This is from Bloomberg.
Private contracting is justified as a means to save money through efficiencies that supposedly are not available when government does its own work. Of course government is often inefficient but other things being equal it should cost more to have work done privately since the private contractor wants to make a profit. It seems though that private contractors are not only guaranteed profits but also bonuses and sweetheart contracts that rip the public off. The ripoffs are so bad that even a business news outfit such as Bloomberg feels obligated to blow the whistle.
Hidden Bonuses Enrich U.S. Government Contractors (Correct)
By David Dietz
Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senator Kit Bond shifted in his chair at a 2005 congressional hearing, poised with a question on national security. He turned to Treasury Secretary John Snow, who was seated at a witness table.
Was Snow sure, asked Bond, a Missouri Republican, that a Treasury Department computer on order for $8.9 million would help detect terrorist money laundering?
“Yes, absolutely,” Snow said.
A year later, in July 2006, the U.S. Treasury Department abandoned the project. The computer didn’t work. The department had spent $14.7 million -- a 65 percent increase above the original budget -- for nothing.
There was a final ignominy: Under the terms of the contract, Electronic Data Systems Corp., the vendor, collected a bonus of $638,126.
As the federal government’s $700 billion bailout of banks sputters, there’s an object lesson for the new administration of President Barack Obama: Federal departments, including Treasury itself, routinely squander tens of billions of dollars a year in taxpayer money as they farm out public business to private corporations.
Obama, like presidents before him, said during his bid for the White House that he wanted to curtail waste in government. With contracting, he faces a mismanaged system that accounts for almost 40 cents of every federal dollar spent outside of mandatory obligations such as Social Security and Medicare.
Not Earmarks
When compared with all federal contracting, just a fraction of U.S. spending waste comes from so-called earmarks, which elected officials often criticize as the unnecessary pet projects of politicians.
The “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska, for example, had a price tag of $398 million. By contrast, the government spent $368.4 billion on all contracts in 2008, and Republican Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn estimates that about $100 billion of that was wasted.
U.S. spending on 3.7 million contracts in 2008 represented an increase of 76 percent over 2000 levels.
“We have a broken, broken system that rewards incompetence,” says Coburn, 60, who has been examining purchasing breakdowns since his election to Congress in 2005. “We need to totally change contracting.”
Bureaucrats, not elected officials, run the U.S. purchasing system, well out of public sight. And their bosses keep the spending secret by not releasing complete contract files to the public.
No Access
Just as taxpayers can’t find out how the Treasury and the Federal Reserve used the first half of the bank bailout, Americans are often denied access to public records that provide details on how hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are spent in contracts.
Bloomberg News filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department and the Fed asking for documents on the bailout and routine contracts.
As of Jan. 12, seven months after receiving the first request, the three agencies had provided incomplete documents with blacked-out words or nothing at all.
In many cases, bureaucrats are motivated to give millions of dollars in bonuses to contractors no matter how poorly a company performs because generosity with taxpayer money may help them land better-paying jobs after they leave the government.
Contractors on dozens of jobs at federal departments collected more than $8 billion in what federal auditors said were unwarranted bonuses from 1999 to 2005.
‘A Total Mess’
In 2007, military radio maker Harris Corp. developed a hand-held computer for the 2010 census that failed to work in tests in a California heat wave. Still, the Commerce Department’s Census Bureau awarded Harris $14.2 million in bonuses in a contract that increased to $798 million from $600 million, according to federal investigators.
“Contracting is a total mess,” says John Lehman, who fought procurement waste as secretary of the Navy from 1981 to 1987 partly by banning costly contract changes once work was under way, according to Navy records.
“I don’t think in the history of the country it’s been as bad as it is today,” says Lehman, 66, now chairman of J.F. Lehman & Co., a New York-based private equity firm. “You have a system where no one is in charge and no one is held accountable.”
As Obama was gearing up for an economic stimulus starting with about $825 billion in taxpayer money, he said at a news conference on Jan. 6 that the government had to find savings in the federal budget. Because of his rescue package, Obama warned that the budget deficit might exceed $1 trillion for years to come.
More Contracts
He didn’t provide specifics about cuts, including how he might attack contracting waste.
Obama’s spending plan will create new federal contracts as the government pours money into education, public works and expanded technology.
Unless the new president bores in on those projects and existing contracts to examine how funds are being used, he’ll overlook billions of dollars in potential savings, says Thomas Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based nonprofit.
“There are always efforts to try to make things more efficient, and I’m sure the Obama administration will do the same,” Schatz says. “But the agencies don’t necessarily pay much attention to what’s going on at the White House, and you may get business as usual.”
Obama’s Pledge
Obama’s pledges to cut waste mimic promises of previous presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Reagan’s Grace Commission -- named for its chairman, J. Peter Grace, chief executive officer of chemical maker W.R. Grace & Co. -- scoured the government in a quest to streamline.
Clinton championed a campaign called Reinventing Government by cutting thousands of jobs and turning work over to private companies. None of those efforts stemmed the bulge of federal contracting and waste.
Most Cabinet secretaries don’t probe for waste in contracts on their own and don’t push procurement subordinates to police work that’s farmed out.
That lack of accountability holds true even when projects make up significant chunks of their budgets, says Todd Zinser, inspector general at the Commerce Department.
“What happens is, a lot of senior leaders don’t view that as part of their job,” he says. “But if you’re going to head up an agency whose mission is relying on a large acquisition, then it’s a necessity that that leader be hands-on.”
Beacons for Good Conduct
The public may be perplexed when federal agencies such as Treasury and Commerce dribble away billions of dollars a year on wasteful contracts, says Daniel Guttman, a lawyer who teaches public administration at George Washington University in Washington.
He’s studied federal contracting since the 1970s. After all, he says, those departments are supposed to act as beacons for good business conduct and are typically run by former Wall Street or corporate executives.
“The truth is, we have a tradition of great businessmen who’ve been the worst contract managers,” he says.
Much of the squandering occurs through so-called cost-plus contracts, which have been in use for almost 100 years. The system, which originally was intended to reward defense contractors for fast and efficient work during World War I, offers bonuses for exceptional performance.
Federal departments have long since abandoned the intended purpose of cost-plus, and bureaucrats who run contracts routinely award bonuses for almost everything, even when a program fails completely, Lehman says.
‘Paying Through the Nose’
“There’s too much gold plating and little accountability with most programs being done on a cost-plus basis,” he says. “We’re paying through the nose.”
From 2002 to 2005, Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman Corp. collected $123 million in bonuses on a Commerce Department-led project for a weather satellite system that became the subject of four congressional hearings because of billions of dollars in waste.
The payments were authorized by contract manager John Cunningham, a retired Air Force colonel with a walrus mustache who worked for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from a 10th-floor federal office in Silver Spring, Maryland. It was his first major federal procurement assignment.
Repeated Hirings
Cunningham, 60, didn’t respond to telephone, e-mail and in- person requests for comment.
Closeness with contractors develops through repeated hiring of the same companies, often without competitive bidding and even after vendors admit in criminal cases that they cheated the very agencies that gave them work.
Treasury Department agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, currently have more than $13 million in auditing and telecommunications service contracts with a firm that the Treasury Department had referred to federal prosecutors.
Tax Shelter Probe
KPMG LLP of New York, the fourth-largest accounting firm by revenue, paid $456 million in 2005 to settle a Justice Department complaint that it had sold phony tax shelters to wealthy clients, wrongly diverting $2.5 billion that should have gone to Treasury.
That wasn’t the only time KPMG has been accused of cheating the government. In 2006, a year after the tax shelter case, KPMG and three other consulting companies paid $25.7 million to settle federal civil lawsuits accusing them of overbilling the Treasury Department and various agencies for travel. KPMG didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing.
Still, the department continued to award contracts to KPMG. Treasury spokeswoman Courtney Forsell says agency contracting meets federal rules. KPMG spokesman Daniel Ginsburg declined to comment.
Mostly, the contracting system goes wrong through spending waste and not lawbreaking. When the Census Bureau hired Harris Corp. in 2006 to provide a hand-held computer for the 2010 nationwide survey of Americans, the agency heralded the $600 million contract as a milestone in census modernization.
Census director Louis Kincannon said the computer would cut down on paper by allowing canvassers to electronically survey households that didn’t return census forms.
‘Revolution’
“We are revolutionizing the census,” he said in a press release on March 30, 2006.
In June, three months after the contract was signed, Coburn peered down at Kincannon at a congressional hearing and asked what would happen if the computers didn’t work.
“They will work,” Kincannon said. “You might as well ask me what happens if the Postal Service refuses to deliver the census form.”
They didn’t work.
In 2007, the bureau tested some of the devices. The small computers shut down during a heat wave in California’s Central Valley. At other times, the machines took five minutes, instead of just seconds, to send information to a central computer, says Barbara Ferry, manager of the census office in Stockton, California.
Kelli Hermesch’s frustrations with the device came on a lonely dirt road in North Carolina. Hermesch, a census quality control leader, says that during the 2007 trials she and a co- worker kept tapping their location into the computer, trying to get it to validate the address.
‘People Quit’
The computer said they were standing someplace else, she says. Hermesch says such snafus wore crews down.
“I had people quit on me,” she says. “It was definitely frustrating.”
Today, the revolution is largely a bust. Last April, the Census Bureau said it would go back to pen and paper for canvassing and use the computers only to verify addresses of households.
The project has cost $798 million -- about $200 million more than the original estimate. In a big gaffe, both the government and Harris had miscalculated the cost of a help desk for canvassers. Harris and the agency had originally budgeted $5 million.
The price has since jumped to $220 million, a 44-fold increase, according to government records.
Perhaps worst of all, Coburn says, was that Harris collected $14.2 million in bonuses.
‘Ridiculous’
“It’s ridiculous,” he says. “They didn’t even perform competently. You could do what they tried to do on a cell phone.”
At a congressional hearing last April, Representative Alan Mollohan, a West Virginia Democrat, questioned Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez about the reason for the payout.
Gutierrez said officials handling the census contract appeared to have let Harris get away with unacceptable work.
“Well, the bonuses were given on the basis of goals that were set,” Gutierrez said. “I think the right goals weren’t there, and they got paid a bonus for something that proved to be less than what they should have delivered.”
‘We Are Pleased’
Cheryl Janey, president of civil programs for Harris, told a congressional hearing in 2007 that the company was still working with the Census Bureau on using other features of the hand-held computer. She said the device was reliable.
The bureau’s repeated requests for changes to the computer -- 419 in all -- slowed the project, Janey testified. In a written statement, Harris said it was committed to finishing the job.
“We are pleased with the progress we are making and remain significantly involved in helping modernize the customer’s data and technology,” the company wrote.
The Treasury Department had a similar flop in 2004 and 2005.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the agency’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network hired Plano, Texas-based EDS, the world’s second-biggest computer services provider, to install a computer that would let outside law enforcement agencies uncover money laundering by terrorists.
The computer, replacing outdated systems at Treasury and the IRS, would house bank and brokerage reports of large cash transactions.
Tough Deadline
EDS, which was bought by Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard Co. in August, won the job in competitive bidding in June 2004. Treasury gave the company a tough deadline. It wanted the system by October 2005 -- about 15 months later -- and guaranteed the company a bonus to spur it to deliver.
Within weeks, the project had veered off track, according to audits in 2006 by a team of investigators from the Treasury’s inspector general’s office and the Government Accountability Office.
Treasury and EDS didn’t assign enough staff and put inexperienced people on the job, causing delays lasting months, according to the reports.
When former Treasury Secretary Snow appeared before Congress in April 2005, he was upbeat about the system’s promise. He said nothing at the time about whether he knew of growing breakdowns.
‘Risk Increased’
By late 2005, the project was in disarray. The system couldn’t cope with millions more cash transaction reports than were expected. In tests, simple computer inquiries took longer to complete than under the old system, according to the inspector general’s report.
In 2006, an internal Treasury review team said the system couldn’t be trusted because no one conducted sufficient examinations of the information it stored.
“Pressure on the network and contractor staff intensified, risk increased, milestones slipped, costs increased and quality degraded,” the team wrote in its report.
Robert Werner, who had been on the job as network director for two weeks, halted the contract in March 2006. Treasury went back to the old system.
“In good conscience, I could devote no further resources to the project when I can find no guarantee that any amount of added spending would ever produce the desired result,” Werner said in a Treasury announcement.
‘Client’s Requirements’
In the end, $14.7 million was gone -- plus the $638,126 bonus EDS had negotiated when it signed the contract. EDS said it did what it was asked.
“EDS was disappointed when the agency decided to terminate the contract, but we respected and supported our client’s decision to reassess the project,” company spokesman Bob Brand says. “At all times during our involvement with the contract, EDS was responsive to the client’s requirements.”
Snow, 69, declined to comment. He’s now chairman of Cerberus Capital Management LP, a New York-based private equity firm.
Northrop Grumman says it also has been doing all it can to finish what it started. When NOAA awarded the company a contract, with bonus provisions, to build the $6.5 billion weather satellite system in 2002, the Commerce Department touted the job as a breakthrough in contract cooperation among federal agencies.
‘Count on Us’
For the first time, the Defense Department, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration and NOAA agreed to avoid duplication and jointly build satellites that would conduct both weather surveillance and military reconnaissance.
Best of all was the cost savings: NOAA said in a project description in 2002 that the joint project would save the government $1.6 billion.
“Count on us,” contract manager Cunningham told the American Meteorological Society in a speech in Seattle in 2004.
The project called for launching six satellites to replace ones that were wearing out. The first launch was scheduled for 2008. It hasn’t happened, and the program has gone from an economic boon to a taxpayer catastrophe.
The budget has doubled to $13.1 billion and a test satellite isn’t scheduled to be launched until next year. NOAA laid the blame on planning that underestimated the complexity of the project and on breakdowns of a satellite sensor to measure global warming.
Tracing Failures
An independent team of scientists that reviewed the contract traced project failures in 2005 to NOAA, saying the agency ceded too much control to Northrop.
“The program office needs to decide if it should provide a more proactive oversight for the program rather than delegate so much to the prime,” the team said. “This would help ensure mission success.”
The breakdowns didn’t keep Cunningham, who quit NOAA in 2005, from paying Northrop as if the company were a master manager. From 2002 to 2005, he gave Northrop bonuses of $123 million. NOAA officials, including agency head Conrad Lautenbacher, never explained Cunningham’s actions in congressional hearings.
After leaving government, Cunningham went to work for Scitor Corp., a Herndon, Virginia-based defense contractor, according to a 2005 NOAA newsletter.
“My question is why you even keep a job, much less get a bonus,” says Representative Bart Gordon, a Tennessee Democrat who heads the House Science Committee, which investigated the satellite breakdowns. “It’s embarrassing, and it really makes you angry.”
Payments Authorized
Cunningham authorized the payments even though he rated Northrop’s performance in one evaluation period in 2005 as unsatisfactory.
Cunningham shouldn’t have had the authority to approve the bonuses, a 2006 audit by the Commerce Department inspector general said. His goal as project manager to make the work succeed blurred his oversight of Northrop, the audit said.
Agency head Lautenbacher, who left his post in October, said in congressional testimony in 2006 that he intervened when he learned of the failures. He said the project’s major fault was that it was too ambitious and its planners expected to achieve too much.
Northrop says it’s striving to overcome technical breakdowns, including satellite instrument failures.
Grumman ‘Takes Responsibility’
“Northrop Grumman takes responsibility for its role as the prime contractor very seriously and is committed 100 percent to successfully delivering this program to the customer,” the company said in a written statement.
With the federal budget soaring, the Obama administration will have to decide what it will do about giveaways to contractors. Promises from previous administrations to clean up led nowhere.
“This situation is beyond troubling,” says Senator Thomas Carper, a Democrat from Delaware. “More than ever, taxpayers need to know that their hard-earned money is being used wisely. The financial strain on everyone is daunting. I just shake my head when taxpayer money is wasted like this.”
Obama set up a government performance office two weeks before he was inaugurated. He picked Nancy Killefer, a director of management consulting firm McKinsey & Co., to run it.
Whether Washington curtails contract waste may depend on how much she delves into the ways in which agencies dole out work --and how sharp her pencil is.
To contact the reporter on this story: David Dietz in San Francisco at ddietz1@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: January 30, 2009 17:43 EST
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Israel Plans more Gaza Strikes
It seems that any strikes that Israel makes are just retaliatory or routine or anything but violations of the ceasefire. No move to open the borders yet either it would seem. No word of criticism from the west.
Israel Plans More Gaza Strikes
Hamas Avoids Retaliation, Trying to Cement Ceasefire
Posted January 30, 2009
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz cites top “decision-makers” as saying the attacks against Hamas and other groups in the Gaza Strip would continue in spite of the continuing efforts by the international community to negotiate a ceasefire. One source is quoted as saying the attacks were meant to show Hamas that strikes would not go unanswered.
But as Israel continues to ratchet up what it is calling retaliatory attacks, Hamas’ own response has been extremely muted. While Israel’s attacks on Hamas have caused numerous casualties (mostly civilians), Hamas hasn’t caused even property damage in Israel.
Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who Israel threatened to assassinate earlier in the week, says Hamas’ main aim at this point is reconciliation. Israeli officials also say they believe Hamas is holding back retaliation from the Israeli attacks because it wants to complete a cease-fire agreement. No one could accuse Israel of doing the same thing.
Israel Plans More Gaza Strikes
Hamas Avoids Retaliation, Trying to Cement Ceasefire
Posted January 30, 2009
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz cites top “decision-makers” as saying the attacks against Hamas and other groups in the Gaza Strip would continue in spite of the continuing efforts by the international community to negotiate a ceasefire. One source is quoted as saying the attacks were meant to show Hamas that strikes would not go unanswered.
But as Israel continues to ratchet up what it is calling retaliatory attacks, Hamas’ own response has been extremely muted. While Israel’s attacks on Hamas have caused numerous casualties (mostly civilians), Hamas hasn’t caused even property damage in Israel.
Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who Israel threatened to assassinate earlier in the week, says Hamas’ main aim at this point is reconciliation. Israeli officials also say they believe Hamas is holding back retaliation from the Israeli attacks because it wants to complete a cease-fire agreement. No one could accuse Israel of doing the same thing.
Vietnam: Auto Sales Up
This is from VNA.
Any of the big three would just gasp at a 37 per cent sales growth. However the total numbers are much less impressive. For every car in Vietnam there are 21 motorbikes. Traffic must be fun in big cities such as Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon).
Auto sales up, but downturn starts to bite
14/01/2009 -- 12:09 PM
Hanoi (VNA) – Most carmakers worldwide are bemoaning the nosedive in sales in 2008, while carmakers in Vietnam boasted a 37 percent sales growth last year.Despite falling sales in the last four months of the year, strong sales in the first seven months of the year was attributed to the overall growth rate, according to the Vietnam Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (VAMA), which represents 17 leading automakers in the country. Total sales reached 110,186 units.Japanese-invested Toyota , topped the list with 24,421 units sold, up 21 percent year-on-year, followed by domestic truck and bus maker Vinamotor, with 20,887 units, up 281 percent.Kia assembler Truong Hai ranked third with 16,373 units sold, up 42 percent over the corresponding period last year.However, sales fell sharply in the last months of the year, as high inflation and new vehicle taxes at home and the global economic slowdown hit Vietnamese consumers.“Apart from the impact of the economic slowdown, a number of government policies such as the registration fee, have negatively affected the industry”, said former General Director of Toyota Vietnam , Nobuhiko Murakami.Only 9,293 vehicles were sold in December – the fourth month in a row when sales fell, and a drop of 23 percent against the same month of 2007.VAMA petitioned the government last month, asking for tax relief to help boost the sector.Dealers say demand will slow significantly in 2009 after the Government tripled registration fees up to 15 percent of a car’s purchase price from August last year, compounding the effects of the economic slowdown.Car ownership remains limited to the elite and emerging upper classes in the country. Vietnam has about 1 million privately-owned cars, compared to over 21 million motorbikes
Any of the big three would just gasp at a 37 per cent sales growth. However the total numbers are much less impressive. For every car in Vietnam there are 21 motorbikes. Traffic must be fun in big cities such as Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon).
Auto sales up, but downturn starts to bite
14/01/2009 -- 12:09 PM
Hanoi (VNA) – Most carmakers worldwide are bemoaning the nosedive in sales in 2008, while carmakers in Vietnam boasted a 37 percent sales growth last year.Despite falling sales in the last four months of the year, strong sales in the first seven months of the year was attributed to the overall growth rate, according to the Vietnam Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (VAMA), which represents 17 leading automakers in the country. Total sales reached 110,186 units.Japanese-invested Toyota , topped the list with 24,421 units sold, up 21 percent year-on-year, followed by domestic truck and bus maker Vinamotor, with 20,887 units, up 281 percent.Kia assembler Truong Hai ranked third with 16,373 units sold, up 42 percent over the corresponding period last year.However, sales fell sharply in the last months of the year, as high inflation and new vehicle taxes at home and the global economic slowdown hit Vietnamese consumers.“Apart from the impact of the economic slowdown, a number of government policies such as the registration fee, have negatively affected the industry”, said former General Director of Toyota Vietnam , Nobuhiko Murakami.Only 9,293 vehicles were sold in December – the fourth month in a row when sales fell, and a drop of 23 percent against the same month of 2007.VAMA petitioned the government last month, asking for tax relief to help boost the sector.Dealers say demand will slow significantly in 2009 after the Government tripled registration fees up to 15 percent of a car’s purchase price from August last year, compounding the effects of the economic slowdown.Car ownership remains limited to the elite and emerging upper classes in the country. Vietnam has about 1 million privately-owned cars, compared to over 21 million motorbikes
Friday, January 30, 2009
Turkish PM walks out of Davos
One wonders why Peres was given 25 minutes to speak at Davos. Were the Palestinians given equal time! Apparently the Turkish response less than half that time was too much. Peres at least tried to cool things down afterwards.
Turkish PM gets hero's welcome after shouting match with Israeli leader
Last Updated: Friday, January 30, 2009 7:35 AM ET
CBC News
Thousands of jubilant supporters greeted the Turkish prime minister as he arrived home early Friday after a heated exchange with the Israeli president over his country's Gaza Strip offensive.
Over 5,000 people, many waving Turkish and Palestinian flags, gathered at Istanbul's Ataturk airport to welcome Recep Tayyip Erdogan when his plane touched down at 2 a.m.
Hours earlier, Erdogan clashed on stage with Israeli President Shimon Peres at a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
One banner held by a supporter outside the airport gate called him The Conqueror of Davos.Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, left, talks to Israeli President Shimon Peres during a plenary session at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland on Thursday. (Alessandro Della Bella/Associated Press)
The two leaders butted heads over Israel's three-week offensive against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip in response to rocket attacks fired from the Palestinian territory. More than 1,300 Palestinians died in the conflict. Israel lost 10 soldiers and three civilians.
Peres had asked the panel what others would do if they were in Israel's position and bombarded with nightly rocket attacks.
"You kill people," Erdogan told the 85-year-old Israeli leader. "I remember the children who died on beaches. I remember two former prime ministers who said they felt very happy when they were able to enter Palestine on tanks."
Erdogan grew angry when the panel moderator cut off his remarks in response to Peres's passionate defence of the Israeli offensive against Hamas and stalked off stage when asked to stop. He then said: "I will not come to Davos again."
Late Thursday, Erdogan stressed that he left the stage because he was not given time to respond and complained he was given 12 minutes to speak compared with Peres's 25.
Later, at the airport, Erdogan told reporters in brief comments that he had felt insulted and felt a responsibility to protect the Turkish nation. He also said Peres called him before he left Davos and expressed regrets.
Peres said Friday he didn't think the exchange was personal and relations between the two countries wouldn't be affected.
"I called [Erdogan] up and said, 'Yes, I do not see the matter as personal … and the relations can remain as they are," Peres said. "My respect for him didn't change. We had an exchange of views — and the views are views."With files from the Associated Press
Turkish PM gets hero's welcome after shouting match with Israeli leader
Last Updated: Friday, January 30, 2009 7:35 AM ET
CBC News
Thousands of jubilant supporters greeted the Turkish prime minister as he arrived home early Friday after a heated exchange with the Israeli president over his country's Gaza Strip offensive.
Over 5,000 people, many waving Turkish and Palestinian flags, gathered at Istanbul's Ataturk airport to welcome Recep Tayyip Erdogan when his plane touched down at 2 a.m.
Hours earlier, Erdogan clashed on stage with Israeli President Shimon Peres at a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
One banner held by a supporter outside the airport gate called him The Conqueror of Davos.Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, left, talks to Israeli President Shimon Peres during a plenary session at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland on Thursday. (Alessandro Della Bella/Associated Press)
The two leaders butted heads over Israel's three-week offensive against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip in response to rocket attacks fired from the Palestinian territory. More than 1,300 Palestinians died in the conflict. Israel lost 10 soldiers and three civilians.
Peres had asked the panel what others would do if they were in Israel's position and bombarded with nightly rocket attacks.
"You kill people," Erdogan told the 85-year-old Israeli leader. "I remember the children who died on beaches. I remember two former prime ministers who said they felt very happy when they were able to enter Palestine on tanks."
Erdogan grew angry when the panel moderator cut off his remarks in response to Peres's passionate defence of the Israeli offensive against Hamas and stalked off stage when asked to stop. He then said: "I will not come to Davos again."
Late Thursday, Erdogan stressed that he left the stage because he was not given time to respond and complained he was given 12 minutes to speak compared with Peres's 25.
Later, at the airport, Erdogan told reporters in brief comments that he had felt insulted and felt a responsibility to protect the Turkish nation. He also said Peres called him before he left Davos and expressed regrets.
Peres said Friday he didn't think the exchange was personal and relations between the two countries wouldn't be affected.
"I called [Erdogan] up and said, 'Yes, I do not see the matter as personal … and the relations can remain as they are," Peres said. "My respect for him didn't change. We had an exchange of views — and the views are views."With files from the Associated Press
Mitchell urges Israel to open Gaza crossings
Mitchell has a daunting and probably impossible task at this juncture. Israel is continuing to choke off supplies of all sorts from Gaza. Israel continues to pound areas where there are tunnels in spite of the cease fire. This apparently is not supposed to be a violation of the cease fire. However if Hamas resumes firing rockets no doubt this would be a clear violation of the cease fire! Hamas is blamed even when another group fired one rocket!
Mitchell urges Israel to open Gaza crossings Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:41:30 GMT
The 75-year-old former US senator says the Obama White House will strive to achieve peace in the Middle East.US Middle East envoy George Mitchell urges Israel to open the crossing points into the Gaza Strip amid a shaky ceasefire with Hamas. "To be successful in preventing the illegal trafficking of arms into the Gaza Strip, there must be a mechanism to allow the flow of legal goods," Mitchell, who is on his first Mideast tour, told reporters Thursday. Israel demands a halt in "smuggling arms" into the beleaguered strip as a major condition for a truce with Hamas. Despite a ceasefire having been in place since Tel Aviv's 23-day war on Gaza, Israeli warplanes have regularly targeted the Rafah border crossing to destroy "tunnels" that Tel Aviv contends are used to bring arms into the strip. The cross-border tunnels are often used by Palestinians, who have been under an Israeli siege since June 2007, to import food, medicines and other vital supplies. Mitchell said a steady flow of legal goods into the strip could bring about a lasting truce between Hamas and Tel Aviv. "It is important to consolidate a sustainable and durable ceasefire and encourage efforts in that regard," said Mitchell, who was appointed as the Middle East envoy by US President Barack Obama in the first days of his administration. According to the New York Times, Mitchell was appointed by the Clinton administration to lead an international commission and investigate the causes of violence in the Middle East. He released a report in the spring of 2001 that called for a freeze on Israeli settlement expansions in the West Bank. The former Senate majority leader has met with Israeli leaders as well as acting Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas. He, however, has rejected meeting with Hamas officials. The Hamas movement is the democratically-elected ruler of the Gaza Strip. Washington does not recognize the Palestinian group and labels it as a "terrorist" organization. MD/AA
Mitchell urges Israel to open Gaza crossings Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:41:30 GMT
The 75-year-old former US senator says the Obama White House will strive to achieve peace in the Middle East.US Middle East envoy George Mitchell urges Israel to open the crossing points into the Gaza Strip amid a shaky ceasefire with Hamas. "To be successful in preventing the illegal trafficking of arms into the Gaza Strip, there must be a mechanism to allow the flow of legal goods," Mitchell, who is on his first Mideast tour, told reporters Thursday. Israel demands a halt in "smuggling arms" into the beleaguered strip as a major condition for a truce with Hamas. Despite a ceasefire having been in place since Tel Aviv's 23-day war on Gaza, Israeli warplanes have regularly targeted the Rafah border crossing to destroy "tunnels" that Tel Aviv contends are used to bring arms into the strip. The cross-border tunnels are often used by Palestinians, who have been under an Israeli siege since June 2007, to import food, medicines and other vital supplies. Mitchell said a steady flow of legal goods into the strip could bring about a lasting truce between Hamas and Tel Aviv. "It is important to consolidate a sustainable and durable ceasefire and encourage efforts in that regard," said Mitchell, who was appointed as the Middle East envoy by US President Barack Obama in the first days of his administration. According to the New York Times, Mitchell was appointed by the Clinton administration to lead an international commission and investigate the causes of violence in the Middle East. He released a report in the spring of 2001 that called for a freeze on Israeli settlement expansions in the West Bank. The former Senate majority leader has met with Israeli leaders as well as acting Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas. He, however, has rejected meeting with Hamas officials. The Hamas movement is the democratically-elected ruler of the Gaza Strip. Washington does not recognize the Palestinian group and labels it as a "terrorist" organization. MD/AA
Blackwell licence in Iraq not renewed.
This is hardly a surprise given the actions of Blackwell in the past. It shows that Iraq is finally gaining some real power at least on issues such as this. The State Dept. will have to find a new security firm as it still uses Blackwell in Iraq. This is from antiwar.com.
January 29th, 2009
The Iraqi government has informed the US embassy today that it will decline to renew Blackwater Worldwide’s license to operate in the nation. This will require the security contractors, still being used by the State Department, to leave the nation once the joint US-Iraq committee finishes drawing up its formal guidelines for contractors.
According to Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Major General Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the decision came as a result of “improper conduct and excessive use of force” by the contractor, still infamous in Iraq for its 2007 killing of 17 civilians in Baghdad.
The move was hardly a surprise, as the State Department was advised over a month ago to look for a replacement security service on the belief that Iraq would do this. The current contract with Blackwater is scheduled to expire in the spring. While it is unclear how long the committee will take in drawing up the guidelines, the US has assured it will abide by Iraqi law regarding its contractors.
January 29th, 2009
The Iraqi government has informed the US embassy today that it will decline to renew Blackwater Worldwide’s license to operate in the nation. This will require the security contractors, still being used by the State Department, to leave the nation once the joint US-Iraq committee finishes drawing up its formal guidelines for contractors.
According to Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Major General Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the decision came as a result of “improper conduct and excessive use of force” by the contractor, still infamous in Iraq for its 2007 killing of 17 civilians in Baghdad.
The move was hardly a surprise, as the State Department was advised over a month ago to look for a replacement security service on the belief that Iraq would do this. The current contract with Blackwater is scheduled to expire in the spring. While it is unclear how long the committee will take in drawing up the guidelines, the US has assured it will abide by Iraqi law regarding its contractors.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Philippines: 4.5% growth in 2008
This is from the Tribune (Manila)
This rate is down a lot from the 7.2 percent growth in 2007 but given the global depression it is not all that bad. Interesting that about ten percent of GDP comes from overseas worker remittances. With the global economy in recession some of those workers will no doubt return to the Philippines increasing unemployment. There will probably be a decline in remittances as well.
4.6% growth slowest in 6 years but still surprises
01/30/2009
The government announced yesterday that the economy grew 4.6 percent last year, the weakest since 2002 but better than expectations, after growth came in at 4.5 percent in the last quarter.
The surprising growth rate was achieved after the government revised the third quarter figure to a five percent growth from the initial 4.6 percent.
Full-year growth for 2008 was also down from the 7.2 percent the previous year which had been a 30-year high and economic officials said they expected the economy to continue expanding this year.
“Our economy is expected to remain resilient and prepared for the eventual economic rebound,” Economic Planning Secretary Ralph Recto said, calling a growth target of between 3.7 and 4.7 percent this year “a welcome challenge.”
“I don’t expect a recession. There will still be growth,” he said after the figures were released yesterday.
The fourth-quarter growth figure marked a slowdown from the 6.5 percent recorded in the same period in 2007, but was ahead of analyst forecasts of around four percent.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Gov. Amando Tetangco Jr. said inflation will likely fall further in January to between seven and 7.9 percent after easing to eight percent in December due to lower oil prices and the stronger peso.
Recto said the government would still spend as much as P330 billion as part of a stimulus package including infrastructure projects, tax breaks and joint ventures with the private sector.
The positive growth has come even though some traditionally important sectors of the economy, such as electronics and garments, are heavily export-dependent and have been hit hard by the global crisis.
Recto said between 60,000 to 100,000 jobs were at risk in the “vulnerable sectors” but expressed confidence that not everyone in these areas would be laid off.
“Overall, the Philippines will be better insulated from the collapse of external demand compared with other Asian economies,” said Vincent Tien You Tsui, an economist at Standard Chartered Bank.
Exports account for just around one-third of the nation’s economy, which is also reliant on remittances sent home from the estimated eight million Philippine nationals working abroad.
The BSP announced last month that Filipinos working overseas sent home $1.43 billion in October, the second-largest amount in a single month since records began.
For years, the vast army of workers has managed to keep the Philippine economy buoyant with remittances, which help anchor domestic consumption.
In 2007, they sent home $14.4 billion, equivalent to 10 percent of gross domestic product.
This rate is down a lot from the 7.2 percent growth in 2007 but given the global depression it is not all that bad. Interesting that about ten percent of GDP comes from overseas worker remittances. With the global economy in recession some of those workers will no doubt return to the Philippines increasing unemployment. There will probably be a decline in remittances as well.
4.6% growth slowest in 6 years but still surprises
01/30/2009
The government announced yesterday that the economy grew 4.6 percent last year, the weakest since 2002 but better than expectations, after growth came in at 4.5 percent in the last quarter.
The surprising growth rate was achieved after the government revised the third quarter figure to a five percent growth from the initial 4.6 percent.
Full-year growth for 2008 was also down from the 7.2 percent the previous year which had been a 30-year high and economic officials said they expected the economy to continue expanding this year.
“Our economy is expected to remain resilient and prepared for the eventual economic rebound,” Economic Planning Secretary Ralph Recto said, calling a growth target of between 3.7 and 4.7 percent this year “a welcome challenge.”
“I don’t expect a recession. There will still be growth,” he said after the figures were released yesterday.
The fourth-quarter growth figure marked a slowdown from the 6.5 percent recorded in the same period in 2007, but was ahead of analyst forecasts of around four percent.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Gov. Amando Tetangco Jr. said inflation will likely fall further in January to between seven and 7.9 percent after easing to eight percent in December due to lower oil prices and the stronger peso.
Recto said the government would still spend as much as P330 billion as part of a stimulus package including infrastructure projects, tax breaks and joint ventures with the private sector.
The positive growth has come even though some traditionally important sectors of the economy, such as electronics and garments, are heavily export-dependent and have been hit hard by the global crisis.
Recto said between 60,000 to 100,000 jobs were at risk in the “vulnerable sectors” but expressed confidence that not everyone in these areas would be laid off.
“Overall, the Philippines will be better insulated from the collapse of external demand compared with other Asian economies,” said Vincent Tien You Tsui, an economist at Standard Chartered Bank.
Exports account for just around one-third of the nation’s economy, which is also reliant on remittances sent home from the estimated eight million Philippine nationals working abroad.
The BSP announced last month that Filipinos working overseas sent home $1.43 billion in October, the second-largest amount in a single month since records began.
For years, the vast army of workers has managed to keep the Philippine economy buoyant with remittances, which help anchor domestic consumption.
In 2007, they sent home $14.4 billion, equivalent to 10 percent of gross domestic product.
Obama the Imperialist.
Obama was not really elected on an antiwar ticket except perhaps in the minds of some anti war groups who approved of his plans to withdraw from Iraq. On Afghanistan and Pakistan Obama never hid the fact that if anything he was more bellicose than Bush!
This article gives some interesting historical background on the type of moral or humanistic imperialism that Obama represents. It is worth noting is that opposition to this point of view comes both from libertarians and also realists who see interventionism as unwarranted unless vital US interests are at stake. Not only does present imperialism use as an excuse for intervention real disasters in areas such as Darfur but also the concept of failed states and the all ecompassing war against terror. As a failed state, Somalia, where Islamists were able to gain power is an example of how the war against terror drives US imperialism. The US saw the Islamists simply as actual or potential anti-US terrorists rather than as giving some semblance of stability and order to Somalia. As a result the US both in some attacks of its own and through support for Ethiopian intervention managed to create chaos in the country again. It remains to be seen what Obama will do as the Islamists are regaining power. The use of proxies and also coalitions of the willing (or billing) is also typical of present day US imperialism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/27/obama-white-house-foreign-policyObama the imperialist
Change? In foreign policy, hardly. The new president is in the classic liberal interventionist mould * Richard Seymour * The Guardian, Tuesday 27 January 2009• Richard Seymour is the author of The Liberal Defence of Murder
The first Democratic president in the modern era to be elected on an anti-war ticket is also, to the relief of neocons and the liberal belligerati, a hawk. Committed to escalation in Afghanistan, his foreign policy selections also indicate bellicosity towards Sudan and Iran. During his first week in office he sanctioned two missile attacks in Pakistan, killing 22 people, including women and children. And his stance on Gaza is remarkably close to that of the outgoing administration. The question now is how Obama will convince his supporters to back that stance. Bush could rely on a core constituency whose commitment to peace and human rights is, at the very least, questionable. Obama has no such luxury. In making his case, he will need the support of those "liberal hawks" who gave Bush such vocal support.It is tempting to dismiss the "pro-war left" as a congeries of discredited left-wing apostates and Nato liberals. Their artless euphemisms for bloody conquest seem especially redundant in light of over a million Iraqi deaths. Yet their arguments, ranging from a paternalistic defence of "humanitarian intervention" to the championing of "western values", have their origins in a tradition of liberal imperialism whose durability advises against hasty dismissal. In every country whose rulers have opted for empire, there has developed among the intellectual classes a powerful pro-imperial consensus, with liberals and leftwingers its most vociferous defenders.Liberal imperialists have resisted explicitly racist arguments for domination, instead justifying empire as a humane venture delivering progress. Even so, implicit in such a stance was the belief that other peoples were inferior. Just as John Stuart Mill contended that despotism was a "legitimate mode of government in dealing with the barbarians" provided "the end be their improvement", so the Fabians contended that self-government for "native races" was "as useless to them as a dynamo to a Caribbean". Intellectuals of the Second International such as Eduard Bernstein regarded the colonised as incapable of self-government. For many liberals and socialists of this era, the only disagreement was over whether the natives could attain the disciplined state necessary to run their own affairs. Indigenous resistance, moreover, was interpreted as "native fanaticism", to be overcome with European tuition.The current liberal imperialists are not replicas of their 19th-century antecedents. Cold war priorities, including the need to incorporate elements of the left into an anti-communist front, transformed the culture of empire. If the "anti-totalitarian" left supported US expansionism, they often did so under the mantle of anti-colonialism. Decolonisation and the civil rights struggle meant explicit racism had to be dispensed with in arguments for military intervention.This was a slow process. Both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations were terrified of "premature independence" for colonised nations. The state department asserted that "backward societies" required authoritarianism to prepare them for modernity. Irving Kristol, a cold war liberal who became the "godfather of neoconservatism", justified the Vietnam war in part by asserting that the country was "barely capable of decent self-government under the very best of conditions", and thus needed its US-imposed dictatorship. Nonetheless, such arguments today tend to be rehearsed only on the wilder shores of the neoconservative right.Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, some paternalistic mainstays of liberal imperialism have been reinvented under the impress of "humanitarian intervention". Just as Victorian humanitarians saw the empire as the appropriate tool for saving the oppressed, so the 1990s saw demands for the US military to deliver Somalians, Bosnians and Kosovans from their tormentors - notwithstanding the fact that US intervention played a destructive role in each case.The agency of the oppressed themselves is largely absent from this perspective. And, as New York University's Stephen Holmes pointed out: "By denouncing the United States primarily for standing by when atrocity abroad occurs, these well-meaning liberals have helped re-popularise the idea of America as a potentially benign imperial power."The catastrophe in Iraq has produced a reaction against humanitarian imperialism even from former interventionists like David Rieff, who has warned against the "rebirth of imperialism with human rights as its moral warrant". Even so, among liberal intellectuals there is a broad coalition favouring intervention into Darfur, though humanitarian organisations have opposed the idea. And there is little resistance to the escalation in Afghanistan, where "native fanaticism" is once more the enemy. Liberal imperialism is in rude health: it is its victims who are in mortal peril.
This article gives some interesting historical background on the type of moral or humanistic imperialism that Obama represents. It is worth noting is that opposition to this point of view comes both from libertarians and also realists who see interventionism as unwarranted unless vital US interests are at stake. Not only does present imperialism use as an excuse for intervention real disasters in areas such as Darfur but also the concept of failed states and the all ecompassing war against terror. As a failed state, Somalia, where Islamists were able to gain power is an example of how the war against terror drives US imperialism. The US saw the Islamists simply as actual or potential anti-US terrorists rather than as giving some semblance of stability and order to Somalia. As a result the US both in some attacks of its own and through support for Ethiopian intervention managed to create chaos in the country again. It remains to be seen what Obama will do as the Islamists are regaining power. The use of proxies and also coalitions of the willing (or billing) is also typical of present day US imperialism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/27/obama-white-house-foreign-policyObama the imperialist
Change? In foreign policy, hardly. The new president is in the classic liberal interventionist mould * Richard Seymour * The Guardian, Tuesday 27 January 2009• Richard Seymour is the author of The Liberal Defence of Murder
The first Democratic president in the modern era to be elected on an anti-war ticket is also, to the relief of neocons and the liberal belligerati, a hawk. Committed to escalation in Afghanistan, his foreign policy selections also indicate bellicosity towards Sudan and Iran. During his first week in office he sanctioned two missile attacks in Pakistan, killing 22 people, including women and children. And his stance on Gaza is remarkably close to that of the outgoing administration. The question now is how Obama will convince his supporters to back that stance. Bush could rely on a core constituency whose commitment to peace and human rights is, at the very least, questionable. Obama has no such luxury. In making his case, he will need the support of those "liberal hawks" who gave Bush such vocal support.It is tempting to dismiss the "pro-war left" as a congeries of discredited left-wing apostates and Nato liberals. Their artless euphemisms for bloody conquest seem especially redundant in light of over a million Iraqi deaths. Yet their arguments, ranging from a paternalistic defence of "humanitarian intervention" to the championing of "western values", have their origins in a tradition of liberal imperialism whose durability advises against hasty dismissal. In every country whose rulers have opted for empire, there has developed among the intellectual classes a powerful pro-imperial consensus, with liberals and leftwingers its most vociferous defenders.Liberal imperialists have resisted explicitly racist arguments for domination, instead justifying empire as a humane venture delivering progress. Even so, implicit in such a stance was the belief that other peoples were inferior. Just as John Stuart Mill contended that despotism was a "legitimate mode of government in dealing with the barbarians" provided "the end be their improvement", so the Fabians contended that self-government for "native races" was "as useless to them as a dynamo to a Caribbean". Intellectuals of the Second International such as Eduard Bernstein regarded the colonised as incapable of self-government. For many liberals and socialists of this era, the only disagreement was over whether the natives could attain the disciplined state necessary to run their own affairs. Indigenous resistance, moreover, was interpreted as "native fanaticism", to be overcome with European tuition.The current liberal imperialists are not replicas of their 19th-century antecedents. Cold war priorities, including the need to incorporate elements of the left into an anti-communist front, transformed the culture of empire. If the "anti-totalitarian" left supported US expansionism, they often did so under the mantle of anti-colonialism. Decolonisation and the civil rights struggle meant explicit racism had to be dispensed with in arguments for military intervention.This was a slow process. Both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations were terrified of "premature independence" for colonised nations. The state department asserted that "backward societies" required authoritarianism to prepare them for modernity. Irving Kristol, a cold war liberal who became the "godfather of neoconservatism", justified the Vietnam war in part by asserting that the country was "barely capable of decent self-government under the very best of conditions", and thus needed its US-imposed dictatorship. Nonetheless, such arguments today tend to be rehearsed only on the wilder shores of the neoconservative right.Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, some paternalistic mainstays of liberal imperialism have been reinvented under the impress of "humanitarian intervention". Just as Victorian humanitarians saw the empire as the appropriate tool for saving the oppressed, so the 1990s saw demands for the US military to deliver Somalians, Bosnians and Kosovans from their tormentors - notwithstanding the fact that US intervention played a destructive role in each case.The agency of the oppressed themselves is largely absent from this perspective. And, as New York University's Stephen Holmes pointed out: "By denouncing the United States primarily for standing by when atrocity abroad occurs, these well-meaning liberals have helped re-popularise the idea of America as a potentially benign imperial power."The catastrophe in Iraq has produced a reaction against humanitarian imperialism even from former interventionists like David Rieff, who has warned against the "rebirth of imperialism with human rights as its moral warrant". Even so, among liberal intellectuals there is a broad coalition favouring intervention into Darfur, though humanitarian organisations have opposed the idea. And there is little resistance to the escalation in Afghanistan, where "native fanaticism" is once more the enemy. Liberal imperialism is in rude health: it is its victims who are in mortal peril.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Chomsky: Neither the US nor Israel is a genuine party to peace.
With his usual sarcasm Chomsky rips into Obama's mideast policy and shows that there is really no basic change in US policy in the Mideast. Events today in which Israel has resumed some bombing and closed off the borders again shows how contemptuous Israel is of the US. It is attacking again just as the US peace envoy arrives! Of course no one seems to think that Hamas should be part of the process except to commit suicide by ensuring that it receives no more arms. Heck they can still employ little kids to throw stones at the Israelis!
Neither The US Nor Israel Is A "Genuine Party To Peace."By Noam Chomsky January 28, 2009 "Information Clearinghouse" -- Barack Obama is recognized to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously - both what he says, and what he omits. Particularly significant is his first substantive statement on foreign affairs, on January 22, at the State Department, when introducing George Mitchell to serve as his special envoy for Middle East peace.Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine problem, in the wake of the recent US-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president - a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that "if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that." He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by US arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters - avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration.Obama's talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: "the Arab peace initiative," Obama said, "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all."Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive.The Arab League peace proposal does indeed call for normalization of relations with Israel - in the context - repeat, in the context of a two-state settlement in terms of the longstanding international consensus, which the US and Israel have blocked for over 30 years, in international isolation, and still do. The core of the Arab League proposal, as Obama and his Mideast advisers know very well, is its call for a peaceful political settlement in these terms, which are well-known, and recognized to be the only basis for the peaceful settlement to which Obama professes to be committed. The omission of that crucial fact can hardly be accidental, and signals clearly that Obama envisions no departure from US rejectionism. His call for the Arab states to act on a corollary to their proposal, while the US ignores even the existence of its central content, which is the precondition for the corollary, surpasses cynicism.The most significant acts to undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily US-backed actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and constructing what the leading architect of the plan, Ariel Sharon, called "Bantustans" for Palestinians - an unfair comparison because the Bantustans were far more viable than the fragments left to Palestinians under Sharon's conception, now being realized. But the US and Israel even continue to oppose a political settlement in words, most recently in December 2008, when the US and Israel (and a few Pacific islands) voted against a UN resolution supporting "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" (passed 173 to 5, US-Israel opposed, with evasive pretexts).Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank, and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement. His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how "I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security."Also unmentioned is Israel's use of US arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international but also US law. Or Washington's shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the US-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama's Middle East advisers.Obama was firm, however, that smuggling of arms to Gaza must be stopped. He endorses the agreement of Condoleeza Rice and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni that the Egyptian-Gaza border must be closed - a remarkable exercise of imperial arrogance, as the Financial Times observed: "as they stood in Washington congratulating each other, both officials seemed oblivious to the fact that they were making a deal about an illegal trade on someone else's border - Egypt in this case. The next day, an Egyptian official described the memorandum as `fictional'." Egypt's objections were ignored.Returning to Obama's reference to the "constructive" Arab League proposal, as the wording indicates, Obama persists in restricting support to the defeated party in the January 2006 election, the only free election in the Arab world, to which the US and Israel reacted, instantly and overtly, by severely punishing Palestinians for opposing the will of the masters. A minor technicality is that Abbas's term ran out on January 9, and that Fayyad was appointed without confirmation by the Palestinian parliament (many of them kidnapped and in Israeli prisons). Ha'aretz describes Fayyad as "a strange bird in Palestinian politics. On the one hand, he is the Palestinian politician most esteemed by Israel and the West. However, on the other hand, he has no electoral power whatsoever in Gaza or the West Bank." The report also notes Fayyad's "close relationship with the Israeli establishment," notably his friendship with Sharon's extremist adviser Dov Weiglass. Though lacking popular support, he is regarded as competent and honest, not the norm in the US-backed political sectors.Obama's insistence that only Abbas and Fayyad exist conforms to the consistent Western contempt for democracy unless it is under control.Obama provided the usual reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas. "To be a genuine party to peace," Obama declared, "the quartet [US, EU, Russia, UN] has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements." Unmentioned, also as usual, is the inconvenient fact that the US and Israel firmly reject all three conditions. In international isolation, they bar a two-state settlement including a Palestinian state; they of course do not renounce violence; and they reject the quartet's central proposal, the "road map." Israel formally accepted it, but with 14 reservations that effectively eliminate its contents (tacitly backed by the US). It is the great merit of Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, to have brought these facts to public attention for the first time - and in the mainstream, the only time.It follows, by elementary reasoning, that neither the US nor Israel is a "genuine party to peace." But that cannot be. It is not even a phrase in the English language.It is perhaps unfair to criticize Obama for this further exercise of cynicism, because it is close to universal, unlike his scrupulous evisceration of the core component of the Arab League proposal, which is his own novel contribution.Also near universal are the standard references to Hamas: a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of Israel (or maybe all Jews). Omitted are the inconvenient facts that the US-Israel are not only dedicated to the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but are steadily implementing those policies. Or that unlike the two rejectionist states, Hamas has called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus: publicly, repeatedly, explicitly.Obama began his remarks by saying: "Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats."There was nothing about the right of Palestinians to defend themselves against far more extreme threats, such as those occurring daily, with US support, in the occupied territories. But that again is the norm.Also normal is the enunciation of the principle that Israel has the right to defend itself. That is correct, but vacuous: so does everyone. But in the context the cliche is worse than vacuous: it is more cynical deceit.The issue is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself, like everyone else, but whether it has the right to do so by force. No one, including Obama, believes that states enjoy a general right to defend themselves by force: it is first necessary to demonstrate that there are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried. In this case, there surely are.A narrow alternative would be for Israel to abide by a cease-fire, for example, the cease-fire proposed by Hamas political leader Khaled Mishal a few days before Israel launched its attack on December 27. Mishal called for restoring the 2005 agreement. That agreement called for an end to violence and uninterrupted opening of the borders, along with an Israeli guarantee that goods and people could move freely between the two parts of occupied Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The agreement was rejected by the US and Israel a few months later, after the free election of January 2006 turned out "the wrong way." There are many other highly relevant cases.The broader and more significant alternative would be for the US and Israel to abandon their extreme rejectionism, and join the rest of the world - including the Arab states and Hamas - in supporting a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. It should be noted that in the past 30 years there has been one departure from US-Israeli rejectionism: the negotiations at Taba in January 2001, which appeared to be close to a peaceful resolution when Israel prematurely called them off. It would not, then, be outlandish for Obama to agree to join the world, even within the framework of US policy, if he were interested in doing so.In short, Obama's forceful reiteration of Israel's right to defend itself is another exercise of cynical deceit - though, it must be admitted, not unique to him, but virtually universal.The deceit is particularly striking in this case because the occasion was the appointment of Mitchell as special envoy. Mitchell's primary achievement was his leading role in the peaceful settlement in northern Ireland. It called for an end to IRA terror and British violence. Implicit is the recognition that while Britain had the right to defend itself from terror, it had no right to do so by force, because there was a peaceful alternative: recognition of the legitimate grievances of the Irish Catholic community that were the roots of IRA terror. When Britain adopted that sensible course, the terror ended. The implications for Mitchell's mission with regard to Israel-Palestine are so obvious that they need not be spelled out. And omission of them is, again, a striking indication of the commitment of the Obama administration to traditional US rejectionism and opposition to peace, except on its extremist terms.Obama also praised Jordan for its "constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel" - which contrasts strikingly with US-Israeli refusal to deal with the freely elected government of Palestine, while savagely punishing Palestinians for electing it with pretexts which, as noted, do not withstand a moment's scrutiny. It is true that Jordan joined the US in arming and training Palestinian security forces, so that they could violently suppress any manifestation of support for the miserable victims of US-Israeli assault in Gaza, also arresting supporters of Hamas and the prominent journalist Khaled Amayreh, while organizing their own demonstrations in support of Abbas and Fatah, in which most participants "were civil servants and school children who were instructed by the PA to attend the rally," according to the Jerusalem Post. Our kind of democracy.Obama made one further substantive comment: "As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime..." He did not, of course, mention that the US-Israel had rejected much the same agreement after the January 2006 election, and that Israel had never observed similar subsequent agreements on borders.Also missing is any reaction to Israel's announcement that it rejected the cease-fire agreement, so that the prospects for it to be "lasting" are not auspicious. As reported at once in the press, "Israeli Cabinet Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who takes part in security deliberations, told Army Radio on Thursday that Israel wouldn't let border crossings with Gaza reopen without a deal to free [Gilad] Schalit" (AP, Jan 22); ‘Israel to keep Gaza crossings closed...An official said the government planned to use the issue to bargain for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by the Islamist group since 2006 (Financial Times, Jan. 23); "Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that progress on Corporal Shalit's release would be a precondition to opening up the border crossings that have been mostly closed since Hamas wrested control of Gaza from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in 2007" (Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 23); "an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit" (FT, Jan. 23); among many others.Shalit's capture is a prominent issue in the West, another indication of Hamas's criminality. Whatever one thinks about it, it is uncontroversial that capture of a soldier of an attacking army is far less of a crime than kidnapping of civilians, exactly what Israeli forces did the day before the capture of Shalit, invading Gaza city and kidnapping two brothers, then spiriting them across the border where they disappeared into Israel's prison complex. Unlike the much lesser case of Shalit, that crime was virtually unreported and has been forgotten, along with Israel's regular practice for decades of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and dispatching them to Israeli prisons, often held for many years as hostages. But the capture of Shalit bars a cease-fire.Obama's State Department talk about the Middle East continued with "the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan... the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." A few hours later, US planes attacked a remote village in Afghanistan, intending to kill a Taliban commander. "Village elders, though, told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said, according to Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council" (LA Times, Jan. 24).Afghan president Karzai's first message to Obama after he was elected in November was a plea to end the bombing of Afghan civilians, reiterated a few hours before Obama was sworn in. This was considered as significant as Karzai's call for a timetable for departure of US and other foreign forces. The rich and powerful have their "responsibilities." Among them, the New York Times reported, is to "provide security" in southern Afghanistan, where "the insurgency is homegrown and self-sustaining." All familiar. From Pravda in the 1980s, for example.
Neither The US Nor Israel Is A "Genuine Party To Peace."By Noam Chomsky January 28, 2009 "Information Clearinghouse" -- Barack Obama is recognized to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously - both what he says, and what he omits. Particularly significant is his first substantive statement on foreign affairs, on January 22, at the State Department, when introducing George Mitchell to serve as his special envoy for Middle East peace.Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine problem, in the wake of the recent US-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president - a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that "if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that." He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by US arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters - avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration.Obama's talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: "the Arab peace initiative," Obama said, "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all."Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive.The Arab League peace proposal does indeed call for normalization of relations with Israel - in the context - repeat, in the context of a two-state settlement in terms of the longstanding international consensus, which the US and Israel have blocked for over 30 years, in international isolation, and still do. The core of the Arab League proposal, as Obama and his Mideast advisers know very well, is its call for a peaceful political settlement in these terms, which are well-known, and recognized to be the only basis for the peaceful settlement to which Obama professes to be committed. The omission of that crucial fact can hardly be accidental, and signals clearly that Obama envisions no departure from US rejectionism. His call for the Arab states to act on a corollary to their proposal, while the US ignores even the existence of its central content, which is the precondition for the corollary, surpasses cynicism.The most significant acts to undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily US-backed actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and constructing what the leading architect of the plan, Ariel Sharon, called "Bantustans" for Palestinians - an unfair comparison because the Bantustans were far more viable than the fragments left to Palestinians under Sharon's conception, now being realized. But the US and Israel even continue to oppose a political settlement in words, most recently in December 2008, when the US and Israel (and a few Pacific islands) voted against a UN resolution supporting "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" (passed 173 to 5, US-Israel opposed, with evasive pretexts).Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank, and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement. His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how "I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security."Also unmentioned is Israel's use of US arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international but also US law. Or Washington's shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the US-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama's Middle East advisers.Obama was firm, however, that smuggling of arms to Gaza must be stopped. He endorses the agreement of Condoleeza Rice and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni that the Egyptian-Gaza border must be closed - a remarkable exercise of imperial arrogance, as the Financial Times observed: "as they stood in Washington congratulating each other, both officials seemed oblivious to the fact that they were making a deal about an illegal trade on someone else's border - Egypt in this case. The next day, an Egyptian official described the memorandum as `fictional'." Egypt's objections were ignored.Returning to Obama's reference to the "constructive" Arab League proposal, as the wording indicates, Obama persists in restricting support to the defeated party in the January 2006 election, the only free election in the Arab world, to which the US and Israel reacted, instantly and overtly, by severely punishing Palestinians for opposing the will of the masters. A minor technicality is that Abbas's term ran out on January 9, and that Fayyad was appointed without confirmation by the Palestinian parliament (many of them kidnapped and in Israeli prisons). Ha'aretz describes Fayyad as "a strange bird in Palestinian politics. On the one hand, he is the Palestinian politician most esteemed by Israel and the West. However, on the other hand, he has no electoral power whatsoever in Gaza or the West Bank." The report also notes Fayyad's "close relationship with the Israeli establishment," notably his friendship with Sharon's extremist adviser Dov Weiglass. Though lacking popular support, he is regarded as competent and honest, not the norm in the US-backed political sectors.Obama's insistence that only Abbas and Fayyad exist conforms to the consistent Western contempt for democracy unless it is under control.Obama provided the usual reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas. "To be a genuine party to peace," Obama declared, "the quartet [US, EU, Russia, UN] has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements." Unmentioned, also as usual, is the inconvenient fact that the US and Israel firmly reject all three conditions. In international isolation, they bar a two-state settlement including a Palestinian state; they of course do not renounce violence; and they reject the quartet's central proposal, the "road map." Israel formally accepted it, but with 14 reservations that effectively eliminate its contents (tacitly backed by the US). It is the great merit of Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, to have brought these facts to public attention for the first time - and in the mainstream, the only time.It follows, by elementary reasoning, that neither the US nor Israel is a "genuine party to peace." But that cannot be. It is not even a phrase in the English language.It is perhaps unfair to criticize Obama for this further exercise of cynicism, because it is close to universal, unlike his scrupulous evisceration of the core component of the Arab League proposal, which is his own novel contribution.Also near universal are the standard references to Hamas: a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of Israel (or maybe all Jews). Omitted are the inconvenient facts that the US-Israel are not only dedicated to the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but are steadily implementing those policies. Or that unlike the two rejectionist states, Hamas has called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus: publicly, repeatedly, explicitly.Obama began his remarks by saying: "Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats."There was nothing about the right of Palestinians to defend themselves against far more extreme threats, such as those occurring daily, with US support, in the occupied territories. But that again is the norm.Also normal is the enunciation of the principle that Israel has the right to defend itself. That is correct, but vacuous: so does everyone. But in the context the cliche is worse than vacuous: it is more cynical deceit.The issue is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself, like everyone else, but whether it has the right to do so by force. No one, including Obama, believes that states enjoy a general right to defend themselves by force: it is first necessary to demonstrate that there are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried. In this case, there surely are.A narrow alternative would be for Israel to abide by a cease-fire, for example, the cease-fire proposed by Hamas political leader Khaled Mishal a few days before Israel launched its attack on December 27. Mishal called for restoring the 2005 agreement. That agreement called for an end to violence and uninterrupted opening of the borders, along with an Israeli guarantee that goods and people could move freely between the two parts of occupied Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The agreement was rejected by the US and Israel a few months later, after the free election of January 2006 turned out "the wrong way." There are many other highly relevant cases.The broader and more significant alternative would be for the US and Israel to abandon their extreme rejectionism, and join the rest of the world - including the Arab states and Hamas - in supporting a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. It should be noted that in the past 30 years there has been one departure from US-Israeli rejectionism: the negotiations at Taba in January 2001, which appeared to be close to a peaceful resolution when Israel prematurely called them off. It would not, then, be outlandish for Obama to agree to join the world, even within the framework of US policy, if he were interested in doing so.In short, Obama's forceful reiteration of Israel's right to defend itself is another exercise of cynical deceit - though, it must be admitted, not unique to him, but virtually universal.The deceit is particularly striking in this case because the occasion was the appointment of Mitchell as special envoy. Mitchell's primary achievement was his leading role in the peaceful settlement in northern Ireland. It called for an end to IRA terror and British violence. Implicit is the recognition that while Britain had the right to defend itself from terror, it had no right to do so by force, because there was a peaceful alternative: recognition of the legitimate grievances of the Irish Catholic community that were the roots of IRA terror. When Britain adopted that sensible course, the terror ended. The implications for Mitchell's mission with regard to Israel-Palestine are so obvious that they need not be spelled out. And omission of them is, again, a striking indication of the commitment of the Obama administration to traditional US rejectionism and opposition to peace, except on its extremist terms.Obama also praised Jordan for its "constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel" - which contrasts strikingly with US-Israeli refusal to deal with the freely elected government of Palestine, while savagely punishing Palestinians for electing it with pretexts which, as noted, do not withstand a moment's scrutiny. It is true that Jordan joined the US in arming and training Palestinian security forces, so that they could violently suppress any manifestation of support for the miserable victims of US-Israeli assault in Gaza, also arresting supporters of Hamas and the prominent journalist Khaled Amayreh, while organizing their own demonstrations in support of Abbas and Fatah, in which most participants "were civil servants and school children who were instructed by the PA to attend the rally," according to the Jerusalem Post. Our kind of democracy.Obama made one further substantive comment: "As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime..." He did not, of course, mention that the US-Israel had rejected much the same agreement after the January 2006 election, and that Israel had never observed similar subsequent agreements on borders.Also missing is any reaction to Israel's announcement that it rejected the cease-fire agreement, so that the prospects for it to be "lasting" are not auspicious. As reported at once in the press, "Israeli Cabinet Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who takes part in security deliberations, told Army Radio on Thursday that Israel wouldn't let border crossings with Gaza reopen without a deal to free [Gilad] Schalit" (AP, Jan 22); ‘Israel to keep Gaza crossings closed...An official said the government planned to use the issue to bargain for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by the Islamist group since 2006 (Financial Times, Jan. 23); "Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that progress on Corporal Shalit's release would be a precondition to opening up the border crossings that have been mostly closed since Hamas wrested control of Gaza from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in 2007" (Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 23); "an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit" (FT, Jan. 23); among many others.Shalit's capture is a prominent issue in the West, another indication of Hamas's criminality. Whatever one thinks about it, it is uncontroversial that capture of a soldier of an attacking army is far less of a crime than kidnapping of civilians, exactly what Israeli forces did the day before the capture of Shalit, invading Gaza city and kidnapping two brothers, then spiriting them across the border where they disappeared into Israel's prison complex. Unlike the much lesser case of Shalit, that crime was virtually unreported and has been forgotten, along with Israel's regular practice for decades of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and dispatching them to Israeli prisons, often held for many years as hostages. But the capture of Shalit bars a cease-fire.Obama's State Department talk about the Middle East continued with "the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan... the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." A few hours later, US planes attacked a remote village in Afghanistan, intending to kill a Taliban commander. "Village elders, though, told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said, according to Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council" (LA Times, Jan. 24).Afghan president Karzai's first message to Obama after he was elected in November was a plea to end the bombing of Afghan civilians, reiterated a few hours before Obama was sworn in. This was considered as significant as Karzai's call for a timetable for departure of US and other foreign forces. The rich and powerful have their "responsibilities." Among them, the New York Times reported, is to "provide security" in southern Afghanistan, where "the insurgency is homegrown and self-sustaining." All familiar. From Pravda in the 1980s, for example.
Philippines: Panasonic to close plant.
This is from Reuters. This is just another sign that the global downturn is impacting the Philippines.
UPDATE 1-Panasonic likely to post loss, close plants-Nikkei
Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:45pm GMT
TOKYO, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Panasonic Corp (6752.T) is likely to report an annual net loss of about 100 billion yen ($1.1 billion) on restructuring charges, weak demand for consumer electronics and the effects of the strong yen, a newspaper said.
It would be the first net loss in six years for the company, formerly known as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd.
Panasonic also plans to close three plants, including two of its three plants that make electronics parts in Malaysia, the Nikkei business daily said without citing sources. The third plant to be closed is in the Philippines, the Nikkei said.
UPDATE 1-Panasonic likely to post loss, close plants-Nikkei
Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:45pm GMT
TOKYO, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Panasonic Corp (6752.T) is likely to report an annual net loss of about 100 billion yen ($1.1 billion) on restructuring charges, weak demand for consumer electronics and the effects of the strong yen, a newspaper said.
It would be the first net loss in six years for the company, formerly known as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd.
Panasonic also plans to close three plants, including two of its three plants that make electronics parts in Malaysia, the Nikkei business daily said without citing sources. The third plant to be closed is in the Philippines, the Nikkei said.
Border closes, Israel promises more Gaza strikes.
This is from antiwar.com.
So an Israeli soldier is killed and Israel kills a farmer launches an air strike etc. The original attack was not even by Hamas. No matter. They also simply punish the whole Gazan population by closing off the border. However these actions are just the beginning claims Israel. What will Obama have to say? It won't matter since unless the US is willing to take genuine punitive action against Israel by cutting off military aid etc. the US seems to have little say in what Israel does.
Border Closes, Israel Promises More Gaza Strikes
Rival Faction Carried Out Attack, But Israel Still Blames Hamas
Posted January 27, 2009
Credit for the roadside bombing which killed an Israeli soldier along the Gaza border earlier today has been claimed by the Jihad and Tawhid Brigades, an al-Qaeda linked group which has repeatedly clashed with Hamas. Still, the Israeli military says that even though Hamas didn’t carry out the attack, it is still responsible for it because they guess they may have given consent to the group.
In its early retaliation, the Israeli government killed a nearby farmer and launched an air-strike which killed a Hamas member and wounded another civilian. They also closed off the border crossings, preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the strip’s 1.5 million reisdents, “until further notice.” Indications are this is not the end of Israel’s attacks, which are threatening to derail the ceasefire.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said today that the killings so far were “not the response” and that more attacks were yet to come. The Israeli military has also reported been “given the green light” to respond harshly in the Gaza Strip. Defense official Amos Gilad said the response would not be limited to closing off the border.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
So an Israeli soldier is killed and Israel kills a farmer launches an air strike etc. The original attack was not even by Hamas. No matter. They also simply punish the whole Gazan population by closing off the border. However these actions are just the beginning claims Israel. What will Obama have to say? It won't matter since unless the US is willing to take genuine punitive action against Israel by cutting off military aid etc. the US seems to have little say in what Israel does.
Border Closes, Israel Promises More Gaza Strikes
Rival Faction Carried Out Attack, But Israel Still Blames Hamas
Posted January 27, 2009
Credit for the roadside bombing which killed an Israeli soldier along the Gaza border earlier today has been claimed by the Jihad and Tawhid Brigades, an al-Qaeda linked group which has repeatedly clashed with Hamas. Still, the Israeli military says that even though Hamas didn’t carry out the attack, it is still responsible for it because they guess they may have given consent to the group.
In its early retaliation, the Israeli government killed a nearby farmer and launched an air-strike which killed a Hamas member and wounded another civilian. They also closed off the border crossings, preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the strip’s 1.5 million reisdents, “until further notice.” Indications are this is not the end of Israel’s attacks, which are threatening to derail the ceasefire.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said today that the killings so far were “not the response” and that more attacks were yet to come. The Israeli military has also reported been “given the green light” to respond harshly in the Gaza Strip. Defense official Amos Gilad said the response would not be limited to closing off the border.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Juan Cole: Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam
This is from Salon.
On interrogation and closing Guantanamo and exiting Iraq as Cole mentions there is a departure to a considerable extent from Bush tendencies but on Pakistan and Afghanistan Obama is actually more aggressive than Bush and is intending to have his very own surge in Afghanistan.
The recent drone attacks confirm this continuation and expansion of Bush policy.
Obama's Vietnam?Friday's airstrikes are evidence Obama will take the hard line he promised in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But he should remember what happened to another president who inherited a war.
By Juan Cole
Jan. 26, 2009
On Friday, President Barack Obama ordered an Air Force drone to bomb two separate Pakistani villages, killing what Pakistani officials said were 22 individuals, including between four and seven foreign fighters. Many of Obama's initiatives in his first few days in office -- preparing to depart Iraq, ending torture and closing Guantánamo -- were aimed at signaling a sharp turn away from Bush administration policies. In contrast, the headline about the strike in Waziristan could as easily have appeared in December with "President Bush" substituted for "President Obama." Pundits are already worrying that Obama may be falling into the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam trap, of escalating a predecessor's halfhearted war into a major quagmire. What does Obama's first military operation tell us about his administration's priorities?
Obama's first meeting with his team on national security issues focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the course of which the new president is reported to have endorsed the drone attacks. Friday's were the first major U.S. airstrikes on Pakistani territory since Jan. 1, because the Pakistan Taliban Movement in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) had launched a campaign to discover local informants for the Central Intelligence Agency, killing 40 of them. The two cells the U.S. hit are accused of raiding over the border into Afghanistan, lending support to the Taliban there.
The tribal notable Khalil Dawar, who lived near the village of Mir Ali in Pakistan's North Waziristan Agency, hosted a party of five alleged al-Qaida operatives in the guesthouse on his property. An American drone hit the site with three Hellfire missiles. According to the Pakistani press, the strike not only killed the four Arab fighters and a Punjabi militant, but also the Pashtun host and some of his family members. A few hours later, missiles slammed into another residence near the village of Wana in a nearby tribal agency, South Waziristan, killing 10. Pakistani sources disagreed over whether there had been any foreign fighters at all at the second target, with locals claiming that 10 family members, including women and children, were the only victims. Villagers in Pakistan's northwestern tribal belt sometimes rent to the Arab fighters because they are sympathetic to their struggle, but sometimes they just need the money.
The U.S. committed itself, when it overthrew the largely Pashtun Taliban in 2001, to building up a new government in Afghanistan and restoring the country to stability. The new government of President Hamid Karzai, however, was viewed as disproportionately benefiting northern ethnic groups such as the Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks. NATO search and destroy missions in the ethnically Pashtun south of the country alienated villagers, as did forcible eradication of lucrative poppy crops. The Taliban revived, and new groups emerged allied with them, turning to suicide bombings and attacks on the new Afghan army and on NATO and U.S. troops. Obama has committed to dealing with this problem by increasing the size of the U.S. and NATO troop contingent in Afghanistan, which already stands at more than 50,000, but the plan is facing stiff resistance from NATO allies and their publics.
Sandwiched between the lush river-fed plains of Pakistan and the deserts and mountains of southern Afghanistan, the 13 Federally Administered Tribal Areas are a no-man's land that is technically part of Pakistan but seldom truly controlled by Islamabad. Ethnically, the inhabitants are Pashtuns, the same group that dominates southern Afghanistan, and many of them deeply sympathize with those Afghan neighbors who are fighting Western troops and the Karzai government. In recent years, tribal and village organizations in FATA have been shunted aside by Muslim radicals who formed the Pakistan Taliban movement, emulating the Taliban of Afghanistan. They not only raid into southern Afghanistan but have also committed terrorist acts in Pakistani cities such as Peshawar and Islamabad.
The Bush administration launched 30 air attacks on targets in Pakistan in 2008, killing 220 persons. The strikes seem to have started in the summer, during the presidential campaign, about a year after candidate Obama began urging this policy. Bush may have instituted the aerial attacks to deny Obama a campaign talking point and to prevent him from out-hawking John McCain. That is, Obama may have pushed Bush -- who had earlier been wary of alienating Pakistan -- to the right. The American bombing of the tribal areas occurs with tacit Pakistani government acquiescence as a result of a secret agreement reached last September, despite the sometimes vehement public denunciations that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani issues after they've occurred.
In this instance, a spokesman for the Pakistani foreign ministry complained to Ambassador Anne W. Patterson, saying, "With the advent of the new U.S. administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach towards dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism."
The Pakistani government is now ruled by the largely secular, left-of-center Pakistan People's Party, and President Asaf Ali Zardari blames the Taliban for the assassination of his wife, Benazir Bhutto, late in 2007. Any dispute between Islamabad and the Obama administration centers on issues of national sovereignty, not on the question of whether the Taliban should be crushed. Pakistan's own military is also fighting the Pakistan Taliban Movement and its tribal supporters. Early last week, Islamabad's Frontier Corps pounded several villages of the Mohmand Agency, killing 60 militants. In the course of the past five months, Pakistani military operations against the Pakistani Taliban in the neighboring Bajaur Agency have left hundreds dead and hundreds of thousands homeless and displaced.
The risk Obama takes in continuing the Bush administration policy of bombing Pakistani territory is provoking further anger in the public of that country against the United States and harming the legitimacy of Zardari's fragile elected government. A Gallup poll done last summer found that 45 percent of Pakistanis believe that the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan poses a threat to their country. Of Pakistanis who expressed an opinion on the matter, an overwhelming majority believed that the cooperation between the U.S. and the Pakistani military in the "war on terror" has mainly benefited Washington. If a more muscular American policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan sufficiently angers the Pakistani public, they could start voting for religious parties, delivering a nuclear state into the hands of Muslim fundamentalists.
The fundamentalist Jamaat-i Islami (JI), led by Qazi Husain Ahmad, held a rally of several thousand protesters in the Pakistani capital on Friday to protest the drone attacks and the ongoing military campaigns in FATA. (I saw the demonstration on satellite television, and it was clearly bigger than the wire services reported.) The coalition of religious parties of which the JI formed part was dealt a crushing rejection by the Pakistani electorate last February, but for the U.S. to continually bombard Pakistani territory could be a wedge issue whereby they return to political influence. Whereas the Jamaat-i Islami had welcomed Obama's new path in the Muslim world before the strikes, the JI leader blasted the new president in their aftermath.
Obama's policy toward Pakistan is not solely military. He appointed as his special advisor on Pakistan and Afghanistan veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who played an important role in peace negotiations over Bosnia in the 1990s. The new president, who has praised Pakistan's return to civilian parliamentary rule, has pledged to triple civilian aid. Opinion polling shows that more civilian development monies and less focus on military equipment are precisely what a majority of the Pakistani public want. Obama also intends to tie the annual amount of military aid released to the actual performance of the Pakistani military in preventing cross-border raids of FATA militants into Afghanistan. Allegations have swirled for the past year that rogue cells in the feared Inter-Services Intelligence of the Pakistani military have been actively sending the militants to hit targets inside Afghanistan, including the Indian embassy at Kabul.
Despite the positive harbingers from Obama of a new, civilian-friendly foreign policy that will devote substantial resources to human development, the very first practical step he took in Pakistan was to bomb its territory. This resort to violence from the skies even before Obama had initiated discussions with Islamabad is a bad sign. It is not clear if Obama really believes that the fractious tribes of the Pakistani northwest can be subdued with some airstrikes and if he really believes that U.S. security depends on what happens in Waziristan. If he thinks the drone attacks on FATA are a painless way to signal to the world that he is no wimp, he may find, as Lyndon Johnson did, that such military operations take on a momentum of their own, and produce popular discontents that can prove deadly to the military mission.
-- By Juan Cole
Salon
About Salon
Contact & Help
Corrections
Advertise in Salon
Salon Personals
Salon Jobs
Salon Mobile
Salon Newsletter
RSS Feeds
Salon Premium:
Premium log in
What is Salon Premium?
A & E
Books
Comics
Community: Table Talk & The WELL
Life
News & Politics
Opinion
Sports
Tech & Business
Letters
Investor Relations
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Copyright ©2009 Salon Media Group, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. SALON® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Salon Media Group Inc.
// PARSE QUERY STRING
var hbx_query_params = new Array;
var hbx_query_string = window.location.search.substring(1).split("&");
for (var i=0; i
tag or first tag
if (omni.title == '') {
var h1s = document.getElementsByTagName('h1');
if (h1s.length) {
for (var n = 0; n /g, '');
omni.title = omni.title.replace(/\s/mg, ' ');
omni.title = omni.title.replace(/(^\s+\s+$)/, '');
}
}
} else {
var h2s = document.getElementsByTagName('h2');
if (h2s.length) {
omni.title = h2s[0].innerHTML;
if (//g, '');
}
}
}
// figure out ad positions
omni.products = (typeof OAS_listpos == 'string') ? OAS_listpos : '';
omni.products = ";" + omni.products.replace(/,/g, ',;');
// figure out byline
omni.byline = unescape(unescape(''));
// beat on blog permalinks
// set the highly dubious prop29 filed: 'TITLE' by BYLINE
omni.title_w_byline = "'" + omni.title + "'";
if (omni.byline != '') omni.title_w_byline += " by " + omni.byline;
//-->
=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-')
//-->
var alert_msg = '';
if (omni.queryString.show_omniture_vars) {
for (var k in s) {
if (typeof s[k] == 'string' && (/^prop/.test(k) /^eVar/.test(k)) k == 'hier1' k == 'products' k == 'pageName')
alert_msg += k + " = " + s[k] + "\n";
}
document.write('Show Omniture Vars');
}
_uacct = "UA-1232497-1";
urchinTracker();
On interrogation and closing Guantanamo and exiting Iraq as Cole mentions there is a departure to a considerable extent from Bush tendencies but on Pakistan and Afghanistan Obama is actually more aggressive than Bush and is intending to have his very own surge in Afghanistan.
The recent drone attacks confirm this continuation and expansion of Bush policy.
Obama's Vietnam?Friday's airstrikes are evidence Obama will take the hard line he promised in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But he should remember what happened to another president who inherited a war.
By Juan Cole
Jan. 26, 2009
On Friday, President Barack Obama ordered an Air Force drone to bomb two separate Pakistani villages, killing what Pakistani officials said were 22 individuals, including between four and seven foreign fighters. Many of Obama's initiatives in his first few days in office -- preparing to depart Iraq, ending torture and closing Guantánamo -- were aimed at signaling a sharp turn away from Bush administration policies. In contrast, the headline about the strike in Waziristan could as easily have appeared in December with "President Bush" substituted for "President Obama." Pundits are already worrying that Obama may be falling into the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam trap, of escalating a predecessor's halfhearted war into a major quagmire. What does Obama's first military operation tell us about his administration's priorities?
Obama's first meeting with his team on national security issues focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the course of which the new president is reported to have endorsed the drone attacks. Friday's were the first major U.S. airstrikes on Pakistani territory since Jan. 1, because the Pakistan Taliban Movement in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) had launched a campaign to discover local informants for the Central Intelligence Agency, killing 40 of them. The two cells the U.S. hit are accused of raiding over the border into Afghanistan, lending support to the Taliban there.
The tribal notable Khalil Dawar, who lived near the village of Mir Ali in Pakistan's North Waziristan Agency, hosted a party of five alleged al-Qaida operatives in the guesthouse on his property. An American drone hit the site with three Hellfire missiles. According to the Pakistani press, the strike not only killed the four Arab fighters and a Punjabi militant, but also the Pashtun host and some of his family members. A few hours later, missiles slammed into another residence near the village of Wana in a nearby tribal agency, South Waziristan, killing 10. Pakistani sources disagreed over whether there had been any foreign fighters at all at the second target, with locals claiming that 10 family members, including women and children, were the only victims. Villagers in Pakistan's northwestern tribal belt sometimes rent to the Arab fighters because they are sympathetic to their struggle, but sometimes they just need the money.
The U.S. committed itself, when it overthrew the largely Pashtun Taliban in 2001, to building up a new government in Afghanistan and restoring the country to stability. The new government of President Hamid Karzai, however, was viewed as disproportionately benefiting northern ethnic groups such as the Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks. NATO search and destroy missions in the ethnically Pashtun south of the country alienated villagers, as did forcible eradication of lucrative poppy crops. The Taliban revived, and new groups emerged allied with them, turning to suicide bombings and attacks on the new Afghan army and on NATO and U.S. troops. Obama has committed to dealing with this problem by increasing the size of the U.S. and NATO troop contingent in Afghanistan, which already stands at more than 50,000, but the plan is facing stiff resistance from NATO allies and their publics.
Sandwiched between the lush river-fed plains of Pakistan and the deserts and mountains of southern Afghanistan, the 13 Federally Administered Tribal Areas are a no-man's land that is technically part of Pakistan but seldom truly controlled by Islamabad. Ethnically, the inhabitants are Pashtuns, the same group that dominates southern Afghanistan, and many of them deeply sympathize with those Afghan neighbors who are fighting Western troops and the Karzai government. In recent years, tribal and village organizations in FATA have been shunted aside by Muslim radicals who formed the Pakistan Taliban movement, emulating the Taliban of Afghanistan. They not only raid into southern Afghanistan but have also committed terrorist acts in Pakistani cities such as Peshawar and Islamabad.
The Bush administration launched 30 air attacks on targets in Pakistan in 2008, killing 220 persons. The strikes seem to have started in the summer, during the presidential campaign, about a year after candidate Obama began urging this policy. Bush may have instituted the aerial attacks to deny Obama a campaign talking point and to prevent him from out-hawking John McCain. That is, Obama may have pushed Bush -- who had earlier been wary of alienating Pakistan -- to the right. The American bombing of the tribal areas occurs with tacit Pakistani government acquiescence as a result of a secret agreement reached last September, despite the sometimes vehement public denunciations that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani issues after they've occurred.
In this instance, a spokesman for the Pakistani foreign ministry complained to Ambassador Anne W. Patterson, saying, "With the advent of the new U.S. administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach towards dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism."
The Pakistani government is now ruled by the largely secular, left-of-center Pakistan People's Party, and President Asaf Ali Zardari blames the Taliban for the assassination of his wife, Benazir Bhutto, late in 2007. Any dispute between Islamabad and the Obama administration centers on issues of national sovereignty, not on the question of whether the Taliban should be crushed. Pakistan's own military is also fighting the Pakistan Taliban Movement and its tribal supporters. Early last week, Islamabad's Frontier Corps pounded several villages of the Mohmand Agency, killing 60 militants. In the course of the past five months, Pakistani military operations against the Pakistani Taliban in the neighboring Bajaur Agency have left hundreds dead and hundreds of thousands homeless and displaced.
The risk Obama takes in continuing the Bush administration policy of bombing Pakistani territory is provoking further anger in the public of that country against the United States and harming the legitimacy of Zardari's fragile elected government. A Gallup poll done last summer found that 45 percent of Pakistanis believe that the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan poses a threat to their country. Of Pakistanis who expressed an opinion on the matter, an overwhelming majority believed that the cooperation between the U.S. and the Pakistani military in the "war on terror" has mainly benefited Washington. If a more muscular American policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan sufficiently angers the Pakistani public, they could start voting for religious parties, delivering a nuclear state into the hands of Muslim fundamentalists.
The fundamentalist Jamaat-i Islami (JI), led by Qazi Husain Ahmad, held a rally of several thousand protesters in the Pakistani capital on Friday to protest the drone attacks and the ongoing military campaigns in FATA. (I saw the demonstration on satellite television, and it was clearly bigger than the wire services reported.) The coalition of religious parties of which the JI formed part was dealt a crushing rejection by the Pakistani electorate last February, but for the U.S. to continually bombard Pakistani territory could be a wedge issue whereby they return to political influence. Whereas the Jamaat-i Islami had welcomed Obama's new path in the Muslim world before the strikes, the JI leader blasted the new president in their aftermath.
Obama's policy toward Pakistan is not solely military. He appointed as his special advisor on Pakistan and Afghanistan veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who played an important role in peace negotiations over Bosnia in the 1990s. The new president, who has praised Pakistan's return to civilian parliamentary rule, has pledged to triple civilian aid. Opinion polling shows that more civilian development monies and less focus on military equipment are precisely what a majority of the Pakistani public want. Obama also intends to tie the annual amount of military aid released to the actual performance of the Pakistani military in preventing cross-border raids of FATA militants into Afghanistan. Allegations have swirled for the past year that rogue cells in the feared Inter-Services Intelligence of the Pakistani military have been actively sending the militants to hit targets inside Afghanistan, including the Indian embassy at Kabul.
Despite the positive harbingers from Obama of a new, civilian-friendly foreign policy that will devote substantial resources to human development, the very first practical step he took in Pakistan was to bomb its territory. This resort to violence from the skies even before Obama had initiated discussions with Islamabad is a bad sign. It is not clear if Obama really believes that the fractious tribes of the Pakistani northwest can be subdued with some airstrikes and if he really believes that U.S. security depends on what happens in Waziristan. If he thinks the drone attacks on FATA are a painless way to signal to the world that he is no wimp, he may find, as Lyndon Johnson did, that such military operations take on a momentum of their own, and produce popular discontents that can prove deadly to the military mission.
-- By Juan Cole
Salon
About Salon
Contact & Help
Corrections
Advertise in Salon
Salon Personals
Salon Jobs
Salon Mobile
Salon Newsletter
RSS Feeds
Salon Premium:
Premium log in
What is Salon Premium?
A & E
Books
Comics
Community: Table Talk & The WELL
Life
News & Politics
Opinion
Sports
Tech & Business
Letters
Investor Relations
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Copyright ©2009 Salon Media Group, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. SALON® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Salon Media Group Inc.
// PARSE QUERY STRING
var hbx_query_params = new Array;
var hbx_query_string = window.location.search.substring(1).split("&");
for (var i=0; i
tag or first tag
if (omni.title == '') {
var h1s = document.getElementsByTagName('h1');
if (h1s.length) {
for (var n = 0; n /g, '');
omni.title = omni.title.replace(/\s/mg, ' ');
omni.title = omni.title.replace(/(^\s+\s+$)/, '');
}
}
} else {
var h2s = document.getElementsByTagName('h2');
if (h2s.length) {
omni.title = h2s[0].innerHTML;
if (//g, '');
}
}
}
// figure out ad positions
omni.products = (typeof OAS_listpos == 'string') ? OAS_listpos : '';
omni.products = ";" + omni.products.replace(/,/g, ',;');
// figure out byline
omni.byline = unescape(unescape(''));
// beat on blog permalinks
// set the highly dubious prop29 filed: 'TITLE' by BYLINE
omni.title_w_byline = "'" + omni.title + "'";
if (omni.byline != '') omni.title_w_byline += " by " + omni.byline;
//-->
=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-')
//-->
var alert_msg = '';
if (omni.queryString.show_omniture_vars) {
for (var k in s) {
if (typeof s[k] == 'string' && (/^prop/.test(k) /^eVar/.test(k)) k == 'hier1' k == 'products' k == 'pageName')
alert_msg += k + " = " + s[k] + "\n";
}
document.write('Show Omniture Vars');
}
_uacct = "UA-1232497-1";
urchinTracker();
Greenwald: Continuing Bush policies in Israel and Afghanistan
This is from Salon.
On the Middle East Obama's tone is perhaps a bit lighter than Bush but there is the same strong slanting towards Israel as well as completely ignoring Hamas in negotiations in favor of Abbas who has absolutely no power in Gaza. The US, Europe, and Israel seem to agree that one of the key players in any peace process is to be completely isolated. Many Arab states of course go along with this even though it means that they face more conflict on their own streets and help recruit radical Islamists for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
It should be obvious to any observer that with respect to Afghanistan Obama is if anything going to be more aggressive than Bush ever was. The drones still continue to fly over Pakistan as well killing guilty and innocent alike.
Glenn Greenwald
Monday Jan. 26, 2009 07:02 EST
Continuing Bush policies in Israel and Afghanistan
By all accounts, the U.S. is suffering extreme economic woes. We continue to borrow trillions of dollars simply to prevent financial collapse. Our military resources are spread so thin that the establishment consensus view blames the failure of our seven-year (and counting) occupation of Afghanistan, at least in part, on the lack of necessary resources devoted to that occupation. And a significant (though not the only) reason why we are unable to extricate ourselves from the endless resource-draining and liberty-degrading involvement in Middle East conflicts is because our one-sided support for Israel ensures that we remain involved and makes ourselves the target of hatred around the world and, especially, in the Muslim world.
Despite all of that, the Bush administration, just days before it left office, entered into yet another new agreement with Israel pursuant to which the U.S. committed to use its resources to prevent guns and other weapons from entering Gaza. That agreement cites "the steadfast commitment of the United States to Israel's security" and "and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself," and vows that the U.S. will "address the problem of the supply of arms and related materiel and weapons transfers and shipments to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza."
Speaking about that new U.S./Israeli agreement on her show late last week, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (in the course of aggressively questioning an absurdly evasive Sen. Claire McCaskill on the wisdom of Obama's plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan and noting the cadre of Bush defense officials on whom Obama is relying -- video below) observed that the Obama administration has enthusiastically expressed its full support for the new Israeli agreement entered into in the last days of Bush's presidency. Maddow said (h/t Antiwar.com):
Also, not particularly change-like, then-President Bush made a deal in his final day in office with Israel about the terms of Israel's relationship with Gaza. I'm sorry - it wasn't his last day in office. It was within his last few days in office -- my mistake.
The U.S. under President Obama is bound by that last-minute agreement between the U.S. and Israel. And a statement from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today says that President Obama supports the agreement fully.
That new agreement has already led the U.S. Navy last week to take risky and potential illegal actions in intercepting Iranian ships that were transporting arms. As The Jerusalem Post reported:
The interception of an Iranian arms ship by the US Navy in the Red Sea last week likely was conducted as a covert operation and is being played down by the US military due to the lack of a clear legal framework for such operations, an American expert on Iran told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday evening.
International media reported that an Iranian-owned merchant vessel flying a Cypriot flag was boarded early last week by US Navy personnel who discovered artillery shells on board.
The ship was initially suspected of being en route to delivering its cargo to smugglers in Sinai who would transfer the ammunition to Hamas in Gaza, but the US Navy became uncertain over the identity of the intended recipient since "Hamas is not known to use artillery," The Associated Press cited a defense official as saying. . . .
Prof. Raymond Tanter, president of the Washington-based Iran Policy Committee, said, "It is not surprising that the US Navy is reluctant to acknowledge the operation, which may have been covert," adding that maritime law posed challenges when it came to intercepting ships that fly the flag of a sovereign country. . . .
For the time being, the interceptions and searches are being carried out on the basis of the memorandum of understanding signed between Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on January 16, which is "aimed at halting arms smuggling into Gaza as part of efforts to clinch the cease-fire," Tanter said.
The article quoted Emily Landau, director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Program at the Institute of National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, as arguing that the risk of provoking a confrontation with Iran from such interceptions is low -- but not non-existent -- because "Iran is not looking for an armed confrontation [with the US Navy] at this point."
And Haaretz reports that preventing Palestinians in Gaza from re-arming itself is now -- for some reason -- an ongoing military operation of the United States:
A United States naval taskforce has been ordered to hunt down weapons ships sent by Iran to rearm its Islamist ally Hamas in Gaza, The Sunday Times reported.
Quoting U.S. diplomatic sources, the British daily said that Combined Task Force 151, which is countering pirates in the Gulf of Aden, has been instructed to track Iranian arms shipments.
There were several aspects of the Israeli attack on Gaza that made it even more horrifying than the standard atrocities of war: (1) the civilian population was trapped -- imprisoned -- in a tiny densely-populated strip and were unable to escape the brutal attacks; and (2) it was a completely one-sided war, because one side (Israel) is armed to teeth with the world's most sophisticated and deadly weapons, while the other side (the Palestinians) is virtually defenseless, possessing only the most primitive and (against a force like the IDF) impotent weapons.
What possible justification is there for the U.S. (as opposed to Israel) to use its military and the money of its taxpayers to ensure that the Palestinians remain defenseless? In exactly the way that the U.S. felt free to invade Iraq (with its decayed, sanctions-destroyed "military") but not North Korea or Iran (with its much more formidable forces), it's precisely because the conflict is so one-sided that Israel feels no real pressure to cease the activities that, in part, feed this conflict (beginning with still-expanding West Bank settlements and the truly inhumane blockade of Gaza).
Obviously, where one side has its foot on the throat of the other, the side with the far more dominant position has less incentive to resolve the dispute than the side being choked. And it's perfectly natural -- not just for Israel but in general -- for a party to want to maintain dominance over its adversaries and to want to prevent its enemies from obtaining weapons that can be used against it. It's entirely rational for Israel to desire a continuation of that particular state of affairs -- i.e., for only Israel, but not the enemies with whom it has intractable territorial and religious conflicts, to have a real military force.
But what does any of that have to do with the U.S. Navy and the American taxpayer? What possible justification is there for using American resources -- the American military -- to patrol the Red Sea in order to ensure that Gazans remain defenseless? That question is particularly pronounced given that the U.S. is already shoveling, and will continue to shovel, billions and billions of dollars to Israel in military and other aid. Why, on top of all of that, are increasingly scarce American resources, rather than Israeli resources, being used to bar Palestinians from obtaining weapons? And why -- as it is more vital than ever that we extricate ourselves from Middle Eastern conflicts -- are we making ourselves still more of a partisan and combatant in this most entrenched and religiously-driven territorial dispute over the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
Israel is hardly the only country which the U.S. expends vast resources -- including military resources -- to defend and protect, and all of those commitments ought to be seriously re-examined. But none of those other commitments entail anywhere near the costs -- on every level -- of our seemingly limitless willingness, eagerness, to involve ourselves so directly and self-destructively in every last conflict that Israel has. Given what we are constantly being told is the grave economic peril the U.S. faces, shouldn't we be moving in exactly the opposite direction than the imperial expansion which we continue to pursue?
* * * * *
On the Middle East Obama's tone is perhaps a bit lighter than Bush but there is the same strong slanting towards Israel as well as completely ignoring Hamas in negotiations in favor of Abbas who has absolutely no power in Gaza. The US, Europe, and Israel seem to agree that one of the key players in any peace process is to be completely isolated. Many Arab states of course go along with this even though it means that they face more conflict on their own streets and help recruit radical Islamists for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
It should be obvious to any observer that with respect to Afghanistan Obama is if anything going to be more aggressive than Bush ever was. The drones still continue to fly over Pakistan as well killing guilty and innocent alike.
Glenn Greenwald
Monday Jan. 26, 2009 07:02 EST
Continuing Bush policies in Israel and Afghanistan
By all accounts, the U.S. is suffering extreme economic woes. We continue to borrow trillions of dollars simply to prevent financial collapse. Our military resources are spread so thin that the establishment consensus view blames the failure of our seven-year (and counting) occupation of Afghanistan, at least in part, on the lack of necessary resources devoted to that occupation. And a significant (though not the only) reason why we are unable to extricate ourselves from the endless resource-draining and liberty-degrading involvement in Middle East conflicts is because our one-sided support for Israel ensures that we remain involved and makes ourselves the target of hatred around the world and, especially, in the Muslim world.
Despite all of that, the Bush administration, just days before it left office, entered into yet another new agreement with Israel pursuant to which the U.S. committed to use its resources to prevent guns and other weapons from entering Gaza. That agreement cites "the steadfast commitment of the United States to Israel's security" and "and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself," and vows that the U.S. will "address the problem of the supply of arms and related materiel and weapons transfers and shipments to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza."
Speaking about that new U.S./Israeli agreement on her show late last week, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (in the course of aggressively questioning an absurdly evasive Sen. Claire McCaskill on the wisdom of Obama's plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan and noting the cadre of Bush defense officials on whom Obama is relying -- video below) observed that the Obama administration has enthusiastically expressed its full support for the new Israeli agreement entered into in the last days of Bush's presidency. Maddow said (h/t Antiwar.com):
Also, not particularly change-like, then-President Bush made a deal in his final day in office with Israel about the terms of Israel's relationship with Gaza. I'm sorry - it wasn't his last day in office. It was within his last few days in office -- my mistake.
The U.S. under President Obama is bound by that last-minute agreement between the U.S. and Israel. And a statement from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today says that President Obama supports the agreement fully.
That new agreement has already led the U.S. Navy last week to take risky and potential illegal actions in intercepting Iranian ships that were transporting arms. As The Jerusalem Post reported:
The interception of an Iranian arms ship by the US Navy in the Red Sea last week likely was conducted as a covert operation and is being played down by the US military due to the lack of a clear legal framework for such operations, an American expert on Iran told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday evening.
International media reported that an Iranian-owned merchant vessel flying a Cypriot flag was boarded early last week by US Navy personnel who discovered artillery shells on board.
The ship was initially suspected of being en route to delivering its cargo to smugglers in Sinai who would transfer the ammunition to Hamas in Gaza, but the US Navy became uncertain over the identity of the intended recipient since "Hamas is not known to use artillery," The Associated Press cited a defense official as saying. . . .
Prof. Raymond Tanter, president of the Washington-based Iran Policy Committee, said, "It is not surprising that the US Navy is reluctant to acknowledge the operation, which may have been covert," adding that maritime law posed challenges when it came to intercepting ships that fly the flag of a sovereign country. . . .
For the time being, the interceptions and searches are being carried out on the basis of the memorandum of understanding signed between Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on January 16, which is "aimed at halting arms smuggling into Gaza as part of efforts to clinch the cease-fire," Tanter said.
The article quoted Emily Landau, director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Program at the Institute of National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, as arguing that the risk of provoking a confrontation with Iran from such interceptions is low -- but not non-existent -- because "Iran is not looking for an armed confrontation [with the US Navy] at this point."
And Haaretz reports that preventing Palestinians in Gaza from re-arming itself is now -- for some reason -- an ongoing military operation of the United States:
A United States naval taskforce has been ordered to hunt down weapons ships sent by Iran to rearm its Islamist ally Hamas in Gaza, The Sunday Times reported.
Quoting U.S. diplomatic sources, the British daily said that Combined Task Force 151, which is countering pirates in the Gulf of Aden, has been instructed to track Iranian arms shipments.
There were several aspects of the Israeli attack on Gaza that made it even more horrifying than the standard atrocities of war: (1) the civilian population was trapped -- imprisoned -- in a tiny densely-populated strip and were unable to escape the brutal attacks; and (2) it was a completely one-sided war, because one side (Israel) is armed to teeth with the world's most sophisticated and deadly weapons, while the other side (the Palestinians) is virtually defenseless, possessing only the most primitive and (against a force like the IDF) impotent weapons.
What possible justification is there for the U.S. (as opposed to Israel) to use its military and the money of its taxpayers to ensure that the Palestinians remain defenseless? In exactly the way that the U.S. felt free to invade Iraq (with its decayed, sanctions-destroyed "military") but not North Korea or Iran (with its much more formidable forces), it's precisely because the conflict is so one-sided that Israel feels no real pressure to cease the activities that, in part, feed this conflict (beginning with still-expanding West Bank settlements and the truly inhumane blockade of Gaza).
Obviously, where one side has its foot on the throat of the other, the side with the far more dominant position has less incentive to resolve the dispute than the side being choked. And it's perfectly natural -- not just for Israel but in general -- for a party to want to maintain dominance over its adversaries and to want to prevent its enemies from obtaining weapons that can be used against it. It's entirely rational for Israel to desire a continuation of that particular state of affairs -- i.e., for only Israel, but not the enemies with whom it has intractable territorial and religious conflicts, to have a real military force.
But what does any of that have to do with the U.S. Navy and the American taxpayer? What possible justification is there for using American resources -- the American military -- to patrol the Red Sea in order to ensure that Gazans remain defenseless? That question is particularly pronounced given that the U.S. is already shoveling, and will continue to shovel, billions and billions of dollars to Israel in military and other aid. Why, on top of all of that, are increasingly scarce American resources, rather than Israeli resources, being used to bar Palestinians from obtaining weapons? And why -- as it is more vital than ever that we extricate ourselves from Middle Eastern conflicts -- are we making ourselves still more of a partisan and combatant in this most entrenched and religiously-driven territorial dispute over the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
Israel is hardly the only country which the U.S. expends vast resources -- including military resources -- to defend and protect, and all of those commitments ought to be seriously re-examined. But none of those other commitments entail anywhere near the costs -- on every level -- of our seemingly limitless willingness, eagerness, to involve ourselves so directly and self-destructively in every last conflict that Israel has. Given what we are constantly being told is the grave economic peril the U.S. faces, shouldn't we be moving in exactly the opposite direction than the imperial expansion which we continue to pursue?
* * * * *
Monday, January 26, 2009
Russia Stops US on Road to Afghanistan
This is from the AsiaTimes.
There is material in this article that you just do not see in the mainstream western media reports. For example that Afghanistan's dealings with third countries are subject to US veto. The article is correct in saying that Afghanistan is "notionally"sovereign. In reality it is occupied by the US and NATO.
It seems that the agreement with Russia re transporting goods through Russia is dependent upon some benefits to be negotiated. The US is obviously trying to establish a strong presence in former Soviet Republics such as Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan while Russia and China as well are trying to counteract US influence in the area.
The article points out that supplies transiting through Pakistan are stolen in huge amounts as well as being attacked otherwise.
Jan 27, 2009
Russia stops US on road to Afghanistan
By M K Bhadrakumar
Precise, quick, deadly - the skills of a soldier are modest. But then, US Central Command chief General David Petraeus is more than a soldier. The world is getting used to him as somewhere more than halfway down the road to becoming a statesman. Sure, there may be warfare's seduction over him still, but he is expected to be aware of the political realities of the two wars he conducts, in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why he tripped last Tuesday when he said while on a visit to Pakistan that the American military had secured agreements to move supplies to Afghanistan from the north, easing the heavy reliance on the transit route through Pakistan. "There have been agreements reached, and there are transit lines now and transit
agreements for commercial goods and services in particular that include several countries in the Central Asian states and Russia," Petraeus said. He was needlessly precise - like a soldier. Maybe he needed to impress on the tough Pakistani generals that they wouldn't hold the US forces in Afghanistan by their jugular veins for long. Or, he felt simply exasperated about the doublespeak of Janus-faced southwest Asian generals. The shocking intelligence assessment shared by Moscow reveals that almost half of the US supplies passing through Pakistan is pilfered by motley groups of Taliban militants, petty traders and plain thieves. The US Army is getting burgled in broad daylight and can't do much about it. Almost 80% of all supplies for Afghanistan pass through Pakistan. The Peshawar bazaar is doing a roaring business hawking stolen US military ware, as in the 1980s during the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. This volume of business will register a quantum jump following the doubling of the US troop level in Afghanistan to 60,000. Wars are essentially tragedies, but can be comical, too. Moscow disclaims transit routeAt any rate, within a day of Petraeus' remark, Moscow corrected him. Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Maslov told Itar-Tass, “No official documents were submitted to Russia's permanent mission in NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] certifying that Russia had authorized the United States and NATO to transport military supplies across the country." A day later, Russia's ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, added from Brussels, "We know nothing of Russia's alleged agreement of military transit of Americans or NATO at large. There had been suggestions of the sort, but they were not formalized." And, with a touch of irony, Rogozin insisted Russia wanted the military alliance to succeed in Afghanistan. "I can responsibly say that in the event of NATO's defeat in Afghanistan, fundamentalists who are inspired by this victory will set their eyes on the north. First they will hit Tajikistan, then they will try to break into Uzbekistan ... If things turn out badly, in about 10 years, our boys will have to fight well-armed and well-organized Islamists somewhere in Kazakhstan," the popular Moscow-politician turned diplomat added. Russian experts have let it be known that Moscow views with disquiet the US's recent overtures to Central Asian countries regarding bilateral transit treaties with them which exclude Russia. Agreements have been reached with Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Moscow feels the US is pressing ahead with a new Caspian transit route which involves the dispatch of shipments via Georgia to Azerbaijan and thereon to the Kazakh harbor of Aktau and across the Uzbek territory to Amu Darya and northern Afghanistan. Russian experts estimate that the proposed Caspian transit route could eventually become an energy transportation route in reverse direction, which would mean a strategic setback for Russia in the decade-long struggle for the region's hydrocarbon reserves. Russia presses for role in Kabul Indeed, Uzbekistan is the key Central Asian country in the great game over the northern transit route to Afghanistan. Thus, during Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Tashkent last week, Afghanistan figured as a key topic. Medvedev characterized Russian-Uzbek relations as a "strategic partnership and alliance" and said that on matters relating to Afghanistan, Moscow's cooperation with Tashkent assumed an "exceptional importance". He said he and Uzbek President Islam Karimov agreed that there could be no "unilateral solution" to the Afghan problem and "nothing can be resolved without taking into account the collective opinion of states which have an interest in the resolution of the situation". Most significantly, Medvedev underlined Russia had no objections about US President Barack Obama's idea of linking the Afghanistan and Pakistan problems, but for an entirely different reason, as "it is not possible to examine the establishment and development of a modern political system in Afghanistan in isolation from the context of normalizing relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan in their border regions, setting up the appropriate international mechanisms and so on". Moscow rarely touches on the sensitive Durand Line question, that is, the controversial line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan. Medvedev underscored that Russia remained an interested party, as there was a "need to ensure that these issues are resolved on a collective basis". Second, Medvedev made it clear Moscow would resist US attempts to expand its military and political presence in the Central Asian and Caspian regions. He asserted, "This is a key region, a region in which diverse processes are taking place and in which Russia has crucially important work to do to coordinate our positions with our colleagues and help to find common solutions to the most complex problems." Plainly put, Moscow will not allow a replay of the US's tactic after September 11, 2002, when it sought a military presence in Central Asia as a temporary measure and then coolly proceeded to put it on a long-term footing. Karzai reaches out to Moscow Interestingly, Medvedev's remarks coincide with reports that Washington is cutting Afghan President Hamid Karzai adrift and is planning to install a new "dream team" in Kabul. Medvedev had written to Karzai offering military aid. Karzai apparently accepted the Russian offer, ignoring the US objection that in terms of secret US-Afghan agreements, Kabul needed Washington's prior consent for such dealings with third countries. A statement from the Kremlin last Monday said Russia was "ready to provide broad assistance for an independent and democratic country [Afghanistan] that lives in a peaceful atmosphere with its neighbors. Cooperation in the defense sector ... will be effective for establishing peace in the region". It makes sense for Kabul to make military procurements from Russia since the Afghan armed forces use Soviet weaponry. But Washington doesn't want a Russian "presence" in Kabul. Quite obviously, Moscow and Kabul have challenged the US's secret veto power over Afghanistan's external relations. Last Friday, Russian and Afghan diplomats met in Moscow and "pledged to continue developing Russian-Afghan cooperation in politics, trade and economics as well as in the humanitarian sphere". Significantly, they also "noted the importance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization [SCO]" that is dominated by Russia and China. SCO seeks Afghan role Washington cannot openly censure Karzai from edging close to Russia (and China) since Afghanistan is notionally a sovereign country. Meanwhile, Moscow is intervening in Kabul's assertion of independence. Moscow has stepped up its efforts to hold an international conference on Afghanistan under the aegis of the SCO. The US doesn't want Karzai to legitimize a SCO role in the Afghan problem. Now a flashpoint arises. A meeting of deputy foreign ministers from the SCO member countries (China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) met in Moscow on January 14. The Russian Foreign Ministry subsequently announced that a conference would take place in late March. The Russian initiative received a big boost with Iran and India's decision to participate in the conference. New Delhi has welcomed an enhanced role for itself as a SCO observer and seeks "greater participation" in the organization's activities. In particular, New Delhi has "expressed interest in participating in the activities" of the SCO contact group on Afghanistan. The big question is whether Karzai will seize these regional trends and respond to the SCO overture, which will enable Kabul to get out of Washington's stranglehold? To be sure, Washington is racing against time in bringing about a "regime change" in Kabul. The point is, more and more countries in the region are finding it difficult to accept the US monopoly on conflict-resolution in Afghanistan. Washington will be hard-pressed to dissociate from the forthcoming SCO conference in March and, ideally, would have wished that Karzai also stayed away, despite it being a full-fledged regional initiative that includes all of Afghanistan's neighbors. The SCO is sure to list Afghanistan as a major agenda item at its annual summit meeting scheduled to be held in August in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It seems Washington cannot stop the SCO in its tracks at this stage, except by genuinely broad-basing the search for an Afghan settlement and allowing regional powers with legitimate interests to fully participate. The current US thinking, on the other hand, is to strike "grand bargains" with regional powers bilaterally and to keep them apart from collectively coordinating with each other on the basis of shared concerns. But the regional powers see through the US game plan for what it is - a smart move of divide-and-rule. Moscow spurns selective engagement No doubt, these diplomatic maneuverings also reveal the trust deficit in Russian-American relations. Moscow voices optimism that Obama will constructively address the problems that have accumulated in the US-Russia relationship. But Russia figured neither in Obama's inaugural address nor in the foreign policy document spelling out his agenda. Last Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov summed up Moscow's minimal expectations: "I hope the controversial problems in our relations, such as missile defense, the expediency of NATO expansion ... will be resolved on the basis of pragmatism, without the ideological assessment the outgoing administration had ... We have noticed that ... Obama was willing to take a break on the issue of missile defense ... and to evaluate its effectiveness and cost efficiency." But Russia is not among the new US administration's priorities. Besides, as the influential newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta noted last week, "A considerable number of [US] congressmen from both parties believe Russia needs a good talking-to." The current Russian priority will be to organize an early meeting between Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and until such a meeting takes place, matters are on hold - including the vexed issue of the transit route for Afghanistan. Thus, while talking to the media in Tashkent, Medvedev agreed in principle to grant permission to the US to use a transit route to Afghanistan via Russian territory, but at once qualified it saying, "This cooperation should be full-fledged and on an equal basis." He reminded Obama that the "surge" strategy in Afghanistan might not work. "We hope the new administration will be more successful than its predecessor on the issues surrounding Afghanistan," Medvedev said. Evidently, Petraeus overlooked that the US's needless obduracy to keep the Hindu Kush as its exclusive geopolitical turf right in the middle of Asia has become a contentious issue. No matter the fine rhetoric, the Obama administration will find it difficult to sustain the myth that the Afghan war is all about fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban to the finish. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
There is material in this article that you just do not see in the mainstream western media reports. For example that Afghanistan's dealings with third countries are subject to US veto. The article is correct in saying that Afghanistan is "notionally"sovereign. In reality it is occupied by the US and NATO.
It seems that the agreement with Russia re transporting goods through Russia is dependent upon some benefits to be negotiated. The US is obviously trying to establish a strong presence in former Soviet Republics such as Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan while Russia and China as well are trying to counteract US influence in the area.
The article points out that supplies transiting through Pakistan are stolen in huge amounts as well as being attacked otherwise.
Jan 27, 2009
Russia stops US on road to Afghanistan
By M K Bhadrakumar
Precise, quick, deadly - the skills of a soldier are modest. But then, US Central Command chief General David Petraeus is more than a soldier. The world is getting used to him as somewhere more than halfway down the road to becoming a statesman. Sure, there may be warfare's seduction over him still, but he is expected to be aware of the political realities of the two wars he conducts, in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why he tripped last Tuesday when he said while on a visit to Pakistan that the American military had secured agreements to move supplies to Afghanistan from the north, easing the heavy reliance on the transit route through Pakistan. "There have been agreements reached, and there are transit lines now and transit
agreements for commercial goods and services in particular that include several countries in the Central Asian states and Russia," Petraeus said. He was needlessly precise - like a soldier. Maybe he needed to impress on the tough Pakistani generals that they wouldn't hold the US forces in Afghanistan by their jugular veins for long. Or, he felt simply exasperated about the doublespeak of Janus-faced southwest Asian generals. The shocking intelligence assessment shared by Moscow reveals that almost half of the US supplies passing through Pakistan is pilfered by motley groups of Taliban militants, petty traders and plain thieves. The US Army is getting burgled in broad daylight and can't do much about it. Almost 80% of all supplies for Afghanistan pass through Pakistan. The Peshawar bazaar is doing a roaring business hawking stolen US military ware, as in the 1980s during the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. This volume of business will register a quantum jump following the doubling of the US troop level in Afghanistan to 60,000. Wars are essentially tragedies, but can be comical, too. Moscow disclaims transit routeAt any rate, within a day of Petraeus' remark, Moscow corrected him. Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Maslov told Itar-Tass, “No official documents were submitted to Russia's permanent mission in NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] certifying that Russia had authorized the United States and NATO to transport military supplies across the country." A day later, Russia's ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, added from Brussels, "We know nothing of Russia's alleged agreement of military transit of Americans or NATO at large. There had been suggestions of the sort, but they were not formalized." And, with a touch of irony, Rogozin insisted Russia wanted the military alliance to succeed in Afghanistan. "I can responsibly say that in the event of NATO's defeat in Afghanistan, fundamentalists who are inspired by this victory will set their eyes on the north. First they will hit Tajikistan, then they will try to break into Uzbekistan ... If things turn out badly, in about 10 years, our boys will have to fight well-armed and well-organized Islamists somewhere in Kazakhstan," the popular Moscow-politician turned diplomat added. Russian experts have let it be known that Moscow views with disquiet the US's recent overtures to Central Asian countries regarding bilateral transit treaties with them which exclude Russia. Agreements have been reached with Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Moscow feels the US is pressing ahead with a new Caspian transit route which involves the dispatch of shipments via Georgia to Azerbaijan and thereon to the Kazakh harbor of Aktau and across the Uzbek territory to Amu Darya and northern Afghanistan. Russian experts estimate that the proposed Caspian transit route could eventually become an energy transportation route in reverse direction, which would mean a strategic setback for Russia in the decade-long struggle for the region's hydrocarbon reserves. Russia presses for role in Kabul Indeed, Uzbekistan is the key Central Asian country in the great game over the northern transit route to Afghanistan. Thus, during Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Tashkent last week, Afghanistan figured as a key topic. Medvedev characterized Russian-Uzbek relations as a "strategic partnership and alliance" and said that on matters relating to Afghanistan, Moscow's cooperation with Tashkent assumed an "exceptional importance". He said he and Uzbek President Islam Karimov agreed that there could be no "unilateral solution" to the Afghan problem and "nothing can be resolved without taking into account the collective opinion of states which have an interest in the resolution of the situation". Most significantly, Medvedev underlined Russia had no objections about US President Barack Obama's idea of linking the Afghanistan and Pakistan problems, but for an entirely different reason, as "it is not possible to examine the establishment and development of a modern political system in Afghanistan in isolation from the context of normalizing relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan in their border regions, setting up the appropriate international mechanisms and so on". Moscow rarely touches on the sensitive Durand Line question, that is, the controversial line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan. Medvedev underscored that Russia remained an interested party, as there was a "need to ensure that these issues are resolved on a collective basis". Second, Medvedev made it clear Moscow would resist US attempts to expand its military and political presence in the Central Asian and Caspian regions. He asserted, "This is a key region, a region in which diverse processes are taking place and in which Russia has crucially important work to do to coordinate our positions with our colleagues and help to find common solutions to the most complex problems." Plainly put, Moscow will not allow a replay of the US's tactic after September 11, 2002, when it sought a military presence in Central Asia as a temporary measure and then coolly proceeded to put it on a long-term footing. Karzai reaches out to Moscow Interestingly, Medvedev's remarks coincide with reports that Washington is cutting Afghan President Hamid Karzai adrift and is planning to install a new "dream team" in Kabul. Medvedev had written to Karzai offering military aid. Karzai apparently accepted the Russian offer, ignoring the US objection that in terms of secret US-Afghan agreements, Kabul needed Washington's prior consent for such dealings with third countries. A statement from the Kremlin last Monday said Russia was "ready to provide broad assistance for an independent and democratic country [Afghanistan] that lives in a peaceful atmosphere with its neighbors. Cooperation in the defense sector ... will be effective for establishing peace in the region". It makes sense for Kabul to make military procurements from Russia since the Afghan armed forces use Soviet weaponry. But Washington doesn't want a Russian "presence" in Kabul. Quite obviously, Moscow and Kabul have challenged the US's secret veto power over Afghanistan's external relations. Last Friday, Russian and Afghan diplomats met in Moscow and "pledged to continue developing Russian-Afghan cooperation in politics, trade and economics as well as in the humanitarian sphere". Significantly, they also "noted the importance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization [SCO]" that is dominated by Russia and China. SCO seeks Afghan role Washington cannot openly censure Karzai from edging close to Russia (and China) since Afghanistan is notionally a sovereign country. Meanwhile, Moscow is intervening in Kabul's assertion of independence. Moscow has stepped up its efforts to hold an international conference on Afghanistan under the aegis of the SCO. The US doesn't want Karzai to legitimize a SCO role in the Afghan problem. Now a flashpoint arises. A meeting of deputy foreign ministers from the SCO member countries (China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) met in Moscow on January 14. The Russian Foreign Ministry subsequently announced that a conference would take place in late March. The Russian initiative received a big boost with Iran and India's decision to participate in the conference. New Delhi has welcomed an enhanced role for itself as a SCO observer and seeks "greater participation" in the organization's activities. In particular, New Delhi has "expressed interest in participating in the activities" of the SCO contact group on Afghanistan. The big question is whether Karzai will seize these regional trends and respond to the SCO overture, which will enable Kabul to get out of Washington's stranglehold? To be sure, Washington is racing against time in bringing about a "regime change" in Kabul. The point is, more and more countries in the region are finding it difficult to accept the US monopoly on conflict-resolution in Afghanistan. Washington will be hard-pressed to dissociate from the forthcoming SCO conference in March and, ideally, would have wished that Karzai also stayed away, despite it being a full-fledged regional initiative that includes all of Afghanistan's neighbors. The SCO is sure to list Afghanistan as a major agenda item at its annual summit meeting scheduled to be held in August in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It seems Washington cannot stop the SCO in its tracks at this stage, except by genuinely broad-basing the search for an Afghan settlement and allowing regional powers with legitimate interests to fully participate. The current US thinking, on the other hand, is to strike "grand bargains" with regional powers bilaterally and to keep them apart from collectively coordinating with each other on the basis of shared concerns. But the regional powers see through the US game plan for what it is - a smart move of divide-and-rule. Moscow spurns selective engagement No doubt, these diplomatic maneuverings also reveal the trust deficit in Russian-American relations. Moscow voices optimism that Obama will constructively address the problems that have accumulated in the US-Russia relationship. But Russia figured neither in Obama's inaugural address nor in the foreign policy document spelling out his agenda. Last Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov summed up Moscow's minimal expectations: "I hope the controversial problems in our relations, such as missile defense, the expediency of NATO expansion ... will be resolved on the basis of pragmatism, without the ideological assessment the outgoing administration had ... We have noticed that ... Obama was willing to take a break on the issue of missile defense ... and to evaluate its effectiveness and cost efficiency." But Russia is not among the new US administration's priorities. Besides, as the influential newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta noted last week, "A considerable number of [US] congressmen from both parties believe Russia needs a good talking-to." The current Russian priority will be to organize an early meeting between Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and until such a meeting takes place, matters are on hold - including the vexed issue of the transit route for Afghanistan. Thus, while talking to the media in Tashkent, Medvedev agreed in principle to grant permission to the US to use a transit route to Afghanistan via Russian territory, but at once qualified it saying, "This cooperation should be full-fledged and on an equal basis." He reminded Obama that the "surge" strategy in Afghanistan might not work. "We hope the new administration will be more successful than its predecessor on the issues surrounding Afghanistan," Medvedev said. Evidently, Petraeus overlooked that the US's needless obduracy to keep the Hindu Kush as its exclusive geopolitical turf right in the middle of Asia has become a contentious issue. No matter the fine rhetoric, the Obama administration will find it difficult to sustain the myth that the Afghan war is all about fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban to the finish. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
Biden Indicates US Attacks in Pakistan Will Continue
More Bush policies. As the article notes the policy of no comment on the attacks follows precisely the same nonsensical stone-walling that the Bushies used. These attacks produce recruits for the jihadist movement and stoke already strong anti-US feeling in Pakistan. Pakistan is in such dire straits economically that it probably feels helpless to take any real action against the US policy and jeopardize US aid.
Biden Indicates US Attacks in Pakistan will continue.
New VP Won't Comment on Latest Strikes
Posted January 25, 2009
Answering questions about US policy with respect to its ongoing attacks in Pakistan, Vice President Joe Biden pointed reporters to President Obama’s comments during the campaign that “if there is an actionable target, of a high-level Al-Qaeda personnel, that he would not hesitate to use action to deal with that.”
As far as last week’s attacks in North and South Waziristan, which killed 22 people including a number of children, Biden declared that “I can’t speak to any particular attack. I can’t speak to any particular action. It’s not appropriate for me to do that.” Pakistan has repeatedly complained about the attacks, saying they undermine the nation’s efforts to isolate militant groups along the border region.
Between the election and the inauguration, the incoming Obama Administration often insisted it was inappropriate to talk about foreign policy issues. It was assumed, given President Obama’s insistence that “there’s been too much secrecy” in government, that the new administration would be at least somewhat more open with its assorted attacks. Yet every official asked about the killings has given the same refrain, so common during the Bush Administration: no comment.
Biden Indicates US Attacks in Pakistan will continue.
New VP Won't Comment on Latest Strikes
Posted January 25, 2009
Answering questions about US policy with respect to its ongoing attacks in Pakistan, Vice President Joe Biden pointed reporters to President Obama’s comments during the campaign that “if there is an actionable target, of a high-level Al-Qaeda personnel, that he would not hesitate to use action to deal with that.”
As far as last week’s attacks in North and South Waziristan, which killed 22 people including a number of children, Biden declared that “I can’t speak to any particular attack. I can’t speak to any particular action. It’s not appropriate for me to do that.” Pakistan has repeatedly complained about the attacks, saying they undermine the nation’s efforts to isolate militant groups along the border region.
Between the election and the inauguration, the incoming Obama Administration often insisted it was inappropriate to talk about foreign policy issues. It was assumed, given President Obama’s insistence that “there’s been too much secrecy” in government, that the new administration would be at least somewhat more open with its assorted attacks. Yet every official asked about the killings has given the same refrain, so common during the Bush Administration: no comment.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Nouriel Roubini: Dr. Doom
This is from the Guardian (UK).
Although others predicted the present economic troubles Roubini made quite specific and accurate predictions. At the time most economists laughed him off. Now he is right as can be seen in the article some claim he was just lucky. It does not seem likely. More likely is that those who were wrong about him are jealous!
The predictions that Roubini makes about what happens next seem quite persuasive to me at least but then I am not an economist!
He told us so
They called him Dr Doom. He was the economist who three years ago predicted in detail a collapse of the housing market and worldwide recession - and was roundly ridiculed for it. Emma Brockes asks Nouriel Roubini what he foresees now
Nouriel Roubini: 'To say I was just lucky is nonsense. I made specific predictions that turned out to be right.' Photograph: Andrew Testa/Andrew Testa
The New York offices of Nouriel Roubini's consultancy firm are as spare as the times: a desk, a phone, some blank Post-it notes and 134 pages printed from Wikipedia listing every bank in the world, all a superhero in the new austerity needs. Three years ago, Roubini, an economist, was dismissed as a doom-monger for identifying massive vulnerability in the US banking system and predicting its collapse. Now he's a guru, attracting the interest not only of governments and bank chiefs, but of New York's premiere gossip website, which has wound him up so spectacularly and to a pitch of such fury that - along with "Where did all the money go?" and "Is now a good time to buy a house?" - the question one most wants to ask of Roubini is exactly what does happen at his loft parties in downtown Manhattan?
It was the New York Times that dryly labelled him Dr Doom, in a profile last year that identified Roubini as an unlikely hero of the financial crisis. In 2006 he made an address to the IMF in which he predicted that, among other things, the US economy was at risk of a housing bust and deep recession that would have dire consequences for the rest of the world. Today he smiles demurely and says other people predicted it, too, but no one was as specific as Roubini, nor as grave, nor as subject to what passes in the sober world of economics for ridicule. At the time, his speech was received as the endearing quirk of an incorrigible self-dramatist, and even now some say he got lucky. When asked about Roubini, the economist Anirvan Banerjee told the New York Times, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
Mention of this makes Roubini rapidly jettison his modesty. He accuses economists who predicted growth in the build-up to the crisis of being as naive as Goldilocks and says, "They totally got it wrong. To say I was just lucky is nonsense. I made specific predictions that turned out to be right. Exactly." He cites a paper he wrote in February last year called 12 Steps To Financial Disaster, "in which every single step is exactly how the crisis unfolded during the past six months. Every single thing. I said two major broker dealers are going to go bust and there's not going to be any major independent broker dealer left in the next two years. It took seven months for Bear Stearns and Lehman to be gone. It's not a fuzzy case of me saying there would be a financial crisis. I was very specific. And I got it right. So." He shrugs and smiles tightly at the burden of being right in the face of widespread stupidity.
Why Roubini got there first had to do, perhaps, with his personal and professional backgrounds, and with what he calls his "holistic" approach to interpreting economic data. He was born in Istanbul, moved to Iran as a baby, then to Italy, where he grew up. He speaks four languages fluently (Farsi, English, Hebrew and Italian) and has worked around the world, including two years as a policy adviser to the US Treasury. What first tipped him off were similarities he noticed between developing parts of the world and the behaviour of the US economy. To his astonishment, he saw a pattern of economic movement in the US that by 2005 made it look like "an emerging market economy", with the same "irrational exuberance" that in his opinion could be followed only by a huge bust. "You look at history, you look at political data, you look at models, you look at comparisons," Roubini says. "This crisis is not a black swan event - a random outcome from a random distribution. This case is a build-up of vulnerabilities over time that will increase and provoke a crisis. There were tens of different signals that would eventually lead to a tipping point. The fact that there would be a crisis was totally obvious to me." With some sarcasm, he says, "People believed in the nonsense that home prices could rise every year by 20%. If that's not a bubble, what's a bubble? It doesn't take a genius."
The danger signs in a period of irrational exuberance look obvious in hindsight, and Roubini reels them off in a steely monotone, without pausing for breath: "People believing things they should not believe and trusting people they shouldn't trust... no market discipline, internal mismanagement, massive conflicts of interest within financial institutions, the SSC [State Securities Commission] not doing its job, entire brokerage units going bust, Bear is bust, Lehman's is bust, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are now converted into bank holding companies. What's the biggest scandal? Lehman? Madoff? They're all part of the same phenomenon."
Goldman Sachs was angry with Roubini for making public statements about its poor financial health, and fought back through press statements accusing him of working from nothing more than gut instinct. (This was before the investment bank posted losses of $2.2bn.) Like the BBC's Robert Peston, he has been accused of making a bad situation worse by talking it up in public. Roubini finds this absurd. "If Ben Bernanke speaks, he can move markets, but this idea that the media is making a bigger fuss than there is [cause for] is silly. This is the worst financial crisis we've had since the Great Depression. It's going to be the worst recession the global economy has had for the last 50 years. If anything, the media were ignoring what was going on for too long. The idea that it's all driven by panic and by lack of confidence, in my view, is nonsense. If you are a consumer, think about the fundamentals: negative savings for the last couple of years, debt growth, falling home prices, losing 50% of your equity values, falling employment, everything else is going wrong for you. Of course consumer confidence is going down the tube, but is it because people are irrational? No. Your income is falling, you lose your home, you lose on the stock market. Debt, income, jobs, houses, wealth, all the things that affect welfare. If that's not bad, what's bad?"
From an academic point of view, the question of what will happen next is fascinating because, says Roubini, it is "uncharted territory. Totally unorthodox monetary policy." He sees the size of the bank bail-outs as a necessary evil, but thinks they were pushed through without sufficient conditions or transparency, "with no real voting rights or board membership or other forms of control. I think the terms of some of those rescues have been excessively generous." When it comes to it, he says, "Who is getting all this money?"
It is tempting to turn to Roubini for answers as to a fortune-teller and with the same credulity that got us into this mess in the first place. But his track record makes it irresistible and he isn't shy of offering more predictions. The first is that, in his opinion, we might as well write off 2009 completely. Financially speaking it is, he says, "lost". In the game of Worst-Case Scenario, Roubini looks at the world's advanced economies and considers those most at risk of going bankrupt - of becoming the next Iceland - to be small western European nations. "If a big institution in Switzerland or the Netherlands or Belgium or Ireland were in trouble, the country doesn't have the resources to bail them out."
Britain is in as bad a state as the US and is further hampered, says Roubini, by "fiscal constraints" and the need for a European consensus that makes aggressive bail-outs more difficult to implement. In terms of the housing market, he sees it falling in both America and Britain this coming year by a minimum of 15% and possibly by as much as 25%. "Just to get back to where housing prices were before this bubble started, they'd have to fall in real terms by 50%. So we're half of the way there."
More hedge funds will go bust, but the trickle-down effect hasn't even begun to be felt yet. "The losses now are mostly in mortgages; wait until it hits commercial real estate, the credit card companies, the auto loans, the student loans, the corporate bonds. There's a whole pile of stuff. The financial system is insolvent. It's technically bankrupt."
We need some light relief. This seems a good time to bring up Roubini's spat with Gawker, the New York gossip website that, in what its founder Nick Denton describes to me as a "delicious episode", reprinted a leaked email Roubini sent to friends inviting them to one of his glamorous soirees, boasting that Scarlett Johansson had moved into the loft upstairs from him, having paid two and a half times more for it than he paid for his, and coyly referring to himself in the third person. Details also emerged of an artwork on Roubini's wall depicting some aspect of female genitalia. Given the wealth of this material, it was inevitable that Roubini should thenceforth be referred to on Gawker as the "playboy professor" who inhabited a "vulva" and "vagina-encrusted Tribeca loft", but the episode went from mildly bathetic to jaw-dropping when, instead of laughing it off, Roubini posted an extraordinary late-night rant on Denton's Facebook page in which he called him "a little loser antisemitic jerk", a "Nazi" and a "McCarthist bigot", and portentously defended what he called his "loft cultural events" - all of which, of course, Denton immediately posted on Gawker. I ask Roubini if he regretted that course of action, and he gives me a look of such angry disappointment that I want to hide under my chair.
No, he says, he didn't regret it. He then reprises the rant, embellishing it with references to the KGB, Denton's sexual orientation and a sweary suggestion of what the man might do with himself, which he belatedly asks me not to quote. For the sake of the record, I feel obliged to clarify that the piece of art in question is described by Roubini as the work of a highly regarded feminist artist whom he won't name and which doesn't, he assures me, look anything like a vulva.
There is a short, weird silence after which all I can think to ask, tremulously, is whether he has ever met Gordon Brown. Roubini switches back into his professorial mode without a ripple. No, he says, he hasn't met him - he was out of town that day - but thinks he is "a very thoughtful person" with "a very sophisticated understanding of economic issues". He has high hopes for the Obama administration and the economic team he has chosen. "It's an excellent team, they're very serious. But the recession train has left the station; even if they do everything right, perfectly, the benefits may only be seen in 2010."
As I get ready to leave, Roubini returns, compulsively, to the Gawker episode. He has every right to feel aggrieved about the spiteful forwarding of a private email, but he really can't see that laughing it off is the only effective response, nor that the tone was one chiefly of mischief, not malice. After the interview, Denton remarks, "How can such a brilliant economist, at the height of his reputation, be quite so clueless?"
Stubbornness is, of course, what got Roubini to where he is today. As we wait for the lift, he muses on the other side of his reputation. "This Dr Doom thing," he says. "You know, when it happens, I'll be the first person to say we're at the bottom and things can only get better. But we're not there yet." The doors close on him smiling with an air of grace under fire and he turns, with a chivalrous nod, to retreat to his office and more serious matters.
• Nouriel Roubini is taking part in the first debate of the Guardian's event series: Capitalism in crisis. For more info and to book tickets for the event go to guardian.co.uk/capitalismincrisis
Although others predicted the present economic troubles Roubini made quite specific and accurate predictions. At the time most economists laughed him off. Now he is right as can be seen in the article some claim he was just lucky. It does not seem likely. More likely is that those who were wrong about him are jealous!
The predictions that Roubini makes about what happens next seem quite persuasive to me at least but then I am not an economist!
He told us so
They called him Dr Doom. He was the economist who three years ago predicted in detail a collapse of the housing market and worldwide recession - and was roundly ridiculed for it. Emma Brockes asks Nouriel Roubini what he foresees now
Nouriel Roubini: 'To say I was just lucky is nonsense. I made specific predictions that turned out to be right.' Photograph: Andrew Testa/Andrew Testa
The New York offices of Nouriel Roubini's consultancy firm are as spare as the times: a desk, a phone, some blank Post-it notes and 134 pages printed from Wikipedia listing every bank in the world, all a superhero in the new austerity needs. Three years ago, Roubini, an economist, was dismissed as a doom-monger for identifying massive vulnerability in the US banking system and predicting its collapse. Now he's a guru, attracting the interest not only of governments and bank chiefs, but of New York's premiere gossip website, which has wound him up so spectacularly and to a pitch of such fury that - along with "Where did all the money go?" and "Is now a good time to buy a house?" - the question one most wants to ask of Roubini is exactly what does happen at his loft parties in downtown Manhattan?
It was the New York Times that dryly labelled him Dr Doom, in a profile last year that identified Roubini as an unlikely hero of the financial crisis. In 2006 he made an address to the IMF in which he predicted that, among other things, the US economy was at risk of a housing bust and deep recession that would have dire consequences for the rest of the world. Today he smiles demurely and says other people predicted it, too, but no one was as specific as Roubini, nor as grave, nor as subject to what passes in the sober world of economics for ridicule. At the time, his speech was received as the endearing quirk of an incorrigible self-dramatist, and even now some say he got lucky. When asked about Roubini, the economist Anirvan Banerjee told the New York Times, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
Mention of this makes Roubini rapidly jettison his modesty. He accuses economists who predicted growth in the build-up to the crisis of being as naive as Goldilocks and says, "They totally got it wrong. To say I was just lucky is nonsense. I made specific predictions that turned out to be right. Exactly." He cites a paper he wrote in February last year called 12 Steps To Financial Disaster, "in which every single step is exactly how the crisis unfolded during the past six months. Every single thing. I said two major broker dealers are going to go bust and there's not going to be any major independent broker dealer left in the next two years. It took seven months for Bear Stearns and Lehman to be gone. It's not a fuzzy case of me saying there would be a financial crisis. I was very specific. And I got it right. So." He shrugs and smiles tightly at the burden of being right in the face of widespread stupidity.
Why Roubini got there first had to do, perhaps, with his personal and professional backgrounds, and with what he calls his "holistic" approach to interpreting economic data. He was born in Istanbul, moved to Iran as a baby, then to Italy, where he grew up. He speaks four languages fluently (Farsi, English, Hebrew and Italian) and has worked around the world, including two years as a policy adviser to the US Treasury. What first tipped him off were similarities he noticed between developing parts of the world and the behaviour of the US economy. To his astonishment, he saw a pattern of economic movement in the US that by 2005 made it look like "an emerging market economy", with the same "irrational exuberance" that in his opinion could be followed only by a huge bust. "You look at history, you look at political data, you look at models, you look at comparisons," Roubini says. "This crisis is not a black swan event - a random outcome from a random distribution. This case is a build-up of vulnerabilities over time that will increase and provoke a crisis. There were tens of different signals that would eventually lead to a tipping point. The fact that there would be a crisis was totally obvious to me." With some sarcasm, he says, "People believed in the nonsense that home prices could rise every year by 20%. If that's not a bubble, what's a bubble? It doesn't take a genius."
The danger signs in a period of irrational exuberance look obvious in hindsight, and Roubini reels them off in a steely monotone, without pausing for breath: "People believing things they should not believe and trusting people they shouldn't trust... no market discipline, internal mismanagement, massive conflicts of interest within financial institutions, the SSC [State Securities Commission] not doing its job, entire brokerage units going bust, Bear is bust, Lehman's is bust, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are now converted into bank holding companies. What's the biggest scandal? Lehman? Madoff? They're all part of the same phenomenon."
Goldman Sachs was angry with Roubini for making public statements about its poor financial health, and fought back through press statements accusing him of working from nothing more than gut instinct. (This was before the investment bank posted losses of $2.2bn.) Like the BBC's Robert Peston, he has been accused of making a bad situation worse by talking it up in public. Roubini finds this absurd. "If Ben Bernanke speaks, he can move markets, but this idea that the media is making a bigger fuss than there is [cause for] is silly. This is the worst financial crisis we've had since the Great Depression. It's going to be the worst recession the global economy has had for the last 50 years. If anything, the media were ignoring what was going on for too long. The idea that it's all driven by panic and by lack of confidence, in my view, is nonsense. If you are a consumer, think about the fundamentals: negative savings for the last couple of years, debt growth, falling home prices, losing 50% of your equity values, falling employment, everything else is going wrong for you. Of course consumer confidence is going down the tube, but is it because people are irrational? No. Your income is falling, you lose your home, you lose on the stock market. Debt, income, jobs, houses, wealth, all the things that affect welfare. If that's not bad, what's bad?"
From an academic point of view, the question of what will happen next is fascinating because, says Roubini, it is "uncharted territory. Totally unorthodox monetary policy." He sees the size of the bank bail-outs as a necessary evil, but thinks they were pushed through without sufficient conditions or transparency, "with no real voting rights or board membership or other forms of control. I think the terms of some of those rescues have been excessively generous." When it comes to it, he says, "Who is getting all this money?"
It is tempting to turn to Roubini for answers as to a fortune-teller and with the same credulity that got us into this mess in the first place. But his track record makes it irresistible and he isn't shy of offering more predictions. The first is that, in his opinion, we might as well write off 2009 completely. Financially speaking it is, he says, "lost". In the game of Worst-Case Scenario, Roubini looks at the world's advanced economies and considers those most at risk of going bankrupt - of becoming the next Iceland - to be small western European nations. "If a big institution in Switzerland or the Netherlands or Belgium or Ireland were in trouble, the country doesn't have the resources to bail them out."
Britain is in as bad a state as the US and is further hampered, says Roubini, by "fiscal constraints" and the need for a European consensus that makes aggressive bail-outs more difficult to implement. In terms of the housing market, he sees it falling in both America and Britain this coming year by a minimum of 15% and possibly by as much as 25%. "Just to get back to where housing prices were before this bubble started, they'd have to fall in real terms by 50%. So we're half of the way there."
More hedge funds will go bust, but the trickle-down effect hasn't even begun to be felt yet. "The losses now are mostly in mortgages; wait until it hits commercial real estate, the credit card companies, the auto loans, the student loans, the corporate bonds. There's a whole pile of stuff. The financial system is insolvent. It's technically bankrupt."
We need some light relief. This seems a good time to bring up Roubini's spat with Gawker, the New York gossip website that, in what its founder Nick Denton describes to me as a "delicious episode", reprinted a leaked email Roubini sent to friends inviting them to one of his glamorous soirees, boasting that Scarlett Johansson had moved into the loft upstairs from him, having paid two and a half times more for it than he paid for his, and coyly referring to himself in the third person. Details also emerged of an artwork on Roubini's wall depicting some aspect of female genitalia. Given the wealth of this material, it was inevitable that Roubini should thenceforth be referred to on Gawker as the "playboy professor" who inhabited a "vulva" and "vagina-encrusted Tribeca loft", but the episode went from mildly bathetic to jaw-dropping when, instead of laughing it off, Roubini posted an extraordinary late-night rant on Denton's Facebook page in which he called him "a little loser antisemitic jerk", a "Nazi" and a "McCarthist bigot", and portentously defended what he called his "loft cultural events" - all of which, of course, Denton immediately posted on Gawker. I ask Roubini if he regretted that course of action, and he gives me a look of such angry disappointment that I want to hide under my chair.
No, he says, he didn't regret it. He then reprises the rant, embellishing it with references to the KGB, Denton's sexual orientation and a sweary suggestion of what the man might do with himself, which he belatedly asks me not to quote. For the sake of the record, I feel obliged to clarify that the piece of art in question is described by Roubini as the work of a highly regarded feminist artist whom he won't name and which doesn't, he assures me, look anything like a vulva.
There is a short, weird silence after which all I can think to ask, tremulously, is whether he has ever met Gordon Brown. Roubini switches back into his professorial mode without a ripple. No, he says, he hasn't met him - he was out of town that day - but thinks he is "a very thoughtful person" with "a very sophisticated understanding of economic issues". He has high hopes for the Obama administration and the economic team he has chosen. "It's an excellent team, they're very serious. But the recession train has left the station; even if they do everything right, perfectly, the benefits may only be seen in 2010."
As I get ready to leave, Roubini returns, compulsively, to the Gawker episode. He has every right to feel aggrieved about the spiteful forwarding of a private email, but he really can't see that laughing it off is the only effective response, nor that the tone was one chiefly of mischief, not malice. After the interview, Denton remarks, "How can such a brilliant economist, at the height of his reputation, be quite so clueless?"
Stubbornness is, of course, what got Roubini to where he is today. As we wait for the lift, he muses on the other side of his reputation. "This Dr Doom thing," he says. "You know, when it happens, I'll be the first person to say we're at the bottom and things can only get better. But we're not there yet." The doors close on him smiling with an air of grace under fire and he turns, with a chivalrous nod, to retreat to his office and more serious matters.
• Nouriel Roubini is taking part in the first debate of the Guardian's event series: Capitalism in crisis. For more info and to book tickets for the event go to guardian.co.uk/capitalismincrisis
Obama acts on Mideast but substance familiar
The same policy of isolating Hamas and working only with Abbas is evident in Obama's position so far on the Middle East. It is not that much different from that of Bush. Perhaps Hamas. It is not clear what change if any there will be in Obama's mid-east approach.
ANALYSIS-Obama acts fast on Mideast, but substance familiar
Jonathan WrightReuters North American News Service
Jan 23, 2009 08:05 EST
CAIRO, Jan 23 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama has taken the Middle East by surprise with the speed of his diplomacy but his first statement on the conflict between Arabs and Israelis was strikingly similar to old U.S. policies. There are some signs that Hamas and Fatah may try to reach some type of accomodation but their rivalry is longstanding and deep and encouraged by the US and Israel.
This is from Reuters via antiwar.com.
Arab leaders in the meantime are jumping in with their own proposals in the hope of helping to shape U.S. policy before the new administration sets it in stone.
Arab governments and commentators had expected Obama to take his time before turning his attention to the Middle East, concentrating instead on the U.S. economy and domestic concerns.
But the new president, only two days into office, appointed on Thursday a special envoy for the region, veteran mediator and former Senator George Mitchell, and said Mitchell would go to the Middle East as soon as possible.
Mitchell will try to ensure that an informal ceasefire between Israel and the Islamist movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip becomes durable and sustainable, Obama added.
One day earlier, Obama made telephone calls to Washington's long-standing allies in the Middle East - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah of Jordan.
The conservative Arab governments saw the calls as an affirmation of their privileged status -- another sign that Obama is sticking to traditional approaches.
"It took two longs days before Obama dispelled any notions of a change in U.S. Middle East policy," said As'ad Abu Khalil, Lebanese-born and pro-Palestinian professor of political science at California State Univerity.
"Obama's speech was quite something. It was like sprinkling sulphuric acid on the wounds of the children in Gaza," he added.
But Obama's diplomatic activism and promises of engagement on Arab-Israeli conflicts does at least address one of the conservatives' main grievances about former President George W. Bush -- that he ignored the conflict for too long and never put his full weight behind any Middle East peace plan.
A senior member of the Saudi ruling family, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said Bush had left "a sickening legacy" in the Middle East and had contributed through arrogance to Israel's slaughter of innocent people in Gaza over the past month.
"If the United States wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact ... it will have to revise drastically its policies vis a vis Israel and Palestine," he added.
Jamal Khashoggi, editor of the Saudi newspaper al-Watan, said the Saudi government was still optimistic about Obama, whom it sees as a possible friend to the Muslim world.
"Even the few Saudi officials who liked Bush were disappointed with him in the last two years," he added.
Maverick Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi took the opportunity of Obama's advent to refloat his own pet proposal -- that Israelis and Palestinians live together in one state.
"CONSTRUCTIVE ELEMENTS"
Prince Turki, a nephew of King Abdullah and a former ambassador to Washington, said Washington should back the Arab peace initiative of 2002, which offers Israel peace and normal relations in return for withdrawal to its 1967 borders.
In his policy statement on Thursday, Obama said the Arab peace offer contained what he called constructive elements.
But he then called on Arab governments to carry out their half of the bargain -- "taking steps towards normalising relations with Israel" -- without suggesting that Israel should meet the parallel Arab demand for territorial withdrawal.
Obama gave full backing to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Western-backed prime minister, ignoring the political weight of Hamas and other groups opposed to Abbas.
He repeated the controversial conditions which the Quartet of external powers in 2006 for dealing with Hamas -- recognising Israel, renouncing violence and accepting previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
Some analysts had speculated that Obama might bring a new approach to dealings with Hamas and other Middle East forces which retain the right to armed struggle against Israel.
Obama even linked ending the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza -- one of the roots of the recent fighting -- to restoring Abbas's control of Gaza's borders. That could perpetuate the present blockade for months or years to come.
U.S. reconstruction aid for Gaza will also be channelled exclusively through Abbas, who has no control over Gaza.
The new president followed the traditional U.S. approach of relying on Egypt to mediate between Israel and Hamas and to stop Hamas in Gaza receiving weapons through smuggling.
But Egypt failed to bring Hamas and Israel together on an agreed ceasefire and Israel says that Cairo's anti-smuggling efforts along the Gaza-Egypt border fall far short.
Hamas dismissed Obama's first venture into Middle East policy making as more of the same failed U.S. strategy.
"It seems Obama is trying to repeat the same mistakes that George Bush made without taking into consideration Bush's experience that resulted in the explosion of the region," the Hamas representative in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, told Al Jazeera.
The pro-Syrian Lebanese newspaper As-Safir added: "The new American President inspired by Bush's positions ... Obama continues the Israeli war on the Palestinian people."
"(Obama) disappointed many hopes set on his balance and moderate views towards the Arab-Israeli conflict, since his positions allows Israel to continue what it began in its last war on Gaza," the newspaper added. (Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy in Beirut and Riyadh newsroom; Editing by Samia Nakhoul)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
ANALYSIS-Obama acts fast on Mideast, but substance familiar
Jonathan WrightReuters North American News Service
Jan 23, 2009 08:05 EST
CAIRO, Jan 23 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama has taken the Middle East by surprise with the speed of his diplomacy but his first statement on the conflict between Arabs and Israelis was strikingly similar to old U.S. policies. There are some signs that Hamas and Fatah may try to reach some type of accomodation but their rivalry is longstanding and deep and encouraged by the US and Israel.
This is from Reuters via antiwar.com.
Arab leaders in the meantime are jumping in with their own proposals in the hope of helping to shape U.S. policy before the new administration sets it in stone.
Arab governments and commentators had expected Obama to take his time before turning his attention to the Middle East, concentrating instead on the U.S. economy and domestic concerns.
But the new president, only two days into office, appointed on Thursday a special envoy for the region, veteran mediator and former Senator George Mitchell, and said Mitchell would go to the Middle East as soon as possible.
Mitchell will try to ensure that an informal ceasefire between Israel and the Islamist movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip becomes durable and sustainable, Obama added.
One day earlier, Obama made telephone calls to Washington's long-standing allies in the Middle East - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah of Jordan.
The conservative Arab governments saw the calls as an affirmation of their privileged status -- another sign that Obama is sticking to traditional approaches.
"It took two longs days before Obama dispelled any notions of a change in U.S. Middle East policy," said As'ad Abu Khalil, Lebanese-born and pro-Palestinian professor of political science at California State Univerity.
"Obama's speech was quite something. It was like sprinkling sulphuric acid on the wounds of the children in Gaza," he added.
But Obama's diplomatic activism and promises of engagement on Arab-Israeli conflicts does at least address one of the conservatives' main grievances about former President George W. Bush -- that he ignored the conflict for too long and never put his full weight behind any Middle East peace plan.
A senior member of the Saudi ruling family, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said Bush had left "a sickening legacy" in the Middle East and had contributed through arrogance to Israel's slaughter of innocent people in Gaza over the past month.
"If the United States wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact ... it will have to revise drastically its policies vis a vis Israel and Palestine," he added.
Jamal Khashoggi, editor of the Saudi newspaper al-Watan, said the Saudi government was still optimistic about Obama, whom it sees as a possible friend to the Muslim world.
"Even the few Saudi officials who liked Bush were disappointed with him in the last two years," he added.
Maverick Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi took the opportunity of Obama's advent to refloat his own pet proposal -- that Israelis and Palestinians live together in one state.
"CONSTRUCTIVE ELEMENTS"
Prince Turki, a nephew of King Abdullah and a former ambassador to Washington, said Washington should back the Arab peace initiative of 2002, which offers Israel peace and normal relations in return for withdrawal to its 1967 borders.
In his policy statement on Thursday, Obama said the Arab peace offer contained what he called constructive elements.
But he then called on Arab governments to carry out their half of the bargain -- "taking steps towards normalising relations with Israel" -- without suggesting that Israel should meet the parallel Arab demand for territorial withdrawal.
Obama gave full backing to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Western-backed prime minister, ignoring the political weight of Hamas and other groups opposed to Abbas.
He repeated the controversial conditions which the Quartet of external powers in 2006 for dealing with Hamas -- recognising Israel, renouncing violence and accepting previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
Some analysts had speculated that Obama might bring a new approach to dealings with Hamas and other Middle East forces which retain the right to armed struggle against Israel.
Obama even linked ending the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza -- one of the roots of the recent fighting -- to restoring Abbas's control of Gaza's borders. That could perpetuate the present blockade for months or years to come.
U.S. reconstruction aid for Gaza will also be channelled exclusively through Abbas, who has no control over Gaza.
The new president followed the traditional U.S. approach of relying on Egypt to mediate between Israel and Hamas and to stop Hamas in Gaza receiving weapons through smuggling.
But Egypt failed to bring Hamas and Israel together on an agreed ceasefire and Israel says that Cairo's anti-smuggling efforts along the Gaza-Egypt border fall far short.
Hamas dismissed Obama's first venture into Middle East policy making as more of the same failed U.S. strategy.
"It seems Obama is trying to repeat the same mistakes that George Bush made without taking into consideration Bush's experience that resulted in the explosion of the region," the Hamas representative in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, told Al Jazeera.
The pro-Syrian Lebanese newspaper As-Safir added: "The new American President inspired by Bush's positions ... Obama continues the Israeli war on the Palestinian people."
"(Obama) disappointed many hopes set on his balance and moderate views towards the Arab-Israeli conflict, since his positions allows Israel to continue what it began in its last war on Gaza," the newspaper added. (Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy in Beirut and Riyadh newsroom; Editing by Samia Nakhoul)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Philippines: Senators warn of creeping militarization in government.
Arroyo has always faced problems of dissent within the military so she rewards those loyal to her and no doubt wants to ensure that she has control over the military. With her lack of support among the general populace Arroyo needs other means to stay in power. However, for the most part she seems to be able to bride and manipulate enough parliamentarians and local officials to keep them loyal to her. It remains to be seen whether she will be able to ram through constitutional change to allow her to remain in power.
Solons warn vs. military control
Say GMA moves could be prelude to martial law
BY JP LOPEZ
SENATORS yesterday questioned what they called "creeping militarization" in government with the appointment of retired and controversial generals, and warned that the moves could be a prelude to declaration of martial law or emergency rule.
"Para sa milyong Pilipino na walang tiwala sa administrasyon, ang ibig sabihin nito’y pinaliligiran na ni GMA ang sarili niya ng mga taong walang kwestiyon sa anumang iligal na utos mula sa Pangulo. Martial law na ba ang kasunod nito?" said Sen. Mar Roxas.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the appointments of retired generals could be part of President Arroyo’s plan to consolidate her power base.
"What is her power base? The base is no longer the Filipino people in that sense because almost eight out of 10 are disappointed. So, if the people no longer trust the President, where will she get her support? She is getting it now from the active and retired military men. She’s getting it from the Armed Forces," he said.
Senate minority leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said the latest assignments are proof of what he called the awesome influence, if not control, that some generals wield over the Arroyo government.
Tirso Danga, a former vice admiral, has been appointed to head the National Printing Office which prints government forms and documents including election returns and ballots.
He was one of the key figures in the 2005 "Hello Garci" controversy along with former peace adviser Hermogenes Esperon.
Esperon, a former AFP chief, has been tapped to replace Cerge Remonde as director of the Presidential Management Staff (PMS). Remonde will be press secretary effective Feb. 1.
The PMS is tasked with managing the development and formulation of projects and policies of the Office of the President.
Avelino Razon, a former PNP chief and mistah of Esperon in PMA Class 1974, is new peace adviser.
Jovito Palparan, a former major general in the Army, is being groomed for a position at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency or Dangerous Drugs Board.
Palparan has been blamed by militants for the extra-judicial killings and disappearances of political activists reported since 2001.
Roxas expressed deep suspicions on the move of Arroyo to appoint Danga.
"Sa pag-appoint ni GMA kay Danga sa NPO ay lalo lang tumindi ang suspetsa natin na walang balak si GMA na gawing malinis ang susunod na halalan," Roxas said.
Roxas said Danga’s appointment to NPO could be Plan B if President Arroyo and her allies in Congress fail to ram through Charter change through a Constituent Assembly.
"Hindi pa nga nasasagot ni Admiral Danga ang mga tanong sa kanyang naging papel sa kaso ng Hello Garci ay eto at siya pa ang ilalagay sa ahensyang gagawa ng mga balota para sa eleksyon. Talagang garapalan na ang ginagawa ng Malacanang," he said.
"What assurance do we have that this is not a plot to manipulate the printing of ballots for the 2010 elections for the benefit of the administration? None, given this administration’s black record of cheating, stealing and lying," Roxas said.
Pimentel said instead of resurrecting Palparan’s career, President Arroyo should pursue his criminal prosecution.
"We cannot tolerate a situation where suspects in drug-related offenses will just disappear or be found floating in the Pasig River," Pimentel said.
"I believe that it would be better for the Arroyo government to drop its plan to name Palparan as a chief enforcer of our drug laws. It is like putting a hammer and knocking it against one’s head," he said.
Pimentel questioned the qualifications of Esperon for the PMS post.
He noted that during Esperon’s stint as peace adviser, peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front suffered a setback when the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain was voided by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional.
LESSER PERSONS
Remonde defended the appointment and nominees of retired military and police officials in the Cabinet.
"It is unfair to discriminate against former military generals, I mean are they lesser persons? Are they lesser qualified because they are former generals?"
Retired military officials in government are Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita; Arturo Carillo, military affairs adviser; Honesto Isleta, presidential assistant on strategic information; Glenn Rabonza, Office of the Civil defense executive director and national disaster coordinating council administrator; Angel Atutubo, Manila International Airport Authority assistant general manager; Thelmo Cunanan, chairman of the Social Security System; and Proceso Maligalig, head of Bataan Shipyard.
Retired police generals are Razon; Arturo Lomibao, incoming LTFRB chief; Edgar Aglipay, chair of the Philippine Retirement Agency; Hermogenes Ebdane Jr., public works secretary; Leandro Mendoza, transportation and communications secretary; and Roberto Lastimoso, director of Metro Rail Transit Corp.
Former AFP chiefs of staff in government are Angelo Reyes, secretary of energy; Narciso Abaya, chair of Bases Conversion Development Authority; Dionisio Santiago, PDEA director;
Roy Cimatu, special envoy to Middle East; Efren Abu, ambassador to Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines-East Asia growth Area (BIMP-EAGA); and Generoso Senga, ambassador to Iran.
Other uniformed officials who have been appointed are Orlando Macaspac, presidential adviser for police affairs; Florencio Fianza, former chairman of the Philippine Racing Commission; Vidal Querol, ambassador to Indonesia; and Ernesto de Leon, ambassador to Australia.
Remonde dismissed observations that the appointment of some uniformed officials is in anticipation of a declaration of martial law, or even a possible term extension for Arroyo, saying it is an "over reaction" and a "very convenient boogeyman" being raised by critics. – With Jocelyn Montemayor
Solons warn vs. military control
Say GMA moves could be prelude to martial law
BY JP LOPEZ
SENATORS yesterday questioned what they called "creeping militarization" in government with the appointment of retired and controversial generals, and warned that the moves could be a prelude to declaration of martial law or emergency rule.
"Para sa milyong Pilipino na walang tiwala sa administrasyon, ang ibig sabihin nito’y pinaliligiran na ni GMA ang sarili niya ng mga taong walang kwestiyon sa anumang iligal na utos mula sa Pangulo. Martial law na ba ang kasunod nito?" said Sen. Mar Roxas.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the appointments of retired generals could be part of President Arroyo’s plan to consolidate her power base.
"What is her power base? The base is no longer the Filipino people in that sense because almost eight out of 10 are disappointed. So, if the people no longer trust the President, where will she get her support? She is getting it now from the active and retired military men. She’s getting it from the Armed Forces," he said.
Senate minority leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said the latest assignments are proof of what he called the awesome influence, if not control, that some generals wield over the Arroyo government.
Tirso Danga, a former vice admiral, has been appointed to head the National Printing Office which prints government forms and documents including election returns and ballots.
He was one of the key figures in the 2005 "Hello Garci" controversy along with former peace adviser Hermogenes Esperon.
Esperon, a former AFP chief, has been tapped to replace Cerge Remonde as director of the Presidential Management Staff (PMS). Remonde will be press secretary effective Feb. 1.
The PMS is tasked with managing the development and formulation of projects and policies of the Office of the President.
Avelino Razon, a former PNP chief and mistah of Esperon in PMA Class 1974, is new peace adviser.
Jovito Palparan, a former major general in the Army, is being groomed for a position at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency or Dangerous Drugs Board.
Palparan has been blamed by militants for the extra-judicial killings and disappearances of political activists reported since 2001.
Roxas expressed deep suspicions on the move of Arroyo to appoint Danga.
"Sa pag-appoint ni GMA kay Danga sa NPO ay lalo lang tumindi ang suspetsa natin na walang balak si GMA na gawing malinis ang susunod na halalan," Roxas said.
Roxas said Danga’s appointment to NPO could be Plan B if President Arroyo and her allies in Congress fail to ram through Charter change through a Constituent Assembly.
"Hindi pa nga nasasagot ni Admiral Danga ang mga tanong sa kanyang naging papel sa kaso ng Hello Garci ay eto at siya pa ang ilalagay sa ahensyang gagawa ng mga balota para sa eleksyon. Talagang garapalan na ang ginagawa ng Malacanang," he said.
"What assurance do we have that this is not a plot to manipulate the printing of ballots for the 2010 elections for the benefit of the administration? None, given this administration’s black record of cheating, stealing and lying," Roxas said.
Pimentel said instead of resurrecting Palparan’s career, President Arroyo should pursue his criminal prosecution.
"We cannot tolerate a situation where suspects in drug-related offenses will just disappear or be found floating in the Pasig River," Pimentel said.
"I believe that it would be better for the Arroyo government to drop its plan to name Palparan as a chief enforcer of our drug laws. It is like putting a hammer and knocking it against one’s head," he said.
Pimentel questioned the qualifications of Esperon for the PMS post.
He noted that during Esperon’s stint as peace adviser, peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front suffered a setback when the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain was voided by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional.
LESSER PERSONS
Remonde defended the appointment and nominees of retired military and police officials in the Cabinet.
"It is unfair to discriminate against former military generals, I mean are they lesser persons? Are they lesser qualified because they are former generals?"
Retired military officials in government are Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita; Arturo Carillo, military affairs adviser; Honesto Isleta, presidential assistant on strategic information; Glenn Rabonza, Office of the Civil defense executive director and national disaster coordinating council administrator; Angel Atutubo, Manila International Airport Authority assistant general manager; Thelmo Cunanan, chairman of the Social Security System; and Proceso Maligalig, head of Bataan Shipyard.
Retired police generals are Razon; Arturo Lomibao, incoming LTFRB chief; Edgar Aglipay, chair of the Philippine Retirement Agency; Hermogenes Ebdane Jr., public works secretary; Leandro Mendoza, transportation and communications secretary; and Roberto Lastimoso, director of Metro Rail Transit Corp.
Former AFP chiefs of staff in government are Angelo Reyes, secretary of energy; Narciso Abaya, chair of Bases Conversion Development Authority; Dionisio Santiago, PDEA director;
Roy Cimatu, special envoy to Middle East; Efren Abu, ambassador to Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines-East Asia growth Area (BIMP-EAGA); and Generoso Senga, ambassador to Iran.
Other uniformed officials who have been appointed are Orlando Macaspac, presidential adviser for police affairs; Florencio Fianza, former chairman of the Philippine Racing Commission; Vidal Querol, ambassador to Indonesia; and Ernesto de Leon, ambassador to Australia.
Remonde dismissed observations that the appointment of some uniformed officials is in anticipation of a declaration of martial law, or even a possible term extension for Arroyo, saying it is an "over reaction" and a "very convenient boogeyman" being raised by critics. – With Jocelyn Montemayor
Pakistan urges Obama to halt missile attacks
This is from antiwar.com.
It seems that on use of drones both Obama and Bush are on the same wave length. Both Democrats and Republicans are hawks on the war on terror. Obama does wish to do away with some of the most glaring injustices of the Bush era in terms of interrogation and Guantanamo but otherwise in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is business as usual. In Afghanistan there is clearly a ramping up of activity and Obama's very own surge. In Afghanistan too there are constant complaints about air attacks. As with Bush, Obama's administration refuses even to admit to the drone attacks a ludicrous policy.
Pakistan urges Obama to halt missile attacks
Pakistan urges Obama to halt missile strikes, says latest attack killed civilians
ASIF SHAHZADAP News
Jan 24, 2009 11:52 EST
Pakistan urged President Barack Obama to halt U.S. missile strikes on al-Qaida strongholds near the Afghan border, saying Saturday that civilians were killed the previous day in the first attacks since Obama's inauguration.
Pakistani security officials said eight suspected foreign militants, including an Egyptian al-Qaida operative, were among 22 people killed in Friday's twin strikes in the Waziristan region.
But the Foreign Ministry said that the attacks by unmanned aircraft also killed an unspecified number of civilians and that it had informed U.S. officials of its "great concern."
"With the advent of the new U.S. administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism," a ministry statement said.
"We maintain that these attacks are counterproductive and should be discontinued," it said.
Pakistani leaders complain that stepped-up missile strikes — there have been more than 30 since August — fan anti-American sentiment and undermine the government's own efforts to counter Islamist militants.
But their protests have had few practical consequences, fueling speculation that Islamabad's cash-strapped, pro-U.S. government has given tacit approval in return for political and financial support from Washington.
Obama has not commented on the missile strike policy.
However, he has made the war in Afghanistan and the intertwined al-Qaida fight in Pakistan an immediate foreign policy priority. Few observers expect him to ditch a tactic that U.S. officials say has killed a string of militant leaders behind the insurgency in Afghanistan — and who were perhaps plotting terrorist attacks in the West.
Three intelligence officials told The Associated Press that funerals were held Saturday for nine Pakistanis killed Friday in Zharki, a village in the North Waziristan region.
The officials, citing reports from field agents and residents, said Taliban fighters had earlier removed the bodies of five suspected foreign militants who also died in the first missile strike Friday. Initial reports put the death toll from that attack at 10.
A senior security official in the capital, Islamabad, identified one of the slain men as a suspected al-Qaida operative called Mustafa al-Misri. He said it was unclear if the man was a significant figure.
The second strike hit a house in the South Waziristan region. Residents and security officials say eight people died in the village of Gangi Khel.
Resident Allah Noor Wazir said he attended funerals for the owner of the targeted house, Din Faraz, his three sons and a guest.
"I also heard that three bodies had been taken away by Taliban. They say they belong to foreigners," Wazir told the AP by telephone.
The security officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
The United States does not directly acknowledge firing the missiles, which are believed to be mostly fired from drones operated by the CIA and launched from neighboring Afghanistan.
Pakistan's government has little control over the border region, which is considered a likely hiding place for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders.
While protesting the missile strikes, Pakistan's government on Saturday also welcomed Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
A Foreign Ministry statement Saturday said the move was a step toward "upholding the primacy of the rule of law" and would add a "much-needed moral dimension in dealing with terrorism."
Pakistan helped the United States round up hundreds of militants in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including several al-Qaida leaders still incarcerated at Guantanamo.
___
It seems that on use of drones both Obama and Bush are on the same wave length. Both Democrats and Republicans are hawks on the war on terror. Obama does wish to do away with some of the most glaring injustices of the Bush era in terms of interrogation and Guantanamo but otherwise in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is business as usual. In Afghanistan there is clearly a ramping up of activity and Obama's very own surge. In Afghanistan too there are constant complaints about air attacks. As with Bush, Obama's administration refuses even to admit to the drone attacks a ludicrous policy.
Pakistan urges Obama to halt missile attacks
Pakistan urges Obama to halt missile strikes, says latest attack killed civilians
ASIF SHAHZADAP News
Jan 24, 2009 11:52 EST
Pakistan urged President Barack Obama to halt U.S. missile strikes on al-Qaida strongholds near the Afghan border, saying Saturday that civilians were killed the previous day in the first attacks since Obama's inauguration.
Pakistani security officials said eight suspected foreign militants, including an Egyptian al-Qaida operative, were among 22 people killed in Friday's twin strikes in the Waziristan region.
But the Foreign Ministry said that the attacks by unmanned aircraft also killed an unspecified number of civilians and that it had informed U.S. officials of its "great concern."
"With the advent of the new U.S. administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism," a ministry statement said.
"We maintain that these attacks are counterproductive and should be discontinued," it said.
Pakistani leaders complain that stepped-up missile strikes — there have been more than 30 since August — fan anti-American sentiment and undermine the government's own efforts to counter Islamist militants.
But their protests have had few practical consequences, fueling speculation that Islamabad's cash-strapped, pro-U.S. government has given tacit approval in return for political and financial support from Washington.
Obama has not commented on the missile strike policy.
However, he has made the war in Afghanistan and the intertwined al-Qaida fight in Pakistan an immediate foreign policy priority. Few observers expect him to ditch a tactic that U.S. officials say has killed a string of militant leaders behind the insurgency in Afghanistan — and who were perhaps plotting terrorist attacks in the West.
Three intelligence officials told The Associated Press that funerals were held Saturday for nine Pakistanis killed Friday in Zharki, a village in the North Waziristan region.
The officials, citing reports from field agents and residents, said Taliban fighters had earlier removed the bodies of five suspected foreign militants who also died in the first missile strike Friday. Initial reports put the death toll from that attack at 10.
A senior security official in the capital, Islamabad, identified one of the slain men as a suspected al-Qaida operative called Mustafa al-Misri. He said it was unclear if the man was a significant figure.
The second strike hit a house in the South Waziristan region. Residents and security officials say eight people died in the village of Gangi Khel.
Resident Allah Noor Wazir said he attended funerals for the owner of the targeted house, Din Faraz, his three sons and a guest.
"I also heard that three bodies had been taken away by Taliban. They say they belong to foreigners," Wazir told the AP by telephone.
The security officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
The United States does not directly acknowledge firing the missiles, which are believed to be mostly fired from drones operated by the CIA and launched from neighboring Afghanistan.
Pakistan's government has little control over the border region, which is considered a likely hiding place for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders.
While protesting the missile strikes, Pakistan's government on Saturday also welcomed Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
A Foreign Ministry statement Saturday said the move was a step toward "upholding the primacy of the rule of law" and would add a "much-needed moral dimension in dealing with terrorism."
Pakistan helped the United States round up hundreds of militants in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including several al-Qaida leaders still incarcerated at Guantanamo.
___
Saturday, January 24, 2009
New Beginnings in Pakistan: Drones Part II
This is from timesonline.
The same imperial arrogance as we saw with Bush. The same collateral damage to innocents in this remote controlled justice which has a mechanical monster controlled by someone safely removed the scene being both judge and carrying out punishment without trial or anyone testing evidence.
The new Pakistan govt. is trying again to negotiate with some tribes. No doubt the US will not like that. The US does not like Pakistan troops being moved to the border with India. However Paksitani troops no doubt find it a relief. It is safe there!
January 23, 2009
President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'
Tim Reid in Washington
Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed.
Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives.
Dozens of similar strikes since August on northwest Pakistan, a hotbed of Taleban and al-Qaeda militancy, have sparked angry government criticism of the US, which is targeting the area with missiles launched from unmanned CIA aircraft controlled from operation rooms inside the US.
The operations were stepped up last year after frustration inside the Bush administration over a perceived failure by Islamabad to stem the flow of Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters from the tribal regions into Afghanistan. Mr Obama has made Afghanistan his top foreign policy priority and said during his presidential campaign that he would consider military action inside Pakistan if the government there was unable or unwilling to take on the militants.
The strikes come just a day after Mr Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke, a former UN ambassador, as a special envoy for the region.
Eight people died when missiles hit a compound near Mir Ali, an al-Qaeda hub in Pakistan's North Waziristan region. Seven more died when hours later two missiles hit a house in Wana, in South Waziristan. Local officials said the target in Wana was a guest house owned by a pro-Taleban tribesman. One said that as well as three children, the tribesman's relatives were killed in the blast.
Pakistan has objected to such attacks, saying they are a violation of its territory that undermines its efforts to tackle militants. Since September, the US is estimated to have carried out about 30 such attacks, killing more than 220 people.
The same imperial arrogance as we saw with Bush. The same collateral damage to innocents in this remote controlled justice which has a mechanical monster controlled by someone safely removed the scene being both judge and carrying out punishment without trial or anyone testing evidence.
The new Pakistan govt. is trying again to negotiate with some tribes. No doubt the US will not like that. The US does not like Pakistan troops being moved to the border with India. However Paksitani troops no doubt find it a relief. It is safe there!
January 23, 2009
President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'
Tim Reid in Washington
Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed.
Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives.
Dozens of similar strikes since August on northwest Pakistan, a hotbed of Taleban and al-Qaeda militancy, have sparked angry government criticism of the US, which is targeting the area with missiles launched from unmanned CIA aircraft controlled from operation rooms inside the US.
The operations were stepped up last year after frustration inside the Bush administration over a perceived failure by Islamabad to stem the flow of Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters from the tribal regions into Afghanistan. Mr Obama has made Afghanistan his top foreign policy priority and said during his presidential campaign that he would consider military action inside Pakistan if the government there was unable or unwilling to take on the militants.
The strikes come just a day after Mr Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke, a former UN ambassador, as a special envoy for the region.
Eight people died when missiles hit a compound near Mir Ali, an al-Qaeda hub in Pakistan's North Waziristan region. Seven more died when hours later two missiles hit a house in Wana, in South Waziristan. Local officials said the target in Wana was a guest house owned by a pro-Taleban tribesman. One said that as well as three children, the tribesman's relatives were killed in the blast.
Pakistan has objected to such attacks, saying they are a violation of its territory that undermines its efforts to tackle militants. Since September, the US is estimated to have carried out about 30 such attacks, killing more than 220 people.
China asks for return of Uighurs held in Guantanamo
I assume these Uighurs have Chinese citizenship. The article does not say whether the Uighurs would be willing to go back to China, probably not since they might very well face charges of being terrorists. I should imagine the same would be the case if US citizens had trained in camps in Afghanistan!
Some groups in the US have offered to help integrate them into the US but the Bush administration would not allow this. Perhaps Obama will.
China Asks for Return of Uighurs Held in Guantanamo (Update1)
By James Peng
Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- China called for the early return of 17 Chinese Uighurs from the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison as President Barack Obama ordered the closure of the detention center holding suspected terrorists within a year.
“We oppose other nations taking these suspects and they should be repatriated to China immediately to be dealt with by Chinese law,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yusaid yesterday, according to the ministry’s Web site. The issue should be handled according to international law, she said.
China blames the separatist East Turkistan Islamic Movement for bomb attacks in the predominantly Muslim far western region of Xinjiang. Police detained almost 100 people there before the Beijing Olympic Games in August for allegedly plotting attacks, the official Xinhua News Agency reported in July.
Uighurs, who are mainly Muslim, make up half of Xinjiang’s 20.5 million people, according to the provincial government’s office in Beijing. While the Chinese Uighurs were originally cleared for release in 2004, the U.S. government said it couldn’t find any country willing to accept them and was concerned they would be persecuted if they returned to China.
The Uighurs were living in a self-contained camp in Afghanistan when the U.S.-led coalition’s bombing campaign to oust the Taliban regime began in October 2001. They fled to the mountains and were turned over to Pakistani authorities, who then handed them to the U.S.
Enemy Combatants
A U.S. court ruled in October that former President George W. Bush’s administration must immediately release the detainees, saying they should no longer be considered enemy combatants in the war on terrorism. A second court blocked the order later that month.
The U.S. lists the East Turkistan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization because of alleged links to al-Qaeda.
Obama said he will form an inter-agency government task force to advise him on how to deal with the 245 detainees now at Guantanamo.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday a number of legal issues must be resolved with the Justice Department regarding Guantanamo, including where some of the detainees will go after the prison is closed.
China’s suppression of dissidents, especially rights advocates in Tibet and Xinjiang regions, remains a source of tension in relations with major trading partners including the U.S. and European Union.
To contact the reporter on this story: James Peng in Hong Kong at jpeng7@bloomberg.net Last Updated: January 23, 2009 00:22 EST
Some groups in the US have offered to help integrate them into the US but the Bush administration would not allow this. Perhaps Obama will.
China Asks for Return of Uighurs Held in Guantanamo (Update1)
By James Peng
Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- China called for the early return of 17 Chinese Uighurs from the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison as President Barack Obama ordered the closure of the detention center holding suspected terrorists within a year.
“We oppose other nations taking these suspects and they should be repatriated to China immediately to be dealt with by Chinese law,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yusaid yesterday, according to the ministry’s Web site. The issue should be handled according to international law, she said.
China blames the separatist East Turkistan Islamic Movement for bomb attacks in the predominantly Muslim far western region of Xinjiang. Police detained almost 100 people there before the Beijing Olympic Games in August for allegedly plotting attacks, the official Xinhua News Agency reported in July.
Uighurs, who are mainly Muslim, make up half of Xinjiang’s 20.5 million people, according to the provincial government’s office in Beijing. While the Chinese Uighurs were originally cleared for release in 2004, the U.S. government said it couldn’t find any country willing to accept them and was concerned they would be persecuted if they returned to China.
The Uighurs were living in a self-contained camp in Afghanistan when the U.S.-led coalition’s bombing campaign to oust the Taliban regime began in October 2001. They fled to the mountains and were turned over to Pakistani authorities, who then handed them to the U.S.
Enemy Combatants
A U.S. court ruled in October that former President George W. Bush’s administration must immediately release the detainees, saying they should no longer be considered enemy combatants in the war on terrorism. A second court blocked the order later that month.
The U.S. lists the East Turkistan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization because of alleged links to al-Qaeda.
Obama said he will form an inter-agency government task force to advise him on how to deal with the 245 detainees now at Guantanamo.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday a number of legal issues must be resolved with the Justice Department regarding Guantanamo, including where some of the detainees will go after the prison is closed.
China’s suppression of dissidents, especially rights advocates in Tibet and Xinjiang regions, remains a source of tension in relations with major trading partners including the U.S. and European Union.
To contact the reporter on this story: James Peng in Hong Kong at jpeng7@bloomberg.net Last Updated: January 23, 2009 00:22 EST
Friday, January 23, 2009
Obama ready to cut Karzai adrift.
The imperialist structure of US relationships with countries such as Afghanistan are often implicit and embedded without the least consciousness it would seem in many news reports. Why cannot the headline be that Karzai is ready to cut adrift from Obama? Because the dependency relationship is the other way around. Of course the US prattles on about the fledgling democracy in Afghanistan. It does not prattle on about the fledgling democracy in Gaza because the wrong people are elected there. Now it seems that the US is going to obviously intervene as much as it can in Afghanistan to see that a new puppet is installed as president. The real issue is not corruption and the drug trade so much as independence and constant criticism of the US for civilian deaths. With an Obama surge there will be more civilian deaths and the last thing that is needed is more criticism of those. At first Karzai was the darling of the West but he has not been a proper puppet and so he must go.
Obama ready to cut Karzai adrift
As support for Afghan leader wanes, rivals go to Washington for meeting with new President
By Jerome Starkey and Kim Sengupta in KabulFriday, 23 January 2009
Reuters
Afghan leader Hamid Karzai may find himself on the receiving end of President Obama's axe-wielding
Barack Obama's arrival in the White House and the wind of change sweeping through Washington could lead to the ousting from power of Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, The Independent has learnt.
International support for Mr Karzai, who was once the darling of the West, has waned spectacularly, amid worsening violence, endemic corruption and weak leadership. But until very recently, diplomats insisted there were no viable alternatives even as fighting has intensified and the Taliban insurgency in the south has grown. But four key figures believed to be challenging Mr Karzai have arrived in Washington for meetings with Obama administration officials this week. There is now talk of a "dream ticket" that would see the main challengers run together to unite the country's various ethnic groups and wrest control away from Mr Karzai.
"The Americans aren't going to determine the outcome of the election, but they could suggest to people they put their differences aside and form a dream ticket," said a senior US analyst in Kabul.
Mr Obama has already started getting to grips with the challenge of Afghanistan; he received a briefing on the coming American troop "surge" from General David Petraeus on Wednesday, his first full day in the Oval Office. Last night, Mr Obama appointed the veteran US diplomat, Richard Holbrooke, as his new special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The unofficial delegation to Washington was made up of three ex-ministers and a serving governor. Dr Abdullah Abdullah was the foreign minister, Dr Ashraf Ghani served as finance minister, Ali Ahmad Jalali was interior minister and Gul Agha Sherzai is the governor of the eastern province of Nangahar, where US troops are based. When Mr Obama visited Afghanistan in July he met Governor Sherzai in Jalalabad, even before he saw President Karzai in Kabul. "They are not going to blindly back President Karzai like the Bush administration did for so long," said John Dempsey, head of the United States Institute of Peace in Kabul. On the ground in Afghanistan, Camp Bastion in Helmand province is already becoming the symbol of the Americanisation of the war in the south. US forces have started arriving and will be joined by many more. Airfields are to be built to bring in transport and warplanes in preparation for a coming offensive with the dispatch of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.
Karzai officials had hoped Hillary Clinton, now the US Secretary of State, would prove their ally in White House. But those hopes were dashed last week when she branded Afghanistan a "narco-state" with a government "plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption" during her confirmation hearing.
Ahmed Wali Karzai, the Afghan president's brother, was named last October in leaked US intelligence reports as a major narco-trafficker. The allegations, vigorously denied by both men, are widespread in Afghanistan but, until then, Western officials had refused to corroborate them. But the leak was seen as a shot across Mr Karzai's bows from the Bush administration, to make him clean up his act and rein in his brother. The flurry of criticism suggests the international community is less than happy with his response. Mrs Clinton's remarks coincided with stinging criticism from Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who said corrupt and inefficient government was as much to blame for instability as the insurgents. Writing in The Washington Post, he said: "The basic problem in Afghanistan is not too much Taliban; it's too little good governance."
Individually, Mr Karzai's rivals risk splitting their support base. Together, diplomats are optimistic they could win the election, expected next summer, and reinvigorate a jaded population. "We need to create a new momentum, like in 2001," said Haroun Mir, co-founder of the Afghanistan Centre for Research and Policy Studies. "Change will bring hope, because right now the momentum is with the Taliban."
The planning for new policies on Afghanistan has been going on for months by Pentagon and State Department staff in anticipation of Mr Obama's inauguration. One official said: "We have to come up with fresh innovative ideas on counter-insurgency, counter-narcotics, governance, development. Now they are drafting in people from other departments. There is no doubt we neglected Afghanistan after the Taliban fell but there is a worry that we may be trying to do too much, too fast now."
A slew of initiatives are on the way. They include the arming of local groups to fight the Taliban, in the way Sunni militias were used against insurgents by General Petraeus in Iraq.
US, British and Nato forces will also play a much more direct role in counter-narcotics operations in an effort to tackle Afghanistan's heroin trade which provides 93 per cent of the world's supply of the drug.
Some policy analysts insist it is impossible to blame the Afghan president for all his country's ills. They say the international community has been ineffective, often divided and international military effort was focused on catching terrorists, not quelling an insurgency for far too long.
British anger at Taliban patients
British soldiers complain that they are being forced to share hospital facilities in Afghanistan with Taliban fighters. Enemy combatants are treated at the Camp Bastion Field Hospital in line with the Geneva Convention. But personnel are objecting to the traditional war-time practice. "My friends... were waking up in the hospital to find Taliban in the bed next to them," one soldier said. "The last thing they want to see when they come round is the Taliban on the same ward. It's just not right."
The Ministry of Defence said it had not received any complaints.
The challengers: Who might replace Karzai?
Gul Agha Sherzai
A veteran of the wars against the Soviets, Mr Sherzai (whose name means "son of a lion") is a former governor of Kandahar criticised for human rights abuses. He escaped assassination in 2006.
Dr Abdullah Abdullah
Although half Pashtun, he is considered a leader of Afghanistan's Tajik population. He was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2001 and served until 2006.
Ali Ahmad Jalali
An ethnic Pashtun and former colonel, Jalali joined the anti-Soviet resistance after the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979. He took US citizenship and spent 20 years broadcasting for Voice of America.
Dr Ashraf Ghani
An ethnic Pashtun, he studied in America, at Colombia University. He worked at the World Bank from 1991 to 2001, when he returned to Afghanistan for the first time in 24 years. From 2002-04 he was Finance Minister and oversaw the successful transition to Afghanistan's new currency.
Obama ready to cut Karzai adrift
As support for Afghan leader wanes, rivals go to Washington for meeting with new President
By Jerome Starkey and Kim Sengupta in KabulFriday, 23 January 2009
Reuters
Afghan leader Hamid Karzai may find himself on the receiving end of President Obama's axe-wielding
Barack Obama's arrival in the White House and the wind of change sweeping through Washington could lead to the ousting from power of Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, The Independent has learnt.
International support for Mr Karzai, who was once the darling of the West, has waned spectacularly, amid worsening violence, endemic corruption and weak leadership. But until very recently, diplomats insisted there were no viable alternatives even as fighting has intensified and the Taliban insurgency in the south has grown. But four key figures believed to be challenging Mr Karzai have arrived in Washington for meetings with Obama administration officials this week. There is now talk of a "dream ticket" that would see the main challengers run together to unite the country's various ethnic groups and wrest control away from Mr Karzai.
"The Americans aren't going to determine the outcome of the election, but they could suggest to people they put their differences aside and form a dream ticket," said a senior US analyst in Kabul.
Mr Obama has already started getting to grips with the challenge of Afghanistan; he received a briefing on the coming American troop "surge" from General David Petraeus on Wednesday, his first full day in the Oval Office. Last night, Mr Obama appointed the veteran US diplomat, Richard Holbrooke, as his new special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The unofficial delegation to Washington was made up of three ex-ministers and a serving governor. Dr Abdullah Abdullah was the foreign minister, Dr Ashraf Ghani served as finance minister, Ali Ahmad Jalali was interior minister and Gul Agha Sherzai is the governor of the eastern province of Nangahar, where US troops are based. When Mr Obama visited Afghanistan in July he met Governor Sherzai in Jalalabad, even before he saw President Karzai in Kabul. "They are not going to blindly back President Karzai like the Bush administration did for so long," said John Dempsey, head of the United States Institute of Peace in Kabul. On the ground in Afghanistan, Camp Bastion in Helmand province is already becoming the symbol of the Americanisation of the war in the south. US forces have started arriving and will be joined by many more. Airfields are to be built to bring in transport and warplanes in preparation for a coming offensive with the dispatch of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.
Karzai officials had hoped Hillary Clinton, now the US Secretary of State, would prove their ally in White House. But those hopes were dashed last week when she branded Afghanistan a "narco-state" with a government "plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption" during her confirmation hearing.
Ahmed Wali Karzai, the Afghan president's brother, was named last October in leaked US intelligence reports as a major narco-trafficker. The allegations, vigorously denied by both men, are widespread in Afghanistan but, until then, Western officials had refused to corroborate them. But the leak was seen as a shot across Mr Karzai's bows from the Bush administration, to make him clean up his act and rein in his brother. The flurry of criticism suggests the international community is less than happy with his response. Mrs Clinton's remarks coincided with stinging criticism from Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who said corrupt and inefficient government was as much to blame for instability as the insurgents. Writing in The Washington Post, he said: "The basic problem in Afghanistan is not too much Taliban; it's too little good governance."
Individually, Mr Karzai's rivals risk splitting their support base. Together, diplomats are optimistic they could win the election, expected next summer, and reinvigorate a jaded population. "We need to create a new momentum, like in 2001," said Haroun Mir, co-founder of the Afghanistan Centre for Research and Policy Studies. "Change will bring hope, because right now the momentum is with the Taliban."
The planning for new policies on Afghanistan has been going on for months by Pentagon and State Department staff in anticipation of Mr Obama's inauguration. One official said: "We have to come up with fresh innovative ideas on counter-insurgency, counter-narcotics, governance, development. Now they are drafting in people from other departments. There is no doubt we neglected Afghanistan after the Taliban fell but there is a worry that we may be trying to do too much, too fast now."
A slew of initiatives are on the way. They include the arming of local groups to fight the Taliban, in the way Sunni militias were used against insurgents by General Petraeus in Iraq.
US, British and Nato forces will also play a much more direct role in counter-narcotics operations in an effort to tackle Afghanistan's heroin trade which provides 93 per cent of the world's supply of the drug.
Some policy analysts insist it is impossible to blame the Afghan president for all his country's ills. They say the international community has been ineffective, often divided and international military effort was focused on catching terrorists, not quelling an insurgency for far too long.
British anger at Taliban patients
British soldiers complain that they are being forced to share hospital facilities in Afghanistan with Taliban fighters. Enemy combatants are treated at the Camp Bastion Field Hospital in line with the Geneva Convention. But personnel are objecting to the traditional war-time practice. "My friends... were waking up in the hospital to find Taliban in the bed next to them," one soldier said. "The last thing they want to see when they come round is the Taliban on the same ward. It's just not right."
The Ministry of Defence said it had not received any complaints.
The challengers: Who might replace Karzai?
Gul Agha Sherzai
A veteran of the wars against the Soviets, Mr Sherzai (whose name means "son of a lion") is a former governor of Kandahar criticised for human rights abuses. He escaped assassination in 2006.
Dr Abdullah Abdullah
Although half Pashtun, he is considered a leader of Afghanistan's Tajik population. He was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2001 and served until 2006.
Ali Ahmad Jalali
An ethnic Pashtun and former colonel, Jalali joined the anti-Soviet resistance after the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979. He took US citizenship and spent 20 years broadcasting for Voice of America.
Dr Ashraf Ghani
An ethnic Pashtun, he studied in America, at Colombia University. He worked at the World Bank from 1991 to 2001, when he returned to Afghanistan for the first time in 24 years. From 2002-04 he was Finance Minister and oversaw the successful transition to Afghanistan's new currency.
Ben White: Israel Wanted a Humanitarian Crisis
This is an interesting article in that it sees Israeli aims in Gaza quite differently than many other commentators. Of course the standard interpretation is that it is a defensive move to stop rocket attacks by Hamas and that it is also to show Israel is tough before upcoming elections and also to redeem the military after the Lebanon incursion. While there is no doubt an element of truth in all of these this article goes beyond those to suggest other important aims. First to weaken and humiliate Hamas, second to educate Palestinians so that they will not choose Hamas again and finally to destroy Palestinian institutions in Gaza to make them easier to dominate.
Certainly the peace process also shows that the west and Israel will do their best to isolate and weaken Hamas and strengthen Abbas and Fatah. Aid is to be channelled through Abbas and not Hamas even though Hamas runs the Gaza strip. One might think that it is rather absurd to not have both warring parties involved in peace negotiations and the actual administration delivering aid. But since Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation ordinary rationality goes out the window right away.
Israel Wanted a Humanitarian Crisis
Targeting civilians was a deliberate part of this bid to humiliate Hamas and the Palestinians, and pulverise Gaza into chaos
By Ben White
January 21, 2009 " The Guardian " -- -The scale of Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip, and the almost daily reports of war crimes over the last three weeks, has drawn criticism from even longstanding friends and sympathisers. Despite the Israeli government's long-planned and comprehensive PR campaign, hundreds of dead children is a hard sell. As a former Israeli government press adviser put it, in a wonderful bit of unintentional irony, "When you have a Palestinian kid facing an Israeli tank, how do you explain that the tank is actually David and the kid is Goliath?"
Despite a mass of evidence that includes Israel's targets in Operation Cast Lead, public remarks by Israeli leaders over some time, and the ceasefire manoeuvring of this last weekend, much of the analysis offered by politicians or commentators has been disappointingly limited, and characterised by false assumptions, or misplaced emphases, about Israel's motivations.
First, to what this war on Gaza is not about: it's not about the rockets. During the truce last year, rocket fire from the Gaza Strip was reduced by 97%, with the few projectiles that were fired coming from non-Hamas groups opposed to the agreement. Despite this success in vastly improving the security of Israelis in the south, Israel did everything it could to undermine the calm, and provoke Hamas into a conflict.
Israel broke the ceasefire on 4 November, with an attack in the Gaza Strip that killed six Hamas members, and the following day severely tightened its siege of the territory. Imports were reduced to 16 trucks a day, down from 123 daily just the previous month (and 475 in May 2007). Following the unsurprising surge in Palestinian attacks, Israeli officials claimed that an all-out war was unavoidable; without mentioning that an operation had been planned for some months already.
Second, the current operation is only in a limited sense related to both the upcoming Israeli elections and restoring the IDF's so-called deterrence. While it has been pointed out that a hardline approach to Palestinian "terrorism" can play well with the Israeli public, wars are not necessarily Israeli politicians' tactic of choice - the Lebanon war was fought a few months after one.
Israel is also supposed to be restoring the reputation and "deterrence factor" of its armed forces, after their humiliation in Lebanon in 2006. Suffice to say that until this weekend's unilateral ceasefire, in an aid-dependent enclave defended by an almost entirely isolated militia, Israel's operation had already lasted three times longer than the 1967 war when Israel defeated its Arab neighbours and occupied the rest of Mandate Palestine.
These three suggested motivations have sometimes reached the level of assumed knowledge, providing the background for further comment and reporting. Based on this kind of analysis, then, criticism of Palestinian civilian casualties is framed as "disproportionate" or "heavy-handed", but fundamentally a case of self-defence. It is understood that any democratic nation would have to respond to terrorist rocket fire, but Israel has gone a bit too far.
There is, however, no shortage of evidence available that points to rather different Israeli aims. Estimates for the proportion of civilian deaths among the 1,360 Palestinians killed range from more than half to two-thirds. Politicians, diplomats and journalists are by and large shying away from the obvious, namely that Israel has been deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians and the very infrastructure of normal life, in order to - in the best colonial style - teach the natives a lesson.
Given the enormous scale of what Palestinians have described as a "war of extermination" - it appears that some 15% of all buildings in the Gaza Strip were completely destroyed or collapsed and there is an estimated $1.4bn worth of destruction to vital civil infrastructure - it is impossible to list every atrocity. Israel has repeatedly hit ambulances, medics, clinics, and hospitals, while last week, aid volunteers who tried to douse a fire in a Red Crescent warehouse (attacked by Israel) were then shot at by Israeli forces.
UNRWA facilities have also been attacked, including several schools sheltering civilians - just this last weekend, a civilian refuge was repeatedly shelled. Last week, the UN headquarters was also shelled, hitting a vocational centre, a workshop, food warehouse, and fuel depot. Like the massacre of 6 January, Israeli officials quickly began to produce a confusing fog of denials, apologies, promised enquiries and contradictions.
Those are just some of the more shocking examples from a military operation that has targeted everything from schools, money-changers and a bird farm, to entire apartment blocks, harbours, and a market. Palestinians have been killed when Israeli tanks fired shells at residential neighbourhoods. Every day has brought fresh horrors; last Wednesday, for example, 70 unarmed civilians including 18 children were killed by the Israeli military. This week's Observer carried a story alleging Israel bulldozed homes with civilians inside (not for the first time) and shot those waving white flags. Little wonder that Israeli officials predicted with concern that "negative sentiment" towards the state would "only grow as the full picture of destruction emerges".
Much of this is widely known, and easily accessible; yet still the analytical emphasis has remained on Palestinian rockets, Israeli elections, and deterrence. I would like to suggest three alternative purposes for Israel's Operation Cast Lead that go beyond the usual perspectives, and presuming with Yale professor David Bromwich that "if Israel in 2009 reduces to rubble a large portion of the Gaza Strip and leaves tens of thousands homeless, there is a strong chance that this was what it intended to do".
The first aim is to humiliate and weaken Hamas. On the one hand, this seems obvious, but contrary to how the goal is often understood, this is not primarily to protect the Israeli public - as pointed out previously, ceasefires and negotiations are far more likely to deliver security for Israeli citizens - but rather it is a political goal. Hamas had withstood isolation, a siege, mass arrests, and an attempted western-backed coup. Moreover, cracks were appearing in the international community's resolve to parrot Israel's line on Hamas. The group, with its resilience and ability to deliver on negotiated ceasefires, was threatening the chance to make a deal with the Ramallah "moderates", and so:
A hammer blow that shattered the movement, launching some of the resulting splinters in directions that once again put all of them beyond the pale, was the most effective way to keep at bay those third parties reaching the conclusion that engaging rather than excluding Hamas could enhance the prospects of peace.
Back in December, before both the end of the six-month truce and the start of Operation Cast Lead, foreign minister Tzipi Livni stated that an extended truce "harms the Israel strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement". By the end of the month, Livni would be telling a press conference that "Hamas wants to gain legitimacy from the international community" and stressing that it is "important to keep Hamas from becoming a legitimate organisation" (apparently winning a democratic election isn't enough to confer legitimacy).
Just as Israel chose "blood over diplomacy" in order to avoid enhancing "Hamas's image as a responsible interlocutor", so this weekend, Israel chose a unilateral ceasefire for the same reason, "hoping to send the message that Hamas is not a legitimate actor". A war begun in order to delegitimise Hamas would not make way for a ceasefire in which Hamas was a partner at the negotiating table.
Hence Israel decided to shortcut the Egyptian-driven efforts at securing a ceasefire, and opt for a unilateral approach that allows Israel, the US, Egypt, Mahmoud Abbas, Britain - in fact, every interested party, except the Gaza Strip authorities - to work together on an apparent solution. It is also worth pointing out that the unilateral nature of the ceasefire frees Israel to define an infringement or collapse on its own terms.
The second aim of Israel's war is to teach a lesson to the Palestinians in Gaza, and elsewhere, that the only way to avoid the wrath of the Israeli military is to accept Israel's idea of a two-state solution, a generous concession to be gratefully received by Abbas and fellow moderates. It is a reflection of the approach outlined by the IDF chief of staff, Moshe Ya'alon, in 2002 that "the Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people".
On 4 January, Israeli President Shimon Peres said that Hamas needed "a real and serious lesson"; days later, he was more explicit, reportedly declaring Israel's aim to be "to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel". The next day, the Washington Post also described how Israeli officials were hoping that the attacks would mean "that Gazans become disgusted with Hamas and drive the group from power".
This Israeli strategy was previously deployed in Lebanon in 2006, when senior military commanders redefined civilian villages as "military bases" which would be subjected to "disproportionate force" causing "great damage and destruction". As I previously noted, the lessons learned in Lebanon were not just wrong, but criminal: a retired IDF major general and former adviser to the prime minister, Giora Eiland, reflected in a paper that "the destruction of homes and infrastructure and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are consequences that can influence Hezbollah's behaviour more than anything else".
Ironically, the same Peres who now justifies collective punishment, in 2002 chastised Avigdor Lieberman for suggesting that the IDF should bomb civilian targets, warning the minister that such a tactic would be a war crime. The last three weeks show that proposals made by Israel's political extremists and originally considered outlandish, do not take long to become normal policy.
Deliberately targeting civilians and vital infrastructure for political purposes links smoothly, into the post-conflict phase, with the Israeli and US plan to try and rescue the deeply discredited image of the Palestinian Authority through a politicised reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. As US state department spokesman Sean McCormack coyly put it, the "military solution" must be followed up by investing in infrastructure and helping the population "so that they can make a different kind of political decision".
The third aim of Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip is to further "catastrophise" the territory, reducing the capacity for continued existence to the barest of minimums - perhaps to bring about "an end to the persistence of Gaza's ordinary people in wanting the chance of a peaceful and dignified life". One obvious benefit to Israel of pulverising "civilian Palestinian infrastructure" is that "people who lack collective institutions and are reduced to scrabbling for their very survival are easier to dominate".
Yet, there is more going on here. Israel seeks to turn the Gaza Strip into a depoliticised humanitarian crisis, always on the brink of catastrophe, always dependent; its population reduced to ration-receiving clients of international aid. Yitzhak Rabin famously wished that Gaza "would just sink into the sea", but perhaps the best Israel can do is to share the problem with the international community, possibly to the extent of troops on the ground.
Increasingly focusing on Egyptian responsibility is also part of this, whether in terms of arms smuggling, aid supplies, or for some, direct rule.
In all of this, the Gaza Strip has become a laboratory for future possible scenarios in the West Bank (where a process of "development-isation" and NGO-funded occupation is well established). All three of these Israeli aims - to delegitimise and sideline Hamas, to persuade Palestinians to give up their resistance and to shirk responsibility for a shattered Gaza Strip - require the deliberate commission of war crimes and gross human rights abuses. As time will tell, they are also doomed to fail.
Ben White is a writer living in Sao Paulo, Brazil. He has spent several summers in Palestine/Israel based in the West Bank and written extensively on the Middle East.
© 2009 Guardian News and Media Limited
Certainly the peace process also shows that the west and Israel will do their best to isolate and weaken Hamas and strengthen Abbas and Fatah. Aid is to be channelled through Abbas and not Hamas even though Hamas runs the Gaza strip. One might think that it is rather absurd to not have both warring parties involved in peace negotiations and the actual administration delivering aid. But since Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation ordinary rationality goes out the window right away.
Israel Wanted a Humanitarian Crisis
Targeting civilians was a deliberate part of this bid to humiliate Hamas and the Palestinians, and pulverise Gaza into chaos
By Ben White
January 21, 2009 " The Guardian " -- -The scale of Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip, and the almost daily reports of war crimes over the last three weeks, has drawn criticism from even longstanding friends and sympathisers. Despite the Israeli government's long-planned and comprehensive PR campaign, hundreds of dead children is a hard sell. As a former Israeli government press adviser put it, in a wonderful bit of unintentional irony, "When you have a Palestinian kid facing an Israeli tank, how do you explain that the tank is actually David and the kid is Goliath?"
Despite a mass of evidence that includes Israel's targets in Operation Cast Lead, public remarks by Israeli leaders over some time, and the ceasefire manoeuvring of this last weekend, much of the analysis offered by politicians or commentators has been disappointingly limited, and characterised by false assumptions, or misplaced emphases, about Israel's motivations.
First, to what this war on Gaza is not about: it's not about the rockets. During the truce last year, rocket fire from the Gaza Strip was reduced by 97%, with the few projectiles that were fired coming from non-Hamas groups opposed to the agreement. Despite this success in vastly improving the security of Israelis in the south, Israel did everything it could to undermine the calm, and provoke Hamas into a conflict.
Israel broke the ceasefire on 4 November, with an attack in the Gaza Strip that killed six Hamas members, and the following day severely tightened its siege of the territory. Imports were reduced to 16 trucks a day, down from 123 daily just the previous month (and 475 in May 2007). Following the unsurprising surge in Palestinian attacks, Israeli officials claimed that an all-out war was unavoidable; without mentioning that an operation had been planned for some months already.
Second, the current operation is only in a limited sense related to both the upcoming Israeli elections and restoring the IDF's so-called deterrence. While it has been pointed out that a hardline approach to Palestinian "terrorism" can play well with the Israeli public, wars are not necessarily Israeli politicians' tactic of choice - the Lebanon war was fought a few months after one.
Israel is also supposed to be restoring the reputation and "deterrence factor" of its armed forces, after their humiliation in Lebanon in 2006. Suffice to say that until this weekend's unilateral ceasefire, in an aid-dependent enclave defended by an almost entirely isolated militia, Israel's operation had already lasted three times longer than the 1967 war when Israel defeated its Arab neighbours and occupied the rest of Mandate Palestine.
These three suggested motivations have sometimes reached the level of assumed knowledge, providing the background for further comment and reporting. Based on this kind of analysis, then, criticism of Palestinian civilian casualties is framed as "disproportionate" or "heavy-handed", but fundamentally a case of self-defence. It is understood that any democratic nation would have to respond to terrorist rocket fire, but Israel has gone a bit too far.
There is, however, no shortage of evidence available that points to rather different Israeli aims. Estimates for the proportion of civilian deaths among the 1,360 Palestinians killed range from more than half to two-thirds. Politicians, diplomats and journalists are by and large shying away from the obvious, namely that Israel has been deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians and the very infrastructure of normal life, in order to - in the best colonial style - teach the natives a lesson.
Given the enormous scale of what Palestinians have described as a "war of extermination" - it appears that some 15% of all buildings in the Gaza Strip were completely destroyed or collapsed and there is an estimated $1.4bn worth of destruction to vital civil infrastructure - it is impossible to list every atrocity. Israel has repeatedly hit ambulances, medics, clinics, and hospitals, while last week, aid volunteers who tried to douse a fire in a Red Crescent warehouse (attacked by Israel) were then shot at by Israeli forces.
UNRWA facilities have also been attacked, including several schools sheltering civilians - just this last weekend, a civilian refuge was repeatedly shelled. Last week, the UN headquarters was also shelled, hitting a vocational centre, a workshop, food warehouse, and fuel depot. Like the massacre of 6 January, Israeli officials quickly began to produce a confusing fog of denials, apologies, promised enquiries and contradictions.
Those are just some of the more shocking examples from a military operation that has targeted everything from schools, money-changers and a bird farm, to entire apartment blocks, harbours, and a market. Palestinians have been killed when Israeli tanks fired shells at residential neighbourhoods. Every day has brought fresh horrors; last Wednesday, for example, 70 unarmed civilians including 18 children were killed by the Israeli military. This week's Observer carried a story alleging Israel bulldozed homes with civilians inside (not for the first time) and shot those waving white flags. Little wonder that Israeli officials predicted with concern that "negative sentiment" towards the state would "only grow as the full picture of destruction emerges".
Much of this is widely known, and easily accessible; yet still the analytical emphasis has remained on Palestinian rockets, Israeli elections, and deterrence. I would like to suggest three alternative purposes for Israel's Operation Cast Lead that go beyond the usual perspectives, and presuming with Yale professor David Bromwich that "if Israel in 2009 reduces to rubble a large portion of the Gaza Strip and leaves tens of thousands homeless, there is a strong chance that this was what it intended to do".
The first aim is to humiliate and weaken Hamas. On the one hand, this seems obvious, but contrary to how the goal is often understood, this is not primarily to protect the Israeli public - as pointed out previously, ceasefires and negotiations are far more likely to deliver security for Israeli citizens - but rather it is a political goal. Hamas had withstood isolation, a siege, mass arrests, and an attempted western-backed coup. Moreover, cracks were appearing in the international community's resolve to parrot Israel's line on Hamas. The group, with its resilience and ability to deliver on negotiated ceasefires, was threatening the chance to make a deal with the Ramallah "moderates", and so:
A hammer blow that shattered the movement, launching some of the resulting splinters in directions that once again put all of them beyond the pale, was the most effective way to keep at bay those third parties reaching the conclusion that engaging rather than excluding Hamas could enhance the prospects of peace.
Back in December, before both the end of the six-month truce and the start of Operation Cast Lead, foreign minister Tzipi Livni stated that an extended truce "harms the Israel strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement". By the end of the month, Livni would be telling a press conference that "Hamas wants to gain legitimacy from the international community" and stressing that it is "important to keep Hamas from becoming a legitimate organisation" (apparently winning a democratic election isn't enough to confer legitimacy).
Just as Israel chose "blood over diplomacy" in order to avoid enhancing "Hamas's image as a responsible interlocutor", so this weekend, Israel chose a unilateral ceasefire for the same reason, "hoping to send the message that Hamas is not a legitimate actor". A war begun in order to delegitimise Hamas would not make way for a ceasefire in which Hamas was a partner at the negotiating table.
Hence Israel decided to shortcut the Egyptian-driven efforts at securing a ceasefire, and opt for a unilateral approach that allows Israel, the US, Egypt, Mahmoud Abbas, Britain - in fact, every interested party, except the Gaza Strip authorities - to work together on an apparent solution. It is also worth pointing out that the unilateral nature of the ceasefire frees Israel to define an infringement or collapse on its own terms.
The second aim of Israel's war is to teach a lesson to the Palestinians in Gaza, and elsewhere, that the only way to avoid the wrath of the Israeli military is to accept Israel's idea of a two-state solution, a generous concession to be gratefully received by Abbas and fellow moderates. It is a reflection of the approach outlined by the IDF chief of staff, Moshe Ya'alon, in 2002 that "the Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people".
On 4 January, Israeli President Shimon Peres said that Hamas needed "a real and serious lesson"; days later, he was more explicit, reportedly declaring Israel's aim to be "to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel". The next day, the Washington Post also described how Israeli officials were hoping that the attacks would mean "that Gazans become disgusted with Hamas and drive the group from power".
This Israeli strategy was previously deployed in Lebanon in 2006, when senior military commanders redefined civilian villages as "military bases" which would be subjected to "disproportionate force" causing "great damage and destruction". As I previously noted, the lessons learned in Lebanon were not just wrong, but criminal: a retired IDF major general and former adviser to the prime minister, Giora Eiland, reflected in a paper that "the destruction of homes and infrastructure and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are consequences that can influence Hezbollah's behaviour more than anything else".
Ironically, the same Peres who now justifies collective punishment, in 2002 chastised Avigdor Lieberman for suggesting that the IDF should bomb civilian targets, warning the minister that such a tactic would be a war crime. The last three weeks show that proposals made by Israel's political extremists and originally considered outlandish, do not take long to become normal policy.
Deliberately targeting civilians and vital infrastructure for political purposes links smoothly, into the post-conflict phase, with the Israeli and US plan to try and rescue the deeply discredited image of the Palestinian Authority through a politicised reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. As US state department spokesman Sean McCormack coyly put it, the "military solution" must be followed up by investing in infrastructure and helping the population "so that they can make a different kind of political decision".
The third aim of Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip is to further "catastrophise" the territory, reducing the capacity for continued existence to the barest of minimums - perhaps to bring about "an end to the persistence of Gaza's ordinary people in wanting the chance of a peaceful and dignified life". One obvious benefit to Israel of pulverising "civilian Palestinian infrastructure" is that "people who lack collective institutions and are reduced to scrabbling for their very survival are easier to dominate".
Yet, there is more going on here. Israel seeks to turn the Gaza Strip into a depoliticised humanitarian crisis, always on the brink of catastrophe, always dependent; its population reduced to ration-receiving clients of international aid. Yitzhak Rabin famously wished that Gaza "would just sink into the sea", but perhaps the best Israel can do is to share the problem with the international community, possibly to the extent of troops on the ground.
Increasingly focusing on Egyptian responsibility is also part of this, whether in terms of arms smuggling, aid supplies, or for some, direct rule.
In all of this, the Gaza Strip has become a laboratory for future possible scenarios in the West Bank (where a process of "development-isation" and NGO-funded occupation is well established). All three of these Israeli aims - to delegitimise and sideline Hamas, to persuade Palestinians to give up their resistance and to shirk responsibility for a shattered Gaza Strip - require the deliberate commission of war crimes and gross human rights abuses. As time will tell, they are also doomed to fail.
Ben White is a writer living in Sao Paulo, Brazil. He has spent several summers in Palestine/Israel based in the West Bank and written extensively on the Middle East.
© 2009 Guardian News and Media Limited
Hamas calls for Palestinian reconciliation
While this is obviously a good idea in terms of strengthening the Palestinians hand in dealing with Israel reconciliation will be difficult. The Abbas group's links to Israel contrasts with the struggle of Hamas and other groups. The US and Israel will do everything possible to isolate Hamas and prevent any coalition govt. or reconciliation.
It is interesting that the West and Israel are supporting a Palestinian authority that lost an election and isolating the democratically elected Hamas. Of course it will be claimed that Hamas seized power in Gaza but it seems that was to avoid a planned coup by Fatah supported by the west. Given that the international community insists on giving aid to Fatah and not to Hamas it is hard to see how the aid is going to get to where it is needed unless Fatah and Hamas work out some modus vivendi. This could be the beginning of reconciliation if both groups are willing to work in the interest of Palestinians as a whole instead of their own agendas.
Hamas calls for Palestinian reconciliation
By ALBERT AJI – 1 hour ago
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Hamas called Thursday for reconciliation with supporters of rival Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas but insisted on pursuing "resistance" against Israel.
The condition appeared to preclude any agreement with Abbas, who seeks a peace deal with Israel and whose moderate Fatah faction was not among the groups that backed the statement by Hamas and seven other Damascus-based radical Palestinian factions.
The call came days after Israel ended a devastating 23-day war with the Islamic militant rulers of Gaza that Palestinian officials say killed about 1,300 people in the territory.
Hamas seized control of Gaza from Fatah by force in 2007 and Fatah set up a rival Palestinian government in the West Bank. It has been conducting peace talks with Israel for more than a year.
The eight factions said they will reject any political reconciliation deals that hinder the "continuity of the resistance" against Israel, a condition Fatah is sure to reject.
Israel had no immediate comment.
The U.S. and Israel consider Hamas a terrorist group. It is sworn to Israel's destruction, a stance that has brought international efforts to isolate Gaza under its rule.
Abbas' prime minister, Salam Fayyad, made an urgent plea for reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, saying the alternative is a permanent rift that will destroy Palestinians' dreams for a state of their own.
"The world would like to help us but everyone says that we should have a national unity government," he said after meeting with donor country representatives in his West Bank office Thursday.
But Hamas leaders have been cool to suggestions of power-sharing with Fatah after the war.
While they were calling for national reconciliation, senior Hamas officials also insisted Thursday that Hamas have sole control over all international donations to rebuild Gaza, saying Fatah cannot be trusted to handle the aid.
"We have a legitimate government in Gaza that came through a democratic choice, and it is working on the streets, and it is a legitimate body to receive the aid and to rebuild Gaza," Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas official in Gaza, told The Associated Press.
But President Barack Obama said Abbas' Palestinian Authority should control the aid.
"The United States will fully support an international donor's conference to seek short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy," Obama said at the State Department. "This assistance will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority."
A Hamas spokesman criticized Obama's position toward the militant group.
"Obama is still on the same path as previous leaders and also will make the same mistakes as Bush that ignited the region instead of bringing stability," said Osama Hamdan, a Hamas official in Beirut, Lebanon.
Hamdan told Al-Jazeera television that Obama will meet failure in the region if he sticks with his current position. "Obama is insisting on not bringing any change even though his campaign slogan promised to bring change," Hamdan said.
Earlier, Sami Khater, a member of the Damascus-based Hamas political leadership-in-exile, said Arab and international donations to aid Gaza should go directly to Hamas and be distributed through an independent Arab body that must supervise reconstruction.
"Frankly, the funds shouldn't go to the Palestinian Authority because, according to previous experience, this authority cannot be trusted," Khater told the AP.
Control over reconstruction funds would put huge sums of aid money expected to flood in from abroad at Hamas' fingertips and could also give the group a measure of international recognition.
Saudi Arabia alone has pledged $1 billion for Gaza's reconstruction, and the international community has promised massive help.
Israel launched its devastating air and ground assault on Dec. 27 to try to halt rocket fire from Gaza. Both sides ceased fire on Sunday.
For Gaza's reconstruction to begin, blockaded border crossings will have to be opened to allow supplies and aid in. But that remains a thorny issue.
Israel and Egypt have kept the crossings largely closed since Hamas seized power over Gaza in June 2007, choking off most supplies to the tiny seaside territory and trapping most of its 1.4 million people inside. Hamas says the borders must be opened as part of any long-term cease-fire deal.
Some sort of reconciliation between the rival Palestinian factions could be key to a workable plan for setting up border controls to stop weapons smuggling to Hamas through the Gaza-Egypt border, a key Israeli demand.
Egypt has said it will only open its border with Gaza if Abbas' Palestinian Authority forces take up positions there, in line with a 2005 agreement.
Hamas has long demanded control over the crossing with Egypt.
Associated Press writer Mohammed Daraghmeh in Ramallah, West Bank, contributed to this report.
It is interesting that the West and Israel are supporting a Palestinian authority that lost an election and isolating the democratically elected Hamas. Of course it will be claimed that Hamas seized power in Gaza but it seems that was to avoid a planned coup by Fatah supported by the west. Given that the international community insists on giving aid to Fatah and not to Hamas it is hard to see how the aid is going to get to where it is needed unless Fatah and Hamas work out some modus vivendi. This could be the beginning of reconciliation if both groups are willing to work in the interest of Palestinians as a whole instead of their own agendas.
Hamas calls for Palestinian reconciliation
By ALBERT AJI – 1 hour ago
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Hamas called Thursday for reconciliation with supporters of rival Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas but insisted on pursuing "resistance" against Israel.
The condition appeared to preclude any agreement with Abbas, who seeks a peace deal with Israel and whose moderate Fatah faction was not among the groups that backed the statement by Hamas and seven other Damascus-based radical Palestinian factions.
The call came days after Israel ended a devastating 23-day war with the Islamic militant rulers of Gaza that Palestinian officials say killed about 1,300 people in the territory.
Hamas seized control of Gaza from Fatah by force in 2007 and Fatah set up a rival Palestinian government in the West Bank. It has been conducting peace talks with Israel for more than a year.
The eight factions said they will reject any political reconciliation deals that hinder the "continuity of the resistance" against Israel, a condition Fatah is sure to reject.
Israel had no immediate comment.
The U.S. and Israel consider Hamas a terrorist group. It is sworn to Israel's destruction, a stance that has brought international efforts to isolate Gaza under its rule.
Abbas' prime minister, Salam Fayyad, made an urgent plea for reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, saying the alternative is a permanent rift that will destroy Palestinians' dreams for a state of their own.
"The world would like to help us but everyone says that we should have a national unity government," he said after meeting with donor country representatives in his West Bank office Thursday.
But Hamas leaders have been cool to suggestions of power-sharing with Fatah after the war.
While they were calling for national reconciliation, senior Hamas officials also insisted Thursday that Hamas have sole control over all international donations to rebuild Gaza, saying Fatah cannot be trusted to handle the aid.
"We have a legitimate government in Gaza that came through a democratic choice, and it is working on the streets, and it is a legitimate body to receive the aid and to rebuild Gaza," Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas official in Gaza, told The Associated Press.
But President Barack Obama said Abbas' Palestinian Authority should control the aid.
"The United States will fully support an international donor's conference to seek short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy," Obama said at the State Department. "This assistance will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority."
A Hamas spokesman criticized Obama's position toward the militant group.
"Obama is still on the same path as previous leaders and also will make the same mistakes as Bush that ignited the region instead of bringing stability," said Osama Hamdan, a Hamas official in Beirut, Lebanon.
Hamdan told Al-Jazeera television that Obama will meet failure in the region if he sticks with his current position. "Obama is insisting on not bringing any change even though his campaign slogan promised to bring change," Hamdan said.
Earlier, Sami Khater, a member of the Damascus-based Hamas political leadership-in-exile, said Arab and international donations to aid Gaza should go directly to Hamas and be distributed through an independent Arab body that must supervise reconstruction.
"Frankly, the funds shouldn't go to the Palestinian Authority because, according to previous experience, this authority cannot be trusted," Khater told the AP.
Control over reconstruction funds would put huge sums of aid money expected to flood in from abroad at Hamas' fingertips and could also give the group a measure of international recognition.
Saudi Arabia alone has pledged $1 billion for Gaza's reconstruction, and the international community has promised massive help.
Israel launched its devastating air and ground assault on Dec. 27 to try to halt rocket fire from Gaza. Both sides ceased fire on Sunday.
For Gaza's reconstruction to begin, blockaded border crossings will have to be opened to allow supplies and aid in. But that remains a thorny issue.
Israel and Egypt have kept the crossings largely closed since Hamas seized power over Gaza in June 2007, choking off most supplies to the tiny seaside territory and trapping most of its 1.4 million people inside. Hamas says the borders must be opened as part of any long-term cease-fire deal.
Some sort of reconciliation between the rival Palestinian factions could be key to a workable plan for setting up border controls to stop weapons smuggling to Hamas through the Gaza-Egypt border, a key Israeli demand.
Egypt has said it will only open its border with Gaza if Abbas' Palestinian Authority forces take up positions there, in line with a 2005 agreement.
Hamas has long demanded control over the crossing with Egypt.
Associated Press writer Mohammed Daraghmeh in Ramallah, West Bank, contributed to this report.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Kolko: How to Inflame the Entire Muslim World
Gabriel Kolko (born 1932) is a historian and author.
Kolko received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1962. Following graduation he taught at the University of Pennsylvania and at SUNY-Buffalo. He joined the York University History Department in 1970 and is now an emeritus professor of history there.
This is from antiwar.com.
While the Arab street may be inflamed it seems that countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are still willing to accomodate Israel and also there is the Abbas group which ultimately may profit from weakening of Hamas although that remains to be seen. In any event so far the inflamed Muslim world seems completely powerless to do much. No doubt Israel's actions may recruit more jihadists and the war on terror will continue unabated. However, over the short term it would seem that Hamas will be too weak to do much to harm Israel or have any power to make Israel change its ways.
White phosphorus use is not illegal but only when used as smokescreen. However it would seem that Israel used it differently. Some claim that a new type of weapon the tungsten bomb was being used. No doubt Israel used the conflict to test new weapons.
How to Inflame the Entire Muslim World
by Gabriel Kolko
How will history describe the Israeli war against the Palestinians in Gaza? Another Holocaust, this time perpetrated by the descendants of the victims? An election ploy by ambitious Israeli politicians to win votes in the February 10 elections? A test range for new American weapons? An effort to lock the new Obama Administration into an anti-Iranian position? An attempt to establish its military "credibility" after its disastrous defeat in the war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006? Perhaps all of these…and more.
But one thing is certain. Israel has killed at least 100 Palestinians for each of its own claimed losses, a vast disproportion that has produced horror in much of the world, creating a new cause which has mobilized countless numbers of people – possibly as strong as the Vietnam war movement. It has made itself a pariah nation – save in the United States and a few other countries. Above all, it has enflamed the entire Muslim world
As Bruce Riedel, a "hawk" who has held senior posts in the CIA for nearly 30 years and is now one of President Obama's many advisers, recently wrote, "…the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central all-consuming issue for al-Qaeda," and "Muslims feel a profound sense of wrong about the creation of Israel that infuses every aspect thinking and activities and has become the rallying cry used the convince the ummah of the righteousness of al-Qaeda's cause." That was before Gaza. Much of the world now detests Israel but most it will live for many years to come with the consequences of Israel's atrocities. Muslim extremists will now become much stronger.
Charges of war crimes are now being leveled – and justifiably so – at the Israelis, many of whom themselves come from families that suffered at the hands of the Nazis over 60 years ago and now claim that the Holocaust was the only tragedy – as if the far more numerous deaths of non-Jews throughout the world after 1945 count for nothing. The United Nations and human rights groups are demanding that Israel be brought to justice for what now amounts to having killed over 1400 Gazans with immense firepower, many of which, like phosphorous bombs, are illegal. Israel has already prepared its senior officers to be ready to defend themselves against war crimes charges and Israeli Attorney General Menahem Mazuz several weeks ago warned the government was expecting a "wave of international lawsuits."
It will now have to live with the geopolitical consequences in the region. Israel has, perhaps irreparably, imperiled its relations with the neighboring Arab states and other Muslim nations – Qatar and Mauritania have already suspended diplomatic relations with it – less because the ruling classes of these nations want to penalize it but because the Arab masses demand it, imperiling their own positions as rulers.
Even more important, although the United States has loyally supported Israel for decades, deluging it with the most modern arms and giving it diplomatic protection, it is now in an economic crisis and needs Arab money, not to mention oil imports, as never before. The stability of this crucial alliance will now be tested.
Since its inception, a cult of machismo – called self-defense – characterized much of Zionism, and although there were idealists, the mainstream was more and more committed to a violent response to the Arabs who surrounded them. The military was increasing glorified, including by nominal leftists like David Ben Gurion, so that today Israel is a regional Sparta armed with the most modern military and nuclear weapons, giving it a virtual monopoly in a vast region – one that will inevitably be challenged.
Uri Avnery, a leading Israeli antiwar activist, wrote that "… hundreds of millions of Arabs around us… will see the Hamas fighters as the heroes of the Arab nation, but they will also see their own regimes in their nakedness: cringing, ignominious, corrupt and treacherous….In coming years it will become apparent that this war was sheer madness."
We are living through yet another great tragedy, and tragedies have been the staple of world history for centuries. Now former victims and their descendants are the executioners.
Kolko received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1962. Following graduation he taught at the University of Pennsylvania and at SUNY-Buffalo. He joined the York University History Department in 1970 and is now an emeritus professor of history there.
This is from antiwar.com.
While the Arab street may be inflamed it seems that countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are still willing to accomodate Israel and also there is the Abbas group which ultimately may profit from weakening of Hamas although that remains to be seen. In any event so far the inflamed Muslim world seems completely powerless to do much. No doubt Israel's actions may recruit more jihadists and the war on terror will continue unabated. However, over the short term it would seem that Hamas will be too weak to do much to harm Israel or have any power to make Israel change its ways.
White phosphorus use is not illegal but only when used as smokescreen. However it would seem that Israel used it differently. Some claim that a new type of weapon the tungsten bomb was being used. No doubt Israel used the conflict to test new weapons.
How to Inflame the Entire Muslim World
by Gabriel Kolko
How will history describe the Israeli war against the Palestinians in Gaza? Another Holocaust, this time perpetrated by the descendants of the victims? An election ploy by ambitious Israeli politicians to win votes in the February 10 elections? A test range for new American weapons? An effort to lock the new Obama Administration into an anti-Iranian position? An attempt to establish its military "credibility" after its disastrous defeat in the war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006? Perhaps all of these…and more.
But one thing is certain. Israel has killed at least 100 Palestinians for each of its own claimed losses, a vast disproportion that has produced horror in much of the world, creating a new cause which has mobilized countless numbers of people – possibly as strong as the Vietnam war movement. It has made itself a pariah nation – save in the United States and a few other countries. Above all, it has enflamed the entire Muslim world
As Bruce Riedel, a "hawk" who has held senior posts in the CIA for nearly 30 years and is now one of President Obama's many advisers, recently wrote, "…the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central all-consuming issue for al-Qaeda," and "Muslims feel a profound sense of wrong about the creation of Israel that infuses every aspect thinking and activities and has become the rallying cry used the convince the ummah of the righteousness of al-Qaeda's cause." That was before Gaza. Much of the world now detests Israel but most it will live for many years to come with the consequences of Israel's atrocities. Muslim extremists will now become much stronger.
Charges of war crimes are now being leveled – and justifiably so – at the Israelis, many of whom themselves come from families that suffered at the hands of the Nazis over 60 years ago and now claim that the Holocaust was the only tragedy – as if the far more numerous deaths of non-Jews throughout the world after 1945 count for nothing. The United Nations and human rights groups are demanding that Israel be brought to justice for what now amounts to having killed over 1400 Gazans with immense firepower, many of which, like phosphorous bombs, are illegal. Israel has already prepared its senior officers to be ready to defend themselves against war crimes charges and Israeli Attorney General Menahem Mazuz several weeks ago warned the government was expecting a "wave of international lawsuits."
It will now have to live with the geopolitical consequences in the region. Israel has, perhaps irreparably, imperiled its relations with the neighboring Arab states and other Muslim nations – Qatar and Mauritania have already suspended diplomatic relations with it – less because the ruling classes of these nations want to penalize it but because the Arab masses demand it, imperiling their own positions as rulers.
Even more important, although the United States has loyally supported Israel for decades, deluging it with the most modern arms and giving it diplomatic protection, it is now in an economic crisis and needs Arab money, not to mention oil imports, as never before. The stability of this crucial alliance will now be tested.
Since its inception, a cult of machismo – called self-defense – characterized much of Zionism, and although there were idealists, the mainstream was more and more committed to a violent response to the Arabs who surrounded them. The military was increasing glorified, including by nominal leftists like David Ben Gurion, so that today Israel is a regional Sparta armed with the most modern military and nuclear weapons, giving it a virtual monopoly in a vast region – one that will inevitably be challenged.
Uri Avnery, a leading Israeli antiwar activist, wrote that "… hundreds of millions of Arabs around us… will see the Hamas fighters as the heroes of the Arab nation, but they will also see their own regimes in their nakedness: cringing, ignominious, corrupt and treacherous….In coming years it will become apparent that this war was sheer madness."
We are living through yet another great tragedy, and tragedies have been the staple of world history for centuries. Now former victims and their descendants are the executioners.
Pakistan's shift alarms US.
This is from the Asia Times.
Here again Obama is following in the footsteps of Bush in trying to force Pakistan into costly struggles with Islamic militants whereas Pakistan has had long lasting tensions with India that it feels must be addressed as well. The war on terror is costly to Pakistan in terms of internal dissent and military losses and terror attacks. As the article points out Pakistan is again attempting to forge some sort of truce with some militants. This is not what the US wants. It will be interesting to see if drone attacks continue under the Obama administration. I expect that they will.
Pakistan's shift alarms the US
By Syed Saleem Shahzad KARACHI -
Ongoing tension between India and Pakistan in the wake of the terror attack on the Indian city of Mumbai last November in which 179 people died at the hands of gunmen linked to Pakistan has clouded Islamabad's role in the United States-led "war on terror". Mindful of this, US Central Command commander General David Petraeus paid a one-day visit to Pakistan on Tuesday. In meetings with senior officials, including army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani, Petraeus said that the US and the international community would continue to support Pakistan, but it needed "to put its house in order" on the issue of militants. The US is already looking ahead to this year's round of fighting in
Afghanistan against the Taliban-led insurgency once winter passes. Petraeus has committed to a surge in US troop numbers to about 60,000, but Pakistan's cooperation in dealing with militants based in its tribal areas is essential. The militants use these bases to support their operations in Afghanistan. On Tuesday, Petraeus announced a partial solution to another problem that has dogged the war efforts in Afghanistan. He said a new supply route to Afghanistan had been agreed on with Central Asian states and Russia as an option to the one that passes though Khyber Agency, the Pakistani tribal area bordering Afghanistan through which nearly 80% of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) supplies pass on the way to landlocked Afghanistan. "There have been agreements reached and there are transit lines now and transit agreements for commercial goods and services in particular that include several countries in the Central Asian states and also Russia," Petraeus said. This means NATO supplies will have to travel by the most expensive route to reach Afghanistan, which will push up the costs of an already very expensive war. NATO supplies through the agency have increasingly been under attack since early 2008 and the agency, once a peaceful area, is a new war theater between the Pakistani security forces and the Taliban. NATO has repeatedly urged Pakistan to do something about protecting the route, but it has been helpless because of a serious lack of human resources as many of its forces are engaged in combating the Taliban in Bajaur Agency and in the Swat Valley. And significantly, following the Mumbai attack, Islamabad has moved troops from the border with Afghanistan to the border with India, where Indian troops are also mobilized. On Tuesday, India tested a cruise missile close to the Pakistan border. An Indian Defense Ministry spokesman said a Brahmos supersonic cruise missile had been successfully fired. The missiles have a range of up to several hundred kilometers. It is Pakistan's focus on India that has Washington concerned, yet the heightened tensions between Islamabad and Delhi suit both countries. India has to hold general elections before May, and the ruling Congress-led government needs to be seen as doing something about the Mumbai attacks. Pakistan, meanwhile, has an excuse to bail out its highly demoralized troops on the western borders with Afghanistan by moving them to the Indian border. Relations between the countries are likely to remain frosty for some time. Pakistan has now agreed to the trial of leaders of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terror group linked to the Mumbai attack. Delhi has handed over files of evidence which range from Pakistani-manufactured shaving cream used by the gunmen to the Pakistani-manufactured boat engine the men used to get to Mumbai. In another development, shortly before Petraeus met with Pakistani officials, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the head of his own faction of the Jamaat-i-Ulema-i-Islam political party, met with President Asif Ali Zardari and received a military backed green light to negotiate truces with Pakistani militants. Rahman did this job successfully in 2005, which resulted in a ceasefire between the Pakistani Taliban and the Pakistani security forces in April 2006. Consequently, the Taliban made a successful comeback in Afghanistan in the spring of 2006 - their first powerful offensive since their regime was driven out of Kabul in 2001. This will be of grave concern to Petraeus ahead of the next real battle against the Taliban that starts in April. The foremost concern is over the most effective deployment of the additional troops in Afghanistan. Permanent ground deployment comes with problems, as the Pakistani military has learned in Bajaur Agency, where its troops become sitting ducks at the hands of guerrillas operating from safe mountain sanctuaries. Yet if the troops are not deployed on the ground, the whole exercise of bringing in more of them and making additional arrangements for their supplies will be a waste of time and money. The last thing Petraeus needs now is for Pakistan to continue with its focus on India while effectively handing over its western borders to the Taliban, yet this process is already underway. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
Here again Obama is following in the footsteps of Bush in trying to force Pakistan into costly struggles with Islamic militants whereas Pakistan has had long lasting tensions with India that it feels must be addressed as well. The war on terror is costly to Pakistan in terms of internal dissent and military losses and terror attacks. As the article points out Pakistan is again attempting to forge some sort of truce with some militants. This is not what the US wants. It will be interesting to see if drone attacks continue under the Obama administration. I expect that they will.
Pakistan's shift alarms the US
By Syed Saleem Shahzad KARACHI -
Ongoing tension between India and Pakistan in the wake of the terror attack on the Indian city of Mumbai last November in which 179 people died at the hands of gunmen linked to Pakistan has clouded Islamabad's role in the United States-led "war on terror". Mindful of this, US Central Command commander General David Petraeus paid a one-day visit to Pakistan on Tuesday. In meetings with senior officials, including army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani, Petraeus said that the US and the international community would continue to support Pakistan, but it needed "to put its house in order" on the issue of militants. The US is already looking ahead to this year's round of fighting in
Afghanistan against the Taliban-led insurgency once winter passes. Petraeus has committed to a surge in US troop numbers to about 60,000, but Pakistan's cooperation in dealing with militants based in its tribal areas is essential. The militants use these bases to support their operations in Afghanistan. On Tuesday, Petraeus announced a partial solution to another problem that has dogged the war efforts in Afghanistan. He said a new supply route to Afghanistan had been agreed on with Central Asian states and Russia as an option to the one that passes though Khyber Agency, the Pakistani tribal area bordering Afghanistan through which nearly 80% of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) supplies pass on the way to landlocked Afghanistan. "There have been agreements reached and there are transit lines now and transit agreements for commercial goods and services in particular that include several countries in the Central Asian states and also Russia," Petraeus said. This means NATO supplies will have to travel by the most expensive route to reach Afghanistan, which will push up the costs of an already very expensive war. NATO supplies through the agency have increasingly been under attack since early 2008 and the agency, once a peaceful area, is a new war theater between the Pakistani security forces and the Taliban. NATO has repeatedly urged Pakistan to do something about protecting the route, but it has been helpless because of a serious lack of human resources as many of its forces are engaged in combating the Taliban in Bajaur Agency and in the Swat Valley. And significantly, following the Mumbai attack, Islamabad has moved troops from the border with Afghanistan to the border with India, where Indian troops are also mobilized. On Tuesday, India tested a cruise missile close to the Pakistan border. An Indian Defense Ministry spokesman said a Brahmos supersonic cruise missile had been successfully fired. The missiles have a range of up to several hundred kilometers. It is Pakistan's focus on India that has Washington concerned, yet the heightened tensions between Islamabad and Delhi suit both countries. India has to hold general elections before May, and the ruling Congress-led government needs to be seen as doing something about the Mumbai attacks. Pakistan, meanwhile, has an excuse to bail out its highly demoralized troops on the western borders with Afghanistan by moving them to the Indian border. Relations between the countries are likely to remain frosty for some time. Pakistan has now agreed to the trial of leaders of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terror group linked to the Mumbai attack. Delhi has handed over files of evidence which range from Pakistani-manufactured shaving cream used by the gunmen to the Pakistani-manufactured boat engine the men used to get to Mumbai. In another development, shortly before Petraeus met with Pakistani officials, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the head of his own faction of the Jamaat-i-Ulema-i-Islam political party, met with President Asif Ali Zardari and received a military backed green light to negotiate truces with Pakistani militants. Rahman did this job successfully in 2005, which resulted in a ceasefire between the Pakistani Taliban and the Pakistani security forces in April 2006. Consequently, the Taliban made a successful comeback in Afghanistan in the spring of 2006 - their first powerful offensive since their regime was driven out of Kabul in 2001. This will be of grave concern to Petraeus ahead of the next real battle against the Taliban that starts in April. The foremost concern is over the most effective deployment of the additional troops in Afghanistan. Permanent ground deployment comes with problems, as the Pakistani military has learned in Bajaur Agency, where its troops become sitting ducks at the hands of guerrillas operating from safe mountain sanctuaries. Yet if the troops are not deployed on the ground, the whole exercise of bringing in more of them and making additional arrangements for their supplies will be a waste of time and money. The last thing Petraeus needs now is for Pakistan to continue with its focus on India while effectively handing over its western borders to the Taliban, yet this process is already underway. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
Afghanistan caught in friendly fire.
This is hardly a change in direction, at most it is a change in emphasis. The Bush administration was also on bad terms with Karzai and complained about corruption and criticism of bombing raids. The US wants to be rid of Karzai and replace him with some other US protege who is more pliant and less critical and perhaps less corrupt as well or at least corrupt in a more favorable direction! As usual the US will attempt to use its influence to determine the next president. Karzai's worst sin was not corruption but his strain of independence and critical stance towards US policy especially with respect to collateral damage caused by airstrikes.
Afghanistan caught in friendly fire
By M K Bhadrakumar
The Barack Obama era is commencing on a combative note in Afghanistan. The Afghan bazaar is buzzing with rumors that the equations between Washington and Kabul have become uncertain. Senior Afghan figures have been quoted as concluding that "the new US administration and the current Afghan administration will not be speaking the same language". This followed a controversial visit to the Afghan capital Kabul last week by United States vice president-elect Joseph Biden. As the chairman of the powerful US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is not a novice to foreign affairs and diplomacy, or to Afghanistan. Yet, during his visit, Biden apparently pulled up
Afghan President Hamid Karzai for not giving a good account of himself as a ruler. Again, Afghan Foreign Minister Dadfar Spanta has objected to US secretary of state-designate Hillary's Clinton's use of the term "narco state" to describe Afghanistan in her Senate testimony last Tuesday on her nomination. He called in the Associated Press specifically to rebut that Clinton's characterization was "absolutely wrong". Nerves are getting frayed at the edges. NATO chief chips in Alas, the Obama presidency is starting on a false note when close coordination between Washington and Kabul ought to be the hallmark of relations. As if taking a cue from the irate Americans, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, tore into the Karzai government in an unprecedented opinion piece in The Washington Post on Sunday, alleging among other things that "the basic problem in Afghanistan is not too much Taliban; it's too little good governance". Scheffer is a consummate diplomat in the best traditions of the Atlantic alliance and is known to be always at Washington's bidding. He wrote, "We have paid enough, in blood and treasure, to demand that the Afghan government take more concrete and vigorous action to root out corruption and increase efficiency, even where that means difficult political choices." Kabul didn't even wait for a full working day before Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman Ahmad Baheen plainly told Scheffer where to get off. He accused that the Afghan government was being undermined as the "international community, including some powerful NATO member countries, has their own favorite warlords" who they back against the Karzai government. Baheen, in turn, accused Western aid groups of corruption and the coalition forces for condoning opium production. Biden leaks confidential talkThe curious part is that details of Biden's sensitive conversation in the Afghan presidential palace have found their way into the media and, inevitably, to the noisy Kabul bazaar. Afghans cannot resist coming up with conspiracy theories. Karzai's spokesman Humayun Hamizada neither confirmed nor denied the reports that Biden had delivered a tough message to Karzai. He merely said the conversation was "frank but cordial and friendly". In diplomatic idiom, that usually means Biden and Karzai politely agreed to disagree. Or, more to the point in this case, Karzai, being the weaker of the two, held his ground. Hamizada hinted that the differences were mainly over the war's strategy. He recalled Karzai had time and again stressed the "need to review the war on terrorism ... need to review our strategy, the way we fight terrorism and where we fight terrorism". According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL), Biden played "an aggressive foreign-policy role" in Kabul and delivered a "strong message" to Karzai. American officials have been cited as saying Biden "encouraged the Afghan leader to rid his government of corruption and temper his public statements regarding civilian casualties caused by NATO forces in Afghanistan". Biden seems to have taken a particularly dim view of Karzai's growing criticism regarding the excessive use of military force by US troops against Afghan civilians. He reportedly warned Karzai that Washington "will view future statements as posturing for the presidential elections set to take place in Afghanistan later this year". American sources added that Biden "included no mention of the end of Karzai's presidential run, over which the United States in any case has no say". Afghan bazaar speculates regime changeMeanwhile, the Kabul bazaar is full of rumors that Biden flatly told Karzai he was on his way out and that the US vice-president elect's mission might have been an effort to find a suitable replacement. Unsurprisingly, Biden's call on Interior Minister Mohammad Hanif Atmar led to further speculation that the British-educated Afghan official, who, according to RFERL, "is widely considered one of the most effective managers in Karzai's administration", might just be the suitable replacement that Washington is looking for as the next president of Afghanistan. A spate of articles has appeared in the Western media during the past six months portraying Karzai as presiding over a corrupt, inefficient, ineffectual government that is confined to Kabul and its environs. This has generated a negative impression about Karzai in Western opinion, apart from making it very obvious that things are not going smoothly between the Afghan government and the international community. Karzai holds his ground What probably put the Americans' back up was an outspoken interview that Karzai gave to The Chicago Tribune last month. For the first time, Karzai reacted to Obama's harsh remark while on the campaign trail that the Afghan president had not yet "gotten out of the bunker and helped to organize Afghanistan". Karzai loudly wondered: "Bunker? We are in a trench, and our allies are with us in the trench. We were on a high hill with glorious success in 2002, backed fully by the Afghan people ... We must now look back and find out as to why are we in a trench, or if you'd like to describe it, a bunker. Why are we in a bunker?" They seem to have duly taken note in Washington, and did not like the assertive remark, deciding they might as well make it plain that someone they put in power, they could just as well remove from power. What is overlooked, however, is the substance of Karzai's criticism. Which is a pity, since Obama can only benefit from reading and re-reading the transcript of Karzai's hour-long interview. Most expert commentators would share Karzai's views, though they might constitute an open indictment of the American military commanders and their chief in the Pentagon. Karzai had a strong point when he said, "The international community should correct their behavior ... the [US-led] coalition went around the Afghan villages, burst into people's homes and committed extra-judicial killings in our country ... And if this behavior continues, we will be in a deeper trench than we are today. And the war against terrorism will end in disgraceful defeat." Again, Karzai was spot on when he said, "If they [US-led forces] go to the Afghan homes and burst in and arrest or kill, does that leave the Afghan people with the feeling that they have a government? No. That is actually the destruction of the Afghan government. If Afghanistan is a sovereign country, if Afghanistan has a constitution, if Afghanistan has laws, and if there is the slogan of strengthening Afghan democracy and institutions, then Afghan sovereignty and Afghan laws must be respected, and not violated in such an extreme manner as is being done today." He stressed that the war strategy reportedly being conceived in the Pentagon to arm Pashtun tribes and set them against each other would have catastrophic consequences: "If we create militias again, we will be ruining this country further." True, the new US war strategy is unrealistic insofar as it simplifies what are in fact multi-layered structures of violence in Afghanistan. The strategy overlooks the enormous variety of local violence. A policy similar to the "awakening" of Sunni tribes in Iraq cannot be the answer to Afghan violence. Equally, Karzai was critical of the so-called "surge" policy that is the brainwave of Central Command chief General David Petraeus from his Iraq campaign. He felt any additional US troops should be deployed to man the Afghan-Pakistan border rather than intensify military operations in the southeastern provinces as the Pentagon is contemplating. To this end, the US plans to double the number of its troops in the country, from about 30,000 to 60,000. Karzai anticipates that the proposed "surge" will only accelerate the bloodbath, which in turn will make his position extremely precarious politically and generate more local support for the Taliban fighters who are increasingly being seen by the people as a genuine resistance to the marauding Western forces. Who isn't corrupt?The US criticism about rampant corruption in Afghanistan has basis. But, then, what do we expect out of a long sunset when a country slowly bleeds to death and foreign military occupation strips it of national honor and self-confidence? Putting things into perspective, it was former US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld who introduced the US policy of dispatching planeloads of green bucks to the Hindu Kush in a cynical move to encourage Afghan "warlords" to take on al-Qaeda so that Americans didn't have to do the fighting. Most of these "warlords" who worked for the US special forces today ostentatiously display their ill-gotten wealth. Many are deeply involved in prostitution, bootlegging and drug trafficking. They are openly buying and selling sinecure positions. Their palatial mansions in Kabul came up right under the nose of the US Embassy. Again, it was the Pentagon's obstinacy that the drug problem was not their business which allowed the situation to develop into its current scale, eating into the vitals of the Afghan state. When the occupiers themselves are the fountainhead of venality - like the Spanish Conquistadors who introduced "European diseases" in the Western hemisphere in the 16th century - how can the blame be apportioned to Karzai's regime or family members? In a devastating essay recently, noted American aid worker and author Ann Jones lifted the veil of silence over the spectrum of corruption that the George W Bush administration introduced in Afghanistan. (See The Afghan reconstruction boondoggle Asia Times Online, January 13.) The US not only skimped on aid but ploughed the big bucks into the coffers of well-connected American military contractors and profiteers and the whole retinue of parasites who generally go under the rubric of experts and consultants. Jones called it "a form of well-organized routine graft that leaves the corruption of Karzai's government in the shade and will undoubtedly continue unremarked upon in the Obama years. Those multi-millions that will continue to be poured down the Afghan drain really represent promises made to a people whose country and culture we have devastated more than once." Browbeating, damning or dumping Karzai will not end the stalemate in the war. Actually, the best thing would be to allow the Afghan people to genuinely choose Karzai as their president in the upcoming election and if they indeed do so, to let him select his team. It may not be an English-speaking team, but that is the best way the Afghan political process can hope to gain traction, if at all, in the current gloomy scenario when it looks difficult to rescue the seven-year US enterprise. Karzai is still the best choice America has got in Kabul. Biden's visit was a mistake because in political terms, he seems to have mortally wounded Karzai, even if Washington's his intention was merely to do some plain speaking before the Obama era commenced, about salvaging the US's efforts. Biden's tough talk leaps out of a classic Graham Greene novel set in Indo-China in the 1950s. It dampens the residual hopes of a clean break from the overbearing US war strategy in Afghanistan, which Karzai resents and the Taliban exploit. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
Afghanistan caught in friendly fire
By M K Bhadrakumar
The Barack Obama era is commencing on a combative note in Afghanistan. The Afghan bazaar is buzzing with rumors that the equations between Washington and Kabul have become uncertain. Senior Afghan figures have been quoted as concluding that "the new US administration and the current Afghan administration will not be speaking the same language". This followed a controversial visit to the Afghan capital Kabul last week by United States vice president-elect Joseph Biden. As the chairman of the powerful US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is not a novice to foreign affairs and diplomacy, or to Afghanistan. Yet, during his visit, Biden apparently pulled up
Afghan President Hamid Karzai for not giving a good account of himself as a ruler. Again, Afghan Foreign Minister Dadfar Spanta has objected to US secretary of state-designate Hillary's Clinton's use of the term "narco state" to describe Afghanistan in her Senate testimony last Tuesday on her nomination. He called in the Associated Press specifically to rebut that Clinton's characterization was "absolutely wrong". Nerves are getting frayed at the edges. NATO chief chips in Alas, the Obama presidency is starting on a false note when close coordination between Washington and Kabul ought to be the hallmark of relations. As if taking a cue from the irate Americans, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, tore into the Karzai government in an unprecedented opinion piece in The Washington Post on Sunday, alleging among other things that "the basic problem in Afghanistan is not too much Taliban; it's too little good governance". Scheffer is a consummate diplomat in the best traditions of the Atlantic alliance and is known to be always at Washington's bidding. He wrote, "We have paid enough, in blood and treasure, to demand that the Afghan government take more concrete and vigorous action to root out corruption and increase efficiency, even where that means difficult political choices." Kabul didn't even wait for a full working day before Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman Ahmad Baheen plainly told Scheffer where to get off. He accused that the Afghan government was being undermined as the "international community, including some powerful NATO member countries, has their own favorite warlords" who they back against the Karzai government. Baheen, in turn, accused Western aid groups of corruption and the coalition forces for condoning opium production. Biden leaks confidential talkThe curious part is that details of Biden's sensitive conversation in the Afghan presidential palace have found their way into the media and, inevitably, to the noisy Kabul bazaar. Afghans cannot resist coming up with conspiracy theories. Karzai's spokesman Humayun Hamizada neither confirmed nor denied the reports that Biden had delivered a tough message to Karzai. He merely said the conversation was "frank but cordial and friendly". In diplomatic idiom, that usually means Biden and Karzai politely agreed to disagree. Or, more to the point in this case, Karzai, being the weaker of the two, held his ground. Hamizada hinted that the differences were mainly over the war's strategy. He recalled Karzai had time and again stressed the "need to review the war on terrorism ... need to review our strategy, the way we fight terrorism and where we fight terrorism". According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL), Biden played "an aggressive foreign-policy role" in Kabul and delivered a "strong message" to Karzai. American officials have been cited as saying Biden "encouraged the Afghan leader to rid his government of corruption and temper his public statements regarding civilian casualties caused by NATO forces in Afghanistan". Biden seems to have taken a particularly dim view of Karzai's growing criticism regarding the excessive use of military force by US troops against Afghan civilians. He reportedly warned Karzai that Washington "will view future statements as posturing for the presidential elections set to take place in Afghanistan later this year". American sources added that Biden "included no mention of the end of Karzai's presidential run, over which the United States in any case has no say". Afghan bazaar speculates regime changeMeanwhile, the Kabul bazaar is full of rumors that Biden flatly told Karzai he was on his way out and that the US vice-president elect's mission might have been an effort to find a suitable replacement. Unsurprisingly, Biden's call on Interior Minister Mohammad Hanif Atmar led to further speculation that the British-educated Afghan official, who, according to RFERL, "is widely considered one of the most effective managers in Karzai's administration", might just be the suitable replacement that Washington is looking for as the next president of Afghanistan. A spate of articles has appeared in the Western media during the past six months portraying Karzai as presiding over a corrupt, inefficient, ineffectual government that is confined to Kabul and its environs. This has generated a negative impression about Karzai in Western opinion, apart from making it very obvious that things are not going smoothly between the Afghan government and the international community. Karzai holds his ground What probably put the Americans' back up was an outspoken interview that Karzai gave to The Chicago Tribune last month. For the first time, Karzai reacted to Obama's harsh remark while on the campaign trail that the Afghan president had not yet "gotten out of the bunker and helped to organize Afghanistan". Karzai loudly wondered: "Bunker? We are in a trench, and our allies are with us in the trench. We were on a high hill with glorious success in 2002, backed fully by the Afghan people ... We must now look back and find out as to why are we in a trench, or if you'd like to describe it, a bunker. Why are we in a bunker?" They seem to have duly taken note in Washington, and did not like the assertive remark, deciding they might as well make it plain that someone they put in power, they could just as well remove from power. What is overlooked, however, is the substance of Karzai's criticism. Which is a pity, since Obama can only benefit from reading and re-reading the transcript of Karzai's hour-long interview. Most expert commentators would share Karzai's views, though they might constitute an open indictment of the American military commanders and their chief in the Pentagon. Karzai had a strong point when he said, "The international community should correct their behavior ... the [US-led] coalition went around the Afghan villages, burst into people's homes and committed extra-judicial killings in our country ... And if this behavior continues, we will be in a deeper trench than we are today. And the war against terrorism will end in disgraceful defeat." Again, Karzai was spot on when he said, "If they [US-led forces] go to the Afghan homes and burst in and arrest or kill, does that leave the Afghan people with the feeling that they have a government? No. That is actually the destruction of the Afghan government. If Afghanistan is a sovereign country, if Afghanistan has a constitution, if Afghanistan has laws, and if there is the slogan of strengthening Afghan democracy and institutions, then Afghan sovereignty and Afghan laws must be respected, and not violated in such an extreme manner as is being done today." He stressed that the war strategy reportedly being conceived in the Pentagon to arm Pashtun tribes and set them against each other would have catastrophic consequences: "If we create militias again, we will be ruining this country further." True, the new US war strategy is unrealistic insofar as it simplifies what are in fact multi-layered structures of violence in Afghanistan. The strategy overlooks the enormous variety of local violence. A policy similar to the "awakening" of Sunni tribes in Iraq cannot be the answer to Afghan violence. Equally, Karzai was critical of the so-called "surge" policy that is the brainwave of Central Command chief General David Petraeus from his Iraq campaign. He felt any additional US troops should be deployed to man the Afghan-Pakistan border rather than intensify military operations in the southeastern provinces as the Pentagon is contemplating. To this end, the US plans to double the number of its troops in the country, from about 30,000 to 60,000. Karzai anticipates that the proposed "surge" will only accelerate the bloodbath, which in turn will make his position extremely precarious politically and generate more local support for the Taliban fighters who are increasingly being seen by the people as a genuine resistance to the marauding Western forces. Who isn't corrupt?The US criticism about rampant corruption in Afghanistan has basis. But, then, what do we expect out of a long sunset when a country slowly bleeds to death and foreign military occupation strips it of national honor and self-confidence? Putting things into perspective, it was former US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld who introduced the US policy of dispatching planeloads of green bucks to the Hindu Kush in a cynical move to encourage Afghan "warlords" to take on al-Qaeda so that Americans didn't have to do the fighting. Most of these "warlords" who worked for the US special forces today ostentatiously display their ill-gotten wealth. Many are deeply involved in prostitution, bootlegging and drug trafficking. They are openly buying and selling sinecure positions. Their palatial mansions in Kabul came up right under the nose of the US Embassy. Again, it was the Pentagon's obstinacy that the drug problem was not their business which allowed the situation to develop into its current scale, eating into the vitals of the Afghan state. When the occupiers themselves are the fountainhead of venality - like the Spanish Conquistadors who introduced "European diseases" in the Western hemisphere in the 16th century - how can the blame be apportioned to Karzai's regime or family members? In a devastating essay recently, noted American aid worker and author Ann Jones lifted the veil of silence over the spectrum of corruption that the George W Bush administration introduced in Afghanistan. (See The Afghan reconstruction boondoggle Asia Times Online, January 13.) The US not only skimped on aid but ploughed the big bucks into the coffers of well-connected American military contractors and profiteers and the whole retinue of parasites who generally go under the rubric of experts and consultants. Jones called it "a form of well-organized routine graft that leaves the corruption of Karzai's government in the shade and will undoubtedly continue unremarked upon in the Obama years. Those multi-millions that will continue to be poured down the Afghan drain really represent promises made to a people whose country and culture we have devastated more than once." Browbeating, damning or dumping Karzai will not end the stalemate in the war. Actually, the best thing would be to allow the Afghan people to genuinely choose Karzai as their president in the upcoming election and if they indeed do so, to let him select his team. It may not be an English-speaking team, but that is the best way the Afghan political process can hope to gain traction, if at all, in the current gloomy scenario when it looks difficult to rescue the seven-year US enterprise. Karzai is still the best choice America has got in Kabul. Biden's visit was a mistake because in political terms, he seems to have mortally wounded Karzai, even if Washington's his intention was merely to do some plain speaking before the Obama era commenced, about salvaging the US's efforts. Biden's tough talk leaps out of a classic Graham Greene novel set in Indo-China in the 1950s. It dampens the residual hopes of a clean break from the overbearing US war strategy in Afghanistan, which Karzai resents and the Taliban exploit. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
UN chief's impact on Gaza truce.
As the article notes, Israel followed its own agenda and paid almost no attention to Moon except to offer an apology for hitting the UN compound. Subsequently it hit another UN school.
Somehow looking at the facts of several schools shelled as well as a UN supplies compound shelled and set on fire one might think the Israel does not really like the UN. The chance that Israel would actually be tried for war crimes is about nil. Even if the UN tried to refer the matter to the ICC the US would block such a move.
UN chief's impact on Gaza truce
By Laura Trevelyan BBC UN correspondent
After seven hectic days in the Middle East, the UN chief is heading back to New York.
Ban Ki-moon's aim when he left was to press for a ceasefire in Gaza, and call for humanitarian aid to be delivered to those in need. He returns with two ceasefires, and no Egyptian-negotiated truce agreement between Israel and Hamas.
Mr Ban sped around the Middle East with remarkable speed and determination. Those of us following him climbing in and put of helicopters were struck by his remarkable energy and focus. Mr Ban counted 14 cities he had visited in a week, meeting the region's leaders.
Yet how much impact did he have on Israel's decision to announce a ceasefire, swiftly followed by Hamas?
Mr Ban certainly supported the Egyptian efforts to broker a truce, applied public pressure for a ceasefire by the fact of his visit, and discussed options for an agreement with everyone - from President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Mr Ban did not meet with representatives from Hamas, as he deals with what he calls the internationally recognised Palestinian Authority. The UN does have contact with Hamas through its work in Gaza though.
In the end, Israel stuck to its own timetable of wrapping up the military offensive in Gaza - in time for the inauguration of US President Barack Obama.
However Mr Ban did publicly call for Israel to call a unilateral ceasefire, it became clear to him that the Egyptian peace talks weren't reaching agreement on how to stop Hamas smuggling weapons into Gaza and how to re-open the border crossings into the strip to allow food and aid to get in.
And Israel did call a unilateral ceasefire, so at the very least that was an astute reading of Israel's options by the softly spoken secretary general.
Ban 'appalled'
Mr Ban also had to grapple with the complex and often fraught relationship between Israel and the United Nations.
The role of the UN's relief and works agency in providing food, schools and medical care to Palestinian refugees, as it has done since the creation of Israel in 1948, is a flashpoint for the Israeli government.
Unrwa - as it is known - is a powerful force in the Gaza Strip, employing 10,000 people.
Many Israeli officials regard Unrwa with suspicion, and one spokesman even claimed that many Unrwa local staff were one way or the other affiliated with Hamas.
UN schools were damaged, and on one occasion 43 people outside a UN school died, as Israel tried to target Hamas leaders.
Standing in front of the damaged UN warehouse in Gaza City, where the flour due to be delivered to the Palestinians was still burning following an Israeli attack last Thursday, Mr Ban pronounced himself appalled by the scenes of wreckage.
"I am not able to describe how I am feeling," he said sadly, as unexploded rockets lay wedged into the ground close by, and the twisted metal warehouse doors smouldered.
The secretary general met Israel's leaders last Thursday on the day of this incident, and - after protesting angrily - he received apologies and assurances that UN buildings and staff would be respected.
Two days later, another UN school was hit and two young brothers died, their anguished mother lost her legs. Mr Ban was furious, yet there was nothing he could do.
Hopes on Obama
John Ging of Unrwa has raised the question of whether Israel's government should be investigated for committing possible war crimes against Palestinians.
"For all those innocent people who have been killed in this conflict, were they war crimes? International law obliges is to get an answer to that question," he said.
Mr Ban has been more cautious, saying it is not for him to determine whether a war crimes investigation should take place. However, he has stressed the importance of accountability, where necessary.
In reality, a war crimes investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is unlikely. The court's prosecutor and pre-trial chamber can only instigate their own proceedings against a state that belongs to the court. Israel is not a formal member.
The UN Security Council has been known to refer cases against non-members to the ICC, but the US, staunch ally of Israel, could well block such a move. A state party to the court can ask for a referral to the ICC, but there is no Palestinian state.
Mr Ban flies back to New York pledging to work for a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
His hope is that President Obama will press for a two-state solution at the very start of his presidency, providing a new dynamic which might help resolve this age old problem.
Somehow looking at the facts of several schools shelled as well as a UN supplies compound shelled and set on fire one might think the Israel does not really like the UN. The chance that Israel would actually be tried for war crimes is about nil. Even if the UN tried to refer the matter to the ICC the US would block such a move.
UN chief's impact on Gaza truce
By Laura Trevelyan BBC UN correspondent
After seven hectic days in the Middle East, the UN chief is heading back to New York.
Ban Ki-moon's aim when he left was to press for a ceasefire in Gaza, and call for humanitarian aid to be delivered to those in need. He returns with two ceasefires, and no Egyptian-negotiated truce agreement between Israel and Hamas.
Mr Ban sped around the Middle East with remarkable speed and determination. Those of us following him climbing in and put of helicopters were struck by his remarkable energy and focus. Mr Ban counted 14 cities he had visited in a week, meeting the region's leaders.
Yet how much impact did he have on Israel's decision to announce a ceasefire, swiftly followed by Hamas?
Mr Ban certainly supported the Egyptian efforts to broker a truce, applied public pressure for a ceasefire by the fact of his visit, and discussed options for an agreement with everyone - from President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Mr Ban did not meet with representatives from Hamas, as he deals with what he calls the internationally recognised Palestinian Authority. The UN does have contact with Hamas through its work in Gaza though.
In the end, Israel stuck to its own timetable of wrapping up the military offensive in Gaza - in time for the inauguration of US President Barack Obama.
However Mr Ban did publicly call for Israel to call a unilateral ceasefire, it became clear to him that the Egyptian peace talks weren't reaching agreement on how to stop Hamas smuggling weapons into Gaza and how to re-open the border crossings into the strip to allow food and aid to get in.
And Israel did call a unilateral ceasefire, so at the very least that was an astute reading of Israel's options by the softly spoken secretary general.
Ban 'appalled'
Mr Ban also had to grapple with the complex and often fraught relationship between Israel and the United Nations.
The role of the UN's relief and works agency in providing food, schools and medical care to Palestinian refugees, as it has done since the creation of Israel in 1948, is a flashpoint for the Israeli government.
Unrwa - as it is known - is a powerful force in the Gaza Strip, employing 10,000 people.
Many Israeli officials regard Unrwa with suspicion, and one spokesman even claimed that many Unrwa local staff were one way or the other affiliated with Hamas.
UN schools were damaged, and on one occasion 43 people outside a UN school died, as Israel tried to target Hamas leaders.
Standing in front of the damaged UN warehouse in Gaza City, where the flour due to be delivered to the Palestinians was still burning following an Israeli attack last Thursday, Mr Ban pronounced himself appalled by the scenes of wreckage.
"I am not able to describe how I am feeling," he said sadly, as unexploded rockets lay wedged into the ground close by, and the twisted metal warehouse doors smouldered.
The secretary general met Israel's leaders last Thursday on the day of this incident, and - after protesting angrily - he received apologies and assurances that UN buildings and staff would be respected.
Two days later, another UN school was hit and two young brothers died, their anguished mother lost her legs. Mr Ban was furious, yet there was nothing he could do.
Hopes on Obama
John Ging of Unrwa has raised the question of whether Israel's government should be investigated for committing possible war crimes against Palestinians.
"For all those innocent people who have been killed in this conflict, were they war crimes? International law obliges is to get an answer to that question," he said.
Mr Ban has been more cautious, saying it is not for him to determine whether a war crimes investigation should take place. However, he has stressed the importance of accountability, where necessary.
In reality, a war crimes investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is unlikely. The court's prosecutor and pre-trial chamber can only instigate their own proceedings against a state that belongs to the court. Israel is not a formal member.
The UN Security Council has been known to refer cases against non-members to the ICC, but the US, staunch ally of Israel, could well block such a move. A state party to the court can ask for a referral to the ICC, but there is no Palestinian state.
Mr Ban flies back to New York pledging to work for a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
His hope is that President Obama will press for a two-state solution at the very start of his presidency, providing a new dynamic which might help resolve this age old problem.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Al-Sadr's followers eye comeback in Jan 31 vote.
This is from AP.
It seems that the Sadrist movement was weakened by factionalism. Sadr seems to have gone off to Iran to meditate when he should have been leading his movement in Iraq. However, perhaps his movement will recoup some of its losses in these elections. Sadr seemed to sit back and allow the US and Iraq to attack and arrest any factions that did not go along with his own leadership.
Al-Sadr's followers eye comeback in Jan. 31 vote
By HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers Hamza Hendawi And Qassim Abdul-zahra, Associated Press Writers – Sun Jan 18, 5:26 pm ET
AP – A poster depicting radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr shares space with campaign posters for candidates …
AMARAH, Iraq – Followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr hope to win back their position as a major force in this month's regional elections after a string of military and political setbacks last year.
Even modest success in the Jan. 31 vote for ruling provincial councils could position the Sadrists as coalition partners in key southern provinces, where a large number of candidates makes it unlikely any single party can win on its own.
Anything short of that could relegate the once formidable al-Sadr to political irrelevance — something unthinkable a year ago when his fearsome Mahdi Army militia wielded vast power in Shiite areas of Iraq.
"This month's elections will decide who remains in the political arena and who will go into oblivion," said senior Sadrist lawmaker Hassan al-Rubaie. "If we fail to do well, our movement could fragment, and some of its key figures could be lured away by rival blocs trying to destroy us."
Top Sadrist officials in key southern cities — Basra, Amarah and Najaf — spoke confidently about their election prospects during interviews with The Associated Press.
But they fear that authorities may step up arrests of al-Sadr's supporters and campaign workers in response to his call for attacks on U.S. forces in retaliation for Israel's offensive in Gaza.
The Sadrists also face a strong threat from the country's two largest Shiite parties — the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Dawa party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Both are vigorously campaigning to retain their grip on the south and prevent any inroads by al-Sadr's group, which has been significantly weakened since the heady days when it held sway in Shiite areas of Baghdad and southern Iraq.
Hundreds of its key members have been detained by U.S. and Iraqi forces over the past two years — especially after the government crackdown on militias in Baghdad and Basra last spring.
The Mahdi Army, which battled the Americans for years, has been riveted with divisions. The militiamen's former image as the defender of the Shiites has been tarnished among many urban Shiites who consider them gangsters.
The Sadrists' best chance for success could be in Amarah, an oil-rich area near the Iranian border that had been controlled by the cleric's followers before the crackdown last year. The Sadrists remain in control of the provincial council of Maysan, the province of which Amarah is the capital.
"The Sadrist movement will be in a bad situation if we lose Amarah," said Hassan al-Husseini, al-Sadr's chief representative in Amarah, 200 miles (320 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad.
"But other groups are determined to oust us from Amarah," he said, squatting on the floor beneath a larger-than-life portrait of al-Sadr's father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadeq al-Sadr, who was gunned down by suspected Saddam Hussein agents in 1999.
As in previous elections, no candidates are running explicitly as followers of al-Sadr. They are nominally independent — but the movement makes sure that voters know which candidates it supports.
Winning about a third of the council seats in the nine southern provinces would be considered a success, said Salah al-Obeidi, al-Sadr's chief spokesman. The movement wants to prevent the other Shiite parties from winning enough seats to monopolize power, he said.
"Our ultimate goal is not to allow governors to do as they please," al-Obeidi said at his Najaf office.
The Sadrists, whose movement began in the 1990s, emerged as a formidable political and social force after U.S. troops overthrew Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime in 2003.
They survived a 2004 uprising against the Americans after the powerful Shiite clergy intervened to prevent al-Sadr's arrest. Al-Maliki's predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, brought Sadrists into the government, giving them several Cabinet posts.
But the Sadrists did not field a full slate of candidates in the last provincial elections four years ago, leaving the south to the Supreme Council, Dawa and regional groups.
Two years ago, it appeared that the Sadrists, who draw strength from millions of impoverished Shiites, would threaten the position of the two major Shiite parties because of complaints of bad governance in the south.
But a series of missteps cost the movement dearly.
Sadrist ministers pulled out of al-Maliki's Cabinet in 2007 to protest his cooperation with the U.S., depriving the movement much of its influence in government. The move also angered al-Maliki, who ordered U.S.-backed Iraqi forces last year into Basra, the Baghdad district of Sadr City and other areas to wrest control from al-Sadr's militia.
Al-Sadr himself moved to Iran two years ago, weakening his leadership at a time his movement needed him most.
The Sadrists' appeal to voters has been their uncompromising anti-American stand, social welfare programs for the poor and the prestige of al-Sadr's late father, who defended Shiite rights when few would speak out under Saddam.
"We are proud of our opposition to the (U.S.) occupation," said Ayed al-Mayahi, al-Sadr's representative in Basra. "Everything that has happened to us was the price we paid for that stand."
It seems that the Sadrist movement was weakened by factionalism. Sadr seems to have gone off to Iran to meditate when he should have been leading his movement in Iraq. However, perhaps his movement will recoup some of its losses in these elections. Sadr seemed to sit back and allow the US and Iraq to attack and arrest any factions that did not go along with his own leadership.
Al-Sadr's followers eye comeback in Jan. 31 vote
By HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers Hamza Hendawi And Qassim Abdul-zahra, Associated Press Writers – Sun Jan 18, 5:26 pm ET
AP – A poster depicting radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr shares space with campaign posters for candidates …
AMARAH, Iraq – Followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr hope to win back their position as a major force in this month's regional elections after a string of military and political setbacks last year.
Even modest success in the Jan. 31 vote for ruling provincial councils could position the Sadrists as coalition partners in key southern provinces, where a large number of candidates makes it unlikely any single party can win on its own.
Anything short of that could relegate the once formidable al-Sadr to political irrelevance — something unthinkable a year ago when his fearsome Mahdi Army militia wielded vast power in Shiite areas of Iraq.
"This month's elections will decide who remains in the political arena and who will go into oblivion," said senior Sadrist lawmaker Hassan al-Rubaie. "If we fail to do well, our movement could fragment, and some of its key figures could be lured away by rival blocs trying to destroy us."
Top Sadrist officials in key southern cities — Basra, Amarah and Najaf — spoke confidently about their election prospects during interviews with The Associated Press.
But they fear that authorities may step up arrests of al-Sadr's supporters and campaign workers in response to his call for attacks on U.S. forces in retaliation for Israel's offensive in Gaza.
The Sadrists also face a strong threat from the country's two largest Shiite parties — the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Dawa party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Both are vigorously campaigning to retain their grip on the south and prevent any inroads by al-Sadr's group, which has been significantly weakened since the heady days when it held sway in Shiite areas of Baghdad and southern Iraq.
Hundreds of its key members have been detained by U.S. and Iraqi forces over the past two years — especially after the government crackdown on militias in Baghdad and Basra last spring.
The Mahdi Army, which battled the Americans for years, has been riveted with divisions. The militiamen's former image as the defender of the Shiites has been tarnished among many urban Shiites who consider them gangsters.
The Sadrists' best chance for success could be in Amarah, an oil-rich area near the Iranian border that had been controlled by the cleric's followers before the crackdown last year. The Sadrists remain in control of the provincial council of Maysan, the province of which Amarah is the capital.
"The Sadrist movement will be in a bad situation if we lose Amarah," said Hassan al-Husseini, al-Sadr's chief representative in Amarah, 200 miles (320 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad.
"But other groups are determined to oust us from Amarah," he said, squatting on the floor beneath a larger-than-life portrait of al-Sadr's father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadeq al-Sadr, who was gunned down by suspected Saddam Hussein agents in 1999.
As in previous elections, no candidates are running explicitly as followers of al-Sadr. They are nominally independent — but the movement makes sure that voters know which candidates it supports.
Winning about a third of the council seats in the nine southern provinces would be considered a success, said Salah al-Obeidi, al-Sadr's chief spokesman. The movement wants to prevent the other Shiite parties from winning enough seats to monopolize power, he said.
"Our ultimate goal is not to allow governors to do as they please," al-Obeidi said at his Najaf office.
The Sadrists, whose movement began in the 1990s, emerged as a formidable political and social force after U.S. troops overthrew Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime in 2003.
They survived a 2004 uprising against the Americans after the powerful Shiite clergy intervened to prevent al-Sadr's arrest. Al-Maliki's predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, brought Sadrists into the government, giving them several Cabinet posts.
But the Sadrists did not field a full slate of candidates in the last provincial elections four years ago, leaving the south to the Supreme Council, Dawa and regional groups.
Two years ago, it appeared that the Sadrists, who draw strength from millions of impoverished Shiites, would threaten the position of the two major Shiite parties because of complaints of bad governance in the south.
But a series of missteps cost the movement dearly.
Sadrist ministers pulled out of al-Maliki's Cabinet in 2007 to protest his cooperation with the U.S., depriving the movement much of its influence in government. The move also angered al-Maliki, who ordered U.S.-backed Iraqi forces last year into Basra, the Baghdad district of Sadr City and other areas to wrest control from al-Sadr's militia.
Al-Sadr himself moved to Iran two years ago, weakening his leadership at a time his movement needed him most.
The Sadrists' appeal to voters has been their uncompromising anti-American stand, social welfare programs for the poor and the prestige of al-Sadr's late father, who defended Shiite rights when few would speak out under Saddam.
"We are proud of our opposition to the (U.S.) occupation," said Ayed al-Mayahi, al-Sadr's representative in Basra. "Everything that has happened to us was the price we paid for that stand."
Salvador's leftists try for first presidential win.
This is from antiwar.com.
Leftists seem to be gaining back ground in Central America. The same shift is evident in Nicaragua where the Sandinistas are back in power with their own president back as well.
Salvador's leftists try for first presidential win
Election in El Salvador may move leftist party toward first presidential win
MARCOS ALEMANAP News
Jan 18, 2009 15:04 EST
El Salvador's former guerrillas are poised to take over the country, 17 years after peace accords ended the country's bloody civil war.
But this revolution is a democratic one, led by a charismatic television journalist named Mauricio Funes who has brought new hope to the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, a guerrilla group turned political party.
Polls ahead of Sunday's six-party election indicate the Front, known as the FMLN, will increase its 32-seat delegation in the 84-member legislature while keeping the capital and winning most of the 262 mayors' races.
Sunday's key contest pits former guerrilla Violeta Menjivar against physician Norman Quijano of the conservative, governing Arena party in the capital, where voters wearing party colors began lining up well before polls opened.
The true test will come on March 15, when Funes is favored to become the first FMLN president since El Salvador's 1992 peace accords ended a civil war that killed 75,000 people. Most polls give him a lead of at least nine points over his opponent, ruling party candidate Rodrigo Avila.
Sunday's vote "could be a preamble of what could happen in the presidential vote. Arena and the right are worried because Mauricio has everything he needs to win," said analyst Dagoberto Gutierrez of the Lutheran University.
The FMLN has struggled to win over Salvadorans politically in the past 17 years. The party won just two seats fewer than Arena did in the last legislative elections and it has governed the capital for 12 years, but it has never completely overcome its rebel image — partly because its hard-left faction pushed aside party moderates when choosing candidates in past presidential elections.
Arena, which has controlled the presidency since 1989, has flooded radio and television with ads trying to discredit Funes and the FMLN as radicals. But Gutierrez said Salvadorans seem tired of the old tactics.
"There is a generalized discontent. Twenty years of government has worn out Arena and the campaigns of fear — saying the communists are coming — are not working," he said.
High gas prices and soaring food costs took a toll on President Tony Saca's approval ratings, and soured voters on Arena.
Industrial engineer Mauricio Valdiviezo, who was just 14 years old when the war ended, arrived at the polls wearing a "Cuba" t-shirt and an FMLN cap.
"We Salvadorans are getting rid of the fear," he said.
Leftists seem to be gaining back ground in Central America. The same shift is evident in Nicaragua where the Sandinistas are back in power with their own president back as well.
Salvador's leftists try for first presidential win
Election in El Salvador may move leftist party toward first presidential win
MARCOS ALEMANAP News
Jan 18, 2009 15:04 EST
El Salvador's former guerrillas are poised to take over the country, 17 years after peace accords ended the country's bloody civil war.
But this revolution is a democratic one, led by a charismatic television journalist named Mauricio Funes who has brought new hope to the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, a guerrilla group turned political party.
Polls ahead of Sunday's six-party election indicate the Front, known as the FMLN, will increase its 32-seat delegation in the 84-member legislature while keeping the capital and winning most of the 262 mayors' races.
Sunday's key contest pits former guerrilla Violeta Menjivar against physician Norman Quijano of the conservative, governing Arena party in the capital, where voters wearing party colors began lining up well before polls opened.
The true test will come on March 15, when Funes is favored to become the first FMLN president since El Salvador's 1992 peace accords ended a civil war that killed 75,000 people. Most polls give him a lead of at least nine points over his opponent, ruling party candidate Rodrigo Avila.
Sunday's vote "could be a preamble of what could happen in the presidential vote. Arena and the right are worried because Mauricio has everything he needs to win," said analyst Dagoberto Gutierrez of the Lutheran University.
The FMLN has struggled to win over Salvadorans politically in the past 17 years. The party won just two seats fewer than Arena did in the last legislative elections and it has governed the capital for 12 years, but it has never completely overcome its rebel image — partly because its hard-left faction pushed aside party moderates when choosing candidates in past presidential elections.
Arena, which has controlled the presidency since 1989, has flooded radio and television with ads trying to discredit Funes and the FMLN as radicals. But Gutierrez said Salvadorans seem tired of the old tactics.
"There is a generalized discontent. Twenty years of government has worn out Arena and the campaigns of fear — saying the communists are coming — are not working," he said.
High gas prices and soaring food costs took a toll on President Tony Saca's approval ratings, and soured voters on Arena.
Industrial engineer Mauricio Valdiviezo, who was just 14 years old when the war ended, arrived at the polls wearing a "Cuba" t-shirt and an FMLN cap.
"We Salvadorans are getting rid of the fear," he said.
Obama courts Republicans
One wonders what sort of policies this mish mash will produce. Of course it will be spun as a fine example of bipartisan governing. Presumably the policy will be for the most part quite centrist on the whole. No doubt Obama will bring some progressive changes to domestic policy and he seems determined to close Guantanamo and try to eliminate some of the global condemnation of US human rights record in the war on terror. However, the imperialist bent of Bush foreign policy remains quite strong as can be seen in Obama's stance on Afghanistan. What he will do in the Middle East remains to be seen but it seems to be a continuation of the policy of trying to isolate Hamas and continue to be very much slanted towards Israel.
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17532.html>Obama tries to seduce Republicans
By: Jonathan MartinJanuary 17, 2009 10:25 AM EST
It's no secret Barack Obama is trying to seduce Republicans these days. But his conservative courting runs much deeper and wider than is publicly known.Obama has had meetings with his former opponent John McCain, GOP congressional leaders and some of the country’s leading conservative commentators. He’s also honoring McCain and Colin Powell in high-profile pre-inaugural dinners, where Obama is expected to toast the Republicans.Behind the scenes, Obama and his team are working just as hard, courting prominent Republicans and conservatives through frequent phone calls, e-mails and private sit-downs.The selection of evangelical pastor Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation and Obama’s dinner with right-of-center writers at George F. Will’s home drew significant buzz. But the transition also has quietly reached out to other prominent figures atop the Southern Baptist Church, Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministry and the Jewish Orthodox Union.“I think he’s done an extremely good job so far,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who received a call from the president-elect last week. “On both the quality of his nominees and the contact that he personally or his skeleton staff have had with members on the Hill — I think they’ve done just an exceptional job at that.”Burr, who declined to share what he and Obama spoke about, said it helps to have one of the Senate’s own now in the White House, a rare thing in the modern presidency.“One, you’ve got to understand that we’re friends. Two, the way he interacted with us as a member of the Senate — he hasn’t forgot that. In the early stages now he still has a cell phone and BlackBerry and he’s using them.”See AlsoRep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House Minority Whip, has met with Obama and is in frequent contact with Rahm Emanuel, the House member turned presidential chief of staff, via cell phone and BlackBerry.“I have met with Rahm and spoken with him several times and he said, ‘Look, you need to understand — working in a bipartisan manner is something the president-elect takes seriously,’” Cantor noted. “It has thus far been a very efficient process.”Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who just got back from the Middle East with Joe Biden, was with McCain and the president-elect in Chicago at the post-election meeting and met again with Obama Wednesday for about 45 minutes.“Once the campaign is over, to govern you have to find consensus and I think he understands that,” said Graham, who will introduce McCain at the tribute dinner Monday. “Ronald Reagan understood the value of personal relationships and I think [Obama] understands that that model offers the best hope of sustaining momentum from the election and achieving legislative success. So far, so good.”Graham, one of McCain’s closest friends and a frequent campaign trail companion, said much of the good will from his party stems from a patriotic desire to turn the country around.“A lot of people, including Republicans, want us to get back on our feet because we’re on our knees. And he’s the quarterback, he’s the captain – everybody is pulling for him.”According to Obama officials, the president-elect has personally reached out to Senate GOP leaders, Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Jon Kyl (Ariz.), as well as key committee ranking members Charles Grassley (Iowa) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) and such moderates as Olympia Snowe (Maine).Kyl, Gregg and Snowe were three of only six Senate Republicans who joined with most Democrats Thursday in opposing a resolution disapproving of Obama’s request to release the remaining bailout money.Among Republicans, Obama seems to have made deeper inroads thus far in the more consensus-driven Senate, where he already has personal relationships from his four years there.“I think he understands that 41 Republicans can affect what finds its way to his desk,” said Burr, alluding to the need to get 60 votes in the Senate for most bills to procede to a vote.But Obama hasn’t necessarily shirked the more conservative House GOP minority.Cantor said a hearing that Republicans held Thursday on the stimulus came after Obama call for more bipartisan cooperation in a meeting with Congressional leadership.“He was very clear: he said bring us your ideas,” Cantor recalled. “I take the president-elect at his word that he really does want to change the way Washington works.”Cantor said that, following the hearing, he and other House GOP leaders would approach Obama to request a meeting to offer their input on an economic bill that both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue hope to have to the White House by mid-February.As generous as he was of Obama, who is riding high in the polls, Cantor was not as charitable toward his less popular Democratic colleagues.“The battle of ideas is beginning,” Cantor said, just hours before House Democrats irked their Republican counterparts by unveiling the first draft of a stimulus plan. “Capitol Hill Democrats would rather see a return to addressing problems with a very significant amount of government spending.”But while partisan clashing between the two parties may be inevitable, Obama isn’t limiting his outreach to the capital. He and his aides are also courting influential outside conservatives.“It has certainly helped the president-elect to get more of a hearing from evangelicals when he invited Rick Warren,” said Richard Land, a well-known social conservative and chief of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm. “I don’t think that would have happened had Hillary Clinton been elected.”Land, who said he had been contacted by Obama aides since the election, praised the new president and suggested that he would receive a fresher look from Christian conservatives because of both his approach and his generation.“He’s done a pretty good job making it clear that he doesn’t have the knife out,” said Land. “Just because you disagree with him on some issues doesn’t mean you can’t agree with him on other issues.”And Obama, unlike the Clintons and President Bush, is somebody who is neither shaped nor scarred by baby boomer battles, noted Land, 62, himself a product of the era.“There’s more opportunity for it to be civil, more opportunity for it to be constructive. We’ve been going at each other for so long, we just can’t help it. But somebody like Obama comes along – an even though he’s more liberal than Hillary – he doesn’t generate the same heat. I welcome it.”The message, said a transition official involved in the outreach, is simple: “The door is open.”But, this being Washington politics, not all are convinced Obama’s motives are entirely altruistic.Said Charles Krauthammer, the longtime conservative columnist who was at Will’s dinner, on Fox News: “You see that since his election he has kind of reached out to people that may not be ideological allies, to Rick Warren, the pastor who will be at his inaugural, to John McCain, whom he has treated with a lot of dignity and respect, and to a bunch of right wing columnists last night, in part, because I think he is a guy who is intellectually curious and wants to exchange ideas, but also in part he wants to co-opt the vast right wing conspiracy.”
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17532.html>Obama tries to seduce Republicans
By: Jonathan MartinJanuary 17, 2009 10:25 AM EST
It's no secret Barack Obama is trying to seduce Republicans these days. But his conservative courting runs much deeper and wider than is publicly known.Obama has had meetings with his former opponent John McCain, GOP congressional leaders and some of the country’s leading conservative commentators. He’s also honoring McCain and Colin Powell in high-profile pre-inaugural dinners, where Obama is expected to toast the Republicans.Behind the scenes, Obama and his team are working just as hard, courting prominent Republicans and conservatives through frequent phone calls, e-mails and private sit-downs.The selection of evangelical pastor Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation and Obama’s dinner with right-of-center writers at George F. Will’s home drew significant buzz. But the transition also has quietly reached out to other prominent figures atop the Southern Baptist Church, Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministry and the Jewish Orthodox Union.“I think he’s done an extremely good job so far,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who received a call from the president-elect last week. “On both the quality of his nominees and the contact that he personally or his skeleton staff have had with members on the Hill — I think they’ve done just an exceptional job at that.”Burr, who declined to share what he and Obama spoke about, said it helps to have one of the Senate’s own now in the White House, a rare thing in the modern presidency.“One, you’ve got to understand that we’re friends. Two, the way he interacted with us as a member of the Senate — he hasn’t forgot that. In the early stages now he still has a cell phone and BlackBerry and he’s using them.”See AlsoRep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House Minority Whip, has met with Obama and is in frequent contact with Rahm Emanuel, the House member turned presidential chief of staff, via cell phone and BlackBerry.“I have met with Rahm and spoken with him several times and he said, ‘Look, you need to understand — working in a bipartisan manner is something the president-elect takes seriously,’” Cantor noted. “It has thus far been a very efficient process.”Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who just got back from the Middle East with Joe Biden, was with McCain and the president-elect in Chicago at the post-election meeting and met again with Obama Wednesday for about 45 minutes.“Once the campaign is over, to govern you have to find consensus and I think he understands that,” said Graham, who will introduce McCain at the tribute dinner Monday. “Ronald Reagan understood the value of personal relationships and I think [Obama] understands that that model offers the best hope of sustaining momentum from the election and achieving legislative success. So far, so good.”Graham, one of McCain’s closest friends and a frequent campaign trail companion, said much of the good will from his party stems from a patriotic desire to turn the country around.“A lot of people, including Republicans, want us to get back on our feet because we’re on our knees. And he’s the quarterback, he’s the captain – everybody is pulling for him.”According to Obama officials, the president-elect has personally reached out to Senate GOP leaders, Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Jon Kyl (Ariz.), as well as key committee ranking members Charles Grassley (Iowa) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) and such moderates as Olympia Snowe (Maine).Kyl, Gregg and Snowe were three of only six Senate Republicans who joined with most Democrats Thursday in opposing a resolution disapproving of Obama’s request to release the remaining bailout money.Among Republicans, Obama seems to have made deeper inroads thus far in the more consensus-driven Senate, where he already has personal relationships from his four years there.“I think he understands that 41 Republicans can affect what finds its way to his desk,” said Burr, alluding to the need to get 60 votes in the Senate for most bills to procede to a vote.But Obama hasn’t necessarily shirked the more conservative House GOP minority.Cantor said a hearing that Republicans held Thursday on the stimulus came after Obama call for more bipartisan cooperation in a meeting with Congressional leadership.“He was very clear: he said bring us your ideas,” Cantor recalled. “I take the president-elect at his word that he really does want to change the way Washington works.”Cantor said that, following the hearing, he and other House GOP leaders would approach Obama to request a meeting to offer their input on an economic bill that both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue hope to have to the White House by mid-February.As generous as he was of Obama, who is riding high in the polls, Cantor was not as charitable toward his less popular Democratic colleagues.“The battle of ideas is beginning,” Cantor said, just hours before House Democrats irked their Republican counterparts by unveiling the first draft of a stimulus plan. “Capitol Hill Democrats would rather see a return to addressing problems with a very significant amount of government spending.”But while partisan clashing between the two parties may be inevitable, Obama isn’t limiting his outreach to the capital. He and his aides are also courting influential outside conservatives.“It has certainly helped the president-elect to get more of a hearing from evangelicals when he invited Rick Warren,” said Richard Land, a well-known social conservative and chief of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm. “I don’t think that would have happened had Hillary Clinton been elected.”Land, who said he had been contacted by Obama aides since the election, praised the new president and suggested that he would receive a fresher look from Christian conservatives because of both his approach and his generation.“He’s done a pretty good job making it clear that he doesn’t have the knife out,” said Land. “Just because you disagree with him on some issues doesn’t mean you can’t agree with him on other issues.”And Obama, unlike the Clintons and President Bush, is somebody who is neither shaped nor scarred by baby boomer battles, noted Land, 62, himself a product of the era.“There’s more opportunity for it to be civil, more opportunity for it to be constructive. We’ve been going at each other for so long, we just can’t help it. But somebody like Obama comes along – an even though he’s more liberal than Hillary – he doesn’t generate the same heat. I welcome it.”The message, said a transition official involved in the outreach, is simple: “The door is open.”But, this being Washington politics, not all are convinced Obama’s motives are entirely altruistic.Said Charles Krauthammer, the longtime conservative columnist who was at Will’s dinner, on Fox News: “You see that since his election he has kind of reached out to people that may not be ideological allies, to Rick Warren, the pastor who will be at his inaugural, to John McCain, whom he has treated with a lot of dignity and respect, and to a bunch of right wing columnists last night, in part, because I think he is a guy who is intellectually curious and wants to exchange ideas, but also in part he wants to co-opt the vast right wing conspiracy.”
Monday, January 19, 2009
Krugman: Wall Street Voodoo
No one seems to advocate the permanent nationalisation of banks. Even Krugman is recommending a form of hospitalisation. After the government invests enough money to cure or carry the banks through the crisis while nationalised the bank is then sold back to the private sector. If the government is lucky it gets its money back but more likely a private investor gets a deal and the taxpayer loses some money. What the ruling class fears is that with nationalisation people might get the idea that the financial system can operate without having to provide profit for private owners of those institutions. The private sector certainly does not want people to get the idea that anything can be run efficiently by government and return savings to the people directly. This is why the standard ideological chant is that the government is inefficient. However, if this is so it is strange that government has to come to the rescue of these efficient private financial institutions operating in a free market. As the true believers would say this makes little logical sense and the government should stand aside and let the free market destruction of these losers take its wonderful course!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/opinion/19krugman.html The New York Times January 19, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Wall Street Voodoo
By PAUL KRUGMAN Old-fashioned voodoo economics -- the belief in tax-cut magic -- has been banished from civilized discourse. The supply-side cult has shrunk to the point that it contains only cranks, charlatans, and Republicans. But recent news reports suggest that many influential people, including Federal Reserve officials, bank regulators, and, possibly, members of the incoming Obama administration, have become devotees of a new kind of voodoo: the belief that by performing elaborate financial rituals we can keep dead banks walking. To explain the issue, let me describe the position of a hypothetical bank that I'll call Gothamgroup, or Gotham for short. On paper, Gotham has $2 trillion in assets and $1.9 trillion in liabilities, so that it has a net worth of $100 billion. But a substantial fraction of its assets -- say, $400 billion worth -- are mortgage-backed securities and other toxic waste. If the bank tried to sell these assets, it would get no more than $200 billion. So Gotham is a zombie bank: it's still operating, but the reality is that it has already gone bust. Its stock isn't totally worthless -- it still has a market capitalization of $20 billion -- but that value is entirely based on the hope that shareholders will be rescued by a government bailout. Why would the government bail Gotham out? Because it plays a central role in the financial system. When Lehman was allowed to fail, financial markets froze, and for a few weeks the world economy teetered on the edge of collapse. Since we don't want a repeat performance, Gotham has to be kept functioning. But how can that be done? Well, the government could simply give Gotham a couple of hundred billion dollars, enough to make it solvent again. But this would, of course, be a huge gift to Gotham's current shareholders -- and it would also encourage excessive risk-taking in the future. Still, the possibility of such a gift is what's now supporting Gotham's stock price. A better approach would be to do what the government did with zombie savings and loans at the end of the 1980s: it seized the defunct banks, cleaning out the shareholders. Then it transferred their bad assets to a special institution, the Resolution Trust Corporation; paid off enough of the banks' debts to make them solvent; and sold the fixed-up banks to new owners. The current buzz suggests, however, that policy makers aren't willing to take either of these approaches. Instead, they're reportedly gravitating toward a compromise approach: moving toxic waste from private banks' balance sheets to a publicly owned "bad bank" or "aggregator bank" that would resemble the Resolution Trust Corporation, but without seizing the banks first. Sheila Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, recently tried to describe how this would work: "The aggregator bank would buy the assets at fair value." But what does "fair value" mean? In my example, Gothamgroup is insolvent because the alleged $400 billion of toxic waste on its books is actually worth only $200 billion. The only way a government purchase of that toxic waste can make Gotham solvent again is if the government pays much more than private buyers are willing to offer. Now, maybe private buyers aren't willing to pay what toxic waste is really worth: "We don't have really any rational pricing right now for some of these asset categories," Ms. Bair says. But should the government be in the business of declaring that it knows better than the market what assets are worth? And is it really likely that paying "fair value," whatever that means, would be enough to make Gotham solvent again? What I suspect is that policy makers -- possibly without realizing it -- are gearing up to attempt a bait-and-switch: a policy that looks like the cleanup of the savings and loans, but in practice amounts to making huge gifts to bank shareholders at taxpayer expense, disguised as "fair value" purchases of toxic assets. Why go through these contortions? The answer seems to be that Washington remains deathly afraid of the N-word -- nationalization. The truth is that Gothamgroup and its sister institutions are already wards of the state, utterly dependent on taxpayer support; but nobody wants to recognize that fact and implement the obvious solution: an explicit, though temporary, government takeover. Hence the popularity of the new voodoo, which claims, as I said, that elaborate financial rituals can reanimate dead banks. Unfortunately, the price of this retreat into superstition may be high. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that taxpayers are about to get another raw deal -- and that we're about to get another financial rescue plan that fails to do the job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/opinion/19krugman.html The New York Times January 19, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Wall Street Voodoo
By PAUL KRUGMAN Old-fashioned voodoo economics -- the belief in tax-cut magic -- has been banished from civilized discourse. The supply-side cult has shrunk to the point that it contains only cranks, charlatans, and Republicans. But recent news reports suggest that many influential people, including Federal Reserve officials, bank regulators, and, possibly, members of the incoming Obama administration, have become devotees of a new kind of voodoo: the belief that by performing elaborate financial rituals we can keep dead banks walking. To explain the issue, let me describe the position of a hypothetical bank that I'll call Gothamgroup, or Gotham for short. On paper, Gotham has $2 trillion in assets and $1.9 trillion in liabilities, so that it has a net worth of $100 billion. But a substantial fraction of its assets -- say, $400 billion worth -- are mortgage-backed securities and other toxic waste. If the bank tried to sell these assets, it would get no more than $200 billion. So Gotham is a zombie bank: it's still operating, but the reality is that it has already gone bust. Its stock isn't totally worthless -- it still has a market capitalization of $20 billion -- but that value is entirely based on the hope that shareholders will be rescued by a government bailout. Why would the government bail Gotham out? Because it plays a central role in the financial system. When Lehman was allowed to fail, financial markets froze, and for a few weeks the world economy teetered on the edge of collapse. Since we don't want a repeat performance, Gotham has to be kept functioning. But how can that be done? Well, the government could simply give Gotham a couple of hundred billion dollars, enough to make it solvent again. But this would, of course, be a huge gift to Gotham's current shareholders -- and it would also encourage excessive risk-taking in the future. Still, the possibility of such a gift is what's now supporting Gotham's stock price. A better approach would be to do what the government did with zombie savings and loans at the end of the 1980s: it seized the defunct banks, cleaning out the shareholders. Then it transferred their bad assets to a special institution, the Resolution Trust Corporation; paid off enough of the banks' debts to make them solvent; and sold the fixed-up banks to new owners. The current buzz suggests, however, that policy makers aren't willing to take either of these approaches. Instead, they're reportedly gravitating toward a compromise approach: moving toxic waste from private banks' balance sheets to a publicly owned "bad bank" or "aggregator bank" that would resemble the Resolution Trust Corporation, but without seizing the banks first. Sheila Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, recently tried to describe how this would work: "The aggregator bank would buy the assets at fair value." But what does "fair value" mean? In my example, Gothamgroup is insolvent because the alleged $400 billion of toxic waste on its books is actually worth only $200 billion. The only way a government purchase of that toxic waste can make Gotham solvent again is if the government pays much more than private buyers are willing to offer. Now, maybe private buyers aren't willing to pay what toxic waste is really worth: "We don't have really any rational pricing right now for some of these asset categories," Ms. Bair says. But should the government be in the business of declaring that it knows better than the market what assets are worth? And is it really likely that paying "fair value," whatever that means, would be enough to make Gotham solvent again? What I suspect is that policy makers -- possibly without realizing it -- are gearing up to attempt a bait-and-switch: a policy that looks like the cleanup of the savings and loans, but in practice amounts to making huge gifts to bank shareholders at taxpayer expense, disguised as "fair value" purchases of toxic assets. Why go through these contortions? The answer seems to be that Washington remains deathly afraid of the N-word -- nationalization. The truth is that Gothamgroup and its sister institutions are already wards of the state, utterly dependent on taxpayer support; but nobody wants to recognize that fact and implement the obvious solution: an explicit, though temporary, government takeover. Hence the popularity of the new voodoo, which claims, as I said, that elaborate financial rituals can reanimate dead banks. Unfortunately, the price of this retreat into superstition may be high. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that taxpayers are about to get another raw deal -- and that we're about to get another financial rescue plan that fails to do the job.
EU parliament deplores ''collective punishment'' in Gaza
This is from the Tehran Times.
Interesting that the resolution regards the embargo on Gaza itself as a form of collective punishment. Indeed it is but there is the added huge collateral damage inflicted on Israel's attacks on what it terms Hamas targets. I guess the Iranians and Europeans have not read Thomas Friedman's article which calls collective punishment education! Those Iranian and European terror sympathisers simply fail to put the proper spin on collective punishment.
EU Parliament deplores “collective punishment” in Gaza
STRASBOURG, France (AFP) -- The European Parliament Thursday deplored the “collective punishment” meted out by Israel in the Palestinian Gaza Strip, calling it a violation of international humanitarian law.
“The embargo on the Gaza Strip represents collective punishment in contravention of international humanitarian law,” the eurodeputies agreed in a parliamentary resolution adopted with no dissenting hands. The parliament, meeting in Strasbourg, also called for “an immediate and permanent ceasefire,” which should include a halt to rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel and the end of Israel's military action in Gaza. The assembled MEPs said that a negotiated truce should be guaranteed by a “mechanism” set up by the international community which could include sending a multinational mission “in order to restore security and secure respect for the ceasefire.” They also called for the European Union to adopt “a stronger and more united political stance,” on the Middle East peace issue. The parliamentary resolution made no mention of EU plans endorsed last month to intensify ties with Israel, although several MEPs spoke out against the plan in recent days. The parliament expressed “its shock at the suffering of the civilian population in Gaza” and “strongly deplores, in particular, the fact that civilian and UN targets have been hit during the (Israeli) attacks.” The UN agency for Palestinian refugees on Thursday suspended its operations inside Gaza after its compound was hit by several Israeli shells, injuring three of its employees. Some European deputies, including Socialist group leader Francis Wurtz, who carried a card bearing the message “stop the war in Gaza,” told their colleagues of this attack but the parliamentary resolution was not amended to respond to it. The European parliament did call “in the strongest terms” for the Israeli authorities “to allow unimpeded access to humanitarian assistance and aid to the Gaza Strip and to guarantee a continuous and adequate flow of aid through the humanitarian corridors.” Since Israel unleashed its Operation Cast Lead on Dec. 27, at least 1,070 people have been killed and another 5,000 wounded, according to Gaza medics. Israel says 10 Israeli soldiers and three civilians have died as a result of combat or rocket fire.
Interesting that the resolution regards the embargo on Gaza itself as a form of collective punishment. Indeed it is but there is the added huge collateral damage inflicted on Israel's attacks on what it terms Hamas targets. I guess the Iranians and Europeans have not read Thomas Friedman's article which calls collective punishment education! Those Iranian and European terror sympathisers simply fail to put the proper spin on collective punishment.
EU Parliament deplores “collective punishment” in Gaza
STRASBOURG, France (AFP) -- The European Parliament Thursday deplored the “collective punishment” meted out by Israel in the Palestinian Gaza Strip, calling it a violation of international humanitarian law.
“The embargo on the Gaza Strip represents collective punishment in contravention of international humanitarian law,” the eurodeputies agreed in a parliamentary resolution adopted with no dissenting hands. The parliament, meeting in Strasbourg, also called for “an immediate and permanent ceasefire,” which should include a halt to rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel and the end of Israel's military action in Gaza. The assembled MEPs said that a negotiated truce should be guaranteed by a “mechanism” set up by the international community which could include sending a multinational mission “in order to restore security and secure respect for the ceasefire.” They also called for the European Union to adopt “a stronger and more united political stance,” on the Middle East peace issue. The parliamentary resolution made no mention of EU plans endorsed last month to intensify ties with Israel, although several MEPs spoke out against the plan in recent days. The parliament expressed “its shock at the suffering of the civilian population in Gaza” and “strongly deplores, in particular, the fact that civilian and UN targets have been hit during the (Israeli) attacks.” The UN agency for Palestinian refugees on Thursday suspended its operations inside Gaza after its compound was hit by several Israeli shells, injuring three of its employees. Some European deputies, including Socialist group leader Francis Wurtz, who carried a card bearing the message “stop the war in Gaza,” told their colleagues of this attack but the parliamentary resolution was not amended to respond to it. The European parliament did call “in the strongest terms” for the Israeli authorities “to allow unimpeded access to humanitarian assistance and aid to the Gaza Strip and to guarantee a continuous and adequate flow of aid through the humanitarian corridors.” Since Israel unleashed its Operation Cast Lead on Dec. 27, at least 1,070 people have been killed and another 5,000 wounded, according to Gaza medics. Israel says 10 Israeli soldiers and three civilians have died as a result of combat or rocket fire.
Friedman Thomas: Israel's Goals in Gaza
Below is an op ed by Thomas Friedman in the NYTimes.
It is strange that Israelis should not understand collective punishment as a war crime. It was part and parcel of the Nazi response to resistance movements. Friedman recommends precisely the same tactics euphemistically renamed as education. No doubt the Nazis too thought of collective punishment as teaching subject populations that resisting violently was a bad idea!
After this article I have included another article from Fair responding to Friedman.
January 14, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Israel’s Goals in Gaza?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
I have only one question about Israel’s military operation in Gaza: What is the goal? Is it the education of Hamas or the eradication of Hamas? I hope that it’s the education of Hamas. Let me explain why.
I was one of the few people who argued back in 2006 that Israel actually won the war in Lebanon started by Hezbollah. You need to study that war and its aftermath to understand Gaza and how it is part of a new strategic ballgame in the Arab-Israel arena, which will demand of the Obama team a new approach.
What Hezbollah did in 2006 — in launching an unprovoked war across the U.N.-recognized Israel-Lebanon border, after Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon — was to both upend Israel’s longstanding peace strategy and to unveil a new phase in the Hezbollah-Iran war strategy against Israel.
There have always been two camps in Israel when it comes to the logic of peace, notes Gidi Grinstein, president of the Israeli think tank, the Reut Institute: One camp says that all the problems Israel faces from the Palestinians or Lebanese emanate from occupying their territories. “Therefore, the fundamental problem is staying — and the fundamental remedy is leaving,” says Grinstein.
The other camp argues that Israel’s Arab foes are implacably hostile and leaving would only invite more hostility. Therefore, at least when it comes to the Palestinians, Israel needs to control their territories indefinitely. Since the mid-1990s, the first camp has dominated Israeli thinking. This led to the negotiated and unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza.
Hezbollah’s unprovoked attack from Lebanon into Israel in 2006 both undermined the argument that withdrawal led to security and presented Israel with a much more vexing military strategy aimed at neutralizing Israel’s military superiority. Hezbollah created a very “flat” military network, built on small teams of guerrillas and mobile missile-batteries, deeply embedded in the local towns and villages.
And this Hezbollah force, rather than confronting Israel’s Army head-on, focused on demoralizing Israeli civilians with rockets in their homes, challenging Israel to inflict massive civilian casualties in order to hit Hezbollah fighters and, when Israel did strike Hezbollah and also killed civilians, inflaming the Arab-Muslim street, making life very difficult for Arab or European leaders aligned with Israel.
Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.
Israel’s military was not focused on the morning after the war in Lebanon — when Hezbollah declared victory and the Israeli press declared defeat. It was focused on the morning after the morning after, when all the real business happens in the Middle East. That’s when Lebanese civilians, in anguish, said to Hezbollah: “What were you thinking? Look what destruction you have visited on your own community! For what? For whom?”
Here’s what Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said the morning after the morning after about his decision to start that war by abducting two Israeli soldiers on July 12, 2006: “We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.”
That was the education of Hezbollah. Has Israel seen its last conflict with Hezbollah? I doubt it. But Hezbollah, which has done nothing for Hamas, will think three times next time. That is probably all Israel can achieve with a nonstate actor.
In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to “educate” Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims. Now its focus, and the Obama team’s focus, should be on creating a clear choice for Hamas for the world to see: Are you about destroying Israel or building Gaza?
But that requires diplomacy. Israel de facto recognizes Hamas’s right to rule Gaza and to provide for the well-being and security of the people of Gaza — which was actually Hamas’s original campaign message, not rocketing Israel. And, in return, Hamas has to signal a willingness to assume responsibility for a lasting cease-fire and to abandon efforts to change the strategic equation with Israel by deploying longer and longer range rockets. That’s the only deal. Let’s give it a try.
This next article is from Fair.
Terrorism on the New York Times Op-Ed PageFriedman supports civilian suffering as "education"1/14/09New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman endorsed terrorism in a January 14 column defending Israel's attacks on the Gaza Strip.To answer his own question about Israel's plan--"What is the goal?"--Friedman referred back to the 2006 attacks on Lebanon, which killed about 1,000 Lebanese civilians. To Friedman, this was the "education" of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah:
Israel's counterstrategy was to use its air force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians--the families and employers of the militants--to restrain Hezbollah in the future.The "logical" plan, as Friedman explained it, is to punish civilians in the hopes that this will force the political change you prefer. This is precisely the "logic" of terrorists. According to Friedman, this "education" worked on Hezbollah, and he hopes it will work in the current conflict: "In Gaza, I still can't tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to 'educate' Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population." Friedman's preference is for the terrorism "education." This pro-terrorism argument has been made before by Friedman, who advocated the same sort of terror against Serbs, writing (4/6/99) that "people tend to change their minds and adjust their goals as they see the price they are paying mount. Twelve days of surgical bombing was never going to turn Serbia around. Let's see what 12 weeks of less than surgical bombing does. Give war a chance."The New York Times has developed certain rules and guidelines for its opinion columnists over the years--they are not permitted to endorse political candidates, and they are generally expected to refrain from criticizing one another by name in print. Other policies have been made clear in the past--as when liberal columnist Paul Krugman was instructed not to refer to George W. Bush as "lying" during the 2000 campaign (Washington Post, 1/22/03).Does the Times have a similar standard for columnists who endorse inflicting suffering on civilians? Or does the acceptability of advocating terrorism depend on who is being terrorized?
It is strange that Israelis should not understand collective punishment as a war crime. It was part and parcel of the Nazi response to resistance movements. Friedman recommends precisely the same tactics euphemistically renamed as education. No doubt the Nazis too thought of collective punishment as teaching subject populations that resisting violently was a bad idea!
After this article I have included another article from Fair responding to Friedman.
January 14, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Israel’s Goals in Gaza?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
I have only one question about Israel’s military operation in Gaza: What is the goal? Is it the education of Hamas or the eradication of Hamas? I hope that it’s the education of Hamas. Let me explain why.
I was one of the few people who argued back in 2006 that Israel actually won the war in Lebanon started by Hezbollah. You need to study that war and its aftermath to understand Gaza and how it is part of a new strategic ballgame in the Arab-Israel arena, which will demand of the Obama team a new approach.
What Hezbollah did in 2006 — in launching an unprovoked war across the U.N.-recognized Israel-Lebanon border, after Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon — was to both upend Israel’s longstanding peace strategy and to unveil a new phase in the Hezbollah-Iran war strategy against Israel.
There have always been two camps in Israel when it comes to the logic of peace, notes Gidi Grinstein, president of the Israeli think tank, the Reut Institute: One camp says that all the problems Israel faces from the Palestinians or Lebanese emanate from occupying their territories. “Therefore, the fundamental problem is staying — and the fundamental remedy is leaving,” says Grinstein.
The other camp argues that Israel’s Arab foes are implacably hostile and leaving would only invite more hostility. Therefore, at least when it comes to the Palestinians, Israel needs to control their territories indefinitely. Since the mid-1990s, the first camp has dominated Israeli thinking. This led to the negotiated and unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza.
Hezbollah’s unprovoked attack from Lebanon into Israel in 2006 both undermined the argument that withdrawal led to security and presented Israel with a much more vexing military strategy aimed at neutralizing Israel’s military superiority. Hezbollah created a very “flat” military network, built on small teams of guerrillas and mobile missile-batteries, deeply embedded in the local towns and villages.
And this Hezbollah force, rather than confronting Israel’s Army head-on, focused on demoralizing Israeli civilians with rockets in their homes, challenging Israel to inflict massive civilian casualties in order to hit Hezbollah fighters and, when Israel did strike Hezbollah and also killed civilians, inflaming the Arab-Muslim street, making life very difficult for Arab or European leaders aligned with Israel.
Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.
Israel’s military was not focused on the morning after the war in Lebanon — when Hezbollah declared victory and the Israeli press declared defeat. It was focused on the morning after the morning after, when all the real business happens in the Middle East. That’s when Lebanese civilians, in anguish, said to Hezbollah: “What were you thinking? Look what destruction you have visited on your own community! For what? For whom?”
Here’s what Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said the morning after the morning after about his decision to start that war by abducting two Israeli soldiers on July 12, 2006: “We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.”
That was the education of Hezbollah. Has Israel seen its last conflict with Hezbollah? I doubt it. But Hezbollah, which has done nothing for Hamas, will think three times next time. That is probably all Israel can achieve with a nonstate actor.
In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to “educate” Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims. Now its focus, and the Obama team’s focus, should be on creating a clear choice for Hamas for the world to see: Are you about destroying Israel or building Gaza?
But that requires diplomacy. Israel de facto recognizes Hamas’s right to rule Gaza and to provide for the well-being and security of the people of Gaza — which was actually Hamas’s original campaign message, not rocketing Israel. And, in return, Hamas has to signal a willingness to assume responsibility for a lasting cease-fire and to abandon efforts to change the strategic equation with Israel by deploying longer and longer range rockets. That’s the only deal. Let’s give it a try.
This next article is from Fair.
Terrorism on the New York Times Op-Ed PageFriedman supports civilian suffering as "education"1/14/09New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman endorsed terrorism in a January 14 column defending Israel's attacks on the Gaza Strip.To answer his own question about Israel's plan--"What is the goal?"--Friedman referred back to the 2006 attacks on Lebanon, which killed about 1,000 Lebanese civilians. To Friedman, this was the "education" of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah:
Israel's counterstrategy was to use its air force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians--the families and employers of the militants--to restrain Hezbollah in the future.The "logical" plan, as Friedman explained it, is to punish civilians in the hopes that this will force the political change you prefer. This is precisely the "logic" of terrorists. According to Friedman, this "education" worked on Hezbollah, and he hopes it will work in the current conflict: "In Gaza, I still can't tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to 'educate' Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population." Friedman's preference is for the terrorism "education." This pro-terrorism argument has been made before by Friedman, who advocated the same sort of terror against Serbs, writing (4/6/99) that "people tend to change their minds and adjust their goals as they see the price they are paying mount. Twelve days of surgical bombing was never going to turn Serbia around. Let's see what 12 weeks of less than surgical bombing does. Give war a chance."The New York Times has developed certain rules and guidelines for its opinion columnists over the years--they are not permitted to endorse political candidates, and they are generally expected to refrain from criticizing one another by name in print. Other policies have been made clear in the past--as when liberal columnist Paul Krugman was instructed not to refer to George W. Bush as "lying" during the 2000 campaign (Washington Post, 1/22/03).Does the Times have a similar standard for columnists who endorse inflicting suffering on civilians? Or does the acceptability of advocating terrorism depend on who is being terrorized?
Philippines: Turning a blind eye to corruption
This is from Malaya. (Manila)
No doubt the Arroyo govt. turns a blind eye to much corruption because some of it members and supporters profit from it. As the article points out the corruption itself was uncovered only the World Bank after everything was declared as OK by Philippine govt. officials. However, the Senate is likely to be happy to uncover dirt
Turning a blind eye to corruption
Editorial
‘The distinction drawn up the Palace is, as a matter of fact, more worrisome.’
Malacañang has said it is support-ing a proposed Senate investigation of anomalies in bidding for road projects which prompted the World Bank to blacklist seven companies, mostly foreign-owned, which allegedly colluded in submitting rigged bids.
What kind of a reaction is that? There was an attempt to steal from a government project (the money may have come from the World Bank but that is a loan that the people will eventually have to pay). Instead of conducting its own investigation and going after the officials on top of the project who allowed the rigging to happen, the Palace is now fobbing off the responsibility of going to the bottom of the anomaly to the Senate.
The blacklisting was the culmination of a two-year investigation by the World Bank vice president for integrity. The World Bank uncovered the initial evidence of rigging in November 2006. This was on two contracts worth $33 million between 2003 and 2006 where there was excessive pricing in three rounds of bidding. The irregularities stalled the release two years ago of the $232 million loan for the second package of the National Road Improvement and Management Program.
Does the Palace mean it did not lift a finger during the two years that the World Bank initial finding came to its attention? About P11 billion was involved in the World Bank freeze. The Palace apparently was hardly bothered by the resulting delay in the implementation of the road project.
The Palace also said the anomalies might have broken World Bank rules against corruption but it has yet to be established that Philippine laws were violated. Of course, violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act can only be established by an investigation. If nobody is looking, it stands to reason no violation of the law can be found.
The distinction drawn up the Palace is, as a matter of fact, more worrisome. Biddings for World Bank-assisted projects are conducted by local implementing agencies. The World Bank comes in only after the fact. In the case of the road program, the implementing agency had given its approval and the anomaly was found only during World Bank review.
How about projects that are solely funded by the government? How many biddings have been rigged and escaped detection for lack of a review process?
But we are belaboring the obvious. Kickbacks are considered SOP in government infrastructure projects. The Department of Public Works and Highways has long been notoriously corrupt. We have yet to hear of any big corruption case in the DPWH prosecuted under the Arroyo administration.
Yesterday the Palace said 3,200 infrastructure projects worth at least P60 billion will be undertaken during the first semester as part of pump-priming. Happy days are here again.
No doubt the Arroyo govt. turns a blind eye to much corruption because some of it members and supporters profit from it. As the article points out the corruption itself was uncovered only the World Bank after everything was declared as OK by Philippine govt. officials. However, the Senate is likely to be happy to uncover dirt
Turning a blind eye to corruption
Editorial
‘The distinction drawn up the Palace is, as a matter of fact, more worrisome.’
Malacañang has said it is support-ing a proposed Senate investigation of anomalies in bidding for road projects which prompted the World Bank to blacklist seven companies, mostly foreign-owned, which allegedly colluded in submitting rigged bids.
What kind of a reaction is that? There was an attempt to steal from a government project (the money may have come from the World Bank but that is a loan that the people will eventually have to pay). Instead of conducting its own investigation and going after the officials on top of the project who allowed the rigging to happen, the Palace is now fobbing off the responsibility of going to the bottom of the anomaly to the Senate.
The blacklisting was the culmination of a two-year investigation by the World Bank vice president for integrity. The World Bank uncovered the initial evidence of rigging in November 2006. This was on two contracts worth $33 million between 2003 and 2006 where there was excessive pricing in three rounds of bidding. The irregularities stalled the release two years ago of the $232 million loan for the second package of the National Road Improvement and Management Program.
Does the Palace mean it did not lift a finger during the two years that the World Bank initial finding came to its attention? About P11 billion was involved in the World Bank freeze. The Palace apparently was hardly bothered by the resulting delay in the implementation of the road project.
The Palace also said the anomalies might have broken World Bank rules against corruption but it has yet to be established that Philippine laws were violated. Of course, violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act can only be established by an investigation. If nobody is looking, it stands to reason no violation of the law can be found.
The distinction drawn up the Palace is, as a matter of fact, more worrisome. Biddings for World Bank-assisted projects are conducted by local implementing agencies. The World Bank comes in only after the fact. In the case of the road program, the implementing agency had given its approval and the anomaly was found only during World Bank review.
How about projects that are solely funded by the government? How many biddings have been rigged and escaped detection for lack of a review process?
But we are belaboring the obvious. Kickbacks are considered SOP in government infrastructure projects. The Department of Public Works and Highways has long been notoriously corrupt. We have yet to hear of any big corruption case in the DPWH prosecuted under the Arroyo administration.
Yesterday the Palace said 3,200 infrastructure projects worth at least P60 billion will be undertaken during the first semester as part of pump-priming. Happy days are here again.
Sirota:Obama Sells out to Wall Street.
I wouldn't say that Obama sold out to Wall Street. He was owned by Wall Street in the first place. The money was flowing to Obama not to McCain. Obama has dutifully appointed people to key positions especially in finance that are certainly not unpleasing to Wall St.
Sirota should note that many leftists are also in favor of rescuing the financial sector as being the only way to avoid an even deeper recession. He does not explain how you are going to manage a capitalist economy when the credit system is not working. The leftist position should be to nationalise the banks so that they can be used for left policy aims rather than simply engines for the creation of private profit.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/17/sirota/print.html
Obama sells out to Wall Street
The president-elect's support of the bank bailout is payback to his wealthy Wall Street supporters.
By David Sirota
The veto is the legislative equivalent of a nuclear warhead -- a rarely used instrument of devastating force that singularly vaporizes the votes of 535 elected representatives. So when a president-elect issues a veto threat before being sworn into office, it sets off a particularly big explosion because it is a deliberate agenda-setting edict about priorities for the next four years.That's why every American who isn't a financial industry executive should be nervous.After President Bush this week asked Congress to release the bank bailout fund's remaining $350 billion, Obama pledged to veto any bill rejecting the request, meaning he is beginning his presidency not by "turn[ing] the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street," as he once pledged. Instead, he is promising a mushroom cloud unless lawmakers let taxpayer cash continue flowing to the biggest of Big Money interests.Amid paeans to "new politics," we're watching old-school paybacks from a politician who raised more Wall Street dough than any other -- a president-to-be whose inauguration festivities are being underwritten by the very bankers who are benefiting from the bailout largesse. Safely distanced from electoral pressure, Obama has appointed conservative economists to top White House positions; floated a tax cut for banks; and is now trying to preserve corporate welfare that almost exclusively benefits the political donor class.This isn't much-ballyhooed "change" -- it's money politics by a different name. How do we know? Because neither Obama nor anyone else is genuinely trying to justify the bailout on its merits -- and understandably so. Even the most basic queries prove such merits don't exist.Has the bailout increased bank lending, as was its stated objective? "Hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending," says a new report by the congressional panel charged with overseeing the money.Do federal officials have a solid plan to improve the bailout? The report raises alarms about "the shifting explanations of its purposes," noting that the government has "not yet explained its strategy."Is the cash being spent responsibly? The report says a lack of transparency means the public "still does not know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money."But the most damning question isn't even being voiced: Is a bank bailout the best way to boost the economy?Somehow, immediately releasing more bailout funds is being portrayed as a self-evident necessity, even though the New York Times reported this week that "the Treasury says there is no urgent need" for additional money. Somehow, forcing average $40,000-aires to keep giving their tax dollars to Manhattan millionaires is depicted as the only "serious" course of action. Somehow, few ask whether that money could better help the economy by being spent on healthcare or public infrastructure. Somehow, the burden of proof is on bailout opponents who make these points, not on those who want to cut another blank check.This bizarre dynamic is anything but the "pragmatism" Obama rhetorically fetishizes -- and America's anti-bailout majority knows it.Sure, Obama might believe he's deft enough to seem courageously populist while using his White House to perpetuate kleptocracy. Perhaps he thinks the gravity of a veto threat will, for a second time, trick the nation into reluctantly accepting theft.Or maybe before attempting more sleight of hand, Obama should take a moment away from studying Lincoln's speeches and Roosevelt's fireside chats and recall the irrefutable sagacity in one of the most (in)famous Bushisms of all."There's an old saying in Tennessee," the outgoing president said early in his first term. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me (twice) -- you can't get fooled again."
Sirota should note that many leftists are also in favor of rescuing the financial sector as being the only way to avoid an even deeper recession. He does not explain how you are going to manage a capitalist economy when the credit system is not working. The leftist position should be to nationalise the banks so that they can be used for left policy aims rather than simply engines for the creation of private profit.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/17/sirota/print.html
Obama sells out to Wall Street
The president-elect's support of the bank bailout is payback to his wealthy Wall Street supporters.
By David Sirota
The veto is the legislative equivalent of a nuclear warhead -- a rarely used instrument of devastating force that singularly vaporizes the votes of 535 elected representatives. So when a president-elect issues a veto threat before being sworn into office, it sets off a particularly big explosion because it is a deliberate agenda-setting edict about priorities for the next four years.That's why every American who isn't a financial industry executive should be nervous.After President Bush this week asked Congress to release the bank bailout fund's remaining $350 billion, Obama pledged to veto any bill rejecting the request, meaning he is beginning his presidency not by "turn[ing] the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street," as he once pledged. Instead, he is promising a mushroom cloud unless lawmakers let taxpayer cash continue flowing to the biggest of Big Money interests.Amid paeans to "new politics," we're watching old-school paybacks from a politician who raised more Wall Street dough than any other -- a president-to-be whose inauguration festivities are being underwritten by the very bankers who are benefiting from the bailout largesse. Safely distanced from electoral pressure, Obama has appointed conservative economists to top White House positions; floated a tax cut for banks; and is now trying to preserve corporate welfare that almost exclusively benefits the political donor class.This isn't much-ballyhooed "change" -- it's money politics by a different name. How do we know? Because neither Obama nor anyone else is genuinely trying to justify the bailout on its merits -- and understandably so. Even the most basic queries prove such merits don't exist.Has the bailout increased bank lending, as was its stated objective? "Hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending," says a new report by the congressional panel charged with overseeing the money.Do federal officials have a solid plan to improve the bailout? The report raises alarms about "the shifting explanations of its purposes," noting that the government has "not yet explained its strategy."Is the cash being spent responsibly? The report says a lack of transparency means the public "still does not know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money."But the most damning question isn't even being voiced: Is a bank bailout the best way to boost the economy?Somehow, immediately releasing more bailout funds is being portrayed as a self-evident necessity, even though the New York Times reported this week that "the Treasury says there is no urgent need" for additional money. Somehow, forcing average $40,000-aires to keep giving their tax dollars to Manhattan millionaires is depicted as the only "serious" course of action. Somehow, few ask whether that money could better help the economy by being spent on healthcare or public infrastructure. Somehow, the burden of proof is on bailout opponents who make these points, not on those who want to cut another blank check.This bizarre dynamic is anything but the "pragmatism" Obama rhetorically fetishizes -- and America's anti-bailout majority knows it.Sure, Obama might believe he's deft enough to seem courageously populist while using his White House to perpetuate kleptocracy. Perhaps he thinks the gravity of a veto threat will, for a second time, trick the nation into reluctantly accepting theft.Or maybe before attempting more sleight of hand, Obama should take a moment away from studying Lincoln's speeches and Roosevelt's fireside chats and recall the irrefutable sagacity in one of the most (in)famous Bushisms of all."There's an old saying in Tennessee," the outgoing president said early in his first term. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me (twice) -- you can't get fooled again."
Hamas, Son of Israel
The fact that Israel helped nurture Hamas as opposition to the secularist PLO is rarely mentioned in mainstream critical analysis of the Israel Hamas conflict. As the article mentions this is a clear case of blowback. As with the evil terrorist Jihadists of Afghanistan when the USSR was in Afghanistan, so Hamas was OK and fostered to weaken the PLO just as the Jihadists were a weapon against the USSR. Of course when the jihadists turned against the west after the defeat of the Soviets they began the incarnation of evil and when the Islamist groups promoted by Israel to undermine the PLO became successful and turned against Israel rather than only the PLO they became the terrorists and thugs portrayed now in the media.
Hamas, Son of Israel
The Israelis birthed and nurtured their Islamist nemesis
by Justin Raimondo
Amid all the howls of pain and gnashing of teeth over the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, one fact remains relatively obscure, albeit highly relevant: Israel did much to launch Hamas as an effective force in the occupied territories. If ever there was a clear case of "blowback," then this is it. As Richard Sale pointed out in a piece for UPI:
"Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel 'aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),' said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic [and International] Studies. Israel's support for Hamas 'was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,' said a former senior CIA official."
Middle East analyst Ray Hanania concurs:
"In addition to hoping to turn the Palestinian masses away from Arafat and the PLO, the Likud leadership believed they could achieve a workable alliance with Islamic, anti-Arafat forces that would also extend Israel's control over the occupied territories."
In a conscious effort to undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization and the leadership of Yasser Arafat, in 1978 the government of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved the application of Sheik Ahmad Yassin to start a "humanitarian" organization known as the Islamic Association, or Mujama. The roots of this Islamist group were in the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and this was the seed that eventually grew into Hamas – but not before it was amply fertilized and nurtured with Israeli funding and political support.
Begin and his successor, Yitzhak Shamir, launched an effort to undercut the PLO, creating the so-called Village Leagues, composed of local councils of handpicked Palestinians who were willing to collaborate with Israel – and, in return, were put on the Israeli payroll. Sheik Yassin and his followers soon became a force within the Village Leagues. This tactical alliance between Yassin and the Israelis was based on a shared antipathy to the militantly secular and leftist PLO: the Israelis allowed Yassin's group to publish a newspaper and set up an extensive network of charitable organizations, which collected funds not only from the Israelis but also from Arab states opposed to Arafat.
Ami Isseroff, writing on MideastWeb, shows how the Israelis deliberately promoted the Islamists of the future Hamas by helping them turn the Islamic University of Gaza into a base from which the group recruited activists – and the suicide bombers of tomorrow. As the only higher-education facility in the Gaza strip, and the only such institution open to Palestinians since Anwar Sadat closed Egyptian colleges to them, IUG contained within its grounds the seeds of the future Palestinian state. When a conflict arose over religious issues, however, the Israeli authorities sided with the Islamists against the secularists of the Fatah-PLO mainstream. As Isseroff relates, the Islamists
"Encouraged Israeli authorities to dismiss their opponents in the committee in February of 1981, resulting in subsequent Islamisation of IUG policy and staff (including the obligation on women to wear the hijab and thobe and separate entrances for men and women), and enforced by violence and ostracization of dissenters. Tacit complicity from both university and Israeli authorities allowed Mujama to keep a weapons cache to use against secularists. By the mid 1980s, it was the largest university in occupied territories with 4,500 students, and student elections were won handily by Mujama."
Again, the motive was to offset Arafat's influence and divide the Palestinians. In the short term, this may have worked to some extent; in the longer term, however, it backfired badly – as demonstrated by the results of the recent Palestinian election.
The Hamas infrastructure of mosques, clinics, kindergartens, and other educational institutions flourished not only because they were lavishly funded, but also due to being efficiently run. Sheik Yassin and the future leaders of Hamas acquired a reputation for "clean" governance and good administrative practices, which would greatly aid them – especially in comparison to the PLO, which was widely perceived as corrupt. Indeed, "clean government" – and not the necessity of armed struggle – was the main theme of their successful election campaign.
The response of Israel and the U.S. has been shock, horror – and a stated refusal to deal with any government dominated by Hamas. U.S. congressional leaders – who unhelpfully passed a resolution prior to the Palestinian poll that demanded Hamas be banned from running – are now calling the entire "peace process" into question. Yet no one acknowledges that the victory of the Suicide Bombers Party demonstrated, in practice, an ancient principle expressed, I believe, by no less an authority than the Bible (Galatians 6:7):
"Be not deceived. God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
This "blowback" principle applies to Hamas not only insofar as Israel was involved in funding and encouraging Mujama, but also, after the consolidation of Hamas as an armed group, due to Israeli military policy. The much-touted "withdrawal," which amounts to Israel giving up Gaza while strengthening its hand elsewhere in the occupied territories, has been grist for the radical Islamist mill, as has the Wall of Separation and the attempt to quash the vote in East Jerusalem. Israel's relentless offensive against its perceived enemies – first Fatah, now Hamas and Islamic Jihad – has created a backlash and solidified support for fundamentalist extremist factions in the Palestinian community.
Likewise, the victory of Hamas will embolden the ultra-Zionists in Israel, who similarly mix a fanatic theology with faith in a military "solution" to the Palestinian "problem." The electoral victory of Hamas was only a few hours old before Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu went on television explaining why any concessions to the Palestinians – including the Gaza pullback – only served to embolden the most radical elements, such as Hamas.
The stricken Ariel Sharon lies in his hospital bed, unconscious – while his unilateral "land for peace" plan suffers from a very similar condition. Sharon's newly-formed Kadima Party is the big potential loser in all this, with Netanyahu's Likud looking to gain bigtime. The irony is that, as defense minister, it was Sharon who helped conceive and oversee the Village Leagues scheme that did so much to implant and empower Hamas. Like some Middle Eastern version of Dr. Frankenstein, he wound up being struck down by his own monstrous creation.
There is a lesson in there, somewhere, though it isn't one the Israelis or their American sponsors seem capable of learning just yet.
The idea that voting is some kind of panacea that will cleanse the Middle East of a self-defeating radicalism is an illusion that died a painful death with the election victory of Hamas. It had earlier suffered near-fatal convulsions with the ascension to power in Iraq of a Shi'ite fundamentalist coalition closely tied to Iran. The bitch-goddess of capital-D Democracy is a fickle and often perversely cruel deity, whose worshippers have been hit with a one-two punch as they seek to transform an entire region according to the canons of their peculiar dogma.
Hamas, Son of Israel
The Israelis birthed and nurtured their Islamist nemesis
by Justin Raimondo
Amid all the howls of pain and gnashing of teeth over the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, one fact remains relatively obscure, albeit highly relevant: Israel did much to launch Hamas as an effective force in the occupied territories. If ever there was a clear case of "blowback," then this is it. As Richard Sale pointed out in a piece for UPI:
"Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel 'aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),' said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic [and International] Studies. Israel's support for Hamas 'was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,' said a former senior CIA official."
Middle East analyst Ray Hanania concurs:
"In addition to hoping to turn the Palestinian masses away from Arafat and the PLO, the Likud leadership believed they could achieve a workable alliance with Islamic, anti-Arafat forces that would also extend Israel's control over the occupied territories."
In a conscious effort to undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization and the leadership of Yasser Arafat, in 1978 the government of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved the application of Sheik Ahmad Yassin to start a "humanitarian" organization known as the Islamic Association, or Mujama. The roots of this Islamist group were in the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and this was the seed that eventually grew into Hamas – but not before it was amply fertilized and nurtured with Israeli funding and political support.
Begin and his successor, Yitzhak Shamir, launched an effort to undercut the PLO, creating the so-called Village Leagues, composed of local councils of handpicked Palestinians who were willing to collaborate with Israel – and, in return, were put on the Israeli payroll. Sheik Yassin and his followers soon became a force within the Village Leagues. This tactical alliance between Yassin and the Israelis was based on a shared antipathy to the militantly secular and leftist PLO: the Israelis allowed Yassin's group to publish a newspaper and set up an extensive network of charitable organizations, which collected funds not only from the Israelis but also from Arab states opposed to Arafat.
Ami Isseroff, writing on MideastWeb, shows how the Israelis deliberately promoted the Islamists of the future Hamas by helping them turn the Islamic University of Gaza into a base from which the group recruited activists – and the suicide bombers of tomorrow. As the only higher-education facility in the Gaza strip, and the only such institution open to Palestinians since Anwar Sadat closed Egyptian colleges to them, IUG contained within its grounds the seeds of the future Palestinian state. When a conflict arose over religious issues, however, the Israeli authorities sided with the Islamists against the secularists of the Fatah-PLO mainstream. As Isseroff relates, the Islamists
"Encouraged Israeli authorities to dismiss their opponents in the committee in February of 1981, resulting in subsequent Islamisation of IUG policy and staff (including the obligation on women to wear the hijab and thobe and separate entrances for men and women), and enforced by violence and ostracization of dissenters. Tacit complicity from both university and Israeli authorities allowed Mujama to keep a weapons cache to use against secularists. By the mid 1980s, it was the largest university in occupied territories with 4,500 students, and student elections were won handily by Mujama."
Again, the motive was to offset Arafat's influence and divide the Palestinians. In the short term, this may have worked to some extent; in the longer term, however, it backfired badly – as demonstrated by the results of the recent Palestinian election.
The Hamas infrastructure of mosques, clinics, kindergartens, and other educational institutions flourished not only because they were lavishly funded, but also due to being efficiently run. Sheik Yassin and the future leaders of Hamas acquired a reputation for "clean" governance and good administrative practices, which would greatly aid them – especially in comparison to the PLO, which was widely perceived as corrupt. Indeed, "clean government" – and not the necessity of armed struggle – was the main theme of their successful election campaign.
The response of Israel and the U.S. has been shock, horror – and a stated refusal to deal with any government dominated by Hamas. U.S. congressional leaders – who unhelpfully passed a resolution prior to the Palestinian poll that demanded Hamas be banned from running – are now calling the entire "peace process" into question. Yet no one acknowledges that the victory of the Suicide Bombers Party demonstrated, in practice, an ancient principle expressed, I believe, by no less an authority than the Bible (Galatians 6:7):
"Be not deceived. God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
This "blowback" principle applies to Hamas not only insofar as Israel was involved in funding and encouraging Mujama, but also, after the consolidation of Hamas as an armed group, due to Israeli military policy. The much-touted "withdrawal," which amounts to Israel giving up Gaza while strengthening its hand elsewhere in the occupied territories, has been grist for the radical Islamist mill, as has the Wall of Separation and the attempt to quash the vote in East Jerusalem. Israel's relentless offensive against its perceived enemies – first Fatah, now Hamas and Islamic Jihad – has created a backlash and solidified support for fundamentalist extremist factions in the Palestinian community.
Likewise, the victory of Hamas will embolden the ultra-Zionists in Israel, who similarly mix a fanatic theology with faith in a military "solution" to the Palestinian "problem." The electoral victory of Hamas was only a few hours old before Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu went on television explaining why any concessions to the Palestinians – including the Gaza pullback – only served to embolden the most radical elements, such as Hamas.
The stricken Ariel Sharon lies in his hospital bed, unconscious – while his unilateral "land for peace" plan suffers from a very similar condition. Sharon's newly-formed Kadima Party is the big potential loser in all this, with Netanyahu's Likud looking to gain bigtime. The irony is that, as defense minister, it was Sharon who helped conceive and oversee the Village Leagues scheme that did so much to implant and empower Hamas. Like some Middle Eastern version of Dr. Frankenstein, he wound up being struck down by his own monstrous creation.
There is a lesson in there, somewhere, though it isn't one the Israelis or their American sponsors seem capable of learning just yet.
The idea that voting is some kind of panacea that will cleanse the Middle East of a self-defeating radicalism is an illusion that died a painful death with the election victory of Hamas. It had earlier suffered near-fatal convulsions with the ascension to power in Iraq of a Shi'ite fundamentalist coalition closely tied to Iran. The bitch-goddess of capital-D Democracy is a fickle and often perversely cruel deity, whose worshippers have been hit with a one-two punch as they seek to transform an entire region according to the canons of their peculiar dogma.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Study: Coffee may reduce risk of dementia.
I guess that is why I am still an active and of course very intelligent blogger in my middle seventies. Of course my wife and not all bloggers may agree!
Coffee may reduce risk of dementia, study suggests
Updated Wed. Jan. 14 2009 7:18 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Drinking coffee in middle age can decrease the risk of dementia later in life, a new study suggests.
The research, published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, found that those who drink coffee in midlife have a lower risk for late-onset dementia and Alzheimer's disease compared to those who drink little or no coffee.
Researchers found the lowest risk among moderate coffee drinkers, or those who drank three to five cups a day. Their dementia or Alzheimer's risk was lowered by 65 per cent.
While tea drinking did not appear to lower the risk of dementia or Alzheimer's, it did not increase the risk for either condition.
"Given the large amount of coffee consumption globally, the results might have important implications for the prevention of or delaying the onset of dementia or Alzheimer's disease," said lead researcher Miia Kivipelto, of the University of Kuopio, Finland and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. "The finding needs to be confirmed by other studies, but it opens the possibility that dietary interventions could modify the risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease."
The findings also suggest that the protective effect of coffee may lead to new treatments for those already diagnosed with either condition.
The study included data from patients who had participated in health surveys throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The average follow-up rate was 21 years.
The researchers decided to study the association between coffee and tea consumption in midlife and the development of late-onset dementia or Alzheimer's "because the long-term impact of caffeine on the central nervous system was still unknown" and because the processes that lead to these conditions may start decades before symptoms appear.
Alzheimer's and dementia are characterized by a number of symptoms that include memory loss, impaired judgment or reasoning, and changes in behaviours and mood.
The study's findings are significant given that recently released figures suggest that as many as 1.3 million Canadians may develop dementia or Alzheimer's disease within the next 25 years.
Coffee may reduce risk of dementia, study suggests
Updated Wed. Jan. 14 2009 7:18 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Drinking coffee in middle age can decrease the risk of dementia later in life, a new study suggests.
The research, published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, found that those who drink coffee in midlife have a lower risk for late-onset dementia and Alzheimer's disease compared to those who drink little or no coffee.
Researchers found the lowest risk among moderate coffee drinkers, or those who drank three to five cups a day. Their dementia or Alzheimer's risk was lowered by 65 per cent.
While tea drinking did not appear to lower the risk of dementia or Alzheimer's, it did not increase the risk for either condition.
"Given the large amount of coffee consumption globally, the results might have important implications for the prevention of or delaying the onset of dementia or Alzheimer's disease," said lead researcher Miia Kivipelto, of the University of Kuopio, Finland and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. "The finding needs to be confirmed by other studies, but it opens the possibility that dietary interventions could modify the risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease."
The findings also suggest that the protective effect of coffee may lead to new treatments for those already diagnosed with either condition.
The study included data from patients who had participated in health surveys throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The average follow-up rate was 21 years.
The researchers decided to study the association between coffee and tea consumption in midlife and the development of late-onset dementia or Alzheimer's "because the long-term impact of caffeine on the central nervous system was still unknown" and because the processes that lead to these conditions may start decades before symptoms appear.
Alzheimer's and dementia are characterized by a number of symptoms that include memory loss, impaired judgment or reasoning, and changes in behaviours and mood.
The study's findings are significant given that recently released figures suggest that as many as 1.3 million Canadians may develop dementia or Alzheimer's disease within the next 25 years.
Hamas agrees to Ceasefire in Gaza
This is from VOA news.
While this seems to be just a temporary ceasefire unless Israel actually does withdraw within a week at least it temporarily ends the slaughter in Gaza and provides a breathing space and time to hammer out a more lasting agreement if that is possible.
Hamas Agrees to Ceasefire in Gaza
By Robert Berger Jerusalem18 January 2009
, Sunday, 18 Jan. 2009The Islamic militant group Hamas that rules the Gaza Strip has followed Israel's lead and agreed to a ceasefire. The announcement followed a fresh round of violence. At least 1,200 Palestinians and 13 Israelis have been killed in the three-week conflict. Sixteen hours after Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire in Gaza, Hamas followed suit. Speaking in Damascus, Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk announced that armed Palestinian groups would observe the truce, on condition that Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza in a week. Earlier, Hamas had rejected Israel's cease-fire declaration because Israeli forces remained in Gaza. The group responded by firing more than 20 rockets at Israel. The Israeli air force, in turn, targeted rocket-launching sites. Israel declared the truce Saturday, saying it had dealt a severe blow to Hamas and accomplished its goals. At the weekly Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the ceasefire is fragile. Mr. Olmert said the army will respond to any Palestinian attacks, and Israel will test the ceasefire as he put it, "minute by minute, and hour by hour."Egypt is continuing efforts to hammer out a ceasefire agreement that will be acceptable to both sides. Israel is demanding a halt to Hamas rocket attacks and weapons smuggling from Egypt, and Hamas is demanding that Israel lift its crippling blockade on Gaza.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.
While this seems to be just a temporary ceasefire unless Israel actually does withdraw within a week at least it temporarily ends the slaughter in Gaza and provides a breathing space and time to hammer out a more lasting agreement if that is possible.
Hamas Agrees to Ceasefire in Gaza
By Robert Berger Jerusalem18 January 2009
, Sunday, 18 Jan. 2009The Islamic militant group Hamas that rules the Gaza Strip has followed Israel's lead and agreed to a ceasefire. The announcement followed a fresh round of violence. At least 1,200 Palestinians and 13 Israelis have been killed in the three-week conflict. Sixteen hours after Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire in Gaza, Hamas followed suit. Speaking in Damascus, Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk announced that armed Palestinian groups would observe the truce, on condition that Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza in a week. Earlier, Hamas had rejected Israel's cease-fire declaration because Israeli forces remained in Gaza. The group responded by firing more than 20 rockets at Israel. The Israeli air force, in turn, targeted rocket-launching sites. Israel declared the truce Saturday, saying it had dealt a severe blow to Hamas and accomplished its goals. At the weekly Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the ceasefire is fragile. Mr. Olmert said the army will respond to any Palestinian attacks, and Israel will test the ceasefire as he put it, "minute by minute, and hour by hour."Egypt is continuing efforts to hammer out a ceasefire agreement that will be acceptable to both sides. Israel is demanding a halt to Hamas rocket attacks and weapons smuggling from Egypt, and Hamas is demanding that Israel lift its crippling blockade on Gaza.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Philippines: Funds pull 1.4 billion from Philippines in 2008.
Given that investors are pulling back from most areas it is not too surprising that the Philippines should be losing foreign capital in the global downturn. This is quite a change from 2007 when investment increased substantially.
This is from AFP.
Funds pull 1.4 bln dollars from Philippines in 2008: central bank
22 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — The Philippines lost a net 1.4 billion dollars in foreign portfolio investments as funds pulled out of stocks, securities and bank deposits in calendar year 2008, according to the central bank.
This was a sharp reversal from a net foreign portfolio investment of 3.5 billion dollars in 2007, it said in a statement.
"The global financial turmoil, which was precipitated by the US subprime mortgage crisis, has led to recession in many countries across the globe and heightened risk aversion among investors," central bank governor Amando Tetangco said in a statement.
The deficit came as gross capital outflows fell 19 percent from a year earlier to 9.7 billion dollars while gross inflows plunged 46 percent to 8.3 billion dollars last year, including 5.7 billion dollars ploughed into stocks, Tetangco said
This is from AFP.
Funds pull 1.4 bln dollars from Philippines in 2008: central bank
22 hours ago
MANILA (AFP) — The Philippines lost a net 1.4 billion dollars in foreign portfolio investments as funds pulled out of stocks, securities and bank deposits in calendar year 2008, according to the central bank.
This was a sharp reversal from a net foreign portfolio investment of 3.5 billion dollars in 2007, it said in a statement.
"The global financial turmoil, which was precipitated by the US subprime mortgage crisis, has led to recession in many countries across the globe and heightened risk aversion among investors," central bank governor Amando Tetangco said in a statement.
The deficit came as gross capital outflows fell 19 percent from a year earlier to 9.7 billion dollars while gross inflows plunged 46 percent to 8.3 billion dollars last year, including 5.7 billion dollars ploughed into stocks, Tetangco said
Israel's aims in the Gaza incursion
The objective of Israel is to isolate Hamas and make it completely defenceless. This goal is shared by the US and many western European countries as well as Egypt and Saudi Arabia among Arab countries. The truce is being arranged without any direct talks with Hamas. The main parties are Egypt the US and Israel with Abbas also playing a role. Hamas is not going to agree to disarm as the demand of Israel and others demands. The US will help ensure that more tunnels are not dug to smuggle goods and some mechanism will be adopted to control the flow of goods from Egypt. Their will be an increased flow of humanitarian aid but Gaza will remain a prison and left with a huge rebuilding task that will take years.
http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0360.htm The National (Dubai) January 07. 2009 Objectives bigger than commonly assumed Jonathan Cook, reporting from Nazareth Nazareth, Israel -- There are two persistent myths about the aim of Israel's onslaught on Gaza: the first that it is an entirely defensive move, a way to end the rocket fire of Hamas; and the second that it is designed to restore the army's credibility after its failure to cow Hizbollah in 2006. No doubt the Israeli army has been itching to repair its battered image, and for sure the rocket attacks from Gaza create domestic pressures that are only too clear to an Israeli government about to face an election. But it is a gross misunderstanding of what is unfolding in Gaza to believe Israel's motives are capricious. The politicians and generals have been preparing for this attack for many months, possibly years - a fact alone that suggests they have bigger objectives than commonly assumed. Israel seized this particular moment - with western politicians dozing through the holidays and a change over of administrations in Washington - because it ensured the longest period to implement its plan without diplomatic interference. The pressure on Israel to reach a political settlement will grow, however, as the inauguration of Barack Obama on Jan 20 approaches. That explains why, as the army brings ever greater force to bear on Hamas's urban heartlands, the outlines of an Israeli plan are starting to become visible. Despite talk in Israel that a chance to topple Hamas is within reach, that option does not have to be pursued. Israel's aims can be achieved whether Hamas stays or falls - as long as it is crushed politically. Certainly, a permanent re-occupation of the enclave with its 1.5 million inhabitants is not desired by Israel, which withdrew its settlers and soldiers in 2005 precisely because the demographic, economic and military costs of directly policing Gaza's refugee camps were considered too high. It therefore needs another ceasefire similar to the one that expired on Dec 19. The questions are: who will "sign" it and what will be its terms? Writing in The Jerusalem Post newspaper this week, Martin Kramer, a leading Washington neoconservative analyst on Middle East issues, suggested that Israel's goal was to forge an agreement with Mahmoud Abbas and restore his rule in Gaza. "Hamas would swallow the pill in the name of `national unity'," he argued. The idea that Mr Abbas and his Fatah party can ride into the Gaza Strip on the back of Israeli tanks may be a fantasy that makes sense to the neocons who brought us "regime change" in Iraq, but few in the Israeli government or army seem to believe it is feasible. In any case, the distinction between Fatah's "rule" over the West Bank ghettoes Israel has created and Hamas's oversight of the prison that Gaza has become is one Israel appears keen to maintain. The Israeli vision for the West Bank, in which significant parts are annexed, depends on its political severance from Gaza. Instead, Israel is again pursuing its favourite mode of diplomacy: unilateralism. According to officials quoted in the local media, it wants a deal that is approved by the United States and western governments but passes over the heads of Hamas and the Palestinians. At a recent cabinet meeting, Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, put it this way: "There is no intention here of creating a diplomatic agreement with Hamas. We need diplomatic agreements against Hamas." According to the latest reports, the ceasefire would require, as before, that Hamas prevent all rocket fire out of the Strip, but it would also introduce what officials are vaguely terming a "mechanism" on the only border with Gaza not under Israel's control. During its lengthy blockade, Israel has been able to prevent goods, including food, medicines and fuel, from entering the Gaza Strip through crossing points on its two land borders while its navy patrols the sea coast. But Gaza also shares a short southern land border, next to the town of Rafah, with Egypt. Before the 2005 disengagement, Israel sought to control this fourth border too by bulldozing swathes of Palestinian homes to create a no-man's land between Rafah and Egypt. This area, overlooked by military watchtowers, was referred to as the Philadelphi corridor. After the withdrawal, Israel hoped the steel wall along the Rafah border and its oversight of the crossing point into Egypt would ensure that nothing went in or out without its approval. However, a small private industry of tunnelling under the wall quickly burgeoned, becoming a lifeline for ordinary Gazans and a route for smuggling in weapons for Hamas. Egypt had little choice but to turn a blind eye, despite being profoundly uncomfortable with an Islamic party ruling next door. It faces its own domestic pressures over the humanitarian catastrophe that has been visibly created in Gaza. Israel believes the current invasion will have achieved nothing unless this time it regains absolute control of the Rafah border, undercutting Hamas's claims to be running the Strip. The "mechanism" therefore requires that technical responsibility is lifted from Egyptian shoulders. According to the Israeli plan, it will pass to the Americans, whose expertise will be called on to stop the tunnelling and prevent Hamas from rebuilding its arsenal after the invasion comes to an end. Israel may additionally seek the involvement of international forces to diffuse the censure the Arab publics are likely to direct at Egypt as a result. Once Hamas has no hope of rearming and cannot take any credit for the Gazans' welfare, Israel will presumably allow in sufficient supplies of humanitarian aid to pacify western governments concerned about the images of Gaza's cold and hungry children. Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian analyst, believes that in this scenario Israel would probably insist that such supplies come only through the Egyptian crossing, thereby "fulfilling another strategic aim: that of making Gaza Egypt's responsibility". And once the Gazan albatross is lifted from Israel's neck, Mr Abbas and his West Bank regime will be more isolated than ever. Undoubtedly, the hope in Israel is that, with Gaza disposed of, the pressure will grow on the Palestinian Authority to concede in a "peace" deal yet more Palestinian land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
This next is from AP.
Israel to vote on truce plan proposed by Egypt
AP – A Palestinian fire fighter tries to put out a fire at the United Nations headquarters Friday, Jan. 16, …
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Israel said it was approaching the "endgame" of its three-week offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers and scheduled a Security Cabinet vote Saturday on a truce proposed by Egypt. Under the cease-fire plan, fighting would stop immediately for 10 days, but Israeli forces would initially remain in Gaza and the border crossings into the territory would remain closed until security arrangements are made to ensure Hamas militants do not rearm.
If Israel agrees to stop shooting, Israel radio said a truce summit would be held in Cairo Sunday with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Israeli leaders expected to attend.
Hamas' political chief rejected Israel's conditions, but negotiators for the Islamic militant group were in behind-the-scenes contact with mediators in Cairo and signaled it was time for a truce.
"If they are ready, we are ready," Osama Hamdan, a top Hamas figure, told Sky News.
Israel launched its military offensive Dec. 27 to try to halt Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel, and top envoys were in Cairo and Washington on Friday to discuss cease-fire terms.
Palestinian medics say the fighting has killed at least 1,140 Palestinians and Israel's bombing campaign caused massive destruction in the Gaza Strip. Thirteen Israelis have been killed, four by rocket fire, according to Israel.
The Israeli vote was scheduled hours after the U.S. paved the way by agreeing to provide assurances that Hamas will not be able to rearm if Israel approves a cease-fire. It comes ahead of President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration on Tuesday, and Israeli elections next month.
A senior Israeli official said a vote approving the truce would amount to a "unilateral" cease-fire, though Israeli forces would only leave Gaza after an official declaration that the fighting was over. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
A truce would begin a phased process in which Israel halts its military offensive and then gauges the reaction from Hamas militants, the official said. If the militants continue to fire rockets, the assault would resume.
Under the deal, Egypt would shut down weapons smuggling routes with international help, and discussions on opening Gaza's blockaded border crossings would take place at a later date.
U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said Ban, who had weekend visits planned to Lebanon and Syria, was considering whether to attend a summit in Cairo Sunday, adding: "There's been no decision yet."
Israeli leaders were also considering whether to attend the summit, the senior Israeli official said.
The diplomatic developments coincided with an easing of violence in Gaza, where Israeli assaults killed 14 Palestinians on Friday, a lower death toll than in recent days. Palestinian medics took advantage of the relative calm, digging out 25 bodies buried under rubble in areas where Israeli forces and militants had clashed.
Palestinians heard dozens of Israeli tanks and other military vehicles roll away from the eastern and southern edges of Gaza City. An Israeli security official said the tanks would redeploy and were not withdrawing. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Israeli envoy Amos Gilad returned from Cairo and reported "substantial progress" in truce talks with Egyptian mediators, said a statement from the office of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
"I hope we are entering the endgame and that our goal of sustained and durable quiet in the south is about to be attained," Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni signed an agreement intended to prevent Hamas from smuggling weapons into Gaza if a cease-fire is implemented.
Livni described the deal as "vital ... for a cessation of hostility" and said it was meant "to complement Egyptian actions and to end of the flow of weapons to Gaza."
Earlier, Rice said she hoped European countries would work out similar bilateral agreements with Israel.
"There are a number of conditions that need to be obtained if a cease-fire is to be durable," Rice said. "Among them is to do something about the weapons smuggling and the potential for resupply of Hamas from other places, including from Iran."
The agreement outlines a framework under which the United States commits detection and surveillance equipment, as well as logistical help and training to Israel, Egypt and other nations to be used in monitoring Gaza's land and sea borders.
Rice and State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Obama and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton had been consulted on the details of the document, which was concluded after frenetic negotiations to address Israeli concerns that Hamas would use a cease-fire to stock up on weapons.
A diplomat on the U.N. Security Council in New York said he was reasonably optimistic that "we are in the last leg of the negotiations," though some issues remain unresolved.
There were long discussions on border security because the Egyptians don't want any kind of international presence on their side of the border, said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations are being held behind closed doors.
"Everything has to be on the other side of the border, which means there's a problem of who will be there, not only on behalf of the international community, but also which Palestinians. So it's linked to a potential agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority — so it's linked to other discussions," the diplomat said.
In addition, he said, discussions were under way with the U.S. on technology to help locate and destroy the tunnels Hamas has used to smuggle in weapons.
In Gaza, residents said they would welcome an end to the fighting, but expressed skepticism a cease-fire can hold.
"Everybody wants the world to return to what it was. But I think it's empty words," said Ghadir Mohammed, who was forced to flee her Gaza City home because of the fighting. "Let's assume if Hamas fires a rocket, will they be quiet about it? Israel isn't the kind to be quiet."
Hiba Dahshan from the eastern Gaza City neighborhood of Zeitoun where some of the heaviest fighting has taken place, said: "We are exhausted. We need a solution. Hopefully they'll halt fire."
A resident of the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, which has been targeted by Hamas rockets, said the army needed to free Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit — abducted by Hamas in 2006 — and be sure there would be quiet in southern Israel before stopping the fight.
"For eight years, they have been shooting at us," said Yigal Hakmon, manager of a convenience store. "We can't stop in the middle. We have to finish. We have to kill all the Hamas people."
Hamas, which has controlled the tiny Mediterranean strip since 2007, has demanded an immediate Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the opening of blockaded border crossings.
Mohamed Nazzal, a Hamas official based in Damascus, said the Egyptians invited Hamas on Friday for more discussions.
"It is expected that we go to see what is the opinion of the Israelis on the Hamas propositions," Nazzal said.
The Syrian-based Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal took a hard line at a summit of Arab countries in the Qatari capital of Doha, asking them to cut off any ties with Israel.
"We will not accept Israel's conditions for a cease-fire," Mashaal told the summit. He said Hamas demands that "the aggression stop," Israeli troops withdraw and crossings into Gaza open immediately.
Qatar and Mauritania heeded Mashaal's call, suspending political and economic contacts with Israel to protest the fighting. Qatar does not have diplomatic relations with Israel but maintains lower-level ties; Mauritania has full relations, but Israel's embassy in Mauritania was to remain and its ambassador was not being expelled.
___
http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0360.htm The National (Dubai) January 07. 2009 Objectives bigger than commonly assumed Jonathan Cook, reporting from Nazareth Nazareth, Israel -- There are two persistent myths about the aim of Israel's onslaught on Gaza: the first that it is an entirely defensive move, a way to end the rocket fire of Hamas; and the second that it is designed to restore the army's credibility after its failure to cow Hizbollah in 2006. No doubt the Israeli army has been itching to repair its battered image, and for sure the rocket attacks from Gaza create domestic pressures that are only too clear to an Israeli government about to face an election. But it is a gross misunderstanding of what is unfolding in Gaza to believe Israel's motives are capricious. The politicians and generals have been preparing for this attack for many months, possibly years - a fact alone that suggests they have bigger objectives than commonly assumed. Israel seized this particular moment - with western politicians dozing through the holidays and a change over of administrations in Washington - because it ensured the longest period to implement its plan without diplomatic interference. The pressure on Israel to reach a political settlement will grow, however, as the inauguration of Barack Obama on Jan 20 approaches. That explains why, as the army brings ever greater force to bear on Hamas's urban heartlands, the outlines of an Israeli plan are starting to become visible. Despite talk in Israel that a chance to topple Hamas is within reach, that option does not have to be pursued. Israel's aims can be achieved whether Hamas stays or falls - as long as it is crushed politically. Certainly, a permanent re-occupation of the enclave with its 1.5 million inhabitants is not desired by Israel, which withdrew its settlers and soldiers in 2005 precisely because the demographic, economic and military costs of directly policing Gaza's refugee camps were considered too high. It therefore needs another ceasefire similar to the one that expired on Dec 19. The questions are: who will "sign" it and what will be its terms? Writing in The Jerusalem Post newspaper this week, Martin Kramer, a leading Washington neoconservative analyst on Middle East issues, suggested that Israel's goal was to forge an agreement with Mahmoud Abbas and restore his rule in Gaza. "Hamas would swallow the pill in the name of `national unity'," he argued. The idea that Mr Abbas and his Fatah party can ride into the Gaza Strip on the back of Israeli tanks may be a fantasy that makes sense to the neocons who brought us "regime change" in Iraq, but few in the Israeli government or army seem to believe it is feasible. In any case, the distinction between Fatah's "rule" over the West Bank ghettoes Israel has created and Hamas's oversight of the prison that Gaza has become is one Israel appears keen to maintain. The Israeli vision for the West Bank, in which significant parts are annexed, depends on its political severance from Gaza. Instead, Israel is again pursuing its favourite mode of diplomacy: unilateralism. According to officials quoted in the local media, it wants a deal that is approved by the United States and western governments but passes over the heads of Hamas and the Palestinians. At a recent cabinet meeting, Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, put it this way: "There is no intention here of creating a diplomatic agreement with Hamas. We need diplomatic agreements against Hamas." According to the latest reports, the ceasefire would require, as before, that Hamas prevent all rocket fire out of the Strip, but it would also introduce what officials are vaguely terming a "mechanism" on the only border with Gaza not under Israel's control. During its lengthy blockade, Israel has been able to prevent goods, including food, medicines and fuel, from entering the Gaza Strip through crossing points on its two land borders while its navy patrols the sea coast. But Gaza also shares a short southern land border, next to the town of Rafah, with Egypt. Before the 2005 disengagement, Israel sought to control this fourth border too by bulldozing swathes of Palestinian homes to create a no-man's land between Rafah and Egypt. This area, overlooked by military watchtowers, was referred to as the Philadelphi corridor. After the withdrawal, Israel hoped the steel wall along the Rafah border and its oversight of the crossing point into Egypt would ensure that nothing went in or out without its approval. However, a small private industry of tunnelling under the wall quickly burgeoned, becoming a lifeline for ordinary Gazans and a route for smuggling in weapons for Hamas. Egypt had little choice but to turn a blind eye, despite being profoundly uncomfortable with an Islamic party ruling next door. It faces its own domestic pressures over the humanitarian catastrophe that has been visibly created in Gaza. Israel believes the current invasion will have achieved nothing unless this time it regains absolute control of the Rafah border, undercutting Hamas's claims to be running the Strip. The "mechanism" therefore requires that technical responsibility is lifted from Egyptian shoulders. According to the Israeli plan, it will pass to the Americans, whose expertise will be called on to stop the tunnelling and prevent Hamas from rebuilding its arsenal after the invasion comes to an end. Israel may additionally seek the involvement of international forces to diffuse the censure the Arab publics are likely to direct at Egypt as a result. Once Hamas has no hope of rearming and cannot take any credit for the Gazans' welfare, Israel will presumably allow in sufficient supplies of humanitarian aid to pacify western governments concerned about the images of Gaza's cold and hungry children. Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian analyst, believes that in this scenario Israel would probably insist that such supplies come only through the Egyptian crossing, thereby "fulfilling another strategic aim: that of making Gaza Egypt's responsibility". And once the Gazan albatross is lifted from Israel's neck, Mr Abbas and his West Bank regime will be more isolated than ever. Undoubtedly, the hope in Israel is that, with Gaza disposed of, the pressure will grow on the Palestinian Authority to concede in a "peace" deal yet more Palestinian land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
This next is from AP.
Israel to vote on truce plan proposed by Egypt
AP – A Palestinian fire fighter tries to put out a fire at the United Nations headquarters Friday, Jan. 16, …
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Israel said it was approaching the "endgame" of its three-week offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers and scheduled a Security Cabinet vote Saturday on a truce proposed by Egypt. Under the cease-fire plan, fighting would stop immediately for 10 days, but Israeli forces would initially remain in Gaza and the border crossings into the territory would remain closed until security arrangements are made to ensure Hamas militants do not rearm.
If Israel agrees to stop shooting, Israel radio said a truce summit would be held in Cairo Sunday with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Israeli leaders expected to attend.
Hamas' political chief rejected Israel's conditions, but negotiators for the Islamic militant group were in behind-the-scenes contact with mediators in Cairo and signaled it was time for a truce.
"If they are ready, we are ready," Osama Hamdan, a top Hamas figure, told Sky News.
Israel launched its military offensive Dec. 27 to try to halt Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel, and top envoys were in Cairo and Washington on Friday to discuss cease-fire terms.
Palestinian medics say the fighting has killed at least 1,140 Palestinians and Israel's bombing campaign caused massive destruction in the Gaza Strip. Thirteen Israelis have been killed, four by rocket fire, according to Israel.
The Israeli vote was scheduled hours after the U.S. paved the way by agreeing to provide assurances that Hamas will not be able to rearm if Israel approves a cease-fire. It comes ahead of President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration on Tuesday, and Israeli elections next month.
A senior Israeli official said a vote approving the truce would amount to a "unilateral" cease-fire, though Israeli forces would only leave Gaza after an official declaration that the fighting was over. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
A truce would begin a phased process in which Israel halts its military offensive and then gauges the reaction from Hamas militants, the official said. If the militants continue to fire rockets, the assault would resume.
Under the deal, Egypt would shut down weapons smuggling routes with international help, and discussions on opening Gaza's blockaded border crossings would take place at a later date.
U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said Ban, who had weekend visits planned to Lebanon and Syria, was considering whether to attend a summit in Cairo Sunday, adding: "There's been no decision yet."
Israeli leaders were also considering whether to attend the summit, the senior Israeli official said.
The diplomatic developments coincided with an easing of violence in Gaza, where Israeli assaults killed 14 Palestinians on Friday, a lower death toll than in recent days. Palestinian medics took advantage of the relative calm, digging out 25 bodies buried under rubble in areas where Israeli forces and militants had clashed.
Palestinians heard dozens of Israeli tanks and other military vehicles roll away from the eastern and southern edges of Gaza City. An Israeli security official said the tanks would redeploy and were not withdrawing. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Israeli envoy Amos Gilad returned from Cairo and reported "substantial progress" in truce talks with Egyptian mediators, said a statement from the office of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
"I hope we are entering the endgame and that our goal of sustained and durable quiet in the south is about to be attained," Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni signed an agreement intended to prevent Hamas from smuggling weapons into Gaza if a cease-fire is implemented.
Livni described the deal as "vital ... for a cessation of hostility" and said it was meant "to complement Egyptian actions and to end of the flow of weapons to Gaza."
Earlier, Rice said she hoped European countries would work out similar bilateral agreements with Israel.
"There are a number of conditions that need to be obtained if a cease-fire is to be durable," Rice said. "Among them is to do something about the weapons smuggling and the potential for resupply of Hamas from other places, including from Iran."
The agreement outlines a framework under which the United States commits detection and surveillance equipment, as well as logistical help and training to Israel, Egypt and other nations to be used in monitoring Gaza's land and sea borders.
Rice and State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Obama and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton had been consulted on the details of the document, which was concluded after frenetic negotiations to address Israeli concerns that Hamas would use a cease-fire to stock up on weapons.
A diplomat on the U.N. Security Council in New York said he was reasonably optimistic that "we are in the last leg of the negotiations," though some issues remain unresolved.
There were long discussions on border security because the Egyptians don't want any kind of international presence on their side of the border, said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations are being held behind closed doors.
"Everything has to be on the other side of the border, which means there's a problem of who will be there, not only on behalf of the international community, but also which Palestinians. So it's linked to a potential agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority — so it's linked to other discussions," the diplomat said.
In addition, he said, discussions were under way with the U.S. on technology to help locate and destroy the tunnels Hamas has used to smuggle in weapons.
In Gaza, residents said they would welcome an end to the fighting, but expressed skepticism a cease-fire can hold.
"Everybody wants the world to return to what it was. But I think it's empty words," said Ghadir Mohammed, who was forced to flee her Gaza City home because of the fighting. "Let's assume if Hamas fires a rocket, will they be quiet about it? Israel isn't the kind to be quiet."
Hiba Dahshan from the eastern Gaza City neighborhood of Zeitoun where some of the heaviest fighting has taken place, said: "We are exhausted. We need a solution. Hopefully they'll halt fire."
A resident of the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, which has been targeted by Hamas rockets, said the army needed to free Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit — abducted by Hamas in 2006 — and be sure there would be quiet in southern Israel before stopping the fight.
"For eight years, they have been shooting at us," said Yigal Hakmon, manager of a convenience store. "We can't stop in the middle. We have to finish. We have to kill all the Hamas people."
Hamas, which has controlled the tiny Mediterranean strip since 2007, has demanded an immediate Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the opening of blockaded border crossings.
Mohamed Nazzal, a Hamas official based in Damascus, said the Egyptians invited Hamas on Friday for more discussions.
"It is expected that we go to see what is the opinion of the Israelis on the Hamas propositions," Nazzal said.
The Syrian-based Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal took a hard line at a summit of Arab countries in the Qatari capital of Doha, asking them to cut off any ties with Israel.
"We will not accept Israel's conditions for a cease-fire," Mashaal told the summit. He said Hamas demands that "the aggression stop," Israeli troops withdraw and crossings into Gaza open immediately.
Qatar and Mauritania heeded Mashaal's call, suspending political and economic contacts with Israel to protest the fighting. Qatar does not have diplomatic relations with Israel but maintains lower-level ties; Mauritania has full relations, but Israel's embassy in Mauritania was to remain and its ambassador was not being expelled.
___
Friday, January 16, 2009
Israeli use of white phosphorus causes fire in UN compound?
This is from the Timesonline.
Israel has made claims that it simply does not use white phosphorus. However there is evidence that it does. Sometimes the claim is made that it is used simply as a smokescreen a use that is legal under international law. However apparently even as a smokescreen it should not be used in densely populated areas. Perhaps it can still start fires and cause burns in those conditions. As another Times article shows there is considerable evidence for its use. Human Rights Watch also accuses Israel of using phosphorus.
From Times Online
January 15, 2009
UN headquarters in Gaza hit by Israeli 'white phosphorus' shells
Sheera Frenkel, Jerusalem, and Philippe Naughton
The main UN compound in Gaza was left in flames today after being struck by Israeli artillery fire, and a spokesman said that the building had been hit by shells containing the incendiary agent white phosphorus.
The attack on the headquarters of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) came as Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, arrived in Israel on a peace mission and plunged Israel's relations with the world body to a new low.
Mr Ban expressed his "strong protest and outrage" at the shelling and demanded an investigation, only to be told by apologetic Israeli leaders that their forces had been returning fire from within the UN compound.
"The Israeli forces were attacked from there and their response was severe," Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, told the UN chief, according to a statement released by his office.
"We do not want such incidents to take place and I am sorry for it but I don’t know if you know, but Hamas fired from the UNRWA site. This is a sad incident and I apologise for it."
UNWRA, which looks after around four million Palestinian refugees in the region, suspended its operations in Gaza after the attack, in which three of its employees were injured.
Chris Gunness, a UNRWA spokesman, said that the building had been used to shelter hundreds of people fleeing Israel’s 20-day offensive in Gaza. He said that pallets with supplies desperately needed by Palestinians in Gaza were on fire.
"What more stark symbolism do you need?" he said. "You can’t put out white phosphorus with traditional methods such as fire extinguishers. You need sand, we don’t have sand."
The Israeli military has denied using white phosphorus shells in the Gaza offensive, although an investigation by The Times has revealed that dozens of Palestinians in Gaza have sustained serious injuries from the substance, which burns at extremely high temperatures.
The Geneva Convention of 1980 proscribes the use of white phosphorus as a weapon of war in civilian areas, although it can be used to create a smokescreen. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said today that all weapons used in Gaza were "within the scope of international law".
The attack on the UN compound came as Israeli forces pushed deeper into Gaza City and unleashed their heaviest shelling on its crowded neighbourhoods in three weeks of war. At least 15 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli attacks, medical officials said, pushing the death toll up towards 1,100 — a level that Mr Ban described as "unbearable".
It was not clear whether the escalation signalled a new phase in the conflict. Israel has held back from all-out urban warfare in the narrow alleyways of Gaza's cities, where Hamas militants are more familiar with the lay of the land.
Black smoke billowed over Gaza City, terrifying civilians who said that they had "nowhere left to hide" from the relentless shelling.
"I am telling you that Gaza is on fire, everything is under attack. We cannot begin to answer all the calls for help, it is desperate. We cannot reach the people, everyone is trapped and we do not know how to help them," said Doctor Moussa El Haddad at Shifa Hospital.
Maha El-Sheiky, 36, said that she fled her home in the western suburbs of Gaza City two days ago, moving her family into a school in the centre of the city. "We thought it would be safer here. But now there is shelling everywhere. It is schools and mosques and hospitals. We don’t know what will be next," she said. "We are hiding, it is in God’s hands."
There were reports that the al-Quds hospital in the Tal El Hawa district, Gaza's second-largest, had been shelled, while more than 500 patients were being treated inside.
An explosion also blasted a tower block that houses the offices of Reuters and several other media organisations, injuring a journalist working for the Abu Dhabi television channel.
Reuters journalists working at the time said it appeared that the southern side of the 13th floor of the Al-Shurouq Tower in the city centre had been struck by an Israeli missile or shell. Reuters evacuated its bureau.
Several organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch, said that they were "certain" that Israel was using white phosphorus shells in Gaza. Human rights workers said that the use of phosphorus in the densely populated Gaza City could constitute a war crime.
Israel launched the offensive on December 27 in an effort to stop militant rocket fire from Gaza that has terrorised hundreds of thousands of Israelis. It says that it will press ahead until it receives guarantees of a complete halt to rocket fire and an end to weapons smuggling into Gaza from neighbouring Egypt.
The attack on the UN compound prompted international protests.
Lord Malloch-Brown, the Foreign Office Minister, said that there was "absolutely no excuse" for the shelling, which, he said, reminded him of a similar attack on a UN observation post during the Israeli offensive into Lebanon in 2006.
He told peers: "With over 1,000 people now dead in Gaza, many of them civilians and children, the urgent need for a diplomatic solution is clear. A robust and immediate ceasefire is the only way the current situation in Gaza can be addressed."
William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "The shelling of the UN Headquarters in Gaza is unacceptable. This undercuts efforts to bring relief to the people of Gaza and is against Israel’s own interests. The UNWRA provides food and aid to over a million Palestinian refugees in Gaza.
"The suspension of its operations will bring more misery to civilians. We desperately need a ceasefire by both sides, not further escalation. Both sides must meet their obligations to protect aid workers at all times."
The conflict was also discussed at talks between Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, in Berlin. Aides said that Mr Brown was expected to speak to Mr Ban later today.
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating Jobs Property Search Used Cars Holidays Births, Marriages, Deaths Subscriptions
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search Property Finder Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Israel has made claims that it simply does not use white phosphorus. However there is evidence that it does. Sometimes the claim is made that it is used simply as a smokescreen a use that is legal under international law. However apparently even as a smokescreen it should not be used in densely populated areas. Perhaps it can still start fires and cause burns in those conditions. As another Times article shows there is considerable evidence for its use. Human Rights Watch also accuses Israel of using phosphorus.
From Times Online
January 15, 2009
UN headquarters in Gaza hit by Israeli 'white phosphorus' shells
Sheera Frenkel, Jerusalem, and Philippe Naughton
The main UN compound in Gaza was left in flames today after being struck by Israeli artillery fire, and a spokesman said that the building had been hit by shells containing the incendiary agent white phosphorus.
The attack on the headquarters of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) came as Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, arrived in Israel on a peace mission and plunged Israel's relations with the world body to a new low.
Mr Ban expressed his "strong protest and outrage" at the shelling and demanded an investigation, only to be told by apologetic Israeli leaders that their forces had been returning fire from within the UN compound.
"The Israeli forces were attacked from there and their response was severe," Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, told the UN chief, according to a statement released by his office.
"We do not want such incidents to take place and I am sorry for it but I don’t know if you know, but Hamas fired from the UNRWA site. This is a sad incident and I apologise for it."
UNWRA, which looks after around four million Palestinian refugees in the region, suspended its operations in Gaza after the attack, in which three of its employees were injured.
Chris Gunness, a UNRWA spokesman, said that the building had been used to shelter hundreds of people fleeing Israel’s 20-day offensive in Gaza. He said that pallets with supplies desperately needed by Palestinians in Gaza were on fire.
"What more stark symbolism do you need?" he said. "You can’t put out white phosphorus with traditional methods such as fire extinguishers. You need sand, we don’t have sand."
The Israeli military has denied using white phosphorus shells in the Gaza offensive, although an investigation by The Times has revealed that dozens of Palestinians in Gaza have sustained serious injuries from the substance, which burns at extremely high temperatures.
The Geneva Convention of 1980 proscribes the use of white phosphorus as a weapon of war in civilian areas, although it can be used to create a smokescreen. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said today that all weapons used in Gaza were "within the scope of international law".
The attack on the UN compound came as Israeli forces pushed deeper into Gaza City and unleashed their heaviest shelling on its crowded neighbourhoods in three weeks of war. At least 15 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli attacks, medical officials said, pushing the death toll up towards 1,100 — a level that Mr Ban described as "unbearable".
It was not clear whether the escalation signalled a new phase in the conflict. Israel has held back from all-out urban warfare in the narrow alleyways of Gaza's cities, where Hamas militants are more familiar with the lay of the land.
Black smoke billowed over Gaza City, terrifying civilians who said that they had "nowhere left to hide" from the relentless shelling.
"I am telling you that Gaza is on fire, everything is under attack. We cannot begin to answer all the calls for help, it is desperate. We cannot reach the people, everyone is trapped and we do not know how to help them," said Doctor Moussa El Haddad at Shifa Hospital.
Maha El-Sheiky, 36, said that she fled her home in the western suburbs of Gaza City two days ago, moving her family into a school in the centre of the city. "We thought it would be safer here. But now there is shelling everywhere. It is schools and mosques and hospitals. We don’t know what will be next," she said. "We are hiding, it is in God’s hands."
There were reports that the al-Quds hospital in the Tal El Hawa district, Gaza's second-largest, had been shelled, while more than 500 patients were being treated inside.
An explosion also blasted a tower block that houses the offices of Reuters and several other media organisations, injuring a journalist working for the Abu Dhabi television channel.
Reuters journalists working at the time said it appeared that the southern side of the 13th floor of the Al-Shurouq Tower in the city centre had been struck by an Israeli missile or shell. Reuters evacuated its bureau.
Several organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch, said that they were "certain" that Israel was using white phosphorus shells in Gaza. Human rights workers said that the use of phosphorus in the densely populated Gaza City could constitute a war crime.
Israel launched the offensive on December 27 in an effort to stop militant rocket fire from Gaza that has terrorised hundreds of thousands of Israelis. It says that it will press ahead until it receives guarantees of a complete halt to rocket fire and an end to weapons smuggling into Gaza from neighbouring Egypt.
The attack on the UN compound prompted international protests.
Lord Malloch-Brown, the Foreign Office Minister, said that there was "absolutely no excuse" for the shelling, which, he said, reminded him of a similar attack on a UN observation post during the Israeli offensive into Lebanon in 2006.
He told peers: "With over 1,000 people now dead in Gaza, many of them civilians and children, the urgent need for a diplomatic solution is clear. A robust and immediate ceasefire is the only way the current situation in Gaza can be addressed."
William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "The shelling of the UN Headquarters in Gaza is unacceptable. This undercuts efforts to bring relief to the people of Gaza and is against Israel’s own interests. The UNWRA provides food and aid to over a million Palestinian refugees in Gaza.
"The suspension of its operations will bring more misery to civilians. We desperately need a ceasefire by both sides, not further escalation. Both sides must meet their obligations to protect aid workers at all times."
The conflict was also discussed at talks between Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, in Berlin. Aides said that Mr Brown was expected to speak to Mr Ban later today.
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating Jobs Property Search Used Cars Holidays Births, Marriages, Deaths Subscriptions
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search Property Finder Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Gaza: A pawn in the new great game.
This is from Asia Times.
This analysis makes a great deal of sense to me. It also makes Israel's objectives clear. The article also as points out that many western powers are in complete agreement with those aims as well as some Arab regimes allied with the west. The idea that many western powers see this as a great battle between Islamic moderates versus extremists rings true. However extremists seem to mean simply groups that fight against western domination often using terror tactics rather than having anything essentially to do with their brand of Islam. After all Saudi Arabia surely represents extreme views in many respects as regards Islam especially concerning women's rights but it no doubt is regarded as moderate! Karzai's Afghanistan was about to put a citizen to death for converting from Islam to Christianity but no doubt Karzai is a moderate whereas the Taliban, except for those reformed Taliban in the government, are extremists!
Gaza: A pawn in the new 'great game'By Alastair Crooke
BEIRUT - A s Europeans watch the humanitarian disaster in Gaza unfold on nightly news bulletins, many may wonder why this crisis seems to have left their governments groping in such apparent fumbling disarray. The answer is that it is the result of policies pulling in opposite directions - of an acute irreconcilability at the heart of their policy-making. What has happened in Gaza was all too foreseeable. A few Israelis forewarned about this coming crisis, but the appeal of the "grand narrative" - of a global struggle between "moderates" and
"extremists" - overrode their warnings to the Israeli electorate. The thesis that literally "everything" must be done either to lever "moderates" into power, or prevent them from losing power - euphemistically called "supporting moderation" - lies at the heart of the Gaza crisis. It is a narrative that has served Israel's wider interests in garnering legitimacy for the Israeli campaign against Iran, and in dichotomizing the region into Westernized "moderates" and Islamist "extremists". Former British prime minister, and current Middle East envoy for the Quartet group of the United Nations, Tony Blair's proselytizing around the world on this theme has been a huge asset for an Israel which aspires to become the leading member of a "moderate" bloc, rather than an isolated island in an increasingly Islamist Middle East. Yet Blair's and other Quartet members' attempts to fit this simplistic mechanical template over a complex Middle East, facing multiple struggles, has reduced the Palestinian crisis to being no more than a pawn in a bigger "game" of the existential global struggle against "extremism". But such models, once generally accepted, force a deterministic interpretation that can blind its advocates to the real results of such narrow and rigid conceptualizing: a humbled Hamas was seen to be a blow to Hezbollah, which in turn represented a blow to Syria, which weakened Iran - all of which strengthens the "moderates" and makes Israel safer. Whether this thinking will achieve anything approaching this result remains highly improbable; but its price - Hamas clearly branded and now attacked as a part of these global forces of "extremism" - has been the foreclosure on the possibility of any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. European acquiescence to this Blairite vision of squeezing and humbling Hamas has directly contributed to the bloodshed seen in the streets of Gaza today. European leaders are complicit in creating the circumstances that led to today's disaster. At one level, Europeans may say they have been working diligently to pursue an Israeli-Palestinian solution, but their actions suggest the opposite - that they have been more concerned to deliver a knock-out blow to the camp of global "extremism". Pursuing such irreconcilable ends has only succeeded both in stripping their protege Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of any popular legitimacy and in closing the path of political participation to Hamas. They have destroyed any hope to achieve a truly national Palestinian mandate for any political solution for the foreseeable future. European "social engineering" in Gaza has created only deep division among Palestinians, and possibly pushed a Palestinian state beyond reach. European leaders bought into this strategy, hoping to pull-off a quickie under-the-table "peace" deal with Abbas that could then be "enforced" on the Palestinians through a multi-national "peacekeeping" force. This was to be achieved with the collaboration of Egypt and Saudi Arabia who were becoming increasingly fearful of the challenge from within their own domestic electorate and who were not adverse to seeing Hamas cornered in Gaza and "punished" by the Israelis. Stage one was to weaken Hamas; stage two to insert an armed international force into Gaza; and stage three was for Abbas' British and United States-trained special forces to return to Gaza and resume control of the Gaza Strip. It is standard colonial technique. Any psychologist, however, might have advised the European and US policymakers that putting one-and-a-half million Palestinians "on a diet", as an earlier Israeli chief-of-staff to the Israeli prime minister described it, and shredding any plans or hopes that they may have had for their futures, does not make humans more docile or more moderate. After a while in the Gaza pressure-cooker, anger and despair boil up: Gaza ultimately was set to explode - one way or another. As Gaza was squeezed to the point of desperation in the hope that its inhabitants would turn on Hamas, Britain and the US busied themselves in training a Palestinian "special forces" militia around Abbas. The force was used to suppress political activity by Hamas in the West Bank and to close down welfare and social organizations that are not aligned directly with Abbas. A policy of political "cleansing" of the West Bank, cloaked under the rhetoric of "building security institutions", predictably has been met with an equivalent counter-reaction by Hamas in Gaza - exacerbating Palestinian divisions. This, then, is the backdrop against which Hamas elected to decline a renewed ceasefire. To stand passive and cornered while Palestinians in Gaza were made destitute and hopeless in an extended ceasefire, and to watch as the Anglo-American political cleansing in the West Bank proceeded, simply was not feasible. European policy was not leading to a political solution, it was set on a course of self-destruction in Gaza and West Bank. Even in the wake of this humanitarian disaster, European mediators seem more concerned to fight the global war of "moderates" versus "extremists" than to achieve a solution. Blair on Israeli television argued that the priority must be to ensure that weapons cannot continue to reach Hamas via the smuggling tunnels - or else the killing continues. This is being said, however, at exactly the same time that Israeli officials were briefing journalists that the army began planning, training and acquiring the new weapons from the US for this assault - even as the terms of the past ceasefire were still to be agreed with Hamas. The hold of this moderate/extremist mindset over Europeans and Americans suggests that Europeans again will acquiesce to ceasefire aims intended to hollow out any political future for Hamas. The conflict seems set to continue, but the outlines of a new ceasefire are available today if anyone chooses to pursue them. The border crossings must be fully opened and life for Gazans must be returned to normality. On this basis, a stable ceasefire could be agreed on. Palestinian unity will be achieved only by opening Palestinian leadership institutions, including the Palestinian Liberation Organization, to radical reforms that will make them genuinely representative of the Palestinian people - and not through the political cleansing of Hamas from the political arena. Repeated Western attempts to lay a template that has persistently misconceived where the real risk of extremism lies in Islamism, and miscast immoderates as the moderates, has so far only served to light the fires of extremism, rather than extinguish them. Alastair Crooke is co-director of Conflicts Forum. He was formerly an EU mediator with Hamas and other Islamist movements and is author of Resistance: The Essence of the Islamist Revolution to be published in the UK in February and the US in March 2009. (Copyright 2009 Alastair Crooke.)
This analysis makes a great deal of sense to me. It also makes Israel's objectives clear. The article also as points out that many western powers are in complete agreement with those aims as well as some Arab regimes allied with the west. The idea that many western powers see this as a great battle between Islamic moderates versus extremists rings true. However extremists seem to mean simply groups that fight against western domination often using terror tactics rather than having anything essentially to do with their brand of Islam. After all Saudi Arabia surely represents extreme views in many respects as regards Islam especially concerning women's rights but it no doubt is regarded as moderate! Karzai's Afghanistan was about to put a citizen to death for converting from Islam to Christianity but no doubt Karzai is a moderate whereas the Taliban, except for those reformed Taliban in the government, are extremists!
Gaza: A pawn in the new 'great game'By Alastair Crooke
BEIRUT - A s Europeans watch the humanitarian disaster in Gaza unfold on nightly news bulletins, many may wonder why this crisis seems to have left their governments groping in such apparent fumbling disarray. The answer is that it is the result of policies pulling in opposite directions - of an acute irreconcilability at the heart of their policy-making. What has happened in Gaza was all too foreseeable. A few Israelis forewarned about this coming crisis, but the appeal of the "grand narrative" - of a global struggle between "moderates" and
"extremists" - overrode their warnings to the Israeli electorate. The thesis that literally "everything" must be done either to lever "moderates" into power, or prevent them from losing power - euphemistically called "supporting moderation" - lies at the heart of the Gaza crisis. It is a narrative that has served Israel's wider interests in garnering legitimacy for the Israeli campaign against Iran, and in dichotomizing the region into Westernized "moderates" and Islamist "extremists". Former British prime minister, and current Middle East envoy for the Quartet group of the United Nations, Tony Blair's proselytizing around the world on this theme has been a huge asset for an Israel which aspires to become the leading member of a "moderate" bloc, rather than an isolated island in an increasingly Islamist Middle East. Yet Blair's and other Quartet members' attempts to fit this simplistic mechanical template over a complex Middle East, facing multiple struggles, has reduced the Palestinian crisis to being no more than a pawn in a bigger "game" of the existential global struggle against "extremism". But such models, once generally accepted, force a deterministic interpretation that can blind its advocates to the real results of such narrow and rigid conceptualizing: a humbled Hamas was seen to be a blow to Hezbollah, which in turn represented a blow to Syria, which weakened Iran - all of which strengthens the "moderates" and makes Israel safer. Whether this thinking will achieve anything approaching this result remains highly improbable; but its price - Hamas clearly branded and now attacked as a part of these global forces of "extremism" - has been the foreclosure on the possibility of any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. European acquiescence to this Blairite vision of squeezing and humbling Hamas has directly contributed to the bloodshed seen in the streets of Gaza today. European leaders are complicit in creating the circumstances that led to today's disaster. At one level, Europeans may say they have been working diligently to pursue an Israeli-Palestinian solution, but their actions suggest the opposite - that they have been more concerned to deliver a knock-out blow to the camp of global "extremism". Pursuing such irreconcilable ends has only succeeded both in stripping their protege Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of any popular legitimacy and in closing the path of political participation to Hamas. They have destroyed any hope to achieve a truly national Palestinian mandate for any political solution for the foreseeable future. European "social engineering" in Gaza has created only deep division among Palestinians, and possibly pushed a Palestinian state beyond reach. European leaders bought into this strategy, hoping to pull-off a quickie under-the-table "peace" deal with Abbas that could then be "enforced" on the Palestinians through a multi-national "peacekeeping" force. This was to be achieved with the collaboration of Egypt and Saudi Arabia who were becoming increasingly fearful of the challenge from within their own domestic electorate and who were not adverse to seeing Hamas cornered in Gaza and "punished" by the Israelis. Stage one was to weaken Hamas; stage two to insert an armed international force into Gaza; and stage three was for Abbas' British and United States-trained special forces to return to Gaza and resume control of the Gaza Strip. It is standard colonial technique. Any psychologist, however, might have advised the European and US policymakers that putting one-and-a-half million Palestinians "on a diet", as an earlier Israeli chief-of-staff to the Israeli prime minister described it, and shredding any plans or hopes that they may have had for their futures, does not make humans more docile or more moderate. After a while in the Gaza pressure-cooker, anger and despair boil up: Gaza ultimately was set to explode - one way or another. As Gaza was squeezed to the point of desperation in the hope that its inhabitants would turn on Hamas, Britain and the US busied themselves in training a Palestinian "special forces" militia around Abbas. The force was used to suppress political activity by Hamas in the West Bank and to close down welfare and social organizations that are not aligned directly with Abbas. A policy of political "cleansing" of the West Bank, cloaked under the rhetoric of "building security institutions", predictably has been met with an equivalent counter-reaction by Hamas in Gaza - exacerbating Palestinian divisions. This, then, is the backdrop against which Hamas elected to decline a renewed ceasefire. To stand passive and cornered while Palestinians in Gaza were made destitute and hopeless in an extended ceasefire, and to watch as the Anglo-American political cleansing in the West Bank proceeded, simply was not feasible. European policy was not leading to a political solution, it was set on a course of self-destruction in Gaza and West Bank. Even in the wake of this humanitarian disaster, European mediators seem more concerned to fight the global war of "moderates" versus "extremists" than to achieve a solution. Blair on Israeli television argued that the priority must be to ensure that weapons cannot continue to reach Hamas via the smuggling tunnels - or else the killing continues. This is being said, however, at exactly the same time that Israeli officials were briefing journalists that the army began planning, training and acquiring the new weapons from the US for this assault - even as the terms of the past ceasefire were still to be agreed with Hamas. The hold of this moderate/extremist mindset over Europeans and Americans suggests that Europeans again will acquiesce to ceasefire aims intended to hollow out any political future for Hamas. The conflict seems set to continue, but the outlines of a new ceasefire are available today if anyone chooses to pursue them. The border crossings must be fully opened and life for Gazans must be returned to normality. On this basis, a stable ceasefire could be agreed on. Palestinian unity will be achieved only by opening Palestinian leadership institutions, including the Palestinian Liberation Organization, to radical reforms that will make them genuinely representative of the Palestinian people - and not through the political cleansing of Hamas from the political arena. Repeated Western attempts to lay a template that has persistently misconceived where the real risk of extremism lies in Islamism, and miscast immoderates as the moderates, has so far only served to light the fires of extremism, rather than extinguish them. Alastair Crooke is co-director of Conflicts Forum. He was formerly an EU mediator with Hamas and other Islamist movements and is author of Resistance: The Essence of the Islamist Revolution to be published in the UK in February and the US in March 2009. (Copyright 2009 Alastair Crooke.)
UN demands Eritrea pullback from Djibouti border.
This conflict no doubt is a minor irritant to the US and in this case France both of whom use the tiny country as a giant military base.
This is from antiwar.com.
UN demands Eritrea pullback from Dijbouti border
UN demands that Eritrea pull back troops from Djibouti border, near Red Sea shipping lanes
EDITH M. LEDERERAP News
Jan 14, 2009 16:43 EST
The U.N. Security Council on Wednesday unanimously demanded that Eritrea quickly pull its troops back from the Djibouti border and acknowledge the dispute with its Horn of Africa neighbor in an important area overlooking critical Red Sea shipping lanes.
In June, the Security Council condemned Eritrea for launching an attack against the tiny port nation of Djibouti, a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, which the U.S. said left 44 Djiboutian soldiers dead and many more missing.
The council had called for a cease-fire and urged the two countries to withdraw their forces from the border. Djibouti did, but Eritrea did not.
The council's resolution Wednesday expressed "deep concern" that Eritrea has not withdrawn its forces and has refused to engage in dialogue with Djibouti or accept the offers of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the African Union and others to help resolve the dispute.
The council demanded that Eritrea "comply immediately" with its order to pull back its troops and start talking to resolve the conflict. It gave Eritrea five weeks to take action.
Uncertainty over the Djibouti-Eritrea border also led to hostilities twice in the 1990s. Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year guerrilla war, and their border is also in dispute.
In October, Djibouti's President Ismail Omar Guelleh warned the council that Eritrea's occupation of Djibouti's territory could lead to war again. He urged the council "to do everything possible" to persuade Eritrea to leave the territory it has occupied since March.
Eritrea had accused the United States of instigating the conflict.
More than 1,200 U.S troops are stationed in Djibouti, which hosts the base for an anti-terrorism task force in the Horn of Africa. France, which sponsored Wednesday's resolution, also has a base in Djibouti, its former colony.
In a letter to the council on Monday, Eritrea's U.N. Ambassador Araya Desta called the accusations against his country "unfounded."
"Eritrea has not occupied any land that belongs to Djibouti and it cannot accept a resolution that demands the `withdrawal of its forces' from its own territory," Desta said.
This is from antiwar.com.
UN demands Eritrea pullback from Dijbouti border
UN demands that Eritrea pull back troops from Djibouti border, near Red Sea shipping lanes
EDITH M. LEDERERAP News
Jan 14, 2009 16:43 EST
The U.N. Security Council on Wednesday unanimously demanded that Eritrea quickly pull its troops back from the Djibouti border and acknowledge the dispute with its Horn of Africa neighbor in an important area overlooking critical Red Sea shipping lanes.
In June, the Security Council condemned Eritrea for launching an attack against the tiny port nation of Djibouti, a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, which the U.S. said left 44 Djiboutian soldiers dead and many more missing.
The council had called for a cease-fire and urged the two countries to withdraw their forces from the border. Djibouti did, but Eritrea did not.
The council's resolution Wednesday expressed "deep concern" that Eritrea has not withdrawn its forces and has refused to engage in dialogue with Djibouti or accept the offers of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the African Union and others to help resolve the dispute.
The council demanded that Eritrea "comply immediately" with its order to pull back its troops and start talking to resolve the conflict. It gave Eritrea five weeks to take action.
Uncertainty over the Djibouti-Eritrea border also led to hostilities twice in the 1990s. Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year guerrilla war, and their border is also in dispute.
In October, Djibouti's President Ismail Omar Guelleh warned the council that Eritrea's occupation of Djibouti's territory could lead to war again. He urged the council "to do everything possible" to persuade Eritrea to leave the territory it has occupied since March.
Eritrea had accused the United States of instigating the conflict.
More than 1,200 U.S troops are stationed in Djibouti, which hosts the base for an anti-terrorism task force in the Horn of Africa. France, which sponsored Wednesday's resolution, also has a base in Djibouti, its former colony.
In a letter to the council on Monday, Eritrea's U.N. Ambassador Araya Desta called the accusations against his country "unfounded."
"Eritrea has not occupied any land that belongs to Djibouti and it cannot accept a resolution that demands the `withdrawal of its forces' from its own territory," Desta said.
Hamas Accepts Cairo Ceasefire in Principle
This is from antiwar.com.
As this article notes, as long as the fighting continues accepting the ceasefire in principle means very little. Israel also accepted it in principle but now after many delays is sending someone to listen. With the pending Israeli election there seems to be a race to see who can claim to be the hardest liner of all! Olmert seems to be out in front!
Hamas Accepts Cairo Ceasefire Proposal ‘In Principle’
Israel to Send Official to Cairo Tomorrow to "Listen"
Posted January 14, 2009
The struggling Egyptian ceasefire effort for the Gaza Strip seems to have finally made some meaningful progress after a week of backdoor wrangling, as Hamas has accepted the deal “in principle,” though they said they had reservations about some of the terms and were waiting for Israel to respond.
Israeli officials too seem to be warming to the idea of ending their attacks, with the notable exception of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Tomorrow the Israeli government will finally send Defense Ministry official Amos Gilad to Cairo, after days of delay. Olmert’s office says Gilad will “primarily listen” on the visit, but will likely reiterate Israel’s demands.
Still, one mustn’t forget that Israel too agreed to the Cairo initiative “in principle” a week ago and has killed hundreds of people since then, making such agreements virtually meaningless until they actually translate into a halt in the attacks. International sentiment may be for a halt to the attacks, but it has been for weeks now and has netted little in the way of results.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
As this article notes, as long as the fighting continues accepting the ceasefire in principle means very little. Israel also accepted it in principle but now after many delays is sending someone to listen. With the pending Israeli election there seems to be a race to see who can claim to be the hardest liner of all! Olmert seems to be out in front!
Hamas Accepts Cairo Ceasefire Proposal ‘In Principle’
Israel to Send Official to Cairo Tomorrow to "Listen"
Posted January 14, 2009
The struggling Egyptian ceasefire effort for the Gaza Strip seems to have finally made some meaningful progress after a week of backdoor wrangling, as Hamas has accepted the deal “in principle,” though they said they had reservations about some of the terms and were waiting for Israel to respond.
Israeli officials too seem to be warming to the idea of ending their attacks, with the notable exception of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Tomorrow the Israeli government will finally send Defense Ministry official Amos Gilad to Cairo, after days of delay. Olmert’s office says Gilad will “primarily listen” on the visit, but will likely reiterate Israel’s demands.
Still, one mustn’t forget that Israel too agreed to the Cairo initiative “in principle” a week ago and has killed hundreds of people since then, making such agreements virtually meaningless until they actually translate into a halt in the attacks. International sentiment may be for a halt to the attacks, but it has been for weeks now and has netted little in the way of results.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
First Gaza damage estimate: 1.4 billion
Given the global depression it may be very difficult to raise funds to repair the damage. As can be seen from the list not only Hamas compounds but government ministries and the parliament destroyed. So if you elect terrorists the moral is that state terrorists will blow up your democratically elected govt. Today there is news that the UN headquarters in Gaza has also been shelled but before this two UN schools were hit or at least the yard in one case with many killed. It seems that civilian infrastructure is not spared.
This is from AP.
First Gaza damage estimate: $1.4 billion
By KARIN LAUB – 54 minutes ago
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — Israel's fierce assault on Gaza's Hamas rulers has destroyed at least $1.4 billion worth of buildings, roads, pipes, power lines and other infrastructure in already impoverished territory, Palestinian surveyors estimate.
Arab and Western countries will be called on to foot much of the bill to rebuild — which Palestinian economists say could take five years or more.
The Israeli military says it has bombed over 2,500 Hamas-linked targets since Dec. 27, including 250 tunnels the militant group used to smuggle in arms as well as large amounts of weapon stockpiles and rocket launcher squads.
Even with the Israeli offensive going full throttle, the international community is starting to tackle the formidable postwar challenge. Europe's top four fundraisers for the Palestinians — the foreign ministers of France and Norway, the European Union external relations commissioner and the international Mideast envoy — are meeting in Paris on Thursday to discuss Gaza's reconstruction and the possibility of holding a new donors' conference.
The last one, held in December 2007 at a time of renewed Mideast peace hopes, secured promises of $7.7 billion in aid through 2010. However, donors may have a tougher time contributing large sums in the current global financial crisis.
Another concern is whether a cease-fire deal will lift the blockade Israel and Egypt imposed on Gaza after Hamas seized the coastal strip in June 2007 and ousted the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who now controls only the West Bank.
"You cannot rebuild Gaza without open borders," said Tor Wennesland, the top Norwegian diplomat in the Palestinian territories.
Yet ending Gaza's lockdown will require compromises that seemed impossible before the Israeli offensive.
Hamas will have to relinquish some control by allowing a buffer force to deploy on the crossings, most likely international monitors, Abbas' troops or both.
Gatekeepers Egypt and Israel say there's no way they'll agree to give Hamas, viewed as a violent Iranian proxy, a final say over who and what enters and leaves Gaza. But if they accept a new border regime with monitors, that would inevitably strengthen the Islamic militants' rule over Gaza.
In any arrangement, rivals Abbas and Hamas will have to find a way to work jointly, not just to run the crossings but to oversee reconstruction projects. The two have been unable to come up with a power-sharing formula since Hamas defeated Abbas' Fatah movement in 2006 parliament elections.
Working out such understandings will take time, something Gaza's 1.4 million people may not have.
Israel says Hamas is using civilians as human shields and hiding its weapons in civilian areas. But the humanitarian crisis is becoming more pressing every day, according to the U.N. and human rights groups.
Tens of thousands have been displaced and the vast majority of Gazans depend on food handouts. Power cuts are widespread and at least 250,000 Gazans have been without electricity since Israel launched its offensive, aimed at halting Hamas rocket fire at southern Israel.
Sewage levels are rising precariously in rickety reservoirs. With nearly 4,000 wounded, along with about 1,000 killed, hospitals are increasingly overwhelmed and the health system is close to collapse, aid groups warn. Thirteen Israelis also have been killed.
Israel has allowed in convoys of supply trucks most days during the offensive, but aid workers say that's not enough to alleviate the crisis.
Even before the fighting, the blockade was pushing Gaza close to the edge.
Unemployment had risen to nearly 50 percent, with an Israeli export ban forcing virtually all of Gaza's 3,900 manufacturers to shut down, the U.N. said in December. Cash was scarce because of restrictions on bringing in bank notes, 80 percent of drinking water was substandard, electricity intermittent and tens of millions of gallons of sewage were discharged into the sea every day because of insufficient treatment facilities.
"It was bad before, it's worse now, and it's not getting any better," said Maxwell Gaylard, the U.N. humanitarian affairs coordinator for the Palestinian territories. "Civilians are bearing the brunt of this destruction of homes and infrastructure."
Gaylard said that once the shooting stops, U.N. crews in Gaza could quickly fix pressing problems, such as distributing more food and repairing some power and water lines. However, larger projects would be harder to accomplish if access to Gaza is restricted, he said.
Just before the offensive, frustrated World Bank officials noted that an emergency project to drain a dangerously full sewage reservoir in Gaza was more than two years off schedule largely because of difficulties in getting supplies into the territory.
Palestinian economists say a renewed blockade after the fighting ends is unthinkable, especially since Gaza's smuggling tunnels — a lifeline that brought in consumer goods as well as weapons — have been largely destroyed.
"A continuation of the closure means the final death blow to Gaza," said economist Mohammad Shtayyeh, who runs a Palestinian economic development council that serves as a liaison between the Abbas government and donor countries.
Even under ideal conditions, with borders open, rebuilding Gaza would take at least five years, he said.
World Bank officials say that with the fighting still raging, it's too early to assess damage.
However, Shtayyeh's council and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics have begun a first tally.
Based on reports from 56 engineers, the development council said the fighting caused about $1.7 billion in damage in the first 15 days.
This includes $300 million in damage in the southern district of Rafah, on Gaza's border with Egypt, hard hit by bombings because of the smuggling tunnels there, Shtayyeh said. About $135 million was in damage to houses and $35 million to infrastructure, he said.
The statistics bureau reported $976 million in damage and $408 million in lost trade, wages and other income in the first 17 days of the Israeli assault. About 4,000 houses were destroyed and 16,000 damaged, said director Luay Shabaneh.
He said 30 Hamas security compounds, 15 government ministries and the main government complex were demolished.
Earlier this week, Hamas' Cabinet secretary general, Mohammed Awad, told the militant group's Al Aqsa TV that about 1,000 residential buildings had been destroyed, and 25,000 damaged.
Abbas is planning to address an Arab League meeting next week in Kuwait, where he will likely appeal for help for Gaza.
West Bank-based Planning Minister Samir Abdullah said rebuilding Gaza will be impossible if Hamas keeps ruling the territory alone.
"It is a precondition that reconciliation take place and Gaza come under a legal authority," he said. "Otherwise, we can't do anything there ... and the economic situation will become some kind of Somalia."
Hosted by
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This is from AP.
First Gaza damage estimate: $1.4 billion
By KARIN LAUB – 54 minutes ago
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — Israel's fierce assault on Gaza's Hamas rulers has destroyed at least $1.4 billion worth of buildings, roads, pipes, power lines and other infrastructure in already impoverished territory, Palestinian surveyors estimate.
Arab and Western countries will be called on to foot much of the bill to rebuild — which Palestinian economists say could take five years or more.
The Israeli military says it has bombed over 2,500 Hamas-linked targets since Dec. 27, including 250 tunnels the militant group used to smuggle in arms as well as large amounts of weapon stockpiles and rocket launcher squads.
Even with the Israeli offensive going full throttle, the international community is starting to tackle the formidable postwar challenge. Europe's top four fundraisers for the Palestinians — the foreign ministers of France and Norway, the European Union external relations commissioner and the international Mideast envoy — are meeting in Paris on Thursday to discuss Gaza's reconstruction and the possibility of holding a new donors' conference.
The last one, held in December 2007 at a time of renewed Mideast peace hopes, secured promises of $7.7 billion in aid through 2010. However, donors may have a tougher time contributing large sums in the current global financial crisis.
Another concern is whether a cease-fire deal will lift the blockade Israel and Egypt imposed on Gaza after Hamas seized the coastal strip in June 2007 and ousted the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who now controls only the West Bank.
"You cannot rebuild Gaza without open borders," said Tor Wennesland, the top Norwegian diplomat in the Palestinian territories.
Yet ending Gaza's lockdown will require compromises that seemed impossible before the Israeli offensive.
Hamas will have to relinquish some control by allowing a buffer force to deploy on the crossings, most likely international monitors, Abbas' troops or both.
Gatekeepers Egypt and Israel say there's no way they'll agree to give Hamas, viewed as a violent Iranian proxy, a final say over who and what enters and leaves Gaza. But if they accept a new border regime with monitors, that would inevitably strengthen the Islamic militants' rule over Gaza.
In any arrangement, rivals Abbas and Hamas will have to find a way to work jointly, not just to run the crossings but to oversee reconstruction projects. The two have been unable to come up with a power-sharing formula since Hamas defeated Abbas' Fatah movement in 2006 parliament elections.
Working out such understandings will take time, something Gaza's 1.4 million people may not have.
Israel says Hamas is using civilians as human shields and hiding its weapons in civilian areas. But the humanitarian crisis is becoming more pressing every day, according to the U.N. and human rights groups.
Tens of thousands have been displaced and the vast majority of Gazans depend on food handouts. Power cuts are widespread and at least 250,000 Gazans have been without electricity since Israel launched its offensive, aimed at halting Hamas rocket fire at southern Israel.
Sewage levels are rising precariously in rickety reservoirs. With nearly 4,000 wounded, along with about 1,000 killed, hospitals are increasingly overwhelmed and the health system is close to collapse, aid groups warn. Thirteen Israelis also have been killed.
Israel has allowed in convoys of supply trucks most days during the offensive, but aid workers say that's not enough to alleviate the crisis.
Even before the fighting, the blockade was pushing Gaza close to the edge.
Unemployment had risen to nearly 50 percent, with an Israeli export ban forcing virtually all of Gaza's 3,900 manufacturers to shut down, the U.N. said in December. Cash was scarce because of restrictions on bringing in bank notes, 80 percent of drinking water was substandard, electricity intermittent and tens of millions of gallons of sewage were discharged into the sea every day because of insufficient treatment facilities.
"It was bad before, it's worse now, and it's not getting any better," said Maxwell Gaylard, the U.N. humanitarian affairs coordinator for the Palestinian territories. "Civilians are bearing the brunt of this destruction of homes and infrastructure."
Gaylard said that once the shooting stops, U.N. crews in Gaza could quickly fix pressing problems, such as distributing more food and repairing some power and water lines. However, larger projects would be harder to accomplish if access to Gaza is restricted, he said.
Just before the offensive, frustrated World Bank officials noted that an emergency project to drain a dangerously full sewage reservoir in Gaza was more than two years off schedule largely because of difficulties in getting supplies into the territory.
Palestinian economists say a renewed blockade after the fighting ends is unthinkable, especially since Gaza's smuggling tunnels — a lifeline that brought in consumer goods as well as weapons — have been largely destroyed.
"A continuation of the closure means the final death blow to Gaza," said economist Mohammad Shtayyeh, who runs a Palestinian economic development council that serves as a liaison between the Abbas government and donor countries.
Even under ideal conditions, with borders open, rebuilding Gaza would take at least five years, he said.
World Bank officials say that with the fighting still raging, it's too early to assess damage.
However, Shtayyeh's council and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics have begun a first tally.
Based on reports from 56 engineers, the development council said the fighting caused about $1.7 billion in damage in the first 15 days.
This includes $300 million in damage in the southern district of Rafah, on Gaza's border with Egypt, hard hit by bombings because of the smuggling tunnels there, Shtayyeh said. About $135 million was in damage to houses and $35 million to infrastructure, he said.
The statistics bureau reported $976 million in damage and $408 million in lost trade, wages and other income in the first 17 days of the Israeli assault. About 4,000 houses were destroyed and 16,000 damaged, said director Luay Shabaneh.
He said 30 Hamas security compounds, 15 government ministries and the main government complex were demolished.
Earlier this week, Hamas' Cabinet secretary general, Mohammed Awad, told the militant group's Al Aqsa TV that about 1,000 residential buildings had been destroyed, and 25,000 damaged.
Abbas is planning to address an Arab League meeting next week in Kuwait, where he will likely appeal for help for Gaza.
West Bank-based Planning Minister Samir Abdullah said rebuilding Gaza will be impossible if Hamas keeps ruling the territory alone.
"It is a precondition that reconciliation take place and Gaza come under a legal authority," he said. "Otherwise, we can't do anything there ... and the economic situation will become some kind of Somalia."
Hosted by
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Ban on Arab parties in Israel may facilitate Coalition govt.
We often hear that the Gaza conflict is between democratic Israel and the terrorist Hamas. Of course Hamas the terrorists were elected and it seems that the democracy Israel sees fit to ban certain parties. Sounds very much like the process of vetting who can run used by Iran which after all does have elections as well! This article shows another reason to ban Arab parties other than the anti-Arab feeling in Israel namely that it may facilitate a coalition govt. Of course it is always possible that the Israeli High Court may invalidate the ban. However the High Court told Israel to allow journalists into Gaza as well but that might as well have been a UN resolution against Israel for all the effect it has!
Ban on Arab Parties May Facilitate Coalition Govt in Israel
Israeli Arabs Condemn Ban on Parties, Balad Promises Court Battle
Posted January 13, 2009
When the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) banned the opposition Balad and United Arab List-Ta’al parties from next month’s elections, it unsurprisingly spawned no small amount of outrage among Israel’s Arab population. After all, Arabs make up roughly 20% of the population of Israel, and the ban will likely cost them the vast majority of what little representation they had in the Knesset.
And while the Balad Party hopes to petition the Israeli High Court to reverse the decision, the average Arab on the street sees the ban as just another transparent attempt by a government to pander to the growing anti-Arab fervor in war-time Israel. Yet the reality may be even more cynical than that.
The reason Israel is having an election next month is because the ruling Kadima Party, which not-so-coincidentally was the driving force behind this ban, failed to form a coalition government in October. Cobbling together a majority coalition that doesn’t include the rival Likud Party when they hold such a large number of seats (and are likely to gain even more in the next election) is no small task. And it’s a task made even harder by the presence of Arab parties.
Though they only held seven seats in the Knesset between them, the banned parties were pretty much de facto opposition parties: no coalition with the obligatory religious and special interest parties could ever brook Arab partners. Banning the Arab parties may not help Israel’s efforts to portray itself as a “democracy” worldwide, but it may give the floundering Kadima Party its only hope to cling to power.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
Ban on Arab Parties May Facilitate Coalition Govt in Israel
Israeli Arabs Condemn Ban on Parties, Balad Promises Court Battle
Posted January 13, 2009
When the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) banned the opposition Balad and United Arab List-Ta’al parties from next month’s elections, it unsurprisingly spawned no small amount of outrage among Israel’s Arab population. After all, Arabs make up roughly 20% of the population of Israel, and the ban will likely cost them the vast majority of what little representation they had in the Knesset.
And while the Balad Party hopes to petition the Israeli High Court to reverse the decision, the average Arab on the street sees the ban as just another transparent attempt by a government to pander to the growing anti-Arab fervor in war-time Israel. Yet the reality may be even more cynical than that.
The reason Israel is having an election next month is because the ruling Kadima Party, which not-so-coincidentally was the driving force behind this ban, failed to form a coalition government in October. Cobbling together a majority coalition that doesn’t include the rival Likud Party when they hold such a large number of seats (and are likely to gain even more in the next election) is no small task. And it’s a task made even harder by the presence of Arab parties.
Though they only held seven seats in the Knesset between them, the banned parties were pretty much de facto opposition parties: no coalition with the obligatory religious and special interest parties could ever brook Arab partners. Banning the Arab parties may not help Israel’s efforts to portray itself as a “democracy” worldwide, but it may give the floundering Kadima Party its only hope to cling to power.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Avnery: Israel's War of Deceit, Lies and Propaganda
Israelis who speak out against Israel are for the most part ignored by the mainstream press. Certainly an article such as this with its corrosive attack upon Israel's Gaza incursion will not be too widely distributed.
Originally printed in the Gulf Times this is from informationclearinghouse.
Israel's War of Deceit, Lies and Propaganda
By Uri AvneryJanuary 12 "Gulf Times" -- -
-Nearly 70 years ago, in the course of the Second World War, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called "the Red Army" held the millions of the town's inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centres.The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.This is the description that would now appear in the history books - if the Germans had won the war.Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in Israeli media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas "terrorists" use the inhabitants of Gaza as "hostages" and exploit the women and children as "human shields", they leave Israel no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to Israel's deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured.In this war, as in any modern war, propaganda plays a major role. Almost all the Western media initially repeated the official Israeli propaganda line. They almost entirely ignored the Palestinian side of the story, not to mention the daily demonstrations of the Israeli peace camp. The rationale of the Israeli government ("The state must defend its citizens against the Qassam rockets") has been accepted as the whole truth. The view from the other side, that the Qassams are a retaliation for the siege that starves the one and a half million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, was not mentioned at all.Only when the horrible scenes from Gaza started to appear on Western TV screens, did world public opinion gradually begin to change.War - every war - is the realm of lies. Whether called propaganda or psychological warfare, everybody accepts that it is right to lie for one's country. Anyone who speaks the truth runs the risk of being branded a traitor. The trouble is that propaganda is most convincing for the propagandist himself. And after you convince yourself that a lie is the truth and falsification reality, you can no longer make rational decisions.FalsificationAn example of this process surrounds the most shocking atrocity of this war so far: the shelling of the UN Fakhura school in Jabaliya refugee camp.Immediately after the incident became known throughout the world, the army "revealed" that Hamas fighters had been firing mortars from near the school entrance. As proof they released an aerial photo which indeed showed the school and the mortar. But within a short time the official army liar had to admit that the photo was more than a year old. In brief: a falsification.Later the official liar claimed that "our soldiers were shot at from inside the school". Barely a day passed before the army had to admit to UN personnel that that was a lie, too. Nobody had shot from inside the school, no Hamas fighters were inside the school, which was full of terrified refugees.But the admission made hardly any difference anymore. By that time, the Israeli public was completely convinced that "they shot from inside the school", and TV announcers stated this as a simple fact.So it went with the other atrocities. Every baby metamorphosed, in the act of dying, into a Hamas "terrorist". Every bombed mosque instantly became a Hamas base, every apartment building an arms cache, every school a terror command post, every civilian government building a "symbol of Hamas rule". Thus the Israeli army retained its purity as the "most moral army in the world".The truth is that the atrocities are a direct result of the war plan. This reflects the personality of Ehud Barak - a man whose way of thinking and actions are clear evidence of what is called "moral insanity", a sociopathic disorder.The real aim (apart from gaining seats in the coming elections) is to terminate the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the imagination of the planners, Hamas is an invader which has gained control of a foreign country. The reality is, of course, entirely different.A top priority for the planners was the need to minimise casualties among the soldiers, knowing that the mood of a large part of the pro-war public would change if reports of such casualties came in. That is what happened in Lebanon Wars I and II.This consideration played an especially important role because the entire war is a part of the election campaign. The planners thought that they could stop the world from seeing these images by forcibly preventing press coverage. But in a modern war, such a sterile manufactured view cannot completely exclude all others - the cameras are inside the strip, in the middle of the hell, and cannot be controlled. Al Jazeera broadcasts the pictures around the clock and reaches every home.Hundreds of millions of Arabs from Mauritania to Iraq, more than a billion Muslims from Nigeria to Indonesia see the pictures and are horrified. This has a strong impact on the war. Many of the viewers see the rulers of Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian National Authority as collaborators with Israel in carrying out these atrocities against their Palestinian brothers.If the war ends with Hamas still standing, bloodied but unvanquished, in face of the mighty Israeli military machine, it will look like a fantastic victory, a victory of mind over matter.What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet.In the end, this war is a crime against Israelis too, a crime against the State of Israel. Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to Counter Punch's book 'The Politics of Anti-Semitism'.
Originally printed in the Gulf Times this is from informationclearinghouse.
Israel's War of Deceit, Lies and Propaganda
By Uri AvneryJanuary 12 "Gulf Times" -- -
-Nearly 70 years ago, in the course of the Second World War, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called "the Red Army" held the millions of the town's inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centres.The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.This is the description that would now appear in the history books - if the Germans had won the war.Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in Israeli media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas "terrorists" use the inhabitants of Gaza as "hostages" and exploit the women and children as "human shields", they leave Israel no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to Israel's deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured.In this war, as in any modern war, propaganda plays a major role. Almost all the Western media initially repeated the official Israeli propaganda line. They almost entirely ignored the Palestinian side of the story, not to mention the daily demonstrations of the Israeli peace camp. The rationale of the Israeli government ("The state must defend its citizens against the Qassam rockets") has been accepted as the whole truth. The view from the other side, that the Qassams are a retaliation for the siege that starves the one and a half million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, was not mentioned at all.Only when the horrible scenes from Gaza started to appear on Western TV screens, did world public opinion gradually begin to change.War - every war - is the realm of lies. Whether called propaganda or psychological warfare, everybody accepts that it is right to lie for one's country. Anyone who speaks the truth runs the risk of being branded a traitor. The trouble is that propaganda is most convincing for the propagandist himself. And after you convince yourself that a lie is the truth and falsification reality, you can no longer make rational decisions.FalsificationAn example of this process surrounds the most shocking atrocity of this war so far: the shelling of the UN Fakhura school in Jabaliya refugee camp.Immediately after the incident became known throughout the world, the army "revealed" that Hamas fighters had been firing mortars from near the school entrance. As proof they released an aerial photo which indeed showed the school and the mortar. But within a short time the official army liar had to admit that the photo was more than a year old. In brief: a falsification.Later the official liar claimed that "our soldiers were shot at from inside the school". Barely a day passed before the army had to admit to UN personnel that that was a lie, too. Nobody had shot from inside the school, no Hamas fighters were inside the school, which was full of terrified refugees.But the admission made hardly any difference anymore. By that time, the Israeli public was completely convinced that "they shot from inside the school", and TV announcers stated this as a simple fact.So it went with the other atrocities. Every baby metamorphosed, in the act of dying, into a Hamas "terrorist". Every bombed mosque instantly became a Hamas base, every apartment building an arms cache, every school a terror command post, every civilian government building a "symbol of Hamas rule". Thus the Israeli army retained its purity as the "most moral army in the world".The truth is that the atrocities are a direct result of the war plan. This reflects the personality of Ehud Barak - a man whose way of thinking and actions are clear evidence of what is called "moral insanity", a sociopathic disorder.The real aim (apart from gaining seats in the coming elections) is to terminate the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the imagination of the planners, Hamas is an invader which has gained control of a foreign country. The reality is, of course, entirely different.A top priority for the planners was the need to minimise casualties among the soldiers, knowing that the mood of a large part of the pro-war public would change if reports of such casualties came in. That is what happened in Lebanon Wars I and II.This consideration played an especially important role because the entire war is a part of the election campaign. The planners thought that they could stop the world from seeing these images by forcibly preventing press coverage. But in a modern war, such a sterile manufactured view cannot completely exclude all others - the cameras are inside the strip, in the middle of the hell, and cannot be controlled. Al Jazeera broadcasts the pictures around the clock and reaches every home.Hundreds of millions of Arabs from Mauritania to Iraq, more than a billion Muslims from Nigeria to Indonesia see the pictures and are horrified. This has a strong impact on the war. Many of the viewers see the rulers of Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian National Authority as collaborators with Israel in carrying out these atrocities against their Palestinian brothers.If the war ends with Hamas still standing, bloodied but unvanquished, in face of the mighty Israeli military machine, it will look like a fantastic victory, a victory of mind over matter.What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet.In the end, this war is a crime against Israelis too, a crime against the State of Israel. Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to Counter Punch's book 'The Politics of Anti-Semitism'.
Obama to issue order to close Guantanamo in first week as president
This is a bit of an about face given that recently Obama was talking about the difficulty in closing the facility. Of course he can issue the order but at the same time giving plenty of lead time to close Guantanamo. By acting immediately Obama will restore his credibillity not only with many of his leftist supporters but internationally as well. It still remains to be seen how Obama will manage to deal with the problem of what to do with the prisoners! Presumably any tribunals in play such as that with Omar Khadr will be halted.
Obama to issue order to close Guantánamo in first week as president
• Pledge follows acknowledgment of difficulty of closing facility• More than 200 detainees remain at Guantánamo Bay
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 January 2009 20.30 GMT
President-elect Barack Obama is to issue an order to close the Guantánamo detention centre in his first week in office, according to his advisers.
Obama, who takes over the presidency next Tuesday, will make closure one of his first decisions, two of his advisers told the AP news agency.
The pledge comes only the day after Obama appeared to row back from campaign promises by saying closure was more complicated than he had realised and it would be a challenge to do so in his first 100 days in office.
Guantánamo has become a touchstone for the new administration. Democrats and liberal lawyers, as well as European governments, have repeatedly called for its closure, seeing it as an affront to human rights. Some of the detainees have been tortured.
There were about 700 detainees after a sweep of countries throughout the world as part of George Bush's "war on terror". While most have been released, more than 200 are still held.
There is no consensus yet on what to do with them. Some will be released, and some could be transferred to other countries, while the remainder could face trial on the US mainland.
Five human rights groups today urged Obama to stop a war crimes trial at Guantanamo of a Canadian, Omar Khadr, now 22, who is accused of killing a US soldier in Afghanistan when he was 15.
Obama to issue order to close Guantánamo in first week as president
• Pledge follows acknowledgment of difficulty of closing facility• More than 200 detainees remain at Guantánamo Bay
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 January 2009 20.30 GMT
President-elect Barack Obama is to issue an order to close the Guantánamo detention centre in his first week in office, according to his advisers.
Obama, who takes over the presidency next Tuesday, will make closure one of his first decisions, two of his advisers told the AP news agency.
The pledge comes only the day after Obama appeared to row back from campaign promises by saying closure was more complicated than he had realised and it would be a challenge to do so in his first 100 days in office.
Guantánamo has become a touchstone for the new administration. Democrats and liberal lawyers, as well as European governments, have repeatedly called for its closure, seeing it as an affront to human rights. Some of the detainees have been tortured.
There were about 700 detainees after a sweep of countries throughout the world as part of George Bush's "war on terror". While most have been released, more than 200 are still held.
There is no consensus yet on what to do with them. Some will be released, and some could be transferred to other countries, while the remainder could face trial on the US mainland.
Five human rights groups today urged Obama to stop a war crimes trial at Guantanamo of a Canadian, Omar Khadr, now 22, who is accused of killing a US soldier in Afghanistan when he was 15.
Philippine exports decline.
This is from Malaya.
While exports declined less in November than October the decline of 12 per cent still shows that the global slump is having a significant effect in the Philippines. Even so total yearly growth for 2008 is positive but much below that of 2007.
Slump in exports eases to 12%NSO reports electronics exports contracted by 4.79% or $1.3B for Jan. - November
Exports fell 12 percent last November after falling a revised 15 percent in October according to the National Statistics Office.
Shipments of electronics products which make up 66 percent of
the country’s exports contracted 17 percent in November after falling 18.9 percent last October.
For the first 11 months of the year, total exports, however managed to inch up by 0.76 percent.
Electronics exports for the first 11 months contracted by 4.79 percent, a big $1.3 billion reduction from $28.5 billion to $27.17 billion.
Another big loser was garments exports which contracted a higher percentage of almost 16 percent but less than the $1.3 billion loss of electronics at $300 million from $2.1 billion to $1.79 billion.
Other big losers were iron ore exports and fresh bananas.
The government has revised its 2008 exports target to growth of 2-4 percent from 5 percent, slower than 2007’s 6 percent rise.
Besides electronics, which are largely assembled from imported parts, other key Philippine exports include garments and accessories, vehicle parts, coconut oil, tropical fruit and wood furniture
Export of electronics had been on a four-month slide from the August contraction of 2.8 percent.
Of total electronic products exported, semiconductors posted the biggest decline of $1.61 billion which was offset by the rise in exports of parts used in telecommunications equipment from $382 million last year to $583 million this year.
Another gainer in electronics export is automotive electronics which rose from $554 million to $764 million.
Not all is lost in exports, there were products doing better namely tuna exports which rose from $182 million to $354 million or 94 percent rise.
Another big gainer is gold followed by desiccated coconut.
While exports declined less in November than October the decline of 12 per cent still shows that the global slump is having a significant effect in the Philippines. Even so total yearly growth for 2008 is positive but much below that of 2007.
Slump in exports eases to 12%NSO reports electronics exports contracted by 4.79% or $1.3B for Jan. - November
Exports fell 12 percent last November after falling a revised 15 percent in October according to the National Statistics Office.
Shipments of electronics products which make up 66 percent of
the country’s exports contracted 17 percent in November after falling 18.9 percent last October.
For the first 11 months of the year, total exports, however managed to inch up by 0.76 percent.
Electronics exports for the first 11 months contracted by 4.79 percent, a big $1.3 billion reduction from $28.5 billion to $27.17 billion.
Another big loser was garments exports which contracted a higher percentage of almost 16 percent but less than the $1.3 billion loss of electronics at $300 million from $2.1 billion to $1.79 billion.
Other big losers were iron ore exports and fresh bananas.
The government has revised its 2008 exports target to growth of 2-4 percent from 5 percent, slower than 2007’s 6 percent rise.
Besides electronics, which are largely assembled from imported parts, other key Philippine exports include garments and accessories, vehicle parts, coconut oil, tropical fruit and wood furniture
Export of electronics had been on a four-month slide from the August contraction of 2.8 percent.
Of total electronic products exported, semiconductors posted the biggest decline of $1.61 billion which was offset by the rise in exports of parts used in telecommunications equipment from $382 million last year to $583 million this year.
Another gainer in electronics export is automotive electronics which rose from $554 million to $764 million.
Not all is lost in exports, there were products doing better namely tuna exports which rose from $182 million to $354 million or 94 percent rise.
Another big gainer is gold followed by desiccated coconut.
Philippines: Arroyo names self anti-Drug Czar.
This is from the newspaper Malaya.
As usual Malaya does not treat poor Arroyo kindly! It is not clear how making herself the anti-drug czar will boost her ratings. She could do that best by resigning! As the article notes Arroyo herself can hardly evade responsibility for the failings of her drug enforcers in the first place.
Anti-drug czar?
Editorial
‘They are not funny and are not meant to be.’
Gloria Arroyo has named herself as anti-drug following allegations that state prosecutors have accepted bribes from arrested drug traffickers. It is a gesture signifying nothing or of it means anything at all, an admission of her very own failure.
We cannot but suspect it is a PR stunt intended to shore up her approval ratings which have been long searching for the bottom. Gloria clearly wants to ride the wave of outrage over the coddling of traffickers by the very officials sworn to lead the fight against the drug scourge. At the same time, she is seeking to absolve herself of responsibility for her administration’s sorry record in the war against drugs.
In naming herself anti-drug czar, she said: "We should not allow this menace to spread its tentacles, ruin our youth and gnaw on the integrity of our law enforcement institutions and our judicial systems. No other criminal activity does a better and faster job of tearing apart the social and security fabric of a nation than the trade of illegal drugs."
Well said. But where has she been all these years when agencies mandated with waging the war of drugs have been sleeping on the job or, worse, playing footsies with the enemy if we are to believe the latest accusations against policemen, narcotics operatives, prosecutors and judges?
As president, she has control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. She appoints all the heads of offices as well as the members of the court. In the case of the Department of Justice and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the two agencies now at the center of the controversy, she personally picked the people leading these agencies.
Take Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez. It is no secret his health has been failing, precisely the reason the Palace has packed sub-Cabinet DOJ positions with its own men. The failure of leadership ultimately should be blamed on Arroyo.
The PDEA? It has become a sinecure for Gloria’s favorite retired generals who also have the habit of bringing their own sets of favorites with them. It is no wonder that PDEA operatives – if we are to believe prosecutors – hardly have any idea on how to conduct arrests and searches that would stand up in court.
We can already hear the jokes about Gloria as anti-drug czar. They have something to do with the sharing of the reputed billions at the drug lords’ liberal disposal. They are not funny and are not meant to be.
As usual Malaya does not treat poor Arroyo kindly! It is not clear how making herself the anti-drug czar will boost her ratings. She could do that best by resigning! As the article notes Arroyo herself can hardly evade responsibility for the failings of her drug enforcers in the first place.
Anti-drug czar?
Editorial
‘They are not funny and are not meant to be.’
Gloria Arroyo has named herself as anti-drug following allegations that state prosecutors have accepted bribes from arrested drug traffickers. It is a gesture signifying nothing or of it means anything at all, an admission of her very own failure.
We cannot but suspect it is a PR stunt intended to shore up her approval ratings which have been long searching for the bottom. Gloria clearly wants to ride the wave of outrage over the coddling of traffickers by the very officials sworn to lead the fight against the drug scourge. At the same time, she is seeking to absolve herself of responsibility for her administration’s sorry record in the war against drugs.
In naming herself anti-drug czar, she said: "We should not allow this menace to spread its tentacles, ruin our youth and gnaw on the integrity of our law enforcement institutions and our judicial systems. No other criminal activity does a better and faster job of tearing apart the social and security fabric of a nation than the trade of illegal drugs."
Well said. But where has she been all these years when agencies mandated with waging the war of drugs have been sleeping on the job or, worse, playing footsies with the enemy if we are to believe the latest accusations against policemen, narcotics operatives, prosecutors and judges?
As president, she has control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. She appoints all the heads of offices as well as the members of the court. In the case of the Department of Justice and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the two agencies now at the center of the controversy, she personally picked the people leading these agencies.
Take Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez. It is no secret his health has been failing, precisely the reason the Palace has packed sub-Cabinet DOJ positions with its own men. The failure of leadership ultimately should be blamed on Arroyo.
The PDEA? It has become a sinecure for Gloria’s favorite retired generals who also have the habit of bringing their own sets of favorites with them. It is no wonder that PDEA operatives – if we are to believe prosecutors – hardly have any idea on how to conduct arrests and searches that would stand up in court.
We can already hear the jokes about Gloria as anti-drug czar. They have something to do with the sharing of the reputed billions at the drug lords’ liberal disposal. They are not funny and are not meant to be.
Oversight Panel Blasts TARP's Lack of Accountability
This report verifies what everyone has suspected for some time, namely that TARP is doling out funds without any real accountability for what the money is being used for. No doubt Obama will probably address this issue in his speech this afternoon. He has been handed a golden opportunity to be responsive to public concerns. Warren seems to be doing a good job as chair of the oversight panel.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ayn4esm6tYY8&refer=homeOversight Panel Blasts TARP’s Lack of Accountability (Update1)
By Bob IvryJan. 9 (Bloomberg) -
- The Congressional panel set up to oversee the U.S. Treasury’s $700 billion rescue fund criticized the program for failing to require recipients to report what they are doing with taxpayers’ money.The Congressional Oversight Panel, headed by Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, said a lack of accountability in the Troubled Asset Relief Program “erodes the very confidence” it is supposed to restore. It also faulted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for taking “no steps” to use the fund to stem mounting mortgage foreclosures while banks receive bailout loans.“The panel still does not know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money,” the panel wrote in a monthly report published today. “So long as investors and customers are uncertain about how the taxpayer funds are being used, they question both the health and sound management of all financial institutions.”The criticisms echo those made by Congressional Democrats who are pressing incoming President Barack Obama to use more TARP money for consumers hurt by the credit crisis. As many as 2.1 million U.S. homeowners lost their homes or were in some stage of foreclosure through November, according to RealtyTrac Inc., a real estate database. The Treasury has defended its effort, saying it has helped average Americans by preventing a collapse of the financial system.Voting NoThe vote approving the report was 4-1 with Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, voting no, Warren said today in a conference call with reporters.The oversight committee has come under criticism for its partisan tilt. Hensarling, the top Republican on the Financial Institutions panel of the House Financial Services Committee, also refused to endorse the panel’s first report issued last month and said “the jury is still out” on whether it “will eventually be an effective vehicle” for monitoring the TARP.“I still don’t believe that the panel has all the information necessary to do its job,” Hensarling said in an interview today. “It’s hard for me to believe that we can have a comprehensive, thorough, credible report if we’re not having hearings with the upper echelon of Treasury.”The report faulted Treasury officials for failing to answer some of the 45 questions the panel submitted.It questions whether the Treasury Department is complying with Congress’s wish to develop a plan to assist distressed homeowners.Helping Homeowners“There is no mechanism in TARP to help homeowners,” said Rick Sharga, senior vice president at Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac. “When the program was first announced the hope was that by buying these distressed assets the government would be able to renegotiate lower terms with homeowners. But when the strategy changed to injecting money directly into banks it eliminated any direct help to homeowners.”The Treasury Department also needs to publicize the way it values bank assets, the report said.“Until asset valuation is more transparent and until the market is confident that the banks have written down bad loans and accurately priced their assets, efforts to restore stability and confidence in the financial system may fail,” the report said.U.S. banks have lost or written down $678.5 billion, mostly due to mortgage-related investments.Trading Bad AssetsRevealing the prices paid for distressed assets may free up traders to begin buying and selling them again, said Joseph Mason, a finance professor at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and a former economist for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.“The more transactions we get, whether it’s for failed banks or bad loans, the more we can get people to believe the pricing and reestablish market equilibrium,” Mason said.Treasury has “effectively allocated” $350 billion under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, of which TARP is a part, the report said. The second $350 billion hasn’t been parceled out yet.“Congress may want to consider the issues that the Congressional Oversight Panel has raised before it gives out more money,” Warren said in the conference call.House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said today he would submit legislation requiring recipients of TARP funding to file quarterly reports on the use of the money.The oversight panel was set up under the rescue law passed in October. It has three members appointed by Democrats and two by Republicans. Today’s is its second critique of the bailout; the group’s reports are required by the legislation.Bloomberg News filed suit Nov. 7 against the Federal Reserve under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs, most created as rescue attempts for the financial industry during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ayn4esm6tYY8&refer=homeOversight Panel Blasts TARP’s Lack of Accountability (Update1)
By Bob IvryJan. 9 (Bloomberg) -
- The Congressional panel set up to oversee the U.S. Treasury’s $700 billion rescue fund criticized the program for failing to require recipients to report what they are doing with taxpayers’ money.The Congressional Oversight Panel, headed by Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, said a lack of accountability in the Troubled Asset Relief Program “erodes the very confidence” it is supposed to restore. It also faulted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for taking “no steps” to use the fund to stem mounting mortgage foreclosures while banks receive bailout loans.“The panel still does not know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money,” the panel wrote in a monthly report published today. “So long as investors and customers are uncertain about how the taxpayer funds are being used, they question both the health and sound management of all financial institutions.”The criticisms echo those made by Congressional Democrats who are pressing incoming President Barack Obama to use more TARP money for consumers hurt by the credit crisis. As many as 2.1 million U.S. homeowners lost their homes or were in some stage of foreclosure through November, according to RealtyTrac Inc., a real estate database. The Treasury has defended its effort, saying it has helped average Americans by preventing a collapse of the financial system.Voting NoThe vote approving the report was 4-1 with Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, voting no, Warren said today in a conference call with reporters.The oversight committee has come under criticism for its partisan tilt. Hensarling, the top Republican on the Financial Institutions panel of the House Financial Services Committee, also refused to endorse the panel’s first report issued last month and said “the jury is still out” on whether it “will eventually be an effective vehicle” for monitoring the TARP.“I still don’t believe that the panel has all the information necessary to do its job,” Hensarling said in an interview today. “It’s hard for me to believe that we can have a comprehensive, thorough, credible report if we’re not having hearings with the upper echelon of Treasury.”The report faulted Treasury officials for failing to answer some of the 45 questions the panel submitted.It questions whether the Treasury Department is complying with Congress’s wish to develop a plan to assist distressed homeowners.Helping Homeowners“There is no mechanism in TARP to help homeowners,” said Rick Sharga, senior vice president at Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac. “When the program was first announced the hope was that by buying these distressed assets the government would be able to renegotiate lower terms with homeowners. But when the strategy changed to injecting money directly into banks it eliminated any direct help to homeowners.”The Treasury Department also needs to publicize the way it values bank assets, the report said.“Until asset valuation is more transparent and until the market is confident that the banks have written down bad loans and accurately priced their assets, efforts to restore stability and confidence in the financial system may fail,” the report said.U.S. banks have lost or written down $678.5 billion, mostly due to mortgage-related investments.Trading Bad AssetsRevealing the prices paid for distressed assets may free up traders to begin buying and selling them again, said Joseph Mason, a finance professor at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and a former economist for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.“The more transactions we get, whether it’s for failed banks or bad loans, the more we can get people to believe the pricing and reestablish market equilibrium,” Mason said.Treasury has “effectively allocated” $350 billion under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, of which TARP is a part, the report said. The second $350 billion hasn’t been parceled out yet.“Congress may want to consider the issues that the Congressional Oversight Panel has raised before it gives out more money,” Warren said in the conference call.House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said today he would submit legislation requiring recipients of TARP funding to file quarterly reports on the use of the money.The oversight panel was set up under the rescue law passed in October. It has three members appointed by Democrats and two by Republicans. Today’s is its second critique of the bailout; the group’s reports are required by the legislation.Bloomberg News filed suit Nov. 7 against the Federal Reserve under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs, most created as rescue attempts for the financial industry during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Ignatieff: Coalition govt. possible if Tories' budget not acceptable.
Given the condition of the Liberal finances and the likelihood that Harper will include at least some token measures to sweeten the budget for the Liberals a coalition govt. may be possible but not likely. Even if the budget were voted down the Governor General might grant Harper an election rather than accepting a coalition govt. If the budget is voted down that certainly will create an interesting situation with lots of opportunity for pundits to ply their trade. Apparently the Canadian public would prefer an election to another coalition. Many Canadians are masochists I guess!
This is from the Herald Chronicle.
Published: 2009-01-12
Ignatieff weighs options
Liberal leader says coalition government possible if Tories’ budget not acceptable
By AMY SMITH Staff Reporter Five Questions
FEDERAL LIBERAL Leader Michael Ignatieff was in Halifax last week kicking off his national tour on the economy. Staff reporter Amy Smith sat down with him for a one-on-one interview Friday afternoon. Q: Since many Canadians went to the polls in October without the concept that there could be a coalition government, should the government be defeated, would it be fairer to go to the polls (again) rather than to carry on with this coalition? A: I respect Canadians’ feelings about that. It’s perfectly legitimate to form a coalition under our system of government. There’s nothing kind of fancy or underhanded about it. It’s quite normal, but I think Canadians do have concerns about it. There are concerns inside my party. I don’t think it’s a secret about that. But I have to keep these options on the table because Mr. Harper’s outrageous failure to address the economic crisis in late November — his attacks on publicsector union rights, on pay equity for women and on funding for political parties — just left the opposition with no option but kind of slap him and say, ‘Wake up. You don’t have a majority. Stop doing this stuff. Address the economic crisis.’ Smarten up is what the coalition was all about. Smarten up, Stephen. So he’s smartening up and his tone has changed remarkably. We’ve got a budget moved forward a month. We’ve got new signs of co-operation, and all of that is positive. Now we have to see whether the message is received, whether the budget meets the needs of the hour. If it does, that’s one thing. If it doesn’t, then I’ve got a bunch of choices. They include voting it down and going into an election. They include voting it down and seeking to form a coalition government that would have the approval of the Governor General. But never forget the role of the Governor General. She’s the one who chooses what we do here. She’s the referee. Q: Post-secondary funding goes to where the student comes from rather than where the student goes to school. Would you change that if you had the chance? A: I think we should. It won’t be easy because provinces from which the students originate will make a claim that it should stay with them. But I think we ought to encourage and reward the universities that actually attract students from out of province, and there’s a nation-building reason for that. It’s not merely (that) you want to reward Atlantic Canada for having good universities, but you also want to give Canadians, young Canadians, a national experience. One of the things that builds a nation is, you know, if someone is born in Ontario, spends some time in Atlantic Canada, someone in Atlantic Canada spends some time out in Calgary. So we ought to have a financing system that incentivizes that, that encourages (us) to create a generation of Canadians that have national experience. Q: You had talked about tax cuts for low- and middle-income Canadians. How significant do you envision those cuts to be, and would it be enough to pull us out of a recession? A: Tax cuts alone can’t do it. Tax cuts have to be focused on the vulnerable. We mustn’t risk tipping the country into structural deficit because they are permanent. Nobody can put a temporary tax cut in.They’ve got to be permanent. So there’s a place for targeted, focused tax relief that increases the purchasing power of the low-paid. That’s not a broad-based tax cut. That’s a narrow one, and you want to keep it narrow because you don’t want to run a deficit. In addition, you have to engage in other stimulus matters — infrastructure, increasing the range, scope and coverage of EI, because that’s another thing that gets purchasing power into the vulnerable. And there may be some other measures we’ll have to look at, but tax cuts alone can’t do the stimulus job. Q: You made some reference that you have some family connection to Joseph Howe. Can you expand on that? A: Joe Howe in my family was kind of a hero. It’s not a blood connection . . . but my great-grandfather was a contemporary of Joe Howe, revered Joe Howe and disagreed with Joe about Confederation. My great-grandfather, who was the pastor of St. Matthew’s in Halifax, was a great proponent of Confederation and Mr. Howe was an opponent, but that didn’t stop my great-grandfather from writing a very admiring biography of Joe Howe at the end of his life. Nor did it stop his son, my grandfather, from writing another biography, so we are pretty keen on Joe Howe in my house. Q: How big a transition has it been coming from private life to public life, (from) being able to speak your mind freely and then having to be a bit more careful about what you say? A: It’s been a challenge and an adaptation. In (Friday’s) meeting (at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic), for example, I said some things the crowd didn’t want to hear. I think it’s important in politics to be credible, and one of the ways to be credible is to not always stroke the beast in the direction of its fur. People want straight talk, especially in the Maritimes, a very straight-talking part of the country. You try and get them to face up to some of the challenges that you’re facing and that gets the dialogue down to the issues that we have to decide. Yeah, it’s been an adaptation, but it’s unforgettable to be at dialogue with a couple hundred people like that. It’s a great experience. I don’t miss anything about my former life in that way.
( asmith@herald.ca)
© 2008 The Halifax Herald Limited
Krugman on Obama stimulus plan.
Krugman thinks that Obama may develop a stimulus plan that is too little--perhaps too late as well--in order to get bipartisan support. Of course there are those within the Democratic party who also baulk at a large plan. The tax cuts that are a large part of the plan and beloved by conservatives may not have that large an effect especially cuts to business taxes.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/January 6, 2009, 9:26 amStimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important)Bit by bit we’re getting information on the Obama stimulus plan, enough to start making back-of-the-envelope estimates of impact. The bottom line is this: we’re probably looking at a plan that will shave less than 2 percentage points off the average unemployment rate for the next two years, and possibly quite a lot less. This raises real concerns about whether the incoming administration is lowballing its plans in an attempt to get bipartisan consensus.In the extended entry, a look at my calculations.The starting point for this discussion is Okun’s Law, the relationship between changes in real GDP and changes in the unemployment rate. Estimates of the Okun’s Law coefficient range from 2 to 3. I’ll use 2, which is an optimistic estimate for current purposes: it says that you have to raise real GDP by 2 percent from what it would otherwise have been to reduce the unemployment rate 1 percentage point from what it would otherwise have been. Since GDP is roughly $15 trillion, this means that you have to raise GDP by $300 billion per year to reduce unemployment by 1 percentage point.Now, what we’re hearing about the Obama plan is that it calls for $775 billion over two years, with $300 billion in tax cuts and the rest in spending. Call that $150 billion per year in tax cuts, $240 billion each year in spending.How much do tax cuts and spending raise GDP? The widely cited estimates of Mark Zandi of Economy.com indicate a multiplier of around 1.5 for spending, with widely varying estimates for tax cuts. Payroll tax cuts, which make up about half the Obama proposal, are pretty good, with a multiplier of 1.29; business tax cuts, which make up the rest, are much less effective.In particular, letting businesses get refunds on past taxes based on current losses, which is reportedly a key feature of the plan, looks an awful lot like a lump-sum transfer with no incentive effects.Let’s be generous and assume that the overall multiplier on tax cuts is 1. Then the per-year effect of the plan on GDP is 150 x 1 + 240 x 1.5 = $510 billion. Since it takes $300 billion to reduce the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point, this is shaving 1.7 points off what unemployment would otherwise have been.Finally, compare this with the economic outlook. “Full employment” clearly means an unemployment rate near 5 — the CBO says 5.2 for the NAIRU, which seems high to me. Unemployment is currently about 7 percent, and heading much higher; Obama himself says that absent stimulus it could go into double digits. Suppose that we’re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure.And that gets us to politics. This really does look like a plan that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for — and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes. Yet even if the plan gets the hoped-for 80 votes in the Senate, which seems doubtful, responsibility for the plan’s perceived failure, if it’s spun that way, will be placed on Democrats.I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”Let’s hope I’ve got this wrong.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/January 6, 2009, 9:26 amStimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important)Bit by bit we’re getting information on the Obama stimulus plan, enough to start making back-of-the-envelope estimates of impact. The bottom line is this: we’re probably looking at a plan that will shave less than 2 percentage points off the average unemployment rate for the next two years, and possibly quite a lot less. This raises real concerns about whether the incoming administration is lowballing its plans in an attempt to get bipartisan consensus.In the extended entry, a look at my calculations.The starting point for this discussion is Okun’s Law, the relationship between changes in real GDP and changes in the unemployment rate. Estimates of the Okun’s Law coefficient range from 2 to 3. I’ll use 2, which is an optimistic estimate for current purposes: it says that you have to raise real GDP by 2 percent from what it would otherwise have been to reduce the unemployment rate 1 percentage point from what it would otherwise have been. Since GDP is roughly $15 trillion, this means that you have to raise GDP by $300 billion per year to reduce unemployment by 1 percentage point.Now, what we’re hearing about the Obama plan is that it calls for $775 billion over two years, with $300 billion in tax cuts and the rest in spending. Call that $150 billion per year in tax cuts, $240 billion each year in spending.How much do tax cuts and spending raise GDP? The widely cited estimates of Mark Zandi of Economy.com indicate a multiplier of around 1.5 for spending, with widely varying estimates for tax cuts. Payroll tax cuts, which make up about half the Obama proposal, are pretty good, with a multiplier of 1.29; business tax cuts, which make up the rest, are much less effective.In particular, letting businesses get refunds on past taxes based on current losses, which is reportedly a key feature of the plan, looks an awful lot like a lump-sum transfer with no incentive effects.Let’s be generous and assume that the overall multiplier on tax cuts is 1. Then the per-year effect of the plan on GDP is 150 x 1 + 240 x 1.5 = $510 billion. Since it takes $300 billion to reduce the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point, this is shaving 1.7 points off what unemployment would otherwise have been.Finally, compare this with the economic outlook. “Full employment” clearly means an unemployment rate near 5 — the CBO says 5.2 for the NAIRU, which seems high to me. Unemployment is currently about 7 percent, and heading much higher; Obama himself says that absent stimulus it could go into double digits. Suppose that we’re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure.And that gets us to politics. This really does look like a plan that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for — and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes. Yet even if the plan gets the hoped-for 80 votes in the Senate, which seems doubtful, responsibility for the plan’s perceived failure, if it’s spun that way, will be placed on Democrats.I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”Let’s hope I’ve got this wrong.
Fisk: On Israeli Defence of Gaza Incursion
This is an interesting article that shows the similarity of themes in defending Israel's incursion into Gaza with variations in detail to fit the local audiences. The disproportionately in the death and suffering on the two sides is scrupulously ignored not to mention what are in effect war crimes by the Israeli side while the indiscriminate rocket attacks by Hamas are constantly repeated in the analogy themes. As Fisk points out no one ever suggests how we might feel if Toronto, Boston, or London came under the type of sophisticated air and ground attack suffered by Gaza.
Wherever I go, I Hear the Same Tired Middle East Comparisons
On both sides of the Atlantic the experience has been weirdly repetitive
By Robert FiskSaturday, 10 January 2009
"The Independent" -- It all depends where you live. That was the geography of Israel's propaganda, designed to demonstrate that we softies – we little baby-coddling liberals living in our secure Western homes – don't realise the horror of 12 (now 20) Israeli deaths in 10 years and thousands of rockets and the unimaginable trauma and stress of living near Gaza. Forget the 600 Palestinian dead; travelling on both sides of the Atlantic these past couple of weeks has been an instructive – not to say weirdly repetitive – experience.Here's how it goes. I was in Toronto when I opened the right-wing National Post and found Lorne Gunter trying to explain to readers what it felt like to come under Palestinian rocket attack. "Suppose you lived in the Toronto suburb of Don Mills," writes Gunter, "and people from the suburb of Scarborough – about 10 kilometres away – were firing as many as 100 rockets a day into your yard, your kid's school, the strip mall down the street and your dentist's office..."Getting the message? It just so happens, of course, that the people of Scarborough are underprivileged, often new immigrants – many from Afghanistan – while the people of Don Mills are largely middle class with a fair number of Muslims. Nothing like digging a knife into Canada's multicultural society to show how Israel is all too justified in smashing back at the Palestinians.Now a trip down Montreal way and a glance at the French-language newspaper La Presse two days later. And sure enough, there's an article signed by 16 pro-Israeli writers, economists and academics who are trying to explain what it feels like to come under Palestinian rocket attack. "Imagine for a moment that the children of Longueuil live day and night in terror, that businesses, shops, hospitals, schools are the targets of terrorists located in Brossard." Longueuil, it should be added, is a community of blacks and Muslim immigrants, Afghans, Iranians. But who are the "terrorists" in Brossard?Two days later and I am in Dublin. I open The Irish Times to find a letter from the local Israeli ambassador, trying to explain to the people of the Irish Republic what it feels like to come under Palestinian rocket attack. Know what's coming? Of course you do. "What would you do," Zion Evrony asks readers, "if Dublin were subjected to a bombardment of 8,000 rockets and mortars..." And so it goes on and on and on. Needless to say, I'm waiting for the same writers to ask how we'd feel if we lived in Don Mills or Brossard or Dublin and came under sustained attack from supersonic aircraft and Merkava tanks and thousands of troops whose shells and bombs tore 40 women and children to pieces outside a school, shredded whole families in their beds and who, after nearly a week, had killed almost 200 civilians out of 600 fatalities.In Ireland, my favourite journalistic justification for this bloodbath came from my old mate Kevin Myers. "The death toll from Gaza is, of course, shocking, dreadful, unspeakable," he mourned. "Though it does not compare with the death toll amongst Israelis if Hamas had its way." Get it? The massacre in Gaza is justified because Hamas would have done the same if they could, even though they didn't do it because they couldn't. It took Fintan O'Toole, The Irish Times's resident philosopher-in-chief, to speak the unspeakable. "When does the mandate of victimhood expire?" he asked. "At what point does the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews cease to excuse the state of Israel from the demands of international law and of common humanity?"I had an interesting time giving the Tip O'Neill peace lecture in Derry when one of the audience asked, as did a member of the Trinity College Dublin Historical Society a day later, whether the Northern Ireland Good Friday peace agreement – or, indeed, any aspect of the recent Irish conflict – contained lessons for the Middle East. I suggested that local peace agreements didn't travel well and that the idea advanced by John Hume (my host in Derry) – that it was all about compromise – didn't work since the Israeli seizure of Arab land in the West Bank had more in common with the 17th-century Irish Catholic dispossession than sectarianism in Belfast.What I do suspect, however, is that the split and near civil war between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority has a lot in common with the division between the Irish Free State and anti-treaty forces that led to the 1922-3 Irish civil war; that Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel – and the enemies of Michael Collins who refused to recognise the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the border with Northern Ireland – are tragedies that have a lot in common, Israel now playing the role of Britain, urging the pro-treaty men (Mahmoud Abbas) to destroy the anti-treaty men (Hamas).I ended the week in one of those BBC World Service discussions in which a guy from The Jerusalem Post, a man from al-Jazeera, a British academic and Fisk danced the usual steps around the catastrophe in Gaza. The moment I mentioned that 600 Palestinian dead for 20 Israeli dead around Gaza in 10 years was grotesque, pro-Israeli listeners condemned me for suggesting (which I did not) that only 20 Israelis had been killed in all of Israel in 10 years. Of course, hundreds of Israelis outside Gaza have died in that time – but so have thousands of Palestinians.My favourite moment came when I pointed out that journalists should be on the side of those who suffer. If we were reporting the 18th-century slave trade, I said, we wouldn't give equal time to the slave ship captain in our dispatches. If we were reporting the liberation of a Nazi concentration camp, we wouldn't give equal time to the SS spokesman. At which point a journalist from the Jewish Telegraph in Prague responded that "the IDF are not Hitler". Of course not. But who said they were?
Wherever I go, I Hear the Same Tired Middle East Comparisons
On both sides of the Atlantic the experience has been weirdly repetitive
By Robert FiskSaturday, 10 January 2009
"The Independent" -- It all depends where you live. That was the geography of Israel's propaganda, designed to demonstrate that we softies – we little baby-coddling liberals living in our secure Western homes – don't realise the horror of 12 (now 20) Israeli deaths in 10 years and thousands of rockets and the unimaginable trauma and stress of living near Gaza. Forget the 600 Palestinian dead; travelling on both sides of the Atlantic these past couple of weeks has been an instructive – not to say weirdly repetitive – experience.Here's how it goes. I was in Toronto when I opened the right-wing National Post and found Lorne Gunter trying to explain to readers what it felt like to come under Palestinian rocket attack. "Suppose you lived in the Toronto suburb of Don Mills," writes Gunter, "and people from the suburb of Scarborough – about 10 kilometres away – were firing as many as 100 rockets a day into your yard, your kid's school, the strip mall down the street and your dentist's office..."Getting the message? It just so happens, of course, that the people of Scarborough are underprivileged, often new immigrants – many from Afghanistan – while the people of Don Mills are largely middle class with a fair number of Muslims. Nothing like digging a knife into Canada's multicultural society to show how Israel is all too justified in smashing back at the Palestinians.Now a trip down Montreal way and a glance at the French-language newspaper La Presse two days later. And sure enough, there's an article signed by 16 pro-Israeli writers, economists and academics who are trying to explain what it feels like to come under Palestinian rocket attack. "Imagine for a moment that the children of Longueuil live day and night in terror, that businesses, shops, hospitals, schools are the targets of terrorists located in Brossard." Longueuil, it should be added, is a community of blacks and Muslim immigrants, Afghans, Iranians. But who are the "terrorists" in Brossard?Two days later and I am in Dublin. I open The Irish Times to find a letter from the local Israeli ambassador, trying to explain to the people of the Irish Republic what it feels like to come under Palestinian rocket attack. Know what's coming? Of course you do. "What would you do," Zion Evrony asks readers, "if Dublin were subjected to a bombardment of 8,000 rockets and mortars..." And so it goes on and on and on. Needless to say, I'm waiting for the same writers to ask how we'd feel if we lived in Don Mills or Brossard or Dublin and came under sustained attack from supersonic aircraft and Merkava tanks and thousands of troops whose shells and bombs tore 40 women and children to pieces outside a school, shredded whole families in their beds and who, after nearly a week, had killed almost 200 civilians out of 600 fatalities.In Ireland, my favourite journalistic justification for this bloodbath came from my old mate Kevin Myers. "The death toll from Gaza is, of course, shocking, dreadful, unspeakable," he mourned. "Though it does not compare with the death toll amongst Israelis if Hamas had its way." Get it? The massacre in Gaza is justified because Hamas would have done the same if they could, even though they didn't do it because they couldn't. It took Fintan O'Toole, The Irish Times's resident philosopher-in-chief, to speak the unspeakable. "When does the mandate of victimhood expire?" he asked. "At what point does the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews cease to excuse the state of Israel from the demands of international law and of common humanity?"I had an interesting time giving the Tip O'Neill peace lecture in Derry when one of the audience asked, as did a member of the Trinity College Dublin Historical Society a day later, whether the Northern Ireland Good Friday peace agreement – or, indeed, any aspect of the recent Irish conflict – contained lessons for the Middle East. I suggested that local peace agreements didn't travel well and that the idea advanced by John Hume (my host in Derry) – that it was all about compromise – didn't work since the Israeli seizure of Arab land in the West Bank had more in common with the 17th-century Irish Catholic dispossession than sectarianism in Belfast.What I do suspect, however, is that the split and near civil war between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority has a lot in common with the division between the Irish Free State and anti-treaty forces that led to the 1922-3 Irish civil war; that Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel – and the enemies of Michael Collins who refused to recognise the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the border with Northern Ireland – are tragedies that have a lot in common, Israel now playing the role of Britain, urging the pro-treaty men (Mahmoud Abbas) to destroy the anti-treaty men (Hamas).I ended the week in one of those BBC World Service discussions in which a guy from The Jerusalem Post, a man from al-Jazeera, a British academic and Fisk danced the usual steps around the catastrophe in Gaza. The moment I mentioned that 600 Palestinian dead for 20 Israeli dead around Gaza in 10 years was grotesque, pro-Israeli listeners condemned me for suggesting (which I did not) that only 20 Israelis had been killed in all of Israel in 10 years. Of course, hundreds of Israelis outside Gaza have died in that time – but so have thousands of Palestinians.My favourite moment came when I pointed out that journalists should be on the side of those who suffer. If we were reporting the 18th-century slave trade, I said, we wouldn't give equal time to the slave ship captain in our dispatches. If we were reporting the liberation of a Nazi concentration camp, we wouldn't give equal time to the SS spokesman. At which point a journalist from the Jewish Telegraph in Prague responded that "the IDF are not Hitler". Of course not. But who said they were?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
2008 Leaves Pensions Underfunded
The pension funding problem is one that seems to be in the background of most discussions of the economic crisis but it is nevertheless a very significan issue as this article shows. Present day workers face the prospect of fewer pension benefits and existing plans will be in jeopardy unless the market turns around and rebounds significantly within a few years. However, it is not clear how likely that is.
This is from the Washington Post.
2008 Leaves Pensions Underfunded
Stock Losses Leave $400 Billion Deficit; Shoring Up Funds May Be Costly
By David S. HilzenrathWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, January 8, 2009; Page D01The collapse of the stock market last year left corporate pension plans atthe largest companies underfunded by $409 billion, reversing a $60 billionpension surplus at the end of 2007, according to a study released yesterday.Shoring up the plans could cause further pain for workers, businesses andthe struggling economy at a time when they can least afford it, pensionspecialists said."The chaos that has been observed in the world's financial markets over thelast 12 months has had a major adverse impact on pension plan funding andwill negatively impact corporate earnings," the Mercer consulting firmreported yesterday. "Moreover, the trend in recent months has been one ofalarming deterioration," Mercer said.As Mercer and other pension specialists described it, the pension problemillustrates how the recession and the meltdown in the financial markets canbecome self-reinforcing.Ballooning pension deficits will leave some companies with diminishedprofits, weaker credit ratings and higher borrowing costs, which cantranslate into lower stock prices, said Mercer principal Adrian Hartshorn.The need to cover pension shortfalls could prompt businesses to reducespending on items as varied as equipment that boosts productivity anddividends that deliver income for shareholders.Though shoring up pension funds is supposed to increase employees' financialsecurity, it could involve such tradeoffs as reductions in wages, benefitsand jobs, said Mark J. Warshawsky, director of retirement research atconsulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide.In a further irony, it could also prompt companies to freeze the amount ofpension benefits employees can accrue, Warshawsky said.But the overall economic effects may be more complicated, pensionspecialists said. Filling the gaps will force companies to boost theirpension investments, contributing to demand for stocks and bonds.Mercer's monthly snapshot of corporate pension plans focuses on thoseoffered by employers in the Standard and Poor's index of 1500 bigcorporations, and it uses the accounting methods that companies must followwhen they prepare their financial statements. Mercer estimated that the S&P1500 pension plans held enough assets overall to cover only 75 percent oftheir obligations, down from 104 percent at the end of 2007. Precise figureswon't be available until companies issue their annual reports for 2008 inthe coming months.Pension deficits are far from unprecedented. As recently as March 2003, thefunding level for plans in Mercer's study was 73.2 percent.When pension plans are underfunded, companies are required to plow enoughadditional money into the funds each year to correct the imbalance, aprocess than can take several years. This year, Mercer estimates that thecompanies in its study will end up reporting about $70 billion of pensionexpenses, up from about $10 billion in 2008. That would equate to an 8percent reduction in annual profits compared with 2007, the most recent yearfor which companies have reported full annual results, Mercer said.Watson Wyatt looked at the issue from a different angle but found a similartrend. It tried to assess in aggregate the condition of all pension planssponsored by individual corporations in the United States, and it used adifferent set of measures -- the rules that govern the actual amount of cashcompanies must put into their pension funds.Watson Wyatt estimates that corporate pension plans began 2009 with $1.63trillion in assets and $2.12 trillion in liabilities, Warshawsky said. Thefirm estimates that companies will have to more than double theircontributions to pension plans this year, to $111.2 billion from $50.5billion in 2008, he said.Both Mercer and Watson Wyatt advise companies on employee benefits.Some business groups have been calling for relief from the federal law thatwould force them to boost pension fund contributions in the short run, andthe government has already eased some requirements. Relaxing therequirements could entail another compromise -- the health of the pensionplans.Even before the current recession, traditional pension plans that promisefixed retirement benefits were an endangered species for workers in theprivate sector. "As U.S. manufacturing and the U.S. organized laborfootprint have contracted, the defined benefit plan has contracted," saidthe Brookings Institution's J. Mark Iwry, a former pension system regulator.Pensions have largely been supplanted by 401(k) plans, which offer noguaranteed payouts.Like pension funds, Americans' 401(k) accounts have generally plummeted overthe past year, and some companies have added to the strain by cuttingmatching contributions.Whether the responsibility rests with corporate pension fund managers orindividual employees managing their accounts, the nation's ability toconvert relatively low savings rates into comfortable retirements depends oninvestments not merely outstripping inflation but delivering strong andstable returns over the long run. That proposition has been sorely tested oflate.Keith Ambachtsheer, an adviser to pension funds, says the nation may be instore for "a radical rethinking of how we deliver pensions to private-sectorworkers."Increasingly, the burden may fall to taxpayers, as it has with other aspectsof the nation's financial troubles, said Kent Smetters, an associateprofessor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.When companies go bankrupt and are unable to shoulder their pensionobligations, the federally chartered Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. steps inand covers the shortfall, subject to legal limits that would leave manyhigher-paid workers with smaller pensions than they had been promised.The PBGC is funded through insurance premiums paid by employer-sponsoredpension funds, but Smetters predicted that the PBGC eventually will need afederal bailout.As of Sept. 30, when its last fiscal year ended, the PBGC reported a deficitof $11.15 billion.
This is from the Washington Post.
2008 Leaves Pensions Underfunded
Stock Losses Leave $400 Billion Deficit; Shoring Up Funds May Be Costly
By David S. HilzenrathWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, January 8, 2009; Page D01The collapse of the stock market last year left corporate pension plans atthe largest companies underfunded by $409 billion, reversing a $60 billionpension surplus at the end of 2007, according to a study released yesterday.Shoring up the plans could cause further pain for workers, businesses andthe struggling economy at a time when they can least afford it, pensionspecialists said."The chaos that has been observed in the world's financial markets over thelast 12 months has had a major adverse impact on pension plan funding andwill negatively impact corporate earnings," the Mercer consulting firmreported yesterday. "Moreover, the trend in recent months has been one ofalarming deterioration," Mercer said.As Mercer and other pension specialists described it, the pension problemillustrates how the recession and the meltdown in the financial markets canbecome self-reinforcing.Ballooning pension deficits will leave some companies with diminishedprofits, weaker credit ratings and higher borrowing costs, which cantranslate into lower stock prices, said Mercer principal Adrian Hartshorn.The need to cover pension shortfalls could prompt businesses to reducespending on items as varied as equipment that boosts productivity anddividends that deliver income for shareholders.Though shoring up pension funds is supposed to increase employees' financialsecurity, it could involve such tradeoffs as reductions in wages, benefitsand jobs, said Mark J. Warshawsky, director of retirement research atconsulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide.In a further irony, it could also prompt companies to freeze the amount ofpension benefits employees can accrue, Warshawsky said.But the overall economic effects may be more complicated, pensionspecialists said. Filling the gaps will force companies to boost theirpension investments, contributing to demand for stocks and bonds.Mercer's monthly snapshot of corporate pension plans focuses on thoseoffered by employers in the Standard and Poor's index of 1500 bigcorporations, and it uses the accounting methods that companies must followwhen they prepare their financial statements. Mercer estimated that the S&P1500 pension plans held enough assets overall to cover only 75 percent oftheir obligations, down from 104 percent at the end of 2007. Precise figureswon't be available until companies issue their annual reports for 2008 inthe coming months.Pension deficits are far from unprecedented. As recently as March 2003, thefunding level for plans in Mercer's study was 73.2 percent.When pension plans are underfunded, companies are required to plow enoughadditional money into the funds each year to correct the imbalance, aprocess than can take several years. This year, Mercer estimates that thecompanies in its study will end up reporting about $70 billion of pensionexpenses, up from about $10 billion in 2008. That would equate to an 8percent reduction in annual profits compared with 2007, the most recent yearfor which companies have reported full annual results, Mercer said.Watson Wyatt looked at the issue from a different angle but found a similartrend. It tried to assess in aggregate the condition of all pension planssponsored by individual corporations in the United States, and it used adifferent set of measures -- the rules that govern the actual amount of cashcompanies must put into their pension funds.Watson Wyatt estimates that corporate pension plans began 2009 with $1.63trillion in assets and $2.12 trillion in liabilities, Warshawsky said. Thefirm estimates that companies will have to more than double theircontributions to pension plans this year, to $111.2 billion from $50.5billion in 2008, he said.Both Mercer and Watson Wyatt advise companies on employee benefits.Some business groups have been calling for relief from the federal law thatwould force them to boost pension fund contributions in the short run, andthe government has already eased some requirements. Relaxing therequirements could entail another compromise -- the health of the pensionplans.Even before the current recession, traditional pension plans that promisefixed retirement benefits were an endangered species for workers in theprivate sector. "As U.S. manufacturing and the U.S. organized laborfootprint have contracted, the defined benefit plan has contracted," saidthe Brookings Institution's J. Mark Iwry, a former pension system regulator.Pensions have largely been supplanted by 401(k) plans, which offer noguaranteed payouts.Like pension funds, Americans' 401(k) accounts have generally plummeted overthe past year, and some companies have added to the strain by cuttingmatching contributions.Whether the responsibility rests with corporate pension fund managers orindividual employees managing their accounts, the nation's ability toconvert relatively low savings rates into comfortable retirements depends oninvestments not merely outstripping inflation but delivering strong andstable returns over the long run. That proposition has been sorely tested oflate.Keith Ambachtsheer, an adviser to pension funds, says the nation may be instore for "a radical rethinking of how we deliver pensions to private-sectorworkers."Increasingly, the burden may fall to taxpayers, as it has with other aspectsof the nation's financial troubles, said Kent Smetters, an associateprofessor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.When companies go bankrupt and are unable to shoulder their pensionobligations, the federally chartered Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. steps inand covers the shortfall, subject to legal limits that would leave manyhigher-paid workers with smaller pensions than they had been promised.The PBGC is funded through insurance premiums paid by employer-sponsoredpension funds, but Smetters predicted that the PBGC eventually will need afederal bailout.As of Sept. 30, when its last fiscal year ended, the PBGC reported a deficitof $11.15 billion.
The Truth About Rick Warren in Africa
The Obama team often defends Warren by noting his work on AIDS in Africa. As this article shows his work there confirms his bias against homosexuals and as Stephen Lewis points out it can even be counterproductive in opposing succesful programs using condoms.
The Truth About Rick Warren in Africa
by Max BlumenthalDAILY BEAST, January 7, 2009 6:23amhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa/Team Obama likes to cite Warren’s work on AIDS in Africa to combat criticism about the controversial pastor. But how does burning condoms in the name of Jesus save lives?Once hailed by Time magazine as “America’s Pastor,” California mega-church leader and bestselling author of The Purpose Driven LifeRick Warren now finds himself on the defensive. President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of Warren to deliver the inaugural prayer has generated intense scrutiny of the pastor’s beliefs on social issues, from his vocal support for Prop 8, a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in California, to his comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia, incest and bestiality. Many of Obama’s supporters have demanded that he withdraw the invitation.Warren’s defense against charges of intolerance ultimately depends upon his ace card: his heavily publicized crusade against AIDS in Africa. Obama senior advisor David Axelrod cited Warren’s work in Africa as one of “the things on which [Obama and Warren] agree” on the December 28 episode of Meet the Press. Warren may be opposed to gay rights and abortion, the thinking goes, but he tells evangelicals it is their God-given duty to battle one of the greatest pandemics in history. What could be wrong with that?Ssempa’s stunts have included publishing the names of homosexuals in local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.But since the Warren inauguration controversy erupted, the nature of work against AIDS in Africa has gone unexamined. Warren has not been particularly forthcoming to those who have attempted to look into it. His website contains scant information about the results of his program. However, an investigation into Warren’s involvement in Africa reveals a web of alliances with right-wing clergymen who have sidelined science-based approaches to combating AIDS in favor of abstinence-only education. More disturbingly, Warren’s allies have rolled back key elements of one of the continent’s most successful initiative, the so-called ABC program in Uganda. Stephen Lewis, the United Nations’ special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, told the New York Times their activism is “resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred.”Warren’s man in Uganda is a charismatic pastor named Martin Ssempa. The head of the Makerere Community Church, a rapidly growing congregation, Ssempe enjoys close ties to his country’s First Lady, Janet Museveni, and is a favorite of the Bush White House. In the capitol of Kampala, Ssempa is known for his boisterous crusading. Ssempa’s stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.Dr. Helen Epstein, a public health expert who interviewed Ssempa in 2005, reported in the New York Review of Books, “[Ssempa] told me that Satan worshipers hold meetings under Lake Victoria, where they are promised riches in exchange for human blood, which they collect by staging car accidents and kidnappings. In his headquarters…there is a special room for exorcisms.” (Ssempa did not respond to my requests for an interview.)Epstein, a public health consultant who authored the book, The Invisible Cure: Why We’re Losing The Fight Against AIDS In Africa, met Ssempa in 2005. Epstein told me the preacher seemed gripped by paranoia, warning her of a secret witches coven that met under Lake Victoria. “Ssempa also spoke to me for a very long time about his fear of homosexual men and women,” Epstein said. “He seemed very personally terrified by their presence.”When Warren unveiled his global AIDS initiative at a 2005 conference at his Saddleback Church, he cast Ssempa as his indispensable sidekick, assigning him to lead a breakout session on abstinence-only education as well as a seminar on AIDS prevention. Later, Ssempa delivered a keynote address, a speech so stirring it “had the audience on the edge of its seats,” according to Warren’s public relations agency. A year later, Ssempa returned to Saddleback Church to lead another seminar on AIDS. By this time, his bond with the Warrens had grown almost familial. “You are my brother, Martin, and I love you,” Rick Warren’s wife, Kay, said to Ssempa from the stage. Her voice trembled with emotion as she spoke and tears ran down her cheeks.Joining Ssempa at Warren’s church were two key Bush administration officials who controlled the purse strings of the president’s newly minted $15 billion anti-AIDS initiative in Africa, PEPFAR. Ugandan first lady Janet Museveni also appeared through a videotaped address to tout the success of her country’s numerous church-based abstinence programs.These Bush officials—Randall Tobias, the Department of State’s Global AIDS coordinator, and Claude Allen, the White House’s chief domestic policy advisor—are closely linked to the Christian right. Tobias, the so-called “global AIDS czar,” declared in 2004 that condoms “really have not been very effective," and crusaded against prostitution, until he resigned in 2007 when he was exposed as a regular client of the D.C. Madam’s escort service. Allen, once an aide to hard-right former Senator Jesse Helms, resigned in 2006 after he was arrested for felony thefts from retail stores.During the early 1990s, when many African leaders denied the AIDS epidemic’s existence, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni spoke openly about the importance of safe sex. With the help of local and international non-governmental organizations, he implemented an ambitious program emphasizing abstinence, monogamous relationships, and using condoms as the best ways to prevent the spread of AIDS. He called the program “ABC.” By 2003, Uganda’s AIDS rate plummeted 10 percent. The government’s free distribution of the “C” in ABC—condoms—proved central to the program’s success, according to Avert, an international AIDS charity.On New Year’s Eve, 1999, Janet Museveni, who had become born-again, convened a massive stadium revival in Kampala to dedicate her country to the “lordship” of Jesus Christ. As midnight approached, the First Lady summoned a local pastor to the stage to anoint the nation. “We renounce idolatry, witchcraft, and Satanism in our land!” he proclaimed.Two years later, Janet Museveni flew to Washington at the height of a heated congressional debate over PEPFAR. She carried in her hand a prepared message to distribute to Republicans. Abstinence was the golden bullet in her country’s fight against AIDS, she assured conservative lawmakers, denying the empirically proven success of her husband’s condom distribution program. Like magic, the Republican-dominated Congress authorized over $200 million for Uganda, but only for the exclusive promotion of abstinence education. Ssempa soon became the “special representative of the First Lady’s Task Force on AIDS in Uganda,” receiving $40,000 from the PEPFAR pot.Emboldened by U.S. support, Ssempa took his anti-condom crusade to Makerere University in Kampala, where senior residents of a men’s dormitory promoted safe sex by greeting incoming freshmen with a giant effigy wearing a condom. According to Helen Epstein, one day after she visited the school, Ssempa stormed on to campus, tore the condom from the effigy, grabbed a box of free condoms, and set them ablaze. “I burn these condoms in the name of Jesus!” Ssempa shouted as he prayed over the burning box.“It was a very controversial time,” Epstein told me. “After the Bush administration authorized PEPFAR, a number of the local evangelical preachers began to get excited about this and get involved in AIDS very rapidly. To try to prove his credentials, Ssempa became increasingly active and vociferous in his antipathy towards condoms.”By 2005, billboards promoting condom use disappeared from the streets of Kampala, replaced by billboards promoting virginity. “Until recently, all HIV-related billboards were about condoms. Those of us calling for abstinence and faithfulness need billboards too,” Ssempa told the BBC at the time. A 2005 report by Human Rights Watch documented that educational material in Uganda’s secondary schools falsely claiming condoms had microscopic pores that could be penetrated by the HIV virus and noted the sudden nationwide shortage of condoms due to new restrictions imposed by on condom imports.AIDS activists arrived at the 16th International AIDS Conference in Toronto in 2006 with disturbing news from Uganda. Due at least in part to the chronic condom shortage, HIV infections were on the rise again. The disease rate had spiked to 6.5 percent among rural men, and 8.8 percent among women—a rise of nearly two points in the case of women. “The ‘C’ part [of ABC] is now mainly silent,” said Ugandan AIDS activist Beatrice Ware. As a result, she said, “the success story is unraveling.”Troubled by what he was witnessing in Africa, Rep. Tom Lantos led the new Democratic-controlled Congress to reform PEPFAR during a reauthorization process in February 2008. Lantos insisted that Congress lift the abstinence-only earmark imposed by Republicans in 2002, and begin to fund family planning elements like free condom distribution. His maneuver infuriated Warren, who immediately boarded a plane for Washington to join Christian right leaders including born-again former Watergate felon Chuck Colson for an emergency press conference on the Capitol lawn. In his speech, Warren claimed that Lantos’ bill would spawn an increase in the sex trafficking of young women. The bill died and PEPFAR was reauthorized in its flawed form. (Days later, Lantos died of cancer after serving for 27 years in Congress.)With safe sex advocates on the run, Warren and Ssempa trained their sights on another social evil. In August 2007, Ssempa ledhundreds of his followers through the streets of Kampala to demand that the government mete out harsh punishments against gays. “Arrest all homos,” read placards. And: “A man cannot marry a man.” Ssempa continued his crusade online, publishing the names of Ugandan gay rights activists on a website he created, along with photos and home addresses. “Homosexual promoters,” he called them, suggesting they intended to seduce Uganda’s children into their lifestyle. Soon afterwards, two of President Yoweri Museveni’s top officials demanded the arrest of the gay activists named by Ssempa. Terrified, the activists immediately into hiding.Warren, in his effort to dispel criticism, has denied harboring homophobic sentiments. “I could give you a hundred gay friends,” hetold MSNBC’s Ann Curry on December 18. “I have always treated them with respect. When they come and want to talk to me, I talk to them.”But when Uganda’s Anglican bishops threatened to bolt from the Church of England because of its tolerant stance towards homosexuals, Warren parachuted into Kampala to confer international legitimacy on their protest. “The Church of England is wrong and I support the Church of Uganda on the boycott,” Warren proclaimed in March 2008. Declaring homosexuality an unnatural way of life, Warren flatly stated, “We shall not tolerate this aspect [homosexuality in the church] at all.”Days later, Warren emerged so enthusiastic after a meeting with First Lady Museveni, he announced a plan to make Uganda a “Purpose Driven Nation.” “The future of Christianity is not Europe or North America, but Africa, Asia, and Latin America,” he told a cheering throng at Makerere University. Then, Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi rose and predicted, “Someday, we will have a purpose driven continent!”Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
The Truth About Rick Warren in Africa
by Max BlumenthalDAILY BEAST, January 7, 2009 6:23amhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa/Team Obama likes to cite Warren’s work on AIDS in Africa to combat criticism about the controversial pastor. But how does burning condoms in the name of Jesus save lives?Once hailed by Time magazine as “America’s Pastor,” California mega-church leader and bestselling author of The Purpose Driven LifeRick Warren now finds himself on the defensive. President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of Warren to deliver the inaugural prayer has generated intense scrutiny of the pastor’s beliefs on social issues, from his vocal support for Prop 8, a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in California, to his comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia, incest and bestiality. Many of Obama’s supporters have demanded that he withdraw the invitation.Warren’s defense against charges of intolerance ultimately depends upon his ace card: his heavily publicized crusade against AIDS in Africa. Obama senior advisor David Axelrod cited Warren’s work in Africa as one of “the things on which [Obama and Warren] agree” on the December 28 episode of Meet the Press. Warren may be opposed to gay rights and abortion, the thinking goes, but he tells evangelicals it is their God-given duty to battle one of the greatest pandemics in history. What could be wrong with that?Ssempa’s stunts have included publishing the names of homosexuals in local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.But since the Warren inauguration controversy erupted, the nature of work against AIDS in Africa has gone unexamined. Warren has not been particularly forthcoming to those who have attempted to look into it. His website contains scant information about the results of his program. However, an investigation into Warren’s involvement in Africa reveals a web of alliances with right-wing clergymen who have sidelined science-based approaches to combating AIDS in favor of abstinence-only education. More disturbingly, Warren’s allies have rolled back key elements of one of the continent’s most successful initiative, the so-called ABC program in Uganda. Stephen Lewis, the United Nations’ special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, told the New York Times their activism is “resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred.”Warren’s man in Uganda is a charismatic pastor named Martin Ssempa. The head of the Makerere Community Church, a rapidly growing congregation, Ssempe enjoys close ties to his country’s First Lady, Janet Museveni, and is a favorite of the Bush White House. In the capitol of Kampala, Ssempa is known for his boisterous crusading. Ssempa’s stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.Dr. Helen Epstein, a public health expert who interviewed Ssempa in 2005, reported in the New York Review of Books, “[Ssempa] told me that Satan worshipers hold meetings under Lake Victoria, where they are promised riches in exchange for human blood, which they collect by staging car accidents and kidnappings. In his headquarters…there is a special room for exorcisms.” (Ssempa did not respond to my requests for an interview.)Epstein, a public health consultant who authored the book, The Invisible Cure: Why We’re Losing The Fight Against AIDS In Africa, met Ssempa in 2005. Epstein told me the preacher seemed gripped by paranoia, warning her of a secret witches coven that met under Lake Victoria. “Ssempa also spoke to me for a very long time about his fear of homosexual men and women,” Epstein said. “He seemed very personally terrified by their presence.”When Warren unveiled his global AIDS initiative at a 2005 conference at his Saddleback Church, he cast Ssempa as his indispensable sidekick, assigning him to lead a breakout session on abstinence-only education as well as a seminar on AIDS prevention. Later, Ssempa delivered a keynote address, a speech so stirring it “had the audience on the edge of its seats,” according to Warren’s public relations agency. A year later, Ssempa returned to Saddleback Church to lead another seminar on AIDS. By this time, his bond with the Warrens had grown almost familial. “You are my brother, Martin, and I love you,” Rick Warren’s wife, Kay, said to Ssempa from the stage. Her voice trembled with emotion as she spoke and tears ran down her cheeks.Joining Ssempa at Warren’s church were two key Bush administration officials who controlled the purse strings of the president’s newly minted $15 billion anti-AIDS initiative in Africa, PEPFAR. Ugandan first lady Janet Museveni also appeared through a videotaped address to tout the success of her country’s numerous church-based abstinence programs.These Bush officials—Randall Tobias, the Department of State’s Global AIDS coordinator, and Claude Allen, the White House’s chief domestic policy advisor—are closely linked to the Christian right. Tobias, the so-called “global AIDS czar,” declared in 2004 that condoms “really have not been very effective," and crusaded against prostitution, until he resigned in 2007 when he was exposed as a regular client of the D.C. Madam’s escort service. Allen, once an aide to hard-right former Senator Jesse Helms, resigned in 2006 after he was arrested for felony thefts from retail stores.During the early 1990s, when many African leaders denied the AIDS epidemic’s existence, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni spoke openly about the importance of safe sex. With the help of local and international non-governmental organizations, he implemented an ambitious program emphasizing abstinence, monogamous relationships, and using condoms as the best ways to prevent the spread of AIDS. He called the program “ABC.” By 2003, Uganda’s AIDS rate plummeted 10 percent. The government’s free distribution of the “C” in ABC—condoms—proved central to the program’s success, according to Avert, an international AIDS charity.On New Year’s Eve, 1999, Janet Museveni, who had become born-again, convened a massive stadium revival in Kampala to dedicate her country to the “lordship” of Jesus Christ. As midnight approached, the First Lady summoned a local pastor to the stage to anoint the nation. “We renounce idolatry, witchcraft, and Satanism in our land!” he proclaimed.Two years later, Janet Museveni flew to Washington at the height of a heated congressional debate over PEPFAR. She carried in her hand a prepared message to distribute to Republicans. Abstinence was the golden bullet in her country’s fight against AIDS, she assured conservative lawmakers, denying the empirically proven success of her husband’s condom distribution program. Like magic, the Republican-dominated Congress authorized over $200 million for Uganda, but only for the exclusive promotion of abstinence education. Ssempa soon became the “special representative of the First Lady’s Task Force on AIDS in Uganda,” receiving $40,000 from the PEPFAR pot.Emboldened by U.S. support, Ssempa took his anti-condom crusade to Makerere University in Kampala, where senior residents of a men’s dormitory promoted safe sex by greeting incoming freshmen with a giant effigy wearing a condom. According to Helen Epstein, one day after she visited the school, Ssempa stormed on to campus, tore the condom from the effigy, grabbed a box of free condoms, and set them ablaze. “I burn these condoms in the name of Jesus!” Ssempa shouted as he prayed over the burning box.“It was a very controversial time,” Epstein told me. “After the Bush administration authorized PEPFAR, a number of the local evangelical preachers began to get excited about this and get involved in AIDS very rapidly. To try to prove his credentials, Ssempa became increasingly active and vociferous in his antipathy towards condoms.”By 2005, billboards promoting condom use disappeared from the streets of Kampala, replaced by billboards promoting virginity. “Until recently, all HIV-related billboards were about condoms. Those of us calling for abstinence and faithfulness need billboards too,” Ssempa told the BBC at the time. A 2005 report by Human Rights Watch documented that educational material in Uganda’s secondary schools falsely claiming condoms had microscopic pores that could be penetrated by the HIV virus and noted the sudden nationwide shortage of condoms due to new restrictions imposed by on condom imports.AIDS activists arrived at the 16th International AIDS Conference in Toronto in 2006 with disturbing news from Uganda. Due at least in part to the chronic condom shortage, HIV infections were on the rise again. The disease rate had spiked to 6.5 percent among rural men, and 8.8 percent among women—a rise of nearly two points in the case of women. “The ‘C’ part [of ABC] is now mainly silent,” said Ugandan AIDS activist Beatrice Ware. As a result, she said, “the success story is unraveling.”Troubled by what he was witnessing in Africa, Rep. Tom Lantos led the new Democratic-controlled Congress to reform PEPFAR during a reauthorization process in February 2008. Lantos insisted that Congress lift the abstinence-only earmark imposed by Republicans in 2002, and begin to fund family planning elements like free condom distribution. His maneuver infuriated Warren, who immediately boarded a plane for Washington to join Christian right leaders including born-again former Watergate felon Chuck Colson for an emergency press conference on the Capitol lawn. In his speech, Warren claimed that Lantos’ bill would spawn an increase in the sex trafficking of young women. The bill died and PEPFAR was reauthorized in its flawed form. (Days later, Lantos died of cancer after serving for 27 years in Congress.)With safe sex advocates on the run, Warren and Ssempa trained their sights on another social evil. In August 2007, Ssempa ledhundreds of his followers through the streets of Kampala to demand that the government mete out harsh punishments against gays. “Arrest all homos,” read placards. And: “A man cannot marry a man.” Ssempa continued his crusade online, publishing the names of Ugandan gay rights activists on a website he created, along with photos and home addresses. “Homosexual promoters,” he called them, suggesting they intended to seduce Uganda’s children into their lifestyle. Soon afterwards, two of President Yoweri Museveni’s top officials demanded the arrest of the gay activists named by Ssempa. Terrified, the activists immediately into hiding.Warren, in his effort to dispel criticism, has denied harboring homophobic sentiments. “I could give you a hundred gay friends,” hetold MSNBC’s Ann Curry on December 18. “I have always treated them with respect. When they come and want to talk to me, I talk to them.”But when Uganda’s Anglican bishops threatened to bolt from the Church of England because of its tolerant stance towards homosexuals, Warren parachuted into Kampala to confer international legitimacy on their protest. “The Church of England is wrong and I support the Church of Uganda on the boycott,” Warren proclaimed in March 2008. Declaring homosexuality an unnatural way of life, Warren flatly stated, “We shall not tolerate this aspect [homosexuality in the church] at all.”Days later, Warren emerged so enthusiastic after a meeting with First Lady Museveni, he announced a plan to make Uganda a “Purpose Driven Nation.” “The future of Christianity is not Europe or North America, but Africa, Asia, and Latin America,” he told a cheering throng at Makerere University. Then, Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi rose and predicted, “Someday, we will have a purpose driven continent!”Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
Philippines: Govt. subsidy program to offset rice price hikes.
This is from the daily Tribune.
The price of rice in the Philippines is almost half of what it was at its peak. However as the report projecting prices notes there is less investment globally in inputs due to the credit crunch. As a result the total rice production may decline without a corresponding decline in demand. As a staple, rice demand is less elastic than with many other commodities. Also, declining incomes for many in the Philippines may mean hardship even if the price of rice does not reach its peak of last year.
Palace subsidy program to offset rice price hikes
By Riza Recio
01/11/2009
Malacañang yesterday expressed optimism the price of rice would remain affordable throughout the year even as it assured the people of its readiness to implement a contingent rice-subsidy program to soften the impact of a sharp rise in the price of the country’s staple crop.
Cerge Remonde, head of Presidential Management Staff, made the assurance following the reported forecast by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) that the price of rice would rise sharply this year owing to the worldwide credit crunch seen to make it hard for farmers to secure cash to purchase essentials such as seeds and fertilizer.
IRRI’s forecast is contained in its latest edition of quarterly journal Rice Today.
In an interview over Radio ng Bayan, Remonde expressed surprise over the IRRI forecast as he noted that domestic rice production posted “good harvest” in recent months. Remonde’s PMS regularly monitors government programs and projects, including those that pertain to agricultural production.
Nonetheless, Remonde said the IRRI forecast had prompted the Arroyo government to fine-tune its rice subsidy program, which it launched last year when world crude oil price soared to more than $100 a barrel.
But even when world crude oil price tapered off and slumped to just over $100 a barrel, the country’s economic managers crafted a contingency plan that would ensure the country’s sufficiency in food, including staple crops such as rice and corn, in critical times.
Malacañang said this contingency plan included a food sufficiency program that would effectively ensure that staple crops would be sold at affordable prices.
As reported by the Agency France Presse, the IRRI predicted that rice prices would likely to rise sharply for the second straight year in 2009 as the worldwide credit crunch would compel farmers to scrounge for cash to enable them to buy seeds and fertilizer.
The IRRI said the economic downturn would result in falling incomes that might compel the poor to switch back to less expensive staples.
The price of rice rose to $1,
The price of rice in the Philippines is almost half of what it was at its peak. However as the report projecting prices notes there is less investment globally in inputs due to the credit crunch. As a result the total rice production may decline without a corresponding decline in demand. As a staple, rice demand is less elastic than with many other commodities. Also, declining incomes for many in the Philippines may mean hardship even if the price of rice does not reach its peak of last year.
Palace subsidy program to offset rice price hikes
By Riza Recio
01/11/2009
Malacañang yesterday expressed optimism the price of rice would remain affordable throughout the year even as it assured the people of its readiness to implement a contingent rice-subsidy program to soften the impact of a sharp rise in the price of the country’s staple crop.
Cerge Remonde, head of Presidential Management Staff, made the assurance following the reported forecast by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) that the price of rice would rise sharply this year owing to the worldwide credit crunch seen to make it hard for farmers to secure cash to purchase essentials such as seeds and fertilizer.
IRRI’s forecast is contained in its latest edition of quarterly journal Rice Today.
In an interview over Radio ng Bayan, Remonde expressed surprise over the IRRI forecast as he noted that domestic rice production posted “good harvest” in recent months. Remonde’s PMS regularly monitors government programs and projects, including those that pertain to agricultural production.
Nonetheless, Remonde said the IRRI forecast had prompted the Arroyo government to fine-tune its rice subsidy program, which it launched last year when world crude oil price soared to more than $100 a barrel.
But even when world crude oil price tapered off and slumped to just over $100 a barrel, the country’s economic managers crafted a contingency plan that would ensure the country’s sufficiency in food, including staple crops such as rice and corn, in critical times.
Malacañang said this contingency plan included a food sufficiency program that would effectively ensure that staple crops would be sold at affordable prices.
As reported by the Agency France Presse, the IRRI predicted that rice prices would likely to rise sharply for the second straight year in 2009 as the worldwide credit crunch would compel farmers to scrounge for cash to enable them to buy seeds and fertilizer.
The IRRI said the economic downturn would result in falling incomes that might compel the poor to switch back to less expensive staples.
The price of rice rose to $1,