About
Contact
Membership
Store
Donate
Archives
USA
Canada
Latin America
Africa
Middle East
Europe
Russia
Asia
Oceania
Notre site en Français: mondialisation.ca Italiano Deutsch Português srpski
US Nato War
Economy
Civil Rights
Environment
Search Authors...
Search...
Poverty
Media
Justice
Globalizacion | Asia-Pacific Research GR Newsletter, Enter Email
9/11
War Crimes
Militarization
History
Science
Fading American economic and military dominance: Lesser US role foreseen in 2025
Latest News & Top Stories
November 20th, 2008 by Global Research Pompeo Might Have Pulled the Plug on Armenian-Iranian Trade The “Libya Model” Is a Distraction. John Bolton’s Template for Threatening North Korea Can We Call It a Coup Now? The Monsanto Papers: Roundup (Glyphosate) Cancer Case Key Documents & Analysis Trump, the NRA, Mass Shootings and the American Culture of Death At the U.N., Trudeau Opposes an Investigation into Israel’s Shooting of Unarmed Civilians – Including a Canadian Doctor Most Popular All Articles Report Exposes UK Role in Saudi Arabia’s War on Yemen Haspel Is Not the Problem. The CIA Is the Problem. Letter from Iran: Mr. Trump, You Have Been Served Law Society Lauds South Africa Encouraging Peace in Israel Pompeo Threatens Toughest Ever US Actions on Iran Tom Wolfe the Parajournalist How the “Skripal Effect” Was Stopped The Orwellian Climate and Faustian Bargain Trump-Pompeo’s Twelve “Idiotic-Insulting” Demands Upon Iran
Global Research Publishers
Intelligence panel warns of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East LAHORE: The top US intelligence panel is expected to issue a snapshot of the world in 2025, in a report that predicts fading American economic and military dominance and warns of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East – with the region likely to remain an ‘arc of instability’ over the next two decades. The predictions come from a National Intelligence Council (NIC) report – a draft copy of which is titled ‘Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World’ – slated for release as early as Thursday. “The US will remain the single most powerful country, although less dominant,” according to a ‘working draft’ of the document. Thomas Fingar – deputy director of national intelligence for analysis – gave his long-term assessment before the release of the global intelligence outlook. He said the release of the ‘stimulative document’ was meant to coincide with the transition to the new US administration. Fingar said almost nothing in the document was ‘inevitable’. For the first time, an NIC report makes the ‘assumption of a multi-polar future’. The draft says, “The next 20 years of transition towards a new international system are fraught with risks, such as a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. “If one looks at the globe as a whole, the Middle East … is one (region) in which almost every problem that will challenge political leadership anywhere on the globe is to be found,” said Fingar. “The challenges in the Middle East will be among the most significant.” The Middle East as a source of oil and gas would remain a focus of international attention, he said, “We see the region at the centre of an arc of instability”. The world’s population is projected to grow by 1.4 billion. However, the world order would be shifting and there would be multiple centres of power – inherently less stable than a world with one or two superpowers, Fingar cautioned. “By 2025 China will have the world’s second-largest economy and will be a leading military power,” says the report. “At its current growth rate, Russia is on a path to become the world’s fifth-largest economy in 20 years.” About terrorism, Fingar said that Al Qaeda’s ideology had a ‘waning appeal’. But the expected population boom in the Middle East means more potential terrorism recruits and weapons may be more lethal. Posted in English No Comments
UN to send more troops to DR Congo November 20th, 2008 by Global Research The UN Security Council has voted to send about 3,000 additional peacekeepers to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to help prevent a new war in the country’s east. The vote was passed unanimously on Thursday, as reports of clashes between Tutsi rebels and pro-government fighters threatened a ceasefire deal that has seen hundreds of rebels pull back from frontline positions. The AFP news agency quoted an unnamed security source as saying that fighting had broken out at the villages of Katoro and Nyongera, near Kiwanja in North Kivu province. The UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC, known as Monuc, is the UN’s biggest and the reinforcements will bring it to just over 20,000 troops and police. But the mission has been criticised by Aid organisations for allowing a humanitarian disaster to develop. John Sawers, the UK’s ambassador to the UN, told Al Jazeera that the new UN force would be deployed as fast as possible. “Certainly, we will want to help countries that are ready to deploy, we want to try to assist them as best we can in getting troops on the ground rapidly,” he said. “It’s important that there’s a Monuc peacekeeping force with the capacity to oversee the implementation of a political framework. How long it will be, we’re not sure, but this is a matter of urgency.” Unconfirmed clashes Fighters with government-backed Mai-Mai forces have accused UN peacekeepers of fighting alongside the Tutsi rebels loyal to Laurent Nkunda, a renegade DRC army general. “Monuc fired on our forces, they found themselves in difficulty called for help to the CNDP … it is a CNDP/Monuc coalition against the Mai-Mai,” said Didier Bitaki, a Mai-Mai spokesman, refering to Nkunda’s National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP). “The CNDP are trying to dislodge us from Katoro.” Lieutenant Colonel Jean-Paul Dietrich, a spokesman for Monuc, could not immediately confirm or deny the report. Ethnic tensions On Wednesday, Monuc peacekeepers opened fire on Mai-Mai fighters in the region after two of their armoured cars came under fire from them while on patrol. Bertrand Bisimwa, a spokesman for Nkunda’s CNDP, said the use of heavy weapons in the fighting meant that government troops and Rwandan Hutu rebels were involved in the fighting, adding that the Hutu force was fighting alongside the government soldiers. “They tried to advance on our positions at around 6.30 am (04:30 GMT) to take Kiwanja,” said Bisimwa. Nkunda has repeatedly accused the government of backing the Rwanda Hutu fighters, some of whom – according to Rwanda – took part in the 1994 genocide of Tutsis in their country. Rebel withdrawal The latest reports of fighting come a day after hundreds of Tutsi fighters pulled back from the frontline, a move welcomed by the UN as a step toward brokering peace in the DRC’s North Kivu region. UN foot and air patrols monitored the rebels’ withdrawal. Amid the ceasefire, aid workers scrambled to reach more of the 300,000 hungry, exhausted refugees displaced by the fighting. Romain Gitenet, a field coordinator for Medicine San Frontiere based in Nairobi, told Al Jazeera the situation was “critical”. “Families are separated, when there is fighting there is panic and they escape,” he said. “People are exposed to the rainy season, they are in the forest, they are in the bush and the lucky ones are in the camps.” Angola meeting The rebel pullback has raised hopes for peace talks that could end the violence in eastern Congo. Joseph Kabila, the Congolese president, has said he will discuss the conflict in his country with Angola’s president on Friday. The DRC recently asked Angola for political and military support to tackle the advance of Nkunda’s forces, but the Angolan government, which has one of sub-Saharan Africa’s biggest armies, has repeatedly said it will not interfere directly in the conflict. The Angolan military backed the Congolese government in the DRC’s 1998-2003 war. Posted in English No Comments
French Charge Rwandan Official in 1994 Presidential Assassination November 20th, 2008 by Global Research
Click Here To Order Online NEWS THEMES I-BOOKS SERIES IN-DEPTH REPORTS GLOBAL RESEARCH VIDEOS THE GLOBAL RESEARCH NEWS HOUR
Join Us On Facebook
French judicial officials have charged a key aide of Rwanda’s president over the assassination of a former president of the country, amid national protests over her arrest. Germany extradited Rose Kabuye, who now serves as chief of protocol to President Paul Kagame, 10 days after police acting on a French warrant arrested her as she arrived at Frankfurt airport. The French warrant connected Kabuye to the downing of an aircraft in 1994 in which Juvenal Habyarimana, then Rwanda’s president, was killed. French officials took charge of her in Frankfurt, and she was flown to Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris aboard an Air France aeroplane. From there she was transferred to the main law courts in Paris to appear before Marc Trevidic, an anti-terrorism investigating magistrate, Bernard Maingain, Kabuye’s lawyer, told the AFP news agency. Under investigation Judicial officials confirmed that Kabuye was put under judicial investigation – in effect, charged – with “complicity in murder in relation to terrorism”. She was later released on condition she not leave France without permission and appear when requested by magistrates, her lawyers said. “I’m not so scared because I am very innocent,” Kabuye said on the France24 television news channel after being released. “I know that when I get a chance to explain what happened everything will be okay, so I am not scared.” Habyarimana’s death sparked a genocide which consequently engulfed the country. Authorities in France began investigating the attack because the two pilots of the aircraft were French. They suspect Kabuye of housing the Tutsi commando unit blamed for shooting down the jet. Hutus killed more than 500,000 people, mostly minority Tutsis, before fighters led by Kagame drove them from the country. His government claims that France armed the Hutu militias and former government troops who led the genocide. Kigali protests Thousands of Rwandans turned out to protest in Kigali, the country’s capital, on Wednesday against the expected extradition. Yvonne Ndege, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Kigali, said: “There has been a huge amount of public anger over the extradition … she is considered a heroic figure here. “People have been protesting all over the country. They are demanding an immediate release of Rose Kabuye and a repatriation of her to her home in Rwanda. “All evidence that we have seen is that most of these protests have been organised by community leaders and individuals who are simply outraged by her arrest. “Bear in mind that she is credited with being part of the new government that put an end to the genocide here in 1994. Women have been chaining themselves to the gates of the German embassy here.” Posted in English No Comments
Caucasus security talks “productive” November 20th, 2008 by Global Research Practical steps to ensure security in the Caucasus and the return of refugees in the wake of the August conflict in South Ossetia have been agreed in Geneva. The second round of talks involved Russia and Georgia, while South Ossetia and Abkhazia took part in the discussions for the first time. The European Union, the United Nations, and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) co-chaired the talks on Tuesday and Wednesday. An earlier round of negotiations that began on October 15 was suspended after Georgia refused to attend meetings involving Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The UN Secretary General’s special envoy for Georgia, Johan Verbeke, told a news conference after the meetings that the participants had moved on from procedural discussions and had agreed on steps to demarcate borders and return refugees. “I’d call this a quantum leap. All of the delegations did speak, all of the delegations listened,” he said. Working group sessions were held to discuss the means of preventing further violence. EU Special Representative for the Georgia crisis Pierre Morel noted that “all the participants in these working groups were fully engaged in a productive discussion on the key questions of the security and stability of the region, and of displaced people as well as refugees”. Morel said, though, that the situation in the Caucasus remains unstable. Shootings and abductions have been reported along the border between Georgia and South Ossetia after the armed conflict, with the sides blaming each other for continuing violence. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov praised the result of the Geneva discussions, saying they might contribute to creating an atmosphere of trust. “We take part in them for this purpose. But we are aware of new realities in the region. From now on Russia ensures the security of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in order to avoid new provocations,” Lavrov said. Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin, who represented Russia at the talks, said Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia were equally represented. “It was critically important that all three Caucasus states had absolutely equal representation in all activities, without exception,” he told journalists in Geneva. Karasin also said Russia would continue to press for an embargo on offensive arms supplies to Georgia and a legally binding pledge from Tbilisi not to use force against South Ossetia and Abkhazia. A Georgian Foreign Ministry official taking part in the talks, Shota Utiashvili, welcomed the outcome of the talks. He added, however, that talks on Georgian refugees’ return to the disputed areas and the establishment of international monitors’ presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia – which the republics have opposed – will be a lengthy process. The third round of talks has been scheduled for December 17-18. Posted in English No Comments
Piracy payback: UN plans blitz on Somali bases November 20th, 2008 by Global Research The United Nations is reportedly planning military action against east African pirates. A source close to the UN Security Council told RT it’s considering authorising a raid on bases along the Somali coast. If this happens, armed strikes could target land bases of known pirates threatening boats in the Gulf of Aden. The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council the surge in piracy against ships along the Somali coast has affected trade, and contributed to a humanitarian crisis. He also said the country’s transitional federal government is suffering. The East African nation has been without a functioning government since 1991 and has no navy to police its coastline. In early June, the UN Security Council passed a resolution permitting countries to enter Somalia’s territorial waters to combat “acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea.” The UN Charter allows the Council to order action like this if there is a perceived threat to peace or security. Now the UN Security Council is expected to pass resolutions to freeze the assets and restrict the travel of individuals and organisations who violate the country’s arms embargo. Pirates’ trophies The crew of at least seventeen ships are being held hostage by pirates off Somalia, including three vessels seized in the past two days: a Greek bulk carrier, a Thai fishing boat and an Iranian bulk freighter. International concern over shipping safety in the region has risen since a huge tanker, the Sirius Star, carrying up to 2 million barrels of Saudi oil was seized on Saturday. Nine ships have been hijacked in the area in just two weeks. Over two hundred sailors are being held hostage by Somali pirates. Indian warship sinks pirate vessel On Wednesday pirates saw the first failure after a series of successful seizures. An Indian navy warship Tabar sank a pirate vessel in the Gulf of Aden when it attempted to ram Tabar. The Indian ship is part of a multi-national force patrolling the region where one in ten merchant vessels comes under attack. It is a multi-purpose vessel built at a Russian shipbuilding plant in St Petersburg. The ship entered the Indian Navy in 2004. Tabar is capable of leading military actions against ships and submarines as well as counter air attacks. Earlier Tabar took part in battles with pirates. In early November it countered the attack at the Indian cargo ship Jag Arnav, making the pirates flee. Indian military vessels were dispatched to the Gulf of Aden on October 3. Posted in English No Comments
Russia says president’s Latin America tour not aimed against U.S. November 20th, 2008 by Global Research Russia’s foreign minister rejected on Wednesday media allegations that President Dmitry Medvedev’s upcoming November tour of Latin American countries is aimed against the United States. Medvedev will take part in the November 22-23 APEC summit in Lima, and is expected to pay official visits to Brazil, as well as Venezuela and Cuba, whose leaderships strongly oppose U.S. influence in the region. Sergei Lavrov, who is currently in Colombia, said: “I have read Colombian media reports, and discussed them with my colleague Jaime Bermudez. Of course, when the Russian president’s visit is seen as targeted against the U.S., this is just a race for sensationalist news. If this will help to sell boost Colombian newspaper sales, then at least there’s some use in it.” “But seriously, such assessments are a residue of the Cold War era, when people say that anything that benefits Washington is bad for Moscow, and vice versa,” he said. Colombia’s pro-U.S. president, Alvaro Uribe, has been strongly criticized by Venezuela, one of the countries Medvedev is set to visit. Uribe has been branded “Bush’s poodle” by President Hugo Chavez, who has also described Columbia as “the Israel of Latin America.” Speaking on the joint naval exercises between Russia and Venezuela, to be held later this month, Lavrov said Russia “made no secret of its military and technical cooperation” with all its partners, and that the Colombian defense minister was informed of the drills during his visit to Russia. Also addressing reporters after the talks, Bermudez said that Colombia is keen to expand cooperation with Russia. “Without doubt, the U.S. is an important partner for Colombia in trade, and we also have projects that help us achieve success in the struggle against drug trafficking and organized crime. But Colombia has always said that these relations do not exclude ties with other countries,” he said. “We would like to cooperate actively with Russia in the political, trade, economic and investment spheres, and we plan to actively work to expand the possibilities for our cooperation.” Posted in English No Comments
How Guantánamo Can Be Closed November 20th, 2008 by Andy Worthington author’s website www.andyworthington.co.uk
In a previous article, Andy Worthington, author of The Guantánamo Files, examined the reasons why Barack Obama must stick to his election promise to close the “War on Terror” prison at Guantánamo Bay, focusing on the Bush administration’s callous disregard for domestic and international laws, its pursuit of unfettered executive power, the disturbing effects of its policy of offering bounty payments for al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects, the equally disturbing ramifications of its refusal to screen prisoners according to the Geneva Conventions, and the corrupt tribunals established at Guantánamo to rubberstamp the prisoners’ designation as “enemy combatants.” This second article examines how Barack Obama’s promise to close the prison can be fulfilled. The 50 prisoners cleared for release Of the 255 prisoners currently held at Guantánamo, around 50 have been “approved for transfer” — many for at least three years — but they remain in Guantánamo, mostly imprisoned in conditions that would task the resilience of the most hardened convicted criminals on the US mainland, for two particular reasons. The first is because they are from countries with notoriously poor human rights records (including China, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Uzbekistan) or unstable regimes like Iraq, and cannot be returned because of international treaties preventing the return of foreign nationals to countries where they face the risk of torture. The second reason is that the administration’s insistence that they are still “enemy combatants” (or are “no longer enemy combatants”) has deterred other countries from accepting them. Even though State Department representatives have been touring the world for the last three years in an attempt to relocate some of these men, the only third country that has been prevailed upon to accept any of them is Albania, which took eight former prisoners in 2006. I am reliably informed that there are certain career officials in the State Department who have been anxiously awaiting a new administration, in the expectation that it will facilitate greater cooperation between the United States and its allies in Europe, and that some of these countries might now agree to help the United States out of the hole dug by the Bush administration, which regularly made matters worse by criticizing other countries for not helping out. In August 2007, for example, President Bush stated, “I did say it should be a goal of the nation to shut down Guantánamo,” but added, “I also made it clear that part of the delay was the reluctance of some nations to take back some of the people being held there.” To this end, several prominent human rights and legal organizations — including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Center for Constitutional Rights — launched a campaign in Berlin on November 10 aimed at persuading European countries to accept cleared prisoners from Guantánamo. This is laudable, as it is clearly intolerable that these men remain imprisoned at Guantánamo (and, as it stands, makes Barack Obama’s mission to close the prison impossible), but if the President-Elect really wants to do the right thing, which will also send out a positive message to the United States’ allies abroad, then he should make the first move by allowing the 17 remaining Uighurs at Guantánamo (Muslims from China’s Xinjiang province, who had fled to Afghanistan to escape Chinese persecution) to settle in the United States. The Uighurs scored a major victory this summer, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Guantánamo prisoners had constitutional habeas corpus rights. This ruling unlocked hundreds of habeas cases that had stalled in the lower courts following the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which purported to strip the prisoners of the habeas rights granted by the Supreme Court in 2004. When the first of these cases, that of a Uighur prisoner called Huzaifa Parhat, was finally reviewed by the Court of Appeals in Washington D.C., the judges ruled that Parhat’s designation as an “enemy combatant” was invalid, and derided the government’s “evidence” as being akin to a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. In the months that followed, the cases against all 17 Uighurs crumbled, as the government admitted that it would “serve no purpose” to continue trying to prove that Parhat was an “enemy combatant,” and then did the same for his 16 compatriots. In October, when Judge Ricardo Urbina of the US District Court in Washington D.C. held a hearing to determine what should happen to the Uighurs, he declared, “Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful.” Furthermore, because no third country had been found that would accept the men, he ordered their release to the care of communities in the Washington D.C. area, and Tallahassee, Florida, who had put together detailed plans for their resettlement in the United States. This was a proud moment for American justice, but the Uighurs never made it to Washington D.C. or Tallahassee. Instead, the government appealed, the Justice Department wheeled out its old and discredited allegations about the men being connected to terrorism (thereby stymieing attempts to find a third country to take them), and, in a brief filed for hearings next week, asserted that the executive branch “has authority to hold aliens in detention even if they are not considered enemies of the US,” adding, for good measure, “even if the detention is indefinite, it is still lawful.” This is clearly an intolerable situation. As the only prisoners at Guantánamo who have ever persuaded the Bush administration to drop its claims that they are “enemy combatants,” the Uighurs deserve the lifeline extended to them by Judge Urbina. If the appeal goes against them, the new administration should make their release into the United States a priority. The 80 prisoners scheduled to face trial by Military Commission President-Elect Obama has already pledged to repeal the Military Commissions Act, which revived the Bush administration’s deeply flawed “terror trials” after the Supreme Court ruled them illegal in June 2006. This should be a priority after January 20, 2009, and should be accompanied by a thorough and independent review of the cases against the 80 or so prisoners facing (or scheduled to face) a trial by Military Commission.
What’s important to note is that the administration’s figure can be whittled down without any difficulty. Of the 17 prisoners currently facing trial by Military Commission, for example, two — Omar Khadr (photo, left) and Mohamed Jawad — were juveniles when they were seized, and should have been rehabilitated rather then punished under the terms of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (on the involvement of children in armed conflict). Moreover, significant doubts have been expressed about the quality of the evidence against them, with legitimate claims made by their military defense attorneys (and, in Jawad’s case, by his former prosecutor, who resigned in September) that evidence vital to the defense was deliberately suppressed. In addition, another three of the 17 are, at best, minor Afghan insurgents who are not accused of killing US forces, and have no connection with al-Qaeda. All these prisoners should be released. Others who have expressed doubts about the Pentagon’s figures are senior officials who spoke to the New York Times in 2004, when a total of 749 prisoners had been held at Guantánamo. In interviews, the Times explained, “dozens of high-level military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the United States, Europe and the Middle East said that contrary to the repeated assertions of senior administration officials, none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of al-Qaeda. They said only a relative handful — some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen — were sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization’s inner workings.” To these can be added some, or perhaps the majority of the ten prisoners transferred to Guantánamo from secret CIA prisons in September 2004, the 14 “high-value detainees” — including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators — who were transferred in September 2006, and two of the six prisoners who arrived at Guantánamo between March 2007 and March 2008. These prisoners — somewhere between 35 and 50 in total — are the only ones who should be moved to the US mainland to face trials in federal courtrooms. There will inevitably be problems — protecting confidential intelligence sources, for example, and, in particular, dealing with evidence obtained through torture — but I can see no other alternative. The trials as they stand are an abomination, permeated with systemic pro-prosecution bias, and capable of handing down a life sentence only in a one-sided show trial (that of Ali Hamza alBahlul), which passed largely unnoticed in the week before the Presidential election. Holding prisoners forever without charge or trial is clearly an untenable solution, as it simply perpetuates the Bush administration’s crimes, and recent suggestions — by both Democrats and Republicans — that another new trial system should be instigated, or that a form of “preventive detention” should be introduced, are just as redolent of the arrogance of the Bush years, and indicate that those proposing them have learned nothing from the abuse of the Constitution over the last seven years.
In addition, one extra problem that President Obama may have to deal with as soon as he takes office concerns Salim Hamdan, the driver for Osama bin Laden who was convicted of material support for terrorism (but cleared of conspiracy) in a trial that took place over the summer. Hamdan was sentenced to five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, but his judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, allowed for time served since he was first charged, which means that he will have finished serving his sentence by the end of the year. Allred has refused to bow to pressure from the Defense Department, which attempted to claim that he had no right to allow time served to be taken into account, but the Pentagon may yet assert that it has the right to continue holding Hamdan as an “enemy combatant,” even after his sentence is over. Like the plight of the Uighurs, this is completely unjustifiable, as Hamdan was convicted by a military jury in a trial of the administration’s own devising, but if the outgoing President insists on holding Hamdan after his sentence is served, President Obama will have to ensure that he is allowed to return to his family in Yemen. The 125 prisoners who are “too dangerous” to be released The notion that prisoners can be “too dangerous to release but not guilty enough to prosecute” is another hallmark of the Bush administration’s disdain for the law, but this, too, has been embraced by enthusiasts for a new policy of “preventive detention.” The rationale is, however, also unjustifiable. As I hope to have demonstrated in my previous article, in which I dissected the failures of the interrogators at Guantánamo to distinguish between genuine intelligence and false confessions produced through the use of torture, coercion or bribery, there is no reason to elevate these prisoners to even the lowest rungs of a terrorist hierarchy, and every reason to follow the conclusions reached by senior military and intelligence officials: that no more than 35 to 50 of the prisoners had any meaningful connection with al-Qaeda. There is, at present, some hope that these prisoners’ habeas reviews will demonstrate the weakness of the government’s evidence against these 125 prisoners. In the case of six Bosnians accused of plotting to blow up the US embassy in Sarajevo, for example, their habeas review began with the government dropping the claim (which, it should be noted, was dismissed by the Bosnian government in January 2002, before the men were kidnapped and sent to Guantánamo), and it seems probable that other cases will also see the government dropping its “evidence,” before the judges can conclude, as the appeal court judges did in the case of Huzaifa Parhat, that it is no more reliable than the nonsense poetry of Lewis Carroll. I can only hope that the habeas reviews continue to force the government to drop more of its redundant claims against the prisoners, as my research has illuminated, above all, how the protestations of innocent men — and of Taliban foot soldiers recruited to fight an inter-Muslim civil war that began long before 9/11 and had nothing to do with al-Qaeda — have been overshadowed with disturbing regularity by allegations made by unnamed “senior figures in al-Qaeda,” interrogated in unknown circumstances, or by other prisoners who have made false confessions, often on a colossal scale, in the hope of securing more favorable treatment. Stark examples of both of these practices are available here and here, but many more are reported in The Guantánamo Files, and what they demonstrate, above all, is how the entire “War on Terror” detention program, as executed at Guantánamo, was designed to do away with the presumption of innocence, and was, instead, focused solely on confirming preordained guilt. The 125 prisoners in question are from a variety of nations — a few dozen of the remaining Afghans, several dozen more from the countries of North Africa and the Gulf — but up to half are from the largest remaining group at Guantánamo: the Yemenis. Unlike the 130 Saudis, who were mostly released from Guantánamo in 2006 and 2007, after the Saudi government instigated a rehabilitation program (involving religious retraining and support in finding wives and employment), which met with the approval of the US authorities, only 13 of the 108 Yemenis in Guantánamo have been released, even though they, like the Saudis, were, for the most part, a mixture of Taliban foot soldiers and humanitarian aid workers and missionaries, caught up in an undiscriminating dragnet. The problem, as has been repeatedly stated, is that the US authorities claim that they are not convinced that the Yemeni government will be able to guarantee that the men will not continue to pose a threat to the United States. For their part, as the Houston Chronicle reported on Saturday, “Yemeni officials say they’re ready to try many of the men and imprison those who are convicted, but they complain that US officials refuse to share evidence with them.” The Yemeni foreign minister, Abu Bakr al-Kirbi, explained, “Based on the information we have, some of the Guantánamo prisoners have nothing to do with terrorism. We cannot imprison them without a court sentence. We cannot do something that is against our laws. We are accountable to our own public.” Al-Kirbi is undoubtedly right that some of the men pose no threat to anybody, and cannot be detained without reason, but to break the deadlock both sides need to sit down and hammer out a deal — perhaps one that involves judge Hamoud Al-Hitar, the head of Yemen’s Dialogue Committee, which, as the Yemen Times reported last December, “aims at steering extremists away from violence through a number of dialogue sessions.” Al-Hitar’s program is widely credited as the inspiration for the Saudis’ successful rehabilitation program, and it would surely, therefore, make sense for the US and Yemeni governments to work out how to come up with a suitable program for Yemen that will enable Barack Obama to close Guantánamo. Then we can move on to what lies behind Guantánamo: the unaccountable prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, which hold an estimated 39,000 prisoners, and the unknown number of prisoners still held in secret CIA custody, or rendered to torture in third countries, who constitute “America’s Disappeared.” Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press/the University of Michigan Press). Posted in English No Comments
Deepening Crisis: The Technical Economic Indicators are getting worse November 19th, 2008 by Global Research Even after the trillions spent by the feds, the technical economic indicators are getting worse again. Above and beyond the terrible news from Main Street (such as unemployment, weak retail, and declining shipping and manufacturing), several key technical indicators are worsening again, even after the government spent trillions on various bailouts: Credit default swaps against sovereign nations, European companies, and bonds are approaching their all-time wides (indicating severe risk) Interbank lending rates (LIBOR) have started edging higher again The Financial Times argues that TIPS rates point towards protracted deflation. More and more of the leading economists and analysts (such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs) are beginning to agree to varying degrees. Paulson has admitted that the bailout is not about “economic recovery”: “The rescue package was not intended to be an … economic recovery package,” Paulson said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee in Washington. Well, maybe that explains why things are getting worse. Source: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/11/technical-economic-indicators-worsening.html Posted in English No Comments
Palestine: Who will stop the settlers? Noise but no action from US over family’s eviction November 19th, 2008 by Jonathan Cook The middle-of-the-night eviction last week of an elderly Palestinian couple from their home in East Jerusalem to make way for Jewish settlers is a demonstration of Israeli intent towards a future peace deal with the Palestinians. Mohammed and Fawziya Khurd are now on the street, living in a tent, after Israeli police enforced a court order issued in July to expel them. The couple have been living in the same property in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood since the mid-1950s, when East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. The United Nations allotted them the land after they were expelled from their homes in territory that was seized by Israel during the 1948 war. Since East Jerusalem’s occupation by Israel in 1967, however, Jewish settler groups have been waging a relentless battle for the Khurds’ home, claiming that the land originally belonged to Jews. In 1999, the settlers occupied a wing of the house belonging to the couple’s son, Raed, though the courts subsequently ruled in favour of the family. The eviction order against the settlers, unlike that against the Khurds, was never enforced. The takeover of the Khurds’ house is far from an isolated incident. Settlers are quietly grabbing homes from Palestinians in key neighbourhoods around the Old City of Jerusalem in an attempt to pre-empt any future peace deal with the Palestinians. What makes the case of the Khurd family exceptional is that it has attracted the attention of western consulates, particularly those of Israel’s important allies, that is, the United States and Britain. They have appealed without success to the Israeli government to intercede. In particular, the diplomats are concerned that the takeover of the Khurds’ home will set a dangerous precedent, freeing settler groups to wrest control of most of Sheikh Jarrah. The settlers plan to oust more than 500 Palestinians from the neighbourhood and build 200 apartments for Jewish families. If the settlers can take control of other areas, such as Silwan, Ras al-Amud and the Mount of Olives, the Old City and its holy sites would be as good as sealed off not only to Palestinians in the West Bank – as is the case already – but also to nearly 250,000 Palestinians in the outlying suburbs of East Jerusalem. Because the Palestinians expect East Jerusalem and its holy places to be the core of their state, the Sheikh Jarrah judgment effectively offers the settlers a blocking veto on any future negotiations. That may be one reason why the Israeli government has shown little inclination to intervene in cases like that of the Khurds. In Israeli law, all of Jerusalem, including the eastern half of the city, is the “indivisible” capital of the Jewish state. The eviction order also worries western diplomats because it opens up a Pandora’s box of competing land claims that will make it impossible for Palestinian negotiators to sign up to a deal on the division of Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority has already pointed out to the consulates that nearly two-thirds of West Jerusalem’s land was owned by Palestinians before the creation of Israel. Fawziya Khurd, for example, lived in Talbieh, in what is now the city’s western half, before 1948. If the settlers can make property claims in East Jerusalem based on title deeds that pre-exist 1948, why cannot Palestinians make similar claims in West Jerusalem? The US involvement in the Khurd case demonstrates its desire to mark its red lines in East Jerusalem. The concern is that Israeli actions on the ground are seeking to unravel the outlines of an agreement being promoted by Washington to create some kind of circumscribed Palestinian state. In the US view, the basis of such a deal is an exchange of letters between George W Bush and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister at the time, in spring 2004 in which the US president affirmed that Israel would not be expected to return to the armistice lines of 1949. Instead, he declared that Israel would be able to hold on to its “population centres” in the West Bank – code for the established settlement blocs. As a result, the current US administration has turned a blind eye to continuing construction in the main settlements, home to most of the West Bank’s 250,000 settlers. The unstated agreement between Tel Aviv and Washington is that these areas will be annexed to Israel in a future peace deal. In an indication of Israel’s confidence about the West Bank settlements, the Israeli media reported at the weekend that Ehud Barak, the defence minister and the leader of the Labor Party, had personally approved hundreds of new apartments for the settlers in the past few months. The separation wall is being crafted to include these blocs, eating into one tenth of the West Bank and leaving only a few tens of thousands of settlers on the “wrong side”. For the time being, the US is showing indecision only about two settlement-cities, Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim. If the wall encompasses them, it will effectively sever the West Bank into three parts. In relation to East Jerusalem, the White House has so far appeared to favour maintaining the status quo. That would entail the eastern half of the city being carved up into a series of complex zones, or “bubbles” as they have been described in the Israeli media. Another 250,000 Jewish settlers live in East Jerusalem, though almost all of them reside in their own discreet colonies implanted between Palestinian neighbourhoods. These settlements are considered so established by Israelis that most of their inhabitants do not regard themselves as settlers. However, the more ideological settlers of the kind taking over homes in Sheikh Jarrah refuse to accept partition of the city on any terms. They are trying to erode the Palestinians’ chances of ever controlling their own neighbourhoods in the eastern half of the city. Backed by powerful allies in the courts, government and municipality, the settlers look set to continue expanding in East Jerusalem. Nir Barkat, the millionaire businessman who was elected mayor of Jerusalem last week, forged close ties with some of the most extreme figures in the city’s settlement movement during his campaign. Like his chief rival for the mayoralty, he has promised to build a new Jewish neighbourhood, called Eastern Gate, that will be home to at least 10,000 settlers on land next to the Palestinian neighbourhood of Anata. The move, much like the eviction of the Khurds, has been greeted with silence from the government. Both developments are a sign of Washington’s powerlessness to force even the limited concessions it expects from Israel in East Jerusalem. Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His new book is “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net. This article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi Posted in English No Comments
Canadian Perspective: Assessing an Obama Presidency November 19th, 2008 by Global Research The Left in the US and around the world is celebrating the end of the Bush Presidency. We also celebrate the election of an AfricanAmerican to the Presidency of what remains a deeply racist country. And what person on the Left does not want ‘change’? This all raises deeper questions about Obama’s Presidency, alongside a more strongly Democratic Congress. Will this bring an end to neoliberalism? How will the changes impact American imperialism in the Middle East and policy responses to the financial crisis? What are the implications for racism and the Left in the US and in Canada? The Bullet here presents two commentaries on the Obama election speculating on its implications for Canada. These are part of discussions that Socialist Project thinks should occur across the country as part of a process of renewing the left, which remains deeply divided and in retreat, as with a forum in Toronto announced below. On Race: Expect Canadian Politics To Stay (mostly) White Rinaldo Walcott Let me begin with a confession: The phenomenon that is Barack Obama so fascinated me that I was left in the throes of a rather buoyant addiction to the U.S. Democratic primaries. CNN reports radiated from my television 24 hours a day. I compulsively perused half a dozen newspapers and twice as many websites to keep myself up-to-date on the Obama-Clinton race. Never had I conceived of a time when a black man might clinch a nomination of a major American political primary, but now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, and the election has shifted in the way of uninspiring drivel and a choice between lesser evils, my CNN days are in drastic decline. If I were able to vote in the U.S. election, I would have no candidate to vote for. It’s clear now that Obama’s emergence comes more from what he represents than the politics he has articulated. As pundit after pundit has pointed out, there is little difference between the positions and policies of Obama and his former, more conservative rival, Hillary Clinton, especially regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the war in Afghanistan. Obama and Republican nominee John McCain are shockingly similar in their market policies as well. Both of them, with minor differences, believe in a free market that regulates itself. Don’t expect any fundamental political change come January 2009. Barack Obama is not the liberal, inspirational, policy saviour that the U.S. and the world needs, and once observers here accept this fact, they can proceed to think carefully about what his emergence means for black Canadians and the Canadian political system. The truth is that Obama buttresses the myth that those who work hard enough can achieve what they want, which continues to hold sway over what is possible for those outside America’s mythical origins. In many ways, the realities of multiculturalism just do not measure up, especially in the Canadian political system. The parliamentary closed-shop of Canadian party politics makes it especially difficult to be an insurgent candidate, and the fabricated story of Obama as an outsider breaking into U.S. politics is not about to make itself present in Canadian politics. Whenever attitudes toward black people in the U.S. shift and change, Canada follows suit and mirrors its lead on race relations. The history of civil rights in the U.S. and its forced inclusion of African Americans warranted similar changes in Canada as well. In Canada we follow the U.S. on these questions in a manner that suggests questions of race and racism are not a fundamental aspect of Canadian nation-building, and thus not a priority for our own national consciousness. At least in the U.S. it is impossible to pretend that race, racism and thus race relations are not central to its national formation and its contemporary conversations. Obama’s meteoric rise was planned, crafted and strategically executed by him and his Chicago political backers and has no Canadian counterpart. In a political context, Canada is a scene devoid of black Canadians in the upper echelons who could be rolled out in the same fashion as Obama. In the Canadian party system, sponsorship still operates in a fairly narrow realm of WASP family dynasties. Additionally, the demographics both in terms of population numbers and geographic concentration of black Canadians means that they do not exercise votingbloc practices in federal, provincial and municipal elections, which means they are not specifically courted. Insurgent black candidates who could use party connections to emerge as representative figures are non-existent in our system because of this. More profoundly, black Canadians only tangentially identify as a national group, preferring instead to be Nigerian or Barbadian or Somali. In this multicultural, multiracial nation of ours, politics is still a white game. Politicians continually trumpet our demographics while keeping almost every level of government essentially white. If Obama’s Democratic nomination means anything for black Canadians, it is a rebuke of our multicultural reality, which is fraught with a quite serious lie: being black still signals to many that you might not be Canadian and therefore do not legitimately belong, despite our touted multicultural citizenry. Contemporary Canada likes to recognize itself as a nation of immigrants but when it comes to articulating the future vision of nation, province and city, the founding fathers return with a vengeance to tell us black Canadians just where our place is: following their vision, not adding to it or directing what it should be. Obama’s symbolism should remind us of this failure in a country that requires more and more immigrants to secure its continued economic health and wealth. In the realm of politics, who are the black Canadians? If Obama’s symbolism is to mean anything, it might produce more Carol-Anne Wrights and Rosemary Browns (remember them?). For that to happen, though, the closed-shop party system needs to have its doors smashed wide open. • Rinaldo Walcott is an associate professor of black diaspora cultural studies at the University of Toronto. This article originally published at This Magazine. Why Obama is Bad for Canada Matthew Brett With the universal sigh of relief exhausted following the election of America’s first black president, anti-war activists in Canada have serious reason for concern as the new U.S. administration takes shape. Even prior to Obama’s selection of a transition team, his rhetoric on Afghanistan was pointed. Reasons for concern were confirmed in a Nov. 12 article that appeared in Embassy, a Canadian foreign policy weekly. The war in Afghanistan is sucking up financial resources, and public servants are highly critical of the policy as other files and commitments in Africa and elsewhere fall by the wayside. Cited in the Embassy article, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs director Fen Hapson said he expects the holes left in Foreign Affairs and CIDA to become larger in the face of shrinking budgets and hiring freezes as the economic crisis spreads into Canada. Hapson says Canada will not be able to afford making cuts to the mission in Afghanistan because of its importance to the U.S. and, especially, the Obama administration. Cuts, naturally, will be made to major social programs and that which matters most. “Canada’s major foreign policy priority is going to be to make inroads with the new administration,” Hapson said. “The fact that we are one of the major players in Afghanistan, alongside the Americans, is a very important card and, I would say, lever of influence with the incoming Obama administration. “We’re not just investing in Afghanistan’s future, we’re also investing in the Canada-U.S. relationship and partnership. So when you do the accounting you have to include that political calculation into the equation.” The implications are wide-ranging. A Conservative minority government would not likely survive another broken promise by extending the war beyond 2011, but the transfer to a civilian mission is already apparent in Canada. These are the same Canadian civil servants that forced the election and consequent appointment of Hamid Karzai to presidency. These are also likely the same civil servants who helped draft the country’s retrogressive constitution, as Canada was very active in the creation of Afghanistan’s new regime. Will Obama even respect Canada’s 2011 withdraw deadline when Afghanistan is one of his priorities? Or will Obama, like Bush, make a 24th hour call on Canada to ramp up its support for this failed war? Perhaps more importantly, will Harper respect his 2011 withdrawal promise? The promise was made, after all, during an election campaign to quell opposition to the war. A 2011 withdrawal deadline was never presented to Parliament, and this is certainly something that a coalition partnership between the NDP, Bloc and Liberals could fight for when the House resumes, given that a coalition government looks unlikely Canada has presented itself as a key player in the fateful U.S.-UK partnership, and the withdrawal of Canada from Afghanistan two year’s into an Obama presidency would cause no end of problems to the Democrats — problems that neither Liberals nor Conservatives would wish to inflict. These seem to be some of the key foreign policy questions that Canadian anti-war activists should be asking themselves. How can the Left organize itself around these issues to insure Canada makes a full withdrawal by 2011, if not sooner? The current Liberal leadership race seems to be an ideal time to expose a potential shift in policy on Afghanistan. Viable Liberal candidates are clearly supportive of the war effort, but they could very well be persuaded into an anti-war position as a means of garnering support by standing up against a widely opposed occupation. Recently elected members of parliament and incumbent MPs are also important to pressure in this respect. This is by no means a radical proposal, but it is certainly the most viable given the weak state of the Canadian anti-war movement nearly nine years into the occupation. Any attainable gestures toward a withdrawal should be pursued by the Canadian Peace Alliance and its partners, other social organizations and the religious left. There is little time to waste in this respect as the Harper-Obama stars will quickly align. This war must end now, and Obama threatens to drag Canada deeper into a military industrial complex, during a financial crisis, and at the cost of major social programs and humanitarian foreign policy initiatives that have fallen into a state of neglect under Chrétien, Martin and now Harper. With all this talk of Change, perhaps Afghanistan is not the only thing Canadians should be deeply concerned about with an Obama presidency. Matthew Brett is the Canadian Dimension Weblog manager. SP Forum: Assessing an Obama Presidency 6:30-8:30pm Friday November 21, 2008. Room LG-11, George Vari Centre, Ryerson University, 245 Church Street, Toronto. The Left in the US and around the world is celebrating the end of the Bush Presidency. We also celebrate the election of an AfricanAmerican to the Presidency of what remains a deeply racist country. And what person on the Left does not want ‘change’? But this all raises many further questions about Obama’s Presidency, elected alongside a more strongly Democratic Congress. What will their responses be to American militarism and interventions across the Middle East and Asia, and to the Wall Street crisis and bailout? What are the implications for the Left in the US and in Canada? Three of Canada’s leading labour activists and critics of American society will address these and other issues. Speakers: • Abbie Bakan, Department of Political Studies, Queen’s University • Ajamu Nangwaya, CUPE labour activist and educator • Herman Rosenfeld, CAW Retiree, and Labour Studies, McMaster University Drinks After the Forum: Imperial Pub (upstairs), 54 Dundas St. East. Organized by the Socialist Project (www.socialistproject.ca) and International Socialists. Co-Sponsored by Centre for Social Justice. PDF poster http://www.socialistproject.ca/events/event435.pdf Posted in English No Comments
USA: Proposals to Confiscate Workers’ Personal Retirement Accounts November 19th, 2008 by Karen McMahan Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration. Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly. The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.” Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA. Mandating Equality Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf). The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.” Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.” GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants. In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.” All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-onyear. Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions. Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.” What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement). On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral. Income and Wealth Redistribution The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution. On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.” Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said. “Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.” When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas. Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision. After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.” Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said. Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs. Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001. In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical. Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices. “The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said. Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal. Posted in English 1 Comment
Preemptive Policing & the National Security State: Repressing Dissent at the Republican National Convention November 19th, 2008 by Tom Burghardt Antifascist Calling… With “preemptive policing” all the rage in Washington, the whistleblowing website Wikileaks has done it again, exposing how repressive trends in the U.S. had real world consequences for democracy during September’s Republican National Convention (RNC) in St. Paul, Minnesota. On November 15, the global whistleblowers published a leaked planning document “Special Event Planning: 2008 Republican National Convention,” a dense schematic used by repressors who targeted activists, journalists and concerned citizens during the far-right conclave. Labeled “Limited Distribution/For Official Use Only,” Wikileaks believes that the dossier is “potentially legally significant due to upcoming legal cases over the mass arrests at the convention.” Compiled by Terri Smith (
[email protected]) the Branch Director for Response, Recovery and Mitigation at the Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management agency (HSEM), the 31-page file offers a veritable bird’s-eye view onto the close coordination amongst federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, including the Pentagon’s U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) during a so-called National Special Security Event (NSSE). The enabling authority for squelching dissent during NSSEs is partially derived from the 2006 National Security Presidential Directive-46/Homeland Security Presidential Directive-15 (NSPD-46/HSPD-15), a top secret dictate from President Bush. According to a statement by Roger Rufe, Director of the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), before the House Homeland Security Committee on July 9, 2008, NSSEs “are significant domestic or international events, occurrences, contests, activities, or meetings, which, by virtue of their profile or status, represent a significant target, and therefore warrant additional preparation, planning, and mitigation efforts. The designation process for NSSEs is established by NSPD-46/HSPD-15, Annex II and HSPD-7.” Rufe goes on to describe the “mission” of an NSSE Special Event Working Group (SEWG) as one which will …support a unified interagency planning and coordination effort for Special Events and to ensure coordination of Federal support to the designated event. The SEWG identifies events that may require a coordinated Federal response and collectively coordinates Federal assets to bridge any capability gaps identified by state and local partners that have not already been addressed by exhausting local mutual assistance agreements. Within this process, the mission of OPS is to act on behalf of the Secretary and his HSPD-5 responsibilities to integrate DHS and interagency planning and coordinate operations for designated Special Events in order to prevent, protect, respond to and recover from terrorist threats/attacks. (Roger Rufe, “Statement,” House Homeland Security Committee, July 8, 2008, pp. 1-2) Several elements comprise the SEWG: five senior managers from DHS’ OPS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Secret Service (USSS), and the DHS Office of Risk Management & Analysis (RMA) and, as revealed in the Wikileaks document, representatives from the Pentagon’s U.S. Northern Command. During the RNC, the “lead federal agencies” heading up repressive operations were the USSS, FBI and FEMA. On Saturday, August 30, 2008, the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department executed search warrants on three houses. According to the Friends of the RNC 8, the police seized personal items and arrested eight RNC Welcoming Committee organizers, charging them with “conspiracy to riot in the 2nd degree in the furtherance of terrorism,” a felony which may land these activists in prison for many years under provisions of Minnesota’s PATRIOT Act. During the RNC, operations were coordinated by the Multi-Agency Communications Center (MACC), described in the Wikileaks file as “a centralized communications and coordination center operated 24 hours a day during the NSSE.” In St. Paul, the MACC was “staffed by representatives from all participating operational security entities, local government operations, and public and private institutions who are responsible for the critical infrastructures of power, gas and telecommunications.” MACC’s “Work Product,” according to the document (p. 14), will provide: “Timely dissemination of information to all entities participating in operational security, crisis management, and consequence management. Provide the Common Operational Picture to support decision-making and command and control activities,” and “serve as the centralized coordination center for securityrelated activities.” Described as “the coordination point where these resources could be used for a crisis or consequence outside of the NSSE,” the MACC was the organizational hub and speartip where federal, state, local law enforcement and “private institutions” interacted “at any time during the event to utilize the event’s public safety resources to assure that the normal delivery of public safety responses from their agency were uninterrupted.” A perusal of the “MACC Seating Chart” (p. 16) affords additional insight into the resources brought to bear against journalists covering the RNC and citizens protesting the crimes of the Republican party and their Bushist minions. The first tier is comprised of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD), Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT), Minnesota State Police (MSP), Hennepin County, Ramsey County, St. Paul Police Department (SPPD), USSS and the FBI. The second tier, in addition to representatives from the Minneapolis and St. Paul Fire Departments and Emergency Medical Service personnel, are staffed by three representatives from NORTHCOM. Additional NORTHCOM “seats” appear on the “third tier” of the HSEM chart, along with proxies from the Minnesota National Guard’s Joint Task Force (JTF-MN), FEMA, USSS and the FBI. MACC’s fourth tier was staffed by a host of federal law enforcement entities including officers from the ultra-spooky National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). As I have documented in several articles, most recently on November 9, NGA provides mapping tools and imagery intelligence (IMINT) derived from America’s fleet of military spy satellites “flown” by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). In other words during the RNC, America’s spymasters were providing satellite intelligence to federal, state, and local law enforcement, some of which quite possibly, were used to target the homes of activists and media workers or coordinate attacks on demonstrations. While there is no indication in the MACC “seating chart” that the National Security Agency (NSA) was directly involved in providing “lead federal agencies” with signals intelligence (SIGINT), the fifth tier reveals that U.S. telecoms, all of whom are NSA private partners in warrantless wiretapping and driftnet data-mining were “present and accounted for” during the RNC. Indeed, prominent places “at the table” were filled by Verizon Communications, Verizon Wireless, QWEST, Sprint and AT&T. Attorneys involved in defending the RNC 8 and other protesters “preemptively” arrested, would be well-advised to subpoena these company’s records and determine whether or not corporate telecoms handed SIGINT over to federal, state and local repressors. The Wikileaks dossier also reveals that Saint Paul Operations Center Command Posts were staffed by an entity labeled “other federal.” Here one finds the FBI’s Joint Operations Center (JOC) and the Bureau’s Intelligence Operations Center (IOC). Both entities have been linked during NSSEs and the surreptitious surveillance of Americans to privacy-killing FBI “packet sniffing” operations formally called Carnivore (DCS-1000). Now called Red Hook or DCS-3000, software installed on America’s telephone, internet and wireless infrastructure can monitor all of a target’s internet, wireless and text messaging traffic. Digital Storm, or DCS6000, captures and collects the content of phone calls and text messages, while Magic Lantern is a keystroke surveillance tool that can be installed remotely via viral e-mail attachments. Wired reported in 2007, that Magic Lantern is a “computer and internet protocol address verifier or CIPAV,” one that …gathers a wide range of information, including the computer’s IP address; MAC address; open ports; a list of running programs; the operating system type, version and serial number; preferred internet browser and version; the computer’s registered owner and registered company name; the current logged-in user name and the last-visited URL. The CIPAV then settles into a silent “pen register” mode, in which it lurks on the target computer and monitors its internet use, logging the IP address of every computer to which the machine connects for up to 60 days. (Kevin Poulsen, “FBI’s Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats,” Wired, July 18, 2007) According to documents released to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in 2007, the Minneapolis Field Office was one of 57 sites for the Bureau’s collection of “post-cut through dialed digit information.” Technological heavy-lifting originated from the FBI’s Science & Technology Law Unit, Engineering Research Facility located in Quantico, Virginia. As security expert, whistleblower and CEO of Bat Blue Corporation Babak Pasdar disclosed in a sworn affidavit to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) back in February, Verizon Communications allowed the Bureau and other security agencies virtually “unfettered” access to the carrier’s wireless network via the FBI’s so-called “Quantico circuit.” Collectively, these highly-intrusive (and patently illegal) FBI programs are called DCSNet, an acronym for Digital Collection System Network. As Wired revealed in 2007, DCSNet “connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and cellular companies. It is is far more intricately woven into the nation’s telecom infrastructure than observers suspected.” The profound interconnections amongst federal security agencies such as the FBI and the nation’s private telecoms acting in concert with securocrats is but one indicator of the breadth and scope of America’s high-tech corporatist police state. Wired reports, The network allows an FBI agent in New York, for example, to remotely set up a wiretap on a cell phone based in Sacramento, California, and immediately learn the phone’s location, then begin receiving conversations, text messages and voicemail pass codes in New York. With a few keystrokes, the agent can route the recordings to language specialists for translation. The numbers dialed are automatically sent to FBI analysts trained to interpret phone-call patterns, and are transferred nightly, by external storage devices, to the bureau’s Telephone Application Database, where they’re subjected to a type of data mining called link analysis. FBI endpoints on DCSNet have swelled over the years, from 20 “central monitoring plants” at the program’s inception, to 57 in 2005, according to undated pages in the released documents. By 2002, those endpoints connected to more than 350 switches. (Ryan Singel, “Point, Click … Eavesdrop: How the FBI Wiretap Net Operates,” Wired, August 29, 2007) Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) revealed that the FBI no longer feels compelled to obtain judicial oversight or even the consent of cell phone operators when deploying base station-faking technology that it employs for the illegal geolocation of mobile users. Known as Triggerfish, documents obtained by the ACLU in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department, detail how the technology pretends to be a cellular base station to which handsets connect and identify themselves. By claiming to have “lost” the unique identifier of a targeted mobile phone, Triggerfish then “asks” the phone to resend its unique details. It had been assumed that a warrant was necessary before the Bureau could begin tracking an individual’s cell phone. However, as the ACLU clearly reveals in the documents, under provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the FBI has been able to obtain dodgy pen-trap orders from all-too-compliant judges on the FISA court. During the RNC, these signals were probably routed via Triggerfish to the JOC/IOC: game over for “Text Mob” protest organizers. When federal, state and local law enforcement entities raided the homes of activists and media workers in St. Paul, the Bureau knew which activists and which computers, cell phones and other electronic devices to preemptively seize. On August 30, 2008, the FBI were joined by some 30 St. Paul police armed with tasers, pepper spray and automatic weapons when they surrounded the house where I-Witness Video and Democracy Now! journalist Elizabeth Press were meeting. People inside were forcibly detained and photographed, while police made a record of the journalists’ names and addresses. A warrant was served, covering all the journalist’s equipment, including privileged notes, computers, cameras, video tapes and communications equipment. Five other members of I-Witness Video who were not present during the home invasion were detained for more than three hours, preventing them from documenting three other simultaneous raids in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Additionally, members of the Glass Bead Collective were also illegally detained and had their notes and equipment confiscated by the Minneapolis police. The Wikileaks document also reveals that the Defense Department’s Joint Task Force Minnesota (JTF-MN) was a key player in the St. Paul Command Operations Center. Indeed, Major Jon Dotterer, the Operations Officer attached to JTF-MN documented in a Power Point presentation, “As many of you may have scene [sic] on the news the MN National Guard was used in support of the St Paul Police Department at the Republican National Convention. Our QRF [Quick Reaction Force] was used to give the local police forces the flexibility and freedom to use their assets at other critical points of interest.” Dotterer’s briefing details how JTF-MN “coordinates with civil authorities,” primarily HSEM, and “provides [a] response element” and “activates for [a] major contingency.” What Dotterer doesn’t reveal is that JTF-MN is also an active component of U.S. Northern Command. To conclude, the Wikileaks document provides new and startling information how federal, state and local law enforcement entities acting in concert with corporatist “private partners” during September’s Republican National Convention, conspired to deny American’s their right to peacefully protest against the far-right Republican party. With resources drawn from the FBI, USSS, DHS, NGA, FEMA and NORTHCOM, the repressive capitalist state coordinated its response to oppositional currents in the U.S. by launching preemptive attacks on RNC protest organizers and journalists. Fully in step with the “countersubversive” mind-set underpinning the Bushist “war on terror,” one that equates dissent with terrorism, recourse to preemptive policing by our corporatist masters is indicative of the precarious state of a system facing total crisis as it stares into an abyss of its creation. Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, His articles can also be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily and Pacific Free Press. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning, distributed by AK Press. Posted in English 1 Comment
Citi shares in record slump, CDS spreads widen November 19th, 2008 by Alistair Barr Nov. 19, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Citigroup Inc. shares slumped a record 23% Wednesday and credit-default swap spreads on its debt widened after the bank took on more than $17 billion in assets from structured investment vehicles and shut another hedge fund. Citi shares slumped 23% to close at $6.40. The previous biggest one-day drop was 21.7% during the market collapse on Oct 19, 1987. CDS spreads on Citi Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio Analyst Create alertInsider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: C) were trading at more than 360 basis points over Treasury bonds during afternoon action, up from a 240 basis points yesterday, according to Phoenix Partners Group. CDS are a common type of derivative contract that pay out in the event of default. When the difference, or spread, between rates on these contracts and interest rates on Treasuries increases, that suggests investors are more worried about defaults. Citi said it will purchase the final $17.4 billion of assets still in structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that the bank advised. SIVs sell short-term debt and use they money to invest in longer-term, higher-yielding assets. During the credit boom earlier this decade, these vehicles became a popular way for some banks to grow assets without adding extra stress on their balance sheets. But when the credit crunch hit, SIVs couldn’t refinance their short-term debt. That forced banks including Citi and HSBC Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio Analyst Create alertInsider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: HBC) to take the assets onto their own balance sheets. In December, Citi said it would take $49 billion of assets from SIVs it advised onto its balance sheet to resolve concerns about how the vehicles were going to repay their debts. The SIVs in question have been selling assets since then, and now have $17.4 billion left, Citi said Wednesday. Taking on this final chunk of assets will mean the SIVs have enough money to repay senior debt obligations that are maturing, the bank said. Citi estimated that it needs to provide $300 million in extra funding for the transaction to close. Citigroup CDS led an increase in counterparty credit risk in the derivatives market Wednesday, according to Credit Derivatives Research. The CDR Counterparty Risk Index, which tracks credit-default swaps on leading banks and brokerage firms, rose 12.3 points to 263.9 during midday action. CDS spreads on Morgan Stanley CDR said. “Citigroup showed the greatest deterioration on news of hedge fund closures and SIV takeovers,” David Klein, manager of CDR’s credit indexes, said in an e-mail. Citi is shutting down a corporate credit hedge fund called Corporate Special Opportunities after it slumped more than 50% in October. “As with many other credit-based investment products, investment returns have been hurt by one of the most volatile periods for fixed income in history,” a Citigroup spokesman said in a statement Wednesday. In February, Citi suspended investor redemptions from the fund, which once had more than $4 billion in assets. See full story. The value of the fund’s assets has now dwindled to less than $60 million, while its debt is about $880 million. That may leave investors with recoveries of no more than 10 cents on the dollar, according to the Financial Times. Citi lent the hedge fund money and bought assets with a notional value of $1 billion that it put in the fund, the FT reported. Losses for Citi could total hundreds of millions of dollars, the newspaper said. Alistair Barr is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco. Posted in English No Comments
Obama’s transition: A who’s who of imperialist policy November 19th, 2008 by Alex Lantier 19 November 2008 The contradiction between the aspirations and hopes of millions of Americans who voted to repudiate the Bush administration’s policies of war and social reaction and the class character of the incoming Obama administration has become increasingly clear over the two weeks since Election Day. The filling out of Obama’s transition team with a cast of financiers, lobbyists and defense operatives gives tangible evidence of what is being prepared. The makeup of the team, which Obama has said is working to make “as seamless a transition on national security as possible,” shows that his administration will consist of proven veterans of the Washington establishment who are deemed more competent, but no less ruthless, than the Bush administration in defending the interests of US imperialism. Previous incoming administrations made concessions to public sentiment, appointing figures with popular appeal to second-tier posts. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter, whose administration marked a significant rightward shift by the Democratic Party, nevertheless named one-time civil rights activist Andrew Young as US ambassador to the United Nations—a post from which Young was fired after meeting with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Relying on the overwhelming hatred of American people for the despised Bush administration and his status as the first AfricanAmerican president, Obama does not feel the need to make such an appeal. Indeed, he has gone out of his way to solidarize himself with right-wing politicians. On Monday, Obama met in Chicago with John McCain, his Republican opponent in the election. In an interview the previous evening on the “60 Minutes” television program, he affirmed his decision to appoint Republicans to his cabinet, and his advisors have widely floated the possibility of his retaining Robert Gates as secretary of defense. Obama’s transition team is of a piece with these maneuvers. It is co-chaired by Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago real estate magnate and confidante of Obama, and John Podesta, former chief-of-staff for President Bill Clinton and head of the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm. The transition team employs 450 people and has a budget of $12 million. It includes several “review teams” to prepare recommendations for the incoming administration’s nominations and policy. The co-chairs of the US Treasury review team are Josh Gotbaum, an investment banker at Lazare Frères who served in numerous positions during the Clinton administration, and Michael Warren, chief operating officer of Washington lobbying firm Stonebridge International LLC. The co-chairs of the State Department review team are both former Clinton administration State Department officials. Tom Donilon is a former top lobbyist for US mortgage giant Fannie Mae, recently bailed out with US taxpayer funds, and now a partner at law firm O’Melveny and Myers. He is a member of several influential foreign policy think tanks. Wendy Sherman is a top employee at the Albright Group, an international lobbying firm founded by Clinton administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The co-chairs of the Department of Defense review team are John White, who served as deputy secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration and recently headed the Kennedy School’s Middle East Initiative at Harvard University, and Michèle A. Flournoy, deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and president of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think tank. Members of CNAS, a rather small Washington think tank with a staff of 30 employees founded in 2003 by Podesta and Flournoy, play an outsized role in the Obama transition team. Obama advisors told the Wall Street Journal that Flournoy might become the first female US defense secretary. Wendy Sherman, who serves on the CNAS board of advisors, is expected to receive a top State Department job. Two CNAS advisors, Susan Rice and James Steinberg, are reportedly on Obama’s short list for national security advisor. So many CNAS members are likely to join the Obama administration that CNAS officials told the Journal they were concerned the think tank might fold after Obama’s inauguration. However, they added, they hope to recruit Bush administration officials leaving office to fill the CNAS vacancies. CNAS publications, many of which are publicly available on its web site, make it clear that the Obama administration’s foreign policy will have a thoroughly imperialist character. A June 2008 CNAS report authored by Flournoy and other CNAS staff calls for a “conditional engagement” of US troops in Iraq and opposes a fixed timeline for a US withdrawal—a position now adopted by Obama. It advocates the large-scale deployment of US ground forces to Afghanistan and Pakistan to pursue an Iraq “surge”-style policy of buying off local military leaders and massacring those who resist. The CNAS also favors a policy of using Japan and India to contain China in East and South Asia. On November 11, it published a report on US naval power, warning of a potential great power war in the Pacific Ocean and calling for the US Navy to stay ahead of the Chinese Navy. The New York Times‘ November 16 editorial, “A Military for a Dangerous New World,” echoed these recommendations, warning against China “expanding its deep-water navy,” saying the US cannot “cede the seas,” and adding that it cannot “allow any country to interfere with vital maritime lanes.” Obama’s consideration of Hillary Clinton for the position of secretary of state further underscores the falsity of his pose of opposition to the Bush administration’s militarism. During the Democratic primary campaign, he attacked Clinton for having voted to allow Bush to attack Iraq, calling it a strategic blunder. He also denounced her for voting in favor of a Senate resolution branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. During the primary campaign, Clinton declared that the US would “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. Now Obama is considering placing her at the head of US diplomacy. These developments illuminate a fundamental political truth: Obama was the choice of a faction of the US political establishment that saw him as the ideal figurehead for the repackaging and recalibration of US imperialist policy. Posted in English No Comments
Senate hearing on US auto bailout signals new attacks on workers November 19th, 2008 by Jerry White Tuesday’s Senate Banking Committee hearing on a $25 billion government bailout of the US auto industry underscored the reactionary framework of the official debate on the crisis of the Big Three auto companies. At the center of the dispute between those senators who support an emergency loan and those who oppose it is how best to impose the burden of the crisis on the backs of auto workers and the working class as a whole. The hearing made clear that whatever the outcome of the dispute within Congress and the American ruling elite over the immediate issue of an auto industry bailout, the auto crisis will be used to launch an unprecedented assault on the wages, pensions, health benefits and working conditions of workers in every sector of the economy and every part of the country. The hearing provided further proof that the only policy capable of defending the interests of auto workers is a socialist policy based on the nationalization of auto and its transformation into a publicly owned industry under the democratic control of the working population. This requires the independent industrial and political mobilization of auto workers and the entire working class in opposition to the auto companies, the Wall Street banks, both political parties and the United Auto Workers union (UAW), which functions as an appendage of the auto bosses. Even were the $25 billion emergency loan to be passed by the lame duck 110th Congress and signed into law by President Bush, which appears unlikely, it would be conditioned on the ripping up of existing union contracts and the imposition of wage and benefit concessions that would destroy virtually everything that remains of the gains won by generations of auto workers since the mass strike battles that established the UAW in the 1930s. The Senate hearing was an exercise in hypocrisy. Neither the senators nor the chief witnesses—the CEOs of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler and UAW President Ronald Gettelfinger—pointed clearly and unequivocally to the absurdity of squabbling over $25 billion to the avert the imminent bankruptcy of General Motors after Congress approved the handover of more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer money to bail out the major banks. The government rescue of Wall Street executives and speculators, whose recklessness and greed precipitated the financial meltdown that is plunging the world economy into the deepest slump since the Great Depression, imposed no restrictions on the banks and financial firms that receive government handouts. But now that the jobs of hundreds of thousands of auto workers are on the line, politicians and media commentators act as though the Wall Street bailout never happened and wax indignant over the prospect of government intervention into the “free market.” The more that opponents of the proposed loan to the Big Three, including the Bush White House, the Treasury and the majority of congressional Republicans, denounce the measure, the more its supporters, from President-Elect Barack Obama to Democratic congressional leaders, declare that any loan must be tied to a ruthless program of downsizing and the destruction of the workers’ wages and conditions. Opponents of the Democratic-sponsored proposal to use a small portion of the $700 billion allocated to bail out the banks to rescue the auto companies argue openly that the best option for gutting the wages and conditions of auto workers is to allow GM and the other companies to run out of cash and file for Chapter Eleven bankruptcy protection. This would result in the invalidation of existing union contracts, including the provision of health care and pensions for millions of retirees and their dependants. Calls for this option have filled the airwaves and the pages of major newspapers in recent days. One example is an article by New York Times business columnist Andrew Sorkin that appeared in Tuesday’s edition. He advocated a “government-sponsored bankruptcy” that would force GM and Chrysler to merge and shut down half of their 35 plants. Sorkin wrote, “Bankruptcy would give GM enormous leverage with its debt holders—and perhaps more important with the UAW, whose gold-plated benefits are one reason why GM is no longer competitive.” At Tuesday’s Senate hearing, GM’s Richard Wagoner, Ford’s Alan Mulally and Chrysler’s Robert Nardelli argued against opponents of the government loan that drastic restructuring is already underway. They pointed to the fact that over the last two years more than 100,000 jobs have been eliminated, scores of plants shut and billions slashed from operating expenses. The executives praised the role of the UAW in signing a contract in 2007 that imposed unprecedented reductions in labor costs. The concessions, they said, had virtually eliminated their labor cost differentials with Asian and European rivals that operate non-union plants in the US. The most degrading testimony came from UAW President Gettelfinger. He pleaded for a bridge loan to help the auto companies weather the storm until the union’s new cost-cutting agreement takes full effect in 2010. “What the UAW has done?” Gettelfinger asked rhetorically. “In 2005 we ended the vow we made to our retirees that they did not have to contribute to their health care. We negotiated the VEBA [Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association] to take retiree health care obligations off the company’s books. Hourly workers gave up their 3 percent wage increases and for four years there will be no annual improvement in wages. We changed work rules.” He could have added that the 2007 contract allows the Big Three to hire new workers at half the pay of older workers and strips them of traditional health and pension benefits. Responding to criticisms of the union’s so-called Jobs Bank program, which subsidizes the pay of laid-off workers, Gettelfinger declared, “Between 2005 and 2008, we have lost 47,000 workers at GM and we have virtually eliminated our jobs bank at all three companies. We had to take the political heat for these kinds of decisions, but as a union leadership we are proud to work with these companies.” Gettelfinger’s testimony was a self-indictment of the UAW bureaucracy, demonstrating that the union lacks any policy independent of the auto companies. It was a testament to the utter failure of the union’s policy based on virulent opposition to socialism, the promotion of economic nationalism and hostility to a political break with the parties of the American corporate elite. One of the witnesses, Peter Morici, an international business professor from the University of Maryland, told the senators that bankruptcy would allow the US auto makers to throw tens of thousands out of work without paying severance benefits and would put American auto makers on par with non-union plants operated in the US by Asian and European companies. On the same day as the Senate hearing, Kenneth Lewis, the CEO of Bank of America—which received $25 billion in the government bailout—told an audience at the Detroit Economic Club that the auto companies shouldn’t get a dime in federal money unless it came with “stipulations,” including a commitment to drastically consolidate the industry, including the elimination of at least one of the Big Three companies. “The American people aren’t interested in just giving more money,” he said with a straight face. Among the most outspoken Senate opponents of the proposed auto loan is Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee. Not accidentally, his state, Alabama, is home to non-union plants operated by Toyota, Honda, Mercedes and Hyundai. Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow summed up the reactionary basis on which the Democrats posture as defenders of working people. In her opening comments she said that American manufacturing had to be defended because it was crucial for national security. America, she said, “can’t go from a foreign dependence on oil to a foreign dependence on technology and the manufacture of tanks, planes and automobiles.” Such nationalist appeals have long been used by the Democrats and the UAW bureaucracy to undermine class consciousness and demand ever-greater sacrifices from workers in the US to “save American industry.” The American ruling elite is exploiting the economic crisis to impoverish the working class and return it to conditions of unbridled exploitation not seen since 1930s. In this, it has the full collaboration of the UAW and the rest of the official unions. The collapse of the US auto industry has demonstrated the need for state intervention and planning. The question is: by whom and in whose interests? The experiences of the last three decades, beginning with the 1979-80 Chrysler bailout, demonstrate that in so far as state intervention, in whatever form, is carried out by the two corporate-controlled parties and a government dominated by big business, it will be used to destroy the conditions of auto workers and, on this basis, create a rump auto industry that can once again provide a profitable avenue for investment by Wall Street banks and speculators. The only policy capable of defending the interests of working people is the nationalization of the auto industry under the democratic control of the workers themselves. Economic decision-making must be taken out of the hands of those who have driven the industry into the ground—while amassing huge personal fortunes—and put in the hands of the working population. The business secrets and account books of the corporations must be opened to public review and the multi-million salaries and other ill-gotten gains of the CEOs and Wall Street speculators confiscated and put to socially necessary use. The auto industry must be reorganized on the principle of production for human need, not profit, in order to guarantee decent living standards to workers and their families and produce safe, affordable and environmentally sustainable vehicles. Posted in English No Comments
US Opposes ant-Nazi Resolution in the UN General Assembly November 19th, 2008 by Global Research UN adopts Russian proposed anti-Nazi resolution 13:02 | 19/ 11/ 2008 UN, November 19 (RIA Novosti) – The UN General Assembly on social and humanitarian issues has adopted a draft resolution proposed by Russia on tackling a rise in the glorification of Nazism and the desecration of WWII monuments. The draft resolution on “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” is aimed at tackling the practice in the former Soviet republics of Latvia and Estonia of honoring SS veterans who fought for Nazi Germany during WWII. “Nazi monuments are unveiled in a ceremonial atmosphere and the dates of liberation from the Nazis are proclaimed as days of mourning,” Russia’s UN representative, Grigory Lykyantsev, told the UN, adding that “this attitude towards anti-fascist veterans plays into the hands of those who call for ‘a pure race.'” The resolution was passed with 122 countries voting in favor, while 54 delegations abstained, including Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia. Only the U.S. voted against. The resolution is now practically guaranteed to be adopted at the next UN General Assembly session in December. Parades in honor of Waffen-SS veterans, involving veterans from the Latvian Legion and the 20th Estonian SS Division and their supporters, are held annually in Latvia and Estonia. Russia has repeatedly criticized the Baltic States for allowing these parades to take place. Another former Soviet republic, Ukraine, announced plans in July to erect a statue in Lutsk, western Ukraine, honor of Stepan Bandera, a leader of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought against the Soviets during WWII. The resolution also raises Russian concerns over the dismantling and desecration of Soviet-era WWII monuments and the “unlawful exhumation” or transfer of the remains of those killed in the fight against fascism. The dismantling in Tallinn of the Soviet war memorial, the Bronze Soldier, just before the May 9, 2007 Victory Day celebrations in Russia led to street protests in which over 1,000 people were arrested and one Russian national was killed. Relations between Russia and Latvia and Estonia have also been strained over what Moscow calls the two states’ unequal treatment of ethnic Russians, the alleged persecution of Soviet WWII veterans, and the apparent revival of nationalism and fascism. Posted in English No Comments
Russia says Georgia is building up its forces November 19th, 2008 by Zerin Elci Russia’s defence minister said on Tuesday that Georgia was trying to build up its military and he warned this could spark even greater instability in the region than there was in the war in August. “The Georgian side’s efforts to increase military potential is causing concern and I think those initiatives could have bigger consequences than what we saw in August,” the minister, Anatoly Serdyukov, told a news conference in Ankara. Russian troops poured into Georgia in August and pushed government troops back after they tried to retake the pro-Moscow rebel region of South Ossetia. Russia and Georgia have accused each other of starting the five-day war in which Russian forces took control of large swathes of Georgian territory for some time. Moscow is incensed by the pro-Western course taken by its small ex-Soviet neighbour and particularly its drive to join the U.S.-led NATO alliance. Outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush had pushed for swift acceptance of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, but this failed to generate unanimous support among European NATO members. U.S. and European officials say Washington is now studying whether NATO could give Georgia something short of a formal path to membership to satisfy European opposition. Serdyukov, who was in NATO member Turkey to discuss military cooperation, repeated that Moscow remained opposed to U.S. plans to deploy a radar in Poland and interceptor missiles in the Czech Republic as part of a proposed missile defence shield. Washington says the plan is intended to defend against possible attacks from Iran, but Russia sees the project as a threat to its security. “Efforts to build air defences in Poland and in the Czech Republic has awakened concerns and this is causing Russia to take similar initiatives,” he said. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier this month announced plans to deploy missiles near NATO’s borders to neutralise the missile shield installations. But on Saturday he said he was ready for compromise and promised to hold off on a possible military response to the project. (Additional reporting by Ibon Villelabeitia; Editing by Richard Balmforth) Posted in English No Comments
The Larger Meaning of the Venezuelan Elections November 19th, 2008 by Prof. James Petras Introduction The Venezuelan gubernatorial and municipal elections, taking place on November 23 of this year, are the most polarized and significant in the country’s history. A great deal has changed for the better since my first teaching invitation at the Central University over 40 years ago: The Chavez government has build hundreds of medical and educational facilities serving the vast majority of the poor, vastly reduced underemployment, subsidized food for the slum residents of the ‘ranchos’ and raised living standards for ordinary Venezuelans. Equally significant, this year a new pro-Chavez political party, the Venezuelan United Socialist Party (PSUV), with a formal membership of over a million members is facing its first test – in action in 23 states and over 300 municipalities. The elections and their results will tell us a great deal about the popular response to two conflicting versions of the recent past: Whether the government’s positive efforts toward building socialism compensates for local political and economic deficiencies or whether the pro-US/capitalist-led opposition with its control of the mass media and its new ‘grass roots’ strategies have penetrated and influenced at least some sectors of the Chavista mass base. The elections are in effect a judgment of the performance of the great majority of state and local governments ruled by Chavista incumbents as well as a political statement about the support and ‘drawing power’ of President Chavez. The outcome of these elections will have a profound impact on the future political direction of the Chavez government’s transition to socialism as well as on the possibilities of a future referendum allowing for Chavez’ reelection. Equally important, the electoral outcome will have an important impact on the policies of the incoming Obama regime: A decisive victory or defeat of the Chavistas will entail important tactical and strategic adjustments in the new Administrations policies. Contrasting Electoral Campaign Strategies: The Government and the Opposition The right-wing, pro-Washington opposition has dramatically changed their electoral strategy in these elections. Instead of focusing on personal insults of the President or spouting ideological bromides, they have concentrated on local issues, officials and the inefficiencies in delivering services. The opposition and its mass media have launched frontal attacks on deficiencies in garbage collection and the accumulation of rotting waste in the popular neighborhoods, increasing personal insecurity due to crime, unresponsiveness of some officials to individual/community petitions, corruption and, above all, inflation, which is running at 30%. The opposition has downplayed attacks on Chavez and his popular macro-social programs: The ‘missiones’, the popular brigades promoting literacy and health care; the community based councils, the municipal universities, government-sponsored municipal banks and access to soft credit. Instead, the opposition has criticized the implementation of these programs by an inefficient or inadequate local administration. Above all, the opposition has done everything possible to avoid polarizing the vote between pro and anti-Chavez, since the President has popularity ratings above 60%. The PSUV-led campaign has generally taken a different approach emphasizing national policy successes; the recent nationalization of steel, cement, banking enterprises; pay raises for public sector employees; the end of food shortages and above all, emphasizing the close links between local candidates and President Chavez, whose photo is present next to the local candidates on most electoral posters. A substantial increase in government spending on local programs, the completion of immediate impact programs, the rapid implementation of local public lending policies to thousands of co-operatives in the ‘ranchos’ has in the last weeks of the campaign improved the poll results of government candidates. Each side has tried to exploit the others’ weaknesses and overcome internal problems. The key problem for the opposition is their inability to unite behind a single candidate in several states and municipalities, dividing the right-wing vote and opening up the possibility of a Chavista victory with less than 50% of the electorate. The right wing cannot count on the massive abstention of 3 million Chavistas, which allowed them to squeak by with a 1% victory in the November 2007 referendum. The Chavista mass is expected to turn out en masse. The higher turn out is expected to favor the Chavistas. The opposition cannot exploit the expected negative impact of the world economic crisis, which, thanks to the government’s reserves, has not yet hit Venezuelan voters. An election a year from now would have adversely affected the Chavista vote. On the government side, the rising rate of inflation has deteriorated living standards of the poor: The wage and salary increases of the poorest sectors have not kept up with prices. Crime and local predators have increased insecurity and government anti-crime programs have not been effectively implemented – by lax, corrupt or complicit local police and political officials. The biggest threat to the Chavista candidate slate and local majority comes form the ineffective officials who have not solved ‘local problems’. A big question is whether unpopular Chavista governors and mayors can return to power on the coattails of the popular President Chavez. The Complex and Contradictory International and Domestic Context of the Elections The international political and economic context of the elections is complicated, but mostly favorable at this moment for the government and the PSUV candidates. The world economic recession and financial crash is just at the beginning phase and has not yet impacted on the daily life of most voters – luckily for the government. Cushioned by the $40 billion dollars in foreign reserves and high levels of public expenditures, the falling price of Venezuelan oil (from $146/barrel in mid-2008 to $52/barrel in November) has not cut deeply into living standards or social programs. Venezuela’s new and growing economic, military and cultural ties, especially with China, Russia and Iran, and its improved relations with the European Union and Center-Right and Center-Left regimes in Latin and Central America has isolated the US, and undermined its diplomatic campaign against the Chavez Government. The US is tied down in wars in the Middle East and South Asia, and the severe downturn in its economy has eroded Washington’s economic levers and military resources for any direct military intervention. It appears that the Pentagon’s assets in the Venezuelan National Guard and military are too weak to organize a new coup and they do not appear capable of carrying out a full-scale offensive without direct US intervention or support from Washington’s Colombian surrogate, President Alvaro Uribe, who, despite tactical gains against the guerrillas, now faces a huge upsurge in popular mobilizations especially among the indigenous movements and their allies and from millions of defrauded lower middle class ‘investors’ of pyramid schemes. Though the international climate today is favorable to the Chavistas, the immediate future is a different story. Venezuela will suffer from the fall of oil revenue and the world recessions; capital flight despite capital controls is rampant; and private capital is disinvesting or withholding credit despite massive incentives. The government cannot continue large-scale financing of public social and economic projects and still subsidize private exporters, agro-business and, especially, luxury importers. The year 2009, by necessity, is the year of hard class decisions: Either the government cuts spending for the capitalists or the workers and peasants. Either social programs are drastically reduced or state subsidies to private business are ended. The vast army of publicly-funded (and unproductive) employees are put to work in the productive sector or they will be laid off. In any case, the business elite, the army of importers of high status automobiles and luxury items, and their consumers will be adversely affected and aroused into an adversarial frenzy. When the full impact of the world recession hits Venezuela, the class polarization will explode and spill over and out of the institutional/electoral channels. Domestic Correlation of Forces The PSUV has organized a vast electoral organization with some success; the pro-Chavez trade unions in some sectors have been strengthened and advanced, especially through Chavez nationalization of basic industries. The Chavista cultural and social programs and their mass media have deepened and extended the influence and support of the government in many sectors of the urban and rural poor. Yet there are troubling issues: The trade unions represent no more than 20% of the workforce. Few in the contracted and informal sectors are organized. The union members are largely ‘economistic’ (focused on wages) and not politically active. The official TV outlet (Telesur) has not succeeded in securing a mass audience – its reach is only a fraction of that of the private right-wing television stations. The Right almost totally dominates the daily print media. The majority of the military and security establishment still supports Chavez, but there is a strong minority contingent in the National Guard, police and army, which is allied with the big landowners, big business and the Pentagon. Above all, there is a large sector of the population – lower middle class, public employees, small business informal workers — who are of wavering political loyalties and allegiances. They support the Chavista candidates when the economy is booming, public expenditures are soaring, cheap credit is readily available, incomes outpace inflation and imports flood the market. What is unknown is how this wide sector of the voters will react when these conditions change for the worse. Much depends on how the government confronts the world recession and the internal measures, which it adopts. Can an oil-dependent government sustain and deepen the advance toward socialism or will the crisis force it to retreat toward greater austerity and accommodation to capitalism at the expense of its mass base? In the end, the world recession will greatly impact the Venezuelan economy and force upon the Chavez government and PSUV the most difficult political decision: either the socialization of the strategic economic sectors to channel investment toward domestic production and popular consumption (the Bolivarian socialist option) or the transfer of scarce public resources to bailing out the private sector (the Obama/Wall Street solution). There does not appear to be any ‘third ways’-the center-left economic position of Chavez’ current allies in Latin America are fast disintegrating. The outcome of the November 23 elections is a very important determinant of the future direction, which the Chavez government will or may take. Big advances by the Right will increase pressure against Chavez re-election hopes and a socialist response to the coming economic challenges. A big Chavista victory will make more likely the adoption of a socialist response to the capitalist crash. Posted in English No Comments
The Fall of the Wall : Hard Times in Money World November 19th, 2008 by Danny Schechter There was once a wall on what is now Wall Street. For many years it was walled off from what’s called the real economy, the place most of us live, work, pay bills, run up debt and earn a living. Today, we seem to be walled off from where the financial relief is, with taxpayer funds flowing into the firms that caused or were complicit in this deepening crisis and bypassing workers losing jobs and industries, not to mention homeowners losing their homes. Wall Street was once just a wall on a fort, actually a stockade built for the West India Company by the legendary Peter Stuyvesant, after whom one of New York’s leading high schools is named. He used African slaves to build it first for the Dutch to defend their colony from the British. That slave labor was intimately connected to the origins of what we later dubbed the “free” market. Today an American, partly of African origin, assumes the Presidency and promises to stabilize that free market. Over the years, they fortified that wall on Wall Street, expanding it to l2 feet by 4 feet to defend against Indian tribes, who may have been tricked into selling Manhattan Island for a pittance. (The Native Americans believed that no one cold own land because it belongs to Mother Earth, and so many at first thought they were scamming stupid colonists in the New World’s first real estate scam.) Sound familiar? For many years, the area belonged quite literally to pigs, thousands of them, binging on garbage. Imagine that landscape then and picture the crime scene and symbol of greed that Wall Street has become. It wasn’t until 1792 that the New York Stock Exchange was built on the site of the stockade. Economist Max Wolf showed me around the other day for a film I am making on the crisis. He told me about the early days before big financial institutions colonized our economy. ”The early traders met under an apple tree next to a coffee shop. It was a very informal and small type of market in which a small number of affluent people made bets. It was all about a rich man game to make a little bit more money. And it was exciting. And it probably wasn’t seen socially more than like a high poker club. But it has evolved in its social importance. So now it is the symbolic nerve center of American capitalism.” That apple tree morphed into the Big Apple which seems to be shrinking daily. The first Wall Street crisis was an unexpected inferno. It sounds like the city’s original 911. In 1832, out of the blue, the stock exchange was consumed by the Great Fire of New York. Nearly 700 buildings were turned into cinders. The Marines were called in and blew up 17 city blocks to try to stop the fires’ spread. They failed in that intervention as they would in many foreign adventures to come. The official history of the City of New York offered this apocalyptic description of the carnage: “Many of the stores were new, with iron shutters and doors and copper roofs, and in burning presented the appearance of immense iron furnaces in full blast. The heat at times melted the copper roofing, and the liquid ran off in great drops. The gale blew towards the East River. Wall after wall was heard tumbling like an avalanche. Fiery tongues of flame leaped from roof and windows along whole streets, and seemed to be making angry dashes at each other. The water of the bay looked like a vast sea of blood. The bells rang for a while and then ceased. Both sides of Pearl Street and Hanover Square were at the same instant in the jaws of the hungry monster.” These images, resonating with references to the imperialism of an earlier era—slavery, pigs, suppression of native peoples, military overreaction, apocalyptic fire, and the “jaws of a hungry monster” — could easily be reconjured up all these years later to try to make sense of the spreading financial “fire” burning down modern Wall Street, even though many of its uber-affluent players have dispersed uptown and around the world, linked by a ganglia of globalized electronic webs and networks. The investigation of that great fire never identified who was to blame just as so much of the journalism reporting on the massive market meltdown today– what’s been called a “credit storm” or “financial tsunami”—avoids most deeper analysis or, heaven forbid, assessing blame. Today, Wall Street is walled off in another way. It’s become a domestic replica of Baghdad’s highly fortified Green Zone, with a small army of well- armed private security guards supplemented by platoons of New York Police with submachine guns. Hundreds of millions are being spent on new security cameras on top of the vast treasure it took to get the markets up and running in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. These cameras are pointed outward when they should be turned around to document and monitor the inner world of the unelected deal-making elite who orchestrate the allocation of resources in the world economy. Their choices or lack of them frame the debates of our politicians and structure our economy and economies worldwide. Their fraud and chicanery has brought down the world economy. Ironically, the cops guarding THE STREET did not detect the billions of dollars that disappeared into the coffers of greedy bankers and blue chip investment houses right in front of their faces. They watched but they did not see. They patrolled dutifully but missed the plunder they were protecting. The irony is that this expensive obsession with security has made us more insecure. In fact, you would have to say that the obsessive drive for security, physical and material, has led to massive economic insecurity by Americans losing jobs, retirement funds, and their homes. Our media has put up a new wall around Wall Street by not doing its number #1 job: following the money, finding out whose getting what, detailing the conflicts of interest and the latest theft that seems to be going on under the cover of a bailout that puts billions into the coffers of the very people who should be investigated. Where’s the outcry when you learn that more money has been spent to contain this crisis than was used in all of World War 11? There is none. Instead we have shrugs and rationalizations by pundits who missed the crisis in the first place. They are hiding behind a wall of timidity and deference as if they are embedded in the culture of the very corporations they are covering. Where is the analysis of the likely impact of the bailouts underway? The Herald in Glasgow suggest their effect will be dire: “The bailout at taxpayers’ expense is contributing to a further process of destabilization of the financial architecture by transferring large amounts of public money into the hands of private financiers. This, in turn, will place an unprecedented concentration of financial power in even fewer hands, driving large sectors of industry and the services into bankruptcy, leading to the layoff of tens of thousands of workers, thus simultaneously further depressing the real economy, while exacerbating the capital accumulation that caused the initial problem.” These issues demand a deeper debate. In the meantime, we might want to say to our President-elect Barack Obama what a man he claims to have admired, Ronald Reagan, demanded of Mikhael Gorbachev in another time and place: “tear down this wall.” News Dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org and is the author of PLUNDER: Investigating Our Economic Calamity (Cosimo) on the Wall Street collapse at on-line booktores. Comments to
[email protected] Posted in English No Comments
Change? Not November 19th, 2008 by Global Research I happen to like Americans. I’m legally one of them, but I wasn’t born here. Most of the Americans I have known in the four decades I have lived here have not been warmongers or racists or contemptuous of culture and intellect. Even the so-called uneducated ones have a core of neighborly decency and tolerance that seems rooted in a cheerful attitude of live-and-let-live. Their culture is malleable and adaptable and eventually inclusive. They have refined the discourse of human rights, feminism, and anti-authoritarianism. They have developed great universities. They are indefatigable inventors and innovators. They have perfected the rhetoric of rights and actually enjoy some of them. They are not snobs. And they are quick on the uptake when lies and chicanery are in the offing. The last eight years in the vertiginous rise and fall of Bushist triumphalism and bluster attest to that. But. These are the people. Their government is something entirely different, and they are beginning to realize it. It frightens them — this pending gap and potential divorce between themselves and their government. The election of Barack Obama restores hope — after all, they have elected a black American, and, to them, this is a huge paradigm shift. In the horrible, long, and contorted history of racialist America, this single act gives them the illusion that their government can now be trusted again to be in tune with their sentiments because it includes an outsider — a person of color. Except. Barack Obama is not an outsider. He has chosen the establishment over the people. But this is hard for Americans to understand because they have no concept of class — which is to say the concept that class is a relation of power. They think in racialist terms. They think that color determines politics. Or maybe they don’t, but they have no other tool of analysis than race. How else to explain the enthusiasm over Obama, a man whose policies and advisors are indistinguishable from Clinton’s, who was a dismantler of welfare, a neo-liberal free-trader, and an ardent warmonger? A man who put power and profits before the people? This is a tragedy in the making. Possibly the last disillusionment. After all, this new president is never going to say what Martin Luther King said when the awful truth about the war in Vietnam caught up with him, “The greatest purveyor of terror in the world today is my own government.” How could he when he has chosen to defend that power in a relation of class solidarity with the economic elite? And it needs to be said again. Or nothing will change. Posted in English No Comments
Wall Street and Washington conspired to defraud Japanese banks November 19th, 2008 by Wayne Madsen (WMR) — Intelligence agencies in China and Japan are focusing on the role of a successor entity of Salomon Brothers as being behind a fraud against Japanese banks by the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and Wall Street to bail out unscrupulous Wall Street bankers and mega-investors. Salomon was the first to offer mortgage bonds to infuse capital into failing firms. It began its mortgage bond business in 1935 to circumvent a “capital strike” organized by Wall Street’s top investment firms to protest Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Joseph P. Kennedy’s tough new regulations on Wall Street following the Great Depression. In 1962, Salomon teamed up with Merrill Lynch, Blyth & Co., and Lehman Brothers to form the “Fearsome Foursome.” The foursome became aggressive as block traders of stocks and bonds and took over bond trading from traditional underwriters. When the Republican Congress approved deregulation of mortgage trading in the 1980s, Salomon was in the cat bird’s seat as savings and loans began selling mortgages as bonds. Under John Gutfreund as CEO, Salomon became the king of the mortgagebacked securities market. However, the savings & loan scandal, a Treasury bill (T-Bill) scandal in which Salomon submitted false bids to the Treasury Department to purchase more Treasury bonds than legally permitted, and involvement in the junk bond business ultimately led the SEC to fine Salomon and bar Gutfreund from ever serving as a CEO of a brokerage firm. Salomon was acquired by Travelers Group and later by Citigroup and was briefly known as Salomon Smith Barney. Salomon is now an autonomous division of Citigroup Global Markets. Chinese and Japanese intelligence agencies that look closely at financial malfeasance are alarmed that the Salomon division of Citigroup has managed to take over all of Lehman Brothers’ viable assets, leaving the U.S. bankruptcy court holding the debt of the failed securities firm. Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 15, 2008. Lehman had borrowed billions from two Japanese banks — Nomura and Sumitomo Mitsui — to stay afloat. Our Asian intelligence sources report that the Salomon division of Citigroup engaged in a massive fraud scheme with the connivance of the Treasury Department of Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve Bank of Ben Shalom Bernanke. The Japanese government of Prime Minister Taro Aso realizes the impact of the fraud committed against its banks by Salomon/Citigroup and has backpedaled on an earlier promise to hold snap early elections. The opposition Democratic Party, which controls the upper house of the Japanese parliament, smells blood in the water and wants to see early elections. WMR has also learned that a number of CIA officers are in Beijing to try to prevent a united Asian front against Washington’s and Wall Street’s attempts to call the shots on the global financial crisis. The CIA’s top priority is to ensure that nothing interferes with China’s continued backing of the U.S. dollar. Previously published in the Wayne Madsen Report. Copyright © 2008 WayneMadenReport.com Posted in English 4 Comments
Extrajudicial Assassinations As Official Israeli Policy November 19th, 2008 by Stephen Lendman Extra-judicial killings are indefensible, morally abhorrent, and illegal under international laws and norms. Article 23b of the 1907 Hague Regulations prohibits “assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for any enemy ‘dead or alive.’ ” Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” UDHR also recognizes the “inherent dignity (and the) equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” So do “just war” principles that rule out gratuitous violence, assassinations, especially if premeditated, war against civilians, and so on, despite the difficulties of distinguishing between combatants, those who’ve laid down their arms, and the innocent in times of war – let alone dealing with “terrorism” or what one analyst calls the “twilight zone between war and peace.” Others say it’s justifiable resistance or “blowback” in response to state-sponsored violence and other crimes of war and against humanity. In 1980, the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders condemned “the practice of killing and executing political opponents or suspected offenders carried out by armed forces, law enforcement or other governmental agencies or by paramilitary or political groups” acting with the support of official forces or agencies. The General Assembly also acted in response to arbitrary executions and politically motivated killings. On December 15, 1980, it adopted resolution 35/172 in which it urged member states to abide by the provisions of Articles 6, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights that cover the right to life and various safeguards guaranteeing fair and impartial judicial proceedings. The first principle of the 1989 UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions states: “Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions and shall ensure that any such executions are recognized as offences under their criminal laws, and are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the seriousness of such offenses. Exceptional circumstances, including a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of such executions. (They) shall not be carried out under any circumstances including, but not limited to, situations of internal armed conflict, excessive or illegal use of force by a public official or other person acting in an official capacity or by a person acting at the instigation, or with the consent or acquiescence of such person, and situations in which deaths occur in custody. This prohibition shall prevail over decrees issued by governmental authority.” These articles and provisions apply to occupied civilian populations, and the Fourth Geneva Convention and its Article 3 affords ones (like the Palestinians) under foreign occupation special protection. It covers all actions related to “Violence to life and person, Murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.” In addition, “The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees….recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” Its Article 32 states: “the High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.” Its Article 85 refers to “Grave Breaches” and defines them as “Acts committed willfully and causing death or serious injury to body or health….making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack (or)launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects….” The 2002 International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute also defines these grave violations as war crimes that include (in its Article 8): — “Grave” Geneva Convention breaches; — “Willing killing….” — “Intentionally launching an attack” knowing it will “cause incidental loss of life….” — “Killing or wounding” combatants who’ve laid down their arms; — extrajudicial killings; and — “Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary….” In 1982, the UN established the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. It was one of several mandates to address disappearances, torture, assassinations and many other human rights abuses and violations of international law. Philip Alston currently holds the post to investigate extrajudicial killings, hold governments responsible for committing them, failing to prevent them, or for not responding when they’re carried out by others. In May 2008, he issued the latest report of his “principle activities” in 2007 through the first three months of 2008. As of March 2008, he requested permission from 32 countries and Occupied Palestine to visit. In spite of “proceed(ing) with plans for a visit,” Israel “so far failed to respond affirmatively.” The Palestinian Authority (PA) “issued an invitation.” The US Position On Extrajudicial Killings In 1976, President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order (EO) 11905 banning the practice against foreign leaders in peacetime and by implication against others. Yet Reagan’s Defense Secretary, Caspar Weinberger, argued that only “murder by treacherous means” is forbidden so assassinations are acceptable as long as they’re unrelated to “treachery.” George Bush then swept aside subtleties, reversed Ford’s EO, and authorized the CIA to assassinate Osama bin Laden, his supporters, and publicly stated that bin Laden “was wanted, dead or alive.” His Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, concurred and called killing “terrorists” an act of “self-defense.” In June 2008, Philip Alston visited the US. He met with federal and state officials, judges and civil society groups in New York, Washington, Alabama and Texas. He also conducted a fact-finding tour of US prison and detention facilities and presented his findings at a June 30 press conference. He sharply criticized the Bush administration, the country’s flawed judicial system, and continued rule of law violations. He cited: — racism in the application of the death penalty; — the lack of transparency in Guantanamo prisoner deaths; — a lack of information about Iraq and Afghanistan civilian deaths; the unwillingness of Department of Defense officials and others to cooperate; his concern about serious human rights violations as well; and — the refusal of the US Justice Department to prosecute mercenary contractors (like Blackwater Worldwide) who commit unlawful killings. Or the US military. Israeli Extrajudicial Killings Throughout its history, Israel willfully and systematically committed premeditated extrajudicial killings of Palestinians and other Arabs as official state policy – carried out with explicit high-level political, judicial and military authorization and allegedly in “selfdefense” against individuals threatening Israeli security. Government officials even admit that certain persons are targeted, and Dan Haluts, former Israeli Army Chief of Staff, once told the Washington Post (in August 2006) that “Targeted killing is the most important method in the fight against ‘terrorism.’ ” In other words, premeditated murder is acceptable as long as it’s properly classified. In May 2007 on Israeli Army Radio, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, former Infrastructure Minister, defended the practice and said: “We decided to carry out more physical liquidation operations against (Palestinian) ‘terrorists”….I think this will eliminate the damage caused to Israeli territory due to the launching of Palestinian rockets.” Almost never do Israeli government or military officials show evidence that targeted individuals acted violently or threatened Jewish citizens. Simply calling them “terrorists” is justification enough – to kill them extrajudicially, with no recourse to due process or respect for international law that bans the practice for any reason. “My crime was to protest Israeli assassinations” On January 5, 2007, the London Guardian headlined that comment in reporting on Jewish activist Tali Fahima’s first interview following her release from Israeli incarceration. Sitting with her arms handcuffed to a chair’s legs 16 hours a day, her captors said they wanted to teach her to be a “good Jew.” She was imprisoned for 30 months for traveling to the West Bank, “meeting an enemy agent and translating a simple army document.” She explained and said her crimes were for refusing to work with Shin Bet (Israel’s secret service), going to see the Palestinians, then protesting the Israeli assassinations policy. She was kept in isolation for nine months. Finally, at the urging of her lawyer, she struck a plea bargain for a shorter sentence, and ended up being “unbowed” by her experience. She learned how Sin Bet “terroriz(es)” people, both Palestinians and Jews. “About the nature of the government, how they do not want us to see what is going on in our name.” On August 8, 2004, she was arrested and placed under administrative detention in September. In December, she was charged with “assistance to the enemy at time of war.” It was trumped up and false. In January 2005, the Tel Aviv district court ruled that she should be placed under house arrest during her trial. Jerusalem’s high court overruled it on the grounds that she “identifie(d) with an ideological goal.” In December 2005, she pled guilty under her plea bargain to meeting and aiding an enemy agent and entering Palestinian territory. In January 2006, she was released. She felt compelled to make regular Jenin visits. Talk to hundreds of people, including Palestinian resisters, and for the first time heard their point of view and how hard things are under occupation. For showing compassion and disagreeing with Israeli policies, she was imprisoned for nearly 30 months on false charges. Not even Jews are safe from harsh state retribution against anyone showing defiance or daring to resist injustice. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Documentation of Israeli Targeted Assassinations The (1995 established) Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) functions independently in Gaza and enjoys “Consultative Status” with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It’s also an affiliate of the International Commission of JuristsGeneva, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) in Paris, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network in Copenhagen, the Arab Organization for Human Rights in Cairo, and the International Legal Assistance Corsortium (ILAC) in Stockholm. Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists established it to: — “protect human rights and promote the rule of law;” — create, develop and promote a democratic culture in Palestinian society; and — work for Palestinian self-determination and independence “in accordance with international law and UN resolutions.” PCHR issues documents, fact sheets, and reports like its quarterly accounts of Israeli extrajudicial executions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Its latest one is from April through June, and a more comprehensive one covered August 2006 through its latest June 2008 data. PCHR states: It’s “investigated and documented these (killings) in depth (and) concluded that the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces) have consistently acted with utter disregard for the lives of (mostly innocent) Palestinian civilians in the OPT, and that IOF have continued to carry out state sanctioned extra-judicial executions, (in violation of) international human rights law….in the overwhelming majority of cases….suspects could have been arrested, but no efforts were made….and they were instead extrajudicially executed” – according to official state policy. The Human Toll Since the second Intifada’s September 2000 inception through June 30, 2008, and excluding all other Palestinian killings, the IOF carried out 755 OPT executions. Victims included 521 extrajudicially targeted and 233 bystanders, including 71 children and 20 women. In Gaza, 405 were killed. Another 350 in the West Bank. The methods used included: — F-16, unmanned drone, and attack helicopter-launched air-to-surface missiles; tank shelling; missile launchers and gunboats; — Israeli military undercover units disguised as Palestinians; first established during the first (1987 – 1993) Intifada; they became more active during the second one; could easily have arrested suspects but instead killed them at short range; and — IOF targeted house ambushes in the West Bank. Most often, civilians are attacked in their homes, vehicles, on streets and at workplaces. Sometimes entire families are killed, including children, women, the elderly, and infirm, and a July 2002 incident was typical. It targeted Salah Shehada, an Ezzedeen AlQassam Brigades (the Hamas armed wing) leader. The IOF knew he was with his wife and children. That they lived in a densely populated residential area, and former Israeli Army Chief of Staff, Moshe Ya’alon, admitted that he knew Shehada’s wife and daughter “were close to him during the implementation of the assassination….and there was no way out of conducting the operation despite their presence.” An Israeli F-16 bombed his home, and completely destroyed it. Two neighboring ones also and damaged 32 others. The toll was horrific – 77 injured civilians; 16 others killed, including Shehada, his wife, daughter, assistant, eight children, (one a two-month old baby), and two elderly men and two women. It was an indefensible criminal act of wanton murder. In May 2007, an air-to-surface missile targeted the Al-Hayia family at his eastern Gaza meeting hall. It scored a direct hit. Killed were seven members of his family, another Palestinian and the object of the attack – Sameh Saleh Farawana, a Hamas activist. In addition, three others were wounded. In July 2006, air-to-surface missiles destroyed Dr. Nabil Abdol Latif Abu Selmeya’s home in Gaza City’s Al-Sheikh Radwan district. He, his wife, and seven children were killed. In addition, 34 bystanders were injured, including 5 children and six women. At least 15 neighboring homes were also damaged in an operation Israelis said targeted Mohammed Al-Deif, Hamas’ armed wing leader and apparently Israel’s most wanted man. In January 2008, an air-to-surface missile struck a civilian vehicle carrying three members of the Al-Yazji family killing Mohammed Al-Yazji, his five-year old son, and his 40-year old brother. Three bystanders were also injured. IOF sources later admitted the attack was in error and was meant for another vehicle carrying Palestinian resistance activists. In August 2007, a Gaza operation near the Rafah International Crossing Point killed two civilians, injured 12 others and slightly wounded three targeted activists who escaped. Moments later, another vehicle was struck nearby killing the driver, a civilian bystander, and wounding 12 others, including a child. In November 2006 in eastern Gaza, a vehicle was struck carrying Bassel Sha’aban Ubeid, an Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades member. He and a colleague were killed. In addition, five Amen family members were injured, including two children. Throughout the reporting period, there were many more killings in Gaza and the West Bank. In November 2006, four Jenin civilians. In February 2007, three others in Jenin. In March 2008, four Bethlehem civilians. Many others throughout the Territories in Ramallah, Nablus, Rafah, Khan Younis, Tul Karim, north, central and southern Gaza, and elsewhere – against activists, resisters, civilians, women and children for the crime of being Palestinians wanting self-determination, freedom, and respect for their rights under international law. For their part, Israelis, with world support and complicity, continue denying it to them repressively and illegally. Extrajudicial Executions in the Latest Reporting Period – April – June 2008 During the period, the IOF conducted eight OPT assassinations killing a total of 16 people, including two civilian bystanders. Two operations were carried out in the West Bank. Six others in Gaza. On April 14, an air-to-surface missile killed Ibrahim Mohanned Abu ‘Olba, the National Resistance Brigades’ (the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine’s armed wing) leader in northern Gaza. Two civilians were also injured, including a 15-year old boy. In addition, a number of nearby houses were damaged. On April 15, an air-to-surface missile killed Abdullah Mohammed al-Ghassain, an al-Quds Brigades’ (the Islamic Jihad’s armed wing) activist in northern Gaza. Three others were also injured. On April 17, the IOF besieged a building in Qabatya village, southeast of Jenin in the northern West Bank. They opened fire at a civilian car, ordered people out of the building, and fired shells and demolished it with a bulldozer. Two dead Palestinians were found inside. On April 20, an air-to-surface missile killed Nour al-Dibari in Gaza. A second missile targeted a number of Palestinians who just left a grocery shop. Its owner was seriously injured as well as his son. At least one other Palestinian was hurt as well. On June 29, the IOF entered Tubas in the northern West Bank and set a cemetery ambush for a group of Palestinian children there throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at military vehicles. They opened fire and killed one 16-year old from multiple gunshots to the chest and abdomen. PCHR “asserts that the Government of Israel continues to act recklessly, and with utter disregard for the human rights of the Palestinian people, including (their) right to life” and safety. Israel also fails “to meet its obligations under human rights law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.” An Israeli government representative wasn’t available for comment. Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
[email protected]. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM – 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions on world and national topics with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10946 Posted in English 1 Comment
Will The Slaughter Of Iraqis By The US Military Ever Be Reported? November 19th, 2008 by Prof. Michael Schwartz I recently received a set of questions from Le Monde Diplomatique reporter Kim Bredesen about the 2007 Project Censored story about 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths due to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. The questions and answers are, I think, useful in framing both the untold story of the slaughter in Iraq and the failure of the U.S. media to report on its extent or on U.S. culpability for the deaths of 4% of the Iraqi population. Bredeson : I observed recently that your story on Iraqi deaths caused by US occupation became story no. 1 in this year’s listing by Project Censored. I wondered if I could ask you a few questions on e-mail regarding this issue? Regards, Kim Bredesen, Le Monde diplomatiqe (Norway) These are my questions. 1.Do you expect that the new administration under Barack Obama will acknowledge the validity of the statistics concerning Iraqi deaths caused by the US occupation force? It is always difficult to predict the political future, but even if the Obama administration pursues a very different policy in Iraq and the Middle East, I doubt it will acknowledge the amount of violence caused by the war during its first six years. Historically, the U.S. government has a poor record of acknowledging its responsibility for death and/or destruction of other peoples, beginning with the genocide against Native Americans (never officially acknowledged), continuing through two hundred years of the slave trade and slavery (there has actually been a limp official apology), and culminating in the ongoing refusal to acknowledge one to three million deaths in Vietnam caused by the U.S. attempt to conquer that country. 2.You mention in your update to Censored 2009 that there is a media blackout about the dramatic statistics in US mass media. Do you think this will change? I think that the U.S. mainstream media has a poor record of acknowledging the many instances in which it has (collectively) failed to maintain its constitutionally mandated independence from government policy, and instead has ignored or written false reports supporting government malfeasance and tyranny. It was refreshing that the New York Times and Washington Post acknowledged their failure to report the contrary evidence to the US government claims about WMDs in Iraq, but this is a rare moment that has not led to more independent reporting on other U.S. government action in the Middle East. I think that we can expect the U.S. mainstream media to continue to compromise its journalistic integrity in reporting on Iraq, and this will mean failing to report its own suppression of the Lancet studies and continuing to misreport the U.S. role in the Iraq war. This expectation is, of course, speculation, but the best evidence for this speculation is the fact that the major media have been withdrawing their personnel from Iraq, instead of taking advantage of more favorable security conditions to send reporters to locations that were previously inaccessible and therefore more thoroughly report the impact of the war on Iraqi life. 3.How have you experienced the coverage about the issue in other Western or international media, have they taken the situation in Iraq more seriously? I find the reporting in Al Jazeera, the British national press, other international media, and independent U.S. media far more comprehensive in their coverage of the Iraq war. I would not say that they take the situation more “seriously,” — there has never been a problem with the U.S. media taking the war seriously. The differences are in very specific parts of the coverage: reporting on U.S. involvement in deaths and destruction, reporting on Iraqi resistance to the U.S. presence; reporting on the economic and social chaos caused by U.S. military, political, and economic policies in Iraq; reporting on who is fighting against the U.S.; reporting on the actual reality of life under U.S. occupation; and reporting on the day-to-day antagonism of Iraqis to the U.S. presence. I should add, however, that these failures are not so much failures of U.S. mainstream reporters, but of the editors and publishers who assign reporters to particular stories and not to others. There are many reporters who fit information about all these issues into assignments that are aimed at other subjects. One small example will illustrate what I mean. In reporting about the U.S. offensive in Haifa Street in January 2007, mainstream reporters (for McClatchy and the Washington Post, if memory serves me) whose assignment was to report on the successful capture by U.S. troops of an insurgent stronghold also described the destructiveness of the U.S. attack and mentioned that U.S. soldiers stood idly by while Shia death squads cleansed the neighborhood of Sunnis. This information appeared toward the end of published reports, but it was published nevertheless. In contrast, a CBS report on the overarching destructiveness of the offensive and of the anger of residents at U.S. military actions was not broadcast and was only made public because of the protests of the censored reporter. 4.The journalist Joshua Holland compared the mass killings in Iraq with Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia. Is this an accurate comparison in your opinion? Holland’s purpose in this comparison is the same as my purpose in comparing the deaths in Iraq to those in Darfur: we are trying to give people a sense of the scale of the violence wrought in Iraq by the U.S. military. The mass murders in Cambodia under Pol Pot and the displacements and genocide in Darfur — as well as so many other recent and more distant instances of such violence — all have different sources, intentions, and outcomes from the Iraq violence and from each other. The point of making these comparisons is to point out the magnitude of the slaughter in Iraq, not to make analytic comments about the dynamics of the war. 5. Do you believe it is appropriate that the Bush administration should face trial for their actions? In The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense McNamara said to the camera that if the U.S. had lost World War II, then he and other American leaders would have stood trial as war criminals for the terrorist fire bombings of Japanese and German cities by the U.S. air force. Certainly the actions of U.S. political leaders and military commanders in ordering their troops to attack civilian targets in Iraq (for example the destruction of the city of Falluja — well publicized everywhere in the world except in the United States) fall under the same definition of war crimes that McNamara was considering in making this statement, and so it would be perfectly appropriate for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and the various commanding generals to stand trial for these actions. But take note that McNamara said that trials would have taken place if the U.S. had “lost.” This statement has actually turned out to be a kind of half truth. In World War II, the Japanese and Germans certainly lost, but only a relative handful of those responsible for their war crimes stood trial (the Japanese Emperor, for example, was actually restored to his throne). In the Vietnam War, most observers say that the U.S. “lost” the war, but no U.S. leaders stood trial for the many war crimes they committed during that long conflict. There is no predicting the future, but I expect that, no matter how the Iraq war ends–with either McCain’s “victory” or with the “defeat” that President Bush has repeatedly warned the U.S. citizens about–there will be no war crimes trials of U.S. political and military leadership. Posted in English No Comments
War and the Economic Crisis: America’s moronic hegemonic policy spells disaster November 19th, 2008 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts According to all accounts the US faces its worse economic crisis since the Great Depression with $2 trillion in near-term financing needs for bailouts and economic stimulus. This is an enormous sum for any country, especially for one that is so heavily indebted that it is close to bankruptcy. If the money can’t be borrowed abroad, it will have to be printed–a policy that carries the implication of hyper-inflation. In normal life a borrower who must appeal to creditors makes every effort to bring order to his financial affairs. But not the Bush regime. The out-of-pocket costs of Bush’s Iraq war are about $600 billion at the present moment, a figure that increases by millions of dollars every hour. In addition, there are the much larger future costs that have already been incurred, such as long-term care for the wounded and disabled US soldiers, the replacement costs of the used up equipment, interest payments on the war debt, and the lost economic use of the resources and manpower squandered in war. Experts estimate that the already incurred out-of-pocket and future costs of Bush’s Iraq war to be $3 trillion and rising. Even these costs might be small if an article by Richard LaMountain in the November 2008 Middle American News is accurate. According to LaMountain, US refugee programs for Iraqis displaced by the US invasion and occupation could result in a large and growing Muslim US population. These would be people whose lives were adversely impacted by the US invasion of Iraq. If the US maintains its pro-Israeli stance against Arabs and Muslims generally, the implications of a growing Muslim population and a government obsessed with its “war on terror” are frightening for American civil liberty. In order to contain the potential terror that it will have imported, Washington would impose a total police state. We will have our own Saddam Hussein. To avoid the immigration that would be problematic for US civil liberties, the war must end. The war must also end in order that bankrupt Washington can borrow abroad the money it needs to bail out the US economy. The budget authority for the annual out-of-pocket costs of the war have been rising by $150 billion per year, an addition to the budget deficit that must be financed by borrowing abroad. A sane person might think that a government, such as the US, in need of foreign loans to save its economy, would jump at the change to get its troops out of Iraq, where they are not wanted. Instead the Bush regime has been struggling all year with the Iraq government in order to secure an agreement that lets the US government continue to hemorrhage hundreds of billions of dollars by keeping American troops in Iraq. The Korean War ended 55 years ago, and the US still has troops in Korea. Germany was defeated in 1945, and the US still has troops in Germany. A country that must go hat in hand to its creditors must first look to where costs can be cut. Annual military spending of $700 billion is certainly a good place to start. But the US government has far more hubris than intelligence and is on its way to being a failed state that has to print money to pay its bills. It is not too late for the US to save itself and the dollar standard, but it would require a rapid transition from arrogance to humility. The rest of the world can bring America down by not lending to us, in which case neither the trade nor budget deficits could be financed. The world does not want to bring us down in this way. Our creditors would like to preserve as much as possible the values of their trillions in US dollar assets. This is easier done if the dollar remains the reserve currency. Therefore, the US government has an opportunity to go to its creditors with a plan. This is what the plan must be: A declaration that repudiates the neoconservative goal to achieve US hegemony over the world; a budget that reduces annual US borrowing needs by several hundreds of billions by ending the Afghan and Iraq wars, by closing overseas military bases, and by cutting military spending; a new corporate tax system that brings back American jobs, manufacturing capability, and export potential by taxing US corporations’ worldwide profits according to the value-added in the US. Such a plan would demonstrate that the US respects the sovereignty and aspirations of other countries and is willing to cooperate peacefully with others as an occupant of what the Russian president has termed “our common house.” Such a plan would demonstrate that the US government has come to the realization that there is a limit to its borrowing capacity and the loans that it can service and is prepared to put first things first. Such a plan would show that the US can curtail its unsustainable dependency on imports without erecting a wall of tariffs. If the US had the leadership to approach its creditors with such a plan, a sigh of relief would emit from the rest of the world. Many of the economic hardships that Americans currently face could be avoided, and the prospect of a hyper-inflationary depression would recede. Such a favorable outcome requires that the government in Washington give up the delusion that Americans are an “indispensable people” who have a monopoly on virtue that gives them claim to hegemony over the world. Posted in English No Comments
Energy Geopolitics: Iran, Turkey sign preliminary deal on gas transfer November 19th, 2008 by Global Research Iran signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Turkey on Monday for the development of two phases of its South Pars gas field in the Gulf and on transferring gas to Europe, Iran’s oil minister said on Monday. The two sides had signed a deal last year on joint gas production and export of Iranian gas via Turkey to Europe. But since then they have been working to finalize the deal, such as hammering out investment terms. The report on the Iranian oil ministry’s Web site SHANA about Monday’s MoU gave few details. Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Güler has been in Iran to discuss expanding energy cooperation, a move that has drawn criticism from the United States which is seeking to isolate the Islamic Republic over its nuclear plans. “This [MoU] is about the development of phases 23 and 24 of the South Pars gas field with the joint investment of Iran and Turkey. Fifty percent of gas produced from these fields will be sold to Turkey,” Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari said, SHANA reported. Nozari said a second part of the deal covered transporting gas to Turkey from Iran, and a third element covered transferring 35 billion cubic meters of gas a year onwards to Europe. Under the deal signed last year, Turkey was to extract 20.4 billion cubic meters of gas from South Pars. Turkish Energy Ministry sources told Reuters last month that the neighbors had resolved problems on planned investment in South Pars and that they might sign a deal in November. Ankara imports about 10 billion cubic meters of gas each year from Iran, about 30 percent of its natural gas needs. An Iranian deputy oil minister, Akbar Torkan, said Turkey had asked Iran for more gas but did not give details. Iran sits on the world’s second biggest gas reserves but last winter it cut exports to Turkey in an unusually cold snap when Tehran struggled to meet domestic demand. Iranian officials have since said they have taken measures to prevent a reoccurrence of the event. “We have had positive negotiations with Iranian officials and they have promised us that there will not be any problem with respect to gas supply to Turkey this winter, and we have no worries,” Güler was earlier quoted by SHANA as saying. Güler was speaking from Assalouyeh, the heartland of Iran’s gas industry on the Gulf. Iran and Turkey are also discussing plans for joint venture electricity generation. Iranian state radio quoted Iranian Energy Minister Parviz Fattah as saying the two had reached agreement about power plants with a total capacity of 6,000 MW. “We agreed that part of these power stations would be constructed on Iranian territory and part on Turkish territory near the Iranian border,” Fattah said after talks with Güler, adding Iran would supply gas or gas oil for the plants. He also said there were plans for hydroelectric power generation in Iran. After previous discussions, officials said the hydroelectric plant would have a capacity of 10,000 MW. Posted in English No Comments
Mass Unemployment in Financial Services Industry? Citigroup cuts 50,000 jobs November 19th, 2008 by Global Research Citigroup, one of the world’s biggest banks, is to cut about 50,000 jobs as the bank struggles with heavy losses amid the current financial crisis. The cuts come on top of a further 22,000 job losses announced by the firm in October, of which it said 13,000 have already gone. The company said on Monday its workforce is being reduced by about 20 per cent from a peak of 375,000 in 2007. Al Jazeera’s John Terrett in New York said: “This is an astonishing number of workers, on top of those announced earlier this year. “It is a measure of the struggling nature of the banking industry … and of just how grim things are in this economy and that of the wider world.” Wall Street ‘darling’ Citigroup was once the darling of Wall Street as it was perceived to have successfully combined retail with investment banking but was now in big trouble, our corrspondent said. The troubled bank is saddled with billions of dollars in losses tied to the subprime mortgage crisis – in which millions of Americans were granted mortgages they were unable to repay – and the current global credit crunch. The New York-based bank has posted losses for the past four financial quarters, including a heavy loss of $2.8bn during the third quarter. The company said that in addition to job cuts, it plans to lower expenses by about 20 per cent. It has already reduced its assets by more than 20 per cent since the first quarter of the year. It is also selling its Citi Global Services arm and its German retail banking business. Citigroup’s shares plunged 6.6 per cent to close at $8.89 on Monday. The company’s share price lost about 24 per cent last week, just months after its shares traded at a high of about $50. Bonuses questioned Win Bischoff, the chairman of Citigroup, said job losses were inevitable given the current financial crisis. “What all of us have done – and perhaps injudiciously – we’ve added a lot of people over … this very benign period,” he told the AP news agency. “If there is a reversion to the mean … those job losses will obviously fall particularly heavily on the financial sector.” Bischoff also said there was a possibility that some of the company’s top executives could opt out of their bonuses this year, saying “watch this space”. Several top US financial firms have faced heavy criticism for granting their executives millions of dollars in bonuses despite losing billions and shedding jobs. Goldman Sachs, the US investment bank, said on Monday that Lloyd Blankfein, its chief executive, and six other company leaders have renounced their 2008 bonuses following the firm’s poor performance in 2008 in which it lost 70 per cent of its value. Posted in English No Comments
Mediterranean Union agrees on Headquarters, Arab-Israeli role November 19th, 2008 by Global Research Foreign ministers from the new Mediterranean Union struck a deal Tuesday for Barcelona to host the forum’s headquarters and for Israel and the Arab League to take part side-by-side. The Union’s 43 member states held two days of talks in the port of Marseille to end a four-month deadlock on the two contentious issues, which threatened to hamstring the fledgling organisation. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit, whose countries currently co-chair the forum, announced the breakthrough at a joint news conference in the southern French city. “It wasn’t supposed to work, and yet it did,” said Kouchner, adding: “The essential points were accepted completely and without reservation by all 43 states” in the Union for the Mediterranean. Ministers from the Mediterranean’s mainly-Arab southern rim agreed to back the Spanish city of Barcelona’s candidacy to host the Union in exchange for the post of secretary-general going to a southern member. They also clinched a deal on granting the Arab League a full-time seat at the forum — a key demand of Arab members, strongly opposed by Israel which feared the pan-Arab group would try to block its involvement. “The Arabic participation will take place in every meeting with the right to speak at all levels,” said Abul Gheit, although it will have no right to vote. Israel agreed to the Arab League’s role in exchange for one of five deputy secretary-general posts for an initial three-year period, possibly renewable. The deputy posts will rotate between three European members and two southern ones, and will initially be held by the Palestinian Authority, Greece, Malta and Italy, alongside Israel, according to the final declaration. The text — with likely technical amendments — still has to be formally ratified however by the two co-presidents of the Union, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak. Launched at a Paris summit in July, the new union brings together EU members with states from north Africa, the Balkans, the Arab world and Israel in a bid to foster cooperation in one of the world’s most volatile regions. An Israeli diplomat said it agreed to the Arab League “compromise” on the basis it would be able to play a front-seat role in setting up the fledgling Union, and hopefully build bridges around the Mediterranean. But she warned “the Barcelona Process can never replace direct bilateral negotiations” to resolve Israel’s conflicts with Arab nations. A spokesman for the Arab League also warned that its participation would not lead to normalisation with Israel, Egyptian state news agency MENA reported. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he was “delighted” by the accord on Barcelona, while EU external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner called it a “logical choice.” The Mediterranean capital of Spain’s Catalonia region, Barcelona lent its name to the 13-year-old Barcelona Process, a previous EU regional initiative that stalled in part over Arab-Israeli disputes. In exchange for hosting its headquarters, Spain also agreed to drop the tag “Barcelona Process” from the name of the new forum. France, which championed the Union, hoped that by basing it on modest regional projects, such as cleaning up pollution in the Mediterranean, it would be able to sidestep the trap of regional disputes. Priorities set out in the declaration include fighting pollution in the Mediterranean, solar energy, building land and sea highways and cooperation on higher education and research. The Marseille accord, clinched after months of tough negotiations, rescues the forum from the threat of looming deadlock, but it also amounts to formally recognising tensions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the highly-political compromise to create five deputies to the secretary-general is a far cry from the slimmed-down, nimble governing structure at first envisaged for the Union. Posted in English No Comments
Obama-tied Group wants ‘Dramatic’ Shift in Policy Towards Pakistan November 19th, 2008 by Jim Lobe A think-tank closely tied to United States president-elect Barack Obama is calling for a “dramatic strategic shift” in Washington’s policy towards Pakistan, one designed to both strengthen civilian institutions and promote an effective counter-insurgency against al-Qaeda and indigenous Islamist extremists in the tribal areas along the Afghan border who increasingly threaten the country’s stability. In a report released in Washington on Monday, the Center for American Progress (CAP) is also urging Washington to pursue its goals in Pakistan as part of a broader multilateral effort and a regional strategy designed to address Islamabad’s security concerns with Afghanistan and India. “The United States needs to make a shift from a reactive, transactional, short-term approach that is narrowly focused on bilateral efforts,” according to the 71-page report, “Partnership for Progress”. “Instead, a more proactive, long-term strategy should seek to advance stability and prosperity inside Pakistan through a multilateral, regional approach,” it argued, adding that Pakistan “will pose one of the greatest foreign policy challenges for the incoming Obama administration”. The report, the product of a year-long study that included consultations with a US-Pakistan Working Group consisting of 33 of Washington’s top Pakistan specialists, is likely to be regarded as a bellwether for where the Obama administration will take US policy. John Podesta, White House chief of staff for former president Bill Clinton and CAP’s president and chief executive officer since its founding in 2001, has headed Obama’s presidential transition team since long before the election, and at least two of the report’s four co-authors – CAP’s Brian Katulis, a Middle East and South Asia specialist, and Lawrence Korb, a senior Pentagon official under president Ronald Reagan – are likely to get senior posts in the new administration. And while the report itself represented only the views of its co-authors, a large number of working group members, such as vice president-elect Joseph Biden’s top South Asia staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jonah Blank, and former Bill Clinton National Security Council aide Bruce Riedel, have been among the Obama campaign’s key advisers on the region. The report comes amid palpably growing concern in Washington about the situation in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, where what the report calls a “strengthening, multi-headed adaptive network of extremists comprised of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and affiliated indigenous militant groups” has made unprecedented gains seven years after they were evicted from Afghanistan by US airpower and the US-backed Northern Alliance. Since then, Washington has spent more than US$11 billion on aid to Islamabad, almost all of which went to the Pakistani army, in hopes that the military-led government of former president General Pervez Musharraf would fully cooperate with US efforts to prevent the Taliban and other radical groups from returning to Afghanistan. But not only have the Taliban and its allies made a strong comeback in Afghanistan over the past two years – in part due to the safe havens they have enjoyed in the tribal regions on the Pakistani side of the border – but their brand of radicalism has spread outward from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, where al-Qaeda’s leadership is believed to be based, into the North-West Frontier Province and beyond even into Punjab and other parts of Pakistan’s heartland. Adding to concerns over the nuclear-armed country’s stability is the state of its economy. Even before the financial crisis that hit world credit markets in mid-September, Pakistan’s economy was suffering serious inflation that put food and fuel prices beyond the reach of many Pakistanis, provoking street protests and riots in some cities. With rapidly depleting foreign reserves, the government headed by President Asif Ali Zardari was forced just last weekend to agree to a two-year, $7.6 billion loan by the International Monetary Fund. Conditions for the loan are likely to include reductions in government subsidies on basic commodities that could, in turn, provoke greater unrest and an even greater boost for radical forces. As bad as the current situation looks, however, the CAP report noted a series of favorable developments that could help redress the situation, beginning with the fact that, unlike the Musharraf regime, the new government – the product of democratic elections in February – is seen as legitimate by most Pakistanis and thus has “a greater potential for representing and mobilizing Pakistan’s population toward fighting militancy and strengthening its governmental institutions …” Similarly, the advent of a new US administration headed by Obama could reduce some of the strains created by the administration of President George W Bush, whose strong backing for Musharraf made him deeply unpopular in Pakistan, according to polls taken over the past two years. In addition, other countries appear more inclined to help Pakistan deal with its economic problems, according to the report. The Friends of Pakistan Group, which consists of the European Union, the United Nations, China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Canada, Turkey, Australia, the US and the United Arab Emirates – which hosted the group’s meeting in Abu Dhabi on Monday – appears poised to offer additional assistance. That willingness extends even to the US Congress, which is likely to take up a bipartisan proposal introduced earlier this year by Biden and co-sponsored by Obama to provide $7.5 billion in economic and development aid to Pakistan over the next five years. “This legislation lays the groundwork for a new strategy in which the United States seeks a partnership with the people of Pakistan and not just a military expected to cooperate with American security aims,” the report argues. In addition to providing much more non-military aid, the report calls for Washington to recognize the limitations of its influence in Pakistan and move toward a multilateral approach, a direction which the Bush administration has already begun to take through the Friends Group and other initiatives. “At this point in time, Pakistan’s perceptions of the United States are so dismal that efforts to pursue change in Pakistan with the United States in the lead may automatically discredit the effort,” according to the report. Military aid should also continue but be channeled through civilian institutions, according to the report, which stressed that Washington should be as transparent as possible about the aid it provides. Washington will also have to strike a balance between short-term measures such as its increasingly frequent air strikes against alQaeda and Taliban targets on Pakistani soil and its long-term goal of enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of Pakistan’s civilian leadership and institutions. The Washington Post reported on Sunday that the US and Islamabad reached a “tacit agreement in September on a don’t-ask-don’ttell policy that allows unmanned Predator aircraft to attack suspected terrorist targets” in the border area. Under that understanding, the US government would not comment on such attacks, while Islamabad would be expected to complain about them. The agreement followed a cross-border attack by US special forces that drew especially harsh criticism from the Pakistani government and army. Jim Lobe’s blog on US foreign policy, and particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/. Posted in English No Comments
Crisis and Neoliberal Capitalism November 19th, 2008 by David Kotz Part I: The Financial Crisis and the Real Economy It is impossible to predict the course of the financial crisis. The effects of the crisis on the real economy could be very large, especially if it engulfs more and more of the financial sector. But even if the financial crisis is contained, the bursting of the housing bubble—which began in 2007 and is bound to continue for some time—will have a powerful downward impact on the economy. A speculative “bubble” arose in the housing sector of the U.S. economy starting around 2002. By the summer of 2007, housing prices had risen by 70% since 1995 corrected for inflation. Yet since 2002 the real value of home rents had been flat. By 2006 the ratio of the Housing Price Index to the Homeowners Equivalent Rent had risen sharply to an all-time high of 168.3, compared to 110.0 in 1995. This is clear evidence of a huge asset bubble in the U.S. housing market. This bubble created an estimated $8 trillion in inflated new wealth, which was about 38% of the peak total housing wealth of $21 trillion. When this bubble started to collapse in 2007, it set the stage for both a financial crisis and a recession in the “real” economy. There are two ways in which the collapsing housing bubble affects the real economy. First, there is a downward wealth effect on housing investment and consumer spending. The collapse of the bubble in the housing sector has led to a sharp drop in residential investment. Since the second quarter of 2007, it has been falling at 21.6% annual rate. Second, falling home values are causing a reduction in consumer spending. Since 2002 households had been borrowing against their homes to get funds for consumer spending. One study estimated that during 2004-06 Americans took $840 billion per year from their home equity through borrowing and capital gains from the sale of housing. This was almost 10% of disposable personal income in the United States. Suddenly, in 2007, people could no longer supplement their income with funds borrowed against their home, which has now led to a large drop in consumer spending, at a 3.1% per year rate in the third quarter of 2008. This happened before the financial crisis had begun to affect consumer spending. If all of the estimated $8 trillion of inflated home value disappears, the estimated effect on aggregate consumption would be a reduction of about $320 billion to $480 billion per year, or about 5% of total consumption. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and a respected analyst of the financial crisis, estimated the total effect of the collapsing housing bubble to be a decline of between 3.1% and 7.0% of GDP. The collapse of the bubble also affects investment in new plant and equipment by business. After several quarters of little growth, business investment fell at a 1% annual rate in the first quarter of 2008. The bubble-propelled and debt-financed expansions of 1991-2000 and 2001-2007 produced a growing amount of productive capacity, relative to ordinary income. As the current crash develops, industry will find it has substantial excess productive capacity. As a result, the incentive for business investment may be depressed for some time. In the last recession in the United States, in 2001, business fixed investment fell for two consecutive years, at an accelerating rate, for this reason. A severe recession was averted in 2001-2002 by the start of the housing bubble. It does not seem possible for a new bubble to arise and avert a serious recession this time. Also, the financial crisis is likely to make the coming recession more severe. One way this happens is that banks’ reluctance to lend to business due to the financial crisis will worsen the recession. Secondly, the stock market collapse precipitated by the financial crisis will have effects similar to the effects of the housing price collapse—it will tend to reduce consumer and investment demand. The only bright spot for the U.S. economy has been exports, but they are not likely to continue to do well in the face of a spreading global recession. Part II: The Restructuring is Just Beginning Every form of capitalism has contradictions that eventually bring about a structural crisis of that form of capitalism. In the 1970s the system of state-regulated capitalism, having produced rapid growth and high profits for a few decades, stopped working effectively and went into structural crisis. The predominant form of capitalism changed to the “neoliberal” form, which means a type of capitalism in which the state plays a limited role in the economy, particularly withdrawing from activities that benefit ordinary people. It now appears that neoliberal capitalism can no longer overcome two key problems and is entering a structural crisis of its own. First, the high and rising inequality it generates means that the majority has insufficient income to buy the growing output of the economy without relying on an unsustainable buildup of household debt. Second, the deregulated financial system of neoliberal capitalism is inherently unstable, as we have so clearly seen in recent months. From 1945 to 1973, a regulated form of capitalism predominated in the world, including in the United States. Regulated capitalism here included extensive government regulation of business and finance, regulation of the macroeconomy (aimed partly at achieving a relatively low unemployment rate), social programs that amounted to a modest welfare state, relatively cooperative relations between big business and trade unions, restrained competition between big corporations, and trade and capital flows regulated by governments and international institutions. The shift to neoliberal capitalism in the United States involved the deregulation of business and finance, the reduction of active government macroeconomic policy (and a shift of aim to assuring low inflation, not low unemployment), sharply reduced social programs, a big business and government attack against labor unions, unrestrained (“cutthroat”) competition among large corporations, and relatively free movement of goods, services, and capital across national boundaries. This neoliberal transformation of capitalism was relatively thorough in the United States, the United Kingdom, and in international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. As neoliberal capitalism enters a period of crisis, we can see the rapid loss of legitimacy of the previously reigning dominant “free market” ideology. This is similar to the sudden demise of the previously dominant Keynesian ideology of regulated capitalism in the 1970s. Capitalism is going to be restructured, in the United States and globally, during the coming years. The outcome of this restructuring process, however, is not pre-determined. So far the bankers have led the initial stage of restructuring. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs, has been succeeding so far in getting the government to rescue the banks in ways that mainly benefit the bankers. This process has encouraged rapidly growing concentration of the financial sector, as the largest banks merge with one another and get big cash infusions and new federal backing. However, the restructuring is just beginning. We can fight for changes that would benefit the majority rather than the bankers. First, the underlying reason for the financial crisis is all those people unable to make the payments on their mortgages. The government should pass an emergency measure to ease mortgage terms to reflect the declining values of homes and the declining economy. This would impose a onetime loss on the financial institutions that invested in the risky new mortgage-based securities, but it would also make it easier to know the value of the mortgage-backed securities, eliminating a source of great uncertainty in the financial system. Second, millions of people have learned the important lesson that banks and other financial institutions are not ordinary private companies. If General Mlls loses money, or even goes bankrupt, it harms its shareholders and workers— but its competitors gain. But if a few major banks lose money and are in danger of going under, this threatens the entire financial system, and with it the economy as a whole. The obvious conclusion is that the financial sector cannot be operated on a profit-and-loss basis. Instead, it should become part of the public sector, operated to serve the public interest. If banks, which are granted the power to create our money supply, and whose credit is essential to the welfare of the entire public, were made public institutions, then public policy aims could guide their actions. They could be directed to stay away from speculative activities and instead make loans for socially valuable purposes. This would include steering credit into renewable energy technologies, fuel-efficient vehicles, low cost housing, and other good purposes. An advantage of public ownership of the banks over another cycle of government regulation of private banks is that reregulated private banks would simply press for the elimination of the regulations—as they did successfully starting in the early 1980s. The developing financial and economic crises have exposed the high-flying financial operators for what they always were—thieves who got rich without doing anything productive. This has also exposed their fallacious free-market ideology. This is a promising time to build popular movements that can fight for progressive changes in our economy. David Kotz teaches economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He is co-editor of Understanding Contemporary Capitalism: Social Structure of Accumulation Theory for the Twenty-First Century, forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Posted in English No Comments
Democrats Cover Up Bush Era War Crimes November 18th, 2008 by Global Research The Associated Press writes: “Two Obama advisers said there’s little—if any—chance that the incoming president’s Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.” And when Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy was asked if Bush officials could face war crimes, he responded: “In the United States, no. These things are not going to happen.” This is not entirely surprising, given that Democratic congress members Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman and John D. Rockefeller were secretly briefed on torture many, many years ago, and yet did nothing to stop those unlawful programs. Indeed, they egged the torturers on (the linked Washington Post article says “no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder”). Remember, those who authorize or cover up war crimes are themselves guilty of war crimes. The Democratic leadership thus has every incentive to cover up war crimes. The fix is already in. Only massive pressure on the government can force war crimes trials. Posted in English No Comments
U.S. anti-terror covert ops November 18th, 2008 by Manjit Singh U.S. Special Operations Forces have conducted nearly a dozen covert operations inside friendly and neutral countries as part of the “war on terror”, authorized by presidential level secret orders. Recent incursions into Pakistan and Syria are part of a secret plan that expands the Iraqi and Afghani U.S. wars beyond the borders of both. Within a month of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive 9. The secret document not only authorized the US intelligence and military wings to target the Taliban in Afghanistan, though that group had no link to the 9/11 attack, it also sanctioned the use of covert ops against al-Qaeda, and allied groups in any country, whether or not the United States was officially at war with that state. Although the document’s contents remain largely top-secret, the authority it granted the President to conduct covert war against the Taliban (specifically authorizing the placement of covert CIA led special-ops teams into Afghanistan weeks prior to the U.S. invasion) was acknowledged by the White House in 2004. Recent U.S. Special Forces raids into Pakistan and Syria, however, have exposed a much wider authority than previously publicly acknowledged. Neither country is officially at war with the U.S., and Congress has not authorized armed action against either. Nonetheless, an expansive interpretation of presidential power to conduct undeclared covert wars–a power that disgraced the Nixon administration (which included Nixon-era White House operatives Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney) when it was used in the last great U.S. conflict to secretly bomb Laos and Cambodia–has been tacitly accepted by the U.S. political establishment. In fact, President Bush and then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld signed orders in the spring of 2004 authorizing covert U.S. Special Forces in any country in the world, including countries not at war with the U.S.. Since the coming into force of that 2004 order, leaked reports indicate that U.S. Special Forces have already conducted nearly a dozen such covert raids, often with the direct involvement of CIA personnel. The U.S. military has utilized the Spring 2004 order broadly, including Special Forces operations targeting anti-al-Qaeda forces in Iranian territory, despite the fact that the U.S. is not officially at war against Iran, and both the Taliban and al-Qaeda are hostile to the Shi’a regime in Tehran. Albeit, the Congressional declaration of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization may provide some legalistic cover for covert operations inside Iranian territory under either, or both, the Spring 2004 order or the fall 2001 National Security Presidential Directive (No. 9). The question, now, of course, is what will the new Obama administration do? Although the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party that sustained the impetus for the junior Senator’s meteoric rise to president no doubt wishes for a drawback on expansive Presidential power, they will be sorely disappointed. Even before details of the secret orders authorizing covert use-of-force were leaked, Obama had already declared his intention to utilize unilateral armed attack against targets inside friendly nations. Therefore, one can expect more of the same utilization of U.S. Special Ops in covert raids across the globe as the Obama administration takes office in January. Posted in English No Comments
Venezuela’s Chavez plans alternative financial crisis summit November 18th, 2008 by Global Research Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced plans to hold an alternative summit on the global financial crisis to counter the meeting of world leaders currently taking place in Washington. “We will hold in Caracas a summit of small countries to adopt decisions on overcoming the financial crisis,” national media reported Chavez as saying at a United Socialist Party of Venezuela meeting. Chavez said that he would invite representatives from the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas trade bloc (ALBA) and members of the Petrocaribe oil initiative to attend the summit. The two groups include a large number of Latin American and Caribbean countries. He did not give a date for the summit. On Friday, Chavez accused the G20 of ignoring the world’s smaller countries. He also expressed doubt that its November 14-15 summit in Washington would be able to come up with measures to tackle the economic “hurricane” that he says the U.S. has caused. Posted in English No Comments
Wall Street: Unprecedented Concentration of Financial Power November 18th, 2008 by Lawrence Velvel In younger days I was an antitrust lawyer for a considerable number of years. Most of my work, and my cast of mind, was on the plaintiff’s side. This mentality meant, and means to this day, that I favor views expressed by Justices Brandeis and Douglas: Antitrust is not simply about claimed efficiency that supposedly makes things better for consumers. The claims of efficiency are often false and consumers often get the short end of the stick. Rather than being solely about supposed efficiency, antitrust is also about fairness towards competitors, about the virtues of smallness in preference to corporate elephantiasis, about maintaining democracy by preserving economic opportunity for the small man or woman. The Brandeisian-Douglas view has not prevailed in the last 30 to 40 years. Instead, with some of the most famous names in American law as the tip of the spear (in military terms), the field was taken over by, and federal judges learned from and implemented the views of, the economics boys — famous professors and judges who claimed that economics were all that mattered and that they, with their verbal facility and occasional mathematical models, could tell us which principles of economics to apply. The result has been the virtual death of antitrust under the guise of making it more sophisticated. Colossal mergers, legalized price fixing, forcing unwanted products upon buyers as the price of purchasing other products which they do want, are the order of the day. The consumer and the small man or woman exists to be screwed over. One of the ideas of the economics ist alles boys (economics is all boys) has been that corporate giganticism, whether achieved by mergers, buyouts, internal growth or howsomever, represents a desirable triumph of . . . . something. Maybe a triumph of efficiency, maybe a triumph of cost savings, maybe, if corporations in different fields are melded, a triumph of smoothing out overall corporate earnings cycles because one field will be up when the other is down, maybe a triumph of the idea that huge size and diversification would enable American companies (especially financial ones) to compete more effectively with European and Japanese ones. Creating corporate giganticism had to be a triumph, the economics boys said, because, if it weren’t desirable, then hard-headed businessmen wouldn’t do it. Well, one triumph of giganticism was for certain. It was a triumph of the economics boys’ theories, verbal fluency and even mathematical claims, over reality. Ignoring reality, the economics boys didn’t consider that high executives from one of the previously separate corporations would be at loggerheads with executives from the other, that from top to bottom the cultures of melded corporations wouldn’t mesh, that cost savings wouldn’t materialize, that earnings would not be smoothed out, that purchasing corporations wouldn’t know how to make good use of acquired corporations, that different industries require very different mentalities, that size was achieved by destroying highly innovative, often new companies, that companies make acquisitions not because this creates better economic entities but because it creates more power, more prestige and vast compensation for high executives, that people, including businessmen, do not act solely in accordance with the presumed economic dictates governing the rational economic man whose motivation the economics boys (falsely) like to posit as the only one to be considered, that the stock of the merged entity would tank, that ultimately there would have to be massive demerging (if I may call it that). Nor did the economics boys reckon with another point, a point which is assailing us big time today, even as this is written, a point which is the very reason this is being written. The purveyors of “economics ist alles” did not consider that, when you create gigantic corporate organizations, you are in bigger trouble if one or a few of them make terrible mistakes or fail than if the organizations making mistakes or failing are only one third or one quarter the size. Today there is a crisis on Wall Street. It involves enormous losses. It threatens the economy. One reason it is of such magnitude is that the institutions of Wall Street were allowed to become so huge. They are so big that their mistakes and their failures threaten all of us. There have been Wall Street crises before that threatened or brought down the economy. I think I’m right in recollecting, and I know I’m right in some of my recollections, about how problems in the financial markets led to or threatened depressions: Such occurred in the 1830s, 1850s, 1870s, 1890s, early 1900s, and then in the Great Depression which began with the crash of 1929. After the crash of 1929, however, it was thought — I believe rightly, though economic revisionists, like many revisionists, seek to obscure the truth — that one of the causative factors was that large Wall Street houses were simultaneously both investment banks and commercial banks. They were, in other words, both sellers and traders of stocks and the kind of bank in which you and I have savings accounts and checking accounts and that make loans for houses and businesses. When the investment bank side of a house went down because it had made mistakes or the market tanked, it pulled down the commercial banking side of the house too. One part of the solution to this was the Glass-Steagall Act, which decreed that a bank must choose to be either an investment bank or a commercial bank, but could not be both. The House of Morgan, for example, had to be split into two entirely separate banks, initially named, if I remember correctly, J.P. Morgan & Co. and Morgan Guarantee Trust. By forcing banks to be either one type of institution or the other, Glass-Steagall limited the havoc that could be caused by a horrible mistake or failure of a bank. This worked pretty well for roughly 50 or 60 years. But then Wall Street greed (a reflection or leader of general American greed) took over. I don’t remember all the details, but do remember my surprise, at what was being permitted, surprise arising from a belief in Brandeisian/Douglas principles. Wall Street figures and houses began persuading various federal agencies — if memory serves, the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller were involved at various points — to let them make inroads on the separation ordained by Glass-Steagall. It was claimed that the inroads would make them more competitive with foreign institutions, would create desirable financial supermarkets, and achieve other great things. So given institutions got into both the stock business and the commercial banking business, thus undercutting Glass-Steagall. (This is described briefly in a posting in Slate on Monday, September 15th, by Daniel Gross.) Sometimes they did insurance too. They became gigantic, and their heads were lionized by, and featured in, the mainstream mass media. Ultimately the Wall Street titans, for their own benefit, persuaded Congress to completely repeal GlassSteagall. Corporate elephantiasis was further increased because — antitrust and Brandeisian fear of huge size having become dead letters due to the “economics ist alles” crowd — banks that already were huge began buying up other banks, until we now have banks with assets of what — 500 or 750 billion dollars or more? (I recently read that the merged Bank of America/Merrill Lynch will control customers’ assets of 2.5 trillion dollars.) Similarly, investment banks (and commercial banks) began buying up mutual fund companies and/or moving into investment-related fields that were new to them. So, at the end of the day, so to speak, the big got even bigger, the already large became gigantic, and economic power was concentrated in fewer and fewer institutions. And, when a mistake was made, it had larger ramifications because the company making it was much larger. Even worse, when lots of institutions made the same mistake, the ramifications were that much larger because the various institutions making the mistake were that much larger and had greater effect on the economy. Now we are seeing the results of one of the greatest mistakes ever, a mistake many of the giants engaged in, one that was an effort to repeal the financial laws of nature. It involved, as all know, subprime, adjustable rate mortgages; pushing on people mortgages they didn’t understand and definitely could not afford once the adjustable rate went up — as inevitably would occur; sometimes pushing the mortgages on them by fraud; buyer ignorance (and sometimes greed); securitizing the mortgages into hugely complex tranches with differing rights and risks; pushing these so-called mortgage-backed securities onto the public; an ever rising housing market driven higher and higher by the housing purchases made possible by the scheme; and, in the end, the bursting of the bubble. You know, there is no end to greed, is there? Perhaps ten years ago — maybe even longer — I read an article in Barron’s on the mortgage securitization phenomenon, with its incomprehensible tranches, its incomprehensible, differing sets of rights and risk. The general thrust of the article was that nobody really understood the risks or who, if anyone, would come out okay if there were problems, and who would get creamed. Barron’s was obviously right, and now, years later, we read almost every day that the risks (and the ever increasing complexities (including derivatives?)) were still not understood in recent days. But greed prevailed, so the effort to defy the economic laws of nature by putting people into homes they obviously could not afford prevailed, and now the whole thing has tanked, as was expectable in the circumstances. The situation was made even worse over time, and the tanking is worse now, because the institutions caught up in the whole deal are so gigantic. The fall out from the disaster is far worse than otherwise because of the institutions’ size. The whole American economy, even the world economy, is threatened. Much of the problem would almost surely have been avoided if the titans of Wall Street, the federal agencies, and the venal Congress which can be and is bought for the price of some campaign contributions, had not sought or granted exceptions to, and then ultimately repealed, Glass-Steagall, and if antitrust had not been eliminated as a significant factor by the theories of the economics boys. A few of us like myself and other MSL professors, occasionally wrote about why the demise of Glass-Steagall and the rise of ever greater elephantiasis was a dangerous thing, but we were just small fry whistling in the wind. The bigshots knew what they wanted and got it. And now look what’s happened, as what was once called the madness of crowds morphed into the greedy madness of the far fewer and enormously larger. You know, it is interesting that in recent years, even in recent days, the decades-long drive for ever greater size has begun to decline or be reversed in various fields. People are buying smaller cars. People are beginning to buy smaller houses — sometimes teeny houses. It is becoming recognized that there are great advantages to smaller schools, from grammar and high schools to universities. It is understood that small companies are often the most innovative. Small hospitals that specialize in one kind of operation are thought the best at what they do. It very well may be that god or nature or something is telling us something, is telling us, perhaps, that organizations and artifacts cannot get bigger indefinitely, that beyond a certain size dysfunctionality takes over. But the movers and shakers of the financial world and the politicians — all of whom have a major say — do not understand this yet. They still think ever bigger is ever better; indeed, one of the methods of rescue is that the already gigantic Bank of America will take over Merrill Lynch, thereby becoming even larger. (What will be the effect if the incredibly huge Bank of America now gets into deep doodoo in future years?) Well, our betters are wrong in thinking ever bigger is ever better. Instead of worshipping at the alter of size, Glass-Steagall should be reinstituted, antitrust should be used once again to protect the small guy, our other laws and practices should be conformed to the idea that smaller is often more desirable, and we all ought to begin to recognize that there are limits to how big things can get and remain workable. Oh, and it also wouldn’t hurt if we tried to curb (and punish) greed and condemn associated stupidity. Posted in English No Comments
U.S. Missile Shield Destined for the Dustbin? November 18th, 2008 by Manjit Singh The U.S.’ planned European missile defence shield, a principal feature of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, appears destined for the dustbin after Barack Obama’s recent presidential election victory. Friday, at a summit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy warned Washington that deployment of the planned missile defence shield would not only fail to bring security to Europe, but heighten tensions, complicate international relations and, inevitably, cause greater insecurity for the continent. France is a European power, major American ally and currently holds the European Union presidency. Thus its newly declared opposition to the missile defence plan is a major blow to President Bush’s foreign policy legacy. Interestingly, President Sarkozy is much more closely aligned to President Bush than his predecessor Jacques Chirac, and until now, had publicly supported Bush’s foreign policy while simultaneously forging France’s own independent foreign policy initiatives. Thus, the direct challenge to Bush’s most ambitious foreign policy agenda for Europe from his close ally Sarkozy is best explained by the recent triumph of President-elect Barack Obama, who, although not opposed to the missile shield, has expressed scepticism about its technical feasibility while endorsing the intent to “explore the possibility”. In fact, it was just hours after Obama’s presidential victory that Sarkozy’s partner at Friday’s Franco-Russian summit announced his response to the U.S. missile defence shield proposal: President Medvedev declared Russia’s intent to deploy its own Iskander missiles in the Baltic Sea region of Kalinigrad close to Poland’s border as a countermeasure. Russia’s intention of breaking the U.S. missile defence shield (thereby maintaining its nuclear deterrent capacity) reverses decades of European demilitarization, a prospect that will certainly cause further estrangement within the Euro-American alliance. Indeed, Sarkozy has already intimated that he intends to discuss the matter with his NATO allies and, thereafter, hold a panEuropean security conference under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which includes Russia as a member. Surely the latter group will oppose the remilitarization of Europe through the U.S. missile defence shield, and it is increasingly likely that NATO allies in Europe, particularly Western Europe (those derisively referred to as “old Europe” by past US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld), will also split the Euro-American defence alliance. And Obama cannot further his foreign policy agenda, particularly in Europe, without increased NATO cooperation. More than likely, NATO members from Western Europe will propose a quid pro quo arrangement to Obama: reverse Bush’s course on remilitarizing Europe and we will slow down our troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. Russia, for its part, has already conceded it will reciprocate if Obama abandon’s Bush’s plan to remilitarize Europe by cancelling its own plans to deploy missiles in Kalinigrad. Yet it may be economic concerns that determine the outcome of this crisis. Russia and Europe conducted 100 billion Euros in trade last year, and it is doubtful that European powers are willing to threaten that trade, especially in light of the recent global recession. The EU is Russia’s number one client and investor, while Russia remains Europe’s primary energy source. No doubt anxieties over funding a renewed cold war military build-up in Europe is also a deterrent to most European nations. Beyond economics, Russia is playing other cards as well. With its Security Council veto, it has announced that it would oppose any fresh sanctions against Iran. Meanwhile, Medvedev is scheduled to visit later this month, two other states at loggerheads with the US: Cuba and Venezuela (Russia having recently agreed to upgrade Venezuela’s military). Almost certainly, Russia will continue to play its confrontation cards, compelling Obama to accept a reciprocal agreement to retain the current demilitarization status quo in Europe in exchange for cooperation with Obama’s professed internationalist agenda. Feels eerily similar to the Cuban missile crisis half-a-century ago, just this time, it looks like the dénouement will precede the climax. Posted in English 1 Comment
Russian-Western relations: Courting the bear November 18th, 2008 by Eric Walberg A flurry of meetings last week — in Nice, Brussels and Sharm El-Sheikh — show the changing face of Russian-Western relations, says Eric Walberg Russia ’s struggle to become a respected player in world affairs moved forward tentatively this past week with a Russian-European Union summit in Nice. Participants said Friday that the meeting underlined improved relations. The European trade commissioner, Catherine Ashton, said talk had been “robust, but very open. Presidents Sarkozy, Barroso and Medvedev were very direct with each other in the spirit of having a dialogue.” European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, using rather “robust” diplomatic language, ridiculed the Russian threat to station missiles in Kaliningrad, made just hours after Obama had won the US presidential election last week: “If we start with the idea that there are missiles on one side or the other, we come back to the Cold War rhetoric which is, I would even say, stupid.” President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, who was host of the Nice meeting between Russia and the 27 member-nations as EU president, helped Medvedev back off. He made it clear that the US should reconsider its missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech Republic . “Between now and then,” referring to talks on a new security architecture for Europe — a Russian proposal — to be held by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe , which includes the US and Russia , next June, “please no more talk of anti-missile protection systems,” Sarkozy said. The deployment of a missile defense system “would bring nothing to security in Europe .” The Russian leader welcomed Sarkozy’s conciliatory approach, saying that all countries “should refrain from unilateral steps” before discussions on European security take place. “If we share one home, we should get together and make agreements with one another,” meaning the Russians will not follow through with their threat if the US agrees to a “Zero Option” with regards missiles in Europe . Although he holds the rotating presidency of the EU, Sarkozy was actually moving beyond his official mandate, since the bloc has little power over defense matters. The Czechs, who take over the EU presidency in January, and Poles were furious with Sarkozy. “We hope that the project will continue,” Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said after meeting his Czech counterpart Karel Schwarzenberg. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk huffed Thursday that Russia was not part of the plan. “The anti-missile shield is the subject of contracts between Poland and the United States , and other countries are not — and will not — be participants in these negotiations.” Alexandr Vondra, the Czech deputy prime minister, said he was “surprised” by Sarkozy’s comments, which, he said, contradicted French statements at the NATO meeting in Bucharest, and exceeded Sarkozy’s purview as EU president. “There was nothing in the EU mandate to talk about missile defense.” This is a fine example of Sarkozy at his hyperactive best, one where he used his antennae well, sensing the shifting weather patterns and attempting to divert a needless and destructive storm, which, he would no doubt add in his own defence, would hit the Poles and Czechs even harder than the rest of Europe . This whole episode shows the weakness of the EU: pipsqueaks are vaulted into the diplomatic big leagues and can pursue petty grudges which leave the EU helpless to pursue a sensible agenda. French president Jacques Chirac was undermined in 2003 by these parvenues who slavishly hung on every lie coming out of the US concerning Iraqi WMDs, preventing a strong European resistance to the criminal invasion of Iraq . Good for the Sark . The French leader’s nod to the Russian proposal for a new European security structure also elicited jibes. The Euro fans of America and foes of Russia see the Russian president’s proposals as a direct attempt to undermine NATO. And so what? This senseless Cold War relict merely raises hackles and sticks its imperial nose where it doesn’t belong. The EU and Russia are already working together on peacekeeping — through the UN — as seen with the current EUFOR mission in Chad , which includes 320 Russians. Who needs NATO to police the world? Good for Medvedev. Overriding squawks from Lithuania , Europeans also agreed Monday to resume talks with the Russians on a longterm EU-Russia pact on the economy, energy and security matters. Negotiations were suspended after the Russian war with Georgia in August, but since then the financial crisis has underlined the need for rapprochement. “We don’t need a Cold War. We need cool heads,” said Barroso. Even Russophobe German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “I think it is better to talk with each other than about each other.” While Russian and European leaders were extending olive branches to each other in Nice, their foreign ministers were chattering at a NATO meeting in Brussels about their latest pet project — putting pressure on Turkey to deploy permanent NATO navy forces in the Black Sea and the Bosphorus, one of the most strategic waterways of the world and located in Turkish territorial waters. Turkey is rightly concerned that such move would violate the 1936 Montreux Convention, which limits the total weight of the warships that a country which does not border the Black Sea can deploy to 45,000 tons, and eventually harm its sovereign rights over the straits, not to mention its booming economic ties with Russia. Turkey has long opposed the deployment of NATO navy forces on the Black Sea, saying the region is perfectly safe and the Black Sea countries’ joint patrol missions are more than sufficient. But these Euro and NATO intrigues are far less important that the behind-the-scenes activities now going on in US conference rooms, where president-elect Barack Obama’s political plans for accommodating Russia are now in high gear. Relations with Russia are the cornerstone to the empire’s success during Obama’s presidency. The world, certainly Europe and NATO, is now holding its breath, waiting to see what Obama will do about the missiles and the Georgians, with the ball firmly in his court. Unfortunately, he can’t hit it back for another two months. In the meantime, the discredited Bush regime is doing its best to dig potholes in the court and make Obama’s task doubly hard. A fine example took place last weekend in Sharm El-Sheikh , Egypt , with yet another of the pointless meetings that Bush has sent his beloved Condoleezza Rice on. It took barely an hour for Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to dismiss the supposedly new set of proposals she brought concerning START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) and missile defense. “The current US proposals are insufficient because the Bush administration is seeking to make the decision [on the deployment of the missile shield] irreversible,” a Russian source said. Lavrov insisted that any new discussions on the European missile shield should involve Russia , the US and the EU and must be based on respect for common interests rather than on a unilateral decision made by Washington . But absolutely no one is fooled by Bush anymore as his 76 per cent disapproval ratings show. If anything, such tired attempts at covering the empire’s tracks merely give Obama more food for thought. The tone Obama sets in relations with Russia will be vital to the success of his presidency. Medvedev, like Obama, is still an open book. In his state of the union address the same day as Obama’s stunning victory, Medvedev revealed ambitious plans to strengthen Russian democracy, condemning state interference in elections, mass media, civil society and the economy — all of which gives birth to corruption in the bureaucracy. He proposed that those parties falling below the 7 per cent threshold in parliamentary elections, yet reaching more than 5 per cent, should be represented with at least one or two deputies in the State Duma, increasing diversity, that only elected deputies should become governors of Russia’s regions or members of the Federation Council, and that local governments and non-governmental organisations have greater say in the legislative process. He called for less state control of the media: “Freedom of speech should be secured by technological innovation. Experience shows that it is practically useless to ‘try to persuade’ bureaucrats to leave mass media alone. One should not try to persuade, but extend as broadly as possible the space for the Internet and digital television.” If Obama wants to make any progress in the empire’s affairs abroad, be it in Afghanistan , Europe , Iraq , Iran , he will have to wrestle the Cold Warrior Washington establishment into submission and make peace with Russia . This will have the truly wonderful sideeffect of strengthening Medvedev’s hand in his own struggle with statist authoritarians. This is the way for America to encourage democracy around the world — by refraining from threatening other countries and interfering in their affairs. If American is not perceived as a threat by Russia, constantly intriguing and pushing its European allies into “stupid” Cold War stand-offs, Russia will be able to continue its halting, democractic transformation. Why the concern with Russia ? Well, it has not a few trumps up its sleeve which Obama would be wise to note: * the perennial steel-fist-in-velvet-glove Russian gas supplies to Europe, now strengthened by Gazprom’s Southstream pipeline plans which look set to scuttle the anti-Russian Nabucco pipeline plan. The latter will hardly be feasible given the economic meltdown emanating from the US and infecting the entire world. The Russian hold on European gas supplies looks very secure. * its continued nuclear energy cooperation with Iran. If the US expects to see any conciliatory move from Iran it will have to take Russia into account. * its control over the fastest and cheapest transit routes for NATO military supplies to Afghanistan . They just happen to be the rail and air links through Russia and former Soviet Central Asia. Already, Russia has signalled it will not necessarily be so hospitable to NATO use of these precious routes. * the overriding US object in the near future: stablising Iraq . The next few years in Iraq will be troubled, to say the least, and Russian cooperation with the West will be vital. * cooperation in dealing with the international financial crisis and threatening world recession. The Russian economy has rapidly integrated into the world economy during the past two decades, for better or worse, bringing with it Russian mafia, liberal use of offshore banking and other dubious western inventions. This means it is an important part of any solution. The Russian hold on gas supplies to Europe is nothing to worry about. The Russians have always been reliable partners, from WWII on, as long as the West plays ball and doesn’t push them too hard. Measured, stable diplomacy is all they ask. Iran threatens no one, despite hysterical Israeli rhetoric, and will no doubt go on Obama’s backburner, despite whispers in his ear from the Zionists in his camp. Since Afghanistan and dealing with the world depression are the centrepins of Obama’s foreign policy, he would be very foolish to provoke the Russians needlessly on high profile but meaningless issues like the missiles and expanded NATO membership. Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at www.geocities.com/walberg2002/ Posted in English No Comments
Obama and the Financial Crisis. Are there Solutions? CRG- E Newsletter November 18th, 2008 by Global Research Dear Global Research Member and Newsletter Subscriber We are at the crossraods of the most serious economic crisis in World history. Last Saturday, November 15, World leaders convened in Washington under tha auspices of the G-20 Financial Summit. What policy “solutions” are contemplated by the G-20? According to Global Research writers, this historic meeting of heads of state, heads of government, finance ministers, central bank governors, etc. has created a policy vacuum. The broader causes, not to mention the devastating social consequences of the meltdown of financial markets have barely been addressed. This issue of the CRG E-Newsletter contains a critical assessment of the Washington Financial Summit as well as a review of Obama’s Cabinet appointments. What are the prospects under a Barack Obama administration? It is our hope that our endeavors will contribute to curbing the tide of media disinformation, ultimately with a view to eradicating poverty, restoring social justice and establishing an enduring peace in the Middle East. It is, therefore, important that the articles published by Global Research reach a broad readership. While Global Research operates on a shoe string budget compared with the well-endowed establishment think tanks, we have more readers than the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (see graph) The response from our readers has been tremendous and we thank you for your feedback and encouragement. However, with increasing numbers turning to Global Research as their choice for alternative news, we ask that you make a donation of your choice so that we may continue to deliver the information that matters to you. Consider the following: –Globalresearch.ca received over 1.5 million visits last month (more than 50,000 visits a day); –We have surpassed many mainstream media sites in total numbers of readers; –Our daily newsletter now reaches over 12,500 subscribers. Please keep in mind that Global Research remains fully independent by not accepting money from public or private foundations. If you unable to make a donation, you can help us by cross-posting and/or forwarding Global Research articles, sending them to your friends on your e-mail lists, posting them on internet blogs., etc. This will help us reach a broad readership. 1. Online donation, click icon below Make a (one time) donation and/or become a Member (see below). Any amount large or small will contribute to supporting Global Research DONATE AND/OR BECOME A MEMBER (link to donation page) GLOBAL RESEARCH SOLIDARITY FUND
2. Donation by mail Kindly send your cheque or money order to the following address: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) PO Box 55019 11 Notre-Dame Ouest, MONTREAL, Qc, H2Y 4A7 CANADA For donations from the US, the money order should be “International” payable outside the US To reach us by email:
[email protected] Lead Articles
Public Lecture: The Global Financial Crisis, with Michel Chossudovsky Montreal, November 27 – 2008-11-26 Democrats Cover Up Bush Era War Crimes – 2008-11-18
U.S. anti-terror covert ops – by Manjit Singh – 2008-11-18 Obama – Beware of Elites’ bearing Gifts – by Richard K. Moore – 2008-11-18 Bush’s Farewell Farce: The G-20 Economic Summit – by Shamus Cooke – 2008-11-18
The G-20 Washout: No Policy Solutions. Global Economy is Still on the Brink of Disaster – by Mike Whitney – 2008-11-18 Russia Appreciates European Change of Mind – by Jorge Petinaud – 2008-11-18
The Financial Crisis and the G-20 Washington Summit The Birth of the Mount – by Fidel Castro Ruz – 2008-11-18 US-Iraq “Agreement”: A Pact With the Devil – by Pepe Escobar – 2008-11-18 Israel invades Gaza again; Palestinian resistance continues – by Sara Flounders – 2008-11-18 Economy in Shambles: IMF agrees on loan for Iceland – 2008-11-17 Dangers of a public backlash in response to IMF intervention : Pakistan criticized over $7.6 billion IMF bailout – 2008-11-17 IMF head meets Turkish PM, signals a new deal in near future – 2008-11-17 Africa to pay for Europe’s “green policies” – by Rainer Chr. Hennig – 2008-11-17 Russia considers opening Black Sea Fleet base in Abkhazia – 2008-11-17 French Relaunch Investigation into 1994 Rwandan Presidential Assassination – 2008-11-17 World leaders agree steps to tackle crisis – 2008-11-17 Bush Aggression Makes Life in Iraq “Unbearable” – by Sherwood Ross – 2008-11-17 Don’t-ask-don’t-tell Policy: Pakistan and U.S. Have Tacit Deal On Airstrikes – by Karen De Young , Joby Warrick – 2008-11-17
Worse Than the Great Depression? A Review – by Stephen Lendman – 2008-11-17 Hillary Clinton ‘to be U.S. foreign chief’: Obama poised to pick his former rival after ‘secret Chicago meeting’ – by David Gardner – 2008-11-16 From the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. Militarization of Strategic Energy Corridor Well-oiled friendship or political pipe dream? – by Ruben Zarbabyan – 2008-11-16 ‘Israeli bombs source of Uranium contamination’ – 2008-11-16 “Defending the Homeland”, Major Counterterrorism Exercises: What Is NorthCom Up To? – by Matthew Rothschild – 2008-11-16 Economic Crisis: Gulf States “should be ready for tough times” – by Babu Das Augustine – 2008-11-16 Shell secures 25-year access to Iraq’s oil, gas – by Ben Lando, Alaa Majeed – 2008-11-16 Israel to resume ‘targeted assassinations’ directed against Hamaz Mofaz: Stop Hamas talks, start killings – 2008-11-16
The G-20 Economic Summit Won’t Change the “Financial Crime Scene” – by Richard C. Cook – 2008-11-16 150,000 US troops to remain in Iraq for another three years Iraq cabinet passes US forces pact – 2008-11-16 VIDEO: Financial Collapse in Iceland – 2008-11-16 David Swanson & Michael Parenti on the Global Research News Hour on RBN Program Details for November 17 – 2008-11-16 Former rebels put Rwanda under spotlight – by Matthew Green – 2008-11-16 New Venezuelan Satellite Operating Perfectly – 2008-11-16 Baloch Parliament Condemns Attacks by NATO and United States Forces inside Pakistani territory – by Malik Siraj Akbar – 2008-11-16
The Great Depression of the 21st Century: Collapse of the Real Economy – by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-11-15 The proposed bank “bailout” under the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is not a “solution” to the crisis but the “cause” of further collapse. Burma, Iraq, and the Need for an Effective UN – by Sherwood Ross – 2008-11-15 Rio Group accepts Cuba; Group demands role in global economic order Argentina, Brazil & Mexico to go to Washington for World Economic Summit – by Raul Cortes – 2008-11-15 U.N. Condemns U.S. Embargo Of Cuba – by Portia Siegelbaum – 2008-11-15 Bush, Cox and Bernanke Call for Regulation of Credit Default Swaps – 2008-11-15 VIDEO: Pennyland – Echoes of the Great Depression – 2008-11-15 Former Goldman Sachs chairman: Slump worse than Great Depression – 2008-11-15 Financial Crisis: International Trade In Jeopardy – 2008-11-15 Financial Crisis Triggers Disruption in International Shipping – 2008-11-15 Secret Directed-Energy Tech Protecting the President? – by David Hambling – 2008-11-15 Letters of Credit and The Disruption of International Trade: Systemic Risk, Contagion and Trade Finance Back to the Bad Old Days – 2008-11-15 Russia and Obama: Untying the Gordian Knot – by Eric Walberg – 2008-11-15 Obama sends Architects of Financial Deregulation Legislation to G-20 Financial Summit – 2008-11-14 Unsettling Signs: Buzzwords, Politics and US Elections – by Ramzy Baroud – 2008-11-14 Australia planning to block 10,000 websites – 2008-11-14 Obama transition points to more war and repression – by Bill Van Auken – 2008-11-14 Ukraine’s Membership in NATO? NATO-Ukraine Meeting in Tallinn – by Andrei Fedyashin – 2008-11-14 Who Got Bailout Money So Far? – 2008-11-14 America’s economic crisis is beyond the reach of traditional solutions – by Paul Craig Roberts – 2008-11-14 Growing tensions in lead-up to G20 summit in Washington – by Peter Schwarz – 2008-11-14
Obama’s Intelligence Agenda More of the Same from the “Change Administration” – by Tom Burghardt – 2008-11-14
Obama: A Third Clinton Term? Hillary under consideration for Secretary of State – by Prof. Francis A. Boyle – 2008-11-14
Targeting Hugo Chavez – by Stephen Lendman – 2008-11-14 Ukraine Hides its Role in the Caucasus War – 2008-11-14 Obama and the Crisis of Expectation – by Shamus Cooke – 2008-11-13 National Lawyers Guild Calls on President Elect: Close Guantanamo – 2008-11-13 Sarkozy-US dollar no longer only currency in world – 2008-11-13 Paulson the Bungler – by Mike Whitney – 2008-11-13 Where is the Transparency? Fed refuses to identify recipients of $2 trillion “emergency loans” – 2008-11-13 Widespread unease, opposition as Indonesian government executes Bali bombers – by Patrick O’Connor – 2008-11-13 Washington secretly authorized military raids on 20 countries since 2004 – by Bill Van Auken – 2008-11-13 Pakistan to impose IMF-approved economic restructuring program – by Keith Jones – 2008-11-13 Barzani: Sign U.S.-Iraqi Security Agreement or face civil war – 2008-11-13 India faces terror from another front – by Siddharth Srivastava – 2008-11-13 ‘US must consult with Europe over Iran’ – 2008-11-13
Miscarriage of Justice: Who was behind the October 2002 Bali bombings? – by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-11-13 US Elections: A New Political Party Is Needed – by Joel S. Hirschhorn – 2008-11-13 Beware The Obama Hype – by John Pilger – 2008-11-13 E.U. ministers signal troop deployment to Congo – by Abayomi Azikiwe – 2008-11-13
The Foreign Policy of an Obama Administration – by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay – 2008-11-12 World financial crisis undercuts Russia’s economic boom – by Vladimir Volkov – 2008-11-12 UN weighs expanded DR Congo force – 2008-11-12 World Bank in $100bn aid push – by Daniel Dombey, Michael MacKenzie – 2008-11-12 EU-Russia foreign and defense ministers summit: The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) talks with Russia – by Andrei Fedyashin – 2008-11-12
Global Economic Tremors – by Stephen Lendman – 2008-11-12 Russia Urges Obama to Lift Cuba Embargo, Respect World Opinion – 2008-11-12 Spain Rules Out More Troops to Afghanistan – 2008-11-12 Australia: Labor government forced to revise economic forecasts as global crisis deepens – by Terry Cook – 2008-11-11 European Union summit in Brussels: The EU prepares for Obama – by Peter Schwarz – 2008-11-11 Obama’s Neocon in Residence – by Philip Giraldi – 2008-11-11 Obama’s Foreign Policy: No Sharp Break From Bush – by Jim Lobe – 2008-11-11 GM shares hit 60-year low on worries of collapse – 2008-11-11 Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda in Many Countries – by Eric Schmitt , Mark Mazzetti – 2008-11-11 “Sovereign Wealth Funds” Towards a Structural Shift in World Financial Order – by Kavaljit Singh – 2008-11-11 GM’s Skid Quickens as Crunch Raises Bankruptcy Threat – by Mike Ramsey – 2008-11-11 Guantanamo: Military Oaths Confront the Constitution in the Omar Khadr Case – by Floyd Rudmin – 2008-11-11 Sign Petition for a Monetary System That Puts People First – 2008-11-11 Afghan resistance is `terrorist’ under Canadian law, Khawaja trial judge rules – by Richard Fidler – 2008-11-10 America Has Already Changed: A Personal Viewpoint – by William Cox – 2008-11-10 Posted in English No Comments
Obama – Beware of Elites’ bearing Gifts November 18th, 2008 by Richard K. Moore Author’s website: www.cyberjournal.org The McCain-Palin dragon has been slain. The Heroic Knight has been crowned and an era of profound hope has descended on the Kingdom. I know this is true because all my friends tell me so. There can be no doubt of the immense and genuine popularity of our new President-elect. Not even JFK inspired as much hope and devotion in his followers, nor was his following as universal. So great is this enthusiasm for Obama here that I find I must hold my tongue in polite company, lest I upset someone by expressing my reservations. Nonetheless, there are several inconvenient truths that need to be said. First among these is the observation that Obama is not a populist. That is, he was not a candidate, like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, whose race was a fight against the establishment. Obama had the full support of the establishment at every step of the way. Paul Street sums this up well enough: But, as The New York Times’ editors certainly know, “they” still “put in who they want to put in” to no small extent. The predominantly white U.S. business and political establishment still makes sure that nobody who questions dominant domestic and imperial hierarchies and doctrines can make a serious (“viable”) run for higher office – the presidency, above all. It does this by denying adequate campaign funding (absolutely essential to success in an age of super-expensive, media-driven campaigns) and favorable media treatment (without which a successful campaign is unimaginable at the current stage of corporate media consolidation and power) to candidates who step beyond the narrow boundaries of elite opinion. Thanks to these critical electoral filters and to the legally mandated U.S. winner-take-all “two party” system [2], a candidate who even remotely questions corporate and imperial power is not permitted to make a strong bid for the presidency. “Barack Obama is no exception to the rule. Anyone who thinks he could have risen to power without prior and ongoing ruling class approval is living in a dream world.” — Paul Street, “Barack Obama as a Ruling Class Candidate” http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/19343 Obama was sold to us, not just as a President but as a savior. The McCain-Palin charade was an important part of the sales campaign: you can’t have an Heroic Knight unless there’s a Fearsome Dragon to be slain. A friend pointed out to me that McCain’s campaign was mostly negative attacks on Obama. Another way to frame that is to say that the campaign was all about Obama, rather than about issues. The negative attacks caused just as much bonding between Obama and his followers as did Obama’s inspiring speeches. The negative and the positive themes were played against one another, in the media, with all the precision of a symphony. Phony media circuses are nothing new to Presidential campaigns. With Obama, we saw a new dimension added, with the help of the Internet. I speak of the volunteer phenomenon. I was surprised to learn how many of my friends and acquaintances were active as volunteers in the campaign. They organized themselves at the grassroots, and they got their commands from Campaign Central, via email. Not since the heyday of Est have I seen such wild-eyed enthusiasm among activist volunteers. Even before I saw news reports that Obama planned to make political use of his Internet activists from a new White House Internet office, I heard my friends saying that the ‘organization must go on’, that it ‘must not die with campaign’. They are eager to remain part of the bandwagon, to be troopers for Obama, and Obama is prepared to make use of them. What we have is basically a personality cult. Obama true-believers are now bigger than the Fundamentalists, and equally mobilized. But what is it they are going to be mobilized for? The campaign rhetoric was to a large extent about ‘overcoming divisiveness’, and ‘bringing us all together’. Sounds good, but divisiveness is not among the major problems facing America. The problems facing us are economic and environmental collapse, the struggle to hold onto empire, and new emerging powers on the global scene. Divisiveness was, and remains, a created issue, a cult-formation device, a device for which McCain and Palin, and their over-the-top redneck rallies, were a critical ingredient. The other main themes of the campaign were ‘change’ and ‘hope’. Interesting. Change we will get, of one kind or another, that’s for sure. And there are two kinds of hope, that which arises in times of positive change, and that which arises in times of despair. If you see light at the end of the tunnel, you feel hope; if the tunnel remains dark, you rely on hope. Which kind of hope will Obama deliver? His followers have been led to feel there is light at the end of the tunnel. I suggest they are destined for disappointment. Hope for positive change will morph into a reliance on ‘hope in Obama’. As things get worse, we will take comfort that Obama ‘understands our plight’, is ‘one of us’, and is ‘doing all he can’. Indeed, we will be dutifully emailing our representatives, to support this or that Obama legislation. As to the actual dark tunnel we are entering, here are a few recent articles that have come my way: Stephen Lendman, Worse Than The Great Depression? http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman171108.htm Paul Craig Roberts, The Crisis Has Hardly Begun http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts171108.htm Economic Crisis Is Beyond The Reach Of Traditional Solutions http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts141108.htm Michel Chossudovsky, The Great Depression of the 21st Century: Collapse of the Real Economy http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10977 I’ve recently published lots of other articles relevant to these pivotal times: http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topics Our scenario is very much like that preceding the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The ‘problem’ then, as now, is a scary, engineered ‘collapse’. The ‘solution’, then as now, is the greater centralization of banking in private hands, now some kind of IMF cum Central Bank on a global scale. In both cases the promise is to avoid future collapses, while the reality is increased enslavement to banking elites. Some background material: Richard C. Cook, The G-20 Economic Summit Won’t Change the “Financial Crime Scene” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10987 Telegraph UK, Gordon Brown calls for new world order to beat recession http://tinyurl.com/5cqhda To my way of thinking, the proper response to the financial collapse would be to place all the big financial institutions under national receivership. They created the crisis through fraudulent practices, and baling them out should be the furthest thing from our minds. The nations of the world can figure out who legitimately owes who what, figure out some way to settle up, and establish new sounder bases for currencies. That’s what the G-20 could have been doing, but of course they didn’t. If anyone still doubts that the banking elites run things from behind the scenes, the past few months should have opened their eyes. Instead of a rational response, based on bringing the financial institutions under control, we have a capitulation to banking interests, symbolized by the installation of Henry Paulson as US Economic Czar, the same Paulson who helped engineer the subprime virus while at Goldman Sachs. The bailout, which has become a global phenomenon, is a crime against humanity, a betrayal of whatever democratic principles remained in our societies. Humanity is the patient, and capitalism (ie, rule by capitalist elites) is the disease. The agenda of our leaders, and Obama will be no exception, is to sacrifice the patient so that the disease may survive. The agenda will include an expansion of genocide in the third world, assisted by the biofuel market and runaway food prices, and it will most likely include a nuclear confrontation with Russia and perhaps China. As Kissinger says, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. Final consolidation of global power is an omelette worth many a sacrifice, particularly if you get to eat the omelette and aren’t the one making the sacrifices. Does all of this stuff sound irrelevant to Obama and the issues of the campaign? It should, for the campaign and Obama’s rhetoric have nothing to do with the problems we will be facing, and nothing to do with the agenda Obama brings to the office. The rhetoric was a conjured illusion, a bit like LBJ promising not to escalate in Vietnam, or Clinton promising universal health care. The difference between Obama and those precedents is that Obama has the capacity to carry his followers with him. Whereas we all felt abandoned and betrayed by LBJ, Obama has the charisma to carry his flock willingly into the abyss as he makes ‘difficult but necessary’ choices. Part of the architecture of a fascist regime is a mobilized grassroots following. The motivating characteristics vary with the culture. Ethnic hatreds and a resurgence of nationalism are not the American way. Obama shows us the American way, with his organized network of followers. His skill, and his value to elites, will be his ability to get us to take our kool-aid voluntarily. Richard K. Moore is an independent writer and analyst of the New World Order based in Ireland. Posted in English No Comments
Bush’s Farewell Farce: The G-20 Economic Summit November 18th, 2008 by Shamus Cooke After hearing that the media was referring to the weekend gathering of the G-20 as “Bretton Woods II”, the White House immediately began a coordinated attack on expectations. The economic summit that was to fix the deepening economic crisis was raising hopes too high (Bretton Woods was the 1944 conference that re-organized the world capitalist system after WWII). Bush: “This problem did not develop overnight and it will not be solved overnight”. Media outlets rightly interpreted this — and other statements — to mean that little or nothing would be accomplished. After learning about the announced “successes” of the summit, working people will likewise conclude that nothing of importance had occurred. And this after Bush urgently declared, “Billions of hardworking people are counting on us.” What was accomplished? The only real accomplishment of the meeting was that no fighting took place (publicly), and that all 20 participants signed their names onto a common document. World tensions are in fact so strained that this really does constitute a form of success. But when one browses through the lengthy joint statement, what is most noticeable is the lack of substance. Even though the document includes an “action plan” with “immediate steps” to be taken, the already-vague content is dulled with such words as “should,” “recommended” and “as appropriate,” which appear in nearly every sentence. For example: “Regulators, supervisors, and accounting standard setters, as appropriate, should work with each other and the private sector on an ongoing basis to ensure consistent application and enforcement of high-quality accounting standards.” The entire document is equally painful and ambiguous. The New York Times correctly stated: “Though the proposals were cast as ambitious reform, they mainly reflected steps that the countries were already undertaking.” These vague steps include: “higher regulatory standards,” “promoting stability” and “exercising effective risk management” at financial institutions. Why was more not more accomplished? The answer to this was given by the Western corporate elite’s most intelligent publication, the Economist: “… as urgency fades and the negotiators drown in complexity, national interest may gain at the expense of collective safety… international rules require enforcement, but nation-states demand sovereignty.” These words echo the insight of Karl Marx 150 years ago, who pointed out that capitalism was an international system that contained a contraction due to the competing interests of each nation state. Although governments always claim to be acting impartially, real corporate interests are at stake — most notably the pursuit of profits — competing against the corporations of other nations, represented by their own “impartial” governments. During times of economic crisis, these “national” interests become increasingly desperate and competitive, a reality all too present at the G-20 summit. The same contradiction prevented the recent WTO talks from being successful, and as the world economy spirals downwards, it will have a similar effect on all multilateral discussions. Every country has an interest to push the effects of the crisis on to other, and use whatever methods available to push up domestic growth rates (the accumulated profits of each country’s mega-corporations). The urge to expand profit was what helped deepen the current crisis, since US banks used all sorts of schemes and accounting tricks to gain leverage over their international competitors; a trick they learned from the Japanese banks prior to Japan’s recession of the 1990s — known as “the lost decade.” The European countries at the G20 summit were hoping that the US would agree to specific regulations that would end these practices, which essentially give the US a trade advantage — in financial instruments such as packaged toxic mortgages— over the rest of the world. The vague response of the document, combined with Bush’s repeated preaching about the “free market,” put the issue at a stalemate. Bretton Woods II ? So why cannot the international community cooperate like they did at the original Bretton Woods conference? In short, the world situation is far different. The Bretton Woods institutions were set up during WWII as soon as the Allies sensed they were going to win. But these “negotiations” were mostly dictates from the US, which was the only country not financially ruined or physically smoldering. As such, the Bretton Woods institutions — World Bank and IMF — strongly favored the US first, its European lackeys second, and the rest of the world last. The world today has not one power, but many. France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy correctly pointed out, “America is still the number one power in the world…is it the only one? No, it isn’t.” The “emerging economies” are demanding some real power, which the Bretton Woods institutions do not allow. Changing these structures are not in the interests of the US and European corporations. Although the G-20 document calls for more countries to play a bigger role in the IMF, the timetable for accomplishing this was not labeled as an “immediate action,” but a “medium-term action,” meaning that it could be put off indefinitely. The US mega-corporations that ultimately make these decisions are unwilling to make concessions that will adversely affect their profit margins. Strained tensions internationally will thus be further stressed. Under today’s conditions, a Bretton Woods type of agreement will not emerge from roundtable discussions, but from next round of wars, the winner of which will set the standard at Bretton Woods II. In 90 days the G-20 will reconvene and Obama will replace Bush as the chief US negotiator; he will be representing the same corporate interests, ensuring that nothing fundamental is done about an economic crisis that affects more ordinary people every day. A necessary conclusion must be drawn: the world capitalist system is in a crisis that the ruling class cannot fix. Likewise, nothing will be done to actually help working class people unless we demand and fight for it ourselves. But points of unity already exist among us: stopping further Wall Street bailouts, ending war, creating jobs, saving and expanding social programs, stopping foreclosures, extending unemployment benefits, and most important, bailing out working people by taxing the super rich! A broad coalition organized around these issues would be far more powerful than the handful of elites currently represented by the two party system. Shamus Cooke is social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at
[email protected] Posted in English No Comments
The G-20 Washout: No Policy Solutions. Global Economy is Still on the Brink of Disaster November 18th, 2008 by Mike Whitney As expected, the G-20 Economic Summit in Washington turned out to be a total bust. None of the problems which have pushed the global economy to the brink of disaster were resolved and none of the main players who gamed the system with their toxic securities were held accountable. Instead, the visiting dignitaries gorged themselves on stuffed quail and roast rack of lamb before settling on a toothless “Statement on Financial Markets” which accomplished absolutely nothing. The one noteworthy clause in the entire document is a two paragraph indictment of the United States as the perpetrator of the financial crisis. At least they got that right. From the text: “Root Causes of the Current Crisis: During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions. Major underlying factors to the current situation were, among others, inconsistent and insufficiently coordinated macroeconomic policies, inadequate structural reforms, which led to unsustainable global macroeconomic outcomes. These developments, together, contributed to excesses and ultimately resulted in severe market disruption.” Bingo. The contagion started on Wall Street and that’s where the responsibility lies. It was the result of the Fed’s reckless low interest rates and lack of government oversight. This allowed market participants to create massive amounts of leverage via speculative bets on under-capitalized debt-instruments. The resulting collapse in value of all asset-classes across the spectrum has created a gigantic multi-trillion dollar capital hole in the global financial system which has precipitated violent swings in the stock markets, tightening credit, currency dislocations, soaring unemployment and deflation. Almost all of todays economic woes can be traced back to legislation that was promoted by key members of the Clinton and Bush administrations. (Many of who will now serve in the Obama White House) The G 20s statement puts the blame squarely where it belongs; on the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. But this is old news. There’s no point in rehashing the past unless there’s a real interest in bringing the guilty parties to justice or unless the gathered leaders are serious about establishing the rules for a new economic regime. But they’re not, which is why the confab was just another political gab-fest devoid of any serious reforms. It was interesting, though, to hear Bush, in a rare, unscripted moment, acknowledge that the extreme steps taken by the Fed and US Treasury–since Bear Stearns defaulted 17 months ago–were intended to avoid what he called “a depression greater than the Great Depression.” That’s quite an admission for Bush, as well as a vindication of the left-wing web sites which have been making the same prediction for more than 2 years. And although Bush rejected any personal responsibility for the policies which led to the crisis, it’s clear that he has some rudimentary grasp of its gravity. That’s a start. As he opined to the press, “This sucker could go down”. Despite the outcry for meaningful reform, the summit only reinforces the status quo; the same old American-led financial system. In fact, there appears to be growing consensus that the IMF should spearhead the programs that provide liquidity to the developing countries that are getting pounded by the downturn. This is a major setback. It restores the IMF–which is the “iron fist” of the US Treasury– to its former glory so it can once again use its extortionist loans to thrust faltering nations into structural adjustment, privatization and slave wages. The meetings are breathing new life into the failed neoliberal policies that should be done away with once and for all. The G 20 statement invokes the same “pro growth”, free market mumbo jumbo that permeates all far-right documents. Pro growth is code for low interest credit which allows market speculators to benefit from the steady flow of cheap capital while workers are stuck trying to make ends meet on stagnant wages and a falling dollar. It’s a way of making sure that the playing field is always tilted in favor of Wall Street. Pro growth does not mean strengthening productive activity or manufacturing goods that consumers want to buy. It means expanding credit through derivatives contracts and other leveraged investments to maximize profits on borrowed money. The long-term objective is to put the financial sector above the productive sectors of the real economy. It is a blueprint for maintaining dollar hegemony and Wall Street’s continued dominance over global finance. The G 20 statement also rejects protectionism which defends the interests of labor and crucial national industries. Again, this just illustrates the blatant pro-Wall Street bias of the meetings where none of the leaders represented the interests of labor or unions. To hell with the working man. The group called for more government stimulus to minimize the effects of the frozen credit markets, unemployment and deflation. They also demanded greater “transparency and accountability”, although it will probably amount to nothing. Wall Street is not about to give up the Golden Goose; its off balance sheets operations, its Level 3 “marked to fantasy” assets, its “dark pool” trading, and its opaque, convoluted accounting methods. These are the alchemists best friends which allow investment gurus with little talent and even less scruples to weave exotic debt-instruments into pure gold. Expect plenty of lip-service from Paulson and his brood about transparency, while revealing next to nothing about their shady activities. Of course, there was the usual high-minded gibberish about “fostering innovation”, preserving market “dynamism” and striving for “poverty reduction”. Some of the leaders even called for the creation of “supervisory colleges” for bank regulators and limits on executive pay to “avoid excessive risk-taking.” (Oh, please) It’s a wonder that the developing nations, many of whom have been the victims of the IMF’s heavy-handed policies, would allow this type capitalist claptrap to be inserted into the final copy. It’s like something out of Milton Friedman’s memoirs. No one in the penthouse suites in downtown Manhattan will be taking a cut in pay anytime soon nor do they lose any sleep over “poverty reduction”. These guys are riverboat gamblers whose life-work is picking the pockets of unwitting investors. What’s really needed instead of all this diversionary nonsense is strict compliance to a basic set of rules . The rules for financial institutions have been articulated by many market analysts including Karl Denninger (Market Ticker) in his “Genesis Plan”: 1– Force all off-balance sheet “assets” back onto the balance sheet, and force the valuation models and identification of individual assets out of Level 3 and into 10Qs and 10Ks. Enact this requirement beginning with the 3Q 2008 reporting period which begins next month. (ed.–All assets must be accounted for on the banks balance sheet) 2. Force all Over the Counter (OTC) derivatives onto a regulated exchange similar to that used by listed options in the equity markets. This permanently defuses the derivatives time bomb. Give market participants 90 days to get this done; any that are not listed in 90 days are declared void; let the participants sue each other if they can’t prove capital adequacy. (ed–This creates a public exchange so that regulators know whether derivatives contracts are sufficiently capitalized) 3. Force leverage by all institutions to no more than 12:1. The SEC intentionally dropped broker/dealer leverage limits in 2004; prior to that date 12:1 was the limit. Every firm that has failed had double or more the leverage of that former 12:1 limit. Enact this with a six month time limit and require 1/6th of the excess taken down monthly. (ed–The 5 largest investment banks claimed an aggregate asset-value of $4 trillion before Bear Stearns defaulted. Many, if not most, of those worthless assets are now on the Fed’s balance sheet underwritten by the US taxpayer. Too much leverage, simply means that the taxpayer pays the difference when the bank fails) That’s the bulk of it right there. Follow the rules or go to jail. Period. Of course, Glass Steagall will need to be reenacted–to separate commercial from investment banks–and the ratings agencies will have to be freed from any conflicts of interest. They cannot be paid by the same financial institutions that commission them to provide ratings; that’s a non-starter. The main thing is to restore confidence in the markets through transparency. Right now, the Obama camp is amassing the same collection of Wall Street sharpies who pushed to repeal Glass Steagall and allow derivatives to be traded off of a public exchange. They believe they can keep the same financial regime in place with just slight face-lift using Obama’s credibility to conceal their activities. That’s why it is critical for the nations with the largest capital reserves to establish an independent model for providing relief for developing countries that are hurting from the financial crisis. Otherwise, the IMF (US Treasury) will entangle them in their web of debt. In his latest article “The Great Depression of the 21st Century: Collapse of the Real Economy” author and economist Michel Chossudovsky sheds some light on the agenda of the banking giants led by their standard-bearer at Treasury, Henry Paulson: “Once they have consolidated their position in the banking industry, the financial giants including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, et al will use their windfall money gains and bailout money provided under TARP, to further extend their control over the real economy. The target of these acquisitions are the numerous highly productive industrial and services sector companies, which are on the verge of bankruptcy and/or whose stock values have collapsed. As a result of these developments, which are directly related to the financial meltdown, the entire ownership structure of real economy assets is in turmoil. In a bitter twist, the new owners of industry are the institutional speculators and financial manipulators. They are becoming the new captains of industry, displacing not only the preexisting structures of ownership but also instating their cronies in the seats of corporate management”. Chossudovsky sums it up perfectly. The financial crisis is being used by Wall Street big-wigs to restructure the economy and create a permanent class of working poor. The world doesn’t need a new Bretton Woods or a new world order; it needs a competing vision of global finance. One that will put an end to dollar tyranny, superpower politics and “beggar thy neighbor” economic policies. A system that strengthens national sovereignty, cooperation, and international law. That’s what the G 20 should have been talking about, instead of wasting their time trying to prop up a system that’s rotten to the core. Posted in English No Comments
Russia Appreciates European Change of Mind November 18th, 2008 by Jorge Petinaud Russia happily appreciated the European Union (EU) change of approach over deployment of US antimissile system (DAM) in this continent expressed at Nice Summit, France. For them it was necessary to know the actions the Russian Federation will undertake in response to those unilateral measures, said the Foreign Affairs Minister Serguei Lavrov in declarations to Eco Moscow radio station. However, the minister appreciated French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s declaration, leading the EU during these six months, who affirmed in Niza that the deployment of the antimissile shield does not provide any security but make the situation more complicated. Lavrov emphasized the French leader has practically urged to follow the same steps Moscow has talked about in the last few year and a half with emphasis on the need to obtain a break in the unilateral movements, dealing with continental security The Head of the Russian diplomacy pointed out that this point of view is valid for the DAM and the NATO expansion to the Russian borders or any other measure considered a threat to the national security of the largest country of the planet. The principle of security indivisibility can not be violated, emphatically insisted the Russian minister. Moscow backed Sarkozy’s proposal to adopt a break in all those matters at least during the creation of a new International security treaty which signing proposal was reiterated in Nixa by the Russian head of State Dmitri Medvedev. The EU leaders think over again about their positions after Medvedev recently announced in his annual report to the Federal Assembly over the possibility to deploy Iskander rockets complex in Kaliningrad in response to DAM. Those tactics high-precision batteries are made up of guided ballistic missiles of 173 miles range and cruisers capable of hitting up to 310 miles long. It presence in Kaliningrad will allow to neutralize targets in Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and Latvia. In an attempt to provoke a change of attitude of Europeans, a few days before the G-8 Summit in Heligendamm Germany in June 2007, Moscow has successfully tested the ultramodern intercontinental ballistic missile (MBI) RS-24 of multiple warheads and the R500 Iskander operational tactic. It seems that the appearance of Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad have provoked a change of attitude in the EU leaders, expressed at the Nice Summit Posted in English No Comments
The Financial Crisis and the G-20 Washington Summit November 18th, 2008 by Fidel Castro Ruz Bush seemed happy to have Lula sitting to his right during dinner on Friday. On the other hand, Hu Jintao, whom he respects for the enormous market in his country, the capacity to produce consumer goods at low cost and the volume of his reserves in US dollars and bonds was sitting to his left. Medvedev, whom he offends with the threat of locating strategic radars and missiles not far from Moscow, was assigned a seat rather distant from the White House host. The King of Saudi Arabia, a country that in a near future will produce 15 million tons of light oil at highly competitive prices was also sitting at his left, at Hu’s side. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his most faithful ally in Europe, could not be seen close to him in the pictures. Nicolas Sarkozy, who is rather disappointed at the present architecture of the financial order, was far from him looking embittered. The President of the Spanish Government, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, a victim of Bush’s personal resentment attending the conclave in Washington, I could not even see in the television images of the dinner. That’s how those attending the banquet were sitting. Anyone would have thought that the following day there would be a profound debate on the thorny issue. On Saturday morning, the press agencies were reporting on the program that would unfold at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. Every second was covered. There would be an analysis of the current crisis and the actions to be taken. It would start at 11:30 a.m. local time. First, there would be a photo op, or “family picture” as Bush called it, and twenty minutes later the first plenary session would start followed by a another one in the second half of the day. Everything was strictly planned, even the fine sanitary services. The speeches and analysis would last approximately three hours and 30 minutes. Lunch would be at 3:25 local time, immediately followed by the final declaration at 5:05. One hour later, at 6:05, Bush would be leaving for Camp David to rest, have dinner and have a pleasant sleep. Those following the event were impatient to see the day going by and trying to know how the problems of the earth and the human specie would be dealt with in such a short time. A final declaration had been announced. The fact is that the Summit’s final declaration was worked out by previously chosen economic advisors, very much in line with neoliberal ideas, while Bush in his statements prior to the summit and after its conclusion claimed more power and more money for the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other world institutions under strict control of the United States and its closest allies. That country had decided to inject 700 billion dollars to bailout its banks and multinational corporations. Europe had offered an identical or even higher figure. Japan, its strongest pillar in Asia, has promised a 100 billion dollars contribution. In the case of the People’s Republic of China, which is developing increasing and convenient relations with Latin American countries, they are expecting another contribution of 100 billion dollars from its reserves. Where would so many dollars, euros and pound sterlings come from if not from the deep indebtedness of new generations? How can the structure of the new world economy be built on paper money, which is what is really circulating in the short run, when the country issuing it is suffering from an enormous fiscal deficit? Would it be worthwhile traveling by air to a place on the planet named Washington to meet with a President with only 60 more days left in government and signing a document previously designed to be adopted at the Washington Museum? Could the US radio, TV and press be right not to pay special attention to this old imperialist game in the much-trumpeted meeting? What is really incredible is the final declaration adopted by consensus in the conclave. It is obviously the participants’ full acceptance of Bush’s demands made before and during the summit. Some of the attending countries had no choice but to adopt it; in their desperate struggle for development, they did not want to be isolated from the richest and most powerful and their financial institutions, which are the majority in the G20. Bush was really euphoric as he spoke. He used demagogic phrases which mirror the final declaration. He said: “The first decision I had to make was who was coming to the meeting. And obviously I decided that we ought to have the G20 nations, as opposed to the G8 or the G13. But once you make the decision to have the G20 then the fundamental question is, with that many nations, from six different continents, who all represent different stages of economic development, would I be possible to reach agreements, and not only agreements, would I be possible to reach agreements that were substantive? And I’m pleased to report the answer to that question was, absolutely.” “The United States has taken some extraordinary measures. Those of you who have followed my career know that I’m a free market person –until you are told that if you don’t take decisive measures then it’s conceivable that our country could go into a depression greater than the Great Depression.” “[…] we just started on the $700 billion fund to start getting money out to our banks.” “[…] we all understand the need to work on pro-growth economic policies.” “Transparency is very important so that investors and regulators are able to know the truth.” The rest of what Bush said goes more or less along this line. The final declaration of the summit, which takes half an hour to read in public due to its length, is clearly defined in a number of selected paragraphs: “We, the leaders of the G20 have held a first meeting in Washington, on November 15, in the light of serious challenges to the world economy and financial markets…” “[…] we should lay the foundations for a reform that will make this global crisis less likely to happen again in the future. Our work should be guided by the principles of the free market, free trade and investment….” “[…] the market players sought to obtain more benefits failing to make an adequate assessment of the risks and they failed…” “The authorities, regulators and supervisors from some developed nations did not realize or adequately warned about the risks created in the financial markets…” “…insufficient and poorly coordinated macroeconomic policies as well as inadequate structure reforms, led to an unsustainable macroeconomic global result.” “Many emerging economies, which have helped sustain the world economy, are increasingly suffering from the world brakes.” “We note the important role of the IMF in response to the crisis; we salute the new short-term liquidity mechanism and urge the constant reviewing of its instruments to ensure flexibility.” “We shall encourage the World Bank and other multilateral developing banks to use their full capacity in support of their agenda for assistance…” “We will make sure that the IMF, the World Bank and other multilateral developing banks have the necessary resources to continue playing their role in the solution of the crisis.” “We shall exercise a strong monitoring of the credit agencies through the development of an international code of conduct.” “We pledge to protect the integrity of the world financial markets by reinforcing protection to the investor and the consumer.” “We are determined to advance in the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions so that they reflect the changes in the world economy to increase their legitimacy and effectiveness.” “We shall meet again on April 30, 2009, to examine the implementation of the principles and decisions made today.” “We concede that these reforms will only be successful if they are based on a serious commitment to the principles of free market, including the rule of law, respect for private property, free trade and investment, efficient and competitive markets and effectively regulated financial systems.” “We shall refrain from erecting new barriers to investment and trade in goods and services.” “We are aware of the impact of the current crisis on the developing nations, especially on those most vulnerable.” “We are certain that as we advance through cooperation, collaboration and multilateralism we will overcome the challenges and restore stability and prosperity to the world economy.” This technocratic language is beyond grasp of the masses. The empire is treated courteously; its abusive methods are not criticized. The IMF, the World Bank and the multilateral credit organizations are praised despite the fact that they generate debts, enormous bureaucratic expenses and investments while supplying raw materials to the large multinationals which are also responsible for the crisis. This goes on like that until the last paragraph. It’s a boring declaration full of the usual rhetoric. It doesn’t say anything. It was signed by Bush, the champion of neoliberalism, the man responsible for genocidal wars and massacres, who has invested in his bloody adventures all the money that would have sufficed to change the economic face of the world. The document does not have a word on the absurd policy promoted by the United States of turning food into fuel; or the unequal exchange of which the Third World countries are victims; or about the useless arms race, the production and trade of weapons, the breakup of the ecological balance and the extremely serious threats to peace that bring the world to the brink of annihilation. Only a short four-word phrase in the long document mentions the need “to face climate change.” The declaration reflects the demand of the countries attending the conclave to meet again in April 2009, in the United Kingdom, Japan or any other country that meets the necessary requirements –nobody knows which- to examine the situation of the world finances, dreaming that the cyclical crisis with their dramatic consequences never happen again. Now is the time for the theoreticians from the left and the right to offer their passionate or dispassionate criteria on the document. From my point of view, the privileges of the empire were not even touched upon. Having the necessary patience to read it completely, one can see that is simply a pious appeal to the ethic of the most powerful country on earth, both technologically and militarily, in the era of economic globalization; it’s like begging the wolf not to eat up little red riding hood. translated from the Spanish Posted in English No Comments
US-Iraq “Agreement”: A Pact With the Devil November 18th, 2008 by Pepe Escobar The big bang is not that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s majority Shi’ite/Kurdish 37-member cabinet in Baghdad has approved the draft of a security pact with the George W Bush (and Barack Obama) administrations allowing the US military to stay in Iraq for three more years; it’s that the 30-strong Sadrist bloc will move heaven and Earth – including massive nationwide protests – to bloc the pact in the Iraqi National Assembly. The proposed Status of Forces Agreement not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal – 2011 – but also puts new restrictions on US combat operations in Iraq starting on January 1 and requires a military pullback from urban areas by June 30. The pact goes before parliament in a week or so. Sadrist spokesman Ahmed al-Masoudi stressed this Sunday that the pact “did not mean anything” and “hands Iraq over on a golden platter and for an indefinite period”. Masoudi is right on the money when he says the overwhelming majority of popular opinion is against it and the Sadrists and many Sunni parties insist a popular referendum to approve it is essential. Shi’ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr’s position is and has always been “end the occupation now”. That happens to be the same view from Tehran: the pact further extends Iraq’s agony as an American colony. But Iranian state TV has been spinning it as a victory for the Maliki government – stressing the US was forced to make concessions (in fact Maliki did not extract all the concessions he wanted in terms of prosecuting US troops for crimes in Iraq). Last week, a spokesman for the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq said he would “directly intervene” if he felt the pact was against Iraqi sovereignty. In this case, he’d better start intervening this week – when a debate about the pact starts ahead of a vote on November 24. Parliament can vote for or against it, but cannot make any changes to the text. As for how much of the 275-member parliament in Baghdad is against the pact depends on how much they are in the US pocket – like Maliki’s Interior and Defense ministries. As much as US General Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, has charged that Iran has been bribing parliamentarians to reject the pact, the reverse also applies. Muqtada, make your move This version of the pact was basically supported by Maliki’s Defense, Interior, Foreign Affairs and Finance ministries, by the Kurdistan Alliance and by the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front, led by former US intelligence asset and former interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi. So the backbone of support is Kurdish and “establishment” Shi’ite. That does not account for the crucial leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, very close to Iran, who recently has been less critical of the pact. The SIIC in the end caved in. In theory, all US troops should be out of Iraq on January 1, 2012. For all practical purposes, this is the new timeline for the end of the occupation – way longer than Obama’s 16 months. Even though the pact allows Iraq limited authority to try US soldiers and the Bush administration-enabled army of defense contractors (only in the case of serious crimes committed off-duty and off-base), and formally forbids the Pentagon to use Iraq as a base to attack Syria or Iran, the pact does make a mockery of Iraq’s “sovereignty”. For the first time, occupying US troops will have a clear mandate straight from Iraq’s elected leadership, instead of a United Nations Security Council resolution enacted after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. The US has to end all patrols of Iraqi streets by June 2009 – five months into the Obama presidency – and has to fully withdraw by the end of 2011, unless the Iraqi government miraculously asks the US to stay. From an anti-imperial point of view, the only good thing about the pact is that it does not allow the establishment of permanent US military bases in Iraq – a point that has been stressed ad infinitum by Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Inter Press Service correspondent Gareth Porter, among others, has stressed this is the final nail in the coffin of the neo-conservative, neo-imperial dream of having Iraq at the Middle East center of an empire of bases. In a quirky historical twist, Maliki knocks out US Vice President Dick Cheney. The Sadrists anyway are not convinced. Last month, Muqtada said, “If they tell you that the agreement ends the presence of the occupation, let me tell you that the occupier will retain its bases. And whoever tells you that it gives us sovereignty is a liar.” So what will the Sadrists do in practice? Before the approval Muqtada, in a statement read out by his spokesman Salah al-Ubaidi at the Kufa mosque, said, “If the American forces remain, I will reinforce the resisters, especially the brigades subsumed under the banner of the Judgment Day,” Muqtada rallied all these “Bands of the Eternal Truth” to “enlist behind this mujahid banner”. This Sadrist version of special forces would only attack American forces, and not the Iraqi military (controlled by the Maliki government). Muqtada is in a difficult position. He has to confront the problem that strategically Tehran subscribes to not attacking US troops as the best way for the Americans to eventually leave. And Muqtada at the moment is studying in Qom, the spiritual capital of Iran – he could hardly afford to antagonize his hosts. To top it all, the Sadrist movement had been adopting a Hezbollah approach and reconverting from militia activities to being firmly embedded in the Iraqi political landscape. Maliki has made his move. Now it’s time for Muqtada’s. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. He may be reached at
[email protected]. Posted in English No Comments
Israel invades Gaza again; Palestinian resistance continues November 18th, 2008 by Sara Flounders The Israeli Army invaded the Gaza Strip on Nov. 4 with tanks, helicopters and jet aircraft. The attack was an explicit violation of a five-month Egyptian-mediated truce between Israel and the Palestinian resistance groupings in Gaza. The elected Hamas government there had agreed to the cease-fire. Nov. 4 was Election Day in the United States. Global attention was riveted on the deep enthusiasm here for the first AfricanAmerican president and how the vote reflected a break with the reactionary policies of the Bush administration. The surprise Israeli attack went almost unnoted in the corporate media. According to reports in the Palestinian media, Israeli soldiers and tanks accompanied by military helicopters firing flares and missiles invaded an area east of Deir al-Balah, in the central Gaza Strip, while Israeli jets shelled an area east of Kahn Younis in the southern part of Gaza. The next day Israeli tanks moved into Beit Hanoun in the northern part of Gaza. Seven Palestinian fighters from the Al Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, were killed attempting to repel the incursion. There were many injuries. At Deir al-Balah four Palestinian women were abducted, including one who was wounded. Every piece of Israeli military equipment used in the attack was made possible by the billions of dollars in aid provided to the Zionist regime by Washington over the last 60 years. When Palestinian forces defended themselves against the three-pronged Israeli invasion, Israel claimed it was the Palestinians who violated the cease-fire. It cut off fuel shipments to the Gaza City power plant. Gaza residents are now experiencing sporadic blackouts. Cutting fuel affects not only electricity for lights and refrigeration of food and medicines but also, most seriously, it curtails pumping of water for drinking and sanitation. Abu Obaida, a spokesperson for the Al Qassam Brigades of Hamas, speculated that the Israeli invasion might be part of a plan to foil the internal Palestinian dialogue scheduled for Cairo, Egypt, on Nov. 9. The meeting for an opening dialogue on reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas forces did not take place. Israel’s use of collective punishment Three years ago, determined Palestinian resistance forced Israeli forces to withdraw from the densely populated and impoverished Gaza Strip. However, Israel continues to control all access by land, sea and air. Farm produce and even essential medicines, electronic parts, repairs for sanitation and sewage are all blockaded. With all access to and from Gaza closed, Palestinian workers cannot travel to find work. The result is huge increases in unemployment, poverty and malnutrition. Commerce is shut down. Israeli gunboats routinely attack small Palestinian fishing boats with water cannon and machine-gun fire. Two years ago the Palestinians overwhelmingly elected a government with a majority from Hamas—a Muslim force seen as more intransigent toward Israeli occupation. Both the United States and the European Union then imposed sanctions and withdrew aid. In a further effort to break the resistance, Israel has confiscated hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes from Palestinians that, according to previous agreements, it is obliged to pass on. The 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza now live in a blockaded and surrounded ghetto. But the determined population has shown incredibly creative and heroic resilience. Tunnels have been dug from southern Gaza into Egypt to smuggle in the most essential supplies. Israel claimed that the purpose of its recent brutal offensive was to destroy the Palestinian tunnels. The tunnels can vary in length from 100 yards to half a mile. In the past three years hundreds of tunnels have been destroyed. After each Israeli attack, the work begins again. Breaking the siege of Gaza Concerned about the dire conditions in Gaza and inspired by the heroic mass resistance, solidarity activists internationally have developed more serious challenges to the siege. The SS Dignity arrived in Gaza harbor four days after the latest Israeli attack. The small ship, organized by the Free Gaza movement, brought parliamentarians from Britain, Italy and Switzerland, Arab leaders, human-rights activists and journalists. It was the fourth ship to get through in the last three months. The solidarity delegation will visit some of the hardest-hit areas in the Gaza Strip, particularly the camps and hospitals. The ship also brought 1 metric ton of medicines, mostly pain killers and aspirin. These basic, inexpensive medicines are in desperately short supply and unavailable in local pharmacies. Solidarity demonstrations around the world, including one organized by the Al-Awda Palestine Right to Return Coalition in New York on Nov. 7, have demanded that Israel lift the siege of Gaza. Demands have also been raised against the complicity of the Egyptian government, which has bowed to U.S. and Israeli pressure and helps to enforce the blockade at the Rafah crossing. Israel attacks in the West Bank In the same week, Israeli attacks escalated throughout the West Bank. Israeli forces carried out 33 military incursions into Palestinian towns and villages and kidnapped 21 civilians, including two children. In just the past year, Israel has abducted 2,111 Palestinian civilians. Six Palestinians, including two children, were wounded by Israeli gunfire in al-Far’a refugee camp, south of Tubas. Three were wounded in the village of Dura, southwest of Hebron. Another four Palestinians, including a child, and an international human-rights defender were wounded when Israeli troops attacked a peaceful, unarmed demonstration protesting the construction of the apartheid wall west of Ramallah. Some 217 miles of the 450-mile wall have been completed, further isolating the Palestinian population into small ghettos. To build the wall and a network of walled Jewish-only roads, along with more than 630 roadblocks and checkpoints, Israel has dispossessed small farmers, plowing under and destroying thousands of acres of cropland. Farmers can’t get to their land, children can’t get to school and workers can’t leave their surrounded enclaves. Sick children, pregnant women and seniors have died at checkpoints after being blocked from reaching hospitals, even in emergencies. Free movement and all normal economic activity are impossible. Increasingly, international and Israeli human-rights defenders are joining Palestinian demonstrations challenging this criminal policy. In occupied East Jerusalem, Israel continues to expropriate and drive out the Palestinian residents. In the first week of November, the Israeli army bulldozed two homes and a wedding hall in Jerusalem. As Palestinians and supporters defied the bulldozers, 21 residents were wounded and many more were arrested. Today massive Jewish-only settlements bisect the West Bank. Israeli demolitions, land seizures, settlement expansion, assassinations, armed incursions, segregated road-building and continued construction of the separation wall are all continuing. Despite more than 15 years of talks and negotiations sponsored and supported by U.S. administrations, both Republican and Democratic, none of the issues of occupation have been addressed. Ever since the 1993 Oslo Accords, despite every Israeli promise to recognize a Palestinian state and every agreement to cease new settlements, construction has continued. It is the endless and guaranteed stream of U.S. funding that enables the Israeli government to continue and expand its occupation of Palestinian lands. Rahm Emanuel, a virulent Zionist, has just been appointed White House chief of staff in the upcoming U.S. administration. This is just another reason why international support and solidarity for Palestinian demands, including the right of all Palestinians to return to their expropriated homes, is more important than ever. Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. Posted in English No Comments
Economy in Shambles: IMF agrees on loan for Iceland November 17th, 2008 by Global Research WASHINGTON: IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn said the fund had reached an agreement on providing a loan to Iceland, battered by the financial crisis, which will go to a vote next week. Strauss-Kahn, who was speaking at a press conference on after a summit of G20 leaders, did not say how much the loan was for, but said the board would vote on it on Wednesday. “We will complete a programme with Iceland next Wednesday at the Board. We now have an agreement for a stand-by arrangement,” he told journalists. Earlier reports have said the Nordic country was seeking some 2 billion from the International Monetary Fund. Earlier on Saturday, some 6,000 people demonstrated in the Icelandic capital to call on government officials to resign in the wake of the financial crisis that has brought the country’s economy to the brink of collapse. Protesters, who have gathered over the past five weeks in steadily growing numbers, want new elections and the governors of the central bank to be replaced. Iceland’s once booming financial sector collapsed under the weight of the worldwide credit crunch, forcing the government to take control of the major banks as its currency nose-dived. Posted in English No Comments
Dangers of a public backlash in response to IMF intervention : Pakistan criticized over $7.6 billion IMF bailout November 17th, 2008 by Global Research ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) – Analysts and opposition leaders warned Sunday that Pakistan’s decision to borrow $7.6 billion from the International Monetary Fund to stabilize its economy at a time of rising militant violence could lead to a public backlash. Pakistani leaders had hoped their nation’s front-line status in the fight against al-Qaida and Taliban militant would lead the international community to come to its rescue. However, with the global economy in turmoil, the government was forced to turn to the IMF after even close allies such as the United States, China and Saudi Arabia snubbed its requests for significant bilateral aid. Opposition lawmakers fear the IMF will impose austerity measures that will hurt ordinary Pakistanis, two-thirds of whom live on $2 dollar a day or less. But the IMF said the package included steps to protect the poor from cutbacks. Ahsan Iqbal, a spokesman for the main opposition party, said the government should admit its economic plans had failed, Dawn, a respected English-language paper, reported Sunday. “The government should immediately tell Parliament what strings are attached to the IMF package,” the newspaper quoted Iqbal as saying. Like other observers, Iqbal said the government had damaged its image by expanding the Cabinet when austerity was needed, not to mention sending a reported 200 people along with President Asif Ali Zardari to Saudi Arabia on a recent aid-seeking mission. Murtaza Mughal of Pakistan Economy Watch, a network of economists, said Sunday that the country should still seek other options to shore up its economy. Cumbersome IMF spending rules could further slow development and upset the public, he said. “We should avoid this loan,” Mughal said. He suggested that Zardari and other Pakistani leaders set an example by bringing into Pakistan bank money they held in banks elsewhere. Pakistan’s finance chief said Saturday that the IMF agreed to the bailout after endorsing plans to tackle the country’s huge budget and trade deficits. The loan will boost Pakistan’s foreign currency reserves, which have seen a rapid decline that raised the prospect of a run on the local currency and default on the country’s foreign debt. “We have fulfilled our commitment that Pakistan will never default” on its debt, Shaukat Tareen, finance adviser to Pakistan’s prime minister, said at a news conference. Pakistan is one of a number of countries including Hungary and Ukraine seeking IMF assistance in the wake of the global credit crunch. However, nuclear-armed Pakistan’s strategic importance in the U.S.-led war on terror makes its financial and political stability of particular concern to the international community. Pakistan’s northwest, especially its wild tribal belt, is used by al-Qaida and Taliban militants to stage attacks on U.S. and NATO troops across the border in Afghanistan. The Muslim nation is currently pursuing military operations in the tribal areas, including one in the Bajur region said to have killed more than 1,600 people since August. Pakistan’s economy, which enjoyed fast-paced growth under ex-President Pervez Musharraf, is threatened by gross imbalances caused by the soaring costs of imported oil and food. Tareen said Pakistan would apply formally for the emergency loan this week and an IMF statement said its board would consider the matter shortly. With Pakistan’s currency having fallen some 20 percent since March, Tareen said Pakistan was hoping to receive a substantial first tranche from the fund before the end of the month. He said the loan carries an interest rate of between 3.5 percent and 4.5 percent and that Pakistan would have five years to pay it back, starting in 2011 or 2012. Pakistan is also hoping for direct economic assistance from a group of nations called the “Friends of Democratic Pakistan.” Senior officials from the group meet in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday. Pakistan is hoping oil-rich Saudi Arabia will supply it with fuel on deferred payment, while countries including Germany have said they are willing to boost development aid. The IMF said other multinational donors were expected to extend further support.-AP Posted in English No Comments
IMF head meets Turkish PM, signals a new deal in near future November 17th, 2008 by Global Research Turkey and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) could finalize a new deal in the near future, the head of the Fund said on Friday after meeting Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey’s 10-billion dollar stand-by agreement with the IMF expired in May and the government is yet to decide on the future shape of the relations with the IMF amid global turmoil. “It was a fruitful meeting. There could be a new deal in the near future,” broadcaster CNNTurk quoted Dominique Strauss-Kahn as saying after his meeting with Erdogan on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Washington. Erdogan and Strauss-Khan discussed the framework and maintenance of relations and agreed to continue technical works, economy officials told Anatolian Agency, adding Turkey and IMF would continue discussions to carry on relations at a certain level. After the meeting, IMF said in a statement that Strauss-Kahn and Erdogan agreed to be in close contact and cooperation in the future. Erdogan also met the World Bank President Robert Zoellick. World Bank is expected to raise country lending limit for Turkey to support employment, small and medium-sized enterprises and renewable energy works, officials told the agency. Posted in English No Comments
Africa to pay for Europe’s “green policies” November 17th, 2008 by Rainer Chr. Hennig In efforts to make quick and symbolic gains in Europe’s otherwise failed policies to curb climate gas emissions, environmental and anti-globalisation politicians are aiming at Africa’s few economic success stories. Campaigns to buy locally produced food and travel to local destinations particularly hit out against African products. Consumers in Europe are again growing more environmentally conscious and are willing to use their purchasing power to assist in what is widely seen as our era’s most pressing problems – the overspending of energy and global warming. Meanwhile, European politicians have been those pressuring strongest to gain support for the Kyoto Protocol while having totally failed to lower emissions of climate gases in their own countries. In every country, emissions have steadily increased. Populist solutions that are to satisfy costumers, politicians and the European industry alike are therefore surfacing all over Africa’s neighbour continent and the main market of its products. And the solutions seem neat and nice – easy to understand and with the potential of creating more work locally. Even the industry starts propagating these solutions. The victim mainly is Africa, because the message is that, as longer as a product or person is transported, the more energy is wasted unnecessarily. Worst of all is airborne transport, having the highest emissions of climate gases such as CO2. Unluckily, Africa is far away from European markets and poor transcontinental infrastructure puts most products and travellers on an airplane. All over Europe, therefore, home-grown campaigns are being promoted, attacking Africa’s newest and most successful export products. Anti-globalisation activists, “green” politicians, local industry and even occasional experts and scientists head these “buy local” campaigns. One of the latest campaigns is being launched in Germany, Europe’s most populous state and biggest single market. The campaign goes “Sylt instead of Seychelles”, referring to a fragile German North Sea island with an overstretched and environmentally damaging tourism industry. Tourism and climate expert Dr Manfred Stock developed the slogan and told the daily newspaper ‘Berliner Zeitung’ that consumers worrying about global warming should avoid intercontinental flights and rather take the train to a German or European destination. The much-quoted researcher is in line with policies promoted by Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA). UBA President Dr Andreas Troge has made the climate change issue his agency’s foremost focus, and one of the ways consumers could “do something on your own” is by changing their travel behaviour, UBA says. A single traveller flying to an intercontinental destination produces more than five tonnes of CO2, he told the German press, while someone travelling by train within Germany only had the emission of ten kilograms of CO2 to account for. Some even go further and have started penalising air travellers. In Norway, flyers have started paying for their CO2 emissions. So far, only domestic flights are penalised to make sure Norwegian airliners are not losing out in competition with other companies on international flights. But Norway is among many countries working for a CO2 tax on world-wide flights, which of course in particular would make long distance flights much more expensive. This comes as most African states are investing massively in their nascent tourism industry and as Africa is surfacing as a modern and exciting travel destination in most Western markets. Some sub-Saharan states, in particular Seychelles, Mauritius, Cape Verde and The Gambia, already see tourism as their greatest foreign exchange earners. In Kenya, Tanzania, Senegal, Namibia, Botswana and South Africa, the travel industry by now is a vibrant success, while newcomers such as Mozambique, Ethiopia, Gabon and Burkina Faso pin great investments and development hopes to the industry. Ironically, much of Africa’s new tourist destinations are focusing on eco-tourism, searching for modes that can guarantee the protection and good management of wildlife and habitats and local community development based on the new tourism revenues. In Gabon and Madagascar, vast landscapes have bee protected to be able to promote eco-tourism. No measure in African history has proven so successful in stopping tree cutting and forest conservation than prospects of tourism revenues. Mature markets like Seychelles, Mauritius and South Africa are already world leaders when it comes to conservation and management, knowing that their tourism industry depends on a sound nature. At the same time, African destinations like Seychelles are demonised as anti-environmental by European “experts”. If successful, these campaigns could have a severe effect on the European market, which for the first time is experiencing a positive image of Africa as a must-see travel destination. But also other African success stories are threatened by this new “stay local” trend. During the last decade, African agricultural products were increasingly admitted into the protectionist European market, even when also produced in Europe. This includes beef from Namibia and Botswana, fresh flowers, fruit and vegetables from Kenya and even processed food products from South Africa and Ghana. None of the few African countries that have managed to enter European markets with agricultural products that compete with local producers have had an easy path reaching their position. Food quality and hygiene standards in Europe are extremely rigid and to a large degree designed to exclude foreign competition. To be able to reach sceptical European consumers, African producers mostly also have been obliged to follow strict environmental and social guidelines. Also, African food products for years had to fight against false prototypes promoted by seemingly well-meaning anti-globalisation activists that to a great degree were funded by local farmer organisations. Development specialists – who do not get much air-time in European media – had to explain on and on again that European consumers were not “stealing food from starving Africans” when buying their products, but that these imports indeed would promote wealth and empowerment in rural Africa. But in country after country, also these hard-bought gains are now under attack. Britain is the country where consumers so far have had the strongest focus on how far the food basket has travelled before reaching supermarkets. “Fresh vegetables from Africa” have for several years been one of the main focuses of environmental and anti-globalisation activists. They have even produced research claiming that the further foods have travelled, “the more their vitamin and mineral content deteriorates.” Already in 2003, airlifted baby carrots and garden peas from South Africa were highlighted in energy budgets of imported foods. For carrots, “it will have taken 68 calories of energy in the form of fuel to air freight each calorie of carrot energy,” while “fresh peas require approximately two and half times the energy to produce, package and distribute as those sourced locally,” the British daily ‘Guardian’ reported. South African wine, which is mostly shipped, however was praised for its “tiny” CO2 emissions. Of all the African products scrutinised, only wine is not produced Britain. Years of campaigning against African agricultural products in the UK – whose funding has yet to be revealed – has already left its mark on British consumers. The easy-selling “fact” that locally produced vegetables, meat, flowers and fruits are more environmentally fit than African imports has made many consumers look for “low emission products”. That this trend is significant was demonstrated by a surprise marketing campaign by Britain’s largest supermarket chain, Tesco, in February 2007. The retailer was to introduce “carbon counting” labelling to let consumers see for themselves how far their food basket had travelled and how much CO2 emissions had been needed. Tesco is one of the main channels for Kenyan products to European consumers – indeed half of Kenya’s agricultural exports go to Britain. Naturally, the surprise marketing stunt caused frustrations at the Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya (FPEAK), which had not been consulted on the move. While Tesco promised to keep on importing Kenyan products, “carbon counting” labels on these goods from 2008 will tell a one-sided story to British consumers. From Britain, this trend is spreading to all over Western Europe. In Sweden, the leading daily ‘Aftonbladet’ attacked local supermarkets for not following Tesco’s example “despite the fact that one fourth of climate gases emitted by Swedes originate from our food.” Ecologist Annika Carlsson-Kanyama enthusiastically helped the Swedish daily to make a parallel guide for consumers, where “airborne tropical fruits” were labelled as no-goes for conscious consumers. In other countries, old arguments against food imports from Africa are resurfacing. In the programme of Nature and Youth, one of the environment groups gaining most media attention in Norway, new and old “facts” are mixed: “Locally produced food is more environmental, safe and solidary,” it says, claiming solidarity with African producers “for not spending the resources of others.” Norway is a main importer of Namibian beef. While the great focus on “environmentally damaging” food imports from Africa and flights to Africa is even increasing, less and less attention is given to the positive environmental balance of this trade. Forgotten is the fact that almost 100 percent of input factors in African agriculture are locally made and almost no machinery is used in production, while European farmers import fertilisers, pesticides, seeds, seasonal workers and oil-consuming machineries from all over the world. Forgotten is also the fact that food exports and tourist destination developments empower Africans to protect and manage their environment and even reduce African-induced CO2 emissions. Eco-tourism has greatly promoted the protection of forests, mangroves, savannas and coral reefs in Africa – which also are key environs when it comes to storing CO2. A larger and more diversified food production in Africa also reduces the dependence on imports to supply African consumers. And the greatest irony of all is that, while imports from Africa again are demonised, exports from Europe to Africa causing the same CO2 emissions are promoted as ever before. Subsidies are paid to promote the consumption of Spanish biscuits, French dairy products, European wheat instead of local staple foods, European tropical fruit juices, trawler caught fish dishes and, of course, all kind of industrial products. Even Tesco, being concerned about CO2 emissions of transported foods, shows its real face when it comes to exporting from Europe. Only two weeks before its much-publicised marketing campaign on “carbon counting” labels, the UK retailer issued a less-publicised statement. It announced the opening of ten supermarkets in China, where it will be selling popular European grocery products. Political support in Beijing was bought by promising to buy Chinese products worth euro 3.3 billion annually for exports. In China, Tesco meets competition from the giant chains Carrefour of France and Metro of Germany, already assuring a European export of products and lifestyle to the world’s fastest growing market. Who would come up with a silly idea of starting to count CO2 emissions when Europe’s super retailers are taking up competition with America’s Wal-Mart, thus promoting French, German and British products among China’s 1.3 billion inhabitants? Posted in English 1 Comment
Russia considers opening Black Sea Fleet base in Abkhazia November 17th, 2008 by Global Research Russia is considering opening a base for its Black Sea Fleet in Abkhazia, a lawmaker and former fleet commander said on Thursday. Russia’s Black Sea Fleet uses a range of naval facilities in Ukraine’s Crimea as part of a 1997 agreement, under which Ukraine agreed to lease the bases to Russia until 2017. Vladimir Komoyedov, a Communist Party lawmaker, took part in a parliamentary defense committee meeting on the Armed Forces’ development up to 2020. Asked about the possibility of creating a base at Ochamchira, a seaside town in the separatist Georgian republic recognized by Russia as independent, Komoyedov said: “The issue concerning Abkhazia is under consideration.” Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko announced in the summer that Ukraine would not extend the lease of the base in the Crimean city of Sevastopol beyond 2017, and urged the Russian fleet to start preparations for a withdrawal. Although the agreement for Russia’s use of the base foresees a possible extension of the lease, and Moscow has repeatedly said it wants negotiations on the issue, Ukraine reiterated its position last month that it would not permit an extension of Russia’s naval presence in the country after 2017. Tensions between Russia and Ukraine heightened after several Black Sea Fleet warships dropped anchor off the Georgian coast during and after the August armed conflict with Georgia over breakaway South Ossetia. Earlier in the month a source in the Russian Defense Ministry said that Russia plans in 2009 to open one base in Gudauta, in the west of Abkhazia, and another in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. Russian General Staff chief Gen. Nikolai Makarov told journalists in Moscow in October that in line with friendship and assistance treaties, concluded with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, each base will deploy some 3,700 service personnel. Posted in English No Comments
French Relaunch Investigation into 1994 Rwandan Presidential Assassination November 17th, 2008 by Global Research The French investigation into attack against former Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana, which was coming to an end, took a new turn with the arrest in Germany of Rose Kabuye, Head of protocol of President Paul Kagame, the latter threatening to prosecute French politicians and soldiers accused by Kigali of having taken part in the genocide. Mrs Kabuye, 47, former Major of RPA, belongs to the nine Rwandans which the French anti-terrorist Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere issued arrest warrants against in November 2006. The French magistrate accuses them of having organized, on order of Kagame, the assassination on 6 April 1994 of Habyarimana, which the accused have always denied. Mrs Kabuye, who is currently detained in the women’s prison of Frankfurt, agreed to be handed over to French legal authorities, which should happen within a few days. Once in Paris, she will be presented to the successors of Judge Bruguière and will be notified of her investigation in this case opened in 1998 for “assassination and complicity in assassination in relation to a terrorist enterprise”. The court accuses her, notably, of having hosted the commando before the attack in the CND buildings where were confined the soldiers of the RPA (Rwandan Patriotic Army- armed wing of the rebellion which seized power in Kigali). Then the question of her placement in provisional detention will arise. French justice has jurisdiction because the crew of the presidential plane shot down by a missile above Kigali was French. The investigation of Mrs. Kabuye will make it possible for Kigali to take note of this legal case which poisons the relationship between the two countries, Rwanda having broken off its diplomatic relations with France after the issuance of the arrest warrants. After her arrest Sunday in Frankfurt, one of her lawyers, Lev Forster, announced after that she wished to be heard by the judges. Since May 2007, in addition to Mrs. Kabuye, two other people wanted by France, Samuel Kanyemera, known as Sam Kaka, a general and deputy of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), and Jacob Tumwine, a businessman and reserve lieutenant colonel, requested of the judges, through Mr. Forster and his Belgian colleague Bernard Maingain, to be able to be heard in Rwanda without being investigated along with a certain number of witness testimonies. Which the judges refused because the French penal procedure does not authorize the lawyer of a person targeted by an arrest mandate to take note of the investigation case as long as this one has not been arrested. In September, the two lawyers criticized an investigation led by the prosecution explaining that they awaited the transmission of the case before an assizes court to represent their clients and “to make sure that a complete investigation be carried out at that moment”. This week, Forster indicated that his client wished to explain herself before French judges ensuring that she had nothing to do with this attack. One of the lawyers of the families of French pilots said that the Rwandan authorities sacrificed the “fuse” Rose Kabuye in order to take note of the case to which it did not have access. All of it was probably very well orchestrated”, deploring the end of the investigation was pushed back “sine die”. This arrest re-launches the investigation that the two French judges, Marc Trévidic and Philippe Coirre, were getting ready to end as they had recently announced to the civil parties Posted in English No Comments
World leaders agree steps to tackle crisis November 17th, 2008 by Global Research The leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies have pledged to work together to put the global economy back on track. At a oneday summit in Washington they agreed to reform the international monetary system. Finance ministers have been told to submit detailed proposals by the end of March. The final Declaration, signed by the leaders, pledges to reform global financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The summit also agreed to help “emerging and developing economies gain access to finance in current difficult financial conditions”. ”We will implement reforms that will strengthen financial markets and regulatory regimes so as to avoid future crises,” the declaration states. Speaking in Washington, President George Bush said: “One of the key achievements was to establish certain principles and to take certain actions for adapting our financial systems to the realities of the 21st century.” Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he was satisfied with the outcome. “I’m pleased with the results that we’ve achieved today in Washington. We’ve managed to agree upon the declaration that outlines the main principles and guidelines of which the world can base its financial system in the future”. The world leaders have agreed to meet again before April 20. Russia calls for creation of ‘economic guru’ commission Russia has put forward a proposal to set up a team of 20 financial experts to look at ways of rescuing the world’s economy. Russian presidential aide Arkady Dvorkovich outlined Russia’s position: “To make sure the reform process is most reasonable and effective, President Medvedev has proposed the setting up of an independent commission of financial experts and economic gurus. He thinks the G20 should become the main co-ordinator of the reforms of the world’s financial architecture. And the principles of those reforms should be stipulated in new international agreements.” A number of bilateral meetings have been held on the sidelines of the summit including one between President Medvedev and German Chancellor Merkel. Small countries want to be heard The idea of the G20 summit has been seen differently around the world. A rally has been held in the Philippines. Hundreds of protesters marched to the U.S. embassy in Manila on Saturday, carrying large caricature masks of the world leaders. The organisers of the rally called the summit a “jamboree” of rich capitalist leaders. In Washington protesters also gathered to express their criticism. A fierce critic of the U.S., Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced plans to hold an alternative summit on the global financial crisis to counter the meeting of world leaders in Washington. He accused the G20 of ignoring the world’s smaller countries. He also expressed doubts that the G20 meeting would manage to come up with measures to tackle the economic “hurricane” that he says the U.S. caused. Posted in English No Comments
Bush Aggression Makes Life in Iraq “Unbearable” November 17th, 2008 by Sherwood Ross President Bush’s attack on Iraq has made daily life there “unbearable” for most people, two prominent American financial authorities write. “Five years after the United States occupied Iraq with the stated goal of bringing democracy to its people, the war has essentially ruined the country’s economy, society, and sovereignty,” writes Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz with Linda Bilmes in “The Three Trillion Dollar War(W.W. Norton).” Bilmes is a former CFO of the U.S. Commerce Department. “For most Iraqis, daily life has become unbearable—to the point that those who can afford to leave their country have done so,” Stiglitz and Bilmes say. An estimated two million have done just that, precipitating what the UN calls a “humanitarian crisis,” and two million more have remained in Iraq but have been displaced from their homes. Many have had no choice but to run. The UN High Commissioner on Refugees said “thousands of the Iraqis are the victims of torture, sexual and gender-based violence, car bombings or other violent attacks and are in urgent need of medical care.” Estimates of Iraq’s civilian dead run as high as one million, about four percent of the prewar population, with perhaps another two million wounded. Assuming these estimates, the authors put the cost to Iraq society at a stunning $8.6 trillion, dwarfing the $3 trillion cost figure they assert is a reasonable estimate of the cost of the Iraq war to American society. In reckoning the cost of Iraq’s agony, Stiglitz and Bilmes include 7,700 Iraqi soldiers that elected to fight with the Americans and were killed, and an estimated 15,000 more wounded. The number of Iraqi troops slain is roughly twice that of all U.S. military killed in Iraq. As the war ruined Iraq’s economy, unemployment soared and incomes plummeted. As for Iraq’s middle class, the term the authors use to describe it now is “destroyed.” After all, you can’t have a middle class when between 25 and 40 percent of the male work force is unemployed. According to MIT philosopher Noam Chomsky, in the first year of the war, median income of Iraqis plunged from $255 to $144. In his book “Failed States”(Metropolitan/Owl), Chomsky said that within 16 months of the invasion, acute malnutrition doubled “so that roughly 400,000 Iraqi children are suffering from a “wasting condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein.” Not surprising when the UN’s World Food Program found “significant countrywide shortages of rice, sugar, milk, and infant formula.” Stiglitz and Bilmes say many Iraqis have become ill or died “because Iraq’s economy was destroyed and no adequate relief program was put in place.” One of the symptoms of the deteriorating living conditions has been an outbreak of cholera associated with tainted water or food supplies, or a breakdown in sanitation and hygiene practices. Half of Iraq’s children are not attending school because many are too sick to do so. Stiglitz and Bilmes believe, “Miserable though Saddam Hussein’s regime was, life is actually worse for the Iraqi people now. The country’s roads, schools, hospitals, homes, and museums have been destroyed and its citizens have less access to electricity and water than before the war. Sectarian violence is rife. Iraq’s chaos has made the country a magnet for terrorists of all stripes.” “The quality of life in Iraq,” the authors continue, “measured by the lack of electricity, the high unemployment numbers, the mass exodus from the country, the huge numbers displaced within the country, the collapse of the middle class, and the soaring violence, suggests that, beyond the removal of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people have seen little good come of the war. Apart from America’s oil and defense industries, it is hard to find any real winners.” Among the losers have been Iraqi workers. With more than one out of two Iraqi men out of work at some point after the invasion, Iraqis were begging for work. “But American contractors focused on minimizing their labor costs, and imported workers from Nepal and other low-wage countries who were cheaper than Iraqis,” Stiglitz and Bilmes wrote. Who is surprised that the “real winners” of the war are the U.S. oil companies reaping fabulous profits and U.S. military-industrial contractors such as Halliburton gorging themselves on no-bid contracts? The $100 a month every American household is shelling out for the war is definitely not going to the Iraqi people. After all the death and destruction the U.S. has visited upon Iraq, it seems incredible that U.S. politicians can argue Iraq should finance its own reconstruction! If there is any justice in the world, America and its Coalition allies that made this hell on earth will indemnify Iraq in full for the loss of life and property it sustained. For starters, why not pass the plate to those defense contractors and oil companies? (Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant and columnist who formerly worked for major dailies and as a columnist for wire services. Reach him at
[email protected]) Posted in English No Comments
Una injusticia: ¿Quién estaba detrás del atentado de Bali de octubre de 2002? November 17th, 2008 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky Tres militantes islámicos fueron ejecutados el 9 de noviembre por su supuesta participación en el atentado de Bali en 2002 en el que murieron 202 personas.
La versión oficial es que el atentado fue financiado por al-Qaeda y ejecutado por miembros de una organización islámica, la Jemaah Islamiyah (JI). La mayoría de las personas muertas en el atentado eran occidentales, la mayoría de ellos turistas australianos. Pruebas ocultas Hay indicios de que los procedimientos judiciales fueron manipulados y de que se ocultaron pruebas. Tanto los medios de comunicación occidentales como los indonesios han estado implicados en el encubrimiento. Como es sabido y está documentado, tanto los servicios de inteligencia paquistaníes como los estadounidenses han apoyado a alQaed. La JI ha recibido ayuda encuberta y adiestramiento de [los servicios de inteligencia] ISI de Pakistán. La Jemaah Islamiah también está relacionada con los servicios de inteligencia militar de Indonesia que, a su vez, están relacionados con la CIA y con los servicios de inteligencia australianos. “Las explicaciones de los medios de comunicación que describen a la Jemaah Islamiyah como el resultado de un inexplicable complot maquiavélico son simplemente absurdas. Sin las operaciones sucias de la CIA en Afganistán no hubieran llegado a existir ni Jemaah Islamiyah ni al-Qaeda. La guerra contra los soviéticos proporcionó el dinero y el adiestramiento, y también forjó la amplia red internacional de contactos que iba a caracterizar la futuro manera de actuar de estas organizaciones. También proporcionó participantes con unas sólidas nuevas credenciales. A su vuelta al sudeste de Asia, los “combatientes de la libertad” de Washington fueron tratados como héroes en los círculos islámicos. En Indonesia formaron incluso su propia organización de veteranos, Group 272 (la cifra indica la cantidad de ex-combatientes)” (Peter Symonds, The Political Origins of Jemaah Islamiyah Behind the Bali Bombings, Global Research, noviembre de 2003). ¿Implicación de los servicios de inteligencia indonesios y de la CIA? Un contradictorio informe de noviembre de 2002 procedente de un muy alto cargo indonesio señalaba la participación tanto del director de la inteligencia indonesia como de la CIA: “La agencia y su director, el general A. M. Hendropriyono, son bien considerados por Estados Unidos y por otros gobiernos. Pero todavía hay aquí altos cargos de la inteligencia que creen que la CIA estaba detrás del atentado”(Raymond Bonner y Jane Perlez, “More Attacks on Westerners Are Expected in Indonesia”, New York Times, 25 de noviembre de 2002). Las relaciones entre la JI y la Agencia de Inteligencia Indonesia (BIN) son reconocidas tácitamente por el think tank estadounidense International Crisis Group (ICG): “hay que estudiar con más detalle esta relación [entre la JI y la BIN]: esto no significa necesariamente que la inteligencia militar estaba trabajando con la JI, pero plantea la cuestión de cuánto conocía o de que podía saber de la JI más de lo que admite” (International Crisis Group, http://www.crisisweb.org/, 2003). La ex-presidenta Megawati Sukarnoputr acusó a Estados Unidos En respuesta a estas acusaciones la administración Bush exigió que la presidenta Megawati Sukarnoputri negara públicamente la implicación de Estados Unidos en el atentado. No hubo desmentido oficial. La presidenta Megawati no sólo no dijo nada al respecto sino que acusó a Estados Unidos de ser : “una superpotencia que obliga al resto del mundo a estar de acuerdo con ella … Vemos cómo la ambición de conquistar otras naciones ha llevado a una situación en la que no existe la paz a menos que todo el mundo acate la voluntad de quien tiene el poder y la fuerza” (Ibid). Encubrimiento En la investigación oficial del gobierno indonesio nunca se planteó la relación de la JI con la agencia de inteligencia indonesia ( la inteligencia australiana y la CIA dirigió entre bastidores la investigación). Además, poco después del atentado el primer ministro australiano John Howard “admitió que se había advertido a las autoridades australianas de un posible atentado en Bali, pero decidieron no hacer público un aviso” (Christchurch Press, 22 de noviembre 2002. La CIA había recibido advertencias similares). Y también, tras los atentados el gobierno australiano decidió trabajar con las fuerzas especiales de Indonesia, el Kopassus, en la llamada “guerra contra el terrorismo”. Ex-presidente Abdurrahman Wahid: Implicación de la policía y de las fuerzas armadas Casualmente, las declaraciones de dos ex-presidentes fueron desestimadas en el procedimiento judicial. Ambas señalaban la complicidad del ejército y de la policía indonesias. En 2002 la presidenta Megawati Sukarnoputri acusó a Estados Unidos de estar implicado en el atentado. Y en 2005, en una entrevista hecha en octubre por el canal de televisión australiano SBS TV, el presidentet Wahid Abdurrahman afirmó que el ejército y la policía indonesios fueron cómplices del atentado de 2002 en Bali. (La transcripción del programa de SBS TV que contiene la entrevista el presidente Wahid se publicó en la página web de Global Research poco después de que SBS TV retirara la transcripción de sus propios archivos [1]). ABDURRAHMAN WAHID … Las órdenes para hacer esto, o que vinieron de nuestra fuerzas armadas, no de los fundamentalistas”, PERIODISTA: Pero se acusó también de la bomba [de la segunda] a la Jemaah Islamiah. ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: Sí, lo sé, pero usted no tiene ninguna prueba. La prueba es que la bomba es similar a las de la policía. Así que es un problema para nosotros. Hasta ahora cada una de las bombas de allí pertenece al gobierno. ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: Amrozi estaba implicado en el ataque menor. Esto siempre es un problema. Aunque estoy de acuerdo con que debería recibir un duro castigo, esto no significa que esté implicado. No, no, no. PERIODISTA: ¿Así que usted cree que quienes hicieron el atentado de Bali no tenían ni idea de que había una segunda bomba? ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: Sí, exactamente. PERIODISTA: ¿Y quién sugiere usted que puso la segunda bomba? ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: Bueno, parece que la policía. PERIODISTA: ¿La policía? ABDURRAHMAN WAHID: O las fuerzas armadas, no lo sé. Australia: “Útil oleada de indignación” El atentado de Bali en 2002 contribuyó a cambiar la opinión pública australiana a favor de la invasión de Iraq por parte de Estados Unidos en 2003 al tiempo que debilitaba al movimiento de protesta contra la guerra. Tras el atentado de Bali en 2002 el gobierno australiano se unió “oficialmente” a la “guerra contra el terrorismo” dirigida por Estados Unidos. No sólo utilizó el atentado de Bali como un pretexto para integrarse plenamente en el eje Estado Unidos-Reino Unido, sino que también lo usó como pretexto para implementar drásticas medidas policiales, incluyendo el “perfil étnico” dirigido contra sus propios ciudadanos: “El primer ministro John Howard hizo recientemente unas extraordinarias declaraciones afirmando que está preparado para emprender ataques militares preventivos contra terrorista en los países asiáticos vecinos que planeen atacar a Australia. Las agencias de inteligencia australianas también están muy preocupadas de la posibilidad de una ataque con armas nucleares de alQaeda (Insight on the News, 3 de febrero de 2003). Según Peter Symonds en su artículo revisado de 2003 sobre la JI, el papel del ejército indonesio sigue sin respuesta. “Simplemente no es verosímil que el vasto aparato de seguridad e inteligencia indonesio no supiera nada de la enorme operación logística que implicaba el atentado de Bali. Sin embargo, no se ha llevado a cabo ninguna investigación sobre qué información precisa tenían los militares antes del atentado. Rápidamente se ha omitido cualquier indicio que llevara a sospechar del TNI [ejército indonesio]—incluyendo la detención oficiales militares” (Symonds, op cit) Partes de este artículo se basan en mis anteriores investigaciones y artículos sobre los atentados de Bali. Enlace con el texto original: Miscarriage of Justice: Who was behind the October 2002 Bali bombings? , 13 de Noviembre de 2008. Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Beatriz Morales Bastos. Michel Chossudovsky es profesor de economía y director del Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Es el autor de America’s “War on Terrorism”, Global Research, Montreal 2005 Posted in Español No Comments
Don’t-ask-don’t-tell Policy: Pakistan and U.S. Have Tacit Deal On Airstrikes November 17th, 2008 by Karen De Young The United States and Pakistan reached tacit agreement in September on a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy that allows unmanned Predator aircraft to attack suspected terrorist targets in rugged western Pakistan, according to senior officials in both countries. In recent months, the U.S. drones have fired missiles at Pakistani soil at an average rate of once every four or five days. The officials described the deal as one in which the U.S. government refuses to publicly acknowledge the attacks while Pakistan’s government continues to complain noisily about the politically sensitive strikes. The arrangement coincided with a suspension of ground assaults into Pakistan by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said in an interview last week that he was aware of no ground attacks since one on Sept. 3 that his government vigorously protested. Officials described the attacks, using new technology and improved intelligence, as a significant improvement in the fight against Pakistan-based al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. Officials confirmed the deaths of at least three senior al-Qaeda figures in strikes last month. Zardari said that he receives “no prior notice” of the airstrikes and that he disapproves of them. But he said he gives the Americans “the benefit of the doubt” that their intention is to target the Afghan side of the ill-defined, mountainous border of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), even if that is not where the missiles land. Civilian deaths remain a problem, Zardari said. “If the damage is women and children, then the sensitivity of its effect increases,” he said. The U.S. “point of view,” he said, is that the attacks are “good for everybody. Our point of view is that it is not good for our position of winning the hearts and minds of people.” A senior Pakistani official said that although the attacks contribute to widespread public anger in Pakistan, anti-Americanism there is closely associated with President Bush. Citing a potentially more favorable popular view of President-elect Barack Obama, he said that “maybe with a new administration, public opinion will be more pro-American and we can start acknowledging” more cooperation. The official, one of several who discussed the sensitive military and intelligence relationship only on the condition of anonymity, said the U.S-Pakistani understanding over the airstrikes is “the smart middle way for the moment.” Contrasting Zardari with his predecessor, retired Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the official said Musharraf “gave lip service but not effective support” to the Americans. “This government is delivering but not taking the credit.” From December to August, when Musharraf stepped down, there were six U.S. Predator attacks in Pakistan. Since then, there have been at least 19. The most recent occurred early Friday, when local officials and witnesses said at least 11 people, including six foreign fighters, were killed. The attack, in North Waziristan, one of the seven FATA regions, demolished a compound owned by Amir Gul, a Taliban commander said to have ties to al-Qaeda. Pakistan’s self-praise is not entirely echoed by U.S. officials, who remain suspicious of ties between Pakistan’s intelligence service and FATA-based extremists. But the Bush administration has muted its criticism of Pakistan. In a speech to the Atlantic Council last week, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden effusively praised Pakistan’s recent military operations, including “tough fighting against hardened militants” in the northern FATA region of Bajaur. “Throughout the FATA,” Hayden said, “al-Qaeda and its allies are feeling less secure today than they did two, three or six months ago. It has become difficult for them to ignore significant losses in their ranks.” Hayden acknowledged, however, that al-Qaeda remains a “determined, adaptive enemy,” operating from a “safe haven” in the tribal areas. Along with the stepped-up Predator attacks, Bush administration strategy includes showering Pakistan’s new leaders with close, personal attention. Zardari met with Bush during the U.N. General Assembly in September, and senior military and intelligence officials have exchanged near-constant visits over the past few months. Pakistan’s new intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, traveled to Washington in late October, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, installed on Oct. 31 as head of the U.S. Central Command, visited Islamabad on his third day in office. On Wednesday, Hayden flew to New York for a secret visit with Zardari, who was attending a U.N. conference. Zardari spoke over the telephone with Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a conversation Pakistani officials said they considered an initial contact with the incoming Obama administration. Although Kerry has been mentioned as a possible secretary of state, the officials said he indicated that he expects to continue in the Senate, where he is in line to take over Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.‘s position as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Despite improved relations with the Bush administration, Zardari said, “we think we need a new dialogue, and we’re hoping that the new government will . . . understand that Pakistan has done more than they recognize” and is a victim of the same insurgency the United States is fighting. Pakistan hopes that a $7.6 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, announced yesterday, will spark new international investment and aid. Pakistan, whose military has received more than $10 billion in direct U.S. payments since 2001, also wants the United States to provide sophisticated weapons to its armed forces, Zardari said. Rather than using U.S. Predator-fired missiles against Pakistani territory, he asked, why not give Pakistan its own Predators? “Give them to us. . . . we are your allies,” he said. Last month, officials confirmed, Predator strikes in the FATA killed Khalid Habib, described as al-Qaeda’s No. 4 official, and senior operatives Abu Jihad al-Masri and Abu Hassan al-Rimi. Three other senior al-Qaeda figures — explosives expert Abu Khabab alMasri, Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi and senior commander Abu Laith al-Libi –were killed during the first nine months of the year. Current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials said improved intelligence has been an important factor in the increased tempo and precision of the Predator strikes. Over the past year, they said, the United States has been able to improve its network of informants in the border region while also fielding new hardware that allows close tracking of the movements of suspected militants. The missiles are fired from unmanned aircraft by the CIA. But the drones are only part of a diverse network of machines and software used by the agency to spot terrorism suspects and follow their movements, the officials said. The equipment, much of which remains highly classified, includes an array of powerful sensors mounted on satellites, airplanes, blimps and drones of every size and shape. Before 2002, the CIA had no experience in using the Predator as a weapon. But in recent years — and especially in the past 12 months — spy agencies have honed their skills at tracking and killing single individuals using aerial vehicles operated by technicians hundreds or thousands of miles away. James R. Clapper Jr., the Pentagon‘s chief intelligence officer, said the new brand of warfare has “gotten very laserlike and very precise.” “It’s having the ability, once you know who you’re after, to study and watch very steadily and consistently — persistently,” Clapper told a recent gathering of intelligence professionals and contractors in Nashville. “And then, at the appropriate juncture, with due regard for reducing collateral casualties or damage, going after that individual.” Two former senior intelligence officials familiar with the use of the Predator in Pakistan said the rift between Islamabad and Washington over the unilateral attacks was always less than it seemed. “By killing al-Qaeda, you’re helping Pakistan’s military and you’re disrupting attacks that could be carried out in Karachi and elsewhere,” said one official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Pakistan’s new acquiescence coincided with the new government there and a sharp increase in domestic terrorist attacks, including the September bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad. “The attacks inside Pakistan have changed minds,” the official said. “These guys are worried, as they should be.” Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations contributed to this report. Posted in English No Comments
Worse Than the Great Depression? November 17th, 2008 by Stephen Lendman It’s a minority but growing view, including from 86-year old former Goldman Sachs chairman, John Whitehead, at the November 12 Reuters Global Finance Summit in New York. As disturbing evidence mounts, he said: “I think it would be worse than the depression. We’re talking about reducing the credit of the United States of America, which is the backbone of the economic system. I see nothing but large increases in the deficit, all of which are serving to decrease the credit standing of America. Before I go to sleep at night, I wonder if tomorrow is the day Moody’s and S & P will announce a downgrade of US government bonds. Eventually (they’ll) no longer be the triple-A credit that they’ve always been. I’ve always been a positive person and optimistic, but I don’t see a solution here.” Powerful words from a man who “want(s) to get people thinking about this, and realize (we’re on) a road to disaster.” A subject writer, precious metals analyst, and Safe Money Report editor Larry Edelson also comments on. Most recently on November 13 in an article titled: “The G-20’s Secret Debt Solution.” He’s quite dire in saying short-term fixes won’t be discussed at its November 15 summit. A “far more fundamental fix is being (secretly) discussed – the possible revaluation of gold and the birth of an entirely new monetary system.” It’s a topic Edelson has spent much time on previously. Given the speed and severity of the current crisis, he believes something big is planned and puts it this way: “If we can’t print money fast enough to fend off another deflationary Great Depression, then let’s change the value of the money.” In other words, devalue it, but do it globally. “It would be a strategy designed to ease the burden of ALL debts – by simultaneously devaluing ALL currencies (or at least all that matter) and re-inflating ALL asset prices.” Edelson thinks G-20 officials will discuss this seriously. Essentially, the idea of “a new financial order that includes new monetary units that (will help) wipe clean the world’s debt ledgers.” At best, it will be a tough sell given that the US, by far, is the world’s largest debtor and the one most in need of help. The urgency for all others is that if America sinks, it’ll drag down all world economies with it, so it’s possible some kind of solution will be arranged. But it’s not assured, nor can it be ruled out that the summit will be stalemated as every nation has its own concerns and its own constituency to serve. Edelson believes that key US officials, including Fed chairman Bernanke, Treasury secretary Paulson, and president-elect Obama back the idea, and (most but not all) key world central bankers and politicians agree that a new monetary system is needed. Consider a historical precedent at a previous dire time – the Great Depression. In April 1933, Roosevelt issued Executive Order (EO) 6102 that stated: ….a “national emergency still continues to exist (and) by virtue of the authority vested in me….(I) do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations….” The EO required the delivery on or before May 1, 1933 “to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof” all such holdings other than amounts used in industry, profession or art and other listed exceptions. Failure to comply carried a fine up to $10,000 (adjusted for inflation today would be 16 times or more that amount), up to 10 years in prison or both. This EO is called the Gold Confiscation (act) of 1933. It’s price at the time was $20.67 an ounce. Shortly thereafter, it was raised to $35 an ounce for an effective US dollar 41% devaluation. What Edelson is suggesting is that world economies together will do the same thing – “a simultaneous and universal currency devaluation” without confiscating gold. They don’t have to and instead can “raise the current official central bank price from its booked ($42.22) value an ounce – to a price that monitizes a large enough portion of the world’s outstanding debts.” If this happens, debts will be reduced to a fraction of re-inflated asset prices “led higher by the gold price.” Further, Edelson believes, in place of the dollar as a reserve currency, “three new monetary units of exchange (will emerge) with equal reserve status” – a new dollar, euro and “a new pan-Asian currency” with the Chinese yuan likely surviving and linked to a basket of the other three. With devaluation, new currencies will be worth less than the old ones by a considerable amount. For example, “10 new units of money (may then equal) one old dollar or euro.” They’ll have new names as well, and new “regulations and programs would be designed and implemented to ease the transition to a new monetary system” – if it happens and it’s by no means assured. But if it does, central banks and governments would run things along with the IMF that’s had contingency plans for such an eventuality since it was established in 1944. According to Edelson, a new monetary system will include the following: (1) A new fixed-rate currency regime Once the price of gold is increased and new currencies introduced, “a new fixed exchange rate system” will be introduced. The floating one and old currencies will be eliminated to reduce market volatility. (2) New compensatory measures for savers They’ll be introduced as an inducement and to protect against further devaluation. For example, a possible “one-time windfall taxfree deposit could be issued directly to individual accounts or to employer-sponsored pensions, to IRAs, or Social Security accounts.” Something like a tax rebate. At the same time, income taxes may be raised to cover the cost or perhaps some kind of global sales tax instead. (3) Additional programs to protect lenders and creditors They’ll get top priority over individuals but with a currency worth far less than before. So programs will be needed (like tax help) to help them offset the losses that will be considerable. Can this work? Edelson thinks so as hard as the medicine would be to swallow. Also, it’s not a recipe for high growth rates or improved returns on investments the way it was in the great bull market now ended. Another issue is what gold price would be legislated to reflate world economies. Who can say, but here are some possibilities Edelson sees, and note the dramatic effect on the precious metal if he’s right: — if 100% of public and private sector debt is monetized, “the official government price of gold would have to be raised to about $53,000 per ounce;” — at 50% monitization, gold would be $26,500 an ounce; — at 20%, it would be $10,600 an ounce; and — at 10%, it would be $5300 an ounce. The lowest figure isn’t outlandish in light of historical precedent. Gold hit $850 an ounce in 1980. In CPI inflation-adjusted terms, around $2300 an ounce would equal it today. But if the government hadn’t cooked the CPI calculation to keep it low, the number would be about $6250 an ounce. So if a devaluation occurs, perhaps even $10,600 might not seem unusual. Edelson bases his numbers on US debt only because this country is the world’s largest debtor and at “the epicenter of the crisis.” He won’t be surprised if “the G-20 monetize(s) at least 20% of the US debt markets.” If so, he sees gold at over $10,000 an ounce along with currency devaluations “by a factor of at least 12 to 1, meaning it would take 12 new dollars or euros to equal 1 old dollar or euro.” A gold standard isn’t needed because central banks need only monitize and reduce their debt burdens “via inflating asset prices in fiat money terms.” The obvious question is what to do if he’s right. Think gold, and in his judgment, make it “as much as 25% of your investable funds.” He’s not alone recommending this, including others who believe America is insolvent, will simply default on its debt, perhaps create a new currency as Edelson believes, and do it sooner than most people imagine. Next year perhaps because conditions are so dire and deteriorating fast. Macro data keep confirmng it. The latest on November 13 with initial unemployment claims at 516,000 or the highest since September 2001. Continuing claims are at the highest level since 1983. For the week ending November 1, the seasonally adjusted insured unemployment advance number was 3,897,000 or an increase of 65,000 from the preceding week. Crucial to understand is that these figures are grossly understated given the numbers of discouraged workers, part-time and occasional ones, and other ways the government cooks the books to soften or otherwise alter all types of “official” data. None of it, including GDP, inflation, and the rest is reliable. For unemployment, a good rule of thumb is to double the announced figures, so the Labor Department’s reported 6.5% is, in fact, around 13% and rising. In addition, housing continues to deteriorate. Large builder Toll Brothers president, Bob Toll, says “These are bad times if there ever were” any. Along with declining prices and rising foreclosures, it shows in new mortgage application figures – down 40% from a year earlier and no evident leveling off signs. Still more bad news on November 14 with the Commerce Department reporting October retail sales plunging a record 2.8% after falling the previous three months. Even excluding a 5.5% drop in auto purchases, they fell a record 2.2% with lower gasoline prices accounting for much of the drop. Nonetheless, numbers were down across the board, and August and September figures were revised lower signaling a poor holiday shopping season and very bleak Q 4 that’s certain to continue into the new year. Some observers believe that these and other data lie behind Paulson abandoning his toxic asset purchase plan to give more to “nonbank financial institutions, like insurers and speciality-finance companies” as well as to “Shift Focus in (the) Credit Bailout to the Consumer,” according to The New York Times. Others see the Treasury in disarray and still others think the original plan was a head fake, and all along Paulson had other things in mind and will gradually unveil them. They’ll offer little for beleaguered households if anything at all. Details on his newest plan are vague, but apparently consumers won’t directly benefit. Around $50 billion will be for a new loan facility to help companies issuing credit cards, making student loans and financing car purchases. It means maxed out households won’t be able to borrow because they’re already overextended, and lenders will only do business with good credit risks. Nonetheless, this is the latest twist in what some critics call making Treasury policy on the fly. First toxic asset purchases, then bank recapitalizations and various other handouts, and now the vague outlines of a new plan just announced. Tomorrow something else in the wake of the G-20 November 15 summit. Its official 47-action items statement (drafted well in advance of the meeting) was in the usual type political-speak. According to The New York Times, “leaders of 20 countries agreed Saturday to work together to revive their economies, but they put off thornier decisions about how to overhaul financial regulations until next year (when it plans) its next meeting for April 30, 101 days after (Obama) is sworn into office.” Whatever is finally agreed on, this much for certain is clear. Unchanged Washington/Wall Street dominance is planned along with putting the IMF in charge of global “neoliberalizing” with all its destructive fallout. A Long-Term View on the Depression It’s from noted sociologist, social scientist and world-systems analyst Immanuel Wallerstein, now a Senior Research Scholar at Yale where he covers world-systems in three ways: — the historical development of the modern world-system; — the contemporary crisis of modern world-economy capitalism; and — structures and knowledge. He’s authored numerous books and writes regular commentaries on major world and national topics. A recent October 15 one is titled “The Depression: A Long-Term View.” It’s started in his view. We’re “at the beginning of a full-blown worldwide depression with extensive unemployment almost everywhere. It may take the form of a classic nominal deflation (or less likely) a runaway inflation, which is simply another way in which values deflate.” What caused it, he asks? Derivatives? Subprime mortgages? Oil speculators? It’s a “blame game of no real importance.” Understanding it calls for far more revealing factors, such as “medium-term cyclical swings (and) long-term structural trends.” Over several hundred years at least, he describes two major ones. “One is the so-called Kondratieff cycles that historically” lasted 50 – 60 years. The other is called “hegemonic cycles” that are much fewer in number but last far longer. America contended for hegemony as early as 1873, achieved it fully in 1945, and has been declining since the 1970s. “George W. Bush’s follies have transformed a slow decline into a precipitate one. And as of now, we are past any semblance of US hegemony. We have entered, as normally happens, a multipolar world. The United States remains a strong power, perhaps still the strongest, but it will continue to decline relative to other powers in the decades to come.” Nothing can change this. Kondratieff cycles are timed differently. Its last B-phase ended in 1945, followed by “the strongest A-phase upturn in the history of the modern world-system.” It peaked around 1967 – 73, and headed down. “This B-phase has gone on much longer than previous (ones) and we are still in it.” Its characteristics are as follows: — “profit rates from productive activities go down, especially in those types of production that have been most profitable;” — it directs capitalists to financialization and speculation for higher returns; and — “productive activities, in order not to become too unprofitable, tend to move from core zones (like America) to (lower cost) parts of the world-system.” Speculative bubbles are profitable while inflating, but they always burst. “If one asks why this Kondratieff B-phase has lasted so long, it is because the powers that be (the Treasury, Fed, IMF, and western European and Japanese collaborators) have intervened in the market regularly and importantly” to shore it up at times of economic disruptions – 1987, the 1989 S & L crisis, 1997 Asian contagion, 1998 Long Term Capital Management debacle, the 2001 – 2002 corporate scandal period, and more than ever today with big unanswered questions whether this time it will work. It doesn’t matter because we’ve reached the limits of what can be done – “as Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke are learning to their chagrin and probably amazement. This time, it will not be so easy, probably impossible, to avert the worst.” In earlier depressions, innovations and quasi-monopolies helped world economies recover. In the late 1930s, WW II played the major role. Today things are different and “may interfere with this nice cyclical pattern that has sustained the capitalist system for some 500 years.” They’re new structural trends, according to Wallerstein. “The problem with all structural equilibria of all systems, is that over time the curves tend to move far from equilibrium (and it’s) impossible to bring them back.” What happened this time? It’s “because over 500 years the three basic costs of capitalist production – personnel, inputs, and taxation – have steadily risen as a percentage of possible sales price (so) today (it’s) impossible to obtain the large profits” that previously were the “basis of significant capital accumulation.” It’s the result of capitalism working so well that it finally “undermined the basis of future accumulation.” At this point, the system “bifurcates.” The immediate consequence is high chaotic turbulence (now ongoing) and will continue….for perhaps another 20 – 50 years. From the chaos “one of two alternate and very different paths” will emerge. The present system won’t survive. A new one will replace it. It will not be capitalism as we know it, but may be far worse or far better (more democratic and egalitarian). Determining the outcome is “the major worldwide political struggle of our times.” In the short-term, we’re moving into a “protectionist world (forget about so-called globalization).” Governments are getting more into production – even in America and Britain. We’re also moving more into “populist government-led redistribution,” either in a left-ofcenter social democratic form or a far right authoritarian one. “And we are moving into acute social conflict within states, as everyone competes over the smaller pie. In the short-run, it is not, by and large, a pretty picture.” A Brief Summary of Nouriel Roubini’s Latest Views As of November 11, he says “the US will experience its most severe recession since WW II, much worse and longer and deeper than even (in) 1974 – 75 and 1980 – 82.” It’ll last through 2009 and cause a “cumulative GDP drop of over 4%.” Unemployment will likely reach 9%. The US consumer is debt burdened, saving less and faltering: “this will be the worst consumer recession in decades.” A V-shaped recovery “is out the window.” In prospect is either a U-shaped 18 – 24 months recession or a worse multi-year L-shaped one similar to what Japan experienced in the 1990s. Economist Michael Hudson sees an L-shaped depression ahead, more severe than what Roubini forecasts who doesn’t rule out something worse than he imagines. As a result, president-elect Obama “will inherit an economic and financial mess worse than anything the US has faced in decades:” the worst recession in 50 years;” the worst financial and banking crisis since the 1930s; a massive fiscal deficit; a huge current account one; “a financial system that is in a severe crisis and where deleveraging is still occurring at a very rapid pace,” thus making the credit crunch worse; a household sector in disarray with millions insolvent and forclosures rising; the risk of serious deflation; a liquidity trap for the Fed as well; and “the risk of a severe debt deflation as the real value of nominal liabilities will rise given price deflation while the value of financial assets is still plunging.” Worse still, this is happening globally, even in mighty China that could see its market peak 12% growth rate plunge to 6% for a “hard landing.” Emerging economies will be very hard hit, and advanced ones “will face stag-deflation (stagnation/recession and deflation).” In countries like the US, Japan and possibly others, interest rates may reach zero with serious potential consequences if it happens. “Zero-bound on interest rates implies the risk of a liquidity trap where money and bonds become perfectly substitutable, where real interest rates become high and rising thus further pushing down aggregate demand, and where money fund returns cannot even cover their management costs.” Deflation also affects debt. At nominal values it will rise and thus increase its real burden. As for monetary policy, no matter how aggressive it gets, it will be “pushing on a string given the glut of global aggregate supply relative to demand (plus) a very severe credit crunch.” With this in mind, projected 2009 earnings are “delusional” and will have to be lowered sharply. As a result, view equity rallies as sucker rally bear traps, and Roubini has a cartoon to explain them: — top graphic: broker saying “I’ve got a stock here that could really EXCEL”….really excel someone asks?..another asks “EXCEL?”…still another thinks “SELL,” then everyone yells “SELL;” — bottom graphic: everyone yelling “SELL”….one voice saying “This is madness! I can’t take anymore, goodbye!” Good bye, someone asks? Buy? – asks another, and then everyone yells BUY!! Michel Chossudovsky, Ellen Brown and others explain what’s really going on. It’s not pretty or what Wall Street wants investors to know. That markets are heavily manipulated. Speculation drives them up and down, and very visible (insider) hands profit hugely in either direction. Chossodovsky: “With foreknowledge and inside information, a collapse in market values constitutes a lucrative and money-spinning opportunity, for a select category of powerful speculators who have the ability to manipulate the market in the appropriate direction at the appropriate price” – and he explains the various ways how. Brown on the “Plunge Protection Team (PPT): it’s “the group set up under President Reagan to maintain market ‘stability (profitable instability also) by manipulating markets behind the scenes.” In other words, financial markets are rigged. “Free” ones don’t exist except in the mind’s eye of the innocent. They represent no collective wisdom other than the speculators who manipulate it for profit. Brown: “In a rigged pseudo-capitalist economy, investors are easily separated from their money because they expect the market to follow ‘free market principles’ based on ‘supply and demand.’ They are seduced into ‘pump and dump schemes” and fleeced. In today’s market climate, trusting in Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is a very hazardous exercise. Brown again: “The market today is indeed controlled by an invisible hand, but it is not necessarily serving the interests of small investors.” Paul Krugman on A Possible Depression He doesn’t expect one, but he’s worried at a time when we’re “well into the realm of what (he calls) depression economics.” He means “a state of affairs like that of the 1930s in which the usual tools of economic policy – above all, the Federal Reserve’s ability to pump up the economy by cutting interest rates – have lost all traction. When depression economics prevails, the usual rules of economic policy no longer apply: virtue becomes vice, caution is risky and prudence is folly.” He cites one piece of macro data, among many others, as an example – new unemployment insurance claims (mentioned above) that are high, rising, but not unusual in recessionary times. Standard policy is to cut the fed funds rate, but today doing it is “meaningless.” It’s officially at 1%, but it’s “averaged less than 0.3 percent in recent days,” so there’s nothing left to cut. Krugman suggests a huge $600 billion stimulus package, but even that could fall far short, especially if it causes as much destabilization as the Paulson bailout schemes – designed to wreck the economy, not heal it, so powerful interests can grow more powerful and do it with taxpayer dollars. New Programs for Old Add Up to Same Old, Same Old Shifting focus to bailing out consumers was covered above and explained as a way to help companies, not households. It’s more Bush administration deception that will continue seamlessly under Obama, and just look at his major Wall Street contributors for proof. He fully supports aiding them at a time one observer calls the Treasury “privatized,” and it’s no secret that it’s being looted. Then there’s (supposed) mortgage aid for beleaguered homeowners that falls way short of helping them. Quite the opposite in fact. The newly announced plan is more old than new and only to keep under water owners from deserting their properties and renting. The idea is for lower rates, extended loan terms, lower payments, and adding unpaid balances to principal. It’s called negative amortization – when monthly payments are less than the full interest amount due. The interest accrues and principal balances increase, only putting off an eventual day of reckoning for a later time when prices of homes will be lower and owners even less able to afford them. In others words, the solution is worse than the problem. It will sink owners more under water than at present, delay their defaulting for a later time, turn owners into levered renters, drive them deeper into debt, ensure continued foreclosures for many years to come, and end the dream of home ownership for millions. It will also discourage millions more from wanting one. And there’s more to this ugly plan. There’s a catch. It focuses on loans Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee. They dominate half the mortgage market and have about 20% of delinquent loans, so far. Even FDIC chairman, Sheila Bair, is critical saying the plan “falls short of what is needed to achieve wide-scale modifications of distressed mortgages.” She wants some TARP money for “fixing the front-end problem: too many unaffordable home loans,” but what’s needed is an entirely new plan. One designed to work. With affordable monthly payments, principal balances reduced, and lenders required to eat losses on deceptive loans they never should have made in the first place. The proposed plan is designed to fail, and it’s typical of how Washington operates. It was announced by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the same one that seized Fannie and Freddie in September. On November 13, FDIC officials unveiled their own plan that improves on FHFA’s but not enough. It’s only for 1.5 million homeowners facing foreclosure in 2009. Its cost is an estimated $24.4 billion, and even so Henry Paulson opposes it because it taps a small portion of his TARP money. Borrowers who’ve missed at least two monthly payments will be eligible for a reduced amount – at no more than 31% of their monthly income compared to the 28% of the pre-tax amount lenders once deemed affordable. In exchange, mortgage companies will be guaranteed that if borrowers fall behind on their payments and they lose money, Washington will cover half of their loss in most cases. The plan’s estimated cost is based on the assumption that only one in three borrowers with modified payments will be unable to make them. Currently, nearly half of borrowers under such plans default, so it’s doubtful FDIC’s plan will work, especially with home prices still falling and likely to bottom well below current values. Nonetheless, leading congressional Democrats are supportive, and Senate Banking Committee chairman, Chris Dodd, said he’ll introduce legislation to let bankruptcy courts modify mortgage loans. It’s something consumer advocates want badly and the banking industry strongly opposes. It remains to be seen what kind of new law passes (if any), and despite expressing support for one during his campaign, rest assured that Obama will do nothing to harm his core constituency – his powerful Wall Street backers. He’ll likely let banks set their own terms for their own benefit to the detriment of homeowners. The way it usually works in the end. Further, arrangements announced, in place or planned can’t stop foreclosures from rising. Increasing unemployment will intensify the problem. Many borrowers overstated their incomes and can’t even handle reduced payments. Others were speculators on second homes and don’t qualify. In addition, home prices keep falling with no end of it in sight. Growing millions of owners are under water owing far more than their properties are worth and assuring many will default and simply rent – for less than they’re now paying. Further, securitizing mortgages complicates who owns them. Except for Fannie and Freddie, they’re not your local bank or S & L in most cases, but foreign investors, hedge funds, and all sorts of other non-traditional mortgage paper holders. Usually ones homeowners can’t meet with face-to-face, and if they could would be rebuffed. “Servicers” won’t modify loan terms because doing so lowers their value for investors and likely would invite lawsuits. It’s another wrinkle in a complicated situation with homeowners at the bottom of the food chain being squeezed, short of major government help not forthcoming or likely in the new year. For them and most others, trouble is baked in their cake that they’re now being force-fed to eat. In greater portions after the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency refused to let lenders forgive large amounts of credit card debt. As much as 40% for consumers who don’t qualify for existing repayment plans. A rare financial industry and Consumer Federation of America alliance asked the Treasury Department for help on October 29 for very logical reasons. Consumers need it as well as credit card lenders for a way to mitigate growing losses – by assuming small in lieu of total ones and getting extended write-off periods. But consider how over-indebted individuals may react if they’re smart. Why pay anything when it’s simpler to default and walk away. For those strapped enough, it’s what growing numbers are choosing and the reason lenders like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America (already reeling from bad mortgage debt) are concerned enough to seek relief. Instead, they should be held accountable for their fraud. For destroying savings, pensions, and for growing millions their homes and futures. For charging usurious interest and late charges on credit card balances. For gaming the system for decades but now out of their food source. Instead of help, have them give back and make it on their own, or step aside, be nationalized, and turn them into a public utility, on a level playing field, to serve the greater good for everyone. Their due reward for what Paul Craig Roberts calls “unregulated banksters and Wall Street criminals, greedy CEOs, and a no-think economics profession (for having) destroyed America’s economy,” and now wanting to be saved from their own transgressions. Rebalance the tax code instead, make it progressive, and soak the rich, not the poor. It was the original idea in the first place at a time low income earners paid nothing. Today they’re overburdened, overtaxed, out of work, and out of hope during the most serious disruption in our history. They’re not offered part of the latest bank handout that’s little more than naked theft on top of all of it earlier. This time with another $140 billion windfall that was in a September 30 Treasury Department memo. According to tax experts, it overstepped its authority by overturning section 382 of a 1986 law curtailing the outlandish corporate gaming of the tax system. It nets Wells Fargo $25 billion for its Wachovia takeover and PNC bank $5.1 billion in acquiring National City. Future acquisitions will enjoy similar benefits with taxpayers getting the bill. This also helps big banks acquire smaller ones, concentrate more power in their hands, and head them closer to near-monopoly control over the entire financial system. A privatized Treasury indeed – with bipartisan support and by the new president-elect. His new Treasury secretary will maintain the status quo or even sweeten it at a time when ordinary households are in deep distress with little help in prospect beyond measures too inadequate to matter. According to the New York and London-based CreditSights research firm, it’s $5 trillion and counting for fraudsters and bare crumbs for the public. At a time economies are sinking into recession, unemployment and poverty rising, and mayor Richard Daley of this writer’s Chicago warning of “huge” layoffs to come. He compared now to the 1930s and said: “We never experienced anything like this except (for those) people who came from the Depression. When you have that many layoffs early (referring to the city’s and what corporate heads tell him) – and they’re telling me this is only the beginning of their layoffs – that is very frightening.” Daley warned that local governments could face bankruptcy at a time Chicago-based Challenger, Grey & Christmas outplacement consultant reported that US job cuts reached a five-year high in their latest numbers and are rising across the board. It’s just as bad for Illinois (and other states) according to Bloomberg. The state “is $4 billion behind in paying bills to its suppliers of goods and services,” Comptroller Dan Hynes said. “Vendors face a 12 week delay in getting paid, and the wait may extend to 20 weeks” as conditions deteriorate further. “The unprecedented backlog of bills might grow to $5 billion by March. To call this an imminent crisis is an understatement,” and it’s affecting all state services. In other states as well across the country. Even the mighty New York Times is hurting. It’s fallen on hard times and may be a metaphor for the country. In 2002, its stock price hit nearly $53 a share and is now below $7.50 (as of November 14), down about 86%. It also owes lenders around $400 million by next May, has a mere $46 million on hand, and it needs all of it and more for operating expenses at a time one observer suggests that the Grey Lady may need to change its slogan to “Less News and Less Money To Print It.” Maybe none according to its publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. months back at the Davos, Switzerland World Economic Forum. He said “I really don’t know whether we’ll be printing The Times in five years, and you know what? I don’t care either” because the paper is emphasizing internet news and doubled its online readership to 1.5 million. Well and good but it hasn’t enough online advertising to make up for what it’s losing in print, and given today’s climate, it may run out of time to make up the shortfall and stay viable. That may prove the epitaph for growing numbers of venerable (and now vulnerable) American and global companies at perhaps the most challenging time in their histories. A Final Comment How did it come to this in the first place? In a word: out-of-control excess yields even greater payback, and the only cure for bubbles (according to noted economist Kurt Richebacher) is to prevent them from developing. The ones now deflating are unprecedented in their size and severity. No amount of policy making magic will easily fix them. America and world economies face a long, painful period ahead, likely more than at any other time in history with no clear idea what will emerge in the end. As one observer puts it: “All we know is that nobody knows.” What’s known in the shorter term is what Michel Chossudovsky observes: “The financial crisis is deepening, with the risk of seriously disrupting the system of international payments. (This time) is far more serious than the Great Depression. All major sectors of the global economy are affected (and TARP and related schemes are) not a ‘solution’ to the crisis but the ’cause’ of further collapse” – by design. So what long-term lessons will be learned when the dust finally settles? According to money manager and market strategist Jeremy Grantham: “absolutely nothing” or put another way – those who don’t heed the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. Policy makers won’t change. “Free-market” fundamentalism won’t be tamed, and nothing in sight promises deliverance to a caring, progressive new world. Before whatever comes out of this in the end, plenty of pain will precede it, then past sins will repeat, and we’ll go through the whole cycle again – if we make it through this one. Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
[email protected]. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM – 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions on world and national issues with distinguished guests. All programs are archives for easy listening. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10946 Posted in English 1 Comment
Hillary Clinton ‘to be U.S. foreign chief’: Obama poised to pick his former rival after ‘secret Chicago meeting’ November 16th, 2008 by David Gardner Hillary Clinton was being tipped last night for a top job in Barack Obama’s Cabinet as America’s next Secretary of State. The surprise move is being seen in Washington as an attempt to heal the rift in the Democratic Party caused by the hard-fought battle for the presidential nomination earlier this year. Meanwhile Obama has named his longtime friend and supporter Valerie Jarrett to be his White House senior adviser – the role currently held by Karl Rove in President Bush’s administration. Friends again? Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigning in Florida before he won the election – she has emerged as a candidate to be America’s next Secretary of State Jarrett, who hired Michelle Obama for a job in the Chicago mayor’s office years ago, is one of the President-elect’s closest friends and advisers. By making former First Lady Hillary Clinton his top diplomat, the President-elect would be rewarding his one-time rival for standing by him in his White House campaign against Republican John McCain. Speculation that Mrs Clinton will succeed Condoleezza Rice in the State Department grew after she flew for a on Thursday with Mr Obama in Chicago, where he has been cloistered with his advisers for most of the week choosing his first administration. Aides confirmed Mrs Clinton topped Mr Obama’s list for the key job. The President-elect’s team was remaining tight-lipped about any appointments yesterday, but Mrs Clinton refused to rule out a top job earlier this week, saying: ‘I want to be a good partner and I want to do everything I can to make sure his agenda is going to be successful.’ It was a far cry from the battle in the Democrat primaries when Mrs Clinton, 61, hammered Mr Obama over his lack of experience. Mrs Clinton was accused of trying to smear her opponent by bringing up his associations with fiery preacher Reverend Jeremiah Wright and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Mrs Clinton’s millions of supporters were also angered by Mr Obama’s decision to pass over her in favour of Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate. During the primaries, Mr Obama blasted Mrs Clinton for pretending to play a more important role in her husmeetingband’s foreign affairs and mocked her for saying she came under fire from snipers in Bosnia when it emerged that was not the case. But the Democrat rivals mended fences and during the party convention in August, she declared: ‘Barack Obama is my candidate and he must be our president.’ Obama is also said to be reaching across the partisan divide to meet with John McCain on Monday Mr Obama even smoothed the ruffled feathers of former President Bill Clinton, who went on to campaign for him around the country. Mrs Clinton’s selection as Secretary of State could mean a more hawkish foreign policy than that advocated by Mr Obama during his presidential campaign. They clashed over his promises that he would meet leaders of countries such as Iran and Syria without insisting on preconditions. Mrs Clinton was also more reluctant than Mr Obama to commit to a firm timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. However, both were adamant about improving the image of the United States abroad and correcting what they considered the ‘failed policies’ of the outgoing Bush administration. Although some pundits suggest Mrs Clinton still has her eyes on the White House, Mr Obama’s emphatic victory over Mr McCain could stand him in good stead in the 2012 election, effectively putting the presidency out of reach for her. As part of his bid to move on from the sometimes bitter divisions of the campaign trail, Mr Obama also plans to meet Mr McCain on Monday to talk about ways they can work together. It will be the first time the two have spoken since Mr McCain called to concede the election. The losing Republican candidate promised to help his former rival address the country’s many challenges. Mr Obama’s transition spokesman, Stephanie Cutter, said: ‘It’s well known that they share an important belief that Americans want and deserve a more effective and efficient government, and will discuss ways to work together to make that a reality.’ Posted in English No Comments
From the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. Militarization of Strategic Energy Corridor November 16th, 2008 by Ruben Zarbabyan A meeting to discuss the diversification of Europe’s energy supply in under way in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Members of the GUAM Organisation for Democracy and Economic Development are in talks with several Baltic and Black sea countries as well as with global energy players. RT looks at the summit’s visitors and its agenda. With Turkey, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, the U.S., Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, and the EU being represented in Baku, it is easier to point out those who won’t be at the Baku Energy Security Summit: Russia. This hardly comes as a surprise, as all the issues on the agenda are more or less related to reducing the reliance on Russia as an energy supplier, whose role is being reduced every year, according to experts. Combating the reliance on Russia since 1918 Russia’s monopoly on energy supplies to Europe has long been a concern for the latter, and seeking to diversify its sources of hydrocarbons, Europeans have set their sights on the Caspian countries. It is known that the late British Empire made a desperate attempt to gain control over the region by invading Baku during the Civil War in the Soviet Union as early as 1918, and since then Caspian oil hasn’t become less popular. With proven oil reserves in the Caspian Basin (belonging to Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan) comparable in size to the North Sea’s, it is the sole source of oil available in the region apart from Russia. The biggest obstacle preventing the delivery of Caspian oil to European consumers is transportation. Since the 1960s Russia has had major pipelines connecting it with Europe through Ukraine, while the first non-Russian pipeline transferring oil from the Caspian Basin – the 1,768-kilometre-long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan – started operating in May 2005.
Of course passing through countries with many frozen conflicts, it’s hardly the most reliable route in the world. A major blast in Turkey’s Erzincan Province, attributed to the Kurdistan Workers Party, disrupted it for 19 days in August 2008. And even while intact, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan supplies only 1 per cent of global demand, so the energy supply to Europe still remains a major work area for some former Soviet countries. Eleven-year-old organisation becomes useful at last Energy issues gave purpose to the GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, an organization formed in 1997 by four former Soviet republics – Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova. It was created with a broad list of functions to combat Russian influence in the region, but remained largely unused, before the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and Mikhail Saakshvili’s coming to power in Georgia. After that GUAM intensified its cooperation within eight working groups: power engineering, transport, trade and economics, information and telecommunications, culture, science and education, tourism, fighting terrorism, organized crime and dissemination of drugs. However, energy has been, is and will remain the main area of cooperation and the driving force of the organisation. GUAM members became the key participants of the pro-Western energy summits held in Krakow in May 2007, in Vilnius in October 2007 and in Kiev in May 2008. Two-day Baku Energy Summit is the fourth. Key transportation corridor to be discussed The main agenda of the summit includes: – re-exportation of Turkmen and Kazakh oil and gas resources to Europe, bypassing Russia through Azerbaijan; – sustainability of energy sources and routes; – safety and protection of hydrocarbon pipelines; – acceleration of energy projects. A big topic at the summit will be the Euro-Asian Oil Transportation Corridor, which is basically an enlarged version of the project to extend the Odessa-Brody oil pipeline from Ukraine to Poland. Completed in 2001 up to Brody near the Polish border, that pipeline remained empty for three years as Russia chose to sell its own oil, instead of transferring Kazakh oil to Odessa. In 2004, Russian oil companies began to transfer oil from Brody to Odessa.
However, Ukraine still looks to extend this pipeline so that it can carry Azerbaijani oil arriving from the Georgian port of Supsa to Odessa and then take it to the Polish refinery at Plock and potentially to the port of Gdansk. Some 500 kilometres of pipeline have to be built for that to happen. The Nabucco pipeline will be discussed as well.
Members come, members go Of course geopolitical issues are never far away from energy. Internal problems that exist in each of the GUAM countries remain obstacles to an efficient integration process. Ukraine’s Crimea has a Russian population of 70 per cent, and faces additional problems with Crimean Tatars who seek the establishment of a national autonomy. Azerbaijan is still short of solutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, and doesn’t have control over several areas near it. In Moldova, the situation of the breakaway Transdniester region remains unresolved – 16 years after it started. Russian peacekeeping forces have been stationed there. Any shift in the world’s geopolitical balance (like the recognition of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia) is destined to have a big impact on GUAM. Its failure to accomplish anything significant has already lost it some members. But it continues to gain new ones. In 1999, the organisation was renamed GUUAM due to the membership of Uzbekistan, who signed its charter in 2001 only to withdraw in 2005, after the country’s President, Islam Karimov, failed to attend the summit in Chisinau, Moldova. A similar situation is now on the cards with Moldova’s president, Vladimir Voronin, who failed to show up at GUAM summits for two years in a row and is absent at Baku too. Meanwhile, GUAM also looks for new members, after giving Turkey and Latvia a permanent observer status in 2005. After Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan reacted on the idea of joining GUAM without enthusiasm, the organisation turned their sight on countries in Eastern Europe. That’s why Bulgaria’s President, Angel Marin, Lithuania’s Valdas Adamkus, Poland’s Lech Kaczynski, Romania’s Traian Basescu, Latvia’s Valdis Zatlers, Turkey’s Abdullah Gul, as well as Estonia’s Prime-Minister, Andrus Ansip, Hungaria’s Ferenc Gyurcsany, Greece Development Minister, Christos Folias and top energy officials from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are all at the energy summit discussing their roles in the development of alternative energy routes. U.S. Energy Minister Samuel Bodman is there too to encourage them, while his EU counterpartj, Andris Piebalgs, who left Baku just days ago, is back again to stress the importance of the Nabucco pipeline project. Posted in English 1 Comment
‘Israeli bombs source of Uranium contamination’ November 16th, 2008 by Global Research Syria says Israeli warplanes may be the source of alleged uranium traces found in a Syrian site inspected by the UN nuclear watchdog. “No one has ever asked himself what kind of Israeli bombs had hit the site, and what they contained,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said on Wednesday. The remarks came after a report was circulated by the media alleging that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors had found uranium traces at a Syrian site bombed by Israeli warplanes in September 2007. Israel has alleged that the site was a reactor under construction with the help of North Korea. Syria has dismissed the allegations and allowed IAEA inspectors to visit the site. According to the Syrian Minister, Israel possesses bombs which contain depleted uranium. Depleted uranium (DU) is used in armor penetrating weapons. The US has reportedly used DU weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Didn’t anyone ask what did the Israeli bombs contain? Didn’t anyone pay attention that the United States and Israel have precedents in using … uranium when bombing, whether in Iraq, south Lebanon or Afghanistan?” Muallem said. Al-Muallem said reports that traces of uranium had been found in the site is politically motivated. “These media leaks are a clear signal that the purpose was to pressure Syria. This means that the subject is not technical, but rather political,” added al-Muallem at a press conference with his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari. The UN nuclear watchdog is preparing a report on the Syrian site. The Syrian Foreign Minister said Damascus would wait for the report before replying to it. Posted in English No Comments
“Defending the Homeland”, Major Counterterrorism Exercises: What Is NorthCom Up To? November 16th, 2008 by Matthew Rothschild This week and into next, NorthCom and NORAD are conducting a joint exercise called “Vigilant Shield ’09.” The focus will be on “homeland defense and civil support,” a NorthCom press release states. From November 12-18, it will be testing a “synchronized response of federal, state, local and international partners in preparation for homeland defense, homeland security, and civil support missions in the United States and abroad.” NorthCom is short for the Pentagon’s Northern Command. President Bush created it in October 2002. (The Southern Command, or SouthCom, covers Latin America. Central Command, or CentCom, covers Iraq and Afghanistan. And the new AfriCom covers, well, you get the picture.) Vigilant Shield ’09 “will include scenarios to achieve exercise objectives within the maritime, aerospace, ballistic missile defense, cyber, consequence management, strategic communications, and counter terrorism domains,” the press release states. NorthCom’s press release also says that other participants in the exercise include the U.S. Strategic Command’s “Global Lightning 09,” which is a plan to use nuclear weapons in a surprise attack. The Pentagon’s “Bulwark Defender 09” is also involved in the exercise, and it is a cyberspace protection outfit of the Pentagon. Something called the “Canada Command DETERMINED DRAGON” also is participating, as is the California National Guard and California’s “Golden Guardian.” California’s involvement appears to center around planning for a catastrophic earthquake. “Under the leadership of Governor Schwarzenegger and direction of his Office of Homeland Security, the nation’s largest state sponsored emergency exercise will take place November 13-18,” a press release from the governor’s office states. “Golden Guardian 2008 tests California’s capability to respond and recover during a major catastrophic earthquake. The Golden Guardian 2008 full-scale exercise scenario focuses on a simulated, catastrophic 7.8 magnitude earthquake along the southern portion of the San Andreas Fault.” NorthCom is being shy about giving out additional information about Vigilant Shield ’09. When I called for a fact sheet on it, I was told there was none. But the Pentagon did issue such a fact sheet for Vigilant Shield ’08. Last year’s exercise included “the simulated detonation of three nuclear dispersal devices.” The fact sheet stressed the need to support a “civilian-led response” and to “exercise defense support of civil authorities,” including involvement in “critical infrastructure protection events” and coordinating “Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection activities.” That fact sheet ended by saying: “There will be minimal deployment of active duty forces and no crossborder deployments. We anticipate little to no direct impact on local communities.” NorthCom has been in the news lately, after the Pentagon designated to it a battle-tested fighting unit from the war on Iraq. This appears to be against the law, according to the ACLU, since the army isn’t supposed to be patrolling our own country. On top of that, NorthCom was up to its eyeballs in getting peace groups spied upon. “The security people at USNORTHCOM . . . had begun noticing some trouble at a few military recruiting events in 2005,” Eric Lichtblau recounts in Bush’s Law: The Remaking of American Justice. “Military officials at NORTHCOM asked their counterparts at CIFA [the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Field Activity] to ping their powerful new database—do a broader study and find out how many episodes of violence and disruption were actually imperiling their recruiters.” And NorthCom even was in the loop at the Republican Convention in St. Paul. Is it too much to ask Congress to look into NorthCom? Posted in English No Comments
Economic Crisis: Gulf States “should be ready for tough times” November 16th, 2008 by Babu Das Augustine Dubai: The global financial downturn has implications for all economies around the world, including Gulf economies, and all should be prepared for tough times ahead, said James Wolfensohn, former President of the World Bank. Painting a grim picture of the global outlook, Wolfesohn said on Sunday that global economic recovery is going to take much longer than expected and the impact of the slowdown will be felt in every corner of the world. Quoting statistics from the Bank of International Settlements, he said the world financial system is sitting on more than $630 trillion worth of derivative trades, most of which are leveraged positions. While the unwinding of these could be a long process, it will be painful for financial systems around the world, he said. Mounting pressure “Although the impact [of a global recession] may not be as dramatic in the Gulf countries as it has been the case in the Western econ-omies, the recent slump in stock prices and other asset classes point to the mounting pressure on the region,” he said. While admitting the relative economic strength of the region, Wolfensohn said if the global economies were to go through a prolonged recession that will be reflected in global oil demand and prices. “I can only say all of us are in a tough situation and it would be difficult to say that any one region will remain unaffected,” he said. Commenting on the survival strategies for the difficult times ahead the former World Bank President said that governments and the private sector in the region should work towards maintaining investments and employments levels. “The region has more than 100 million youth seeking employment. Any severe economic downturn could mean rising unemployment and falling returns on investment in education. Under the current circumstances that should not be allowed to happen.” Acknowledging the growing economic power of the region, Wolfensohn said the Gulf has emerged as a strong economic bloc and it is part of the “tectonic shift” that that is happening in the global economy, where emerging econ-omies are becoming more powerful. “Clearly there is a financial powershift towards the East with giant Asian economies such as China and India becoming financially more powerful than the US by 2050,” he said. With this shift, Wolfensohn predicted that there would be change in the power equations in world financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. “These institutions were part of the Bretton Woods order dominated by the US and European powers. That will change and that has to change with more voice for emerging economies,” he said. Suggestion: Concerted effort A concerted effort by governments around the world can contain the current financial turmoil and prevent a long-drawn recession or an economic depression. “The world today is much more developed than in the 1930s and governments have larger resources to deal with the type of economic emergencies we are facing,” said Rudolf Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City. According to Giuliani, at the core of today’s global economic woes is the overuse of leverage. “In every economic activity around the world, there has been excessive use of leverage. The unwinding of leverage will necessarily result in downsizing of businesses,” he said. Posted in English No Comments
Shell secures 25-year access to Iraq’s oil, gas November 16th, 2008 by Ben Lando A joint venture between Royal Dutch Shell and Iraq‘s state-owned South Gas Co. could give Shell a 25-year monopoly on production and exports of natural gas in much of southern Iraq – the biggest foreign role in Iraq’s oil and gas sector in four decades. The planned venture, spelled out in a 16-page document obtained by United Press International, goes well beyond descriptions provided by Iraqi and Shell officials on Sept. 22, when they held a public signing ceremony in Baghdad. The officials at the time described the agreement as: • Limited to Basra province. • Restricted to capturing gas that is burned off and therefore wasted in extracting and processing oil. • Primarily intended to supply Iraq’s domestic market. In fact, the two signed what is known as a “heads of agreement” (HOA) – basically a rough draft of a contract – that establishes the management team, scope, purpose and other details of the joint venture’s business plan. Though nonbinding, the confidential document is telling. The joint-venture company would give Shell the largest foreign role in Iraq’s oil and gas sector since the 1960s, when Iraq expelled the world’s big oil firms after 40 years of foreign control of exploration, production and exports. The joint venture will be the “sole gas company engaged in business,” as outlined in the HOA, “and providing gas for domestic and export markets and generating revenues from gas marketing activities.” “The ministry shall not pursue any discussions with the intention of entering into a project with a similar scope to that set out in this HOA with any third parties,” the document states. The joint venture would be “of a long term (25 years extendable),” according to the HOA. Iraq would own 51 percent and Shell 49 percent of the venture. Iraq has the world’s 10th-largest proven gas reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, most of it located in southern Iraq. Two to three times more reserves could be found when the region is fully explored, industry analysts say. Iraq’s government has tried and failed thus far to enact a national oil and gas law, in part because of a dispute over foreign participation. The Shell joint venture reflects an attempt by the Oil Ministry to walk a fine line, attempting to push ahead despite a deadlocked parliament. “The Ministry of Oil has the authority to sign the venture without going back to the parliament,” said Assem Jihad, a spokesman for Iraq’s Oil Ministry. “However, if the parliament requested clarity, we are ready to explain. The matter of fact is that this venture is for the interest of Iraq.” The joint venture, however, has stirred opposition in parliament. “It is a long-term monopoly that allows Shell to export gas when Iraq is in need of that gas,” said Jabir Khalifa Jabir, a member of the Shi’ite Fadhila Party and a member of the parliament’s Oil and Gas Committee. “This joint venture will include all of Basra and more likely to [encompass] the entire region of the south,” said Mr. Jabir, whose party is the largest in Basra province. He called the deal illegal and unconstitutional because local officials in Basra did not participate and warned that parliament should be involved if the venture develops new gas fields in the future. Iraq’s once top-shelf state-run oil and gas industry was devastated by Saddam Hussein’s misuse, foreign sanctions and three wars in three decades. Infrastructure and equipment were harmed, and new technology and training were shut out. Only 58 percent of demand for electricity in Iraq is being satisfied, according to the U.S. State Department’s Iraq Weekly Status Report, in part because of shortages of oil and gas. More than 60 percent of Iraq’s natural gas production is burned or released into the air or reinjected into the ground because of insufficient infrastructure to transport and use the gas. “Some 700 million standard cubic feet per day are currently being flared in the south of Iraq. The [joint venture] will initially focus on gathering this gas, hence reducing the flaring and turning this resource, currently being wasted, into value for Iraq,” said Shell spokeswoman Kirsten Smart. “Iraq’s domestic market is where the initial focus will be. Ultimately, it’s up to the Iraq government what happens to the gas,” Miss Smart said. Mr. Jihad denied that the joint venture would have a monopoly. “It is only a partnership; there will not be monopoly of the gas. It is only the gas that is being wasted will be used, the gas that is currently wasted that will be exploited,” he said. “After Iraq takes its needs from gas, Shell will buy the surplus at the international price,” he said. The HOA defines the south of Iraq as the southernmost province and the oil and gas capital of Basra, though a map appendix to the HOA shows the contract territory extending for an unknown distance into the Persian Gulf. In addition, the document says the joint venture can be extended to “any other areas as may be agreed by [Shell and the Oil Ministry].” While the HOA does not bind the ministry and Shell to create the joint venture, it is a legal contract for 12 months, with a six-month automatic extension, during which it restricts the Iraqi Oil Ministry from negotiating with any other company or carrying out any work that could be interpreted as competing with Shell. A six-member Joint Management Committee, with equal representation from Iraq and Shell, was due to begin work Oct. 22. All of the JMC decisions must be unanimous, though only one person each from the ministry and Shell is required for a quorum. The JMC will determine “activities” of the joint venture, and Shell and the Oil Ministry will work together “in good faith with each other and shall not participate in any similar activities with any third parties.” Posted in English No Comments « Newer Entries
Global Research News I-BOOKS SERIES Countries Index Authors Index Most Popular Links Contact Membership Online Store
Older Entries »
Themes
Geographic Regions
US NATO War Agenda
Militarization and WMD
Global Economy
Oil and Energy
Crimes against Humanity
Police State & Civil Rights
Militarization and WMD
Religion
Law and Justice
Poverty & Social Inequality
Police State & Civil Rights
Science and Medicine
History
United Nations
9/11 & ‘War on Terrorism’
US NATO War Agenda
Media Disinformation
Women’s Rights
Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005-2018 GlobalResearch.ca
