Burning questions

27 10 2010

Burning questions

Poland has struck a new gas deal with Russia, but the country remains stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. What to do?

 

“There is no risk of disruptions in natural gas supplies to Poland,” the Economy Ministry declared last week following the resolution of protracted talks over Russian gas supplies. But the negotiation process illustrated, yet again, Poland’s dependence on Russian natural gas.

Energy insecurity is one of the great bugbears of Polish foreign policy and a source of major apprehension in relations with Russia. And this year’s gas negotiations, as in the past, were unpleasant.

“I would like this discussion to be the last one,” said Tomasz Chmal, an energy expert at the Sobieski Institute, a Warsaw-based think tank, summing up the general feeling in Poland.

That’s an understandable desire, but one which will likely go unfulfilled.

The gas, at last

The preliminary intergovernmental agreement reached by Polish and Russian officials secures annual deliveries of 10.2 billion m3 of natural gas for Poland through 2022. The increase (up from 7.4 billion m3) will fill a supply gap of two billion m3 left by a cessation of deliveries from Ukraine in 2009.

Source: PGNiG

Gazprom deputy CEO Alexander Medvedev said the contract, which still needs to be signed at the government level, as well as between gas monopolists Gazprom and PGNiG, would be finalized next week.

Polish PM Donald Tusk has backed the deal, while the Polish energy sector watchdog (URE) has given its official green light.

The EU, whose complaints halted a gas deal back in February, had a representative present at the negotiating table and should see some of its requirements satisfied. The bloc had insisted that the infrastructure transporting gas through Poland be accessible to third parties, and that the pipeline itself be run by an independent entity (see box, p.13).

The price of gas in the contract is not yet known but, according to Mr Chmal, they will probably be above market prices. In the short term, however, Poland has no other choice.

A game of influence

The political map of Central and Eastern Europe might have changed a great deal since 1989, but its network of gas pipelines is still a stark reminder of Soviet dominance.

Simply put, Poland is utterly reliant on Russian gas and pipelines. “In the short term there are no other options comparable in volume,” Andrzej Szczęśniak, an independent energy market analyst, stated bluntly.

There’s a commonly held belief in Poland – and elsewhere – that Russia wields Gazprom as a foreign policy tool. And the under-construction Nord Stream pipeline, which is to carry 55 billion m3 of gas directly from Russia to Germany annually, bypassing Poland, makes many in the latter country nervous.

“When the Nord Stream is completed, Russia won’t be pressured by German consumers [to maintain deliveries to Poland] anymore. This is the game,” commented Mr Chmal.

But is it? According to Mr Szczęśniak, Poland’s prime concern should be to improve business relations with Russia and to keep gas supplies out of the realm of politics.

“Poland has weak leverage on Russia because it cut business contacts with Russia four years ago,” he said. “Normally good sense tells you to have the best contacts possible with suppliers. In Poland we have done the opposite,” he lamented.

Marko Papic, an analyst at American intelligence company Stratfor, added that Russia actually has a strong interest in making sure that its relationship with Poland is accommodating.

“Russia needs the EU to stay out of its business as it tries to lock down Ukraine, Belarus and the Caucasus,” he explained. “To do that, Russia needs good relations with major EU countries. Poland has leverage there,” he added.

Proof of this leverage, according to Mr Papic, can be seen in Russia’s “magnanimous” declaration that Poland would not lack gas if the contract was not signed in time.

Alternative options

Poland’s new contract with Gazprom is no substitute for investment in alternative sources, however, as gas consumption is set to rise at a pace that even the increase to 10.2 billion m3 of Russian gas will not cover.

According to Mr Chmal, “14.4 billion m3 [of combined Russian imports and local production] is just the bottom line for Polish demand in the next few years. If the economy grows, and I am optimistic about this, then demand will increase, too.”

For now, the bulk of Poland’s annual gas consumption goes to the chemical and oil-refining industries. Only one-third is used by Polish households, mainly for heating, and almost none goes towards electricity generation.

But this last point might change. Currently around 95 percent of Polish electricity is generated using coal. Although this dependency on coal won’t end any time soon, the country is under pressure from the EU’s climate change package to reduce its percentage in the energy mix.

Gas-fired power plants, although virtually unheard of in Poland, produce only half as much CO2 as coal-fired plants and provide a good balance with less-reliable energy from renewable sources like wind, according to Mr Chmal.

“I think there is room for at least a few gas-fired power plants in Poland,” he said. “If we decide to build them, then 10.2 billion m3 will not be enough.”

Betting on LNG

The option with the best prospects to help meet demand, according to all experts consulted by WBJ, is the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal being built on the Baltic coast in Świnoujście.

Sources: Polish Energy Regulatory Office, PGNiG

Construction is going smoothly and the 2.5 billion m3 capacity terminal should be functional in 2014. Supply should not be a problem, as one contract with Qatar has already been signed by PGiNG and other partners appear to be interested.

Another reason to bet on LNG, according to Mr Papic, is that shale-gas production in the US may reduce that country’s demand for gas imports to the point that market prices drop, making new sources more attractive for countries like Poland.

“Instead of buying from Qatar, Poland might want to buy from the Caribbean, which could in the future be looking for new clients,” hypothesized Mr Papic.

Page 1 of 2

 





The “Draw-Down” and Pakistani Sanctuary

27 10 2010

[The purpose of this report is to charge that the military's best efforts won't work because of "sanctuaries in Pakistan."]

“Despite a fierce U.S. military campaign aimed at paralyzing the Taliban in Afghanistan, insurgents have largely been able to absorb attacks and are playing a waiting game until July…the Taliban and Haqqani network — have been able to bear the U.S. campaign primarily because they have access to sanctuaries in Pakistan.”

Report: Taliban Unscathed by U.S. Campaign

FoxNews.com

April 3, 2010: Taliban insurgents pose in front of a burning German military vehicle in Isaa Khail village of Char Dara district of the northern Kunduz Province.

Reuters

April 3, 2010: Taliban insurgents pose in front of a burning German military vehicle in Isaa Khail village of Char Dara district of the northern Kunduz Province.

Despite a fierce U.S. military campaign aimed at paralyzing the Taliban in Afghanistan, insurgents have largely been able to absorb attacks and are playing a waiting game until July, when the U.S. troop drawdown is scheduled to begin, military and intelligence officials reportedly say.

While stepped-up airstrikes and special operations raids have damaged local Taliban cells, the attacks have not had a meaningful impact on the terror organization and have failed to put pressure on the group to seek peace, the officials reportedly said.

“The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience,” a senior Defense official involved in assessments of the war told The Washington Post. The Taliban have consistently shown an ability to “reestablish and rejuvenate” within days of being hit by U.S. forces, the official continued.

Assessments made by the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency found that Taliban commanders killed or captured are often replaced within a matter of days, and in territories such as Kandahar where insurgents have been forced to flee temporarily, the groups are simply waiting for the opportunity to return, the Post reported.

U.S. officials said Taliban agents are intentionally holding back efforts until the start of President Obama’s troop drawdown in July of next year. “The end is near,” they tell one another, attributing the words to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, the newspaper said.

The Obama administration plans a review of the war effort in December, which has triggered jockeying between U.S. military leaders looking to continue the troop surge and critics who argue the American role should be downsized.

Last week, top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus said progress against the insurgency was occurring “more rapidly than was anticipated,” but acknowledged major hurdles lie ahead.

Officials told the paper the main two insurgent groups — the Taliban and Haqqani network — have been able to bear the U.S. campaign primarily because they have access to sanctuaries in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday Iran acknowledged it has been sending funds to Afghanistan for years, but said the money was intended to aid reconstruction, not to buy influence in the office of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

U.S. officials asserted the money flowing from Tehran was proof that Iran is playing a double game in Afghanistan — wooing the government while helping Taliban insurgents fighting U.S. and NATO forces.

Karzai said Monday he receives millions of dollars in cash from Iran, adding that Washington gives him “bags of money” too because his office lacks funds.

In Washington, President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, denied that. “We’re not in the big bags of cash business,” he said Tuesday.

Earlier, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said some of the U.S. aid to Afghanistan is in cash.

Iran publicly opposed the U.S.-led offensive that toppled the Taliban after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, though its relations with the Taliban regime had been frosty.





Transparency Intl: Corruption in Russia Getting Worse

27 10 2010

Transparency Intl: Corruption in Russia Getting Worse

Anti-bribery advertisement. Source: Mr7.ru

Corruption in Russia has risen notably over the past year, according to a report released on Tuesday by the global civic organization Transparency International.

In the organization’s 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index, Russia’s transparency rating fell from last year’s 2.2 to 2.1, on a scale of 0.0 (”highly corrupt”) to 10.0 (”very clean”). Additionally, it’s country ranking fell from 146 out of 180 countries to 154 out of 178 countries, landing between Papua New Guinea and Tajikistan.

Within Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Russia was ranked 16 out of 20, with the only countries more corrupt listed as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

The organization estimates that market for corruption in Russia is worth $300 billion a year.

While authors of the report did not comment on individual countries, they advised overall that “governments need to integrate anti-corruption measures in all spheres, from their responses to the financial crisis and climate change to commitments by the international community to eradicate poverty” in order to combat corruption.

Political commentator Anton Orekh responded to the report by saying that Russia would continue to fall in the ratings “until honest people become the most powerful ones in the country.”

“To say it plainly, take away the bureaucrats’ unlimited authorities, leave them with only the most necessary functions, and you will defeat corruption,” said Orekh. “Because corruption is the way of life for parasites, and our bureaucrats have become precisely parasites.”

The countries ranked in the report as the most transparent were Denmark, New Zealand, and Singapore, while Somalia, Myanmar, and Afghanistan were seen as the most corrupt. The United States came in at 22nd place, and China at 78th.

Transparency International noted that since “corruption – whether frequency or amount – is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure,” the level of the perception of corruption in any given country was chosen as a telling alternative. “Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption,” says the organization.





PAKISTAN URGED TO INVESTIGATE MURDER AND TORTURE OF BALOCH ACTIVISTS

27 10 2010




Amerikan Perestroika

27 10 2010

Amerikan Perestroika 

Peter Chamberlin

It would be nice if the world of man was a simple creation, where honest effort was its own reward.  In such a world, mistakes would be understood as signals of corrections which needed to be made.  It is not our good fortunes to live in such a world, at least not as far as all the governments of the world are concerned.

Human governments are in the business of capitalizing upon mistakes, especially turning the mistakes of the opposing party to political advantage.  When the stumbling political party happens to be an adversarial government that is the process of self-destruction, then the political urge is to let them suffer.  Such was the situation when the Soviet Union fell apart.  But that was no excuse for this mistaken American policy or for the train of mistakes which was to follow.

Nothing demonstrates the complexity of the ultimate design which confronts us, or the character flaws of the designers, better than the current state of American/Russian relations.  We were led to believe that we had witnessed the implosion of the Soviet state in 1991, but that earth-shaking event was not what it appeared on the surface to be.  The event, which was supposed to have meant the end of the modern Russian empire, as well as the end of Soviet Communism, ended nothing, except for the entangling alliances which had been arranged by the demented mind of Josef Stalin.

What really transpired was the “restructuring” (perestroika) of the Russian government, the cutting of economic and social liabilities under the liberal leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, to give the Kremlin leadership breathing space, in order survive the transition from a model communist system to capitalist model.  The “capitalism” that Gorbachev had in mind was not the “democratic-capitalist” of the United States, but the Chinese model of state-dominated capitalism.  Gorby had in mind the same Eastern version of “democracy,” as well.  The fact that George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton turned their backs on the people of Russia and the former satellite states and allowed Russian leader Putin time to reestablish a “moderate police state” in the former Soviet space, stands-out as one of the greatest mistakes that any American president has ever made.  Had we followed a different path in 1991, one based on cooperation and human compassion, instead of abandoning the people of the former totalitarian Communist dictatorship to suffer the tragic consequences of the failed Soviet system, then there is no doubt in my mind that we would now be living in that new world order of total peace and not living in a bankrupt world preparing for perpetual war and the strong likelihood of total economic collapse.  We should lay the blame for the failure of the world order at the feet of George H.W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, the “godfathers” of revolutionary interventionist democracy (Reagan is its father.).

Perestroika should be considered to be a “reconstruction” process, since it began with a process of demolition/deconstruction.  “Soviet” space had to be cleared in order to raise the new Russian edifice.  In reality, this meant the selling-off of large portions of the state industries to foreign investors, in order to acquire reliable capital.  There was no shortage of potential buyers, but the Kremlin leadership intended that the end product would remain under their control.  This was done by empowering the most successful black marketeers in the old Soviet system, by essentially buying them off.  The majority of the “oligarchs” who ended-up owning much of the old Soviet industrial assets had risen to the top through dealings with the Russian mafia, most of whom are Russian Jews, with ties to Israel and international American-Jewish (Zionist) interests.

The opening of the Soviet empire (glasnost) enlivened the Soviet idea of “democracy” sufficiently to convince the world that Russia’s version of “sovereign democracy” was genuine.  This made possible the shedding of excess political baggage, which included allowing many more émigrés to Israel.  This apparent loosening of state repression brought about a readjustment of Western perceptions of the Kremlin, opening the doors for foreign investments in the decrepit Soviet infrastructure and for the harvesting of abundant post-Soviet natural resources.  Many of the new Russian-Israelis organized partnerships with legitimate Western investors and Russian-mafia crime bosses.  The end result was that Israeli interests obtained a working relationship with the Putin government, through the oligarchs.

The Russian oligarchs gobbled-up state assets in the former Soviet satellite states, gaining advantages over competitors from their inside connections to those governments and their access to powerful Jewish investors.  The oligarchs give the Kremlin direct control over the mining and steel-producing industries in Ukraine, as well as the aluminum mining and smelting facilities in Tajikistan, allowing the Russian government to profit immensely from profits made from refitted modernized industries.

The insiders control over strategic European and Asian industries, coupled with Gazprom’s dominance over energy production in all of Eurasia, have been played by Vladimir Putin like a “royal straight flush” on the international geopolitical scene, allowing him to undercut American interests which had formerly been perceived as unfair to the Russian leadership.  Putin’s apparent winning hand in the pipeline wars has given him an inflated sense of power, encouraging him to quietly accept minor irritants like small-scale militant attacks in the Caucasus backed by the CIA and Pentagon, without going to the source of the attacks and exposing the American “Islamists” for which the world now blames only Pakistan.

Although the separate states which had comprised the USSR were set free, enabling them to chart their own courses, links were maintained between governments of the former empire, most notably between militaries and state intelligence agencies.  As the ultimate manifestation of the Soviet state and the Communist ideal, the KGB (now known as FSB) maintained dominance over the entire “restructuring” operation, as well as over the separate spy agencies.  It is the KGB hand, in the shape of the former KGB General, Vladimir Putin, which has overseen the privatization of the empire and the empowering of the “oligarchs.”

On the other side of the equation and the other side of the Atlantic Ocean we see the record of the American privatization (deconstruction) process, also started by Ronald Reagan.   As the economy grinds to a halt, it allows the elite American “oligarchs” to also gobble-up the social service sector of our government, as well as the assets and life savings of the majority of Americans.

The world operates on the power principle—that power must always prevail.  This means that advantage over others must be maintained by keeping the other side at a disadvantage, “back on the other foot,” as some folks say.  For the United States, in the political arena, this meant using every available means to keep our adversaries off balance, as well as our allies.  Such a principle precludes the possibility of ever fully ending hostilities against any adversary, helping to explain the blindness of successive American administrations in their dealings with Russia and other opponents.  The American/Russian relationship is a strange blend of success and failure.  Each success was as much failure as it was victory, for both sides.

The American/Russian relationship is once again the key to unraveling the mysteries about our current fate, the shape of the future will be determined by the interactions of the leaders of these two great powers.  The ongoing terror war is but a reflection of our past collisions, given new forms, using new actors to fight-out the same unanswered contradictions that have kept us at each others’ throats for decades.  Which side will prevail, the side that offers the most secure-seeming scenario of a future of perpetual resource wars fought for unexpressed reasons, or will some kind of peaceful coexistence finally take root, offering new hope for the planet itself and for all of humankind?

Obama and Putin are equally determined national leaders, both pulling every available string to achieve the goals of their personal agendas.  At times, their separate agendas clearly converge, other times their wheels seem to spin in opposite directions.

During those intervals when both Obama and Putin seem to be spinning their wheels in tandem towards a common goal, it seems that both leaders tend to answer to a third overriding agenda, an unknown source of authority.  Some unseen, subversive force seems to always intervene on the world stage, to prevent any conflict from ending decisively (except perhaps for the Sri Lankan/Tamil conflict).  Whether that unknown overriding authority is the work of the most powerful oligarchs themselves, or merely the result of forces at work which are beyond our current levels of understanding, will remain for future historians to decide.  Historically, the United States and Russia have interfered in all great power struggles in order to preserve a “balance of forces,” but neither the US nor Russia can be blamed for actions taken against themselves, unless both countries are run by leaders who have been compromised by another power.

Then there is the fourth spinning wheel, the eternal power source of the forces of democracy.  Among the spinning wheels which are competing for the world’s energy basket, the eternally spinning wheel of human motivation is the only wheel which really matters, for it is the only wheel which powers all the others.

The power of the “common will” is a force which every government must master.  Before any leader can harness the common will he must first bend his own will in the people’s direction.  He who seeks to override the common will first have to obtain the consent of the people, unless he possesses sufficient force to bend the people’s will to his own and is willing to accept the consequences if such an anti-democratic use of force.  Neither Putin nor Obama (not even the unseen powers behind all other powers) has so far been willing to risk the fallout from the use of overtly violent police state policies to crush the democratic forces, but both leaders are willing to allow their underlings to violently redraw the lines of acceptable dissent.  The process of narrowing the space of “acceptable” dissent has progressed further under Putin, than it has in the US.

Putin is trying to stabilize Russia and reclaim the best parts of the former Soviet Union, while working within the democratic model.  His idea is to redesign the democratic model to make acceptable the tight control of basic First Amendment Rights, such as free speech and the right to assemble.

Vladimir Putin has called the collapse of the Soviet empire “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”  In many ways, he was right; since millions of people were suddenly cast adrift, without a working government, or apparently, a friend in the world.  It was not only the Russian government and the fledgling governments of all Eastern Europe, as well as all of the “Stans,” who were cut adrift, because the American government itself, was also without direction or purpose with the sudden, unanticipated collapse of the Soviet system.

The tragedy of the sudden collapse of the slowly deteriorating Soviet government can best be described by comparing it to the situation in the post-war South, after our “last Civil War” (I fully expect a 2nd civil war, as part of the American collapse).  The collapse of currency, local supply lines and the descent of “carpet-baggers” upon the hungry war-weary Southerners was much like today’s invasion of carpet-bagger corporations who gave the hungry masses false hope, as they plundered the unsuspecting populations who were recently freed from their own corrupt government.  On the heels of the rapacious corporations came the proxy forces of the US government in the form of NGOs (non-governmental organizations).  Along with the NGOs, come the third-party foreign proxies of the US Government (Saudis, Turks, Israelis, etc.).

The invasion of former Soviet space has, so far, proceeded unopposed by Moscow for the most part, but all of that began to change with the revival of the neo-Soviet enterprises, in particular, Gazprom, the state oil and gas giant.  With the rise of Gazprom came the return of Russian political and economic leverage, especially over Europe.  Putin’s power plays in Chechnya and Georgia were made politically acceptable after Gazprom’s victory over Ukrainian gas company Naftogaz gave Moscow full control of most of the gas going to northern Europe.

The certain defeat of the Nabucco pipeline has probably breathed new life into Russia’s South Stream, which will further entrench Moscow as mediator of many European issues that should not be considered a legitimate Russian concern.  As insurance in case the reset goes bad, CIA-da is apparently revving-up operations with the Turkish “Deep State” and the PKK terrorist organization, as a presumed prelude to future attacks upon Russia’s South Stream pipeline as it traverses Turkey.  Depending upon the outcome of the joint effort in the terror war and how well the United States weathers the total collapse of its economy, Russian leaders believe that they will come out on top, or at least in a position to profit greatly off any American successes.

The simultaneous rising of Dmitry Medvedev with Barack Obama, and their US/Russian “reset” in relations, which the two lawyers have together engineered, has made possible an American/Russian mission in Afghanistan, but it has not led to cooperation on energy production or delivery plans.  Both sides are still married to their own profit potentials.    This reset in relations has also made possible a new united front against Chinese expansionism and resource monopolization.  Whether this anti-Chinese offensive is real or just more stage management is also a question that will have to be answered in the history books, because the future is not yet set (Where is Sarah Connor when you need her?).

This seems to be what the hidden overriding authority (the “third wheel”) wants from us.    The ceaseless succession of potential catastrophes which confront us are meant to convince us that survival in this age demands that we allow the European alliance to do whatever the leaders plan for us, as the price for achieving total dominance over all of the world, in particular, the world’s “energy basket.”  This is the given justification for the building confrontation with China and for perpetual war for as far as the eye can see.  If “We the People” allow these plans to go forward on their current track, then we will witness a further “Sovietization” of our own democracy, as well, and we will have deserved it.  It is time for that fourth wheel, the wheel of democratic action, to get spinning, before powers which are hostile to our best interests take the wheel of our power from us.

peterchamberlin@naharnet.com





Predictions of 2nd American Civil War

27 10 2010

The new book “The Collapse of the dollar and the collapse of the U.S.”

In his book “The Collapse of the dollar and the collapse of the U.S.” JH Panarin, argues the inevitability of the collapse of America, divided by how the information gathered in the remote bomb in 1998, highlighting the three driving forces of the collapse the U.S., which in July 2010 could fall to six parts. Today, after the collapse in 2008, banks on Wall Street, the collapse of the dollar pyramid can happen at any moment.

«Крах доллара и распад США»





Hillary Weaves Her Web Around a New Batch of Prey

26 10 2010

[Hillary's favorite weapon is flattery.  Nothing is as exciting for these young individuals as the ceremonies and accolades they are now receiving.  They have probably been pre-screened for the desired personality traits suited to such an operation.  The Pakistan/US brainstorming is part of the American full spectrum assault upon Pakistan.]

Clinton Champions International Exchange Programs

[ACTUAL PHOTO OF MIND-CONTROL PROCESS AT WORK]





FTC Easing the Way for Behavioral Advertising Aimed at Our Children

26 10 2010

Brill: FTC Will Monitor Behavioral Ad Self-Regs

Commission will vet program for consumer ease of use

By John Eggerton — Broadcasting & Cable

Democratic Federal Trade Commission member Julie Brill gave ad trade associations a shout out for a recent behavioral advertising self-regulatory initiative, but said in general she has been underwhelmed by self-regulation in that area and that the FTC will be checking to see if the latest effort measures up.

That came in a speech this week in New York.

Two weeks ago, ad industry associations and the Better Business Bureau announced a set of self-regulatory principles for online behavioral advertising.

Those include affirmative efforts to educate consumers about behavioral marketing, creating clearer and more accessible disclosures, allowing for more consumer control of data collection, parental consent for behavioral advertising targeting kids under 13, consumer consent for “material changes” and use and programs to monitor compliance.

Advertisers are looking to head off calls for opt-in regimes, bans on targeted marketing to kids under 13, and perhaps older, and more.

In her speech, Commissioner Brill said the FTC would vet the program to see how easy it was for consumers to use, calling that a critical factor and saying if consumers don’t understand the controls provided, or can’t use them easily, “the program simply won’t be effective.” She said the commission will also be checking to see how “robust” enforcement is, and how widespread the participation is in the voluntary program.

The FTC is about to release a report on a proposed re-think of how it protects consumer privacy in the digital age.

Behind the report were its conclusions after a yearlong review that: collection of consumer information on and offline is “far more extensive” than some consumers are aware of, that consumers don’t have the ability or understanding to make informed decisions about data collection and use; that privacy is still important in a world linked by “ubiquitous” social networking; that there are benefits to consumer data collection because it allows for more personalized advertising and because it helps pay the freight for the free content consumers have come to expect online.

FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz has on more than one occasion pointed to the upside of behavioral advertising for just those reasons.

Brill also said the distinction between personally identifiable information–which gets heightened protection–and non-identifiable information is blurring.

She said the report would likely talk about “privacy by design,” or building privacy and security into the front end of the process; transparency about commercial data practices; consumer choice, and perhaps some kind of “do not track” mechanism. Brill said she would personally favor.

The report, she said, would be a framework for self-regulation and industry best practices and to provide information to policymakers.

The FTC has limited rulemaking authority, but there is privacy legislation in Congress that could still be modified to reflect suggestions from the FTC.





Obama in India Obvious Attempt to Turn the World Against China

26 10 2010

 

Taking harder stance toward China, Obama lines up allies

Mark Landler and Sewell Chan, New York Times

Washington: The Obama administration, facing a confrontational relationship with China  on exchange rates, trade and security issues, is stiffening its approach toward Beijing, seeking allies to confront a newly assertive power that officials now say has little intention of working with the United States.

In a shift from its assiduous one-on-one courtship of Beijing, the administration is trying to line up coalitions — among China’s next-door neighbors and far-flung trading partners — to present Chinese leaders with a unified front on thorny issues like the currency and their country’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

The advantages and limitations of this new approach were on display over the weekend at a meeting of the world’s largest economies in South Korea. The United States won support for a concrete pledge to reduce trade imbalances, which will put more pressure on China to allow its currency to rise in value.

But Germany, Italy and Russia balked at an American proposal to place numerical limits on these imbalances, a step that would have further isolated Beijing. That left the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, to make an unscheduled stop in China on his way home from South Korea to discuss the deepening tensions over exchange rates with a top Chinese finance official.

Administration officials speak of an alarming loss of trust and confidence between China and the United States over the past two years, forcing them to scale back hopes of working with the Chinese on major challenges like climate change, nuclear nonproliferation and a new global economic order.

The latest source of tension is over reports that China is withholding shipments of rare-earth minerals, which the United States uses to make advanced equipment like guided missiles. Administration officials, clearly worried, said they did not know whether Beijing’s motivation was strategic or economic.

“This administration came in with one dominant idea: make China a global partner in facing global challenges,” said David Shambaugh, director of the China policy program at George Washington University. “China failed to step up and play that role. Now, they realize they’re dealing with an increasingly narrow-minded, self-interested, truculent, hyper-nationalist and powerful country.”

To counter what some officials view as a surge of Chinese triumphalism, the United States is reinvigorating cold war alliances with Japan and South Korea, and shoring up its presence elsewhere in Asia. This week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will visit Vietnam for the second time in four months, to attend an East Asian summit meeting likely to be dominated by the China questions.

Next month, President Obama plans to tour four major Asian democracies — Japan, Indonesia, India and South Korea — while bypassing China. The itinerary is not meant as a snub: Mr. Obama has already been to Beijing once, and his visit to Indonesia has long been delayed. But the symbolism is not lost on administration officials.

Jeffrey A. Bader, a major China policy adviser in the White House, said China’s muscle-flexing became especially noticeable after the 2008 economic crisis, in part because Beijing’s faster rebound led to a “widespread judgment that the U.S. was a declining power and that China was a rising power.”

But the administration, he said, is determined “to effectively counteract that impression by renewing American leadership.”

Political factors at home have contributed to the administration’s tougher posture. With the economy sputtering and unemployment high, Beijing has become an all-purpose target. In this Congressional election season, candidates in at least 30 races are demonizing China as a threat to American jobs.

At a time of partisan paralysis in Congress, anger over China’s currency has been one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement, culminating in the House’s overwhelming vote in September to threaten China with tariffs on its exports if Beijing did not let its currency, the renminbi, appreciate.

The trouble is that China’s own domestic forces may cause it to dig in its heels. With the Communist Party embarking on a transfer of leadership from President Hu Jintao to his anointed successor, Xi Jinping, the leadership is wary of changes that could hobble China’s growth.

There are also increasingly sharp divisions between China’s civilian leaders and elements of the People’s Liberation Army. Many Chinese military officers are openly hostile toward the United States, convinced that its recent naval exercises in the Yellow Sea amount to a policy of encircling China.

Even the administration’s efforts to collaborate with China on climate change and nonproliferation are viewed with suspicion by some in Beijing.

Mr. Obama’s aides, many of them veterans of the Clinton years, understand that especially on economic issues, there are elements of brinkmanship in the relationship, which can imply more acrimony than actually exists.

But the White House was concerned enough that last month it sent a high-level delegation to Beijing that included Mr. Bader; Lawrence H. Summers, the departing director of the National Economic Council; and Thomas E. Donilon, who has since been named national security adviser.

“We were struck by the seriousness with which they shared our commitment to managing differences and recognizing that our two countries were going to have a very large effect on the global economy,” Mr. Summers said.

Just before the meeting, China began allowing the renminbi to rise at a somewhat faster rate, though its total appreciation, since Beijing announced in June that it would loosen exchange-rate controls, still amounts to less than 3 percent. Economists estimate that the currency is undervalued by at least 20 percent.

Meanwhile, trade tensions between the two sides are flaring anew. The administration recently agreed to investigate charges by the United Steelworkers that China was violating trade laws with its state support of clean-energy technologies. That prompted China’s top energy official, Zhang Guobao, to accuse the administration of trying to win votes — a barb that angered White House officials.

Of the halt in shipments of rare-earth minerals, Mr. Summers said, “There are serious questions, both in the economic and in the strategy realm, that are going to require close study within our government.”

Beijing had earlier withheld these shipments to Japan, after a spat over a Chinese fishing vessel that collided with Japanese patrol boats near disputed islands. It was one of several recent provocative moves by Beijing toward its neighbors — including one that prompted the administration to enter the fray.

In Hanoi in July, Mrs. Clinton said the United States would help facilitate talks between Beijing and its neighbors over disputed islands in the South China Sea. Chinese officials were livid when it became clear that the United States had lined up 12 countries behind the American position.

With President Hu set to visit Washington early next year, administration officials said Mrs. Clinton would strike a more harmonious note in Asia this week. For now, they said, the United States feels it has made its point.

“The signal to Beijing ought to be clear,” Mr. Shambaugh said. “The U.S. has other closer, deeper friends in the region.”





Is Death of Nabucco Bringing “Al CIA da” and Ergenekon Together in Turkey?

26 10 2010

The clear and present danger

by
AYDOĞAN VATANDAŞ*


<center>The clear and present danger  <br><i>by</i> <br>AYDOĞAN VATANDAŞ*</center> - Nearly four-and-a-half months have passed since the whole Mavi Marmara incident. There is no longer any real reason to continue making calculations about who came out on top.

Nearly four-and-a-half months have passed since the whole Mavi Marmara incident. There is no longer any real reason to continue making calculations about who came out on top.

What we need to do now is look towards the future and figure out how we can emerge from the situation with the least amount of damage possible. First of all, there have been well-known efforts by Jewish lobbies — which have great influence over the US Congress — to have the İHH (Humanitarian Aid Foundation) officially recognized as a terrorist group. In fact, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) efforts on this front are continuing. In general, these sorts of lobbies have expended a great deal of energy through their network of influence over the US media to create the perception that the İHH is somehow connected to al-Qaeda.

Following efforts to create the appearance of ties between the İHH and al-Qaeda, there was an effort to create the perception of some sort of organic relationship between the İHH and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). For instance, the July 17, 2010 issue of The New York Times featured a large report on its front page saying, among other things, that the AK Party was behind the whole Mavi Marmara incident. The journalist who wrote the article was Dan Bilefski. His previous article for The New York Times had been a very critical piece in which he criticized the legitimacy of the ongoing Ergenekon investigation and case. The title of the article on the Mavi Marmara incident was as follows: “Sponsor of Flotilla Tied to Elite of Turkey.”

An article published in the Oct. 21 issue of the Haaretz newspaper indicated there is proof that the Gaza aid flotilla did receive assistance from the Turkish government. According to Haaretz, evidence taken from computers seized during the raid of the flotilla showed that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other top government authorities had lent the Mavi Marmara aid flotilla assistance. This information, in fact, came from reports taken during a meeting in İstanbul two weeks before the raid, on May 16, 2010.

Deeper cooperation against al-Qaeda

As many may recall, Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MİT) Undersecretary Hakan Fidan, who went to Iraq in September, met some time before that with his colleague from the American CIA, Leon Panetta. The CIA sent a message via Fidan to Ankara, the message being in fact a proposal for deeper cooperation against al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbullah, as well as the al-Qaeda’s various extensions throughout Iraq. The message could actually be read thus: “If you help us in the struggle against al-Qaeda, we could be of help to you against the PKK.” A short time after news of this made its way into the media, both America and England issued warnings to their citizens, particularly those headed for France and Germany, to watch out for terror attacks. After these warnings were issued, intelligence agencies in Pakistan were also put on high alarm.

A while after this, a Pakistani intelligence authority speaking to The Associated Press (AP) claimed that dozens of Muslims with European citizenship had gathered in Pakistan’s lawless border areas, where they were being trained for future attacks on European soil. He said that these particular people had been chosen by al-Qaeda because they could enter and exit Europe easily (due to their citizenship), and that amongst those being trained in Pakistan were Chechens, Uzbeks, Arabs and Turks. But most importantly, this same Pakistani intelligence agent said amongst the “terrorist trainees” was an F-16 pilot who had been, at one point, on duty in the Turkish Air Force.

This source, whom the AP declined to identify by name, asserted that al-Qaeda placed much importance on this Turkish officer, saying, “What we learn from this is that even  very well trained people can join the ranks of al-Qaeda here.”

What should really be considered here is that the source for this particular piece of news was the AP. Also, it was the AP that brought the allegations of there being organic relations between the İHH and the AK Party to the media’s agenda. The AP published an interview with French judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere — who has been involved in many terrorism cases and who is investigating the İHH — directly following the Mavi Marmara incident. Bruguiere, alleging that the İHH had an “open and long-term relationship with terrorism and jihad,” said, “In essence, ever since bin Laden began to target the American nation, they have been helping out al-Qaeda.” Bruguiere, talking about a man named Fatih Kamil who worked for the İHH, said that Kamil had been arrested in France in 1999 and that one of his followers, Ahmed Ressam, was arrested and sentenced to 22 years in prison after an attempted bombing attack on the Los Angeles Airport, also in 1999. The French judge then also recalled that in 1998, during the Feb. 28 process, a search that took place at the İHH center in İstanbul turned up weapons and falsified documents, then alleging that the organization was also sending money, weapons and fighters to war zones such as Bosnia and Afghanistan. Bruguiere, who is responsible for investigating the financial sources of terror groups operating in the US and the EU, alleged in his interview that he believed the fact that the İHH was still operating, despite the many suspicions surrounding it, was owing to the fact that it is was receiving assistance from the Turkish government.

Links between İHH and al-Qaeda

And so the AP, which worked hard to complete the perception of links between the İHH and al-Qaeda in the wake of the Mavi Marmara incident, now turned its attention to creating the perception that a Turkish Air Force pilot had joined the ranks of al-Qaeda trainees in Pakistan.

Before long, the Turkish flag even showed up in the well-known “South Park” animated series, in relation this time with al-Qaeda. In the “Jersey Things” episode of the series broadcast on Oct. 13, al-Qaeda was shown attacking in airplanes that had the Turkish flag. In the episode, when more and more people from New Jersey moved to South Park, the locals of South Park ask for help from Osama bin Laden to rid the city of its new denizens. Bin Laden does come to their help, carrying out an attack that kills the New Jerseyites using airplanes that bear Arabic writing and Turkish flags on them. This incident was shortly followed by another of images on a DVD cover prepared by the New York Christian Action Network showing a Turkish flag planted in the burning rubble of the Sept.11 attack on the Twin Towers.

In short, it is now clear that in the wake of the Mavi Marmara incident, there has been an attempt to place a giant net over the head of Turkey. In the meantime, it should be noted that al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has threatened Turkey three times over the past two months. Al-Qaeda perceives not only the ruling AK Party but also the entire Gülen community as a threat in Turkey.

An attack on European soil carried out by al-Qaeda that would include a former F-16 pilot from the Turkish Air Forces would:

1. Badly damage Turkey’s international esteem and image. It would also appear to confirm ties between the İHH and al-Qaeda, as well as between the İHH and the AK Party.

2.  Turn Turkey into an open target for certain countries.

3. Help to create the perception of just how correct Supreme Military Council (YAŞ) decisions were, if in fact said officer from the air forces was proved to have been thrown out of the military as a result of a YAŞ decision.

4. No doubt it would, most importantly, render the legitimacy of the AK Party’s international relations questionable and lead to a desire to see a redesign of Turkish internal politics.

The al-Qaeda-Ergenekon links in the 2003 HSBC attack and the synagogue attack should not be forgotten. To wit, sometimes organizations that never come together at all can work together by adhering to the idea of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”


*Aydoğan Vatandaş is a journalist based in New York and the author of several books, including “Armageddon.”

 





“Wherever Law ends Tyranny begins”

26 10 2010

John_Locke1 “Wherever Law ends Tyranny begins”

The assessment of English philosopher John Locke (1632 – 1704)  that wherever law ends tyranny begins seems to be borne out by present-day reality as concerns are mounting over the implications of the legal vacuum, weak policy guidance and lack of civilian control under which the American War on Terror  — with at least the silent , if at times awkward, consent of its NATO allies –  is conducted.

The muddled legal, institutional accountability and moral environment around this War on Terror since the  9/11 attacks on New York, have global implication far beyond the issue of the security of the US.

Some elements of the way this war is being conducted, like seemingly indiscriminate attacks by American unmanned aerial vehicles(UAVs) or drones, according to an article by Fred Branfman, prompted Philip Alston, the United Nations special representative on extrajudicial executions, to  state that “this strongly asserted but ill-defined licence to kill without accountability is not an entitlement which the USA or other states can have without doing grave damage to the rules designed to protect the right to life and prevent extrajudicial executions”.

In the same article Branfman writes that the “notion that a handful of US military and CIA officials have the right to unilaterally and secretly murder anyone they choose in any nation on earth, without even outside knowledge let alone oversight, is deeply troubling to anyone with a conscience, belief in democracy, or respect for international law”.

A UN report earlier this year stated that “some have suggested that drones as such are prohibited weapons under international humanitarian law because they cause, or have the effect of causing, necessarily indiscriminate killings of civilians, such as those in the vicinity of the targeted person”.

Not only a remote-control war

It is, however not only these remote-control attacks on funeral processions in Pakistan from as far away as 7 000 km that are problematic. Different reports quote different figures, but the US now has, according to a June report in the Washington Post Special Operations forces (SOF) “deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia”.

It is estimated that some 13 000 SOF troops are deployed world-wide in 40% of the 192 countries that make up the United Nations.

These SOF units operate under top-secret conditions off so-called killing lists (compiled by a secret bureaucratic process) and according to an official quoted by the Washington Post the Special Operations capabilities requested by the White House go beyond unilateral strikes and include the training of local counter-terrorism forces and joint operations with them. ” In Yemen, for example we are doing al three.”

In September of this year there were also reports about the deployment of a fleet of US Predator B drones along the US border with Mexico aimed at the illegal drug trade and the cultural and linguistic threats Mexican migrants pose to the US leading to what Professor Juanita Darling of San Francisco State University calls “a feeling of increased militarisation on the border”.

Blurring of mandates

Referring to the blurring of chains of command and mandates of various instruments of state the New York Times in December last year reported: “The political consensus in support of the drone programme, its antiseptic, high-tech appeal and its secrecy have obscured just how radical it is. For the first time in history, a civilian intelligence agency is using robots to carry out a military mission, selecting people for killing in a country where the United States is not officially at war.”

According to one former intelligence official “the extraordinary power ceded to the CIA operations directorate … evoked serious concerns in the intelligence community. It allowed the directorate to collect the intelligence on potential targets in (Pakistan’s) Federally Administered Tribal Areas, interpret its own intelligence and then make lethal decisions based on that interpretation – all without any outside check on the judgments it was making, even from the CIA’s own directorate of intelligence”.

At the same time Tom Englehardt reports on his TomDispatch.com-site: “…Oh, and keep in mind that more than two-thirds of the IC’s intelligence programmes are controlled by the Pentagon, which also means control over a major chunk of the combined intelligence budget, announced at $75 billion (2 1/2 times the size it was on Sept. 10, 2001, according to Priest and Arkin), but undoubtedly far larger).

“And when it comes to the Pentagon, that’s just a start. Massive expansion in all directions has been its m.o. since 9/11.  Its soaring budget hit about $700 billion for fiscal year  2010 and is projected to hit $726 billion in fiscal year 2011.  Some experts claim, however, that the real figure may come closer to the trillion-dollar mark when all aspects of national security are factored in.  Not surprisingly, it has taken over a spectrum of State Department-controlled civilian activities, ranging from humanitarian relief and development (aka “nation-building”) to actual diplomacy.  And don’t forget its growing roles as a domestic-disaster manager and a global arms dealer, or even as a Green Revolution energy innovator. “

What about the cyber war

The legal and policy challenges the US Department of Defence (DOD) — which has created a US Cyber Command — and other national governments face in dealing with the increasing threat of cyber war was also highlighted by a panel discussion hosted by theHeritage Foundation in August this year.

It came to the conclusion that: “The United States is hamstrung in defending itself in cyberspace by a lack of policies and legal framework for waging war in the new military domain.”

The national and international laws of armed conflict that govern conventional warfare don’t adequately address issues raised about fighting a war online with digital weapons against enemies who cannot be identified, according to this panel of government and private-sector experts.panelists said.

Offensive action by the military will require policy decisions and legal authorities that have not yet been made, said Herb Lin, chief scientist on the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board at the National Academy’s National Research Council.

At present the US National Security Agency’s (NSA) “warrantless dragnet surveillance” programme, is being challenged in the Appeal Court. The case follows on reports in December of last year that the NSA has been domestically intercepting the phone calls and Internet communications of millions of ordinary Americans in what is claimed to be in violation of the privacy safeguards established by Congress and the US Constitution.

At the same time there are increasing tensions between Washington and members of the European Union over   insistence by the Americans for  access to information  on international internet transactions concluded by European citizens.

From the UK The Telegraph reports on moves that are afoot by Britain’s Home Office to revive plans that will allow security services and the police to spy on the activities of every Briton who uses a phone or the internet.

The newspaper reports that the “move was buried in the Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, which revealed: We will introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework.

“This programme is required to keep up with changing technology and to maintain capabilities that are vital to the work these agencies do to protect the public.

“Communications data provides evidence in court to secure convictions of those engaged in activities that cause serious harm. It has played a role in every major Security Service counter-terrorism operation and in 95 per cent of all serious organised crime investigations.

“We will legislate to put in place the necessary regulations and safeguards to ensure that our response to this technology challenge is compatible with the Government’s approach to information storage and civil liberties.

Guy Herbert, general secretary of the No2ID campaign group, reportedly said: “We should not be surprised that the interests of bureaucratic empires outrank liberty.

Not the end of the list

This article but scratches the surface of the issue of the legal, policy and oversight vacuum in which present-day warfare — which, more often than not, is not on a state-on-state basis –  is developing.

Other aspects of it include:

The handling of prisoners of war:  HYPERLINK “http://harpers.org/archive/2010/10/hbc-90007739“ ;  HYPERLINK “http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052103483.html” ;  HYPERLINK “http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43649.html#ixzz133KC1LAu“.

The strain it puts on civil-military relations:  HYPERLINK “http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6774/over-thehorizon-warning-signs-in-u-s-civil-military-relations“ http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6774/over-thehorizon-warning-signs-in-u-s-civil-military-relations

To what extent the privatisation of war is creating problems in enforcing legal accountability for acts of war:  HYPERLINK “http://www.alternet.org/story/148007/“ http://www.alternet.org/story/148007/

The extent to which one country passes laws to conduct war on terror impacts on other jurisdictions:  HYPERLINK “http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnm102852.htm“ http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnm102852.htm

(Next week we will look at the cost and the effectiveness of the War on Terror)





Former Russian PM: Obama’s ‘reset’ with Moscow is good for Putin, bad for human rights

26 10 2010

The Obama administration is ignoring, and thereby enabling, the Russian government’s gross abuse of human rights and its gutting of the country’s  democracy, according to Russia’s former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov.

“We have no democracy at all. We don’t have any future of a democratic state. Everything has been lost, everything has been taken from the people by the authorities,” Kasyanov said in a wide ranging interview with Foreign Policy. “The power has replaced all institutions … like Parliament, like independent judiciary, like free media, etc. That’s already obvious for everyone.”

The former Russian head of government, who was ousted by current Prime Minister Vladimir Putinin 2004, is on a mission this week to send a two-fold message to U.S.-based Russia watchers: that the upcoming elections next year in Russia will not be free and fair, and that the “reset” policy of the Obama administration has wrongly caused the United States to abandon its role as a vocal critic of Russian democratic and human rights abuses.

“We would like our friends in the West, in Europe and the United States, those who are interested in a democratic Russia… we would like these friends just to open their mouths,” Kasyanov said, explaining that he will meet with academics and experts at the German Marshall Fund, the Council on Foreign Relations, Columbia University, and other places. He neither sought nor was granted any meetings with U.S. government officials.

Kasyanov said that he supports the substantive aspects of President Obama’s reset policy, such as cooperation on non-proliferation, but that a parallel track should be established to simultaneously exert pressure on Russian leadership to adhere to basic standards when it comes to human rights and freedom of expression.

“I would wish the reset process would become a little bit more principled, rather than closing its eyes to everything that’s going on Russia in the sphere of public life and in the sphere of civil society,” he said. “You shouldn’t just change your principles, the values your government is standing on.”

He said that U.S. diplomats at various levels of the Obama administration are ignoring negative trends in Russia in the hope of avoiding even minor confrontations with the Kremlin that might upset the warming of bilateral ties.

“They just don’t criticize anything, they don’t produce any reports on any unacceptable developments… It’s not principled, now it looks like the administration closes it eyes on anything that’s going on in Russia,” he said.

Right now, independent organizations are not allowed to participate in elections and virtually no new political group has been allowed to register itself as a recognized entity since 2004, according to Kasyanov. There is undue pressure on Russian non-governmental groups, such the arrest and trial of organizers who displayed a controversial art exhibit at the Moscow’s Andrei Sakharov Community Center, a case that is now being referred to the European Court of Human Rights.

France and Germany are meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on such issues, but they are operating under the illusion that there could be some significant break between him and Putin on such issues, according to Kasyanov.

“What we need is just general support from the West… We need moral support,” he said. “Right now, [Russian citizens] feel that Americans have just given up on Russia, that they are not interested at all.”

Kasyanov dismissed the working group on human rights being led by the NSC’s Mike McFaul and the Kremlin’s Vladislav Surkov. McFaul explained the Obama administration’s approach to Russian human rights in October 2009, saying, “We came to a conclusion that we need a reset in this respect too and we should give up the old approach that had been troubling Russian-American partnership.”

“This Commission blah blah blah discussing human rights, that’s imitation, that is not useful operation. That shows to Russians that the U.S. government has chosen a different path, not human rights and democracy. It’s absolutely the wrong thing to do,” Kasyanov said.

As for his take on the relationship between Medvedev and Putin, who some see as increasingly divergent on key issues, he explained, “Their relations are very simple, boss and senior assistant who temporarily occupies the position of president of the country.”

When asked if he thinks Putin will run for President in 2012, he said, “I wouldn’t say ‘run,’ just step in.”

UPDATE: A State Department officials confirms that Kasyanov was offered a meeting with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Dan Russel, but that the meeting didn’t happen due to scheduling issues.





Don’t Oversell an EU-Russia Reset

26 10 2010

By Calvin Garner
Staff Editor
October 25, 2010

On October 18-19, French, German, and Russian heads of state met at the Deauville Summit to discuss future military and economic cooperation between the EU, NATO, and Russia. Some observers in the U.S. and European media have likened the meeting and the promise of future cooperation to the start of an EU-Russia reset, similar to the US strategy that started in March 2009. Advocates of the reset point to a string of policy successes and a general trend of moderation in Russian foreign policy over the last 20 months as reasons why a similar policy would be good for Europe.

Since Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin ascended to the presidency in 1999, the main goals of the Russian state have become clear: reverse the privatization and decentralization of power that occurred in the 1990s and consolidate political control within the Kremlin; reclaim Russia’s role as a major player on the world stage; and reassert dominance over the states of the former Soviet Union. Both the EU and the U.S. find all of these goals problematic.

While the U.S. reset policy has produced some successes, EU leaders should be very clear about what a Russia-reset can and cannot do for Europe. The EU should not expect that Russia, if engaged by an EU policy reset, would come to view its strategic objectives any differently. An examination of the basis for U.S.-Russia reset and what it has accomplished shows why.

The U.S.-Russia reset was based on reducing the acrimony between the two countries, whose diplomatic relationship was at a post-Cold War nadir, and identifying areas of mutual interest. These objectives represent the low-hanging fruit of international diplomacy. Moreover, Russian and U.S. political elites implicitly accept that there are some very big areas of policy difference, but that both sides are best served by focusing on other issues for the time being.

How has the policy been successful? Russia has signed the new START Treaty, which will renew the US-Russian nuclear arms reduction regime, allowed the passage of NATO troops and materiel over and across its territory, begun to participate in international efforts to isolate Iran, and indicated that it may support an anti-ballistic missile system in Europe. These developments benefit U.S. interests and, as such, should be viewed as wins for the Obama administration. But when weighing the benefits of the reset, Europe should bear in mind that none of the US policy victories of the last 20 months undermine or suggest a change in the fundamental Russian interests outlined above. There is no evidence to suggest, for example, that Russia would not favor another gas war with Ukraine, shooting war with Georgia, or vitriolic anti-Western rhetoric if it thought it would serve its core interests.

What have been the failures of the reset policy? Perhaps most significantly, the reset has been unable to slow the marginalization of opposition parties or the silencing of dissenting voices within Russia. Former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov is currently touring the US trying to spread this message. Making a policy “reset” the cornerstone of EU-Russian relations threatens to leave out the important issue of human and civil rights abuses that are perpetrated or condoned by the Russian government. If Europeans care about moving Russia closer to liberal democratic norms, they need to understand that “reset” has not been an effective way to do so.

Reset proponents often identify a general moderation in Russian behavior on the international stage over the last two years. But there are two reasons why this period of moderation should not be misinterpreted. First, two years is a very short time to draw conclusions about efficacy of policy or to predict future behavior in international relations. In fact, two years ago the shooting in Georgia had just barely stopped; indeed, Russia continues to station troops in the Georgian separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, thus violating the territorial integrity of a sovereign state. Second, there are compelling reasons other than US action that explain why Russian policy has moderated in the past few years.

Lower commodity prices have resulted in a weakened financial position for Russia, an exporter of oil and natural gas, limiting its ability to throw its weight around internationally. Additionally, Russia no longer faces an openly hostile government in Ukraine and trounced Georgia, a Western ally and anti-Russian government, in the 2008 war. Finally, with each passing year, dissent is further extinguished in Russia and opposition parties have less chance to mount anything but token resistance to Putin’s policies. If any of these developments were to be reversed, there is no reason to think that the moderation trend would not be immediately reversed as the Kremlin turned to its previous tactics to protect core interests.

There is always a case to be made for improving the tone of diplomatic relations and finding areas of compromise, and an EU-Russia reset may do just that. Such steps may even lead to resolution of thornier issues. But neither the Europeans nor the Americans should think that the fruits of a “reset” policy mean that Russia has changed its goals or its tactics in a fundamental way.

This image is being used under Creative Commons licensing. The original source
can be found here.





Protestors: Putin must go

26 10 2010

Protestors: Putin must go

 

Russian Press – Behind the Headlines
© Alex Steffler

Novaya Gazeta

Eight hundred protestors gathered on Moscow’s Pushkin Square on Saturday to demand Vladimir Putin’s removal from office.

Strange as it may seem the authorities gave the recently established Five Demands Committee the green light to hold this protest.

The Committee includes members of a variety of Russian political movements such as the Left Front, the Moscow Council, the Nations of Freedom, Oborona, the Society of Blue Buckets, the United Civil Front, Solidarity and the Vpered (Forward) Socialist Movement. Chess genius Garry Kasparov, human rights activist Lev Ponomaryov, Ilya Yashin and Sergei Udaltsov are among those who sit on its organizing committee.

“We declare these five demands and we will keep coming out onto the streets until they are fulfilled,” said Dmitry Georgievsky, a member of Moscow’s Solidarity movement. Their demands were spelled out on placards held high above the crowd: the removal from power of Putin’s government, the dissolution of parliament, free and competitive elections, a shake-up of the police and secret services, and a transparent state budget.

Opposition unites against Putin

The flags fluttering over the square belonged to many movements: Solidarity, Left Front, the Social Democratic Party, the United Civil Front. “People with different views have gathered here, people from the left and right … But one thing unites us: we want free elections,” said Ilya Yashin. “The authorities like to repeat that they have no rivals, and that there is no alternative to Putin. But if United Russia really does enjoy the support of everyone in the country, why then is it so afraid of us?” he went on to say. “Look, it is fencing itself off from its own people with an army of cops and security,”

The police were out in force: Police buses surrounded the square.

“Only our numbers can help us get rid of this monstrous regime. We are for non-violent protest,” politician Garry Kasparov echoed.

Konstantin Yankauskas from the activist group Solidarity spoke of the effectiveness of street protests. He recalled that the authorities had tried to start renovation work on Pushkin Square several days ago and even partially fenced it off with concrete blocs but thanks to public protest the blocs were removed and the work curtailed.

Daniil Poltoratsky, a member of the Vpered (Forward) Socialist Movement, stressed that if there is to be any real change, Putin must go not only as a politician, but as an embodiment of the entire regime. “We demand a radical shakeup of the whole system,” he shouted from the stage.

Old habits?

Lev Ponomaryov said that under Putin’s regime Russia was once again seeing political prisoners. The singer-songwriter Natella Boltyanskaya sang a song about a “gnome” tightening up screws across the country.

About 800 people gathered on Pushkin Square, most of them middle aged or pensioners. Behind them, the Pushkinsky cinema was swathed in an ad for a new film: “The City of Thieves.” “Very apt,” one of the speakers joked. “Just about sums up our authorities.”

Rossiiskaya Gazeta





Algorithms and Red Wine–Is the ‘digital hive’ a soft totalitarian state?

26 10 2010

Algorithms and Red Wine

Is the ‘digital hive’ a soft totalitarian state?

By Joe Bageant
Ferrara, Italy

JoeferSitting in a bottliberia, one of those wine bars that brings out food to match your particular choice of wine, mystified by the table setting. What was that tiny baby spoon for? Cappuccino surely, at some point, but why no big spoon to go with the knife and fork? The things a redneck American does not know grow exponentially in Bella Italia, starting with the restaurants — not to mention several civilizations beneath one’s feet. Being in a house that has been continuously occupied for over 1000 years — resisting the temptation to piss in the hotel room bidet, that sort of thing.

One thing the Italians can never be accused of is being a culture given to vinyl sided sameness, fast food franchises. Another thing is lack of a good educational system, given that Italy’s is among the very best in the world. So here I am sitting with some college kids trying to hang onto my end of a discussion of evolutionary consciousness, and whether Italy can withstand the cultural leveling of globalism.

“And Mr Bageent, what do you think of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s concept of the hive mind and the noosphere? Can monolithism and totalitarianism possibly be resisted in the cybernetic age?”
Huh?

“Il regno mondiale dei computer, global computerization. Do all those disassociated shards of human input constitute an overarching hive intelligence? Or are they the emergence of further evolutionary structures?”

“Ahem, uh, well, Timothy Leary once convinced me that they are,” I said. “But after the drugs wore off, I was not so certain. And now I’m certain again that he was right. But, with a far more chilling outcome than he or Chardin could have ever predicted.”

Which was pretty good for pulling it out of my ass.

In any case, it seems that 40 years in retrospect, the human hive enjoys monolithism and totalism far more than anyone would have ever guessed back in the sixties. Most of industrial humanity, as it turns out, is, or would be, quite happy to come home from a hard day in the mines and settle down to Facebook or Twitter or hive broadcast “news” and passive entertainments, distributed by unseen “corporate entities.” I dunno, I think I liked dope and live music and sex better. But as all three diminish in my life with age, I’ve learned to settle for the Larry King Show and/or a lot less at times.

Big Al and the Tuscaloosa sprinkler man

On the other hand, this whole business of the new hive cybernetic connectivity, could be just a swarm of data bits with no particular significance, in and of themselves, other than the magical thinking belief that they do. Which ain’t no small thing, given that what we agree upon as reality is achieved by social consensus. Hell, to some people Beelzebub still stalks the earth. To others, America is a free republic, not a company town. We all have our hallucinations.

One thing for sure. Most people in the (over)developed world think the connectivity and speed of the algorithms behind the cyberhive are worth it. Even teachers teach to a standardized test so students will conform to an algorithm, and if that ain’t hive mind, I don’t know what is.

Besides, if the worship of algorithms is not worth it, it does not matter. Whether we be Tanzanians à la Darwin’s Nightmare, or some Stanford professor writing economic algorithms, the people who control all our lives in the globalized economic world believe they are.

For example, bankers and investment houses believe intelligent algorithms (Big Al) can calculate human risk in making loans. That an algorithm can predict whether a 35-year old lawn sprinkler installer in Tuscaloosa will be able to steadily make $2,300 monthly payments on his $220,000 twice refinanced “snout-house” (so-named because of the four-car garage sticking out the front) for 30 years. Most of us would be more than happy to make that prediction for them, and with far greater accuracy, for a fraction of what they paid the pinhead to write the algorithm.

In the pre-digital hive era there were limits to what the organic human brain, and therefore the mind, plus past experience, could calculate, then evaluate. At some point, one was forced to recognized the limits of a financial proposition or investment. Famliarity with the actual basis of an investment was necessary. (Hmmm. Lawn sprinklers, huh? And yer paying on a new Dodge Ram too?”) But there was no stopping such things as computer-assisted hedge funds, and the techno nerds’ faith that you could remove the human risks through complex algorithmic structures. So mythical financial instruments such as derivatives and layers of bets on derivatives, and bets on those bets, bloomed out there in the “virtual economy,” sending out algorithmic spores that spawned even stranger financial flora. The whole of it could not be understood by any single human participant. Even the individual parts were understood only by their specific designers. As in, “Just trust me on this Marv. This instrument even creates its own collateral” (which many of them did). Information, of course, is not reality, not even close to the juicy anecdotal stuff of which our daily lives are made. In essence, investment is reduced to an algorithmic Google search for debt, which is wealth to a banker, then mathematically rationalizing that debt as wealth for the rest of us.

Life is lived anecdotally, not algorithmically. And anecdotal evidence is not allowed in the new digital corpocracy. As one poster on Democratic Underground put it, “Anecdotal now has this enforced meaning such that no one is supposed to believe what they experience, what they see, hear, taste, smell, etc. The Powers That Be have basically extinguished the notion of inductive reasoning. Everything has to be replicated in a laboratory and since 90% of all the labs in this nation are operated by Corporate Sponsored monies, not much truth comes out of them.”

The trouble with the algorithmic age is that life is not a finite sequence of steps that define and contain the algorithmic concepts used. Even when created with the best of intentions — and we can all agree by now there were few good intentions at Goldman Sachs when they were creating and bundling these mutant investments — they cannot account for our uninsured sprinkler installer getting cancer, or divorcing the other half of the household income — or the end of America’s residential construction orgy.

The digital folly is never ending. The knock-on effect just keeps rolling. The latest is the rising scandal of millions of illegal foreclosures created by MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems), which enabled the big financial firms to securitize and swap mortgages at super high speed. But not to worry. Nancy Pelosi and Christopher Dodd are on the case, and there is sure to be a Congressional committee appointed. Whoopee! Have one on me.

Meanwhile, we have our social networking software to better weave us into the hive. Social networking software, now there’s a term that should scare the piss out of anyone with an IQ over 40. It means the database as hive reality. Facebook, online banking, shopping, porn, years of one’s life playing electronic games or whatever, online dating and reducing romance and companionship to fit the software. Or 4,000 Facebook “friends,” data on 4000 Americans voluntarily collected for Facebook corporation. The concept of “friends” is cheapened, rendered meaningless as it passes through a database. In fact, all human experience is cheapened by that process. Information is not reality.

Flatworm economics

As my second wife, who was a mathematician, can tell you, I know as much about algebra as a flatworm. So I turn to experts when I write this stuff — or sometimes just make it up as I go. But even a dumb person can ask questions. And one of my questions as I sit here background Googling the subject is this: Does a search engine really know what I want, or am I dumbing down to fit its hive algorithms? If the latter is the case, then why don’t we just bring back PCP?

Anyway, allegedly, the hive does many things better than paid experts. Wikipedia is an example of this assertion. Most web content is generated by hive inhabitants for free, profiting the new elite cybernetic ownership class, which is to say some corporation or other. This also means that content becomes worthless. That the efforts of skilled and devoted journalists, artists and others become valueless, unsellable, just more info-shards in the hive. Only advertising has value in the cyberhive. In a nation whose social realism has been represented by advertising for three quarters of a century, that was to be expected.

Of course the real global economic problem is seven billion people in increasing competition for ever scarcer vital resources. But capitalism loves competition, as long as, A: it is the people’s capital involved, and B: it is not the capitalists doing the competing. Either way we’re talking money here and what most people consider to be “economics.” Economics equals money. Right?

But the actual world revolves around meeting our genuine needs, which may or may not involve money. In the big picture, money is just one small, much abused abstract tool. Money has been abused from the beginning, probably about fifteen minutes after the first shekel was minted, but now the abuse has reached such levels that the entire notion of money is collapsing in on itself. Our concept of money needs to be reevaluated and probably abandoned in the distant future.

The bottliberia waiter comes with something on a plate I can actually — by pure luck — identify. Octopus gnocchi. The conversation rolls on.
“What do you believe allowed such abuse and calamity?” I ask.

An intense young woman leans across the table, all black hair and red lips, making an old man moan and sigh inwardly.

“Fossil fuels, of course,” she says. “An unnatural supply of energy. But once that is gone, we’re going to have to go back to a whole different way of doing everything. Everything.”

“Spot on,” I agree. At that moment she could have gotten me to agree that the earth is flat.

But the truth is that each gallon of fossil fuel contains the energy of 40 man-hours. And that has played hell with the ecology of human work, thanks mostly to the money economy. For instance, a simple loaf of bread, starting with the fossil fuels used to grow the wheat, transport, mill, bake, create the packaging materials and packaging, advertise and distribute it, uses the energy of two men working for two weeks. Yet this waste and vast inefficiency is invisible to us because we see it only in terms of money, jobs and commerce. Cheap oil allowed industrial humans to increasingly live on environmental credit for over a century. Now the bill is due and no amount of money can pay it. The calorie, pure heat expenditure as energy, is the only currency in which Mother Nature trades. Period.

Despite that America produced such thinkers on the subject of living simply as Thoreau, modern hydrocarbon based civilization has driven expectations of material goods and convenience, and the transactions surrounding those expectations, through the stratosphere. Money has abstracted the notion of work to the point where, I dare say, there are not 100,000 people in America who truly understand that, although there are at least a few million trying to understand and liberate themselves.

I’m gonna take a wild shot here and say that understanding and liberation, come through self-discipline and self-denial, and that it’s nearly impossible for Americans to practice self-discipline. They cannot imagine why self-discipline, and a more ascetic life, becoming less dependent on the faceless machinery of algorithm driven virtual money, is necessarily liberating.

If there can be a solution at this late stage, and most thinking people seriously doubt there can be a “solution” in the way we have always thought of solutions, it begins with powering down everything we consider to be the economy and our survival. That and population reduction, which nobody wants to discuss in actionable terms. Worse yet, there is no state sanctioned, organized entry level for people who want to power down from the horrific machinery of money. There are too many financial, military and corporate and governmental forces that don’t want to see us power down (because it would spell their death), but rather power up even more. That’s called “a recovery.”

When viewed from outside the virtual money economy, and from the standpoint of the planet’s caloric economy, probably half of American and European jobs are not only unnecessary, but also terribly destructive, either directly or indirectly. Yet what nation or economic state acknowledges the need for a transition away from jobs that aren’t necessary. None, because such an economy could not support the war machines or the transactional financial industries that dominate our needs hierarchy for the benefit of the few. Loaning us money we have already earned, stuffing us with corn syrup. And I won’t even go into the strong possibility that everybody does not need to be employed at all times for the world to keep on turning.

Like the Reagan Years on speed

One of the Italian students, Mariarosa, asks, “Is it true that so many Amerians are struggling and suffering right now?”

“No,” I reply, “not in the real sense. If they are suffering, most of them are suffering from commodities withdrawal. What they really are is people oppressed by metastasized capitalism. Which is its own form of suffering, I guess. They are squeezed hard for profit every moment of their waking lives. They’ve got families and dare not make a move, even of they knew how.”

Everyone nods in agreement.

“It’s coming to Italy too,” says one young man. Again, all nod in agreement.

Yet, despite Berlusconi, despite the rigthtist takeover in progress in Italy — which I am guessing will be successful, because I’ve seen it all before in America through globalization — so many are still able to ask the right questions. They seem able to filter what they need and what is best for the majority, from what they want. But looking at the overall country is like watching the Reagan era unfold again before your very eyes. Only faster. All of these kids probably own an iPod or cell phone, the only difference being that they do not let them interrupt a good meal.

The third bottle of wine arrives and the topic turns to global competition, and the EU charges that “Italy is not competitive enough.” A student named Cristiano, sits directly across form me, sporting one of those fashionable three-day beards (I tried that once — people just asked me: “How long have you been depressed, Joe?) Cristiano offers that cooperation would get us all a lot farther than competition.” Applause from everybody on that one. I raise my glass in salute. I’ve raised a few too many glasses in salute in my life, but what the hell.

Societies such as Italy, Greece and many others are viewed by global capitalism as inferior economies. Especially agrarian societies: different rates of exchange and economies of scale, are set for them because capitalism benefits from the bonuses of synergies in scale and the virtual economy. Never do global capitalists want to see regional food security, energy security, or any other kind of security for that matter.

And I look at the faces of these young men and women, who are among the brightest, best educated and common good oriented the world has to offer. A taxi’s headlights flash through the window of the darkened bottiliberia. Each face is illuminated for a moment, then golden dimness again prevails. And I am saddened.

I do not expect that the world they have inherited will show them one ounce of mercy. But it is heartening to see clear competent minds drawing the right conclusions.

And I ask myself, what chance does America’s far less informed, and purposefully misled public stand against all this?

One shudders.





WAKE UP PAKISTAN!

25 10 2010

WAKE UP PAKISTAN!

By Brig Samson S Sharaf

The third US-Pakistan Strategic dialogue has met its predicted conclusions. USA is satisfied that its carrot and stick policy towards Pakistan will serve its short term purpose to make Pakistan more pliable and willing to work for its long term objectives.

Specific incidents were chosen to coerce, intimidate and embarrass Pakistan to achieve these gains. US media picked up on the stories of atrocities by Pakistan Army in Swat, hidden hands behind NATO tankers burning, assassinations and arrest of Afghans willing to talk peace with USA, NATO and Hamid Karzai.

These deliberate leaks also gave the impression that peace talks in Afghanistan were far ahead than expected and NATO Forces were actually escorting key Taliban Leaders of fear that ISI with its so called mighty presence in Afghanistan will have them assassinated. At the same time there are feelers that key personalities like Mullah Omar, Gul Badin Hikmatyar and Haqqani are being deliberately isolated and subsequently made irrelevant to the peace negotiations.

Coincidently, during this entire boil, target killings in Karachi assumed new proportions and a Pakistani in USA (Adnan Beg) being sentenced to Jail for fraternization with the Taliban. So like all US Pakistan dialogues, this too was endemic to the familiar leaks, spins and orchestrated events. Like an iceberg, much was below the surface than above it.

The results of this dialogue were predictable. What USA wanted was amply summed up by Richard Holbrooke and his aides regarding Pakistan’s growing nuclear relations with China, military operations in North Waziristan and peace with India. Pakistan’s high profile delegation had to suffer the indignity of travelling all the way to the State Department to take impromptu lessons on statecraft from President Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton. President Obama was quick in his lecture to assert that the biggest threat to Pakistan’s security was from within and not India, but stopped short in admitting that this unrest within Pakistan was directly linked to the disapproval of US policies in the region.

US concessions to Pakistan are inconsistent to the aspirations of the people of Pakistan elucidated in the survey carried out by NAF-TFT-CAMP SURVEY ON A CREEPING WOT. There is hardly any economic assistance. Removal of trade barriers for Pakistani exports to USA is far away from materializing. Even the much needed disaster assistance badly needed for rehabilitation of flood victims is a trickle. There is a total absence of awareness to the fact that poverty breeds crime and radicalism. It appears that USA is waiting for just this to happen.

Pakistan-US relations are consistent with a truncated past. Regime changes, political intrigues, tied aid and trade, sanctions, military cooperation and political coercions are all part of this history. Every time that Pakistan was needed, USA derived all its objectives and left Pakistan to plummet to the instability created by a thoughtless and spineless political economy. This time round, it would be no different.

Pakistan’s policy makers also need to rethink the national narrative.

The old and conveniently updated scripts in the foreign office and GHQ have not worked. Defence of East Pakistan did not lie in West Pakistan. Kargil rather than elevating the Kashmir issue to international canvas tied it to militancy; that itself was caused by the US mock Afghan Jihad and anti Iran policies to contain the Shiite Revolution. Nuclear explosions did not lead to the settlement of the Kashmir issue nor promote peace, because Pakistan itself set the triggers of a limited conventional conflict under a nuclear shadow.

US and NATO carryout routine incursions into Pakistan with no resistance by a state armed with nuclear weapon systems. Not that we wish that these be used, but that the political credibility to handle a deterrence regime appears to be totally missing in Pakistan. So how are we sure that there are indeed good Taliban who would work for Pakistan’s interest rather than their own? After all, the majority of Pakistani Taliban were once allies of the West and Pakistan. They have now turned on their own.

Next few years are Pakistan’s time of tribulations. As the US presence in Afghanistan morphs into a Long War for geostrategic objectives, Pakistan will remain in the US crosshairs dealt with a crafty mix of placation, coercion and military intimidation. Pakistan’s attrition will continue for as long as the hare does not stop hunting with the hounds.

Though Pakistan may feel comfort in the illusion that it controls the major logistic routes to Afghanistan, the facts may be different.

Massive convoys of NATO logistics other than arms and ammunition pour into Afghanistan from Iran. The highways are teeming with traffic.

NATO and American contractors in Afghanistan opine that more than 80% of fuel is now coming to Afghanistan though Turkmenistan. Added to the smuggled and traded fuel from Iran, it leaves a very small percentage that actually travels through Pakistan. Already arrangements are in place to get uninterrupted supplies to Baghram from CARS.

Garrisons in Khowst and Sharmal opposite Waziristan are now well stocked and heavily fortified. They offer ideal forward bases for Cold Start type operations into North and South Waziristan followed by a quick disengagement and rapid withdrawal. The same can also be assessed of Spin Baldak, the garrison opposite Pakistan’s cities of Chaman and Gulistan.

Inasmuch as the establishment needs to formulate a new narrative, the people of Pakistan also need a new social contract. Pakistan has to shed its expediently imposed yoke and become a self respecting independent nation friendly with all its neighbours; or else lie back and relax to the branding of discredited, unstable and failing country.

Brigadier Samson Simon Sharaf is a retired infantry officer of Pakistan Army and honorary Colonel of the First Sindh Regiment. He has the distinct honour of serving in the Military Operations Branch GHQ during the most interesting and eventful years of Pakistan’s history. Did his Post Graduation from Quaid e Azam University with distinction. His specialization is International Political Economy with sharp focus on Nuclear Policy Making and Security.

He is a frequent speaker in national and international seminars and writes through the framework of established theoretical paradigms. His hundreds of articles though futuristic have invariably been vindicated. He has also been a High Altitude mountaineer, trekked the entire perimeter of Pakistan and explored the harsh and difficult NARA Desert in the severest summer heat. He is Rector of St. Mary’s College, the first Catholic Higher education Institution in Pakistan and CEO of both Ecotech Iternational Inc. USA and WaterTech Private Limited, Pakistan. He is a pioneer of relief water in disaster areas.





Obama’s India Trip Intended to Antagonize Pakistanis

25 10 2010

[We are witnessing some of the most cynical inhuman tactics ever used to hammer the Pakistani minds into the mold that the brain-washers have prepared for them.  The special treatment accorded India, including the royal visit, is meant to be a finger in Pakistan's eye.    The mission of the Pentagon psy-warriors is to agitate the angry beleaguered Pakistani people into helping the destabilization of their homeland, supporting the American mission for direct intervention, but it is also intended to placate the leadership.  The destabilization comes from agitating from below,  stimulating the grass roots to embrace anarchy, while calming the leadership, to avoid organized resistance to American plans from forming at the top.

Much like the "soda bottle bombs" created by curious youngsters, the American destabilization provides the violent catalytic reaction, as well as the "cork" in the bottle to contain the pressure until it reaches critical mass.  The big unknown is how Pakistan's leaders are persuaded to help keep the American poison contained in the body politic, knowing that the mixture will be lethal.]

The “Great Game” bubbles under Obama’s India trip

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at a campaign rally in Minneapolis, Minnesota October 23, 2010. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

By Alistair Scrutton and Patricia Zengerle

NEW DELHI/WASHINGTON

(Reuters) – Touted as a visit with an emerging economic power, U.S. President Barack Obama’s trip to India in November will also be about how New Delhi deals with that elephant in the room – the Pakistan-Afghanistan conundrum.

After nine years of war, there are signs the United States and President Hamid Karzai are reaching out to talk to the Taliban, and New Delhi wants to ensure any eventual settlement protects India from the risk of militant groups on its doorstep.

That could mean India reaching out for regional initiatives to ensure a stable Afghanistan, including closer ties with Iran and Russia — all Afghan neighbors worried about the Taliban in their backyard – if Washington cuts and runs.

“There is a realization in India that the United States is not going to preserve your interests. You are going to have to,” said Srinath Raghavan, a senior fellow at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi.

“India is looking more at having an insurance policy in Afghanistan rather than playing an active role”

India and the United States largely see eye to eye over a range of issues as the former Cold War ally of the Soviet Union increasingly turns to the West. The two may see their interests diverge over Afghanistan, although it is little threat to wider ties, as Obama’s trip — his longest presidential trip to any one country — shows.

India is Afghanistan’s biggest regional aid donor and its $1.3 billion of projects, from building a parliament to a highway to Iran, shows how New Delhi seeks to counter the Taliban.

Washington has been happy to see that aid, but not its ally Pakistan, India’s archrival and fellow nuclear power, especially the Pakistan military which sees Afghanistan as its own backyard.

“India thinks that the U.S. is placing too much reliance on Pakistan in Afghanistan, and it’s not to be trusted,” said Walter Andersen, a former U.S. State Department official now at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

He said Obama could take advantage of India’s rivalry with Pakistan to pressure Islamabad to do more on Afghanistan. “I’ve often wondered why he didn’t do it earlier,” Andersen said.

What India fears most is a return to the 1990s, when the Pakistan-backed Taliban’s rule coincided with a spurt in cross-border militant attacks in India, and a sense that militants could act with impunity in the region.

India has already blamed Pakistan for a “proxy war” in Afghanistan that in recent years has seen a car bomb attack on the Indian embassy.

WHAT IS OBAMA THINKING?

The trouble for India is knowing exactly what Obama plans to do in Afghanistan – when will troops be withdrawn, or how many? What influence could the Taliban have in any peace settlement ?

U.S. journalist Bob Woodward’s new book “Obama’s Wars” underscored for many commentators that Obama’s administration is deeply divided over its Afghan strategy.

“Once we have clarity what the United States wants to do, we can play the end game,” said Siddharth Varadarajan, strategic affairs editor of The Hindu newspaper. “Whether for example to better ties with neighbors likeIran.”

That would mean a fine-balancing act over Iran as the United States steps up sanctions. India has already discussed reviving talks over a gas pipeline from Iran and there have been an increasing number of official visits between the two nations.

But so far U.S. ties have improved after hiccups at the start of Obama’s presidency, when New Delhi successfully blocked attempts by Washington to include a Kashmir solution as part of a strategy to bring stability to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

India sees Kashmir as a bilateral issue and dismisses any outside influence.

India’s relations with Pakistan have been at a low ebb since the Mumbai attacks in 2008 whenPakistani militants crossed over to India’s financial hub and killed 166 people.

With Mumbai etched in Indians’ minds, New Delhi will likely tell Washington to be cautious about Pakistan and talking to the Taliban, but New Delhi has so far avoided upping tension with Islamabad, a policy that has won plaudits in Washington.

“There’s no evidence — certainly not in the Woodward book — that the administration thinks of India regarding Afghanistan in terms other than asking it not to pressure Pakistan,” Stephen P. Cohen, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, wrote in an email reply.

India has also showed reluctance to get embroiled further in Afghanistan. Despite its aid, New Delhi has backed off from more ambitious proposals to train the Afghan army and police.

“India is a secondary player in Afghanistan,” said C. Raja Mohan, strategic affairs editor at the Indian Express.

So India may push small initiatives, like reinforcing support of leaders linked to the North Alliance — the anti-Taliban grouping which India backed in the 1990s.

“We can’t figure out a way to use India, which is a regional power,” wrote Cohen. The bitter rivals seem destined to play opposing roles in Afghanistan, he said.

(Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)





US missile defence plans could spark EU-Nato tensions

24 10 2010

US missile defence plans could spark EU-Nato tensions

With the US overstretched, the EU may turn to Turkey and Russia for a security agenda closer to its 21st-century needs

  • Iranian short-range missile fired near Qom, 2009
    Closer co-operation with Russia and Turkey could offer the EU greater protection against a potential Iranian missile threat. Photograph: Shaigan/AFP/Getty Images

    The Obama administration’s drive to persuade Nato countries to back itsrevamped missile defence plans is bringing longstanding tensions over European security into the open, to the potential advantage of Russia and Turkey, the maverick guardians of the EU’s eastern flank.

    With a crucial Nato summit in Lisbon only a month away, the US is increasing pressure on Ankara. Defence secretary Robert Gates said this week that Washington would not ask Nato member Turkey to provide new bases for missile systems. “But we do look to Turkey to support Nato’s adoption at Lisbon of a territorial missile defence capability,” he said. Turkey worries the $280m missile upgrade will be seen to be targeted at next-door Iran – which is indeed its main purpose, in American eyes at least. “We do not perceive any threat from any neighbour countries and we do not think our neighbours form a threat to Nato,” said foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

    As Turkey’s neo-Islamist government tries to juggle east and west, Hurriyet commentator Semih Idiz said “an increasingly apparent ideological divide is growing between Turkey and the US in particular, and Turkey and Europe to a lesser extent … Turkey could easily end up having to choose between the alliance and Iran”.

    But analyst Sertac Aktan suggested Ankara could turn the situation to its advantage, offering limited co-operation in return for increased American pressure on France and Germany to unfreeze Turkey’s EU membership bid. “Deploy new missiles for the sake of Europe? The Europe we so much want to be in but just can’t get in?” Aktan asked. “Well, Washington thought about that too and that is why one of the top agenda items of the US-EU summit set to take place right after the Nato summit is going to be Turkey’s EU membership.”

    Russia is also following the missile defence discussions closely, in the context of its desire for closer security co-operation with the EU. Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, spent the past two days in Deauville discussing this and other issues with French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel. Russia has expressed fears the missile shield could be used to neutralise its defences. But after receiving Franco-German assurances, Medvedev said on Tuesday that Moscow was interested in closer co-operation and that he planned to attend the Nato summit.

    The price of Russia’s support may cause unease in Washington and London. Medvedev’s signature policy is his quest for new “European security architecture” that would inevitably reduce the American role on the continent, and potentially undermine Nato – a historical Russian goal.

    France and Germany now appear to be seriously flirting with this idea amid talk of a joint economic and security co-operation zone with Russia and shared EU-Russia forums. To Britain, not invited to Deauville, and the US, this talk begins to sound like a revival of the 2003 French-German-Russian axis against the Iraq war. Though both seek improved ties with Russia, they put the transatlantic alliance first.

    Mark Leonard, co-author of a new European council on foreign relations report entitled “The spectre of a multipolar Europe“, suggests enhanced co-operation between the EU, Turkey and Russia is both unavoidable and desirable. Current European security structures were dysfunctional, European capitals were pulling in different directions, and “the US is no longer focused on Europe’s internal security … and is no longer a European power”, he said.

    The report argues that the American-directed post-cold war order is unravelling. It had failed to prevent wars in Georgia and Kosovo, disruption of Europe’s energy supplies, and ongoing instability on the EU’s eastern borders with the Black Sea and Caucasus regions. America was distracted by Iran, the Middle East and the rise of China. Thus the EU must seek new strategic partners.

    “An informal ‘trialogue’ involving the EU, Turkey and Russia should be established,” Leonard said. Turkey was an emerging regional power. To keep Ankara on side, its EU membership application should be fast-forwarded.

    At the same time. Europe should directly engage Moscow’s new “westpolitik”, he said. “A European security identity should be fostered by encouraging the involvement of Russia in projects like missile defence.”

    Britain’s Conservative-led government is unlikely to support an enhanced role for the EU over Nato. But others may do so. In this way, it is argued, Europe may eventually replace the American-led security agenda with one of its own, more closely tailored to its 21st-century needs.





TX Tea Party Candidate Talks About Revolution

24 10 2010

Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is ‘on the table’

By MELANIE MASON / The Dallas Morning News

mmason@dallasnews.com

WASHINGTON – Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallaspastor, said a violent uprising “is not the first option,” but it is “on the table.” That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks “inappropriate.”Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep.Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas’ heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Johnson’s campaign declined to comment on Broden.In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation’s government as tyrannical.”We have a constitutional remedy,” Broden said then. “And the Framers say if that don’t work, revolution.”Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to “alter it or abolish it.”"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary,” Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt againstBritain’s King George III.Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.”The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms,” Broden said, without elaborating. “However, it is not the first option.”ReactionsJonathan Neerman, head of the Dallas County Republican Party, said he’s never heard Broden or other local Republican candidates advocate violence against the government.”It is a disappointing, isolated incident,” Neerman said. He said he plans to discuss the matter with Broden’s campaign.Ken Emanuelson, a Broden supporter and leading tea party organizer in Dallas, said he did not disagree with the “philosophical point” that people had the right to resist a tyrannical government.But, he said, “Do I see our government today anywhere close to that point? No, I don’t.”Emanuelson said he’s occasionally heard people call for direct action against the government, but that they typically do not get involved in electoral politics.That Broden is “engaged in the election and running for office shows he’s got faith in the system as it is,” Emanuelson said.Other statementsAlso in the interview, Broden backed away from other controversial statements he has made at rallies and on cable news appearances.In June 2009, he described the economic crash in the housing, banking and automotive industries as “contrived” and a “set up” by the Obama administration.Asked Thursday about the validity of these, Broden said they were “authentic crises facing this nation.”Broden also retreated from other remarks last year that chided Americans for not being more outraged over government intrusion, comparing them to Jews “walking into the furnaces” under the Nazi regime in Germany.”They are our enemies, and we must resist them,” he said of government leaders.Broden said Thursday that he wasn’t trying to compare President Barack Obama to Hitler and he mistakenly linked the U.S. in 2010 to Nazi Germany.In the uphill campaign against Johnson, Broden has sought to capitalize on her misuse of scholarship funds from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, a nonprofit entity.In late August, The Dallas Morning News reported that Johnson provided 23 scholarships over five years to two of her grandsons, two children of her nephew, and two children of her top aide in Dallas. None of those recipients were eligible under the foundation’s anti-nepotism rules or residency requirements. She has repaid the foundation more than $31,000.

 





Vive La Resistance! Thank God for France

24 10 2010

Revolting France.

POSTED BY ALI.MOSTAQUE

France is the most popular country for tourists in the world. The country with its interesting mix of Latin, Celtic and Germanic people is world famous for its leisurely pace of life, “Joies de iavie“. 

Unfortunately it is experiencing a fundamental clash, as with many other nations between the Internationalist globalists banker class represented by Sarkozy (Mossad agent, put into power by the USA on a rabid anti-immigrant ticket) VERSES ordinary French people, and the fundamental way of doing things the French way. The issues being fought for is thus not just about retirement, and the little matter of 2 years more, but go far more deeper.

France was buffeted from the global recession partly because the government plays such a significant part in the national economy. 50% of the economy is taken up by the government, and there are 5 million state employees. Such state control protects the economy from the whims, crimes and fraud of the International bankers, which have afflicted other nations such as the USA. However it must be equally said that the International bankers are as keen to see their agenda imposed in France, the cultural power house of the West and a not inconsiderable economy, as they are else where from Haiti, Chile or Russia. To this end Mossad Sarkozy will do their bidding, and implement their programs, which of course ordinary Frenchmen will not like.

The crimes and fraud of the International Bankers centers around “The City” London and New York. These are two cities and countries where the “clever” financial schemes were deliberately cooked up and sold to the rest of the world, which has had such an adverse affect for the rest of us. For the crimes of the International bankers in the UK especially and also the USA, the ordinary public must pay, jobs must be lost, benefits must be cut, ‘Phantom” wars must be prosecuted in foreign countries, and the Bankers must be given their Kleenex to wipe away their debts and tears, together with PUBLIC bailout money. The Bankers control the governments in London and Washington, so no questions will be asked about the massive crime of fraud, instead the medicine will be presented to the people as fait a compli.

But in France? Do the Bankers control the government, and through force can the government control the French people? Through a show of force as Interior minister, and water cannons Mossad Sarkozy came to power. Can he now win through using the same tactics against the whole of France?

_______________

Vive La Resistance!

Thank God for France

By MIKE WHITNEY

Thank God for France. While American liberals tremble at the idea of sending an angry e mail to congress for fear that their name will appear on the State Department’s list of terrorists, French workers are on the front lines choking on tear gas and fending off billyclubs in hand-to-hand combat with Sarkozy’s Gendarmerie. That’s because the French haven’t forgotten their class roots. When the government gets too big for its britches, people pour out onto to the streets and Paris becomes a warzone replete with overturned Mercedes Benzs, smashed storefront windows, and stacks of smoldering tires issuing pillars of black smoke. This is what democracy looks like when it hasn’t been emasculated by decades of propaganda and consumerism. Here’s a blurp from the trenches:

Headline:

“French Energy Sector Crippled by Nationwide Strike… French energy facilities are close to total disruption in the wake of nationwide strike against the raise of the retirement age…..France has been hit by numerous protests across the country against a controversial pension reform that would rise the retirement age to 62 from 60….On October 22 morning 80 protesters blockaded Grandpuits oil refinery outside Paris, key supplier for Charles de Gaulle and Orly international airport.” (The Financial)

Shut ‘em down.

Take note, Tea Party crybabies who moan about restoring “our freedoms” while stuffing the backyard bunker with seed corn and ammo. Glenn Beck won’t save you from the “mean old” gov’mint. Liberty isn’t free anymore. If you want it, get out of the barko-lounger and organize. The amount of freedom that any nation enjoys is directly proportionate to the amount of blood its people spilled fighting the state. No more, no less. The man who is willing to accept the blunt force of a cop’s truncheon on his back is infinitely more praiseworthy than the leftist/rightist scribe crooning from the bleachers. The state isn’t moved by lyrical editorials or prosaic manifestos. It responds to force alone, which is why it takes people who are willing to “throw themselves on the gears” of the apparatus and stop it from moving forward. Unfortunately, most of those people appear to live in France.

The resistance is steadily building in France. The budding rebellion is cropping up everywhere—”secondary schools, train stations, refineries and highways have been blockaded, there have been occupations of public buildings, workplaces, commercial centers, directed cuts of electricity, and ransacking of electoral institutions and town halls…” And the big unions are calling for more strikes, more agitation, more ferment.

For more than a week, transportation has been blocked across the France due to the protests by students and workers. Sarkozy’s popularity has plummeted. 65% of people surveyed don’t like the way the French president is handling the strikes. 79% of the people would like to see Sarkozy negotiate with the Union on terms and conditions, but he won’t budge. Thus, the cauldron continues to boil while the prospect of violence rises.

“STRIKE, BLOCKADE, SABOTAGE”

This is from an anonymous striker:

“In each city, these actions are intensifying the power struggle and demonstrate that many are no longer satisfied with the order imposed by the union leadership. In the Paris region, amongst the blockades of train stations and secondary schools, the strikes in the primary schools, the workers pickets in front of the factories, people create inter-professional meetings and collectives of struggle are founded to destroy categorical isolation and separation. Their starting point: self-organization to meet the need to take ownership over our struggles without the mediation of those who claim to speak for workers.

We decided Saturday to occupy the Opera Bastille. This was to disturb a presentation that was live on radio, to play the trouble makers in a place where the cultural merchandise circulates and to organize an assembly there. So we met with more than a thousand people at the “place de la nation”, with banners stating “the bosses understand only one language: Strike, blockade, sabotage.” (end of communique)

The action was met with predictable police violence and mass arrests.

The pension turmoil is not limited to France either. US pension funds are underfunded by nearly $3 trillion. Will US workers be as willing as their French counterparts to face the beatings (to defend “what’s theirs”) or will they throw up their hands and appeal to Obama for help?

There’s no question that Washington elites have joined with Wall Street to offload the massive debts from the financial meltdown onto workers and retirees. Nor is their any doubt that they will invoke (what Slavoj Zizek calls) a “permanent state of economic emergency” to justify their actions. That will allow them to move ahead with so-called “austerity measures” that are designed to impoverish workers and strip popular government programs of their funding. The trend towards “belt-tightening” merely masks the ongoing class war which is aimed at restoring a feudal system of royalty and serfs.

This is from an article by economist Mark Weisbrot:

“If the French want to keep the retirement age as is, there are plenty of ways to finance future pension costs without necessarily raising the retirement age. One of them, which has support among the French left – and which Sarkozy claims to support at the international level — would be a tax on financial transactions. Such a “speculation tax” could raise billions of dollars of revenue – as it currently does in the U.K. – while simultaneously discouraging speculative trading in financial assets and derivatives. The French unions and protesters are demanding that the government consider some of these more progressive alternatives.”

But the retirement age is not really the issue at all. This is about union busting and “putting people in their place.” It’s about “who will call-the-shots” and in whose interests will society be run.

The French are fighting back against this “oligarchy of racketeers” and the ripoff system they represent, while, namby-pamby Americans are neutralized by signing their umpteenth petition or venting their spleen at a Palin rally.

Vive la France. Vive la Résistance.

________________________________

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state and can be reached atfergiewhitney@msn.com








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers