Missed Him By That Much–Obama and the Book


Khan’s book almost made an impact on the president

Obama Book Thrower Revealed

Obama book thrower, Sajid Ali Khan

The man who threw a book at US President Barack Obama during a Pennsylvania rally on Sunday has been revealed to be a New York antiques dealer with a Muslim-sounding name.

In a blog post on Google’s Knol platform, self-described “wisdom coach” Sajid Ali Khan celebrated “one of the most dramatic days of [his] life. In an act that took ” daring, courage and lunacy,” he describes what it took to throw a copy of his book at the American president:

Yesterday was one of the most dramatic days of my life. Daring, courage and lunacy was all involved. I went to the President Obama rally, in Philadelphia. Usually I am able to place myself at a point where I can shake the hand of the President and talk to him. This time I was one fence away so there was no way I could speak to him. There was five rows of people between me and the President. I was still about 10′ away from him. So I held up my book and as soon as he looked at me I tilted the book to show him that I wanted to give it to him. I did it a few times when he looked towards my direction. The President is extremely intelligent and is always looking for new ideas so I could see that he took several good looks at the book. But he did not say anything. I realized that it was going no where. So I tried to focus on Vice President Biden. I tried to jester towards him, I kind of felt that he did not mind my throwing it to him. So I threw the book towards his feet.

The book that was thrown at Obama

The book almost floated in a magical curve. I thought it would land off the stage but it floated and landed in front of the Vice President. I made a V sign and gave him a thumbs up and he enjoyed the whole episode and was smiling and gave me back a thumbs up. As if saying he got it. A secret service officer ran up to the stage and picked it up and soon I was surrounded by the secret service. I was interrogated by a few officers. They said it is a very serious crime to throw an object at the President of the United States, even if it is a book and I am to be locked up till they made sure I meant no harm. However the Chief Officer was very professional and I told him if the Vice President welcomed my behavior then how come it is a crime. Anyway one officer ran a background check and he finally said that my record is clean and that I am good. I explained to the chief officer the whole idea how I need to take my work to the President. He said that this is not the way. I talked to him for over an hour. He said that according to procedure he will file a report and send it with the book to the White House. Then he let me go with a warning that if I did anything like this again I would be banned from any future rallies.

Khan describes himself on his Knol page as “neurotic” and “schizophrenic,” and shares some of his childhood traumas of public humiliation. He claims to have “a small antique lighting shop on 59 Street in NYC, though I would rather be writing books to guide others through the mind minefields that I have successfully crossed and understood.”

The book that he threw at Obama,How To Become Wise, is apparently a collection of his blog musings, such as “wisdom is a fragrance of the brain” his explanating of “why the man’s sperm is tiny while the woman’s egg is huge,” and “horniness is a 24/7 epidemic that must be stopped.”

Khan is now defending his actions from last Sunday on his Knol page. “I did not think it was going to be this big,” he wrote. “These news organizations are only interested in sensational news. The book never came within 15 feet of the President. They are saying that the book missed him by inches. This is why they will show the book from the angle where it looks like it is near his head. I bet they will never show the Presidents position as the book is hitting the floor.”

Uzbeks Unlikely to Back Moscow’s Regional Security Plans

Uzbeks Unlikely to Back Moscow’s Regional Security Plans

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

Uzbeks Unlikely to Back Moscow’s Regional Security Plans

When Moscow plays host to a meeting of several post-Soviet political, defence and economic pacts on October 12, joint efforts to promote regional security are likely to be high on the agenda. Analysts say Uzbekistan is unlikely to be enthusiastic about any scheme locking it into closer alliances with Russia.

The event is the first of its kind in that it brings together top officials from the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS, its offshoots the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, CSTO, and Eurasian Economic Community, EurAsEC, plus the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, SCO, a grouping in which Russia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are joined by China.

A press release from the CSTO said participants would discuss “joint approaches to providing security and stability in the region”.

Uzbekistan is a member of the CIS and the SCO, but not EurAsEC, from which it withdrew in 2008. It suspended its membership of the CSTO in 1999 but resumed it in 2006.

Tashkent often ignores meetings of the regional groupings of which it is still part, and fails to ratify multilateral agreements or does so only with provisos.

“Both the CIS and CSTO have completely failed, so what’s the point in suggesting they do something together?” asked Farhod Tolipov, a political and regional security analyst in Tashkent. “More broadly, CIS countries’ approaches to security differ greatly from one another.”

Tolibov expressed doubt that the Uzbek delegation would take much of a role in the Moscow talks, given Tashkent’s preference for dealing with other countries on an individual basis rather than through blocs it regards as useless.

The meeting is intended to kick off two months of events covering areas of CIS cooperation as varied as defence and the arts.

Rovshan Ibrahimov, head of international relations at Azerbaijan’s Qafqaz University, said the most outstanding feature of the event was the role played by Russia.

“It seems that the meeting… will focus solely on strengthening Moscow’s influence, and nothing more serious,” he said.

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

IWPR News

How We Lost Afghanistan’s Once-Peaceful North

How We Lost Afghanistan’s Once-Peaceful North

OCT 12 2010, 8:00 AM ET

99645848post.jpgOn Friday, a bomb blast at a crowded mosque in Afghanistan’s Takhar province killed 20 people, among them Governor Mohammed Omar of neighboring Kunduz province. Far more alarming than the senior official’s death is where it happened: both Takhar and Kunduz are in Afghanistan’s north, which until very recently had been a haven from the violence marring the rest of the country. Once a place where Westerners could wander the countryside relatively unmolested by terrorism, the Taliban, or homemade bombs, the north of Afghanistan has become very dangerous in just the last two years. With the U.S.- and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) focusing nearly all of its efforts on the south and east of Afghanistan, that inattention has allowed the insurgency to creep into the north and fill the vacuum left by poor security and weak governance. As if this were not enough, the deterioration of the ethnically diverse north reveals that one of the assumptions most central to the effort in Afghanistan is fundamentally and disastrously wrong.

The heartland of this growing instability, or at least one of the heartlands, is Baghlan province. In a country where ethnic politics can dominate political discussions, it is a fairly diverse place: a little more than half Tajik, with a mixture of Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Tatars making up the rest. It wasn’t always perfectly safe–in 2007, for example, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a sugar factory, killing 60 people–but people could generally wander the capital, Pul-i Khumri, without much incident.

Naheed Mustafa, a Canadian freelance journalist, traveled from Kabul to the north as recently as early 2009 without issue. “It was basically safe,” she recalls. “Baghlan was safe. We never got the sense that we were going somewhere we shouldn’t be.”

Over the next year, however, something changed. A distant government in Kabul, beset by corruption, plagued with ethnic resentment–Tajiks make up most of the provincial leadership, which has largely excluded Pashtuns and Uzbeks–and struggling with economic stagnation has become deeply unpopular. According to a McClatchy reporter, some local officials blame the U.S.-created local militias, part of General David Petraeus’ plan to secure the country with community defense groups, with fostering a sense of insecurity.

In February of this year, the documentary program Frontline traveled to Baghlan, and examined the “Taliban shadow government” there. The militants, linked to non-Taliban groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Hezb-i Islami Gulbuddin (HiG), planted roadside bombs in plain view of an Afghan police station, to almost no reaction from the security forces. Government inattention and a weak security sector meant there was no one to respond to the militants’ operations.

Baghlan is not alone. Just to the north is Kunduz, another province whose fortunes have trended downward for the last several years. In 2003, Western troops bragged that Kunduz was the most peaceful province in the entire country. But, as in Baghlan, it didn’t last. In August of 2009, the German Bundeswehr, which has responsibility for the province’s security, mistakenly bombed a pair of stranded fuel tankers hijacked by militants. The militants quickly abandoned the trucks after they became mired in the banks of a nearby river, and local residents had swarmed the trucks to siphon fuel. Over one hundred people died in what was then the deadliest single civilian incident since the start of the war in 2001. Kunduz Governor Mohammed Omar complained that the Germans are so ineffective at responding to security threats, “It would be better if they left our province.” It seems that many in Kunduz would come to share his view.

In a revealing incident just last month in Takhar province, also in the north, ISAF claimed to havekilled off an IMU leader while he was traveling in a convoy. It sounded like great news, until Abdul Wahid Khurasani, a candidate in September’s parliamentary elections, complained he was in the convoy as well: Khurasani reported 12 dead people, and many injuries, including himself. It’s not clear why an Uzbek insurgent leader was traveling with a Parliamentary candidate near one of only two border crossings into Tajikistan. But it’s not a great sign for the stability of a region full of ethnic Uzbeks and Tajiks, especially given the recent IMU attacks in Tajikistan.

Unfortunately, in most places in the north where security has deteriorated, one finds the common theme of Western inattention. The ISAF has focused all of its attention on the south, and to a lesser extent the east, of the country. After all, the predominantly ethnic Pashtun Taliban, our stated target and the perceived leader of the insurgency, operates out of the Pashtun-dominated south and the eastern border region with Pakistan. It has been an article of faith for the U.S. and its partners for years that the insurgency in Afghanistan is a Pashtun phenomenon, driven by ethnic resentment and Islamist ideology. That assumption has led us to ignore the north and allowed Afghanistan’s insurgencies, which it turns out are not exclusively Pashtun at all, to move into the relative vacuum there. Groups like the IMU and HiG have gained control of vast swaths of territory.

The reasons for the increase in violence are different from place to place: in some, it may be government corruption driving popular support for the insurgency, in others it might be a lack of resources that is allowing the insurgents to establish a foothold, or both–or maybe neither. Whatever the case, we must pay more attention to the North. It does us no good to concentrate all our time, money, people, and attention on the south if the insurgency simply moves north. The good news is that Northern Afghanistan does not require the same level of attention as the south: it is still much easier to operate in, is not troubled by the same cross-border issues as Helmand or Kandahar, and the population is by and large much more amenable to an American presence. Kunduz Governor Mohammed Omar has singled out the U.S. Special Forces for “massively improving security.”

Staunching the north’s slide into chaos doesn’t require the same investment as it would in the south and east. But the consequences of inaction are just as severe. If we can’t at least preserve the local government’s sovereignty, then the north’s downward slide can only continue, adding a new front in our efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan — and a new complication for our hopes one day to leave it.

Image: An Afghan policeman walks in Kunduz province. By Massoud Hossaini/AFP/Getty.

China’s Pipelineistan “War”

[It kind of makes you wonder whether Washington has a "Plan B" for Pipelineistan.]

China’s Pipelineistan “War”

Pepe Escobar

SOURCE: TomDispatch (10-12-10)

[Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times. His latest book is Obama Does Globalistan.]

Future historians may well agree that the twenty-first century Silk Road first opened for business on December 14, 2009.  That was the day a crucial stretch of pipeline officially went into operation linking the fabulously energy-rich state of Turkmenistan (via Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) to Xinjiang Province in China’s far west. Hyperbole did not deter the spectacularly named Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, Turkmenistan’s president, from bragging, “This project has not only commercial or economic value. It is also political. China, through its wise and farsighted policy, has become one of the key guarantors of global security.”

The bottom line is that, by 2013, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Hong Kong will be cruising to ever more dizzying economic heights courtesy of natural gas supplied by the 1,833-kilometer-long Central Asia Pipeline, then projected to be operating at full capacity. And to think that, in a few more years, China’s big cities will undoubtedly also be getting a taste of Iraq’s fabulous, barely tapped oil reserves, conservatively estimated at 115 billion barrels, but possibly closer to 143 billion barrels, which would put it ahead of Iran. When the Bush administration’s armchair generals launched their Global War on Terror, this was not exactly what they had in mind.

China’s economy is thirsty, and so it’s drinking deeper and planning deeper yet.  It craves Iraq’s oil and Turkmenistan’s natural gas, as well as oil from Kazakhstan. Yet instead of spending more than a trillion dollars on an illegal war in Iraq or setting up military bases all over the Greater Middle East and Central Asia, China used its state oil companies to get some of the energy it needed simply by bidding for it in a perfectly legal Iraqi oil auction.

Meanwhile, in the New Great Game in Eurasia, China had the good sense not to send a soldier anywhere or get bogged down in an infinite quagmire in Afghanistan.  Instead, the Chinese simply made a direct commercial deal with Turkmenistan and, profiting from that country’s disagreements with Moscow, built itself a pipeline which will provide much of the natural gas it needs.

No wonder the Obama administration’s Eurasian energy czar Richard Morningstar was forced to admit at a congressional hearing that the U.S. simply cannot compete with China when it comes to Central Asia’s energy wealth. If only he had delivered the same message to the Pentagon.

That Iranian Equation

In Beijing, they take the matter of diversifying oil supplies very, very seriously. When oil reached $150 a barrel in 2008 — before the U.S.-unleashed global financial meltdown hit — Chinese state media had taken to calling foreign Big Oil “international petroleum crocodiles,” with the implication that the West’s hidden agenda was ultimately to stop China’s relentless development dead in its tracks.

Twenty-eight percent of what’s left of the world’s proven oil reserves are in the Arab world. China could easily gobble it all up. Few may know that China itself is actually the world’s fifth largest oil producer, at 3.7 million barrels per day (bpd), just below Iran and slightly above Mexico. In 1980, China consumed only 3% of the world’s oil. Now, its take is around 10%, making it the planet’s second largest consumer.  It has already surpassed Japan in that category, even if it’s still way behind the U.S., which eats up 27% of global oil each year. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China will account for over 40% of the increase in global oil demand until 2030. And that’s assuming China will grow at “only” a 6% annual rate which, based on present growth, seems unlikely.

Saudi Arabia controls 13% of world oil production. At the moment, it is the only swing producer — one, that is, that can move the amount of oil being pumped up or down at will — capable of substantially increasing output. It’s no accident, then, that, pumping 500,000 bpd, it has become one of Beijing’s major oil suppliers.  The top three, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce, are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Angola.  By 2013-2014, if all goes well, the Chinese expect to add Iraq to that list in a big way, but first that troubled country’s oil production needs to start cranking up. In the meantime, it’s the Iranian part of the Eurasian energy equation that’s really nerve-racking for China’s leaders.

Chinese companies have invested a staggering $120 billion in Iran’s energy sector over the past five years. Already Iran is China’s number two oil supplier, accounting for up to 14% of its imports; and the Chinese energy giant Sinopec has committed an additional $6.5 billion to building oil refineries there.  Due to harsh U.N.-imposed and American sanctions and years of economic mismanagement, however, the country lacks the high-tech know-how to provide for itself, and its industrial structure is in a shambles.  The head of the National Iranian Oil Company, Ahmad Ghalebani, has publicly admitted that machinery and parts used in Iran’s oil production still have to be imported from China.

Sanctions can be a killer, slowing investment, increasing the cost of trade by over 20%, and severely constricting Tehran’s ability to borrow in global markets. Nonetheless, trade between China and Iran grew by 35% in 2009 to $27 billion. So while the West has been slamming Iran with sanctions, embargos, and blockades, Iran has been slowly evolving as a crucial trade corridor for China — as well as Russia and energy-poor India. Unlike the West, they are all investing like crazy there because it’s easy to get concessions from the government; it’s easy and relatively cheap to build infrastructure; and being on the inside when it comes to Iranian energy reserves is a necessity for any country that wants to be a crucial player in Pipelineistan, that contested chessboard of crucial energy pipelines over which much of the New Great Game in Eurasia takes place. Undoubtedly, the leaders of all three countries are offering thanks to whatever gods they care to worship that Washington continues to make it so easy (and lucrative) for them.

Few in the U.S. may know that last year Saudi Arabia — now(re)arming to the teeth, courtesy of Washington, and little short of paranoid about the Iranian nuclear program — offered to supply the Chinese with the same amount of oil the country currently imports from Iran at a much cheaper price. But Beijing, for whom Iran is a key long-term strategic ally, scotched the deal.

As if Iran’s structural problems weren’t enough, the country has done little to diversify its economy beyond oil and natural gas exports in the past 30 years; inflation’s running at more than 20%; unemployment at more than 20%; and young, well educated people are fleeing abroad, a major brain drain for that embattled land. And don’t think that’s the end of its litany of problems. It would like to be a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) — the multi-layered economic/military cooperation union that is a sort of Asian response to NATO — but is only an official SCO observer because the group does not admit any country under U.N. sanctions.  Tehran, in other words, would like some great power protection against the possibility of an attack from the U.S. or Israel.  As much as Iran may be on the verge of becoming a far more influential player in the Central Asian energy game thanks to Russian and Chinese investment, it’s extremely unlikely that either of those countries would actually risk war against the U.S. to “save” the Iranian regime.

The Great Escape

From Beijing’s point of view, the title of the movie version of the intractable U.S. v. Iran conflict and a simmering U.S. v. China strategic competition in Pipelineistan could be: “Escape from Hormuz and Malacca.”

The Strait of Hormuz is the definition of a potential strategic bottleneck. It is, after all, the only entryway to the Persian Gulf and through it now flow roughly 20% of China’s oil imports. At its narrowest, it is only 36 kilometers wide, with Iran to the north and Oman to the south. China’s leaders fret about the constant presence of U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups on station and patrolling nearby.

With Singapore to the North and Indonesia to the south, the Strait of Malacca is another potential bottleneck if ever there was one — and through it flow as much as 80% of China’s oil imports. At its narrowest, it is only 54 kilometers wide and like the Strait of Hormuz, its security is also of the made-in-USA variety. In a future face-off with Washington, both straits could quickly be closed or controlled by the U.S. Navy.

Hence, China’s increasing emphasis on developing a land-based Central Asian energy strategy could be summed up as: bye-bye, Hormuz! Bye-bye, Malacca! And a hearty welcome to a pipeline-driven new Silk Road from the Caspian Sea to China’s Far West in Xinjiang.

Kazakhstan has 3% of the world’s proven oil reserves, but its largest oil fields are not far from the Chinese border. China sees that country as a key alternative oil supplier via future pipelines that would link the Kazakh oil fields to Chinese oil refineries in its far west. In fact, China’s first transnational Pipelineistan adventure is already in place: the 2005 China-Kazakhstan oil project, financed by Chinese energy giant CNPC.

Much more is to come, and Chinese leaders expect energy-rich Russia to play a significant part in China’s escape-hatch planning as well. Strategically, this represents a crucial step in regional energy integration, tightening the Russia/China partnership inside the SCO as well as at the U.N. Security Council.

When it comes to oil, the name of the game is the immense Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline. Last August, a 4,000-kilometer-long Russian section from Taishet in eastern Siberia to Nakhodka, still inside Russian territory, was begun. Russian Premier Vladimir Putin hailed ESPO as “a really comprehensive project that has strengthened our energy cooperation.” And in late September, the Russians and the Chinese inaugurated a 999-kilometer-long pipeline from Skovorodino in Russia’s Amur region to the petrochemical hub Daqing in northeast China.

Russia is currently delivering up to 130 million tons of Russian oil a year to Europe. Soon, no less than 50 million tons may be heading to China and the Pacific region as well.

There are, however, hidden tensions between the Russians and the Chinese when it comes to energy matters. The Russian leadership is understandably wary of China’s startling strides in Central Asia, the former Soviet Union’s former “near abroad.” After all, as the Chinese have been doing in Africa in their search for energy, in Central Asia, too, the Chinese are building railways and introducing high-tech trains, among other modern wonders, in exchange for oil and gas concessions.

Despite the simmering tensions between China, Russia, and the U.S., it’s too early to be sure just who is likely to emerge as the victor in the new Great Game in Central Asia, but one thing is clear enough. The Central Asian “stans” are becoming ever more powerful poker players in their own right as Russia tries not to lose its hegemony there, Washington places all its chips on pipelines meant to bypass Russia (including the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline that pumps oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey via Georgia) and China antes up big time for its Central Asian future. Whoever loses, this is a game that the “stans” cannot but profit from.

Recently, our man Gurbanguly, the Turkmen leader, chose China as his go-to country for an extra $4.18 billion loan for the development of South Yolotan, his country’s largest gas field. (The Chinese had already shelled out $3 billion to help develop it.) Energy bureaucrats in Brussels were devastated. With estimated reserves of up to 14 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, the field has the potential to flood the energy-starved European Union with gas for more than 20 years. Goodbye to all that?

In 2009, Turkmenistan’s proven gas reserves were estimated at a staggering 8.1 trillion cubic meters, fourth largest in the world after Russia, Iran, and Qatar. Not surprisingly, from the point of view of Ashgabat, the country’s capital, it invariably seems to be raining gas. Nonetheless, experts doubt that the landlocked, idiosyncratic Central Asian republic actually has enough blue gold to supply Russia (which absorbed 70% of Turkmenistan’s supply before the pipeline to China opened), China, Western Europe and Iran, all at the same time.

Currently, Turkmenistan sells its gas to: China via the world’s largest gas pipeline, 7,000 kilometers long and designed for a capacity of 40 billion cubic meters per year, Russia (10 billion cubic meters per year, down from 30 billion per year until 2008), and Iran (14 billion cubic meters per year). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad always gets a red-carpet welcome from Gurbanguly, and the Russian energy giant Gazprom, thanks to an improved pricing policy, is treated as a preferred customer.

At present, however, the Chinese are atop the heap, and more generally, whatever happens, there can be little question that Central Asia will be China’s major foreign supplier of natural gas. On the other hand, the fact that Turkmenistan has, in practice, committed its entire future gas exports to China, Russia, and Iran means the virtual death of various trans-Caspian Sea pipeline plans long favored by Washington and the European Union.

IPI vs. TAPI All Over Again

On the oil front, even if all the “stans” sold China every barrel of oil they currently pump, less than half of China’s daily import needs would be met. Ultimately, only the Middle East can quench China’s thirst for oil. According to the International Energy Agency, China’s overall oil needs will rise to 11.3 million barrels per day by 2015, even with domestic production peaking at 4.0 million bpd. Compare that to what some of China’s alternative suppliers are now producing: Angola, 1.4 million bpd; Kazakhstan, 1.4 million as well; and Sudan, 400,000.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia produces 10.9 million bpd, Iran around 4.0 million, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) 3.0 million, Kuwait 2.7 million — and then there’s Iraq, presently at 2.5 million and likely to reach at least 4.0 million by 2015. Still, Beijing has yet to be fully convinced that this is a safe supply, especially given all those U.S. “forward operating sites” in the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman, plus those roaming naval battle groups in the Persian Gulf.

On the gas front, China definitely counts on a South Asian game changer. Beijing has already spent $200 million on the first phase in the construction of a deepwater port at Gwadar in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province. It wanted, and got from Islamabad, “sovereign guarantees to the port’s facilities.” Gwadar is only 400 kilometers from Hormuz. With Gwadar, the Chinese Navy would have a homeport that would easily allow it to monitor traffic in the strait and someday perhaps even thwart the U.S. Navy’s expansionist designs in the Indian Ocean.

But Gwadar has another infinitely juicier future role. It could prove the pivot in a competition between two long-discussed pipelines: TAPI and IPI. TAPI stands for the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline, which can never be built as long as U.S. and NATO occupation forces are fighting the resistance umbrella conveniently labeled “Taliban” in Afghanistan. IPI, however, is the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, also known as the “peace pipeline” (which, of course, would make TAPI the “war pipeline”). To Washington’s immeasurable distress, last June, Iran and Pakistan finally closed the deal to build the “IP” part of IPI, with Pakistan assuring Iran that either India or China could later be brought into the project.

Whether it’s IP, IPI, or IPC, Gwadar will be a key node. If, under pressure from Washington, which treats Tehran like the plague, India is forced to pull out of the project, China already has made it clear that it wants in. The Chinese would then build a Pipelineistan link from Gwadar along the Karakorum highway in Pakistan to China via the Khunjerab Pass — another overland corridor that would prove immune to U.S. interference. It would have the added benefit of radically cutting down the 20,000-kilometer-long tanker route around the southern rim of Asia.

Arguably, for the Indians it would be a strategically sound move to align with IPI, trumping a deep suspicion that the Chinese will move to outflank them in the search for foreign energy with a “string of pearls” strategy: the setting up of a series of “home ports” along its key oil supply routes from Pakistan to Myanmar. In that case, Gwadar would no longer simply be a “Chinese” port.

As for Washington, it still believes that if TAPI is built, it will help keep India from fully breaking the U.S.-enforced embargo on Iran. Energy-starved Pakistan obviously prefers its “all-weather” ally China, which might commit itself to building all sorts of energy infrastructure within that flood-devastated country. In a nutshell, if the unprecedented energy cooperation between Iran, Pakistan, and China goes forward, it will signal a major defeat for Washington in the New Great Game in Eurasia, with enormous geopolitical and geo-economic repercussions.

For the moment, Beijing’s strategic priority has been to carefully develop a remarkably diverse set of energy-suppliers — a flow of energy that covers Russia, the South China Sea, Central Asia, the East China Sea, the Middle East, Africa, and South America. (China’s forays into Africa and South America will be dealt with in a future installment of our TomDispatch tour of the globe’s energy hotspots.) If China has so far proven masterly in the way it has played its cards in its Pipelineistan “war”, the U.S. hand — bypass Russia, elbow out China, isolate Iran — may soon be called for what it is: a bluff.

Ukraine prosecutor drops case against steelmaker

Ukraine prosecutor drops case against steelmaker

*ArcelorMittal had feared case could lead to it losing plant

*It bought Kryvy Rih plant for $4.8 bln in reprivatisation

*Decision relevant for Ukrtelecom selloff, say analysts

(Refiles, adding president’s first name)

By Pavel Polityuk

KIEV, Oct 12 (Reuters) – Ukraine’s state prosecutor on Tuesday dropped a legal action against steelmaker ArcelorMittal (ISPA.AS: Quote) which the company had feared could lead to the renationalisation of a plant it bought for $4.8 billion.

The case had prompted speculation President Viktor Yanukovich could roll back privatisations undertaken during the presidency of predecessor Viktor Yushchenko, to favour Ukrainian entrepreneurs.

“The commercial court has taken the decision to end the case because of the withdrawal of the suit,” said commercial court judge Oleh Khripun, reading out his decision.

Rinat Starkov, chief executive of the Kryvy Rih steel mill, welcomed the court’s decision, saying it would help restore the ex-Soviet republic’s image as a place to invest.   Continued…

Previous Page 123 Next Page

Why does anti-terrorism give rise to more terrorism?

“Western countries are now faced with a growing terrorist threat, and it has much to do with what they have done….a host of stringent anti-terrorism measures have not only failed to tackle the terrorism problem, but to make more people in the West turn increasingly “radical”, and this is also one of the factors for the “localization” of terrorist threats.”

The United States has warned its citizens traveling to Europe to guard against potential terror threats. Based on apparent signs that Al Qaeda is looking to attack European cities, The State Department on 3 October issued a travel alert for US citizens in Europe to be careful in public places as Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks in Europe.

British “Guardian” has quoted British diplomats stationed in Islamabad and analyses of some European intelligence officials as saying that the United States has political motivations in the warning to find an excuse for making a series of attacks on targets in Pakistan using drones or unmanned combat aerial vehicles or helicopters and for the service of U.S. mid-term elections.

After the “September 11″ incident of 2001 occurred in the United States, the US-led Western countries have thrown in an unprecedented sum of spending on the war on terror and it cost the U.S. alone more than one trillion dollars as military expenditure in global counter-terrorism, and appropriations of other NATO nations are also huge in this regard. In the meanwhile, the United States has also spent more to beef up the anti-terrorism at home, and step up the border control and immigration management with an immeasurable amount of money.

However, the anti-terrorism input and its due effect are unproportionate, and Western nations are not safer or more secure to date. On the contrary, the breeding ground for international terrorism keeps expanding, the rate for terrorism expansion and spread has not been reduced, and terrorism threat is still on rise instead.

The international fight against terrorism has sunk into a vicious cycle of “more fight against terrorism giving rise to more terrorism,” which is rooted in the US counter-terrorism strategy “to seek hegemony in the fight against terrorism”. The United States hoisted high “anti-terrorism” banner in the Middle East region in a vain attempt to remold the region in a comprehensive way and take Iraq as the first piece of domino.

Consequently, the United States produced in its Iraq war terrorist and extremist groups which led to much terrorist violence and turned the country into a new hotbed of global terrorism. The U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan is designed to radiate to the surrounding areas and implement the so-called the “color revolution”, resulting in not only the resurgence of Taliban forces in Afghanistan but bringing Taliban insurgents to Pakistan and spurring a close integration of Al Qaeda, and the “Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan” and the “Islamic Jihad Union” in central Asia. Evidence has proven that the US war on terror launched more than nine years ago made scattered terrorist groups in North Africa, in the Middle East and in southeast, south and central Asia and many other fragmented terrorist groups “embrace” Al Qaeda; Yemen and Somali have become a new base camp of global terrorist forces with its main target of attack to point to Western countries.

Western countries are now faced with a growing terrorist threat, and it has much to do with what they have done. Some personnel in Western society incline to link terrorism to certain religions, and this deepens conflicts or clashes among different religions and ethnics and enlarges the opponent ranks; some Western nations target their anti-terrorism surveillance at specific groups and this increases barriers of these groups with the mainstream society; some right-wing forces and media nevertheless attributed the thorny problem to the immigrates from overseas, leading to the increasingly serious “marginalization” of these immigrants and their descendents.

So, a host of stringent anti-terrorism measures have not only failed to tackle the terrorism problem, but to make more people in the West turn increasingly “radical”, and this is also one of the factors for the “localization” of terrorist threats.

Against the backdrop of economic globalization, the world situation and international relations have undergone profound, volatile changes. Western countries, however, proceed from their own national interests and strive to ensure their own “absolute security” by means of promoting Western values in the fight against terrorism, but the outcome is just the opposite.

The diversity of world religions, cultures and values is definitely an objective reality. Only by orbiting the anti-terrorism endeavor into the framework of “global governance” and reducing the “profit-driven behaviors” and giving more heed and investment to those “marginalized” nations, can it be possible to gradually curb the spread of terrorism.

By People’s Daily Online and its author is PD reporter Li Wei

The Palestinian Workers Who Build Israel’s Settlements

The Palestinian Workers Who Build Israel’s Settlements

By Ulrike Putz in Sinjil

Israeli diggers at work at settlement construction sites in the West Bank. "I am forced to betray Palestine," says Palestinian construction worker Haitham Asfur.

Zoom
AFP

Israeli diggers at work at settlement construction sites in the West Bank. “I am forced to betray Palestine,” says Palestinian construction worker Haitham Asfur.

Like many thousands of his compatriots, Palestinian carpenter Haitham Asfur has a politically contentious job: He lays tiles for the enemy. He works on construction projects in the divisive Jewish settlements that currently threaten to derail peace negotiations.

In order to uphold principles you have to be able to afford them. For many in the Palestinian West Bank they are simply too expensive.

“Of course I hate my job,” says Haitham Asfur. “But what can I do? I am forced to betray Palestine.”

Haitham Asfur is a Palestinian man who builds Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Day in, day out, he lays tiles in houses that are not supposed to exist under international law.

Asfur is building the obstacles that now stand in the way of peace in the Middle East. Peace negotiations that only restarted in September under the tutelage of the United States are already in danger of collapsing — because of Israel’s insistence on continuing to build settlements in the West Bank.

‘I Have a Job that Makes Me Unhappy’

A freeze on the construction of new settlements is the key issue for the current round of peace negotiations in the Middle East. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to break off the talks if Israel begins a renewed intensive building program within Palestinian territory. A 10-month moratorium on construction has just come to an end.

For his part, Asfur knows better than most that the agreement wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. “I’ve been working the entire 10 months. A little bit less than usual, but there’s been a steady flow of work.” The reason is that homes that were already under construction were allowed to be completed during the moratorium. In East Jerusalem, expansion was allowed to continue completely unimpeded.

With the expiration of the moratorium on Sept. 30, the restrictions no longer apply and the only thing that has delayed an expected construction boom in the settlements is the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles holiday, during which all work grinds to a halt. “But next week it will all kick off again, and my schedule is already full,” says Asfur. Twenty-five-thousand Palestinians work regularly for the enemy in the Jewish settlements. “And I get many calls from men,” says Asfur, “who would like to work there.”

The 33-year-old has no patience for people who are outraged over the end of the building freeze. “I have to feed my family, and the settlers are paying twice as much now,” he says. For Asfur, loyalty to the Palestinian cause is a numbers game: One day of laying tiles in a Palestinian village would earn him the equivalent of €40 ($55). In a Jewish settlement, he gets paid €80.

“I don’t want my son to live his life on his knees like I did” says Asfur, whose oldest child is 10 years old. But school costs money, as do the books, school uniforms and the bus fare. “I have a job that makes me unhappy, I do it for my son,” he says.

NATO helicopters breach Pakistani airspace again

NATO helicopters violated Pakistan’s airspace Tuesday morning near Chaman border area in the southwest Balochistan province, local media reported citing official sources.

According to details, two NATO helicopters flew 200 meters inside Pakistani territory and returned after creating panic and fear among the border area residents, official sources added.

The NATO helicopters continued flights inside Pakistani territory for 20 minutes and had entered through “Bab-e-Dosti” or the Friendship Gate area on Pakistan-Afghanistan border, local media reported.

This is the second violation of Pakistani airspace by NATO gunship choppers within a week, official sources said.

Earlier on September 30, two NATO gunship fired rockets at paramilitary checkpoint in Kurram tribal area in the northwest border with Afghanistan, killing three troops and injuring an equal number.

Consequently, Pakistan blocked its Torkham border for NATO supplies for ten days. It was resumed on Sunday after a written apology by NATO to Pakistan government. The blockade strained bilateral relations between Pakistan and the United States, which is leading the war against terrorism in this region.

Moreover, the supply to NATO troops in Afghanistan was once again temporarily halted near Chaman border area Tuesday morning, as protestors blocked highway against sluggish road construction in southwest Balochistan province of Pakistan, local Urdu language media reported.

The Quetta-Chaman highway was broken at many places and is being under construction for many months. The slow pace of construction work is not only disrupting the traffic flow but convoys speed as well, local sources said, adding that the damaged road has also increased the frequency of wear and tear of tires and vehicles.

Over a thousand miles stretch from southern port city of Karachi to Torkham is backbone of vital supply to more than 140, 000 NATO troops fighting insurgency in Afghanistan since the ouster of Taliban government in 2001. Two border points at Chaman in Balochistan and Torkham in the troubled northwest Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province are used as entry points into Afghanistan.

Source:Xinhua

Dushanbe awaits Russian extradition of Tajik tycoon/Crime Boss

[SEE: Tajik Prosecutors Take On Courts]

Dushanbe awaits Russian decision on possible extradition of Tajik tycoon


Author: Nargis Hamroboyeva

DUSHANBE, October 12, 2010, Asia-Plus  — Ex-member of the Sughd legislature and the former director general of the chemical plant in the northern city of Isfara, Nizomkhon Jourayev, detained by Moscow law enforcement authorities is still held in custody the issue of extradition of him to Tajikistan is under consideration, Prosecutor-General Sherkhon Salimzoda told reporters in Dushanbe on October 12.

“We have done everything that was necessary for solution of this issue,” said the chief prosecutor, “All procedures are conducted within the framework of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations on Civil, Family and Criminal Cases of 1993 (Minsk Convention).”

After all procedural norms are completed Jourayev will be extradited to Tajikistan, he added.

We will recall that Nizomkhon Jourayev has been wanted by Tajik police since 2007.

Nizomkhon Jourayev was a successful businessman who owned the chemical plant in Isfara.  In 2007 investigations were launched into his financial activities, and later in 2008 he was officially accused of ordering assassination of former Deputy Prosecutor-General Tolib Boboyev in 1999.

Criminal proceedings have been instituted against Nizomkhon Jourayev under the provisions of eight articles of Tajikistan’s Penal Code: Article 104 – murder; Article 185 – organization of illegal armed formation; Article 186 – banditry; Article 195 – illegal storage of weapons; Article 245 – embezzlement or misappropriation; Article 262 – money laundering; Article 292 – tax evasion; and Article 340 – document forgery.  Nizomkhon Jourayev left the country before his arrest warrant was issued.

On June 9, 2009, the Supreme Court of Tajikistan sentenced 31 associates of Nozimkhon Jourayev to long jail terms.  They were sentenced to prison terms between 11 and 25 years, while a prosecutor in the trial of them asked for shorter terms for them.

According to Tajik law enforcement authorities, Nizomkhon Jourayev and his two brothers, Fakhriddin and Tolib, were involved in organizing the assassination of former Deputy Prosecutor-General Tolib Boboyev in 1999.

Jourayev and his associates were also charged with setting up an organized criminal group, tax evasion, and a number of financial crimes.

According to the Ministry of Interior of Tajikistan, officers from the police department in Moscow’s Khamovniki district detained Nizomkhon Jourayev on August 27 this year at the request of Tajik law enforcement authorities, according

Argentina lodges UN complaint over Falklands Military Exercise

Argentina lodges UN complaint over Falklands moves

A Union Jack in Stanley in the Falkland Islands

BUENOS AIRES: Argentina lodged a formal protest, including a complaint to the United Nations, against a British military build-up and exercises in the disputed Falkland Islands.

The country’s UN envoy Jorge Arguello told Argentine radio said he delivered a letter of protest to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, a copy of which had been given to the British embassy in Buenos Aires.

“We made the presentation to the UN secretary general,” he said, as Buenos Aires stepped up its rhetoric over the exercises.

Argentina’s government on Saturday decried as an “unacceptable provocation” British plans for military exercises on and around the islands, including what Buenos Aires described as missiles fired from the Falklands.

Argentina was taking the complaint to the UN chief “alert him to the (British) missile exercises that are being planned,” the diplomat told Argentina radio.

“The missiles will be fired from Argentine territory and will fall into the water or in Argentina,” Arguello added.

“Until the UN ascertains the merits on the sovereignty of the islands, nobody can say that Argentine territory is something different from the Falkland Islands.”

Britain has held the archipelago since 1833. In 1982, Argentina’s military junta invaded, prompting a short but bloody war that left 649 Argentine troops and 255 British troops dead.

President Cristina Kirchner has denounced the exercises as a “militarization of the South Atlantic” and warned that the manoeuvres could spark an arms race in the region.

She posted several messages on the social networking site Twitter, including one describing the moves as “typical 19th century colonialism.”

Britain shrugged off the complaints.

“Routine testing has been carried out every six months for the last 28 years, most recently in April this year,” a Foreign Office spokeswoman told AFP.

“The testing takes place entirely within Falklands territorial waters,” she added.

“A standard notice had been sent, as always, to the Maritime Regional Coordination Centre in Ushuaia to alert shipping in the area.”

Around 3,000 people live on the barren South Atlantic Ocean islands, which lie 450 kilometres off the Argentine coast.

Buenos Aires has ratcheted up its claims of sovereignty over the Falklands, called the Malvinas in Spanish, after a British firm began drilling for oil offshore in February.

A member of the British territory’s legislative assembly said last month that Argentina’s “belligerent” behavior over the Falklands has backfired by turning the islands’ young generation against the country.

Legislator Roger Edwards also said Argentina’s requests for talks with Britain were not really about improving the situation.

“When they say talks, they mean sovereignty,” Edwards told AFP on a visit to Britain.

“They don’t mean better relations, they mean takeover. And I’m afraid they will never get that,” he said. – AFP/fa