats in first pushing deregulation and now pushing a bailout that favors Wall Street and fosters more takeovers.
December 14, 2008
The Reckoning
A Champion of Wall Street Reaps Benefits
By ERIC LIPTON and RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
“We are not going to rest until we change the rules, change the laws and make sure New York remains No. 1 for decades on into the future.”— Senator Charles E. Schumer, referring to financial regulations, Jan. 22, 2007
WASHINGTON — As the financial crisis jolted the nation in September, Senator Charles E. Schumer was consumed. He traded telephone calls with bankers, then became one of the first officials to promote a Wall Street bailout. He spent hours in closed-door briefings and a weekend helping Congressional leaders nail down details of the $700 billion rescue package.
The next day, Mr. Schumer appeared at a breakfast fund-raiser in Midtown Manhattan for Senate Democrats. Addressing Henry R. Kravis, the buyout billionaire, and about 20 other finance industry executives, he warned that a bailout would be a hard sell on Capitol Hill. Then he offered some reassurance: The businessmen could count on the Democrats to help steer the nation through the financial turmoil.
“We are not going to be a bunch of crazy, anti-business liberals,” one executive said, summarizing Mr. Schumer’s remarks. “We are going to be effective, moderate advocates for sound economic policies, good responsible stewards you can trust.”
The message clearly resonated. The next week, executives at firms represented at the breakfast sent in more than $135,000 in campaign donations.
Senator Schumer plays an unrivaled role in Washington as beneficiary, advocate and overseer of an industry that is his hometown’s most important business.
An exceptional fund raiser — a “jackhammer,” someone who knows him says, for whom “ ‘no’ is the first step to ‘yes,’ ” — Mr. Schumer led the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the last four years, raising a record $240 million while increasing donations from Wall Street by 50 percent. That money helped the Democrats gain power in Congress, elevated Mr. Schumer’s standing in his party and increased the industry’s clout in the capital.
But in building support, he has embraced the industry’s free-market, deregulatory agenda more than almost any other Democrat in Congress, even backing some measures now blamed for contributing to the financial crisis.
Other lawmakers took the lead on efforts like deregulating the complicated financial instruments called derivatives, which are widely seen as catalysts to the crisis.
But Mr. Schumer, a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, repeatedly took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees.
He succeeded in limiting efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies, for example, sponsored legislation that cut fees paid by Wall Street firms to finance government oversight, pushed to allow banks to have lower capital reserves and called for the revision of regulations to make corporations’ balance sheets more transparent.
“Since the financial meltdown, people have been asking, ‘Where was Congress? Why didn’t they see this coming? Why didn’t they provide better oversight?’ ” said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America. “And the answer for some, including Senator Schumer, is that they were actually too busy pursuing a deregulatory agenda. Their focus was on how we have to lighten up regulation on Wall Street.”
In recent weeks, Mr. Schumer has worked closely with the Bush administration to try to mitigate the damage to New York’s financial institutions. And as members of Congress and President-elect Barack Obama have called for new regulations to prevent future upheavals, Mr. Schumer has endorsed the need for reforms while still trying to make them palatable for Wall Street.
Calling himself “an almost obsessive defender of New York jobs,” Mr. Schumer has often talked of the need to avoid excessive regulation of an industry that is increasingly threatened by global competition. At the same time, Mr. Schumer has cast himself as a populist who looks out for the middle class.
In an interview, Mr. Schumer said that until the recent market turmoil, he did not fully appreciate how much risk Wall Street had assumed and how much damage its practices could inflict on ordinary Americans. “It is a learning process, no question about it, an evolution,” he said, adding that he now believed that investors and homeowners must be better protected.
But he defended his record. “Wall Street and Main Street are tied together,” he said. “Often times, they are not in conflict. When they are in conflict, I tend to side with Main Street.”
While Mr. Schumer has taken some pro-consumer stances, his critics fault him for tilting too far toward Wall Street in balancing his responsibilities.
“He is serving the parochial interest of a very small group of financial people, bankers, investment bankers, fund managers, private equity firms, rather than serving the general public,” said John C. Bogle, the founder and former chairman of the Vanguard Group, the giant mutual fund house. “It has hurt the American investor first and the average American taxpayer.”
Navigating the Street
Brash and brainy (perfect SATs and double Harvard degrees), Chuck Schumer, now 58, learned early in his career how to talk to the financiers and chief executives who would become a vital constituency for him. Though he did not grow up in that world — his father owned a small exterminating business in Brooklyn — he quickly showed a keen grasp of complex financial issues.
And, recognizing how central Wall Street is to the city’s economy, he committed himself to keeping it strong.
“So much of what happens in this town is because we are the world financial center,” Mr. Schumer said at City Hall in January 2007. “It helps support our museums, it provides the tax base for schools and health care. If we lose being the financial center, the rest goes down the drain.”
Soon after arriving in Congress in 1981, Mr. Schumer snared a seat on the Financial Services Committee, which he viewed as the best way to help New York. While reliably liberal on many social issues, he established himself as a pragmatic Democrat willing to align with powerful business interests.
Mr. Schumer’s political rise — he moved in 1999 to the Senate, where he now has a party leadership post — paralleled Wall Street’s growing influence in Washington. As more Americans invested in the markets and financial institutions had a greater global reach, the industry came to rival the manufacturing sector as a driving force of the United States economy.
And in the 1990s, Democratic officials developed close links to a new generation of Wall Street leaders — labeled “New Moneycrats” by one author — who shared a free-market agenda.
Mr. Schumer became a magnet for campaign donations from wealthy industry executives, including Jamie Dimon, now the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; John J. Mack, the chief executive at Morgan Stanley; and Charles O. Prince III, the former chief executive of Citigroup. And he was not at all reluctant to ask them for more.
Donors describe the Schumer pitch as unusually aggressive: He calls repeatedly to suggest breakfast or dinner, coffee or cocktails. He enlists intermediaries to invite prospects to events and recruits several senators to tag along. And he presses for the maximum contribution — “I need you to max out,” he is known to say — then follows up by asking that a donor’s spouse and four or five friends write checks, too.
“He was probably the kid that sold the most candy in grade school,” said Julie Domenick, a Democratic lobbyist who has given to the senatorial campaign committee. “He is not shy.”
Mr. Schumer, in the interview, acknowledged his full-speed-ahead approach. “Any job I do, I work hard at and I try to succeed at,” he said.
As a result, he has collected over his career more in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry than any of his peers in Congress, with the exception of Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee for president in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which analyzed federal data. (By 2005, Mr. Schumer had so much cash in reserve that he shut down his fund-raising efforts.)
In the last two-year election cycle, he helped raise more than $120 million for the Democrats’ Senate campaign committee, drawing nearly four times as much money from Wall Street as the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Donors often mention his “pro-business message” and record of addressing their concerns. John A. Kanas, the former chief executive of North Fork Bank, said: “He would solicit my opinion, listen to my advice and he appeared to take it into consideration.”
Lee A. Pickard, a lawyer representing clients including the Bank of New York, whose employees have been significant donors to Mr. Schumer and other Senate Democrats, turned to Mr. Schumer last year to successfully beat back a regulatory initiative by the Securities and Exchange Commission. “If you get Chuck Schumer on your side, you are O.K.,” he said.
That may help explain why some of the wealthiest financiers in Manhattan attended the Sept. 22 breakfast hosted by Mr. Kravis at his office overlooking Central Park. A Republican with long ties to the Bush family, Mr. Kravis spent much of this year trying to help Senator John McCain, the eventual Republican nominee for president.
But last year, Mr. Kravis went to Capitol Hill to oppose a proposal that would have more than doubled taxes for executives at hedge funds and private equity firms like his, costing them up to $25 billion over 10 years.
Mr. Schumer had said publicly he would support the measure only if it also applied to executives at energy, venture capital and real estate partnerships, and he introduced alternative legislation that would do just that. His position was identical to that of lobbyists for a group paid by Mr. Kravis and other finance industry executives.
The Schumer bill, called a “poison pill” by the leading Republican advocate of the tax increase, went nowhere after provoking opposition from an array of industries.
At the breakfast meeting, Mr. Schumer, accompanied by fellow Senate Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Maria Cantwell of Washington, assessed the political landscape as debate over the bailout was beginning.
“On the right, you have those who view any government intervention as a threat to free markets,” one executive recalled Mr. Schumer explaining. “On the left, you have people who choose to view this as a government handout to the rich. In the middle, you have everyone who knows and takes the Treasury secretary seriously and recognizes that if something is not done here, we could be staring into an abyss.”
Within days, the businessmen sent out checks to the Senate campaign committee.
‘Their Go-To Guy’
To Christopher Cox, the Republican chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the need for action was obvious in the spring of 2006.
His agency, which would later be criticized for a 2004 ruling that let banks pile up debt, had grown deeply concerned about lack of oversight of the nation’s largest credit-rating agencies, like Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service. Linchpins of the financial system, their ratings are vital to safeguarding investors by evaluating the risks of bonds and other debt. After the collapse of Enron and WorldCom, which had repeatedly been awarded favorable ratings, the agencies had agreed to meet voluntary standards.
But the S.E.C. concluded that those agreements were inadequate, so Mr. Cox urged Congress to give his agency oversight powers. “Without additional legislative authority, the S.E.C. will not be able to regulate in a thoroughgoing way,” he told the Senate banking committee at an April 2006 hearing.
The plan drew broad, bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. But executives at the credit-rating agencies soon began pressing Mr. Schumer and other allies in Congress to block the proposal or at least limit its reach, according to current and former employees.
“They knew Schumer would support them,” said one former Moody’s executive, who asked not to be named because he still works in the industry. “He was their go-to guy,” the executive said.
While the Manhattan-based agencies were not significant campaign donors to Mr. Schumer or the Senate campaign committee, their lobbyists and many of their clients were.
At that time, revenues for the agencies were skyrocketing. The housing market was robust, and Wall Street investment firms were paying the agencies to rate various mortgage-backed securities after first advising the firms — and also collecting fees — on how to package them to get high credit ratings.
It was an obvious conflict of interest, financial experts now say. Despite their high ratings, many of those securities, based on risky loans, would prove worthless, roiling markets and threatening financial institutions worldwide.
But Mr. Schumer argued that the companies voluntarily met requirements to eliminate such possible conflicts. He suggested that regulators simply encourage competition and disclosure of agencies’ ratings methods. There was perhaps no need for an intrusive new law, he said in the spring of 2006. “They’ve implemented their codes of conduct,” Mr. Schumer told Mr. Cox at a Senate hearing. “They’re making good-faith efforts.”
Mr. Schumer could not stop the legislation from passing, but he managed to get the measure amended so that it explicitly prohibited the S.E.C. from regulating the procedures and methods the agencies use to determine ratings.
Richard Y. Roberts, a former S.E.C. commissioner, said the amendment Mr. Schumer won was troubling, adding that it could block the S.E.C. from punishing a credit-rating agency that consistently issued unreliable ratings.
Sean J. Egan, managing director of a small Pennsylvania agency, Egan-Jones Ratings, and a proponent of the tougher regulations, was more blunt. “The bill was eviscerated,” he said. “You have stripped away basic safeguards for the investors.”
At times in Congress, Mr. Schumer has teamed up with Republicans, like former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who aggressively promoted a free-market agenda. Mr. Schumer pushed for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law, passed in November 1999, which knocked down the walls between investment banks and commercial banks and allowed financial supermarkets to flourish. The law also weakened regulatory oversight by fracturing it among different agencies.
In 2001, Mr. Schumer and Mr. Gramm jointly proposed legislation that would cut fees paid by Wall Street firms and others to the S.E.C. in half, or by $14 billion, over the coming decade. Their proposal included some extra money for salaries of commission employees.
But with trading volumes high, Mr. Schumer argued, the government was collecting far too much money from those fees and using it to subsidize other government operations. “It is a tax, an unintended but very real tax, on all sorts of investors,” he said at the time.
But some Democrats, pointing to the recent corporate accounting scandals, argued that the S.E.C. budget should be doubled or tripled so it could more effectively combat fraud that could lead to a major economic collapse.
“We are making a tragic mistake,” Representative John J. LaFalce, Democrat of New York, warned in arguing for a much smaller reduction in S.E.C. fees.
“We give the industry what it asks for unwittingly.”
Mr. Schumer’s argument prevailed, and the fee cut passed overwhelmingly.
Some consumer advocates laud Mr. Schumer for his stances on consumer finance issues, including combating high interest rates on credit cards, challenging predatory lending practices and advocating legislation to allow bankruptcy courts to force banks to accept lower interest rates so that families facing foreclosure could stay in their homes.
“He is a strong advocate for families and homeowners to make sure they are not taken advantage of,” said Eric Stein, senior vice president at the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit group that combats abusive lending practices.
But those efforts mostly affect commercial banks and mortgage lending operations around the country and in New York, not the securities and investment businesses in Manhattan.
“He built his career in large part based on his ties to Wall Street,” said Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, which advises investors on the regulatory system. “And he has given the Street what it wanted.”
Mr. Schumer, though, has a surprising defender in Alfonse M. D’Amato, the onetime Republican senator he ousted.
“Don’t take someone to task simply because a group has supported him politically and now he supports legislation that helps them,” Mr. D’Amato said. “The question is, is the legislation good or bad? With Chuck, it is clear he tries to do what is best for the state and city as a whole.”
Doling Out Criticism
For Mr. Schumer, Wall Street’s crisis has been especially painful to watch. “It is horrible, just awful,” he said in the interview. “And it affects everybody.”
And he has already begun identifying those he faults for the devastation. Subprime lenders top the list, but he has lashed out with particular fury at the credit-rating industry, which he once defended but now says misled him and the investing public.
“The work at these ratings firms was severely compromised, and the companies were some of the biggest contributors to the current financial crisis,” Mr. Schumer said earlier this month in response to an S.E.C. move that same day to tighten control over the agencies. “The lesson from this is that the three major firms’ stranglehold on the ratings industry must be loosened.” Mr. Schumer has also blamed the Bush administration for its push to ease rules. “After eight years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of ‘the market can do no wrong’ has led it down a short path to economic recession,” Mr. Schumer said on the Senate floor in September.
He has not assigned responsibility to himself or fellow Democrats, saying he had no way of knowing of the misdeeds going on on Wall Street. “I wish I was omniscient,” he said. “I’m not.”
Since the economy began to fall apart, Mr. Schumer has joined others in calling for new regulations to combat abuses. He has proposed tougher rules for credit-rating agencies, even changing the way they are paid so they are compensated by investors, not by the companies they are evaluating. He has said he is open to imposing regulations on hedge funds, which currently operate with limited government oversight.
And while he previously succeeded in limiting consumers’ rights to sue financial institutions, he says he now favors offering that remedy in certain circumstances.
But he is also warning that any new rules must be carefully crafted so they don’t impose excessive burdens.
“You need to provide safety and security to investors in order to attract them to the markets,” Mr. Schumer told Wall Street executives in a speech last month. “On the other hand, you must be sure that regulation does not snuff out the entrepreneurial vigor and financial innovation that drives economic growth and makes financial institutions successful and profitable.”
And he is seeking some regulatory concessions for some Wall Street supporters. He has proposed, for example, that the government lift a cap on how big the giant banks can get, an issue important to institutions like JPMorgan Chase. Lifting the cap would allow the biggest banks to absorb weaker ones, but it would also limit competition and increase the risks to the financial system posed by failure of one of the giants.
Mr. Schumer is also calling for the adoption of European-style regulations that impose far fewer rules and instead require banks to meet certain performance standards, a system institutions generally prefer but some banking experts criticize as not rigorous enough.
In recent weeks, Mr. Schumer has listened to Wall Street leaders for advice on what should come next. At a dinner at Morgan Stanley’s headquarters the night before the presidential election, John Mack, the chief executive, and a dozen top hedge fund officials talked with Mr. Schumer about possible changes affecting their industry.
“People feel like he is going to be fair and reasonable,” said one Morgan Stanley executive, who asked not to be identified because the session was private. “He is mindful that this is a very big part of his constituency — Wall Street.”
Griff Palmer contributed reporting from New York.
The same people who plumped for deregulation are now steering through the bailout. It is no wonder that there are so few strings attached to the Wall Street bailout. It seems the Wall Street Lobby is far more powerful than that of the ailing Big Three automakers. Of course in the case of the auto bailout there is an opportunity to attack labor that is lacking in the Wall Street bailout. This article goes into considerable detail about the machinations of democrats in first pushing deregulation and now pushing a bailout that favors Wall Street and fosters more takeovers.
December 14, 2008
The Reckoning
A Champion of Wall Street Reaps Benefits
By ERIC LIPTON and RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
“We are not going to rest until we change the rules, change the laws and make sure New York remains No. 1 for decades on into the future.”— Senator Charles E. Schumer, referring to financial regulations, Jan. 22, 2007
WASHINGTON — As the financial crisis jolted the nation in September, Senator Charles E. Schumer was consumed. He traded telephone calls with bankers, then became one of the first officials to promote a Wall Street bailout. He spent hours in closed-door briefings and a weekend helping Congressional leaders nail down details of the $700 billion rescue package.
The next day, Mr. Schumer appeared at a breakfast fund-raiser in Midtown Manhattan for Senate Democrats. Addressing Henry R. Kravis, the buyout billionaire, and about 20 other finance industry executives, he warned that a bailout would be a hard sell on Capitol Hill. Then he offered some reassurance: The businessmen could count on the Democrats to help steer the nation through the financial turmoil.
“We are not going to be a bunch of crazy, anti-business liberals,” one executive said, summarizing Mr. Schumer’s remarks. “We are going to be effective, moderate advocates for sound economic policies, good responsible stewards you can trust.”
The message clearly resonated. The next week, executives at firms represented at the breakfast sent in more than $135,000 in campaign donations.
Senator Schumer plays an unrivaled role in Washington as beneficiary, advocate and overseer of an industry that is his hometown’s most important business.
An exceptional fund raiser — a “jackhammer,” someone who knows him says, for whom “ ‘no’ is the first step to ‘yes,’ ” — Mr. Schumer led the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the last four years, raising a record $240 million while increasing donations from Wall Street by 50 percent. That money helped the Democrats gain power in Congress, elevated Mr. Schumer’s standing in his party and increased the industry’s clout in the capital.
But in building support, he has embraced the industry’s free-market, deregulatory agenda more than almost any other Democrat in Congress, even backing some measures now blamed for contributing to the financial crisis.
Other lawmakers took the lead on efforts like deregulating the complicated financial instruments called derivatives, which are widely seen as catalysts to the crisis.
But Mr. Schumer, a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, repeatedly took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees.
He succeeded in limiting efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies, for example, sponsored legislation that cut fees paid by Wall Street firms to finance government oversight, pushed to allow banks to have lower capital reserves and called for the revision of regulations to make corporations’ balance sheets more transparent.
“Since the financial meltdown, people have been asking, ‘Where was Congress? Why didn’t they see this coming? Why didn’t they provide better oversight?’ ” said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America. “And the answer for some, including Senator Schumer, is that they were actually too busy pursuing a deregulatory agenda. Their focus was on how we have to lighten up regulation on Wall Street.”
In recent weeks, Mr. Schumer has worked closely with the Bush administration to try to mitigate the damage to New York’s financial institutions. And as members of Congress and President-elect Barack Obama have called for new regulations to prevent future upheavals, Mr. Schumer has endorsed the need for reforms while still trying to make them palatable for Wall Street.
Calling himself “an almost obsessive defender of New York jobs,” Mr. Schumer has often talked of the need to avoid excessive regulation of an industry that is increasingly threatened by global competition. At the same time, Mr. Schumer has cast himself as a populist who looks out for the middle class.
In an interview, Mr. Schumer said that until the recent market turmoil, he did not fully appreciate how much risk Wall Street had assumed and how much damage its practices could inflict on ordinary Americans. “It is a learning process, no question about it, an evolution,” he said, adding that he now believed that investors and homeowners must be better protected.
But he defended his record. “Wall Street and Main Street are tied together,” he said. “Often times, they are not in conflict. When they are in conflict, I tend to side with Main Street.”
While Mr. Schumer has taken some pro-consumer stances, his critics fault him for tilting too far toward Wall Street in balancing his responsibilities.
“He is serving the parochial interest of a very small group of financial people, bankers, investment bankers, fund managers, private equity firms, rather than serving the general public,” said John C. Bogle, the founder and former chairman of the Vanguard Group, the giant mutual fund house. “It has hurt the American investor first and the average American taxpayer.”
Navigating the Street
Brash and brainy (perfect SATs and double Harvard degrees), Chuck Schumer, now 58, learned early in his career how to talk to the financiers and chief executives who would become a vital constituency for him. Though he did not grow up in that world — his father owned a small exterminating business in Brooklyn — he quickly showed a keen grasp of complex financial issues.
And, recognizing how central Wall Street is to the city’s economy, he committed himself to keeping it strong.
“So much of what happens in this town is because we are the world financial center,” Mr. Schumer said at City Hall in January 2007. “It helps support our museums, it provides the tax base for schools and health care. If we lose being the financial center, the rest goes down the drain.”
Soon after arriving in Congress in 1981, Mr. Schumer snared a seat on the Financial Services Committee, which he viewed as the best way to help New York. While reliably liberal on many social issues, he established himself as a pragmatic Democrat willing to align with powerful business interests.
Mr. Schumer’s political rise — he moved in 1999 to the Senate, where he now has a party leadership post — paralleled Wall Street’s growing influence in Washington. As more Americans invested in the markets and financial institutions had a greater global reach, the industry came to rival the manufacturing sector as a driving force of the United States economy.
And in the 1990s, Democratic officials developed close links to a new generation of Wall Street leaders — labeled “New Moneycrats” by one author — who shared a free-market agenda.
Mr. Schumer became a magnet for campaign donations from wealthy industry executives, including Jamie Dimon, now the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; John J. Mack, the chief executive at Morgan Stanley; and Charles O. Prince III, the former chief executive of Citigroup. And he was not at all reluctant to ask them for more.
Donors describe the Schumer pitch as unusually aggressive: He calls repeatedly to suggest breakfast or dinner, coffee or cocktails. He enlists intermediaries to invite prospects to events and recruits several senators to tag along. And he presses for the maximum contribution — “I need you to max out,” he is known to say — then follows up by asking that a donor’s spouse and four or five friends write checks, too.
“He was probably the kid that sold the most candy in grade school,” said Julie Domenick, a Democratic lobbyist who has given to the senatorial campaign committee. “He is not shy.”
Mr. Schumer, in the interview, acknowledged his full-speed-ahead approach. “Any job I do, I work hard at and I try to succeed at,” he said.
As a result, he has collected over his career more in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry than any of his peers in Congress, with the exception of Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee for president in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which analyzed federal data. (By 2005, Mr. Schumer had so much cash in reserve that he shut down his fund-raising efforts.)
In the last two-year election cycle, he helped raise more than $120 million for the Democrats’ Senate campaign committee, drawing nearly four times as much money from Wall Street as the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Donors often mention his “pro-business message” and record of addressing their concerns. John A. Kanas, the former chief executive of North Fork Bank, said: “He would solicit my opinion, listen to my advice and he appeared to take it into consideration.”
Lee A. Pickard, a lawyer representing clients including the Bank of New York, whose employees have been significant donors to Mr. Schumer and other Senate Democrats, turned to Mr. Schumer last year to successfully beat back a regulatory initiative by the Securities and Exchange Commission. “If you get Chuck Schumer on your side, you are O.K.,” he said.
That may help explain why some of the wealthiest financiers in Manhattan attended the Sept. 22 breakfast hosted by Mr. Kravis at his office overlooking Central Park. A Republican with long ties to the Bush family, Mr. Kravis spent much of this year trying to help Senator John McCain, the eventual Republican nominee for president.
But last year, Mr. Kravis went to Capitol Hill to oppose a proposal that would have more than doubled taxes for executives at hedge funds and private equity firms like his, costing them up to $25 billion over 10 years.
Mr. Schumer had said publicly he would support the measure only if it also applied to executives at energy, venture capital and real estate partnerships, and he introduced alternative legislation that would do just that. His position was identical to that of lobbyists for a group paid by Mr. Kravis and other finance industry executives.
The Schumer bill, called a “poison pill” by the leading Republican advocate of the tax increase, went nowhere after provoking opposition from an array of industries.
At the breakfast meeting, Mr. Schumer, accompanied by fellow Senate Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Maria Cantwell of Washington, assessed the political landscape as debate over the bailout was beginning.
“On the right, you have those who view any government intervention as a threat to free markets,” one executive recalled Mr. Schumer explaining. “On the left, you have people who choose to view this as a government handout to the rich. In the middle, you have everyone who knows and takes the Treasury secretary seriously and recognizes that if something is not done here, we could be staring into an abyss.”
Within days, the businessmen sent out checks to the Senate campaign committee.
‘Their Go-To Guy’
To Christopher Cox, the Republican chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the need for action was obvious in the spring of 2006.
His agency, which would later be criticized for a 2004 ruling that let banks pile up debt, had grown deeply concerned about lack of oversight of the nation’s largest credit-rating agencies, like Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service. Linchpins of the financial system, their ratings are vital to safeguarding investors by evaluating the risks of bonds and other debt. After the collapse of Enron and WorldCom, which had repeatedly been awarded favorable ratings, the agencies had agreed to meet voluntary standards.
But the S.E.C. concluded that those agreements were inadequate, so Mr. Cox urged Congress to give his agency oversight powers. “Without additional legislative authority, the S.E.C. will not be able to regulate in a thoroughgoing way,” he told the Senate banking committee at an April 2006 hearing.
The plan drew broad, bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. But executives at the credit-rating agencies soon began pressing Mr. Schumer and other allies in Congress to block the proposal or at least limit its reach, according to current and former employees.
“They knew Schumer would support them,” said one former Moody’s executive, who asked not to be named because he still works in the industry. “He was their go-to guy,” the executive said.
While the Manhattan-based agencies were not significant campaign donors to Mr. Schumer or the Senate campaign committee, their lobbyists and many of their clients were.
At that time, revenues for the agencies were skyrocketing. The housing market was robust, and Wall Street investment firms were paying the agencies to rate various mortgage-backed securities after first advising the firms — and also collecting fees — on how to package them to get high credit ratings.
It was an obvious conflict of interest, financial experts now say. Despite their high ratings, many of those securities, based on risky loans, would prove worthless, roiling markets and threatening financial institutions worldwide.
But Mr. Schumer argued that the companies voluntarily met requirements to eliminate such possible conflicts. He suggested that regulators simply encourage competition and disclosure of agencies’ ratings methods. There was perhaps no need for an intrusive new law, he said in the spring of 2006. “They’ve implemented their codes of conduct,” Mr. Schumer told Mr. Cox at a Senate hearing. “They’re making good-faith efforts.”
Mr. Schumer could not stop the legislation from passing, but he managed to get the measure amended so that it explicitly prohibited the S.E.C. from regulating the procedures and methods the agencies use to determine ratings.
Richard Y. Roberts, a former S.E.C. commissioner, said the amendment Mr. Schumer won was troubling, adding that it could block the S.E.C. from punishing a credit-rating agency that consistently issued unreliable ratings.
Sean J. Egan, managing director of a small Pennsylvania agency, Egan-Jones Ratings, and a proponent of the tougher regulations, was more blunt. “The bill was eviscerated,” he said. “You have stripped away basic safeguards for the investors.”
At times in Congress, Mr. Schumer has teamed up with Republicans, like former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who aggressively promoted a free-market agenda. Mr. Schumer pushed for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law, passed in November 1999, which knocked down the walls between investment banks and commercial banks and allowed financial supermarkets to flourish. The law also weakened regulatory oversight by fracturing it among different agencies.
In 2001, Mr. Schumer and Mr. Gramm jointly proposed legislation that would cut fees paid by Wall Street firms and others to the S.E.C. in half, or by $14 billion, over the coming decade. Their proposal included some extra money for salaries of commission employees.
But with trading volumes high, Mr. Schumer argued, the government was collecting far too much money from those fees and using it to subsidize other government operations. “It is a tax, an unintended but very real tax, on all sorts of investors,” he said at the time.
But some Democrats, pointing to the recent corporate accounting scandals, argued that the S.E.C. budget should be doubled or tripled so it could more effectively combat fraud that could lead to a major economic collapse.
“We are making a tragic mistake,” Representative John J. LaFalce, Democrat of New York, warned in arguing for a much smaller reduction in S.E.C. fees.
“We give the industry what it asks for unwittingly.”
Mr. Schumer’s argument prevailed, and the fee cut passed overwhelmingly.
Some consumer advocates laud Mr. Schumer for his stances on consumer finance issues, including combating high interest rates on credit cards, challenging predatory lending practices and advocating legislation to allow bankruptcy courts to force banks to accept lower interest rates so that families facing foreclosure could stay in their homes.
“He is a strong advocate for families and homeowners to make sure they are not taken advantage of,” said Eric Stein, senior vice president at the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit group that combats abusive lending practices.
But those efforts mostly affect commercial banks and mortgage lending operations around the country and in New York, not the securities and investment businesses in Manhattan.
“He built his career in large part based on his ties to Wall Street,” said Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, which advises investors on the regulatory system. “And he has given the Street what it wanted.”
Mr. Schumer, though, has a surprising defender in Alfonse M. D’Amato, the onetime Republican senator he ousted.
“Don’t take someone to task simply because a group has supported him politically and now he supports legislation that helps them,” Mr. D’Amato said. “The question is, is the legislation good or bad? With Chuck, it is clear he tries to do what is best for the state and city as a whole.”
Doling Out Criticism
For Mr. Schumer, Wall Street’s crisis has been especially painful to watch. “It is horrible, just awful,” he said in the interview. “And it affects everybody.”
And he has already begun identifying those he faults for the devastation. Subprime lenders top the list, but he has lashed out with particular fury at the credit-rating industry, which he once defended but now says misled him and the investing public.
“The work at these ratings firms was severely compromised, and the companies were some of the biggest contributors to the current financial crisis,” Mr. Schumer said earlier this month in response to an S.E.C. move that same day to tighten control over the agencies. “The lesson from this is that the three major firms’ stranglehold on the ratings industry must be loosened.” Mr. Schumer has also blamed the Bush administration for its push to ease rules. “After eight years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of ‘the market can do no wrong’ has led it down a short path to economic recession,” Mr. Schumer said on the Senate floor in September.
He has not assigned responsibility to himself or fellow Democrats, saying he had no way of knowing of the misdeeds going on on Wall Street. “I wish I was omniscient,” he said. “I’m not.”
Since the economy began to fall apart, Mr. Schumer has joined others in calling for new regulations to combat abuses. He has proposed tougher rules for credit-rating agencies, even changing the way they are paid so they are compensated by investors, not by the companies they are evaluating. He has said he is open to imposing regulations on hedge funds, which currently operate with limited government oversight.
And while he previously succeeded in limiting consumers’ rights to sue financial institutions, he says he now favors offering that remedy in certain circumstances.
But he is also warning that any new rules must be carefully crafted so they don’t impose excessive burdens.
“You need to provide safety and security to investors in order to attract them to the markets,” Mr. Schumer told Wall Street executives in a speech last month. “On the other hand, you must be sure that regulation does not snuff out the entrepreneurial vigor and financial innovation that drives economic growth and makes financial institutions successful and profitable.”
And he is seeking some regulatory concessions for some Wall Street supporters. He has proposed, for example, that the government lift a cap on how big the giant banks can get, an issue important to institutions like JPMorgan Chase. Lifting the cap would allow the biggest banks to absorb weaker ones, but it would also limit competition and increase the risks to the financial system posed by failure of one of the giants.
Mr. Schumer is also calling for the adoption of European-style regulations that impose far fewer rules and instead require banks to meet certain performance standards, a system institutions generally prefer but some banking experts criticize as not rigorous enough.
In recent weeks, Mr. Schumer has listened to Wall Street leaders for advice on what should come next. At a dinner at Morgan Stanley’s headquarters the night before the presidential election, John Mack, the chief executive, and a dozen top hedge fund officials talked with Mr. Schumer about possible changes affecting their industry.
“People feel like he is going to be fair and reasonable,” said one Morgan Stanley executive, who asked not to be identified because the session was private. “He is mindful that this is a very big part of his constituency — Wall Street.”
Griff Palmer contributed reporting from New York.
Rahm Emanuel and Blagojevich.
This is from the UK Times on Line.
Although Emanuel does not seem to be involved in Blagojevich's scheme it looks as if he might have known about it for some time and perhaps did not speak up in a timely fashion. This could yet cause problems for Obama. Surprisingly there does not seem to be much in the US press as yet.
December 14, 2008
Senate scandal snares Obama’s chief aide
Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE bullish, foul-mouthed but effective Chicago arm-twister Rahm Emanuel has come under pressure to resign as Barack Obama’s chief of staff after it was revealed that he had been captured on court-approved wire-taps discussing the names of candidates for Obama’s Senate seat.
Emanuel’s presence at the heart of the scandal threatens to roil the president-elect’s administration as a Chicago prosecutor builds his corruption case against Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor.
Blagojevich has been accused of plotting to sell Obama’s Senate seat - which is in the governor’s gift - in return for financial and political favours.
Republicans are salivating at the prospect of tying the president-elect to the notoriously corrupt Chicago machine in which he forged his career. Grover Norquist, an influential conservative tax reform lobbyist, said: “If Obama wants to be squeaky clean, he is going to have to cut all his Chicago friends loose. His chief of staff has fingerprints on the murder weapon.”
Emanuel ducked out of view last week, avoiding reporters’ questions and complaining of harassment and “death threats” as the news spread that he was the likely unnamed adviser cited by the FBI with whom the tainted Blagojevich hoped to bargain over the appointment.
For the “No Drama” Obama team, the spiralling controversy has been an alarming distraction in the midst of the US economic meltdown. Obama has yet to release a promised timeline of contacts between members of his transition team and the governor's office, while Emanuel is thought to be consulting lawyers.
Ed Rendell, the outspoken governor of Pennsylvania, said the Obama team was bungling its response. “The rule of thumb is: whatever you did, say it and get it over with and make it a one-day story as opposed to a three-day story,” he said.
Private telephone discussions between Emanuel and John Harris, Blagojevich’s chief of staff, began as early as the weekend before the November 4 election, the Chicago Tribune revealed yesterday. Emanuel let it be known that Valerie Jarrett, an Obama adviser, Tammy Duckworth, a wounded Iraq war veteran, and two other candidates would be “acceptable” to Obama.
Emanuel had further talks with the governor’s office after the election, during which he added another name to the list. It does not appear that Emanuel engaged in any illegal horse-trading - Blagojevich complained at one stage that all the president-elect’s team was offering was “appreciation”. “F*** them,” the governor said.
Jarrett, Obama’s first choice as senator, was swiftly named a senior White House adviser to Obama after Blagojevich complained, according to FBI transcripts, that he was not going to “give f******” Jarrett the f****** Senate seat and I don’t get anything”.
However, questions remain over what Emanuel said when and how much he know about the governor’s “pay to play” scheme. He may have been fully aware of what Blagojevich was attempting. At one stage the governor told an aide that he wanted an unnamed “president-elect adviser”, thought to be Emanuel, to help “raise 10, 15m” for a charitable group, which the governor could head.
Did Emanuel receive the news, and if so, how? Did he report his suspicion of illegal activity to the FBI or did he treat it just as a normal part of wheeler-dealing in the corrupt Windy City? And did he use the same four-letter language to discuss the succession in the same crude terms as Blagojevich?
Obama once joked at a charity “roast” that the notoriously crude Emanuel - who was elected to Congress in Blagojevich’s old seat - was rendered “practically mute” when he lost his middle finger in an accident.
“When you are Rahm Emanuel and you use the f-word all the time, it is supposed to be cute and amusing,” Norquist said. “When the governor of Illinois gets caught, people say, ‘Oh, he’s crazy’, and the proof that he is crazy is that he talks like Rahm Emanuel.”
Obama faces a stark choice. Emanuel was his first apppointment as his chief of staff after the election. If he were to throw him out of the inner circle now with his reputation under siege, it would be a singular act of disloyalty before the transition team has even had a chance to take office.
Emanuel has not yet resigned as a member of the House of Representatives for Illinois, although he has pledged to do so. Obama had to work hard to persuade Emanuel, who had his own independent power base in Congress and a semblance of normal family life with his young children, to join him in the most intensive, high-pressure job in the White House.
However, the scandal is lapping at Obama’s own ankles. Blagojevich is a product of the entrenched graft and corruption that have characterised Chicago’s style of government since the days of Al Capone, the prohibition-era gangster.
He is being investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald, 47, a fearless prosecutor who brought down Scooter Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s neoconservative adviser, and Conrad Black, the media baron.
Fitzgerald is a much-resented figure among Obama’s advisers. David Axelrod, the Chicago mastermind behind Obama’s campaign, once complained: “He goes after fleas and elephants with the same bazooka. At some point there is a line . . . where you begin criminalising politics in its most innocent form.”
Obama is himself embroiled in a sub-plot of the scandal with uncomfortable connections to Blagojevich, even though the president-elect said last week that he was “appalled” by the governor’s actions.
As Fitzgerald widens his inquiry across Chicago, witnesses will be lining up to talk – if only to save their own necks. Harris, who has been accused with his boss of planning to sell the Senate seat, resigned last Friday, prompting speculation that he intends to cooperate with federal investigators.
Ominously for Obama, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the property dealer and fixer who helped him to buy his $1.65m house in Chicago by purchasing an adjacent plot on the same day, has also been talking to investigators in an attempt to reduce a prison sentence following his conviction for fraud and bribery. Rezko is expected to be a key witness in the corruption case against Blagojevich but he also knows more than anybody about the house purchase and other deals with Obama.
When the house came on the market, the seller insisted that both plots were sold at the same time. But while Obama bought his part of the property for $300,000 under the asking price, it has emerged that Rezko’s wife not only paid the asking price for their slice of land – $625,000 – but that the extra piece of property may have been deliberately overvalued.
A valuer who made an initial lower estimate, only to be overruled, is believed to be giving evidence to Fitzgerald’s team.
Rezko also appears to have helped Blagojevich with his domestic affairs. Investigators have been trying to find out whether he charged the governor for $90,000 worth of improvements to the family room and deck of his house.
The governor’s wife, Patti Blagojevich, a Lady Macbeth figure who may face charges herself for encouraging her husband to behave corruptly, received $47,000 in commission from a property deal involving Rezko.
In a further disturbing connection, Rezko regularly supplied Blagojevich with a “clout list” of names of people he thought the governor should appoint to state boards and jobs.
Obama made use of Rezko’s clout list on at least one occasion, when he recommended that Eric Whitaker, an old Harvard friend and doctor, be hired as director of Illinois’s public health department.
Whitaker, Obama said, “had expressed an interest in that job. He did contact me, or Tony contacted me, and I gave him a glowing recommendation because I thought he was outstanding”.
Fitzgerald made it clear that Obama is not a target of investigation. Emanuel is thought to be free from any threat of charges. But that will not be the end of the matter.
Although Emanuel does not seem to be involved in Blagojevich's scheme it looks as if he might have known about it for some time and perhaps did not speak up in a timely fashion. This could yet cause problems for Obama. Surprisingly there does not seem to be much in the US press as yet.
December 14, 2008
Senate scandal snares Obama’s chief aide
Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE bullish, foul-mouthed but effective Chicago arm-twister Rahm Emanuel has come under pressure to resign as Barack Obama’s chief of staff after it was revealed that he had been captured on court-approved wire-taps discussing the names of candidates for Obama’s Senate seat.
Emanuel’s presence at the heart of the scandal threatens to roil the president-elect’s administration as a Chicago prosecutor builds his corruption case against Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor.
Blagojevich has been accused of plotting to sell Obama’s Senate seat - which is in the governor’s gift - in return for financial and political favours.
Republicans are salivating at the prospect of tying the president-elect to the notoriously corrupt Chicago machine in which he forged his career. Grover Norquist, an influential conservative tax reform lobbyist, said: “If Obama wants to be squeaky clean, he is going to have to cut all his Chicago friends loose. His chief of staff has fingerprints on the murder weapon.”
Emanuel ducked out of view last week, avoiding reporters’ questions and complaining of harassment and “death threats” as the news spread that he was the likely unnamed adviser cited by the FBI with whom the tainted Blagojevich hoped to bargain over the appointment.
For the “No Drama” Obama team, the spiralling controversy has been an alarming distraction in the midst of the US economic meltdown. Obama has yet to release a promised timeline of contacts between members of his transition team and the governor's office, while Emanuel is thought to be consulting lawyers.
Ed Rendell, the outspoken governor of Pennsylvania, said the Obama team was bungling its response. “The rule of thumb is: whatever you did, say it and get it over with and make it a one-day story as opposed to a three-day story,” he said.
Private telephone discussions between Emanuel and John Harris, Blagojevich’s chief of staff, began as early as the weekend before the November 4 election, the Chicago Tribune revealed yesterday. Emanuel let it be known that Valerie Jarrett, an Obama adviser, Tammy Duckworth, a wounded Iraq war veteran, and two other candidates would be “acceptable” to Obama.
Emanuel had further talks with the governor’s office after the election, during which he added another name to the list. It does not appear that Emanuel engaged in any illegal horse-trading - Blagojevich complained at one stage that all the president-elect’s team was offering was “appreciation”. “F*** them,” the governor said.
Jarrett, Obama’s first choice as senator, was swiftly named a senior White House adviser to Obama after Blagojevich complained, according to FBI transcripts, that he was not going to “give f******” Jarrett the f****** Senate seat and I don’t get anything”.
However, questions remain over what Emanuel said when and how much he know about the governor’s “pay to play” scheme. He may have been fully aware of what Blagojevich was attempting. At one stage the governor told an aide that he wanted an unnamed “president-elect adviser”, thought to be Emanuel, to help “raise 10, 15m” for a charitable group, which the governor could head.
Did Emanuel receive the news, and if so, how? Did he report his suspicion of illegal activity to the FBI or did he treat it just as a normal part of wheeler-dealing in the corrupt Windy City? And did he use the same four-letter language to discuss the succession in the same crude terms as Blagojevich?
Obama once joked at a charity “roast” that the notoriously crude Emanuel - who was elected to Congress in Blagojevich’s old seat - was rendered “practically mute” when he lost his middle finger in an accident.
“When you are Rahm Emanuel and you use the f-word all the time, it is supposed to be cute and amusing,” Norquist said. “When the governor of Illinois gets caught, people say, ‘Oh, he’s crazy’, and the proof that he is crazy is that he talks like Rahm Emanuel.”
Obama faces a stark choice. Emanuel was his first apppointment as his chief of staff after the election. If he were to throw him out of the inner circle now with his reputation under siege, it would be a singular act of disloyalty before the transition team has even had a chance to take office.
Emanuel has not yet resigned as a member of the House of Representatives for Illinois, although he has pledged to do so. Obama had to work hard to persuade Emanuel, who had his own independent power base in Congress and a semblance of normal family life with his young children, to join him in the most intensive, high-pressure job in the White House.
However, the scandal is lapping at Obama’s own ankles. Blagojevich is a product of the entrenched graft and corruption that have characterised Chicago’s style of government since the days of Al Capone, the prohibition-era gangster.
He is being investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald, 47, a fearless prosecutor who brought down Scooter Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s neoconservative adviser, and Conrad Black, the media baron.
Fitzgerald is a much-resented figure among Obama’s advisers. David Axelrod, the Chicago mastermind behind Obama’s campaign, once complained: “He goes after fleas and elephants with the same bazooka. At some point there is a line . . . where you begin criminalising politics in its most innocent form.”
Obama is himself embroiled in a sub-plot of the scandal with uncomfortable connections to Blagojevich, even though the president-elect said last week that he was “appalled” by the governor’s actions.
As Fitzgerald widens his inquiry across Chicago, witnesses will be lining up to talk – if only to save their own necks. Harris, who has been accused with his boss of planning to sell the Senate seat, resigned last Friday, prompting speculation that he intends to cooperate with federal investigators.
Ominously for Obama, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the property dealer and fixer who helped him to buy his $1.65m house in Chicago by purchasing an adjacent plot on the same day, has also been talking to investigators in an attempt to reduce a prison sentence following his conviction for fraud and bribery. Rezko is expected to be a key witness in the corruption case against Blagojevich but he also knows more than anybody about the house purchase and other deals with Obama.
When the house came on the market, the seller insisted that both plots were sold at the same time. But while Obama bought his part of the property for $300,000 under the asking price, it has emerged that Rezko’s wife not only paid the asking price for their slice of land – $625,000 – but that the extra piece of property may have been deliberately overvalued.
A valuer who made an initial lower estimate, only to be overruled, is believed to be giving evidence to Fitzgerald’s team.
Rezko also appears to have helped Blagojevich with his domestic affairs. Investigators have been trying to find out whether he charged the governor for $90,000 worth of improvements to the family room and deck of his house.
The governor’s wife, Patti Blagojevich, a Lady Macbeth figure who may face charges herself for encouraging her husband to behave corruptly, received $47,000 in commission from a property deal involving Rezko.
In a further disturbing connection, Rezko regularly supplied Blagojevich with a “clout list” of names of people he thought the governor should appoint to state boards and jobs.
Obama made use of Rezko’s clout list on at least one occasion, when he recommended that Eric Whitaker, an old Harvard friend and doctor, be hired as director of Illinois’s public health department.
Whitaker, Obama said, “had expressed an interest in that job. He did contact me, or Tony contacted me, and I gave him a glowing recommendation because I thought he was outstanding”.
Fitzgerald made it clear that Obama is not a target of investigation. Emanuel is thought to be free from any threat of charges. But that will not be the end of the matter.
Bank check for banks, pink slips for Detroit
There seems very little oversight of the bank bailout and certainly no plan was required; also the banks are still very stingy about loaning all the money they received. Not mentioned in the article is that many of strongest opponents of the Detroit bailout are senatorsl who have foreign assembly plants in their states. These southern states have non-unionised workers who are paid less and receive less benefits than workers in the big three in Detroit. The recession is proving a boon to those who want to attack labor and weaken the union movement in more even though the US is one of the least unionised advanced capitalist countries. This is from nytimes.
Blank Check for Banks, Pink Slips for Detroit
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: December 13, 2008
HERE in Bailout Nation, you’ll be surprised to learn, some of us are more equal than others.
Witness the Congressional back of the hand delivered last Thursday to Detroit automakers. Chrysler and General Motors were asking for $14 billion to see them through the end of the year; the Senate said no.
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who leads the Senate Republicans, opposed the rescue. “None of us want to see them go down, but very few of us had anything to do with the dilemma that they have created for themselves,” he said. “We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure.”
That’s a new concept — not asking the taxpayer to subsidize failure. Is that not what we just did with the banks, to the tune of $700 billion, 50 times what the beleaguered carmakers asked for?
Moreover, in the bank rescue, taxpayers are subsidizing not only failure but also outright recklessness and greed. In spite of the fact that financial institutions drove the nation into the economic ditch, and even though “very few of us had anything to do with the dilemma that they have created for themselves,” the financial industry received billions, with few strings attached.
Complaints about bailing out high-earning autoworkers are another fascinating disconnect. The supposedly exorbitant autoworker wages that get everybody so riled up pale in comparison with the riches of Wall Street.
Neither were the banks required, as Detroit would have been, to get rid of their private jets or supply Treasury with in-depth restructuring plans in exchange for bailout funds.
This is not to argue that handing money over to troubled carmakers is a good idea or without peril. (On Friday, Treasury said it would move to prevent carmaker failures until Congress reconvenes and deals with the mess.)
Rather it is to remind everyone the degree to which the banks have been blessed with a no-questions-asked bailout that will almost certainly generate tremendous taxpayer losses down the road.
YES, of course, banks are different from you and me and Chrysler and G.M. Because lending makes the world go ’round, banks need to be healthy and well-capitalized.
But the Troubled Asset Relief Program is open to banks that are both well and sickly. And nobody overseeing the program seems eager to ensure that its funds go only to those institutions that will survive and be able to pay back the taxpayer.
“Why is it that each of the carmakers needed a specific plan in hand to share in $14 billion while most of the banks only needed a large hat in hand to share $700 billion?” asked Brian Foley, a compensation consultant in White Plains. “I don’t have a sense of transparency, that there are visible accountability criteria being applied to TARP. If banks want to tidy up their balance sheets, they can go right ahead.”
As of Dec. 5, Treasury had allocated a total of $335 billion to TARP and disbursed $195 billion to institutions under its various parts.
Testifying before Congress last Wednesday, Neel Kashkari, the youthful former Goldman Sachs executive whom the Treasury Department has charged with overseeing “financial stability,” defended the $700 billion federal triage package intended to get our banks lending again.
The plan’s achievements so far, according to Mr. Kashkari: “First, we did not allow the financial system to collapse. That is the most direct important information. Second, the system is fundamentally more stable than it was.”
Maybe so. But an audit of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, released last week by the Government Accountability Office, suggests that the program’s holes are many.
For example, the G.A.O. said, Treasury has no way to determine if the program is achieving its goals of increased lending by banks. There also seems to be no monitoring of the banks’ compliance with TARP limits on executive compensation, the G.A.O. added.
Treasury should take nine actions to ensure the integrity of the TARP, according to the G.A.O. Many relate to keeping its operations transparent, managing conflicts of interest and hiring enough staff members to ensure that the program’s goals are met.
While these recommendations all have merit, there is one important item missing from the TARP to-do list: Hire tough-minded bank analysts to help determine which institutions are best positioned to use TARP funds in a way that will benefit their shareholders and the taxpayers at the same time.
Such a team could help prevent Treasury from throwing good money after bad.
According to the G.A.O., as of Nov. 21, about 48 employees were assigned to TARP. Only five are permanent staffers; the rest come from other Treasury offices, federal agencies, and organizations providing temporary help.
What is needed is a small army of TARP analysts — a lot of former bankers are out of work, by the way — to conduct a worst-case analysis of the banks’ assets and capital cushion. In private equity circles, this is called a “burndown analysis.”
Such an assessment typically involves extremely harsh loss estimates for every loan category in Year 1 and higher-than-average loss estimates for loans in Years 2 and 3, the elimination of dividend payments, and a valuation of the bank’s prospects based primarily on its deposits — not its loan portfolio.
The essential questions are these: What are the bank’s assets really worth, how much can it earn and how much capital would the bank need to operate profitably?
Bankers will object, of course. They want to keep their rosy scenarios intact for as long as they can. But such a see-no-evil approach has been central to the slow-motion nature of this train wreck. Now that the government is dispensing dollars, it is time for misplaced optimism over asset values to disappear.
Private investors looking to put money into beleaguered banks are running precisely these types of analyses. Why shouldn’t the officials who have opened the taxpayer spigot for the banks do the same?
» A version of this article appeared in print on December 14, 2008, on page BU1 of the New York edition.
Blank Check for Banks, Pink Slips for Detroit
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: December 13, 2008
HERE in Bailout Nation, you’ll be surprised to learn, some of us are more equal than others.
Witness the Congressional back of the hand delivered last Thursday to Detroit automakers. Chrysler and General Motors were asking for $14 billion to see them through the end of the year; the Senate said no.
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who leads the Senate Republicans, opposed the rescue. “None of us want to see them go down, but very few of us had anything to do with the dilemma that they have created for themselves,” he said. “We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure.”
That’s a new concept — not asking the taxpayer to subsidize failure. Is that not what we just did with the banks, to the tune of $700 billion, 50 times what the beleaguered carmakers asked for?
Moreover, in the bank rescue, taxpayers are subsidizing not only failure but also outright recklessness and greed. In spite of the fact that financial institutions drove the nation into the economic ditch, and even though “very few of us had anything to do with the dilemma that they have created for themselves,” the financial industry received billions, with few strings attached.
Complaints about bailing out high-earning autoworkers are another fascinating disconnect. The supposedly exorbitant autoworker wages that get everybody so riled up pale in comparison with the riches of Wall Street.
Neither were the banks required, as Detroit would have been, to get rid of their private jets or supply Treasury with in-depth restructuring plans in exchange for bailout funds.
This is not to argue that handing money over to troubled carmakers is a good idea or without peril. (On Friday, Treasury said it would move to prevent carmaker failures until Congress reconvenes and deals with the mess.)
Rather it is to remind everyone the degree to which the banks have been blessed with a no-questions-asked bailout that will almost certainly generate tremendous taxpayer losses down the road.
YES, of course, banks are different from you and me and Chrysler and G.M. Because lending makes the world go ’round, banks need to be healthy and well-capitalized.
But the Troubled Asset Relief Program is open to banks that are both well and sickly. And nobody overseeing the program seems eager to ensure that its funds go only to those institutions that will survive and be able to pay back the taxpayer.
“Why is it that each of the carmakers needed a specific plan in hand to share in $14 billion while most of the banks only needed a large hat in hand to share $700 billion?” asked Brian Foley, a compensation consultant in White Plains. “I don’t have a sense of transparency, that there are visible accountability criteria being applied to TARP. If banks want to tidy up their balance sheets, they can go right ahead.”
As of Dec. 5, Treasury had allocated a total of $335 billion to TARP and disbursed $195 billion to institutions under its various parts.
Testifying before Congress last Wednesday, Neel Kashkari, the youthful former Goldman Sachs executive whom the Treasury Department has charged with overseeing “financial stability,” defended the $700 billion federal triage package intended to get our banks lending again.
The plan’s achievements so far, according to Mr. Kashkari: “First, we did not allow the financial system to collapse. That is the most direct important information. Second, the system is fundamentally more stable than it was.”
Maybe so. But an audit of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, released last week by the Government Accountability Office, suggests that the program’s holes are many.
For example, the G.A.O. said, Treasury has no way to determine if the program is achieving its goals of increased lending by banks. There also seems to be no monitoring of the banks’ compliance with TARP limits on executive compensation, the G.A.O. added.
Treasury should take nine actions to ensure the integrity of the TARP, according to the G.A.O. Many relate to keeping its operations transparent, managing conflicts of interest and hiring enough staff members to ensure that the program’s goals are met.
While these recommendations all have merit, there is one important item missing from the TARP to-do list: Hire tough-minded bank analysts to help determine which institutions are best positioned to use TARP funds in a way that will benefit their shareholders and the taxpayers at the same time.
Such a team could help prevent Treasury from throwing good money after bad.
According to the G.A.O., as of Nov. 21, about 48 employees were assigned to TARP. Only five are permanent staffers; the rest come from other Treasury offices, federal agencies, and organizations providing temporary help.
What is needed is a small army of TARP analysts — a lot of former bankers are out of work, by the way — to conduct a worst-case analysis of the banks’ assets and capital cushion. In private equity circles, this is called a “burndown analysis.”
Such an assessment typically involves extremely harsh loss estimates for every loan category in Year 1 and higher-than-average loss estimates for loans in Years 2 and 3, the elimination of dividend payments, and a valuation of the bank’s prospects based primarily on its deposits — not its loan portfolio.
The essential questions are these: What are the bank’s assets really worth, how much can it earn and how much capital would the bank need to operate profitably?
Bankers will object, of course. They want to keep their rosy scenarios intact for as long as they can. But such a see-no-evil approach has been central to the slow-motion nature of this train wreck. Now that the government is dispensing dollars, it is time for misplaced optimism over asset values to disappear.
Private investors looking to put money into beleaguered banks are running precisely these types of analyses. Why shouldn’t the officials who have opened the taxpayer spigot for the banks do the same?
» A version of this article appeared in print on December 14, 2008, on page BU1 of the New York edition.
Obama and Daschle Should Opt for Single Payer
This is from infoclearinghouse.
Given the power of interest groups such as the health insurance companies and HMO's it is unlikely that reformers will be able to implement a universal single pay system in the US even though most developed capitalist countries have some variants of such a system. The US system is one of the most expensive in the world but far from efficient. It is superb for those with lots of money but costly and not always easily available to others. Obama seems to be quite pragmatic so any reforms he implements will be watered down to accomodate powerful existing interests.
Obama and Daschle Should Opt for Single-PayerBy Rose Ann DemoroDecember 13, 2008 "The Progressive" -- Barack Obama needs to make good on his campaign pledge to reform health care. It is not enough to throw the issue off to former Senator Tom Daschle, Obama's choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services.Daschle says he wants to hear from us, the American people, on this issue. So we should oblige him.Obama and Daschle have a choice: Rely on a private insurance-based plan that does little to mitigate the escalating health care crisis, or solve the problem once and for all and adopt universal, single-payer health care.Many in Congress, the media, conservative think tanks and some advocacy groups - led by the Service Employees International Union and its business allies - are stumping for piecemeal changes.Such a path would perpetuate the crisis and deal a cruel blow to the hopes of Americans for real reform. Those in Congress and liberal policy organizations who are embracing caution or promoting more insurance, not more care, are playing a risky game. It could jeopardize the health security of tens of millions of Americans and, in the process, fatally erode public support for the Obama administration.Hardly a day passes without fresh signs of the health-care implosion.Just days after the election, the New York Times reported a sharp increase in cost-shifting in employer-paid health plans, with more employers pushing high deductible plans that typically cost workers thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket payments.Similarly, the Wall Street Journal reported a huge spike in health care premiums for small businesses, which prompted many to raise deductibles or cut coverage.The consequences are chillingly apparent. In October, the Washington Post cited a study that found one-fourth of Americans are skipping doctors' visits, and 10 percent could not take their child to the doctor because of cost.That same month, USA Today reported that one in eight patients with advanced cancer turn down recommended treatment because of the bills.America is falling embarrassingly behind.A study by the Commonwealth Fund in November compared adults with chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart disease, in seven major industrialized countries. A stunning 54 percent of the American respondents said they were likely to go without recommended care, compared to just 7 percent of chronically ill patients in the Netherlands. Over 40 percent of the Americans spent more than $1,000 on medical bills, compared to just 4 percent of British and 5 percent of French patients.If we adopted a universal, single-payer system like these European countries, or if we simply expanded Medicare to all Americans, we would rectify this problem.The need is urgent. Today 46 million Americans are without health care.Millions more are at risk of losing it during this recession. And huge numbers of Americans with insurance can't afford the cost hikes.At some point, our government must stop subsidizing these private companies and start investing in the American people.The time to do so is now.The best way to get it done is to guarantee all Americans health care in a single-payer system.Tell Obama and Daschle to support improved Medicare for all.© 2008 The Progressive
Given the power of interest groups such as the health insurance companies and HMO's it is unlikely that reformers will be able to implement a universal single pay system in the US even though most developed capitalist countries have some variants of such a system. The US system is one of the most expensive in the world but far from efficient. It is superb for those with lots of money but costly and not always easily available to others. Obama seems to be quite pragmatic so any reforms he implements will be watered down to accomodate powerful existing interests.
Obama and Daschle Should Opt for Single-PayerBy Rose Ann DemoroDecember 13, 2008 "The Progressive" -- Barack Obama needs to make good on his campaign pledge to reform health care. It is not enough to throw the issue off to former Senator Tom Daschle, Obama's choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services.Daschle says he wants to hear from us, the American people, on this issue. So we should oblige him.Obama and Daschle have a choice: Rely on a private insurance-based plan that does little to mitigate the escalating health care crisis, or solve the problem once and for all and adopt universal, single-payer health care.Many in Congress, the media, conservative think tanks and some advocacy groups - led by the Service Employees International Union and its business allies - are stumping for piecemeal changes.Such a path would perpetuate the crisis and deal a cruel blow to the hopes of Americans for real reform. Those in Congress and liberal policy organizations who are embracing caution or promoting more insurance, not more care, are playing a risky game. It could jeopardize the health security of tens of millions of Americans and, in the process, fatally erode public support for the Obama administration.Hardly a day passes without fresh signs of the health-care implosion.Just days after the election, the New York Times reported a sharp increase in cost-shifting in employer-paid health plans, with more employers pushing high deductible plans that typically cost workers thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket payments.Similarly, the Wall Street Journal reported a huge spike in health care premiums for small businesses, which prompted many to raise deductibles or cut coverage.The consequences are chillingly apparent. In October, the Washington Post cited a study that found one-fourth of Americans are skipping doctors' visits, and 10 percent could not take their child to the doctor because of cost.That same month, USA Today reported that one in eight patients with advanced cancer turn down recommended treatment because of the bills.America is falling embarrassingly behind.A study by the Commonwealth Fund in November compared adults with chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart disease, in seven major industrialized countries. A stunning 54 percent of the American respondents said they were likely to go without recommended care, compared to just 7 percent of chronically ill patients in the Netherlands. Over 40 percent of the Americans spent more than $1,000 on medical bills, compared to just 4 percent of British and 5 percent of French patients.If we adopted a universal, single-payer system like these European countries, or if we simply expanded Medicare to all Americans, we would rectify this problem.The need is urgent. Today 46 million Americans are without health care.Millions more are at risk of losing it during this recession. And huge numbers of Americans with insurance can't afford the cost hikes.At some point, our government must stop subsidizing these private companies and start investing in the American people.The time to do so is now.The best way to get it done is to guarantee all Americans health care in a single-payer system.Tell Obama and Daschle to support improved Medicare for all.© 2008 The Progressive
Saturday, December 13, 2008
What is to be done: The end of the Washington Consensus
This is an interesting analysis of the present situation. The article points out the irony in the fact that the United States--as well as other advanced industrial nations--refuses to do what the Washington Consensus demands in the case of loans and bailing out of underdeveloped nations. He also notes that there should be much less emphasis on finance and more public involvement in manufacturing. This is from counterpunch via the information clearing house.
What is to be Done?
The End of the Washington Consensus
By Michael Hudson and Jeffrey Sommers
December 13, 2008 "Counterpunch" -- -- Wall Street’s financial meltdown marks the end of an era. What has ended is the credibility of the Washington Consensus – open markets to foreign investors and tight money austerity programs (high interest rates and credit cutbacks) to “cure” balance-of-payments deficits, domestic budget deficits and price inflation. On the negative side, this model has failed to produce the prosperity it promises. Raising interest rates and dismantling protective tariffs and subsidies worsen rather than help the trade and payments balance, aggravate rather than reduce domestic budget deficits, and raise prices. The reason? Interest is a cost of doing business while foreign trade dependency and currency depreciation raise import prices.
But even more striking is the positive side of what can be done as an alternative to the Washington Consensus. The $700 billion U.S. Treasury bailout of Wall Street’s bad loans on October 3 shows that the United States has no intention of applying this model to its own economy. Austerity and “fiscal responsibility” are for other countries. America acts ruthlessly in its own economic interest at any given moment of time. It freely spends more than it earns, flooding the global economy with what has now risen to $4 trillion in U.S. government debt to foreign central banks.
This amount is unpayable, given the chronic U.S. trade deficit and overseas military spending. But it does pose an interesting problem: why can’t other countries do the same thing? Is today’s policy asymmetry a fact of nature, or is it merely voluntary and the result of ignorance (spurred by an intensive globalist ideological propaganda program, to be sure)? Does India, for instance, need to privatize its state-owned banks as earlier was planned, or is it right to pull back? More to the point, have the neoliberal programs imposed on the former Soviet Union succeeded in “Americanizing” their economies and raising production capacity and living standards as promised? Or, was it all a dream, indeed, a nightmare?
The three Baltic countries, for instance – Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania – have long been praised in the Western press as great success stories. The World Bank classifies them among the most “business friendly” countries, and their real estate prices have soared, fueled by foreign-currency mortgages from neighboring Scandinavian banks. Their industry has been dismantled, their agriculture is in ruins, their male population below the age of 35 is emigrating. But real estate prices added to the net worth on their national balance sheets for nearly a decade. Has a new “moment of truth” arrived? Just because the Soviet economic system culminated in bureaucratic kleptocracy, has the neoliberal model really been so much better? Most important of all, was there a better alternative all along?
We expect the post-Soviet economies to go the way of Iceland, having taken on foreign debt with no visible means of paying it off via exports (the same situation in which the United States finds itself), or even further asset sales. Emigrants’ remittances are becoming a mainstay of their balance of payments, reflecting their economic shrinkage at the hands of neoliberal “reformers” and the free-market international dependency that the Washington Consensus promotes. So, just as this crisis has led the U.S. government to shift gears, is it time for foreign countries to seek to become more in the character of “mixed economies”? This has been the route taken by every successful economy in history, after all. Total private-sector markets (in practice, markets run by the banks and money managers) have shown themselves to be just as destructive, wasteful and corrupt and, indeed, centrally planned as those of totally “statist” governments from Stalin’s Russia to Hitler’s Germany. Is the political pendulum about to swing back more toward a better public-private balance?
Washington’s idealized picture of how free markets operate (as if such a thing ever existed) promised that countries outside the United States would get rich faster, approaching U.S.-style living standards if they let global investors buy their key industries and basic infrastructure. For half a century, this neoliberal model has been a hypocritical exercise in poor policy at best, and deception at worst, to convince other economies to impose self-destructive financial and tax policies, enabling U.S. investors to swoop in and buy their key assets at distress prices. (And for the U.S. economy to pay for these investment outflows in the form of more and more U.S. Treasury IOUs, yielding a low or even negative return when denominated in hard currencies.)
The neoliberal global system never was open in practice. America never imposed on itself the kind of shock therapy that President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary (and now Obama’s advisor) Robert Rubin promoted in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet bloc, from the Baltic countries in the northwest to Central Asia in the southeast. Just the opposite! Despite the fact that America’s own balance of trade and payments is soaring, consumer prices are rising and financial and property markets are plunging, there are no calls among its power elite to let the system self-correct. The Treasury is subsidizing America’s financial markets so as to save its financial class (minus some sacrificial lambs) and support its asset prices. Interest rates are being lowered to re-inflate asset prices, not raised to stabilize the dollar or slow domestic price inflation.
The policy implications go far beyond the United States itself. If the United States can create so much credit so quickly and so freely – and if Europe can follow suit, as it has done in recent days – why can’t all countries do this? Why can’t they get rich by following that path that the United States actually has taken, rather than merely doing what its economic diplomats tell them to do with sweet self-serving rhetoric? U.S. experience itself provides the major reason why the free market, run by financial institutions allocating credit, is a myth, a false map of reality to substitute for actual gunboats in getting other countries to open their asset markets to U.S. investors and food markets to U.S. farmers.
By contrast, the financial and trade model that U.S. oligarchs and their allies are promoting is a double standard. Most notoriously, when the 1997 Asian financial crisis broke out, the IMF demanded that foreign governments sell out their banks and industry at fire-sale prices to foreigners. U.S. vulture capital firms were especially aggressive in grabbing Asian and other global assets. But the U.S. financial bailout stands in sharp contrast to what Washington Consensus institutions imposed on other countries. There is no intention of letting foreign investors buy into the commanding U.S. heights, except at exorbitant prices. And for industry, the United States has once more violated international trade rules by offering special bailout money and subsidies to its own Big Three U.S. automakers (General Motors, Ford and Chrysler) but not to foreign-owned automakers in the United States. In thus favoring its own national industry and taking punitive measures to injure foreign-owned investments, the United States is once again providing an object lesson in nationalistic economic policy.
Most important, the U.S. bailout provides a model that is far preferable to the Washington Consensus-for-export. It shows that countries do not need to borrow credit from foreign banks at all. The government could have created its own money and credit system rather than leaving foreign creditors to accrue interest charges that now represent a permanent and seemingly irreversible balance-of-payments drain. The United States has shown that any country can monetize its own credit, at least domestic credit. A large part of the problem for Third World and post-Soviet economies is that they never experienced the successful model of managerial capitalism that predated the neoliberal model, advocated since the 1980s by Washington.
The managerial model of capitalism, predominating during the post-World War II period until the 1980s (with antecedents in 18th-century British mercantilism and 19th-century American protectionism), delivered high growth. Postwar planners, such as John Maynard Keynes in England and Harry Dexter White in the United States, favored production over finance. As Winston Churchill quipped, “nations typically do the right thing [pause], after exhausting all other options.” But it took two world wars, interspersed by an economic depression triggered by debts in excess of the ability to pay, to give the final nudge required to promote manufacturing over finance and finally do “the right thing.”
Finance was made subordinate to industrial development and full employment. When this economic philosophy reached its peak in the early 1960s, the financial sector accounted for only 2 per cent of U.S. corporate profits. Today, it is 40 per cent! Carrying charges on America’s exponentially growing debt are diverting income away from purchasing goods and services to pay creditors, who use the money mainly to lend out afresh to borrowers to bid up real estate prices and stock prices. Tangible capital investment is financed almost entirely out of retained corporate earnings – and these too are being diverted to pay interest on soaring industrial debt. The result is debt deflation – a shrinkage of spending power as the economic surplus is “financialized,” a new word, only recently added to the world’s economic vocabulary.
Since the 1980s, the U.S. tax system has promoted rent seeking and speculation on credit to ride the wave of asset-price inflation. This strategy increased balance sheets as long as asset prices rose faster than debts (that is, until last year). But it did not add to industrial capacity. And meanwhile, tax cuts caused the national debt to soar, prompting U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to comment, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
On the international front, the larger the U.S. trade and payments deficit, the more dollars were pumped into foreign hands. Their central banks recycled them back to the U.S. economy in the form of purchases of Treasury bonds and, when the interest rates fell almost to zero, securitized mortgage packages. Current Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson assured Chinese and other foreign investors that the government would stand behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as privatized mortgage-packaging agencies, guaranteeing a $5.2 trillion supply of mortgages. This matched in size the U.S. public debt in private hands.
Meanwhile, the Treasury cut special deals with the Saudis to recycle their oil revenues into investments in Citibank and other U.S. financial institutions – investments, on which they have lost many tens of billions of dollars. To cap matters, pricing world oil in dollars kept the U.S. currency stronger than underlying economic fundamentals justified. The U.S. economy paid for its imports with government debt never intended to be repaid, even if it could be (which it can’t at today’s $4 trillion level, cited earlier). The American economy, thus, has seen its trade deficit and asset prices rise in accordance with economic laws that no other nation can emulate, topped by the ability to run freely into international debt without limit.
Managerial capitalism mobilized rising corporate net worth and equity value to build up in the real economy. But since the 1980s, a new breed of financial managers has pledged assets as collateral for new loans to buy back corporate stock and even to pay out as dividends. This has pushed up corporate stock prices and, with them, the value of stock options that corporate managers give themselves. But it has not spurred tangible capital formation.
A real estate bubble in all countries has been fueled by rising mortgage debt. To buy a new home, buyers must take on a lifetime of debt. This has made many employees afraid to go on strike or even to press for better working conditions, because they are “one check away from homelessness,” or mortgage foreclosure. Meanwhile, companies have been outsourcing and downsizing their labor force, eliminating benefits, imposing longer hours, and bringing more women and children into the workforce.
Today’s “new economy” is based not on new technology and capital investment, as former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan trumpeted in the late 1990s, but on price inflation generating capital gains (mainly in land prices, as land is still the largest asset in the U.S. and other industrial economies). The economic surplus is absorbed by debt service payments (and higher priced health care), not investment in production or in sharing productivity gains with labor and professionals. Wages and living standards are stagnant for most people, as the economy tries to get rich by “the miracle of compound interest,” while capital gains emanating from the financial sector provide a foundation for new credit to bid up asset prices, all the more in a seemingly perpetual motion credit-and-debt machine. But the effect has been for the richest 1 per cent of the population to increase its share of interest extraction, dividends and capital gains from 37 per cent ten years ago to 57 per cent five years ago, and nearly 70 per cent today. Savings remain high, but only the wealthiest 10 per cent are saving – and this money is being lent out to the bottom 90 per cent, so no net saving is occurring.
Internationally, too, the global economy has polarized rather than converged. Just as independence arrived for many Third World countries only after their former European colonial powers had put in place inequitable land tenure patterns (latifundia, owned by domestic oligarchies) and export-oriented production, so independence for the post-Soviet countries from Russia arrived after managerial capitalism had given way to a neoliberal model that viewed “wealth creation” simply as rising prices for real estate, stocks and bonds. Western advisors and former emigrants descended to convince these countries to play the same game that other countries were playing – except that real estate debt for many of these countries was denominated in foreign currency, as no domestic banking tradition had been developed. This became increasingly dangerous for economies that did not put in place sufficient export capacity to cover the price of imports and the mounting volume of foreign-currency debt attached to their real estate. And nearly all the post-Soviet countries ran structural trade deficit, as production patterns were disrupted with the breakup of the U.S.S.R.
Real estate and capital gains from asset-price inflation (not industrial capital formation) were promoted as the way to future prosperity in countries whose profits from manufacturing were low and wages were stagnant. The problem is this alchemy is not sustainable. An illusion of success could be maintained as long as Washington was flooding the globe with cheap money. This led Swedes and other Europeans to find capital gains by extending loans to feed neighboring countries from Iceland to Latvia, above all via their real estate markets. For some exporters (especially Russia), rising oil and metal export prices became the basis for capital outflows into Third World and post-Soviet financial markets. Some of the backwash, for example, flowed into the world’s burgeoning offshore banking and real estate sectors – only to stop abruptly when the real estate bubble burst. In these circumstances, what is to be done? First, countries outside the United States need to recognize how dysfunctional the neoliberalized world economy has been made, and to decide which assumptions underlying the neoliberal model must be discarded. Its preferred tax and financial policies favor finance over industry and, hence, financial maneuvering and asset-price inflation over tangible capital formation. Its anti-labor austerity policies and un-taxing of real estate, stocks and bonds divert resources away from growth and rising living standards.
Likewise destructive are compound interest and capital gains over the long term. The real economy can grow only a few per cent a year at best. Therefore, it is mathematically impossible for compound interest to continue unabated and for capital gains to grow well in excess of the underlying rate of economic growth. Historically, economic crises wipe out these gains when they outpace real economic growth by too far a margin. The moral is that compound interest and hopes for capital gains cannot guarantee income for its retirees or continue attracting foreign capital. Over a period of a lifetime, financial investments may not deliver significant gains. For the United States, it took markets about twenty-five years, from 1929 to the mid-1950s, to recover their previous value.
Today’s desperate U.S. attempt to re-inflate post-crash prices cannot cure the bad-debt problem. Foreign attempts to do this will merely aid foreign bankers and financial investors, not the domestic economy. Countries need to invest in their real economy, to raise productivity and wages. Governments must punish speculation and capital gains that merely reflect asset-price inflation, not real value. Otherwise, the real economy’s productive powers and living standards will be impaired and, in the neoliberal model, loaded down with debt. Policies should encourage enterprise, not speculation. Investment seeks growing markets, which tend to be thwarted by macroeconomic targets such as low inflation and balanced budgets. We are not arguing that inflation and deficits can be ignored, but rather that inflation and deficits are not all created equally. Some variants hurt the economy, while others reflect healthy investment in real production. Distinguishing between the two effects is vital, if economies are to move forward to achieve self-dependency.
In sum, a much better economy can be created by rejecting Washington’s financial model of austerity programs, privatization selloffs and trade dependency, financed by foreign-currency credit. Prosperity cannot be achieved by creating a favorable climate for extractive foreign capital, or by tightening credit and balancing budgets, decade after decade. The United States itself has always rejected these policies, and foreign countries also must do this if they wish to follow the policies, by which America actually grew rich, not by what U.S. neoliberal advisors tell other countries to do to please U.S. banks and foreign investors.
Also to be rejected is the anti-labor neoliberal tax policy (heavy taxes on employees and employers, low or zero taxes on real estate, finance and capital gains) and anti-labor workplace policies, ranging from safety protection and health care to working conditions. The U.S. economy rose to dominance as a result of Progressive Era regulatory reforms prior to World War I, reinforced by popular New Deal reforms put in place in the Great Depression. Neoliberal economics was promoted as a means of undoing these reforms. By undoing them, the Washington Consensus would deny to foreign countries the development strategy that has best succeeded in creating thriving domestic markets, rising productivity, capital formation and living standards. The effect has been to decouple saving from tangible capital formation. They need to be re-coupled, and this can be achieved only by restoring the kind of mixed economy by which North America and Europe achieved their economic growth.Michael Hudson is professor of Economics at the University of Missouri (Kansas City) and chief economic advisor to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. He has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments, as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). He is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002). He can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson.com.
Jeffrey Sommers is a professor at Raritan Valley College, NJ, visiting professor at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga, former Fulbrighter to Latvia, and fellow at Boris Kagarlitsky’s Institute for Global Studies in Moscow. He can be reached at jsommers@sseriga.edu.lv.
What is to be Done?
The End of the Washington Consensus
By Michael Hudson and Jeffrey Sommers
December 13, 2008 "Counterpunch" -- -- Wall Street’s financial meltdown marks the end of an era. What has ended is the credibility of the Washington Consensus – open markets to foreign investors and tight money austerity programs (high interest rates and credit cutbacks) to “cure” balance-of-payments deficits, domestic budget deficits and price inflation. On the negative side, this model has failed to produce the prosperity it promises. Raising interest rates and dismantling protective tariffs and subsidies worsen rather than help the trade and payments balance, aggravate rather than reduce domestic budget deficits, and raise prices. The reason? Interest is a cost of doing business while foreign trade dependency and currency depreciation raise import prices.
But even more striking is the positive side of what can be done as an alternative to the Washington Consensus. The $700 billion U.S. Treasury bailout of Wall Street’s bad loans on October 3 shows that the United States has no intention of applying this model to its own economy. Austerity and “fiscal responsibility” are for other countries. America acts ruthlessly in its own economic interest at any given moment of time. It freely spends more than it earns, flooding the global economy with what has now risen to $4 trillion in U.S. government debt to foreign central banks.
This amount is unpayable, given the chronic U.S. trade deficit and overseas military spending. But it does pose an interesting problem: why can’t other countries do the same thing? Is today’s policy asymmetry a fact of nature, or is it merely voluntary and the result of ignorance (spurred by an intensive globalist ideological propaganda program, to be sure)? Does India, for instance, need to privatize its state-owned banks as earlier was planned, or is it right to pull back? More to the point, have the neoliberal programs imposed on the former Soviet Union succeeded in “Americanizing” their economies and raising production capacity and living standards as promised? Or, was it all a dream, indeed, a nightmare?
The three Baltic countries, for instance – Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania – have long been praised in the Western press as great success stories. The World Bank classifies them among the most “business friendly” countries, and their real estate prices have soared, fueled by foreign-currency mortgages from neighboring Scandinavian banks. Their industry has been dismantled, their agriculture is in ruins, their male population below the age of 35 is emigrating. But real estate prices added to the net worth on their national balance sheets for nearly a decade. Has a new “moment of truth” arrived? Just because the Soviet economic system culminated in bureaucratic kleptocracy, has the neoliberal model really been so much better? Most important of all, was there a better alternative all along?
We expect the post-Soviet economies to go the way of Iceland, having taken on foreign debt with no visible means of paying it off via exports (the same situation in which the United States finds itself), or even further asset sales. Emigrants’ remittances are becoming a mainstay of their balance of payments, reflecting their economic shrinkage at the hands of neoliberal “reformers” and the free-market international dependency that the Washington Consensus promotes. So, just as this crisis has led the U.S. government to shift gears, is it time for foreign countries to seek to become more in the character of “mixed economies”? This has been the route taken by every successful economy in history, after all. Total private-sector markets (in practice, markets run by the banks and money managers) have shown themselves to be just as destructive, wasteful and corrupt and, indeed, centrally planned as those of totally “statist” governments from Stalin’s Russia to Hitler’s Germany. Is the political pendulum about to swing back more toward a better public-private balance?
Washington’s idealized picture of how free markets operate (as if such a thing ever existed) promised that countries outside the United States would get rich faster, approaching U.S.-style living standards if they let global investors buy their key industries and basic infrastructure. For half a century, this neoliberal model has been a hypocritical exercise in poor policy at best, and deception at worst, to convince other economies to impose self-destructive financial and tax policies, enabling U.S. investors to swoop in and buy their key assets at distress prices. (And for the U.S. economy to pay for these investment outflows in the form of more and more U.S. Treasury IOUs, yielding a low or even negative return when denominated in hard currencies.)
The neoliberal global system never was open in practice. America never imposed on itself the kind of shock therapy that President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary (and now Obama’s advisor) Robert Rubin promoted in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet bloc, from the Baltic countries in the northwest to Central Asia in the southeast. Just the opposite! Despite the fact that America’s own balance of trade and payments is soaring, consumer prices are rising and financial and property markets are plunging, there are no calls among its power elite to let the system self-correct. The Treasury is subsidizing America’s financial markets so as to save its financial class (minus some sacrificial lambs) and support its asset prices. Interest rates are being lowered to re-inflate asset prices, not raised to stabilize the dollar or slow domestic price inflation.
The policy implications go far beyond the United States itself. If the United States can create so much credit so quickly and so freely – and if Europe can follow suit, as it has done in recent days – why can’t all countries do this? Why can’t they get rich by following that path that the United States actually has taken, rather than merely doing what its economic diplomats tell them to do with sweet self-serving rhetoric? U.S. experience itself provides the major reason why the free market, run by financial institutions allocating credit, is a myth, a false map of reality to substitute for actual gunboats in getting other countries to open their asset markets to U.S. investors and food markets to U.S. farmers.
By contrast, the financial and trade model that U.S. oligarchs and their allies are promoting is a double standard. Most notoriously, when the 1997 Asian financial crisis broke out, the IMF demanded that foreign governments sell out their banks and industry at fire-sale prices to foreigners. U.S. vulture capital firms were especially aggressive in grabbing Asian and other global assets. But the U.S. financial bailout stands in sharp contrast to what Washington Consensus institutions imposed on other countries. There is no intention of letting foreign investors buy into the commanding U.S. heights, except at exorbitant prices. And for industry, the United States has once more violated international trade rules by offering special bailout money and subsidies to its own Big Three U.S. automakers (General Motors, Ford and Chrysler) but not to foreign-owned automakers in the United States. In thus favoring its own national industry and taking punitive measures to injure foreign-owned investments, the United States is once again providing an object lesson in nationalistic economic policy.
Most important, the U.S. bailout provides a model that is far preferable to the Washington Consensus-for-export. It shows that countries do not need to borrow credit from foreign banks at all. The government could have created its own money and credit system rather than leaving foreign creditors to accrue interest charges that now represent a permanent and seemingly irreversible balance-of-payments drain. The United States has shown that any country can monetize its own credit, at least domestic credit. A large part of the problem for Third World and post-Soviet economies is that they never experienced the successful model of managerial capitalism that predated the neoliberal model, advocated since the 1980s by Washington.
The managerial model of capitalism, predominating during the post-World War II period until the 1980s (with antecedents in 18th-century British mercantilism and 19th-century American protectionism), delivered high growth. Postwar planners, such as John Maynard Keynes in England and Harry Dexter White in the United States, favored production over finance. As Winston Churchill quipped, “nations typically do the right thing [pause], after exhausting all other options.” But it took two world wars, interspersed by an economic depression triggered by debts in excess of the ability to pay, to give the final nudge required to promote manufacturing over finance and finally do “the right thing.”
Finance was made subordinate to industrial development and full employment. When this economic philosophy reached its peak in the early 1960s, the financial sector accounted for only 2 per cent of U.S. corporate profits. Today, it is 40 per cent! Carrying charges on America’s exponentially growing debt are diverting income away from purchasing goods and services to pay creditors, who use the money mainly to lend out afresh to borrowers to bid up real estate prices and stock prices. Tangible capital investment is financed almost entirely out of retained corporate earnings – and these too are being diverted to pay interest on soaring industrial debt. The result is debt deflation – a shrinkage of spending power as the economic surplus is “financialized,” a new word, only recently added to the world’s economic vocabulary.
Since the 1980s, the U.S. tax system has promoted rent seeking and speculation on credit to ride the wave of asset-price inflation. This strategy increased balance sheets as long as asset prices rose faster than debts (that is, until last year). But it did not add to industrial capacity. And meanwhile, tax cuts caused the national debt to soar, prompting U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to comment, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
On the international front, the larger the U.S. trade and payments deficit, the more dollars were pumped into foreign hands. Their central banks recycled them back to the U.S. economy in the form of purchases of Treasury bonds and, when the interest rates fell almost to zero, securitized mortgage packages. Current Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson assured Chinese and other foreign investors that the government would stand behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as privatized mortgage-packaging agencies, guaranteeing a $5.2 trillion supply of mortgages. This matched in size the U.S. public debt in private hands.
Meanwhile, the Treasury cut special deals with the Saudis to recycle their oil revenues into investments in Citibank and other U.S. financial institutions – investments, on which they have lost many tens of billions of dollars. To cap matters, pricing world oil in dollars kept the U.S. currency stronger than underlying economic fundamentals justified. The U.S. economy paid for its imports with government debt never intended to be repaid, even if it could be (which it can’t at today’s $4 trillion level, cited earlier). The American economy, thus, has seen its trade deficit and asset prices rise in accordance with economic laws that no other nation can emulate, topped by the ability to run freely into international debt without limit.
Managerial capitalism mobilized rising corporate net worth and equity value to build up in the real economy. But since the 1980s, a new breed of financial managers has pledged assets as collateral for new loans to buy back corporate stock and even to pay out as dividends. This has pushed up corporate stock prices and, with them, the value of stock options that corporate managers give themselves. But it has not spurred tangible capital formation.
A real estate bubble in all countries has been fueled by rising mortgage debt. To buy a new home, buyers must take on a lifetime of debt. This has made many employees afraid to go on strike or even to press for better working conditions, because they are “one check away from homelessness,” or mortgage foreclosure. Meanwhile, companies have been outsourcing and downsizing their labor force, eliminating benefits, imposing longer hours, and bringing more women and children into the workforce.
Today’s “new economy” is based not on new technology and capital investment, as former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan trumpeted in the late 1990s, but on price inflation generating capital gains (mainly in land prices, as land is still the largest asset in the U.S. and other industrial economies). The economic surplus is absorbed by debt service payments (and higher priced health care), not investment in production or in sharing productivity gains with labor and professionals. Wages and living standards are stagnant for most people, as the economy tries to get rich by “the miracle of compound interest,” while capital gains emanating from the financial sector provide a foundation for new credit to bid up asset prices, all the more in a seemingly perpetual motion credit-and-debt machine. But the effect has been for the richest 1 per cent of the population to increase its share of interest extraction, dividends and capital gains from 37 per cent ten years ago to 57 per cent five years ago, and nearly 70 per cent today. Savings remain high, but only the wealthiest 10 per cent are saving – and this money is being lent out to the bottom 90 per cent, so no net saving is occurring.
Internationally, too, the global economy has polarized rather than converged. Just as independence arrived for many Third World countries only after their former European colonial powers had put in place inequitable land tenure patterns (latifundia, owned by domestic oligarchies) and export-oriented production, so independence for the post-Soviet countries from Russia arrived after managerial capitalism had given way to a neoliberal model that viewed “wealth creation” simply as rising prices for real estate, stocks and bonds. Western advisors and former emigrants descended to convince these countries to play the same game that other countries were playing – except that real estate debt for many of these countries was denominated in foreign currency, as no domestic banking tradition had been developed. This became increasingly dangerous for economies that did not put in place sufficient export capacity to cover the price of imports and the mounting volume of foreign-currency debt attached to their real estate. And nearly all the post-Soviet countries ran structural trade deficit, as production patterns were disrupted with the breakup of the U.S.S.R.
Real estate and capital gains from asset-price inflation (not industrial capital formation) were promoted as the way to future prosperity in countries whose profits from manufacturing were low and wages were stagnant. The problem is this alchemy is not sustainable. An illusion of success could be maintained as long as Washington was flooding the globe with cheap money. This led Swedes and other Europeans to find capital gains by extending loans to feed neighboring countries from Iceland to Latvia, above all via their real estate markets. For some exporters (especially Russia), rising oil and metal export prices became the basis for capital outflows into Third World and post-Soviet financial markets. Some of the backwash, for example, flowed into the world’s burgeoning offshore banking and real estate sectors – only to stop abruptly when the real estate bubble burst. In these circumstances, what is to be done? First, countries outside the United States need to recognize how dysfunctional the neoliberalized world economy has been made, and to decide which assumptions underlying the neoliberal model must be discarded. Its preferred tax and financial policies favor finance over industry and, hence, financial maneuvering and asset-price inflation over tangible capital formation. Its anti-labor austerity policies and un-taxing of real estate, stocks and bonds divert resources away from growth and rising living standards.
Likewise destructive are compound interest and capital gains over the long term. The real economy can grow only a few per cent a year at best. Therefore, it is mathematically impossible for compound interest to continue unabated and for capital gains to grow well in excess of the underlying rate of economic growth. Historically, economic crises wipe out these gains when they outpace real economic growth by too far a margin. The moral is that compound interest and hopes for capital gains cannot guarantee income for its retirees or continue attracting foreign capital. Over a period of a lifetime, financial investments may not deliver significant gains. For the United States, it took markets about twenty-five years, from 1929 to the mid-1950s, to recover their previous value.
Today’s desperate U.S. attempt to re-inflate post-crash prices cannot cure the bad-debt problem. Foreign attempts to do this will merely aid foreign bankers and financial investors, not the domestic economy. Countries need to invest in their real economy, to raise productivity and wages. Governments must punish speculation and capital gains that merely reflect asset-price inflation, not real value. Otherwise, the real economy’s productive powers and living standards will be impaired and, in the neoliberal model, loaded down with debt. Policies should encourage enterprise, not speculation. Investment seeks growing markets, which tend to be thwarted by macroeconomic targets such as low inflation and balanced budgets. We are not arguing that inflation and deficits can be ignored, but rather that inflation and deficits are not all created equally. Some variants hurt the economy, while others reflect healthy investment in real production. Distinguishing between the two effects is vital, if economies are to move forward to achieve self-dependency.
In sum, a much better economy can be created by rejecting Washington’s financial model of austerity programs, privatization selloffs and trade dependency, financed by foreign-currency credit. Prosperity cannot be achieved by creating a favorable climate for extractive foreign capital, or by tightening credit and balancing budgets, decade after decade. The United States itself has always rejected these policies, and foreign countries also must do this if they wish to follow the policies, by which America actually grew rich, not by what U.S. neoliberal advisors tell other countries to do to please U.S. banks and foreign investors.
Also to be rejected is the anti-labor neoliberal tax policy (heavy taxes on employees and employers, low or zero taxes on real estate, finance and capital gains) and anti-labor workplace policies, ranging from safety protection and health care to working conditions. The U.S. economy rose to dominance as a result of Progressive Era regulatory reforms prior to World War I, reinforced by popular New Deal reforms put in place in the Great Depression. Neoliberal economics was promoted as a means of undoing these reforms. By undoing them, the Washington Consensus would deny to foreign countries the development strategy that has best succeeded in creating thriving domestic markets, rising productivity, capital formation and living standards. The effect has been to decouple saving from tangible capital formation. They need to be re-coupled, and this can be achieved only by restoring the kind of mixed economy by which North America and Europe achieved their economic growth.Michael Hudson is professor of Economics at the University of Missouri (Kansas City) and chief economic advisor to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. He has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments, as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). He is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002). He can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson.com.
Jeffrey Sommers is a professor at Raritan Valley College, NJ, visiting professor at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga, former Fulbrighter to Latvia, and fellow at Boris Kagarlitsky’s Institute for Global Studies in Moscow. He can be reached at jsommers@sseriga.edu.lv.
Troops losing civilian support in Afghanistan
This is from the Telegraph.
This is hardly news but perhaps it is necessary to keep repeating the facts since NATO and ISAF refuse to pay much attention. Karzai has gone on and on complaining about air attacks and civilian casualties, but with no tangible results except perhaps a plan to have him ousted as president and elect someone less critical. Of course the Taliban use the civilian population as shields when they can and hide in civilian houses. But only if the allied forces who are so careful about civilian casualties bomb those areas or attack them will there be civilian casualties.
Afghan troops losing support from locals
The behaviour of international troops is jeopardising the support of the Afghan people, the country's most senior United Nations official has warned.
By Ben Farmer in Kabul Last Updated: 3:02PM GMT 12 Dec 2008
Kai Edie, the UN Secretary-General's special representative, said he was worried about the effects of civilian casualties, unlawful detentions and heavy-handed searches.
Civilian deaths, particularly from coalition airstrikes, have caused deep resentment in Afghanistan and President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly demanded villages are not bombed.
Civilians have also repeatedly been shot dead when cars and buses have failed to heed warnings and strayed too close to coalition convoys and patrols.
He said: "In the end the Afghans themselves have to win the hearts and minds of their population, we can contribute, but I am afraid that we will be less welcome in the Afghan public if we do not correct our behaviour."
Mr Eide's comments came as the Nato-led coalition said three bus passengers were shot dead yesterday (FRI) when their bus veered towards a patrol and ignored warnings in Wardak province.
He said there was growing concern among Afghans about the behaviour of coalition forces.
"Does it mean that the Afghans do not want international military troops there? No, they still want it, but we must maintain that support which is fundamental for our success."
There are some 65,000 international troops in Afghanistan and General David McKiernan, the Nato commander, has requested more than 20,000 US reinforcements which will begin arriving next month.
Afghanistan has seen its bloodiest year since the Taliban regime was toppled in 2001, with some estimates putting the number killed in fighting at more than 5,000. Fighting is expected to get heavier next year as the US surge moves troops into previously ungarrisoned areas.
A spokesman for the Nato-led coalition said troops were under specific directions how to avoid civilian casualties and how to avoid causing offence.
"ISAF is in Afghanistan under UN mandate at the invitation of the Afghan government," he said.
"One civilian casualty is one too many and ISAF does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties and distress to the Afghan people.
"The insurgents however, seek to exploit the civilian population, using them as human shields, causing terror and destruction to their homes, infrastructure and livelihoods."
This is hardly news but perhaps it is necessary to keep repeating the facts since NATO and ISAF refuse to pay much attention. Karzai has gone on and on complaining about air attacks and civilian casualties, but with no tangible results except perhaps a plan to have him ousted as president and elect someone less critical. Of course the Taliban use the civilian population as shields when they can and hide in civilian houses. But only if the allied forces who are so careful about civilian casualties bomb those areas or attack them will there be civilian casualties.
Afghan troops losing support from locals
The behaviour of international troops is jeopardising the support of the Afghan people, the country's most senior United Nations official has warned.
By Ben Farmer in Kabul Last Updated: 3:02PM GMT 12 Dec 2008
Kai Edie, the UN Secretary-General's special representative, said he was worried about the effects of civilian casualties, unlawful detentions and heavy-handed searches.
Civilian deaths, particularly from coalition airstrikes, have caused deep resentment in Afghanistan and President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly demanded villages are not bombed.
Civilians have also repeatedly been shot dead when cars and buses have failed to heed warnings and strayed too close to coalition convoys and patrols.
He said: "In the end the Afghans themselves have to win the hearts and minds of their population, we can contribute, but I am afraid that we will be less welcome in the Afghan public if we do not correct our behaviour."
Mr Eide's comments came as the Nato-led coalition said three bus passengers were shot dead yesterday (FRI) when their bus veered towards a patrol and ignored warnings in Wardak province.
He said there was growing concern among Afghans about the behaviour of coalition forces.
"Does it mean that the Afghans do not want international military troops there? No, they still want it, but we must maintain that support which is fundamental for our success."
There are some 65,000 international troops in Afghanistan and General David McKiernan, the Nato commander, has requested more than 20,000 US reinforcements which will begin arriving next month.
Afghanistan has seen its bloodiest year since the Taliban regime was toppled in 2001, with some estimates putting the number killed in fighting at more than 5,000. Fighting is expected to get heavier next year as the US surge moves troops into previously ungarrisoned areas.
A spokesman for the Nato-led coalition said troops were under specific directions how to avoid civilian casualties and how to avoid causing offence.
"ISAF is in Afghanistan under UN mandate at the invitation of the Afghan government," he said.
"One civilian casualty is one too many and ISAF does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties and distress to the Afghan people.
"The insurgents however, seek to exploit the civilian population, using them as human shields, causing terror and destruction to their homes, infrastructure and livelihoods."
Floundering Somali Govt. Nears Collapse
There is little news about what the US is up to these days in Somalia. The US backed the Ethiopian invasion to prop up the transitional national government but that group has never really controlled much territory. There are more or less "independent"areas in Puntland and Somaliland. The radical Islamic groups seem to be retaking areas that they lost during the invasion so it will probably not be long before they establish their own rule again. It will be interesting to see what is the US reaction to that. Will Obama be any less eager to defeat any Islamic group than Bush? This is from antiwar.com.
Floundering Somali Govt Nears Collapse
Thousands Desert Somali Forces as Ethiopia Prepares Pullout
Posted December 12, 2008
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared “mission accomplished” in their two-year military effort to prop up the self-appointed transitional national government of Somalia, and told parliament that Ethiopian forces would withdraw from the nation within weeks. Zenawi claimed the mission was meant to “defuse the plan orchestrated by Eritrea,” but conceded that it was not possible to bring lasting peace to Somalia.
As Ethiopia is poised to leave, the Islamist forces that fought their invasion so vigorously are seizing more and more Somali territory, leaving the possibility of an outright collapse of the government seemingly only a matter of time.
The military and police forces working for the Somali government apparently see the writing on the walls too, with a UN report claiming that 80 percent of them, 15,000 people in all, have deserted from the forces, many of them taking their weapons and vehicles with them.
The current government has been the longest-lived of Somalia’s numerous would-be rulers, surviving over three years since the government of neighboring Kenya booted them from their upscale hotels and left them to actually try to assert their authority. That survival has in large measure been facilitated by the US-backed Ethiopian invasion. With them gone, the government will have to rely on a few thousand African Union “peacekeepers” and what little remains of their own forces to hold on as long as they can.
Floundering Somali Govt Nears Collapse
Thousands Desert Somali Forces as Ethiopia Prepares Pullout
Posted December 12, 2008
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared “mission accomplished” in their two-year military effort to prop up the self-appointed transitional national government of Somalia, and told parliament that Ethiopian forces would withdraw from the nation within weeks. Zenawi claimed the mission was meant to “defuse the plan orchestrated by Eritrea,” but conceded that it was not possible to bring lasting peace to Somalia.
As Ethiopia is poised to leave, the Islamist forces that fought their invasion so vigorously are seizing more and more Somali territory, leaving the possibility of an outright collapse of the government seemingly only a matter of time.
The military and police forces working for the Somali government apparently see the writing on the walls too, with a UN report claiming that 80 percent of them, 15,000 people in all, have deserted from the forces, many of them taking their weapons and vehicles with them.
The current government has been the longest-lived of Somalia’s numerous would-be rulers, surviving over three years since the government of neighboring Kenya booted them from their upscale hotels and left them to actually try to assert their authority. That survival has in large measure been facilitated by the US-backed Ethiopian invasion. With them gone, the government will have to rely on a few thousand African Union “peacekeepers” and what little remains of their own forces to hold on as long as they can.
Rumsfield blamed n detainee abuse scandals: Senate report
Those lower down the line received what punishment that was meted out but the higher ups who initiated the policies that encouraged abuse went scot free. No doubt Bush was also privy to the orders that Rumsfeld had given.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-interrogate-abuse12-2008dec12,0,2238629.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Rumsfeld blamed in detainee abuse scandals
A bipartisan Senate report calls decisions made by the former Defense secretary a 'direct cause' of inhumane treatment of prisoners of war. Other Bush officials also are faulted.
By Greg Miller and Julian E. BarnesDecember 12, 2008
Reporting from Washington — A bipartisan Senate report released Thursday concludes that decisions made by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were a "direct cause" of widespread detainee abuses, and that other Bush administration officials were to blame for creating a legal and moral climate that contributed to inhumane treatment.The report, endorsed by Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is the most forceful denunciation to date of the role that Rumsfeld and other top officials played in the prisoner abuse scandals of the last five years.The document also challenges assertions by senior Bush administration officials that the most egregious cases of prisoner mistreatment were isolated incidents of appalling conduct by U.S. troops."The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own," the report says.Instead, the document says, a series of high-level decisions in the Bush administration "conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody."The document aims its harshest criticism at Rumsfeld's decision in December 2002 to authorize the use of aggressive interrogation techniques at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.Although the order was rescinded six weeks later, the report describes it as "a direct cause for detainee abuse" at Guantanamo Bay, and concludes that it "influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq."The report also criticizes President Bush, although less harshly. In particular, it cites a presidential memorandum signed Feb. 7, 2002, that denied detainees captured in Afghanistan the protections of the Geneva Conventions, which ban abusive treatment of prisoners of war.Bush's decision to bypass an international law that had been observed by American troops for decades sent a message that "impacted the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody," the report says.That message was bolstered by a series of memos from the Justice Department, the report says, that "distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws" and "rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody."The Senate report represents the culmination of an 18-month investigation by the committee's staff. It is the latest, and in many respects the most comprehensive, in a series of government investigations started after photographs surfaced in April 2004 of prisoners at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq being stripped of their clothes, piled in pyramids and strapped to what appeared to be electrical wires.Those abuses "cannot be chalked up to the actions of 'a few bad apples,' " said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, referring to a line used by former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz in an attempt to downplay the scandal.Levin said it was "both unconscionable and false" for Rumsfeld and others to blame troops and escape accountability. Even so, the report does not call for further investigation or punishment.The findings were approved last month by the 17 committee members in attendance, indicating the report had the support of at least four of the panel's Republicans. Committee officials did not identify which senators on the 25- person panel were not present for the vote.Among the panel's members are several GOP senators who have criticized the administration's conduct on detainee matters, including John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.Levin said the committee had reviewed thousands of documents and conducted interviews with more than 70 people, and received written responses from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.The investigation did not focus on the CIA's treatment of detainees, or the agency's operation of a network of secret prisons.But the inquiry turned up new information showing that the Defense Department had consulted with the CIA on interrogation matters, and that White House officials had reviewed CIA methods earlier and in more detail than previously acknowledged.Most of the findings had been disclosed in the panel's interim reports or in other investigations. But the report released Thursday traces the origins of aggressive interrogation techniques to U.S. military survival training programs. It follows the use of coercive methods as they migrated from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan, then to Iraq and Abu Ghraib.The techniques -- based on practices detailed in military courses on survival, evasion, resistance and escape, known as SERE -- included stress positions, the removal of clothing and the exploitation of phobias, including fear of dogs.One month after Rumsfeld issued his order approving such methods at Guantanamo, they were part of a presentation witnessed by Army Capt. Carolyn Wood at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, the report says. Wood has been criticized by human rights groups for her role in U.S. interrogation techniques, and was singled out in one investigation as failing to properly oversee interrogators.The committee said the Afghanistan techniques eventually became standard procedure for all U.S. forces in Iraq. And by summer 2003, Wood, then serving in Iraq, proposed that the practices become the interrogation policy at Abu Ghraib.After Wood proposed extending the use of the techniques and pressure mounted to acquire intelligence about the insurgency, the top commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, authorized interrogators on Sept. 14, 2003, to use stress positions, "sleep management" and dogs when questioning detainees.A month later, he rescinded permission to use the techniques."The new policy, however, contained ambiguities with respect to certain techniques, such as the use of dogs in interrogations, and led to confusion about which techniques were permitted," the Senate report says.Miller and Barnes are writers in our Washington bureau.greg.miller@latimes.comjulian.barnes@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-interrogate-abuse12-2008dec12,0,2238629.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Rumsfeld blamed in detainee abuse scandals
A bipartisan Senate report calls decisions made by the former Defense secretary a 'direct cause' of inhumane treatment of prisoners of war. Other Bush officials also are faulted.
By Greg Miller and Julian E. BarnesDecember 12, 2008
Reporting from Washington — A bipartisan Senate report released Thursday concludes that decisions made by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were a "direct cause" of widespread detainee abuses, and that other Bush administration officials were to blame for creating a legal and moral climate that contributed to inhumane treatment.The report, endorsed by Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is the most forceful denunciation to date of the role that Rumsfeld and other top officials played in the prisoner abuse scandals of the last five years.The document also challenges assertions by senior Bush administration officials that the most egregious cases of prisoner mistreatment were isolated incidents of appalling conduct by U.S. troops."The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own," the report says.Instead, the document says, a series of high-level decisions in the Bush administration "conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody."The document aims its harshest criticism at Rumsfeld's decision in December 2002 to authorize the use of aggressive interrogation techniques at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.Although the order was rescinded six weeks later, the report describes it as "a direct cause for detainee abuse" at Guantanamo Bay, and concludes that it "influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq."The report also criticizes President Bush, although less harshly. In particular, it cites a presidential memorandum signed Feb. 7, 2002, that denied detainees captured in Afghanistan the protections of the Geneva Conventions, which ban abusive treatment of prisoners of war.Bush's decision to bypass an international law that had been observed by American troops for decades sent a message that "impacted the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody," the report says.That message was bolstered by a series of memos from the Justice Department, the report says, that "distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws" and "rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody."The Senate report represents the culmination of an 18-month investigation by the committee's staff. It is the latest, and in many respects the most comprehensive, in a series of government investigations started after photographs surfaced in April 2004 of prisoners at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq being stripped of their clothes, piled in pyramids and strapped to what appeared to be electrical wires.Those abuses "cannot be chalked up to the actions of 'a few bad apples,' " said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, referring to a line used by former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz in an attempt to downplay the scandal.Levin said it was "both unconscionable and false" for Rumsfeld and others to blame troops and escape accountability. Even so, the report does not call for further investigation or punishment.The findings were approved last month by the 17 committee members in attendance, indicating the report had the support of at least four of the panel's Republicans. Committee officials did not identify which senators on the 25- person panel were not present for the vote.Among the panel's members are several GOP senators who have criticized the administration's conduct on detainee matters, including John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.Levin said the committee had reviewed thousands of documents and conducted interviews with more than 70 people, and received written responses from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.The investigation did not focus on the CIA's treatment of detainees, or the agency's operation of a network of secret prisons.But the inquiry turned up new information showing that the Defense Department had consulted with the CIA on interrogation matters, and that White House officials had reviewed CIA methods earlier and in more detail than previously acknowledged.Most of the findings had been disclosed in the panel's interim reports or in other investigations. But the report released Thursday traces the origins of aggressive interrogation techniques to U.S. military survival training programs. It follows the use of coercive methods as they migrated from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan, then to Iraq and Abu Ghraib.The techniques -- based on practices detailed in military courses on survival, evasion, resistance and escape, known as SERE -- included stress positions, the removal of clothing and the exploitation of phobias, including fear of dogs.One month after Rumsfeld issued his order approving such methods at Guantanamo, they were part of a presentation witnessed by Army Capt. Carolyn Wood at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, the report says. Wood has been criticized by human rights groups for her role in U.S. interrogation techniques, and was singled out in one investigation as failing to properly oversee interrogators.The committee said the Afghanistan techniques eventually became standard procedure for all U.S. forces in Iraq. And by summer 2003, Wood, then serving in Iraq, proposed that the practices become the interrogation policy at Abu Ghraib.After Wood proposed extending the use of the techniques and pressure mounted to acquire intelligence about the insurgency, the top commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, authorized interrogators on Sept. 14, 2003, to use stress positions, "sleep management" and dogs when questioning detainees.A month later, he rescinded permission to use the techniques."The new policy, however, contained ambiguities with respect to certain techniques, such as the use of dogs in interrogations, and led to confusion about which techniques were permitted," the Senate report says.Miller and Barnes are writers in our Washington bureau.greg.miller@latimes.comjulian.barnes@latimes.com
Friday, December 12, 2008
Philippines: Seven banks in receivership
This is from the Tribune.
While the central bank claims that the banking system is robust, no doubt the Philippine financial system will not be completely immune from the global crisis that is causing problems worldwide for banks.
BSP: RP banking system robust despite 7 banks in receivership
12/13/2008
The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) yesterday added three more banks which unilaterally declared bank holiday under receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC). The three are the Bank of East Asia based in Cebu; the First Interstate Bank based in Tacloban; and the Philippine Countryside Rural Bank based in Cebu.
This brings the number of banks placed by the BSP under PDIC receivership this week to seven.
The seven are part of a group of banks that obtained from the regional trial court last June 2008 a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction, affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) last Sept. 30, covering the submission by the BSP to its policymaking body, the Monetary Board (MB), of the 2007 Report of Examination covering their respective banks; and the MB from acting on the basis of the Reports of Examination.
Last November, the Supreme Court issued a TRO to restrain the implementation of the decision of the CA and the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28. This paved the way for the BSP and the MB to act on the 2007 findings which were validated by the 2008 Report of Examination.
The BSP had been monitoring these banks well before the global financial turmoil because of potentially unsafe and unsound banking practices.
Four small rural banks in the Philippines were previously placed in receivership after they and four other provincial banks were hit by heavy withdrawals, the BSP said yesterday.
The bank stressed that the runs affected “only a tiny fraction of the banking system and that this reaffirms the (BSP’s) assessment that the banking system remains stable, highly capitalized, and highly liquid.”
The Rural Bank of Parañaque was placed by the MB under the control of the PDIC on Tuesday, while the Rural Bank of Bais in Negros Oriental, the Pilipino Rural Bank in Cebu and the Rural Bank of San Jose in Batangas went into receivership Thursday.
The provincial banks — the Philippine Countryside Bank in Cebu, the Dynamic Bank (Rural Bank of Calatagan), the San Pablo City Development Bank in Laguna and the Nation Bank in Bacolod City— have all declared bank holidays, the BSP reported. The BSP said their financial condition is still being assessed.
The affected banks are based mostly in Batangas province south of Manila as well as the central islands of Negros and Cebu.
The BSP said it is “investigating these banks to determine their financial condition and viability as well as violations of banking laws that may have been committed.”
It cautioned the public to “avoid making (a) sweeping judgment on the condition of individual banks based on pure speculation as these tend to be self-fulfilling.”
BSP Deputy Gov. Diwa Guinigundo has declared that the country’s banking system remains healthy despite the declaration of bank holiday by eight banks this week.
Guinigundo told reporters the number of banks that have declared bank holidays is not representative of the domestic banking system.
He explained that Philippine banks are generally strong in terms of capital base, asset quality and profitability amid the current global financial crunch because of the policy improvements implemented by the BSP in the past years.
“In fact if you look at the total resources of the banking system these assets continue to grow,” he pointed out.
Guinigundo said since banks are now stronger they are able to accomplish their mandate of intermediating savings which, in turn, are used for lending to corporations and individuals.
He defined bank holiday as the situation wherein banks cannot service its depositors anymore due to lack of funds and other reasons.
The BSP announced late Thursday that a total of eight banks have declared bank holiday this week, four of which have been placed under receivership of the PDIC, while the other four are still being assessed by the BSP.
The BSP, in a statement, pointed out that these eight banks “represent only a tiny fraction of the banking system and that this reaffirms the BSP’s assessment that the banking system remains stable, highly capitalized and highly liquid.”
It said it is investigating the banks “to determine their financial condition and viability as well as violations of banking laws that may have been committed” and “will take appropriate action based on the findings.” AFP and PNA
While the central bank claims that the banking system is robust, no doubt the Philippine financial system will not be completely immune from the global crisis that is causing problems worldwide for banks.
BSP: RP banking system robust despite 7 banks in receivership
12/13/2008
The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) yesterday added three more banks which unilaterally declared bank holiday under receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC). The three are the Bank of East Asia based in Cebu; the First Interstate Bank based in Tacloban; and the Philippine Countryside Rural Bank based in Cebu.
This brings the number of banks placed by the BSP under PDIC receivership this week to seven.
The seven are part of a group of banks that obtained from the regional trial court last June 2008 a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction, affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) last Sept. 30, covering the submission by the BSP to its policymaking body, the Monetary Board (MB), of the 2007 Report of Examination covering their respective banks; and the MB from acting on the basis of the Reports of Examination.
Last November, the Supreme Court issued a TRO to restrain the implementation of the decision of the CA and the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28. This paved the way for the BSP and the MB to act on the 2007 findings which were validated by the 2008 Report of Examination.
The BSP had been monitoring these banks well before the global financial turmoil because of potentially unsafe and unsound banking practices.
Four small rural banks in the Philippines were previously placed in receivership after they and four other provincial banks were hit by heavy withdrawals, the BSP said yesterday.
The bank stressed that the runs affected “only a tiny fraction of the banking system and that this reaffirms the (BSP’s) assessment that the banking system remains stable, highly capitalized, and highly liquid.”
The Rural Bank of Parañaque was placed by the MB under the control of the PDIC on Tuesday, while the Rural Bank of Bais in Negros Oriental, the Pilipino Rural Bank in Cebu and the Rural Bank of San Jose in Batangas went into receivership Thursday.
The provincial banks — the Philippine Countryside Bank in Cebu, the Dynamic Bank (Rural Bank of Calatagan), the San Pablo City Development Bank in Laguna and the Nation Bank in Bacolod City— have all declared bank holidays, the BSP reported. The BSP said their financial condition is still being assessed.
The affected banks are based mostly in Batangas province south of Manila as well as the central islands of Negros and Cebu.
The BSP said it is “investigating these banks to determine their financial condition and viability as well as violations of banking laws that may have been committed.”
It cautioned the public to “avoid making (a) sweeping judgment on the condition of individual banks based on pure speculation as these tend to be self-fulfilling.”
BSP Deputy Gov. Diwa Guinigundo has declared that the country’s banking system remains healthy despite the declaration of bank holiday by eight banks this week.
Guinigundo told reporters the number of banks that have declared bank holidays is not representative of the domestic banking system.
He explained that Philippine banks are generally strong in terms of capital base, asset quality and profitability amid the current global financial crunch because of the policy improvements implemented by the BSP in the past years.
“In fact if you look at the total resources of the banking system these assets continue to grow,” he pointed out.
Guinigundo said since banks are now stronger they are able to accomplish their mandate of intermediating savings which, in turn, are used for lending to corporations and individuals.
He defined bank holiday as the situation wherein banks cannot service its depositors anymore due to lack of funds and other reasons.
The BSP announced late Thursday that a total of eight banks have declared bank holiday this week, four of which have been placed under receivership of the PDIC, while the other four are still being assessed by the BSP.
The BSP, in a statement, pointed out that these eight banks “represent only a tiny fraction of the banking system and that this reaffirms the BSP’s assessment that the banking system remains stable, highly capitalized and highly liquid.”
It said it is investigating the banks “to determine their financial condition and viability as well as violations of banking laws that may have been committed” and “will take appropriate action based on the findings.” AFP and PNA
Russian military chief wants new treaty with US
Arms control rarely is a subject in US political discourse unless it is a matter of controlling someone elses arms such as those inherently evil regimes of North Korea and Iran! The Angelic Eagle has no need to trim its talons. It will be interesting if Obama welcomes this overture from Russia.
11/12/2008 Moscow News №49 2008
Russian military chief wants new treaty with US
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's top military officer called for new arms control talks with the United States on Wednesday, as the Kremlin seeks to engage President-elect Barack Obama's administration.
With two major conventional and strategic treaties in limbo for years, Gen. Nikolai Makarov presented what appeared to be Moscow's most detailed wish list to date for talks with Washington.
He urged the U.S. to negotiate a new treaty to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty before it expires in a year.
The START I pact was signed by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and President George H.W. Bush and called on each country to cut its nuclear warhead stocks by at least one-quarter to about 6,000.
A second deal - the so-called Treaty of Moscow - was signed in 2002 and called for cutting each country's nuclear arsenal further to 1,700-2,200 warheads by 2012. The document was closely based on START I rules and its verification procedures.
Makarov said a new treaty should specify limits for all kinds of nuclear weapons and should outline control and verification procedures. It should also contain guarantees that stockpiled nuclear warheads cannot be quickly returned to combat duty, he said.
Both Russia and the United States want a successor deal, but progress has been hampered by strained relations over U.S. missile defense plans and Russia's war in Georgia.
Rose Gottemoeller, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center think-tank, said that Makarov had repeated some of Moscow's long-held demands, apparently reflecting a desire to engage with the new U.S. administration.
"Prospects are quite good that a new agreement can be reached," she said. "The new administration in Washington realizes that we have a clock ticking, that START I will go out of force in December 2009, and so basically the United States and Russia have a deadline, a very firm deadline."
Moscow suspended its observance of another Cold War-era arms pact last year - the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty limiting the deployment of aircraft, tanks and other heavy non-nuclear weapons on the continent.
Russia said it took the step because NATO countries had not ratified a 1999 revised version. The United States and other NATO members said they refused because Moscow should first withdraw forces from Georgia and the Moldovan separatist region of Trans-Dniester.
Makarov said Moscow might return to the CFE treaty if NATO accepted lower limits on weapons and abandon the so-called "flank" restrictions, limiting troops and weapons deployment in Russia's southern and northwestern regions.
He said that all NATO members, including the ex-Soviet Baltic nations, must accept a modified CFE treaty.
Makarov also said that Russia will keep its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, which he said were necessary to counter a massive NATO advantage in conventional weapons.
11/12/2008 Moscow News №49 2008
Russian military chief wants new treaty with US
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's top military officer called for new arms control talks with the United States on Wednesday, as the Kremlin seeks to engage President-elect Barack Obama's administration.
With two major conventional and strategic treaties in limbo for years, Gen. Nikolai Makarov presented what appeared to be Moscow's most detailed wish list to date for talks with Washington.
He urged the U.S. to negotiate a new treaty to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty before it expires in a year.
The START I pact was signed by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and President George H.W. Bush and called on each country to cut its nuclear warhead stocks by at least one-quarter to about 6,000.
A second deal - the so-called Treaty of Moscow - was signed in 2002 and called for cutting each country's nuclear arsenal further to 1,700-2,200 warheads by 2012. The document was closely based on START I rules and its verification procedures.
Makarov said a new treaty should specify limits for all kinds of nuclear weapons and should outline control and verification procedures. It should also contain guarantees that stockpiled nuclear warheads cannot be quickly returned to combat duty, he said.
Both Russia and the United States want a successor deal, but progress has been hampered by strained relations over U.S. missile defense plans and Russia's war in Georgia.
Rose Gottemoeller, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center think-tank, said that Makarov had repeated some of Moscow's long-held demands, apparently reflecting a desire to engage with the new U.S. administration.
"Prospects are quite good that a new agreement can be reached," she said. "The new administration in Washington realizes that we have a clock ticking, that START I will go out of force in December 2009, and so basically the United States and Russia have a deadline, a very firm deadline."
Moscow suspended its observance of another Cold War-era arms pact last year - the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty limiting the deployment of aircraft, tanks and other heavy non-nuclear weapons on the continent.
Russia said it took the step because NATO countries had not ratified a 1999 revised version. The United States and other NATO members said they refused because Moscow should first withdraw forces from Georgia and the Moldovan separatist region of Trans-Dniester.
Makarov said Moscow might return to the CFE treaty if NATO accepted lower limits on weapons and abandon the so-called "flank" restrictions, limiting troops and weapons deployment in Russia's southern and northwestern regions.
He said that all NATO members, including the ex-Soviet Baltic nations, must accept a modified CFE treaty.
Makarov also said that Russia will keep its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, which he said were necessary to counter a massive NATO advantage in conventional weapons.
NATO seeks out new Afghan supply routes.
This is from asiatimes.
With attacks increasing along routes from Pakistan it is not surprising that new routes are being explored. Apparently in some cases Taliban collect fees for safe passage along Pakistani routes as well. No doubt NATO and the US are not at all happy about this.
Dec 12, 2008
NATO seeks out new Afghan supply routes
By Roger N McDermott LONDON -
On December 9, in an interview with Vremya Novostei in Moscow, ambassador Robert Simmons, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) secretary general's special advisor on Central Asia and the South Caucasus, confirmed that NATO is currently discussing possible transit routes to Afghanistan with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Ukraine (the latter two representing a much longer overland supply route). NATO needs to activate additional supply routes into Afghanistan since its route through Pakistan has been attacked by militants. "Aside from the Pakistani route, emphasis is made on the route we agreed on with the Russian delegation in Bucharest. In fact, we are now working on analogous agreements with the
governments of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Ukraine. It will allow for freight traffic to the international contingent in Afghanistan via Russia and these countries," Simmons explained. Ahead of president-elect Barack Obama's widely anticipated re-concentration on Afghanistan in the spring of 2009 - additional US military forces are expected to be deployed there while Washington will likely increase pressure on its European allies to contribute more - once again Central Asia is moving to the center stage in US planning. Obama's administration will face severe testing in its effort to re-energize the "war on terror" by focusing on defeating the Taliban and finally pacifying Afghanistan. Wider challenges in this campaign will be presented in fostering a multilateral security approach that gets away from the misjudgments of the George W Bush years. These revolve around bringing Russia on board and maximizing cooperation opportunities between NATO and its Eurasian partners. Obama must overcome reservations amongst European countries, reluctant to deploy additional troops in Afghanistan, and unlock the potential dividends of widening out anti-terrorist security cooperation to be more inclusive and multilateral. Prospects for developing security cooperation in Central Asia between the various interested multilateral bodies (the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), NATO and the European Union (EU)) are limited by a number of factors and challenges. These range from the geopolitical rivalries between these organizations to the internal balancing of interests. Differences in approach, emphasis, interests and aims, coupled with a lack of mutual understanding and misinterpretations of actions or initiatives undertaken by one particular organization, all tend to militate against such cooperative dynamics. During the Bush years, these divisions became more acute. In the current political climate, cooperative steps will only be tentative, not large scale, initially aimed at building dialogue, promoting understanding and building confidence and trust. Uzbekistan: Calling for dialogue on AfghanistanAt NATO's Bucharest summit, April 2-4, Uzbekistan President Islom Karimov made an offer of practical support to the alliance in its stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. Karimov's speech offered several initiatives to NATO in the areas of defense, security, ecological and humanitarian matters. A key factor in this initiative was the suggestion of revitalizing the 6+2 mechanism which fell into disuse in 2001 (which brought together representatives of states bordering Afghanistan, plus Russia and the United States), transforming this into a 6+3 role to include NATO. Karimov placed a crucial caveat on such cooperation, saying, "At the same time, the sovereign interests in maintaining the security and legislation of our country must be observed." The Bush administration failed to recognize that this is an important condition for cooperation, both at the bilateral and multilateral levels, as countries within Central Asia have experienced the tendency for Western strategic engagement in the region to be tied closely to the pursuit of political agendas or in securing some "return" on the security assistance provided to the host country. Also, at the NATO summit, Russia signed a land transit corridor agreement with NATO, which also envisages similar humanitarian support to assist in the stabilization of Afghanistan. These initiatives from Russia and Uzbekistan point the way towards finding common interests with Western states, multilateral organizations and those to which the Central Asian countries belong (CSTO/SCO). Achieving any progress in such areas, building on such initiatives and clear interest in practical cooperation, will take a commitment to dialogue from all sides, and this is precisely the door that has opened for the alliance through Karimov's offer to NATO. It is this commitment to dialogue and cooperation-building that Obama promises to pursue, including a willingness to open unconditional dialogue with Iran. Challenges for consensus-buildingThere are also limits of a political nature which could arise from the Central Asian states themselves, as some Western observers argue that any efforts to engage in NATO-CSTO dialogue raise the interests of Russia in the region, and automatically subordinates these states to Russian policy. Equally, planning staffs often suffer from institutional inertia, react slowly to subtle changes in international relations, and, in the West in particular, use networks of experts that often reinforce their preconceived ideas. Western multilateral bodies are unsure about the nature of the SCO, and its rapid evolution into security areas leads some Western analysts to claim the SCO is emerging as a military bloc. Such misconceptions, coupled with concerns in Washington on the observer status of Iran and its possible future membership in the SCO, make any possibility of cooperation with that group fraught with politically sensitive issues. One area in which all of these multilateral structures commonly agree is crucial for the promotion of stability in Central Asia is border security. Various bilateral and multilateral initiatives are currently in place, though with limited degrees of success. Border security, intelligence and customs bodies often operate blind in their efforts to combat drug trafficking. For example, the absence of drones to monitor border areas, or even access to Google Earth, which easily reveals routes being used to smuggle materials and people across rivers and through mountain trails, guarantees the continued supply of narcotics from Afghanistan transiting through the region. The introduction of sophisticated technology such as drones would prove too controversial, unless there was broad consensus reached at a multilateral level; in this specific task there would have to be participation by liaison officers representing NATO, CSTO and the SCO. Of course, border security also remains limited in its scope for improvement owing to corruption, complacency or even complicity among the security agencies in the smuggling process. This can only change by formulating assistance policies that focus on more than simply providing frontline help through training and the provision of technical equipment. It must be systemic, with the political will of the leadership of the host nation to oversee the successful implementation of time-phased programs. NATO as a key multilateral bodyNATO's experiences from sending small Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) teams into the host country to assist in assessing the implementation of agreed plans to enhance capacities could serve as a model for something potentially much more successful. One weakness of the IPAP arrangements stems from how difficult it is in practical terms to independently assess or inspect how far certain features of the program are progressing. There are cases where the NATO IPAP teams report back to NATO headquarters with a positive assessment, which simply does not reflect reality on the ground. Georgia proved to be a case in point. Such arrangements can prove potentially controversial, attracting suspicion elsewhere in Central Asia, or amongst the host country's CSTO or SCO partners. New arrangements could be developed, whereby such teams operate under the consensual authority of various multilateral bodies, which has the advantage of building trust and defusing tensions or sending the wrong signals to third parties as a result of security assistance programs. Disaster response and emergency planning are areas that may yield greater multilateral cooperation, with determined political will on the part of each of the key multilateral bodies. What could become more consensual between these organizations would be the creation of small teams of consultants that work in a country, along with the local Ministry of Emergency Situations, but with the approval and representation of experts or consultants from NATO, EU, CSTO and the SCO; targeting capacity enhancement in a manner as non-controversial and politically desensitized as possible. Intelligence effortsWithin the NATO alliance a multilateral intelligence-sharing mechanism exists, known as AC-46. This is used as a way of sharing sensitive information among alliance members that is deemed of relevance, rather than particularly significant to one member state. Of course, it is limited by the fact that intelligence agencies often wish to preserve their best intelligence for national interests, as well as problems with maintaining the classified status of the information once shared on such a wide scale. Similarly, there are critics of the CIS Anti-terrorist Center in Moscow and the SCO Regional Anti-terrorist Structure in Tashkent in terms of whether these apparatus are capable of sharing genuinely time-sensitive information of direct relevance to the security agencies tasked with countering terrorist threats. In this context, open source intelligence centers should be established, allowing greater access to regional and international expertise and analysis, operating alongside the headquarters of multilateral organizations. Into this complex mixture of multilateral organizations and their various dynamics, a new factor may be added; Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is actively garnering support within Europe to create a new European security architecture that will exclude the United States but include Russia (unlike NATO). Washington's answer lies in subtle maneuvers. Obama's administration will learn that the key to promoting strong and effective multilateral security cooperation between NATO and its Eurasian partners depends on Washington's relations with Moscow. But warmer bilateral relations with Russia should not be viewed as an alternative to fostering genuine multilateral approaches, which may serve to undercut those in Moscow whose rhetoric centers around raising the "Americans are coming" illusion. It's time to re-energize the multilateral approach. Roger N McDermott is an honorary senior fellow, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent Canterbury (UK) specializing in defense and security issues in Russia, Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
With attacks increasing along routes from Pakistan it is not surprising that new routes are being explored. Apparently in some cases Taliban collect fees for safe passage along Pakistani routes as well. No doubt NATO and the US are not at all happy about this.
Dec 12, 2008
NATO seeks out new Afghan supply routes
By Roger N McDermott LONDON -
On December 9, in an interview with Vremya Novostei in Moscow, ambassador Robert Simmons, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) secretary general's special advisor on Central Asia and the South Caucasus, confirmed that NATO is currently discussing possible transit routes to Afghanistan with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Ukraine (the latter two representing a much longer overland supply route). NATO needs to activate additional supply routes into Afghanistan since its route through Pakistan has been attacked by militants. "Aside from the Pakistani route, emphasis is made on the route we agreed on with the Russian delegation in Bucharest. In fact, we are now working on analogous agreements with the
governments of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Ukraine. It will allow for freight traffic to the international contingent in Afghanistan via Russia and these countries," Simmons explained. Ahead of president-elect Barack Obama's widely anticipated re-concentration on Afghanistan in the spring of 2009 - additional US military forces are expected to be deployed there while Washington will likely increase pressure on its European allies to contribute more - once again Central Asia is moving to the center stage in US planning. Obama's administration will face severe testing in its effort to re-energize the "war on terror" by focusing on defeating the Taliban and finally pacifying Afghanistan. Wider challenges in this campaign will be presented in fostering a multilateral security approach that gets away from the misjudgments of the George W Bush years. These revolve around bringing Russia on board and maximizing cooperation opportunities between NATO and its Eurasian partners. Obama must overcome reservations amongst European countries, reluctant to deploy additional troops in Afghanistan, and unlock the potential dividends of widening out anti-terrorist security cooperation to be more inclusive and multilateral. Prospects for developing security cooperation in Central Asia between the various interested multilateral bodies (the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), NATO and the European Union (EU)) are limited by a number of factors and challenges. These range from the geopolitical rivalries between these organizations to the internal balancing of interests. Differences in approach, emphasis, interests and aims, coupled with a lack of mutual understanding and misinterpretations of actions or initiatives undertaken by one particular organization, all tend to militate against such cooperative dynamics. During the Bush years, these divisions became more acute. In the current political climate, cooperative steps will only be tentative, not large scale, initially aimed at building dialogue, promoting understanding and building confidence and trust. Uzbekistan: Calling for dialogue on AfghanistanAt NATO's Bucharest summit, April 2-4, Uzbekistan President Islom Karimov made an offer of practical support to the alliance in its stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. Karimov's speech offered several initiatives to NATO in the areas of defense, security, ecological and humanitarian matters. A key factor in this initiative was the suggestion of revitalizing the 6+2 mechanism which fell into disuse in 2001 (which brought together representatives of states bordering Afghanistan, plus Russia and the United States), transforming this into a 6+3 role to include NATO. Karimov placed a crucial caveat on such cooperation, saying, "At the same time, the sovereign interests in maintaining the security and legislation of our country must be observed." The Bush administration failed to recognize that this is an important condition for cooperation, both at the bilateral and multilateral levels, as countries within Central Asia have experienced the tendency for Western strategic engagement in the region to be tied closely to the pursuit of political agendas or in securing some "return" on the security assistance provided to the host country. Also, at the NATO summit, Russia signed a land transit corridor agreement with NATO, which also envisages similar humanitarian support to assist in the stabilization of Afghanistan. These initiatives from Russia and Uzbekistan point the way towards finding common interests with Western states, multilateral organizations and those to which the Central Asian countries belong (CSTO/SCO). Achieving any progress in such areas, building on such initiatives and clear interest in practical cooperation, will take a commitment to dialogue from all sides, and this is precisely the door that has opened for the alliance through Karimov's offer to NATO. It is this commitment to dialogue and cooperation-building that Obama promises to pursue, including a willingness to open unconditional dialogue with Iran. Challenges for consensus-buildingThere are also limits of a political nature which could arise from the Central Asian states themselves, as some Western observers argue that any efforts to engage in NATO-CSTO dialogue raise the interests of Russia in the region, and automatically subordinates these states to Russian policy. Equally, planning staffs often suffer from institutional inertia, react slowly to subtle changes in international relations, and, in the West in particular, use networks of experts that often reinforce their preconceived ideas. Western multilateral bodies are unsure about the nature of the SCO, and its rapid evolution into security areas leads some Western analysts to claim the SCO is emerging as a military bloc. Such misconceptions, coupled with concerns in Washington on the observer status of Iran and its possible future membership in the SCO, make any possibility of cooperation with that group fraught with politically sensitive issues. One area in which all of these multilateral structures commonly agree is crucial for the promotion of stability in Central Asia is border security. Various bilateral and multilateral initiatives are currently in place, though with limited degrees of success. Border security, intelligence and customs bodies often operate blind in their efforts to combat drug trafficking. For example, the absence of drones to monitor border areas, or even access to Google Earth, which easily reveals routes being used to smuggle materials and people across rivers and through mountain trails, guarantees the continued supply of narcotics from Afghanistan transiting through the region. The introduction of sophisticated technology such as drones would prove too controversial, unless there was broad consensus reached at a multilateral level; in this specific task there would have to be participation by liaison officers representing NATO, CSTO and the SCO. Of course, border security also remains limited in its scope for improvement owing to corruption, complacency or even complicity among the security agencies in the smuggling process. This can only change by formulating assistance policies that focus on more than simply providing frontline help through training and the provision of technical equipment. It must be systemic, with the political will of the leadership of the host nation to oversee the successful implementation of time-phased programs. NATO as a key multilateral bodyNATO's experiences from sending small Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) teams into the host country to assist in assessing the implementation of agreed plans to enhance capacities could serve as a model for something potentially much more successful. One weakness of the IPAP arrangements stems from how difficult it is in practical terms to independently assess or inspect how far certain features of the program are progressing. There are cases where the NATO IPAP teams report back to NATO headquarters with a positive assessment, which simply does not reflect reality on the ground. Georgia proved to be a case in point. Such arrangements can prove potentially controversial, attracting suspicion elsewhere in Central Asia, or amongst the host country's CSTO or SCO partners. New arrangements could be developed, whereby such teams operate under the consensual authority of various multilateral bodies, which has the advantage of building trust and defusing tensions or sending the wrong signals to third parties as a result of security assistance programs. Disaster response and emergency planning are areas that may yield greater multilateral cooperation, with determined political will on the part of each of the key multilateral bodies. What could become more consensual between these organizations would be the creation of small teams of consultants that work in a country, along with the local Ministry of Emergency Situations, but with the approval and representation of experts or consultants from NATO, EU, CSTO and the SCO; targeting capacity enhancement in a manner as non-controversial and politically desensitized as possible. Intelligence effortsWithin the NATO alliance a multilateral intelligence-sharing mechanism exists, known as AC-46. This is used as a way of sharing sensitive information among alliance members that is deemed of relevance, rather than particularly significant to one member state. Of course, it is limited by the fact that intelligence agencies often wish to preserve their best intelligence for national interests, as well as problems with maintaining the classified status of the information once shared on such a wide scale. Similarly, there are critics of the CIS Anti-terrorist Center in Moscow and the SCO Regional Anti-terrorist Structure in Tashkent in terms of whether these apparatus are capable of sharing genuinely time-sensitive information of direct relevance to the security agencies tasked with countering terrorist threats. In this context, open source intelligence centers should be established, allowing greater access to regional and international expertise and analysis, operating alongside the headquarters of multilateral organizations. Into this complex mixture of multilateral organizations and their various dynamics, a new factor may be added; Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is actively garnering support within Europe to create a new European security architecture that will exclude the United States but include Russia (unlike NATO). Washington's answer lies in subtle maneuvers. Obama's administration will learn that the key to promoting strong and effective multilateral security cooperation between NATO and its Eurasian partners depends on Washington's relations with Moscow. But warmer bilateral relations with Russia should not be viewed as an alternative to fostering genuine multilateral approaches, which may serve to undercut those in Moscow whose rhetoric centers around raising the "Americans are coming" illusion. It's time to re-energize the multilateral approach. Roger N McDermott is an honorary senior fellow, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent Canterbury (UK) specializing in defense and security issues in Russia, Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Ratner: Obama should prosecute Bush officials who designed torture policy.
This is from the progressive.
I can't imagine that Obama would actually do this but I suppose hope springs eternal. We will need to wait and see what he does about Guantanamo. It is possible that he will close it but how soon that will be also remains a mystery. With the economy the main issue Guantanamo may be put on the back burner. What Ratner suggests probably isn't in the works at all.
Obama should prosecute Bush officials who designed torture policy
By Michael Ratner, December 3, 2008
One of Barack Obama’s first acts as president should be to instruct his attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation of former Bush Administration officials who gave the green light to torture.
At Obama’s press conference on Dec. 1, he spoke of upholding America’s highest values as he introduced Eric Holder as his choice for attorney general. Holder insisted there was no tension between protecting the people of the United States and adhering to our Constitution.
A few months ago, Holder was even more explicit. “Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution,” he said. “We owe the American people a reckoning.”
The day of reckoning is fast upon us.
If Obama and Holder want to adhere to our Constitution and uphold our highest values, they must pursue those in the Bush Administration who violated that Constitution, broke our laws, and tarnished our values.
Read the words of Major General Antonio M. Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal for the Pentagon. “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” he concluded. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
Despite Taguba’s words and reams of documentation supporting his statement, there has been little discussion about holding officials accountable for their design and implementation of the torture program.
We need to make it clear, just as we do in cases with the most minor offenses, that actions have consequences. To simply let those officials walk off the stage sends a message of impunity that will only encourage future law breaking. The message that we need to send is that they will be held accountable.
A popular refrain in Washington these days is that criminal prosecutions would be an unnecessary look backward. Some argue that in order for the new administration to move forward, presidential pardons should be granted and a Truth Commission assembled to investigate the circumstances that gave rise to the brutal interrogations and deaths of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites around the world.
But pardons would be the final refuge for an administration whose egregious violations of human rights have, for all too long, gone unpunished. And a Truth Commission is not applicable.
This is not Latin America; this is not South Africa. We are not trying to end a civil war, heal a wounded country and reconcile warring factions. We are a democracy trying to hold accountable officials that led our country down the road to torture. And in a democracy, it is the job of a prosecutor and not the pundits to determine whether crimes were committed.
Criminal prosecutions are not about looking to the past; they are about creating a future world without torture. They will be the mark of the new dawn of America’s leadership and our new era of accountability.
Prosecuting these officials would help the United States regain its moral standing in the world and to prove our commitment to upholding international human rights standards.
In his first nationally televised interview, President-elect Barack Obama made this promise: “I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure that we don't torture.”
The best way to do that is to prosecute those who designed the torture policies.
Michael Ratner is president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author of “The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book.” He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
I can't imagine that Obama would actually do this but I suppose hope springs eternal. We will need to wait and see what he does about Guantanamo. It is possible that he will close it but how soon that will be also remains a mystery. With the economy the main issue Guantanamo may be put on the back burner. What Ratner suggests probably isn't in the works at all.
Obama should prosecute Bush officials who designed torture policy
By Michael Ratner, December 3, 2008
One of Barack Obama’s first acts as president should be to instruct his attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation of former Bush Administration officials who gave the green light to torture.
At Obama’s press conference on Dec. 1, he spoke of upholding America’s highest values as he introduced Eric Holder as his choice for attorney general. Holder insisted there was no tension between protecting the people of the United States and adhering to our Constitution.
A few months ago, Holder was even more explicit. “Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution,” he said. “We owe the American people a reckoning.”
The day of reckoning is fast upon us.
If Obama and Holder want to adhere to our Constitution and uphold our highest values, they must pursue those in the Bush Administration who violated that Constitution, broke our laws, and tarnished our values.
Read the words of Major General Antonio M. Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal for the Pentagon. “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” he concluded. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
Despite Taguba’s words and reams of documentation supporting his statement, there has been little discussion about holding officials accountable for their design and implementation of the torture program.
We need to make it clear, just as we do in cases with the most minor offenses, that actions have consequences. To simply let those officials walk off the stage sends a message of impunity that will only encourage future law breaking. The message that we need to send is that they will be held accountable.
A popular refrain in Washington these days is that criminal prosecutions would be an unnecessary look backward. Some argue that in order for the new administration to move forward, presidential pardons should be granted and a Truth Commission assembled to investigate the circumstances that gave rise to the brutal interrogations and deaths of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites around the world.
But pardons would be the final refuge for an administration whose egregious violations of human rights have, for all too long, gone unpunished. And a Truth Commission is not applicable.
This is not Latin America; this is not South Africa. We are not trying to end a civil war, heal a wounded country and reconcile warring factions. We are a democracy trying to hold accountable officials that led our country down the road to torture. And in a democracy, it is the job of a prosecutor and not the pundits to determine whether crimes were committed.
Criminal prosecutions are not about looking to the past; they are about creating a future world without torture. They will be the mark of the new dawn of America’s leadership and our new era of accountability.
Prosecuting these officials would help the United States regain its moral standing in the world and to prove our commitment to upholding international human rights standards.
In his first nationally televised interview, President-elect Barack Obama made this promise: “I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure that we don't torture.”
The best way to do that is to prosecute those who designed the torture policies.
Michael Ratner is president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author of “The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book.” He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
In Basilan, Philippines, a US counterterrorism model frays
The original reports were a farce in any event. The Abu Sayyaf group are a small part of the overall threat of terrorism. It is MILF as mentioned in the article that is one of the main Muslim rebel groups. They have yet to be declared terrorists by the US even though they have used force as a tactic. Also, the Maoist NPA is a far greater challenge than the miniscule Abu Sayyaf group. THe NPA operates not just in Mindanao but even more in some of the Visayas and the main island of Luzon where it controls considerable portions of the countryside in some areas. The NPA is classified as a terrorist group a fact that makes it problematic for peace negotiations.This article is from csmonitor.
In Basilan, Philippines, a US counterterrorism model frays
Renewed violence on the island shows the challenge of wiping out militant groups for good.
By Jonathan Adams Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the December 11, 2008 edition
Manila - Just a couple of years ago, the Philippines was hailed as a success story in the US-led war on terror.
A military campaign by US-backed Philippines Special Forces had routed al Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf terrorists from their stronghold in the southern island of Basilan, killed their leaders, and confined surviving diehards to a remote island. Generous economic aid and "hearts and minds" outreach undergirded the "Philippines model."
"The iron fist and the hand of friendship succeeded in ... restoring both peace and hope to the island," crowed an August 2006 State Department report.
But recent violence shows how hard it is to keep the peace, and to uproot terrorists for good. Fighting broke out in Basilan early last week between the Philippines military and Abu Sayyaf. Battles Sunday left five soldiers dead and 24 injured, and reports say some 3,000 civilians have fled their villages amid the violence. The Abu Sayyaf is eyed for a recent spate of kidnappings, the latest of a girl and a nursing student.
How did Basilan flip back into tumult? In an interview last week, one US official explained, "if you withdraw too quickly without leaving appropriate law enforcement to maintain order, you leave a vacuum."
The lesson: terrorists love a vacuum. But in the southern Philippines, it's not clear how much more the government can do. Its resources are already stretched to the limit there fighting a major communist insurgency, hunting "rogue" Muslim rebels, and dealing with a witch's brew of kidnapping gangs, extortionists, gun-runners, and international terrorists in dense jungle terrain. One minor victory: Last week police arrested a suspected bombmaker for Jemmah Islamiyah (JI), the Indonesia-based terror outfit.
More militants 'lurking in the wings'
US officials and analysts say fighting Abu Sayyaf and other terrorists here is a long-term mission with no clear end in sight. They number as many as 200, with another 200 to 400 "lurking in the wings," says Scott Harrison, managing director of Pacific Strategies and Assessments.
"It's immune to destruction. If the [counterterrorism] efforts are successful, their numbers just contract. People bury their weapons, disappear back into the villages, wait for the dust to settle, and then recoup themselves to various degrees. But they are by no means destroyed," he says.
There's no quick fix to the problem, says Mr. Harrison, because Abu Sayyaf and other terrorists are products of decades of policies that aren't easy to reverse.
"These are areas that have suffered from generations of abuse at the hands of the Filipino government and Filipino military," says Harrison. "Poverty, neglect, and abuse is what continues to fuel the Abu Sayyaf Group."
Another US official adds, "You need a concerted effort of hard power and soft power to make up for a century of insecurity and underdevelopment." The US is contributing – $500 million in aid in the last decade, much of it targeted at impoverished Muslim-majority areas in the south.
On the hard-power front, since 2002 the US has trained Philippines Special Forces, provided high-tech equipment like night-vision goggles, and provided an "eye in the sky" for the hunt for terrorists with its unmanned aerial vehicles.
Old grievances persist
But the US can do little to address Muslims' deeply rooted historical and political grievances in the south. That's strictly a job for Manila.
The government tried to take a step in that direction this past summer, with a preliminary deal with the main Muslim rebel group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), to expand a Muslim autonomous area and give it greater control over resources and revenue.
Unfortunately, that peace process collapsed amid violence, recriminations, and a Supreme Court injunction in August. The military is now conducting operations against "rogue" MILF commanders, who have ties with Abu Sayyaf and international terrorists like JI dating back to Afghanistan training camps in the 1970s, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG).
It's not clear if those ties are related to the current activity in Basilan. But a recent ICG report warned, "A few of the Indonesians and Malaysians now working with the Abu Sayyaf might decide to help their beleaguered MILF friends, with or without their endorsement."
In Basilan, Philippines, a US counterterrorism model frays
Renewed violence on the island shows the challenge of wiping out militant groups for good.
By Jonathan Adams Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the December 11, 2008 edition
Manila - Just a couple of years ago, the Philippines was hailed as a success story in the US-led war on terror.
A military campaign by US-backed Philippines Special Forces had routed al Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf terrorists from their stronghold in the southern island of Basilan, killed their leaders, and confined surviving diehards to a remote island. Generous economic aid and "hearts and minds" outreach undergirded the "Philippines model."
"The iron fist and the hand of friendship succeeded in ... restoring both peace and hope to the island," crowed an August 2006 State Department report.
But recent violence shows how hard it is to keep the peace, and to uproot terrorists for good. Fighting broke out in Basilan early last week between the Philippines military and Abu Sayyaf. Battles Sunday left five soldiers dead and 24 injured, and reports say some 3,000 civilians have fled their villages amid the violence. The Abu Sayyaf is eyed for a recent spate of kidnappings, the latest of a girl and a nursing student.
How did Basilan flip back into tumult? In an interview last week, one US official explained, "if you withdraw too quickly without leaving appropriate law enforcement to maintain order, you leave a vacuum."
The lesson: terrorists love a vacuum. But in the southern Philippines, it's not clear how much more the government can do. Its resources are already stretched to the limit there fighting a major communist insurgency, hunting "rogue" Muslim rebels, and dealing with a witch's brew of kidnapping gangs, extortionists, gun-runners, and international terrorists in dense jungle terrain. One minor victory: Last week police arrested a suspected bombmaker for Jemmah Islamiyah (JI), the Indonesia-based terror outfit.
More militants 'lurking in the wings'
US officials and analysts say fighting Abu Sayyaf and other terrorists here is a long-term mission with no clear end in sight. They number as many as 200, with another 200 to 400 "lurking in the wings," says Scott Harrison, managing director of Pacific Strategies and Assessments.
"It's immune to destruction. If the [counterterrorism] efforts are successful, their numbers just contract. People bury their weapons, disappear back into the villages, wait for the dust to settle, and then recoup themselves to various degrees. But they are by no means destroyed," he says.
There's no quick fix to the problem, says Mr. Harrison, because Abu Sayyaf and other terrorists are products of decades of policies that aren't easy to reverse.
"These are areas that have suffered from generations of abuse at the hands of the Filipino government and Filipino military," says Harrison. "Poverty, neglect, and abuse is what continues to fuel the Abu Sayyaf Group."
Another US official adds, "You need a concerted effort of hard power and soft power to make up for a century of insecurity and underdevelopment." The US is contributing – $500 million in aid in the last decade, much of it targeted at impoverished Muslim-majority areas in the south.
On the hard-power front, since 2002 the US has trained Philippines Special Forces, provided high-tech equipment like night-vision goggles, and provided an "eye in the sky" for the hunt for terrorists with its unmanned aerial vehicles.
Old grievances persist
But the US can do little to address Muslims' deeply rooted historical and political grievances in the south. That's strictly a job for Manila.
The government tried to take a step in that direction this past summer, with a preliminary deal with the main Muslim rebel group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), to expand a Muslim autonomous area and give it greater control over resources and revenue.
Unfortunately, that peace process collapsed amid violence, recriminations, and a Supreme Court injunction in August. The military is now conducting operations against "rogue" MILF commanders, who have ties with Abu Sayyaf and international terrorists like JI dating back to Afghanistan training camps in the 1970s, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG).
It's not clear if those ties are related to the current activity in Basilan. But a recent ICG report warned, "A few of the Indonesians and Malaysians now working with the Abu Sayyaf might decide to help their beleaguered MILF friends, with or without their endorsement."
World Bank's "Wrong Advice"left silos empty in poor countries.
This is from Bloomberg.
Surprising that a trenchant critique of the Washington Consensus re the World Bank (and IMF) should appear at this business site. It shows the extent to which the sacred idea of encouragement of free markets and free trade has been tarnished by recent events along with the associated magical creative destruction. However recent loans to Iceland, Hungary, and Ukraine indicate that these institutions of global capitalism have not learned much.
World Bank’s ‘Wrong Advice’ Left Silos Empty in Poor Countries
By Alison Fitzgerald and Helen Murphy
Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Inside and out, the rusted towers of El Salvador’s biggest grain silo show how the World Bank helped push developing countries into the global food crisis.
Inside, the silo, which once held thousands of tons of beans and cereals, is now empty. It was abandoned in 1991, after the bank told Salvadoran leaders to privatize grain storage, import staples such as corn and rice, and export crops including cocoa, coffee and palm oil.
Outside, where Rosa Maria Chavez’s food stand is propped against a tower wall, price increases for basic grains this year whittled business down to 16 customers a day from 80.
“It’s a monument to the mess we are in now,” says Chavez, 63.
About 40 million people joined the ranks of the undernourished this year, bringing the estimate of the world’s hungry to 963 million of its 6.8 billion people, the Rome-based United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization said yesterday. The growth didn’t come just from natural causes. A manmade recipe for famine included corrupt governments and companies that profited on misery. Another ingredient: The World Bank’s free- market policies, which over almost three decades brought poor nations like El Salvador into global grain markets, where prices surged.
“The World Bank made one basic blunder, which is to think that markets would solve problems of such severe circumstances,” said Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a special adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon. “But history has shown you need to help people to get above the survival threshold before the markets can start functioning.”
‘The Washington Consensus’
Created in 1944, the Washington-based World Bank Group spent much of its first 35 years dispensing low-interest loans, grants and development advice to poor countries with an eye toward promoting self-reliance. In 1980, the bank’s executives began attaching conditions to loans that required “structural adjustments” in the recipients’ national economies. The mandates were designed to have poor countries cut import tariffs, reduce government’s role in enterprises such as agriculture and promote cultivation of export crops to attract foreign currency.
The philosophy, which came to be known as “The Washington Consensus,” was based in part on assumptions that importing basic grains would be inexpensive and that farmers in developing nations could earn more producing exports. Food prices had fallen for years and few economists thought that would change, said Mark Cackler, manager of the bank’s Agriculture and Rural Development Department in Washington.
Exporter to Importer
In 2007 and the first half of 2008, an index of more than 60 food commodity prices compiled by the FAO rose 82 percent. While costs have since eased, they were 20 percent higher on Nov. 1 than at the end of 2006.
The increases hit hard in countries such as El Salvador, which had adopted the principles of the Washington Consensus in return for loans. El Salvador’s Central Reserve Bank said the total amount of the lending was “not available.” The Agriculture Ministry did provide this measure of their effects: The country was a net exporter of rice 20 years ago; now it imports 75 to 80 percent of what it consumes.
The World Bank has “given consistently wrong advice,” said Jose Ramos-Horta, the president of East Timor in Asia and the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize winner.
“It is their advice -- that buying externally is cheaper than producing -- that has resulted in this,” he said.
‘More Than Underinvestment’
Current and former World Bank officials say small countries hurt their own agriculture industries by suppressing prices, taxing farms, inflating exchange rates and favoring urban development. They reject the assertion that structural adjustment loans hurt developing nations’ self-sufficiency.
“The premise that this crisis was caused by these policies is something that we don’t agree with,” said World Bank spokeswoman Geetanjali Chopra. “This crisis was caused by much more than underinvestment in agriculture.”
Still, in nations such as Honduras and Ghana, imports of basic grains climbed after governments eliminated agricultural subsidies, sold off grain stores or decreased tariffs to get World Bank loans in the 1990s, according to data from the UN’s FAO.
In Honduras, 23,000 rice farmers went out of business, and employment from rice fell to 11,200 people from 150,000 after the government trimmed import duties, according to the human rights group Oxfam International. Honduran farms now supply 17 percent of the domestic demand for rice, down from 90 percent before the tariffs changed.
McNamara’s Shift
In Ghana, the World Bank required a tariff reduction on rice to 20 percent from 100 percent. Imports tripled, said Raj Patel, a scholar at the Center for African Studies at the University of California at Berkeley.
The free-market policies were a sharp turn from the bank’s earlier efforts -- led by former bank President Robert McNamara - - to develop poor countries’ domestic agriculture and self- reliance, said Uma Lele, a World Bank economist from 1971 to 1991 and 1995 to 2005.
McNamara, who oversaw the escalation of the U.S. war in Vietnam as defense secretary under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson before joining the bank in 1968, shifted his views. He introduced the structural adjustment concept in 1979, in a speech in Manila urging rich nations to open their markets to imports from poor countries.
“Developing countries will need to carry out structural adjustments favoring their export sector,” he said in the speech. McNamara, 92, declined to comment for this story.
Free Market Principles
World Bank officials were frustrated that their investment in agriculture through the 1970s wasn’t paying off, especially in Africa, said Pierre Landell-Mills, a bank economist at the time.
“There were state marketing organizations that were a complete nightmare of mismanagement and corruption,” said Landell-Mills, 69, now a principal at the Policy Practice, a public policy consulting group in Brighton, England, in a June interview. “There were unsustainable subsidies.”
The “preferred solution,” he said, was to dismantle the marketing boards, shrink governments and remove barriers to entrepreneurship. McNamara in 1980 approved the first three structural adjustment loans. By 1985, they made up more than 25 percent of the World Bank’s total lending, according to Kyle Peters, its country services director.
Free-market principles were on the rise in the U.S. and the U.K., the bank’s major funders. Margaret Thatcher had become British prime minister in 1979 with promises of privatizing state-owned enterprises. Ronald Reagan was elected U.S. president in 1980, pledging to cut taxes and government programs.
New Ideas, New Staff
Reagan appointed Alden “Tom” Clausen, a former chief executive officer of Bank America Corp., to succeed McNamara in 1981. The new bank president was convinced “that you could fight poverty better and more efficiently and more quickly if you get the policies of a country right,” Clausen said in an interview.
“I loved structural adjustment loans, and I made a lot of them,” he said.
As the bank’s philosophy evolved, so did its staff. Clausen hired Anne Krueger, an economist known for her advocacy of “getting prices right” by removing government controls, as vice president for economics and research in 1982. She “reshuffled the central economics staff,” wrote Devesh Kapur, in the bank’s official history, “The World Bank: Its First Half Century.”
“Of course the direction of research had changed,” Krueger, 74, said in an interview on Aug. 25. She acknowledged that some economists left because they didn’t agree with the bank’s focus. “Research moved away from big planning models with unreasonable incentives and swung toward things that were much more conducive to agriculture.”
‘Dysfunctional Systems’
Krueger led a five-volume study that concluded developing countries were hurting their own agriculture with tax and exchange rate policies. She said the bank’s free-trade principles boosted output and growth.
“These were largely dysfunctional systems,” she said. “It made sense to reduce tariffs so that countries could produce the goods that they were most efficient at.”
After leaving the bank in 1986, Krueger became first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which makes loans to help countries correct balance of payment problems and promotes economic policies.
As structural adjustment loans grew, the portion of the World Bank’s lending devoted to agriculture fell, to about 8 percent in 2000 from 30 percent in 1980. Last year, farm-related loans made up 12 percent of the bank’s $24.7 billion portfolio.
‘A Human Face’
“One of the reasons we have problems today is because of the cuts in agriculture,” said Montague Yudelman, 86, who was director of the World Bank’s agriculture department under McNamara. “If they’d made a continuously high level of investment, we’d have been in much better shape.”
By the late 1980s critics began saying the bank, along with the IMF, was fostering poverty and dependence. UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, in 1987 published a two-volume study titled, “Adjustment With a Human Face.” It concluded that some of the bank’s programs led to increases in malnutrition and disease in poor nations and urged new strategies to protect the most vulnerable people.
In 1995, just 30 days into his tenure as bank president, James Wolfensohn promised changes.
During a meeting with representatives of 12 non-profit organizations, Wolfensohn heard their argument that 15 years of adjustment lending had wiped out small farmers in countries from Africa, Latin America and Asia, damaging their ability to feed people. Some called for the bank to be disbanded.
‘A Different Way’
“What I’m looking for is a different way of doing business in the future,” Wolfensohn, a former Australian Olympic fencer and New York banker, told them. Wolfensohn, 75, who left the World Bank in 2005, declined to be interviewed for this story.
The bank’s commitment to free-market principles didn’t waver.
In 2000, as a condition for a $6.8 million agriculture loan in East Timor, the bank demanded that publicly funded agricultural service centers be privatized and rejected money for a public grain silo and slaughterhouse, according to Tim Anderson, a political economy lecturer at the University of Sydney. He has written several papers on East Timor’s development.
It also turned down proposals for the government to provide research and advice to farmers and to supply seeds and fertilizer because, “such public sector involvement has not proved successful elsewhere,” according to a World Bank mission report that year.
Small Farms Ignored
At the time, there was already evidence that private entrepreneurs weren’t serving so-called smallholders, who the bank says make up 60 percent of the world’s 2.5 billion farm households.
A 1998 study by Michael L. Morris, then a senior economist and project coordinator with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in El Batan, Mexico, found that private seed companies in Africa focused on supplying large commercial operations and “often ignored small-scale, subsistence-oriented farmers located in remote areas.” Morris, 53, is now the World Bank’s lead agriculture economist for the Africa region.
In its 2008 World Development Report, the bank acknowledged that limiting governments’ participation in agriculture had hurt small farmers -- citing Morris’s 10-year-old study as part of the evidence.
“The expectation was that removing the state would free the market for private actors to take over these functions -- reducing their costs, improving their quality, and eliminating their regressive bias. Too often, that didn’t happen,” the bank said in the report.
No ‘Evil Force’
In 2000, Wolfensohn defended the bank to critics. During a meeting at Prague Castle that year, he told an invited crowd of 300 activists, bankers and government officials: “You should not regard us as a black and evil force. Maybe we’ve gotten things wrong. I’m sure we have in many cases.”
The next year, several non-profit groups that had worked with the bank to study its loan conditions released a report saying that the policies “have undermined the viability of small farms, weakened food security and damaged the natural environment.”
In response to the criticism from the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network, the bank issued its own analysis that listed successes as well as missteps. It concluded that the required changes in agriculture were too much, too soon.
Lessons Learned
“The lessons for future policies are that agricultural adjustments are complex and require a sequence of modest steps,” the bank said in the report.
In August 2004, James Adams, the World Bank’s head of operations policy, declared the end of structural adjustments.
“We have abandoned the prescriptive character of the old policy,” Adams said in a statement. At the same time, he said, the underpinnings of the Washington Consensus “remain important themes of economic policy.”
The next year, the bank demanded that Niger privatize its irrigation systems, according to a 2007 report by Eurodad, a Brussels-based coalition of 56 non-profit groups. The requirement “has seriously damaging effects on poor farmers’ access to a precious and scarce resource,” said the report, based on an analysis of the bank’s databases. In all, the group found economic policy conditions were attached to 71 percent of loans and grants.
The World Bank in May pledged $1.2 billion for a Global Food Response Program that’s designed to speed money to the neediest countries without the usual red tape. As of last month the Bank approved $364 million for 25 countries and $541 million more is designated for 10 others.
Trade Talks Stalled
Current Bank President Robert Zoellick, a former U.S. trade representative, has promised to double agriculture spending while touting free trade as a solution to rising food prices. Zoellick, 55, declined to be interviewed.
Poor countries remained skeptical of open markets during the latest round of World Trade talks in Geneva, in July. They insisted that they be allowed to raise tariffs to protect domestic agriculture, stalling the negotiations.
El Salvador, meanwhile, has invested about $240 million in agriculture since 2004. It now gives farmers a $30 bag of the seed of their choice and a $30 sack of fertilizer.
“The World Bank had a very short-term vision; it couldn’t have been more wrong,” said Mario Salaverria, El Salvador’s agriculture minister, as he inspected corn in Sonsonate province, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) west of San Salvador.
His country must regain self-sufficiency, he said. “We can stop using our cars because of price increases, but we can’t stop eating.”
(Recipe for Famine: Part 3 of 7.)
To contact the reporters on this story: Alison Fitzgerald in Washington at Afitzgerald2@bloomberg.net; Helen Murphy in Bogota at hmurphy1@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: December 9, 2008 19:01 EST
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Trademarks
Surprising that a trenchant critique of the Washington Consensus re the World Bank (and IMF) should appear at this business site. It shows the extent to which the sacred idea of encouragement of free markets and free trade has been tarnished by recent events along with the associated magical creative destruction. However recent loans to Iceland, Hungary, and Ukraine indicate that these institutions of global capitalism have not learned much.
World Bank’s ‘Wrong Advice’ Left Silos Empty in Poor Countries
By Alison Fitzgerald and Helen Murphy
Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Inside and out, the rusted towers of El Salvador’s biggest grain silo show how the World Bank helped push developing countries into the global food crisis.
Inside, the silo, which once held thousands of tons of beans and cereals, is now empty. It was abandoned in 1991, after the bank told Salvadoran leaders to privatize grain storage, import staples such as corn and rice, and export crops including cocoa, coffee and palm oil.
Outside, where Rosa Maria Chavez’s food stand is propped against a tower wall, price increases for basic grains this year whittled business down to 16 customers a day from 80.
“It’s a monument to the mess we are in now,” says Chavez, 63.
About 40 million people joined the ranks of the undernourished this year, bringing the estimate of the world’s hungry to 963 million of its 6.8 billion people, the Rome-based United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization said yesterday. The growth didn’t come just from natural causes. A manmade recipe for famine included corrupt governments and companies that profited on misery. Another ingredient: The World Bank’s free- market policies, which over almost three decades brought poor nations like El Salvador into global grain markets, where prices surged.
“The World Bank made one basic blunder, which is to think that markets would solve problems of such severe circumstances,” said Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a special adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon. “But history has shown you need to help people to get above the survival threshold before the markets can start functioning.”
‘The Washington Consensus’
Created in 1944, the Washington-based World Bank Group spent much of its first 35 years dispensing low-interest loans, grants and development advice to poor countries with an eye toward promoting self-reliance. In 1980, the bank’s executives began attaching conditions to loans that required “structural adjustments” in the recipients’ national economies. The mandates were designed to have poor countries cut import tariffs, reduce government’s role in enterprises such as agriculture and promote cultivation of export crops to attract foreign currency.
The philosophy, which came to be known as “The Washington Consensus,” was based in part on assumptions that importing basic grains would be inexpensive and that farmers in developing nations could earn more producing exports. Food prices had fallen for years and few economists thought that would change, said Mark Cackler, manager of the bank’s Agriculture and Rural Development Department in Washington.
Exporter to Importer
In 2007 and the first half of 2008, an index of more than 60 food commodity prices compiled by the FAO rose 82 percent. While costs have since eased, they were 20 percent higher on Nov. 1 than at the end of 2006.
The increases hit hard in countries such as El Salvador, which had adopted the principles of the Washington Consensus in return for loans. El Salvador’s Central Reserve Bank said the total amount of the lending was “not available.” The Agriculture Ministry did provide this measure of their effects: The country was a net exporter of rice 20 years ago; now it imports 75 to 80 percent of what it consumes.
The World Bank has “given consistently wrong advice,” said Jose Ramos-Horta, the president of East Timor in Asia and the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize winner.
“It is their advice -- that buying externally is cheaper than producing -- that has resulted in this,” he said.
‘More Than Underinvestment’
Current and former World Bank officials say small countries hurt their own agriculture industries by suppressing prices, taxing farms, inflating exchange rates and favoring urban development. They reject the assertion that structural adjustment loans hurt developing nations’ self-sufficiency.
“The premise that this crisis was caused by these policies is something that we don’t agree with,” said World Bank spokeswoman Geetanjali Chopra. “This crisis was caused by much more than underinvestment in agriculture.”
Still, in nations such as Honduras and Ghana, imports of basic grains climbed after governments eliminated agricultural subsidies, sold off grain stores or decreased tariffs to get World Bank loans in the 1990s, according to data from the UN’s FAO.
In Honduras, 23,000 rice farmers went out of business, and employment from rice fell to 11,200 people from 150,000 after the government trimmed import duties, according to the human rights group Oxfam International. Honduran farms now supply 17 percent of the domestic demand for rice, down from 90 percent before the tariffs changed.
McNamara’s Shift
In Ghana, the World Bank required a tariff reduction on rice to 20 percent from 100 percent. Imports tripled, said Raj Patel, a scholar at the Center for African Studies at the University of California at Berkeley.
The free-market policies were a sharp turn from the bank’s earlier efforts -- led by former bank President Robert McNamara - - to develop poor countries’ domestic agriculture and self- reliance, said Uma Lele, a World Bank economist from 1971 to 1991 and 1995 to 2005.
McNamara, who oversaw the escalation of the U.S. war in Vietnam as defense secretary under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson before joining the bank in 1968, shifted his views. He introduced the structural adjustment concept in 1979, in a speech in Manila urging rich nations to open their markets to imports from poor countries.
“Developing countries will need to carry out structural adjustments favoring their export sector,” he said in the speech. McNamara, 92, declined to comment for this story.
Free Market Principles
World Bank officials were frustrated that their investment in agriculture through the 1970s wasn’t paying off, especially in Africa, said Pierre Landell-Mills, a bank economist at the time.
“There were state marketing organizations that were a complete nightmare of mismanagement and corruption,” said Landell-Mills, 69, now a principal at the Policy Practice, a public policy consulting group in Brighton, England, in a June interview. “There were unsustainable subsidies.”
The “preferred solution,” he said, was to dismantle the marketing boards, shrink governments and remove barriers to entrepreneurship. McNamara in 1980 approved the first three structural adjustment loans. By 1985, they made up more than 25 percent of the World Bank’s total lending, according to Kyle Peters, its country services director.
Free-market principles were on the rise in the U.S. and the U.K., the bank’s major funders. Margaret Thatcher had become British prime minister in 1979 with promises of privatizing state-owned enterprises. Ronald Reagan was elected U.S. president in 1980, pledging to cut taxes and government programs.
New Ideas, New Staff
Reagan appointed Alden “Tom” Clausen, a former chief executive officer of Bank America Corp., to succeed McNamara in 1981. The new bank president was convinced “that you could fight poverty better and more efficiently and more quickly if you get the policies of a country right,” Clausen said in an interview.
“I loved structural adjustment loans, and I made a lot of them,” he said.
As the bank’s philosophy evolved, so did its staff. Clausen hired Anne Krueger, an economist known for her advocacy of “getting prices right” by removing government controls, as vice president for economics and research in 1982. She “reshuffled the central economics staff,” wrote Devesh Kapur, in the bank’s official history, “The World Bank: Its First Half Century.”
“Of course the direction of research had changed,” Krueger, 74, said in an interview on Aug. 25. She acknowledged that some economists left because they didn’t agree with the bank’s focus. “Research moved away from big planning models with unreasonable incentives and swung toward things that were much more conducive to agriculture.”
‘Dysfunctional Systems’
Krueger led a five-volume study that concluded developing countries were hurting their own agriculture with tax and exchange rate policies. She said the bank’s free-trade principles boosted output and growth.
“These were largely dysfunctional systems,” she said. “It made sense to reduce tariffs so that countries could produce the goods that they were most efficient at.”
After leaving the bank in 1986, Krueger became first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which makes loans to help countries correct balance of payment problems and promotes economic policies.
As structural adjustment loans grew, the portion of the World Bank’s lending devoted to agriculture fell, to about 8 percent in 2000 from 30 percent in 1980. Last year, farm-related loans made up 12 percent of the bank’s $24.7 billion portfolio.
‘A Human Face’
“One of the reasons we have problems today is because of the cuts in agriculture,” said Montague Yudelman, 86, who was director of the World Bank’s agriculture department under McNamara. “If they’d made a continuously high level of investment, we’d have been in much better shape.”
By the late 1980s critics began saying the bank, along with the IMF, was fostering poverty and dependence. UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, in 1987 published a two-volume study titled, “Adjustment With a Human Face.” It concluded that some of the bank’s programs led to increases in malnutrition and disease in poor nations and urged new strategies to protect the most vulnerable people.
In 1995, just 30 days into his tenure as bank president, James Wolfensohn promised changes.
During a meeting with representatives of 12 non-profit organizations, Wolfensohn heard their argument that 15 years of adjustment lending had wiped out small farmers in countries from Africa, Latin America and Asia, damaging their ability to feed people. Some called for the bank to be disbanded.
‘A Different Way’
“What I’m looking for is a different way of doing business in the future,” Wolfensohn, a former Australian Olympic fencer and New York banker, told them. Wolfensohn, 75, who left the World Bank in 2005, declined to be interviewed for this story.
The bank’s commitment to free-market principles didn’t waver.
In 2000, as a condition for a $6.8 million agriculture loan in East Timor, the bank demanded that publicly funded agricultural service centers be privatized and rejected money for a public grain silo and slaughterhouse, according to Tim Anderson, a political economy lecturer at the University of Sydney. He has written several papers on East Timor’s development.
It also turned down proposals for the government to provide research and advice to farmers and to supply seeds and fertilizer because, “such public sector involvement has not proved successful elsewhere,” according to a World Bank mission report that year.
Small Farms Ignored
At the time, there was already evidence that private entrepreneurs weren’t serving so-called smallholders, who the bank says make up 60 percent of the world’s 2.5 billion farm households.
A 1998 study by Michael L. Morris, then a senior economist and project coordinator with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in El Batan, Mexico, found that private seed companies in Africa focused on supplying large commercial operations and “often ignored small-scale, subsistence-oriented farmers located in remote areas.” Morris, 53, is now the World Bank’s lead agriculture economist for the Africa region.
In its 2008 World Development Report, the bank acknowledged that limiting governments’ participation in agriculture had hurt small farmers -- citing Morris’s 10-year-old study as part of the evidence.
“The expectation was that removing the state would free the market for private actors to take over these functions -- reducing their costs, improving their quality, and eliminating their regressive bias. Too often, that didn’t happen,” the bank said in the report.
No ‘Evil Force’
In 2000, Wolfensohn defended the bank to critics. During a meeting at Prague Castle that year, he told an invited crowd of 300 activists, bankers and government officials: “You should not regard us as a black and evil force. Maybe we’ve gotten things wrong. I’m sure we have in many cases.”
The next year, several non-profit groups that had worked with the bank to study its loan conditions released a report saying that the policies “have undermined the viability of small farms, weakened food security and damaged the natural environment.”
In response to the criticism from the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network, the bank issued its own analysis that listed successes as well as missteps. It concluded that the required changes in agriculture were too much, too soon.
Lessons Learned
“The lessons for future policies are that agricultural adjustments are complex and require a sequence of modest steps,” the bank said in the report.
In August 2004, James Adams, the World Bank’s head of operations policy, declared the end of structural adjustments.
“We have abandoned the prescriptive character of the old policy,” Adams said in a statement. At the same time, he said, the underpinnings of the Washington Consensus “remain important themes of economic policy.”
The next year, the bank demanded that Niger privatize its irrigation systems, according to a 2007 report by Eurodad, a Brussels-based coalition of 56 non-profit groups. The requirement “has seriously damaging effects on poor farmers’ access to a precious and scarce resource,” said the report, based on an analysis of the bank’s databases. In all, the group found economic policy conditions were attached to 71 percent of loans and grants.
The World Bank in May pledged $1.2 billion for a Global Food Response Program that’s designed to speed money to the neediest countries without the usual red tape. As of last month the Bank approved $364 million for 25 countries and $541 million more is designated for 10 others.
Trade Talks Stalled
Current Bank President Robert Zoellick, a former U.S. trade representative, has promised to double agriculture spending while touting free trade as a solution to rising food prices. Zoellick, 55, declined to be interviewed.
Poor countries remained skeptical of open markets during the latest round of World Trade talks in Geneva, in July. They insisted that they be allowed to raise tariffs to protect domestic agriculture, stalling the negotiations.
El Salvador, meanwhile, has invested about $240 million in agriculture since 2004. It now gives farmers a $30 bag of the seed of their choice and a $30 sack of fertilizer.
“The World Bank had a very short-term vision; it couldn’t have been more wrong,” said Mario Salaverria, El Salvador’s agriculture minister, as he inspected corn in Sonsonate province, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) west of San Salvador.
His country must regain self-sufficiency, he said. “We can stop using our cars because of price increases, but we can’t stop eating.”
(Recipe for Famine: Part 3 of 7.)
To contact the reporters on this story: Alison Fitzgerald in Washington at Afitzgerald2@bloomberg.net; Helen Murphy in Bogota at hmurphy1@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: December 9, 2008 19:01 EST
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Trademarks
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Philippines:Church groups to lead protests against Charter Change.
Arroyo is trying everything possible to change the constitution before her term runs out but opposition to her schemes is growing by leaps and bounds. Church groups are very active in protests including the Roman Catholic Church in spite of the Pope frowning upon such political activism officially.
Showdown on Charter change
December 11, 2008 00:48:00
Dona Pazzibugan Christine Avendaño
Philippine Daily Inquirer
MANILA, Philippines—Church groups will lead Friday’s mutisectoral rally against Charter change (Cha-cha), the first such major demonstration since Malacañang allies revived moves to amend the Constitution and possibly postpone the 2010 national polls.
Sr. Mary John Mananzan, national co-chair of the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP), Wednesday said various groups had pledged to take part in the 4-9 p.m. rally at the Ayala Avenue and Paseo de Roxas intersection in Makati City.
The latest was the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), the biggest alliance of schools in the country with 1,252 members.
Two senators eyeing the presidency in 2010—Manuel Villar and Manuel “Mar” Roxas II of the Nacionalista and Liberal Parties, respectively—also said they would join the mass action along with their party mates.
Senator Roxas and his own party mates, including former Senate President Franklin Drilon as well as Senators Francis Pangilinan and Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, will likewise be present.
“We expect around 20,000,” Mananzan told the Philippine Daily Inquirer (parent company of INQUIRER.net). “As long as they are against Charter change, they can join us.”
She said the Makati Business Club (MBC) and the civic group Black and White Movement would also join the rally.
Fr. Joe Dizon of the Solidarity Movement, one of the rally organizers, said the mass action was aimed at isolating President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her allies and repudiating their purported efforts to stay in power longer.
“This is one issue where we can place GMA (Ms Arroyo) and her allies in a politically isolated situation,” Dizon said at the weekly Fernandina Forum at Club Filipino in San Juan City.
He said the issue of Charter change was a rare opportunity for fragmented opposition forces, civil society groups and religious organizations to band together against the Arroyo administration.
Pols’ presence
Senator Villar told the Inquirer at its 23rd anniversary celebration on Tuesday night that he would attend the rally together with his party mates including Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano.
He said he was against Charter change—whether through a constituent assembly (Con-ass) or a constitutional convention (Con-con)—at this time.
“The presence of the [LP] at the rally will show its objection and opposition to a Con-ass mode,” said Drilon, who also showed up at the Inquirer celebration.
He said the participation of all sectors, including the youth, in the rally “should be encouraged.”
Drilon said he had “no doubt” that Ms Arroyo was pushing the Con-ass mode.
“That’s why the appointments to the Supreme Court in the next year will be crucial in determining the course of history,” he said, adding that the first six months of 2009, when there would be four vacancies in the high court, were especially crucial.
Drilon said the current “fight” was to prevent members of Ms Arroyo’s party, the Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (Kampi), from getting the 197 signatures required to convene a Con-ass.
He said he had heard that three lawmakers, including a party-list representative, were now withdrawing their signatures from the House resolution Con-ass.
Absent but supportive
Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, the president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, is backing the mass action that he will be unable to attend.
“Of course I support [the Makati rally], although I cannot join them because our archdiocese in Jaro is [preparing] our social actions and holding a similar prayer rally in solidarity with them,” Lagdameo said.
“We hope our lawmakers hear the public clamor against Charter change. If there will be [amendments to the Constitution], these should be done after the 2010 elections. That is our hope and our prayer,” he said.
Navotas Bishop Emeritus Teodoro Bacani and Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez are expected to join the rally.
At the Fernandina Forum, MBC executive director Alberto Lim expressed the group’s belief that the current Cha-cha campaign was targeting the Constitution’s “political provisions” rather than the economic ones.
“We don’t think the move to amend the Constitution will actually help our situation today. It is a smokescreen to have us all lose our way,” he said.
Lim further warned that if the Arroyo administration should push Charter change, “it may shorten its life.”
Mananzan said the rally organizers’ position on Charter change was not inflexible: “It’s not an absolute no. We just don’t want Cha-cha to be used for the benefit of some specific people.”
She likened Filipinos to lab rats conditioned to becoming immobile through electric shock.
“We should not be victims of learned helplessness,” she said. “I’m already a senior citizen, so don’t tell me my knees are stronger than those young people who don’t go to the streets.”
Students and faculty of CEAP colleges and universities Wednesday marched with farmers to the Batasang Pambansa complex in Quezon City to protest the planned amendment of the Constitution and to call on lawmakers to focus their energies instead on extending the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
In a homily at the St. Peter’s Church before the march, the CEAP president, Msgr. Gerardo Santos, exhorted the assembly to join the anti-Cha-cha rally.
“Of course, the schools will join us,” Mananzan, the president of St. Scholastica’s College, told the Inquirer.
In a statement, the CEAP assailed the fresh attempt at Charter change.
“Just as in 2006, [Cha-cha] advocates can barely conceal that their real aim is not reform but further concentration of power. Even as they pay lip service to economic and political development, Cha-cha proponents cannot disguise their overriding objective of prolonging the stay in power of current officials, particularly the President,” it said.
Other groups in rally
The other groups that have originally committed to join the rally are the Promotion of Church People’s Response, Jesus is Lord Movement, United Opposition (UNO), Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), Sanlakas, Akbayan, Concerned Citizens Movement, Edsa 3 Coalition, Sanlakas, Youth Act Now! and the newly formed Coalition for National Transformation.
In Naga City, the Coalition for Citizens’ Constitution (C4CC) said it would hold noise barrages against Cha-cha during the whole month of January.
“We will call every Friday of January ‘Black Friday,’” said Rene Gumba, leader of C4CC and director of the Ateneo de Naga University’s Institute of Politics. “The series of noise barrages will be called ‘Busina laban sa Cha-cha, Busina para sa demokrasya.’”
C4CC has conducted various protest actions, including noise barrages, in Naga this
Showdown on Charter change
December 11, 2008 00:48:00
Dona Pazzibugan Christine Avendaño
Philippine Daily Inquirer
MANILA, Philippines—Church groups will lead Friday’s mutisectoral rally against Charter change (Cha-cha), the first such major demonstration since Malacañang allies revived moves to amend the Constitution and possibly postpone the 2010 national polls.
Sr. Mary John Mananzan, national co-chair of the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP), Wednesday said various groups had pledged to take part in the 4-9 p.m. rally at the Ayala Avenue and Paseo de Roxas intersection in Makati City.
The latest was the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), the biggest alliance of schools in the country with 1,252 members.
Two senators eyeing the presidency in 2010—Manuel Villar and Manuel “Mar” Roxas II of the Nacionalista and Liberal Parties, respectively—also said they would join the mass action along with their party mates.
Senator Roxas and his own party mates, including former Senate President Franklin Drilon as well as Senators Francis Pangilinan and Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, will likewise be present.
“We expect around 20,000,” Mananzan told the Philippine Daily Inquirer (parent company of INQUIRER.net). “As long as they are against Charter change, they can join us.”
She said the Makati Business Club (MBC) and the civic group Black and White Movement would also join the rally.
Fr. Joe Dizon of the Solidarity Movement, one of the rally organizers, said the mass action was aimed at isolating President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her allies and repudiating their purported efforts to stay in power longer.
“This is one issue where we can place GMA (Ms Arroyo) and her allies in a politically isolated situation,” Dizon said at the weekly Fernandina Forum at Club Filipino in San Juan City.
He said the issue of Charter change was a rare opportunity for fragmented opposition forces, civil society groups and religious organizations to band together against the Arroyo administration.
Pols’ presence
Senator Villar told the Inquirer at its 23rd anniversary celebration on Tuesday night that he would attend the rally together with his party mates including Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano.
He said he was against Charter change—whether through a constituent assembly (Con-ass) or a constitutional convention (Con-con)—at this time.
“The presence of the [LP] at the rally will show its objection and opposition to a Con-ass mode,” said Drilon, who also showed up at the Inquirer celebration.
He said the participation of all sectors, including the youth, in the rally “should be encouraged.”
Drilon said he had “no doubt” that Ms Arroyo was pushing the Con-ass mode.
“That’s why the appointments to the Supreme Court in the next year will be crucial in determining the course of history,” he said, adding that the first six months of 2009, when there would be four vacancies in the high court, were especially crucial.
Drilon said the current “fight” was to prevent members of Ms Arroyo’s party, the Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (Kampi), from getting the 197 signatures required to convene a Con-ass.
He said he had heard that three lawmakers, including a party-list representative, were now withdrawing their signatures from the House resolution Con-ass.
Absent but supportive
Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, the president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, is backing the mass action that he will be unable to attend.
“Of course I support [the Makati rally], although I cannot join them because our archdiocese in Jaro is [preparing] our social actions and holding a similar prayer rally in solidarity with them,” Lagdameo said.
“We hope our lawmakers hear the public clamor against Charter change. If there will be [amendments to the Constitution], these should be done after the 2010 elections. That is our hope and our prayer,” he said.
Navotas Bishop Emeritus Teodoro Bacani and Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez are expected to join the rally.
At the Fernandina Forum, MBC executive director Alberto Lim expressed the group’s belief that the current Cha-cha campaign was targeting the Constitution’s “political provisions” rather than the economic ones.
“We don’t think the move to amend the Constitution will actually help our situation today. It is a smokescreen to have us all lose our way,” he said.
Lim further warned that if the Arroyo administration should push Charter change, “it may shorten its life.”
Mananzan said the rally organizers’ position on Charter change was not inflexible: “It’s not an absolute no. We just don’t want Cha-cha to be used for the benefit of some specific people.”
She likened Filipinos to lab rats conditioned to becoming immobile through electric shock.
“We should not be victims of learned helplessness,” she said. “I’m already a senior citizen, so don’t tell me my knees are stronger than those young people who don’t go to the streets.”
Students and faculty of CEAP colleges and universities Wednesday marched with farmers to the Batasang Pambansa complex in Quezon City to protest the planned amendment of the Constitution and to call on lawmakers to focus their energies instead on extending the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
In a homily at the St. Peter’s Church before the march, the CEAP president, Msgr. Gerardo Santos, exhorted the assembly to join the anti-Cha-cha rally.
“Of course, the schools will join us,” Mananzan, the president of St. Scholastica’s College, told the Inquirer.
In a statement, the CEAP assailed the fresh attempt at Charter change.
“Just as in 2006, [Cha-cha] advocates can barely conceal that their real aim is not reform but further concentration of power. Even as they pay lip service to economic and political development, Cha-cha proponents cannot disguise their overriding objective of prolonging the stay in power of current officials, particularly the President,” it said.
Other groups in rally
The other groups that have originally committed to join the rally are the Promotion of Church People’s Response, Jesus is Lord Movement, United Opposition (UNO), Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), Sanlakas, Akbayan, Concerned Citizens Movement, Edsa 3 Coalition, Sanlakas, Youth Act Now! and the newly formed Coalition for National Transformation.
In Naga City, the Coalition for Citizens’ Constitution (C4CC) said it would hold noise barrages against Cha-cha during the whole month of January.
“We will call every Friday of January ‘Black Friday,’” said Rene Gumba, leader of C4CC and director of the Ateneo de Naga University’s Institute of Politics. “The series of noise barrages will be called ‘Busina laban sa Cha-cha, Busina para sa demokrasya.’”
C4CC has conducted various protest actions, including noise barrages, in Naga this