Pakistani Air Force Attacks Mangal Bagh’s Terror Camps

55 People Killed in Air Strikes on Pakistan Militants The death toll from Pakistani air strikes on militant hideouts in a northwestern tribal area Wednesday rose to 55, with reports of some civilian deaths, security officials said.Pakistani jet fighters Tuesday targeted militants preparing for imminent suicide attacks and destroyed their bases in the lawless Khyber tribal district, which borders Afghanistan, security officials said. “Militants were using civilians and their families as human shields and there could be some civilian casualties but we do not know how many,” a senior security official told Agence France Presse, confirming the new toll. Two military and an intelligence official also confirmed the incident in the Tirah valley and the death toll. “At least 12 civilians were killed when jets dropped shells on a convoy,” a local government official told AFP. In April, Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Kayani made a rare public apology over the deaths of some 60 civilians, also in Tirah valley, during military operations and issued orders to avoid further incidents. Security officials said the air strikes destroyed militant hideouts, a training center, an illegal FM radio station and eight vehicles prepared for suicide attack in Peshawar, the capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The militants belonged to the Lashkar-e-Islam group and included fighters who fled last year’s offensive by the Pakistani military in the northwestern Swat valley, the security official said. Lashkar-e-Islam, which means Army of Islam, is a domestic Islamist group with ties to the Taliban that has caused unrest in the Khyber region, including attacks on NATO supply vehicles traveling through the area. Khyber is on the main NATO land supply route through Pakistan into Afghanistan, where almost 150,000 foreign forces are battling to reverse an escalating Taliban insurgency, now in its ninth year. The district neighbors the northwestern city of Peshawar, which is increasingly the target of Taliban and al-Qaida-linked bomb attacks.(AFP)

The Reverse Migration–Refugees Returning to Afghanistan

The voluntary return to Afghanistan than 100,000 people this year

Written by elmercuriodigital

08/31/2010

The number of people who voluntarily returned to Afghanistan from Pakistan and Iran so far this year, has exceeded 100,000, almost double last year, UNHCR reports. Of that total, about 95,000 people come from Pakistan. UNHCR PHOTO / Ali R. The program of voluntary repatriation to Afghanistan remains the largest program of UNHCR worldwide, with about 4.5 million people have returned to Afghanistan since 2002. As indicated by the figures for recent years, the number of returns may vary significantly from year to year. As part of its monitoring responsibilities, UNHCR conducts interviews with Afghan returnees to verify the grounds for repatriation. This year, the factors that are reported are for economic reasons, difficulties in Pakistan and improving the security situation in parts of Afghanistan. In total, almost 70% of the returnees coming from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the rest of Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh. A third returned to eastern Afghanistan, one third to the Central region and the rest of the Northeast. On the other hand, in Pakistan, UNHCR is discussing with the authorities regarding the rehabilitation of damaged refugee villages in the provinces of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. So far in the areas affected by flooding, we were able to assist some 700,000 people, representing one third of those that we have to help. To speed up assistance, we have added outlets in the most affected areas of Shangla, Swat, Peshawar, Charsadda and Kohistan. We are also in the process of establishing centers and identify partners who can expand assistance to flood victims who need help . Farther south, in Sindh, 2,000 families have so far received no food supplies. The UNHCR tents have helped people in Sukkar, Shikarpur and Jacobabad. According to government officials, the number of displaced in Balochistan has risen 1.1 million, of which 700,000 are from the areas affected by flooding in parts of Sindh.

Another Baloch National Party Leader Shot Dead–Sept. 1

BNP-Mengal leader among 2 killed in Kalat

QUETTA: Two people, including a Balochistan National Party- Mengal (BNP-M) leader, were shot dead in Kalat on Tuesday. According to sources, Kalat district BNP leader Nawabuddin Nechari and his friends Saffar Khan and Mullah Bakhsh were on their way on the national highway when unidentified assailants opened indiscriminate fire on their vehicle. As a result, two of them died on the spot while Mullah Bakhsh suffered multiple bullet injuries. Police reached the site soon after the incident and took the bodies and injured to a government hospital. BNP leaders Mir Nooruddin Mengal and Mir Akbar Ali termed the incident a ‘targeted killing’ to eliminate the BNP leadership from the political horizon of Balochistan. Manguchar police has registered a case and started an investigation. staff report

Protest held against killing of Punjabis in Balochistan

Lahore: The relatives of six Punjabis killed in Balochistan rallied form Regal Chowk to Punjab Assembly in a show of protest on Tuesday.

The rally was led by Chairman Protectors of Humanity Nazir Hussain Samar. The heirs of the deceased were also present on the occasion.

Protestors held placards and banners with slogans and asking Chief Minister of Punjab to break the silence and seeking financial help for the victims. Addressing the occasion, Nazir Hussain said that Sindhi, Balochi, Punjabi, and Pushto are one, nobody has the right to kill the other, and they should not be let off the hook without punishment.

He asked Chief Justice to take due notice of the incident and to financially help the relatives of the innocent victims. He also said that preemptive action should be taken against such crimes.

He said that state enemies should be dealt with sternly or it will give rise to parochialism which will not only be difficult to curb, but impossible. He said that the extremist elements want to spread anarchy in the country to weaken the state.

He asked the Chief Minister and Governor Punjab to condemn the killings and start investigations into the issue to bring the criminals to their deserved fate.

Needs of Balochistan flood victims unmet: UNHCR

Mengesha claims that the media sidelined Balochistan’s flood survivors. PHOTO: ONLINE

QUETTA: The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) representative in Pakistan Mengesha Kebede on Tuesday drew attention to the plight of Balochistan’s flood survivors whose basic needs have not been met as yet. Kebede also complained that the mainstream media had largely forgotten about the flood victims in the province.

“The situation in Balochistan is worst; 1.2 million flood survivors are under shelters and half of them came from Sindh. The province was forgotten and the media did not play its role regarding the problems faced by survivors in Balochistan,” he observed.

He remarked that the media was ‘following the river and the routes of the flood’, and their prime focus remained southern Punjab and its adjoining areas, which greatly led them to ignore the devastated population in Balochistan.

While commenting on the outbreak of epidemics and water-borne diseases, Mengesha said that the water-borne diseases posed serious threat to the lives of the flood survivors, as it was difficult to reach out each and every victim; he however stressed upon the need to increase efforts on an emergency basis.

He also informed that the UNHCR has been functioning in Balochistan for the past 30 years, due to which the United Nations asked them to coordinate with its NGOs that were working in the health, food and other relief sectors in Balochistan. He also suggested that,

“Pakistan is major producer of tents and jerrycans. UNHCR and other organizations buy tents and jerrycans from Pakistan to save transportation costs; all organisations should buy it from Pakistan in this time of need.”

He claimed that it was a challenge to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and other humanitarian groups to cope with such a situation, adding that his organisation had already sent 27 trucks carrying relief goods to Balochistan.

Mengesha Kebede remarked that twenty million people have been rendered homeless across the Pakistan by flash floods and the survivors are in dire need of food, clean drinking water and medicines.

He said that UNHCR has made an appeal for hundred and twenty million dollars to help out the flood affected people of Pakistan and so far 4 per cent of appeal had been received.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 1^st, 2010.

Spy widow joins anti-Russia protest

(UKPA)

Marina Litvinenko, the widow of Alexander Litvinenko, at a demonstration outside the Russian Embassy in London

Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky and the widow of former spy Alexander Litvinenko have joined a protest outside the Russian embassy.

About 30 people waving placards attended the anti-Kremlin rally in central London which, unlike similar events in Moscow and St Petersburg, passed off peacefully.

Opponents of prime minister Vladimir Putin and rights activists have been gathering on the 31st of each month to honour the 31st article of the Russian Constitution, which guarantees the right of assembly.

In Moscow, opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was detained and police officers hauled away protesters who were chanting “Down with the police state!” and “Russia without Putin!”

Russian police told the Interfax news agency that more than 60 people were detained while another 70 protesters were held at a rally in St Petersburg.

Mr Putin has said police will keep breaking up the protests unless the dissidents obtain official permission – which they are routinely denied.

“You will be beaten upside the head with a truncheon. And that’s it,” he said.

In London, Mr Berezovsky and Marina Litvinenko were accompanied by burly security guards wearing earpieces.

Copyright © 2010 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

Strasbourg court to consider Russian opposition claim against Moscow govt

Chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki human rights group Lyudmila Alexeyeva

© RIA Novosti. Sergey Rasulov

The European Court of Human Rights has begun looking into a claim made by three Russian activists on violations made by the Moscow authorities on the right to freedom of assembly, lawyer Dmitry Agranovsky said on Tuesday.

The claim was filed by Chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki human rights group Lyudmila Alexeyeva, Other Russia opposition party leader Eduard Limonov, and Left Front opposition movement member Konstantin Kosyakin.

“The court is now deciding whether our claim will be considered on a priority basis,” Agranovsky said.

The complainants want the court to fine the Moscow authorities 100,000 euros ($127,000) for violating articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Russian opposition groups hold Marches of Dissent on the last day of each 31-day-month in defense of their right to freedom of assembly, as enshrined in Article 31 of the Russian Constitution.

The Moscow city authorities have regularly turned down requests from Russian opposition groups to stage the rallies and recently announced plans to close the opposition’s main protest site, Triumfalnaya Square, to build an underground car park.

Several unsanctioned rallies on the square have already resulted in clashes with police and the arrests of many opposition members.

Alexeyeva earlier said the opposition would gather on Tuesday on Triumfalnaya Square but would not stage a protest.

MOSCOW, August 31 (RIA Novosti)

Putin says it’s OK to beat protesters

Luke Harding

September 1, 2010

Vladimir Putin … you have to have permission.

MOSCOW: The Russian Prime Minister has angrily dismissed protests against his regime as ”provocations” and said anyone who took part in unsanctioned street rallies against the Kremlin should expect a ”whack on the bonce”.

Using characteristic street language, Vladimir Putin derided Russia’s opposition as a group of publicity-seeking malcontents and said they had only themselves to blame if they were on the receiving end of police brutality during anti-government meetings.

Mr Putin’s scathing remarks in an interview with the newspaperKommersant were on the eve of anti-government demonstrations that take place at the end of each month. Anti-Putin rallies were also due to take place for the first time outside the Russian consulate in London, and in New York, Helsinki, Berlin and Tel Aviv.

The demonstrators, or 31ers as they are known, are seeking to highlight article 31 of Russia’s constitution, which guarantees freedom of assembly.

For the past eight months the small but vociferous opposition has held rallies in Moscow and St Petersburg. Organisers were due to go ahead with a planned rally in Triumfalnaya Square in central Moscow, despite the likelihood of arrest by riot police who have violently broken up previous gatherings.

Speaking while driving a Lada on a road trip in Russia’s far east, Mr Putin said Russians needed to get permission before they could take to the streets. ”You’ve got it [permission]? Go and march. If not, you don’t have the right. Go to a rally without permission and you get a whack on the bonce. It’s that simple.”

Mr Putin said the demonstrators invited the Western media along and ”poured red paint on their heads” to give the Kremlin a bad name. He said that in London demonstrators who protested without permission also got a ”whack on the nut”.

Writing on his blog, the opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov, said the interview revealed Mr Putin to be ”mendacious, ignorant and spiteful”. He poured scorn on Mr Putin’s claim he had never heard of the liberal rock star Yuri Shevchuk, who has led recent rallies.

During a U2 concert in Moscow last week, Bono invited Shevchuk on stage to perform Bob Dylan’s Knockin on Heaven’s Door. Hours before the concert, authorities detained five Amnesty volunteers outside the venue.

Putin belittles Russia’s political opposition

By LYNN BERRY (AP)

MOSCOW — Prime Minister Vladimir Putin disparaged Russian dissidents in crude street language in an interview Monday and said they would keep getting beaten if they continued to hold unauthorized rallies.

Putin has never shown much tolerance for dissent. After he became president a decade ago, Russia cracked down on opposition leaders and increased government control of the media. Now as prime minister, Putin still wields tremendous influence over policy, despite the presence of President Dmitry Medvedev. Putin has been coy over whether he will run in the 2012 presidential election.

Putin told journalists on Monday that it was “complete gibberish” that he continues to run the country.

“I’m tired of foreign policy,” Putin told journalists traveling with him in Russia’s Far East. He said Medvedev was handling it well and he saw no need to interfere.

In the interview published in the newspaper Kommersant, Putin defended his record and touched on a variety of topics, including foreign policy.

He said President Barack Obama seemed sincere in his desire to improve Moscow-Washington relations, despite U.S. policies that appeared more hostile. Putin pointed to continued U.S. military support for Georgia following its brief war with Russia in 2008 and U.S. plans to put a missile defense system in eastern Europe.

He also said imprisoned oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky deserved his punishment. Khodorkovsky, serving an eight-year sentence after being convicted of fraud and tax evasion, is now on trial on new charges that carry a sentence of up to 22 years.

Putin said in the Kommersant interview that he was surprised to learn of the second case against Khodorkovsky. That claim caused some wry amusement among Khodorkovsky’s supporters, who say the legal assault against him was punishment for challenging Putin.

It was questions about the political opposition, though, that inspired the colorful language Putin seems to love.

“What’s good about the contemporary world?” Putin was quoted as saying. “You can say something around the corner from a public toilet and the whole world will hear because all the television cameras will be there.”

Russia’s opposition leaders depend on international television exposure because they are blacklisted from Russian television and their protests are rarely aired.

Putin predicted that Russian police would keep breaking up opposition protests unless the dissidents obtain official permission to rally — permission they are routinely denied in central Moscow.

“You will be beaten upside the head with a truncheon. And that’s it,” Putin declared.

Opposition leader Boris Nemtsov said the interview showed Putin to be “dishonest, ignorant and evil.”

“It’s clear that the call to beat your own people, moreover those who are unarmed and not showing any resistance, is a crime,” Nemtsov wrote in his blog.

Opposition groups plan to rally Tuesday evening and predict that police will now be emboldened to use greater force in detaining protesters.

The opposition holds protests on the last day of every month with 31 days to call attention to Article 31 of Russia’s constitution, which guarantees freedom of assembly. Nemtsov was among the dozens detained at last month’s protest.

The rallies have been held on Triumph Square, but this month the Moscow city government fenced it off and announced plans to build an underground parking garage. Putin said he was unaware that the square had been closed. “I give you my honest word as a party member,” he said, resurrecting an expression used by Communist Party members in Soviet times.

Strasbourg court to consider Russian opposition claim against Moscow govt

Chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki human rights group Lyudmila Alexeyeva

14:11 31/08/2010

© RIA Novosti. Sergey Rasulov

The European Court of Human Rights has begun looking into a claim made by three Russian activists on violations made by the Moscow authorities on the right to freedom of assembly, lawyer Dmitry Agranovsky said on Tuesday.

The claim was filed by Chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki human rights group Lyudmila Alexeyeva, Other Russia opposition party leader Eduard Limonov, and Left Front opposition movement member Konstantin Kosyakin.

“The court is now deciding whether our claim will be considered on a priority basis,” Agranovsky said.

The complainants want the court to fine the Moscow authorities 100,000 euros ($127,000) for violating articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Russian opposition groups hold Marches of Dissent on the last day of each 31-day-month in defense of their right to freedom of assembly, as enshrined in Article 31 of the Russian Constitution.

The Moscow city authorities have regularly turned down requests from Russian opposition groups to stage the rallies and recently announced plans to close the opposition’s main protest site, Triumfalnaya Square, to build an underground car park.

Several unsanctioned rallies on the square have already resulted in clashes with police and the arrests of many opposition members.

Alexeyeva earlier said the opposition would gather on Tuesday on Triumfalnaya Square but would not stage a protest.

MOSCOW, August 31 (RIA Novosti)

Palestinian forces arrest dozens of Hamas activists

[If Palestinian security forces have arrested over 150 members of Hamas then renewed civil war cannot be far behind.  As usual, Hamas commits the acts that Netanyahu wishes they would commit.  Hamas is a tool of the Zionist state.]

By Mohammed Assadi

RAMALLAH, West Bank | Wed Sep 1, 2010 6:07am EDT

(Reuters) – Palestinian security forces in the West Bank detained dozens of Hamas activists on Wednesday in response to a lethal attack on Jewish settlers in the occupied territory, a senior security source said.

The Hamas armed wing claimed responsibility for the killing of four Jewish settlers near Hebron on Tuesday on the eve of a new round of U.S.-backed peace talks.

“Dozens of Hamas members have been arrested, mainly in Hebron area and across the West Bank,” the source said. “We are investigating if they have any links to the shooting attack. There will be more arrests.”

Hamas sources in the West Bank said some 150 activists, including relatives of senior party figures, had been arrested in a sweep that began shortly after the shooting.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said the arrests were an “act of treason.”

“These arrests prove the security services in the West Bank work to serve the security of the occupation,” he said.

The Hamas armed wing, the Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack from the Gaza Strip, which the group has controlled since 2007 when it defeated President Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority in a short civil war.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said he would prevent a repeat of such attacks. His Western-backed administration, which is set to resume peace talks with Israel on Thursday, is opposed to violence.

Tuesday’s shooting was the most lethal attack on Israelis in the West Bank in four years.

The shooting confounded recent Hamas signals that it will deter militants from resuming attacks on Israel of the sort that triggered the devastating military assault of the winter of 2008-09 in which 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.

(Additional reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza; Editing by Tom Perry and Angus MacSwan)

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and The New World Order

- By William Blase

For those who may be confused by the controversies surrounding the “New World Order”, a One-World-Government, and American concern over giving the UN more power; those unaware of the issues involved; and those wishing more background, I offer the following.

Originally presented for an Honors Class, “Dilemmas of War and Peace,” at New Mexico State University, the paper was ridiculed and characterized by Dr. Yosef Lapid, (an acknowledged and locally quoted “expert” on Terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs) as “paranoid… possibly a symptom of mental illness.” You may judge for yourself.

Citing source data is the “scientific method,” but does not seem to apply to “Conspiracy Theories.” A thousand sources may be quoted, yet will not convince the “skeptics,” the “realists.” It seems to me the “symptoms of mental illness” are on their side, if they refuse to look at evidence (“There are none so blind as those who WILL not see”); or perhaps something more sinister is at work, such as a knowledge of the truth, that does not want YOU to know.

To be paranoid means to believe in delusions of danger and persecution. If the danger is real, and the evidence credible, then it cannot be delusional. To ignore the evidence, and hope that it CANNOT be true, is more an evidence of mental illness.

The issue involves much more than a difference of philosophy, or political viewpoint. Growing up in the midst of the “Cold War,” our generation were taught that those who attempted to abolish our national sovereignty and overthrow our Constitutional government were committing acts of treason. Please judge for yourself if the group discussed is guilty of such.

If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the “New World Order”, as they have for over seventy years.

The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its’ “experts” write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.

To understand how the most influential people in America came to be members of an organization working purposefully for the overthrow of the Constitution and American sovereignty, we have to go back at least to the early 1900′s, though the story begins much earlier (depending on your viewpoint and beliefs).

That a ruling power elite does indeed control the U.S. government behind the scenes has been attested to by many americans in a position to know. Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962), said: “The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.” In a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote, “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

February 23, 1954, Senator William Jenner warned in a speech: “Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded.”

Baron M.A. Rothschild wrote, “Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.”

All that is needed to effectively control a government is to have control over the nation’s money: a central bank with a monopoly over the supply of money and credit. This had been done in Western Europe, with the creation of privately owned central banks such as the Bank of England.

Georgetown professor Dr. Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor while at Georgetown) wrote about the goals of the investment bankers who control central banks: “… nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole… controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

The Bank of the United States (1816-36), an early attempt at an American central bank, was abolished by President Andrew Jackson, who believed that it threatened the nation. He wrote: “The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government, the distress it had wantonly produced…are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution…if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Does that not describe the situation in America today?

The U.S. managed to do without a central bank until early in this century, when, according to Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., “The Money Trust caused the 1907 panic, and thereby forced Congress to create a National Monetary Commission.” Headed by Senator Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Commission recommended creation of a central bank.

Though unconstitutional, as only “The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof…” (Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution) the Federal Reserve Act was passed in December 1913; ostensibly to stabilize the economy and prevent further panics, but as Lindberg warned Congress: “This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth…the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized.” The Great Depression and numerous recessions later, it is obvious the Federal Reserve produces inflation and federal debt whenever it desires, but not stability.

Congressman Louis McFadden, House Committee on Banking and Currency Chairman (1920-31), stated: “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists…acting together to enslave the world…Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is–the Fed has usurped the government.”

Although called “Federal,” the Federal Reserve system is privately owned by member banks, makes its own policies, and is not subject to oversight by Congress or the President. As the overseer and supplier of reserves, the Fed gave banks access to public funds, which enhanced their lending capacity.

Peter Kershaw, in “Economic Solutions” lists the ten major shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank System as: Rothschild: London and Berlin; Lazard Bros: Paris; Israel Seiff: Italy; Kuhn- Loeb Company: Germany; Warburg: Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Bros: New York; Goldman and Sachs: New York; Rockefeller: New York. (That most, if not all of these families just happen to be Jewish, you may judge the significance of yourself). The balance of stock is owned by major commercial member banks.

According to Devvy Kidd, “Why A Bankrupt America?” The Federal Reserve pays the Bureau of Engraving & Printing approximately $23 for each 1,000 notes printed. 10,000 $100 notes (one million dollars) would thus cost the Federal Reserve $230. They then secure a pledge of collateral equal to the face value from the U.S. government. The collateral is our land, labor, and assets… collected by their agents, the IRS. By authorizing the Fed to regulate and create money (and thus inflation), Congress gave private banks power to create profits at will.

As Lindberg put it: “The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation…they can unload the stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices…the day of reckoning is only a few years removed.” That day came in 1929, with the Stock Market crash and Great Depression.

One of the most important powers given to the Fed was the right to buy and sell government securities, and provide loans to member banks so they might also purchase them. This provided another built-in mechanism for profit to the banks, if government debt was increased. All that was needed was a method to pay off the debt. This was accomplished through the passage of the income tax in 1913.

A national income tax was declared unconstitutional in 1895 by the Supreme Court, so a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress by none other than …Senator Nelson Aldrich. As presented to the American people it seemed reasonable enough: income tax on only one percent of income under $20,000, with the assurance that it would never increase.

Since it was graduated, the tax would “soak the rich”, …but the rich had other plans, already devising a method of protecting wealth. As described by Gary Allen in his 1976 book “The Rockefeller File,” “By the time the (16th) Amendment had been approved by the states, the Rockefeller Foundation was in full operation…about the same time that Judge Kenesaw Landis was ordering the breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly…John D…not only avoided taxes by creating four great tax-exempt foundations; he used them as repositories for his ‘divested’ interests…made his assets non-taxable so that they might be passed down through generations without…estate and gift taxes…Each year the Rockefellers can dump up to half their incomes into their pet foundations and deduct the “donations” from their income tax.”

Exchanging ownership for control of wealth, foundations are also a handy means for promoting interests that benefit the wealthy. Millions of foundation dollars have been “donated” to causes such as promoting the use of drugs, while degrading preventive medicine. Since many drugs are made from coal tar derivatives, both oil companies and drug manufacturing concerns (many Rockefeller owned or controlled) are the main beneficiaries.

With the means to loan enormous sums to the government (the Federal Reserve), a method to repay the debt (income tax), and an escape from taxation for the wealthy, (foundations), all that remained was an excuse to borrow money. By some happy “coincidence,” in 1914 World War I began, and after American participation national debt rose from $1 billion to $25 billion.

Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1913, beating incumbent William Howard Taft, who had vowed to veto legislation establishing a central bank. To divide the Republican vote and elect the relatively unknown Wilson, J.P. Morgan and Co. poured money into the candidacy of Teddy Roosevelt and his Progressive Party.

According to an eyewitness, Wilson was brought to Democratic Party headquarters in 1912 by Bernard Baruch, a wealthy banker. He received an “indoctrination course” from those he met, and in return agreed, if elected: to support the projected Federal Reserve and the income tax, and “listen” to advice in case of war in Europe and on the composition of his cabinet.

Wilson’s top advisor during his two terms was a man named Colonel Edward M. House. House’s biographer, Charles Seymour, called him the “unseen guardian angel” of the Federal Reserve Act, helping to guide it through Congress. Another biographer wrote that House believed: “…the Constitution, product of eighteenth-century minds…was thoroughly outdated; that the country would be better off if the Constitution could be scrapped and rewritten…” House wrote a book entitled “Philip Dru: Administrator,” published anonymously in 1912. The hero, Philip Dru, rules America and introduces radical changes, such as a graduated income tax, a central bank, and a “league of nations.”

World War I produced both a large national debt, and huge profits for those who had backed Wilson. Baruch was appointed head of the War Industries Board, where he exercised dictatorial power over the national economy. He and the Rockefellers were reported to have earned over $200 million during the war. Wilson backer Cleveland Dodge sold munitions to the allies, while J.P. Morgan loaned them hundreds of millions, with the protection of U.S. entry into the war.

While profit was certainly a motive, the war was also useful to justify the notion of world government. William Hoar reveals in “Architects of Conspiracy” that during the 1950s, government investigators examining the records of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a long- time promoter of globalism, found that several years before the outbreak of World War I, the Carnegie trustees were planning to involve the U.S. in a general war, to set the stage for world government.

The main obstacle was that Americans did not want any involvement in European wars. Some kind of incident, such as the explosion of the battleship Main, which provoked the Spanish – American war, would have to be provided as provocation. This occurred when the Lusitania, carrying 128 Americans on board, was sunk by a German submarine, and anti-German sentiment was aroused. When war was declared, U.S. propaganda portrayed all Germans as Huns and fanged serpents, and all Americans opposing the war as traitors.

What was not revealed at the time, however, was that the Lusitania was transporting war munitions to England, making it a legitimate target for the Germans. Even so, they had taken out large ads in the New York papers, asking that Americans not take passage on the ship.

The evidence seems to point to a deliberate plan to have the ship sunk by the Germans. Colin Simpson, author of “The Lusitania,” wrote that Winston Churchill, head of the British Admiralty during the war, had ordered a report to predict the political impact if a passenger ship carrying Americans was sunk. German naval codes had been broken by the British, who knew approximately where all U-boats near the British Isles were located.

According to Simpson, Commander Joseph Kenworthy, of British Naval Intelligence, stated: “The Lusitania was deliberately sent at considerably reduced speed into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting…escorts withdrawn.” Thus, even though Wilson had been reelected in 1916 with the slogan “He kept us out of war,” America soon found itself fighting a European war. Actually, Colonel House had already negotiated a secret agreement with England, committing the U.S. to the conflict. It seems the American public had little say in the matter.

With the end of the war and the Versailles Treaty, which required severe war reparations from Germany, the way was paved for a leader in Germany such as Hitler. Wilson brought to the Paris Peace Conference his famous “fourteen points,” with point fourteen being a proposal for a “general association of nations,” which was to be the first step towards the goal of One World Government-the League of Nations.

Wilson’s official biographer, Ray Stannard Baker, revealed that the League was not Wilson’s idea. “…not a single idea–in the Covenant of the League was original with the President.” Colonel House was the author of the Covenant, and Wilson had merely rewritten it to conform to his own phraseology.

The League of Nations was established, but it, and the plan for world government eventually failed because the U.S. Senate would not ratify the Versailles Treaty.

Pat Robertson, in “The New World Order,” states that Colonel House, along with other internationalists, realized that America would not join any scheme for world government without a change in public opinion.

After a series of meetings, it was decided that an “Institute of International Affairs”, with two branches, in the United States and England, would be formed.

The British branch became known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, with leadership provided by members of the Round Table. Begun in the late 1800′s by Cecil Rhodes, the Round Table aimed to federate the English speaking peoples of the world, and bring it under their rule.

The Council on Foreign Relations was incorporated as the American branch in New York on July 29, 1921. Founding members included Colonel House, and “…such potentates of international banking as J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, and Jacob Schiff…the same clique which had engineered the establishment of the Federal Reserve System,” according to Gary Allen in the October 1972 issue of “AMERICAN OPINION.”

The founding president of the CFR was John W. Davis, J.P. Morgan’s personal attorney, while the vice-president was Paul Cravath, also representing the Morgan interests. Professor Carroll Quigley characterized the CFR as “…a front group for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.” Over time Morgan influence was lost to the Rockefellers, who found that one world government fit their philosophy of business well. As John D. Rockefeller, Sr. had said: “Competition is a sin,” and global monopoly fit their needs as they grew internationally.

Antony Sutton, a research fellow for the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University, wrote of this philosophy: “While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to ‘go political’ and make society go to work for the monopolists– under the name of the public good and the public interest.”

Frederick C. Howe revealed the strategy of using government in a 1906 book, “Confessions of a Monopolist”: “These are the rules of big business…Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics…”

As corporations went international, national monopolies could no longer protect their interests. What was needed was a one world system of government controlled from behind the scenes. This had been the plan since the time of Colonel House, and to implement it, it was necessary to weaken the U.S. politically and economically.

During the 1920′s, America enjoyed a decade of prosperity, fueled by the easy availability of credit. Between 1923 and 1929 the Federal Reserve expanded the money supply by sixty-two percent. When the stock market crashed, many small investors were ruined, but not “insiders.” In March of 1929 Paul Warburg issued a tip the Crash was coming, and the largest investors got out of the market, according to Allen and Abraham in “None Dare Call it Conspiracy.”

With their fortunes intact, they were able to buy companies for a fraction of their worth. Shares that had sold for a dollar might now cost a nickel, and the buying power, and wealth, of the rich increased enormously.

Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee declared: “It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence…The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.”

Curtis Dall, son-in-law of FDR and a syndicate manager for Lehman Brothers, an investment firm, was on the N.Y. Stock Exchange floor the day of the crash. In “FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law,” he states: “…it was the calculated ‘shearing’ of the public by the World-Money powers triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the New York Market.”

The Crash paved the way for the man Wall Street had groomed for the presidency, FDR. Portrayed as a “man of the little people”, the reality was that Roosevelt’s family had been involved in New York banking since the eighteenth century.

Frederic Delano, FDR’s uncle, served on the original Federal Reserve Board. FDR attended Groton and Harvard, and in the 1920′s worked on Wall Street, sitting on the board of directors of eleven different corporations.

Dall wrote of his father-in-law: “…Most of his thoughts, his political ‘ammunition,’…were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR-One World Money group. Brilliantly… he exploded that prepared ‘ammunition’ in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people–and thus paid off and retained his internationalist political support.”

Taking America off the gold standard in 1934, FDR opened the way to unrestrained money supply expansion, decades of inflation–and credit revenues for banks. Raising gold prices from $20 an ounce to $35, FDR and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (son of a founding CFR member), gave international bankers huge profits.

FDR’s most remembered program, the New Deal, could only be financed through heavy borrowing. In effect, those who had caused the Depression loaned America the money to recover from it. Then, through the National Recovery Administration, proposed by Bernard Baruch in 1930, they were put in charge of regulating the economy. FDR appointed Baruch disciple Hugh Johnson to run the NRA, assisted by CFR member Gerard Swope. With broad powers to regulate wages, prices, and working conditions, it was, as Herbert Hoover wrote in his memoirs: “…pure fascism;…merely a remaking of Mussolini’s ‘corporate state’…” The Supreme Court eventually ruled the NRA unconstitutional.

During the FDR years, the Council on Foreign Relations captured the political life of the U.S. Besides Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, other CFR members included Secretary of State Edward Stettinus, War Secretary Henry Stimson, and Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles.

Since 1934 almost every United States Secretary of State has been a CFR member; and ALL Secretaries of War or Defense, from Henry L. Stimson through Richard Cheney.

The CIA has been under CFR control almost continuously since its creation, starting with Allen Dulles, founding member of the CFR and brother of Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles. Allen Dulles had been at the Paris Peace Conference, joined the CFR in 1926, and later became its president.

John Foster Dulles had been one of Woodrow Wilson’s young proteges at the Paris Peace Conference. A founding member of the CFR…he was an in-law of the Rockefellers, Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Board Chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In 1940 FDR defeated internationalist Wendell Willkie, who wrote a book entitled “One World,” and later became a CFR member. Congressman Usher Burdick protested at the time on the floor of the House that Willkie was being financed by J.P. Morgan and the New York utility bankers. Polls showed few Republicans favored him, yet the media portrayed him as THE Republican candidate.

Since that time nearly ALL presidential candidates have been CFR members. President Truman, who was not a member, was advised by a group of “wise men,” all six of whom were CFR members, according to Gary Allen. In 1952 and 1956, CFR Adlai Stevenson challenged CFR Eisenhower.

In 1960, CFR Kennedy (who was probably killed because he had the courage NOT to go along with all their plans) CFR Nixon. In 1964 the GOP stunned the Establishment by nominating its candidate over Nelson Rockefeller.

Rockefeller and the CFR wing proceeded to picture Barry Goldwater as a dangerous radical. In 1968 CFR Nixon ran against CFR Humphrey. The 1972 “contest” featured CFR Nixon vs. CFR McGovern.

CFR candidates for president include George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Edmund Muskie, John Anderson, and Lloyd Bentsen. In 1976 we had Jimmy Carter, who is a member of the Trilateral Commission, created by David Rockefeller and CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski with the goal of economic linkage between Japan, Europe, and the United States, and: “…managing the world economy…a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system.” We have also had (though his name strangely disappears from the membership list in 1979) CFR director (1977-79) George Bush, and last but not least, CFR member Bill Clinton.

They have all promoted the “New World Order,” controlled by the United Nations. The problem is that “…the present United Nations organization is actually the creation of the CFR and is housed on land in Manhattan donated to it by the family of current CFR chairman David Rockefeller,” as Pat Robertson describes it.

The original concept for the UN was the outcome of the Informal Agenda Group, formed in 1943 by Secretary of State Cordell Hull. All except Hull were CFR members, and Isaiah Bowman, a founding member of the CFR, originated the idea.

The American delegation to the San Francisco meeting that drafted the charter of the United Nations in 1949 included CFR members Nelson Rockefeller, John Foster Dulles, John McCloy, and CFR members who were communist agents–Harry Dexter White, Owen Lattimore, and the Secretary-General of the conference, Alger Hiss. In all, the Council sent forty-seven of its members in the United States delegation, effectively controlling the outcome.

Since that time the CFR and its friends in the mass media (largely controlled by CFR members such as Katherine Graham of the “Washington Post” and Henry Luce of” Time, Life”), foundations, and political groups have lobbied consistently to grant the United Nations more authority and power. Bush and the Gulf War were but one of the latest calls for a “New World Order.”

Admiral Chester Ward, a member of the CFR for over a decade, became one of its harshest critics, revealing its inner workings in a 1975 book, “Kissinger ON THE COUCH.” In it he states “The most powerful cliques in these elitist groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States.”

Most members are one-world-government ideologists whose long- term goals were officially summed up in September 1961 State Department Document 7277, adopted by the Nixon Administration: “…elimination of all armed forces and armaments except those needed to maintain internal order within states and to furnish the United Nations with peace forces…by the time it (UN global government) would be so strong no nation could challenge it.”

Within the CFR there exists a “much smaller group but more powerful…made up of Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in control of the global government …This CFR faction is headed by the Rockefeller brothers,” according to Ward.

What must be remembered is that this is not some lunatic- fringe group…these are members of one of the most powerful private organizations in the world: the people who determine and control American economic, social, political, and military policy. Members’ influence and control extends to “leaders in academia, public service, business, and the media,” according to the CFR 1993 “Annual Report.”

Their founding they describe as: “American Participants in the Paris Peace Conference decided that it was time for more private Americans to become familiar with the increasing responsibilities and obligations of the United States…there was a need for an organization able to provide for the continuous study of U.S. foreign police for the BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS (emphasis mine) and a wider audience of interested Americans.”

They sponsor hundreds of programs, where members “exchange views with American and foreign officials and policy experts… discuss foreign policy issues…consider international issues of concern to the business community” (Corporate business), and “…affiliated groups of community leaders throughout the United states…meet with decision makers.”

The CFR states that it is “host to many views, advocate of none,” and it “has no affiliation with the U.S. government.” No, no affiliation at all, if you don’t count: “A Council member was elected president of the United States…Dozens of other Council colleagues were called to serve in cabinet and sub-cabinet positions,” as they describe it in “Foreign Affairs,” along with many members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs, the Federal Reserve, and many other Federal bureaucrats.

They are not AFFILIATED with government, they ARE the government, in effect.

One re-occurring view was stated in the 50th anniversary issue of “Foreign Affairs,” the official publication of the CFR. In an article by Kingman Brewster, Jr. entitled “Reflections on Our National Purpose.” Our purpose should be, according to him, to do away with our nationality, to “take some risks in order to invite others to pool their sovereignty with ours…”

These “risks” include disarming to the point where we would be helpless against the “peace-keeping” forces of a global UN government. We should happily surrender our sovereignty to the world government in the interests of the “world community.”

Today we have the spectacle of Spc. 4 Michael New, a U.S. soldier in Germany who refuses to wear the uniform of the UN, facing an “administrative discharge.” He states rightly that he swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, not the United Nations. Many other Americans have taken that same oath, such as myself, and believe it is our sworn duty still to defend the Constitution, since an oath sworn before God must be fulfilled. (Why else do we swear to tell the truth in our courts, or when taking public office?) Is it a crime these days to actually BELIEVE in God and the oath that was taken?

Meanwhile, others who attempt to destroy the Constitution and our sovereignty are given honors and position…At least they are not hypocrites…only supremely arrogant.

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault…” in the opinion of Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State in “Foreign Affairs,” April 1974.

James Warburg, son of CFR founder Paul Warburg, and a member of FDR’s “brain trust,” testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it–by conquest or consent.”

Is this an AMERICAN speaking, or a dangerous lunatic? Who is this “We” who threatens to CONQUER us?

They are a group that actually has the power to do it, and is doing it every day, bit by bit.

CFR Members in the mass media, education, and entertainment push their propaganda of “humanism” and world brotherhood. We should all live in peace under a world government, and forget about such selfish things as nationalities and patriotism. We can solve our own problems. We don’t need God, or morals, or values: it’s all relative, anyway, right?…Because if we actually had some moral character and values, we might be able to discern that these people are actually EVIL.

The Bible says that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10). These people are evil because they love money and power, and greed drives them to do anything to achieve their goals. They have lost all morality and conscience, and believe such concepts, as well as our Constitution, “outdated”.

THAT is insanity–to have more wealth than can be spent, and still it is never enough. They have to control governments, start wars, conspire to rule the world; least the “common people” wake up to how they have gained their wealth, take it away from them, and demand that they pay the price for their crimes.

That is why they constantly pit us one against the other, with “Diversity,” Affirmative Action, and other programs,…black against white, men against women, rural against urban, ranchers against environmentalists, and on and on…least we look in their direction.

We The People are held to a much higher standard. If we threaten the President or a public official, we are charged with a crime…yet the One-World-Gang can threaten the Constitution and the liberties of We The People, the sovereign rulers of this nation, and nothing is said or done.

Perhaps they do not fear what Man can do to them… they believe they have arranged everything, and their power and wealth will prevail in this world. However, those among them who have sworn an oath before God to uphold and defend the Constitution: the President, members of Congress, and the military; may find one day that they do indeed have something to fear.

List of CFR Members

Colonel House, the fallen angel, still has relatives controlling the CFR. Karen Elliot House is Chairman of the Membership Committee, and a member of the Nominating Committee, along with Jeane Kirkpatrick. David Rockefeller is now “Honorary Chairman of the Board”, after serving as Chairman 1970-1985; and “Director Emeritus,” after serving as a Director 1949-1985. Peter G. Peterson is Chairman, Admiral B. R. Inman is Vice Chairman, while Thomas Foley and Jeane Kirkpatrick are Directors serving on the Executive Committee.

These “private citizens” have access to government officials and policy makers as often as they wish, yet the results of their meetings can only be given to other government officials, corporate officers, or law partners. Participants are forbidden to transmit an attributed statement to any public medium, such as newspapers or TV, where there is “risk that it will promptly be widely circulated or published,” as the “Annual Report” puts it.

Should not OUR public officials be forbidden to meet in secret with private groups? Public officials should only be allowed to discuss public business and policy in a public forum. The Public…remember US?

There is much more to say about this group and their plans for America. Gary Allen, in “The Rockefeller File,” states that they are behind the many regional government plans, which would abolish city, county, and state lines, leaving us at the mercy of federal bureaucrats; and behind the push for “land use” controls. They want “federal control of everything. Since they intend to control the federal government…”

There are also the many allegations of involvement in gun running, drug smuggling, prostitution and sex slaves; and the many mysterious assassinations and “suicides” of witnesses and others who get too close to the truth…but that is another story.

References

• Bo Adelmann, 1986. “The Federal Reserve System.” The New American, October 17.
• Gary Allen, 1976. The Rockefeller File. Seal Beach, CA: ’76 Press.
• Gary Allen with Larry Abraham, 1972. None Dare Call it Conspiracy. Rossmoor, CA: Concord Press.
• “Congressional Record,” December 22, 1913, Vol. 51.
• Phoebe and Kent Courtney, 1962. America’s Unelected Rulers, The Council on Foreign Relations. New Orleans: Conservative Society of America.
• Curtis B. Dall, 1970. FDR My Exploited Father-In-Law. Washington D.C.: Action Associates.
• A. Ralph Epperson, 1985. The Unseen Hand. Tucson, AZ: Publius Press.
• F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1950. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
• William P. Hoar, 1984. Architects of Conspiracy. Belmont MA: Western Islands.
• Herbert Hoover, 1952. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, The Great Depression 1929-1941. New York: Macmillan.
• Frederick C. Howe, 1906. Confessions of a Monopolist. Chicago: Public Publishing Co.
• Robert C. Johansen, 1980. Models of World Order, in “Dilemmas of War and Peace.”
• Peter Kershaw, 1994. “Economic Solutions.”
• Devvy Kidd, 1995. “Why A Bankrupt America?” Colorado: Project Liberty.
• Ferdinand Lundberg, 1938. America’s 60 Families. New York: Vanguard.
• Louis T. McFadden, 1934. “The Federal Reserve Corporation, remarks in Congress.” Boston: Forum Publication Co.
• James Perloff, 1988. The Shadows of Power. Appleton, WI: Western Islands.
• Carroll Quigley, 1966. Tragedy and Hope. New York: Macmillan.
• Pat Robertson, 1991. The New World Order. Dallas: Word Publishing.
• Charles Seymour, ed., 1926. The Intimate Paper of Colonel House. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Colin Simpson, 1972. The Lusitania. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Arthur D. Howde Smith, 1940. “Mr House ob5 Texas.” New York: Funk and Wagnalls.
• Antony C. Sutton, 1975. Wall Street and FDR. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House.
• George Sylvester Viereck, 1932. The Strangest Friendship in History. New York: Liveright.

This document may be freely distributed or quoted in any medium, provided credit is given to the author and The Courier. Copyright 1995

web@zianet.com

Nabucco a ‘bargaining chip’ between Russia and Europe

Ilham Shaban

News.Az interviews Ilham Shaban, head of the Baku-based Oil Research Centre.

Would you comment on reports of a new gas war between Russian monopoly Gazprom and the European Union?

A number of leading countries of Central and Eastern Europe are already dissatisfied with the prices for imported Russian gas. They have already achieved a 15% decrease in prices but negotiations are under way about a further price decrease of 15% for European consumers. This is because the gas price on world markets has fallen to about $300 per 1,000 cubic metres, while the spot price on the European gas market was $190-220 in July. Gazprom is making concessions as it is aware of the situation. Of course, a process of mutual concessions does not go smoothly and may lead to reports of possible conflicts.

Why are the leading countries of Europe that are gas consumers not making more effort with the Nabucco project?

In order to answer this question, it should be mentioned that this year almost saw the bankruptcy of a European country, Greece. New EU member Latvia was also on the verge of bankruptcy. Spain and Portugal have huge financial problems. The situation has stabilized somewhat thanks to the large credits extended to these countries. However, wildfires and further flooding throughout most of Eastern Europe show that a return even to the minimum standards of the European Union is out of the question. In other words, Europe has no money. The profitability of the Nabucco project is uncertain if it’s built by the shareholder countries without the support of investors. In the prevailing conditions, the Nabucco project is becoming a bargaining chip between Europe and Russia; the European aim in the bargaining is to bring down the price of Russian gas.

But what does Azerbaijan gain from this bargaining?

In the bigger picture, nothing, but the bargaining does have an indirect impact on Azerbaijan. We were to have reached a planned capacity of 8.6bn cubic metres of gas in 2008 as part of Stage 1 of the Shah Deniz project, but by the end of the year we had produced only 6.5bn cubic metres of gas, and today have just brought the figure up to to 7bn cubic metres. The reason is the lack of buyers. In the prevailing conditions, Azerbaijan is obliged to play the “gas game” with Russia, to make expenditure and mobilize efforts to improve the infrastructure for supplies to Iran. This is dictated by the fact that in 2011 Azerbaijan will produce a 3-3.5bn cubic metre surplus of gas which has to be sold to someone.

Is there a purely economic, rather than political, rationale for Azerbaijan to agree to Russia’s repeated offers to buy all our gas?

Certainly, the easiest, the simplest solution would be to put all our eggs in one basket. But we all understand that oil and gas have long ceased to be only a commodity; they are a tool for political dialogue. This means that Azerbaijan should now look for new ways to supply gas to different markets and the sale of liquefied gas becomes a priority.

Akper Hasanov
News.Az

Back In the USSR, by Choice

Ukrainian Court Backpedals On Broadcast Rights

KIEV, Ukraine — A Kiev Appeals Court on Monday decided to cut additional broadcasting for two independent television channels bringing onslaught of fresh criticism against the government for it’s continued restriction of press freedom in Ukraine.

Protesters, mainly journalists and artist, gather in front of a court in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, to protest against media censorship.

The court announced that the two channels, Channel 5 and TBi, will have their broadcast frequencies cancelled.

The decision comes after a lengthy legal process, which has been accompanied by domestic and international criticism against Ukrainian officials for curtailing media around the country.

In January, The National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council of Ukraine (NTRBC) offered a tender to provide national TV channels with additional broadcasting frequencies.

Channels 5 and TBi won the tender ahead of the pro-government Inter Media Group—a large broadcasting company, which includes several national television channels.

The Inter Media Group claimed the decision was illegal and brought the issue to court, which ruled in June that the tender’s procedure had violations.

Channel 5 has accused National Security chief, Valeriy Khoroshkovksy, former owner of the Inter Media Group, of influencing the decision to cancel its broadcasting.

Khoroshkovksy, whose wife is the owner of the Inter Media Group, has denied the allegations.

Other media and rights groups, including The International Press Institute (IPI), have expressed concern about today’s ruling which will force the NTRBC to offer a new tender with more TV channels participating.

Channel 5 said that it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, and if that did not work, it would go to the European Court for final appeals.

“Actuality, the court hearing looked pretty unclear and the advocates made mistakes. It seemed to me that the court had had a certain decision beforehand,” Kiev Press Institute quoted the editor-in-chief of Channel 5 Vladimir Mjelskiy as saying.

Roman Golovenko, a media expert with Kiev Press Institute said that the Broadcasting Council had a history of bad decision-making process which was criticized a lot before.

“Generally, the court proceedings have put in question the legitimacy of the council’s activities not only over the controversial tender, but of many other issues,” the organization reported.

International human rights organizations say that press freedom has declined sharply in Ukraine, since pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych assumed power earlier this year.

After Reporters Without Borders (RSF) had met journalists and officials in July, it concluded that “it became more and more problematic in Ukraine to be an independent journalist.”

Source: The Epoch Times

Merkel Tackles Ukrainian President On Media Rights

BERLIN, Germany — German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Monday she held “very open” talks with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich about press freedom following criticism from journalists and international watchdogs.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel
“I made clear that with regard to certain democratic areas, in particular in the area of press freedom and the freedom of opinion, we had certain questions,” Merkel said after talks with Yanukovich in Berlin.

“We discussed these questions very openly with one another. We also agreed that should there be any such problems in the future that we would be able to discuss them openly and honestly,” she told reporters.

Ukrainian journalists have repeatedly warned of deteriorating media rights, saying pressure on reporters has increased since Yanukovich, seen as closer to Moscow than his predecessor Viktor Yushchenko, came to power in February.

On Friday, media rights watchdog Reporters without Borders sent a letter to Merkel asking her to discuss “growing obstacles to freedom of the press” in Ukraine during her meeting with Yanukovich.

The group also called on Merkel to press for a more thorough investigation into the disappearance of journalist Vasyl Klymentyev on August 11.

Ukraine’s Interior Minister Anatoly Mogilev said on Thursday that it was likely that Klymentyev, the editor of a small weekly in Ukraine’s northern city of Kharkiv specialising in sensational corruption exposes, had been murdered.

More than 100 Ukrainian journalists and artists took to the streets of Kiev on Thursday in a protest against censorship.

Private channels TVi and Channel 5 are currently at loggerheads over broadcast frequencies with one of the main national networks, Inter TV Channel.

Inter TV’s owner, Valery Khoroshkovsky, is one of the country’s richest businessmen and also head of the SBU, Ukraine’s main government security agency.

The newspaper reported that the head of TVi had been spied on by intelligence services, something which Yanukovich has denied.

Source: German Expatica

posted by Nicholas @ 3:02 PM