Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Iteration Energy announces March 31, 2006 quarter end results
11:11 EDT Monday, May 15, 2006
(All amounts are in Canadian dollars, unless stated otherwise)
CALGARY, May 15 /CNW/ - Iteration Energy Ltd. (TSX-ITX) ("Iteration" or the "Company") announced today its financial and operating results for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.
The quarter ended March 31, 2006 was a period of continued growth for the Company. Production at March 31, 2006 increased 7% from production levels at the end of December 2005. The Company successfully completed two acquisitions which not only significantly increased our land base, but added 180 boed of production. The 3D seismic program at Boundary Lake was completed in March 2006 and has identified a number of high quality drilling locations which will be drilled after breakup. Management is continuing its focus on controlling operating costs and general and administrative expenses, which has resulted in significant decreases in operating and general and administrative costs per boed, as compared to the quarter ended March 31, 2005.
HIGHLIGHTS FOR THE QUARTER
The major highlights of the three months ended March 31, 2006 were as follows:
- Drilled 11.5 net wells of which 8.9 were cased for gas, 1 for oil and
1.6 were dry holes.
- Capital program of $30 million including the land and property
acquisitions described below.
- Average production for the quarter was 3,750 boed.
- March 31, 2006 production of 4,050 boed with an additional 600 boed
tested behind pipe which will be brought on production after break
up.
- Completed a 3D seismic program at Boundary Lake.
- Expanded the Company's land base to 155,000 net acres with another
52,000 net acres being earned this summer.
- An acquisition at Bernadet in Northeast British Columbia added
approximately 30 boed of production and 8,500 net acres of land for a
net consideration of approximately $3.6 million.
- An acquisition at Rigel, to the west of Boundary Lake, was completed
in March 2006. This resulted in approximately 150 boed of production
and an additional 6,500 net acres of land for a net consideration of
approximately $5 million.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Year over year comparative results (excluding the Lavoy area, which was sold during the first quarter of 2005) are as follows:
<<
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Months ended
March 31,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production (boed) 3,750 3,146
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realized commodity price ($/boe) 51.61 41.15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating netbacks ($/boe) 30.93 22.06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production expense ($/boe) 6.85 9.09
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
General and admin expense ($/boe) 2.31 3.41
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production revenue before royalties ($M) 17,417 11,937
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds from operations ($M)(1) 10,107 3,869
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds from operations per basic share ($)(2) 0.21 0.09
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds from operations per fully diluted
share ($)(2) 0.19 -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net earnings (loss) ($M) 2,649 (3,222)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings (loss) per basic share ($)(2) 0.05 (0.07)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings (loss) per fully diluted share ($)(2) 0.05 -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net undeveloped land (M acres) 92 70
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Management uses funds from operations and funds from operations per
share (before changes in non-cash working capital and asset
retirement expenditures) to analyze operating performance and
leverage. Funds and funds per share as presented do not have any
standardized meaning prescribed by Canadian GAAP and therefore they
may not be comparable with the calculation of similar measures for
other entities. Funds as presented is not intended to represent
operating cash flow or operating profits for the period nor should it
be viewed as an alternative to cash flow from operating activities,
net earnings or other measures of financial performance calculated in
accordance with Canadian GAAP. All references to funds and funds per
share throughout this report are based on cash flow from operating
activities before changes in non-cash working capital and asset
retirement expenditures.
(2) For periods with positive net earnings, per share amounts are based
on weighted average basic and diluted common shares outstanding for
the period. For periods with a net loss, per share amounts are based
on basic common shares outstanding for the period.
Outlook for 2006
The foundation work to return the Company to active operations and profitability was completed in 2005. The major focus is now on adding new drilling locations and prospective lands in order to grow production through an ongoing exploitation and exploration program. The Company is aggressively pursuing acquisition, landsale and farm-in opportunities in its core areas. The total land base has been increased to 167,000 net acres as of May 5, 2006 with a further 52,000 net acres currently being earned. The planned 2006 capital program of $64 million is expected to result in a year over year production growth, net of the Lavoy disposition, of approximately 35% to 40% with average production expected to be in the range of 4,000 to 4,200 boed. Production as of May 1, 2006 was approximately 4,100 boed with an additional 450 boed tested behind pipe waiting to be brought on production.
The 3D seismic program at Boundary Lake which was expected to be completed in December 2005 but delayed due to weather conditions, was completed during March 2006. This has allowed us to identify several high quality locations which will be drilled after break-up. The Company has also assembled a number of other opportunities and prospective lands in Northeast British Columbia, Western Alberta and East Central Alberta. This will give us the opportunity to increase production in several areas and to mitigate the risks associated with being too heavily dependent on one main area.
2005 Annual General Meeting
Iteration will hold its AGM at 3:00 pm on June 7, 2006 at the Metropolitan Centre, 333 4th Ave SW Calgary, Alberta.
Advisory - Forward-Looking Information
This discussion and analysis was prepared on May 5, 2006 and is management's assessment of Iteration's historical financial and operating results. The reader should be aware that historical results are not necessarily indicative of future performance. This discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements relating to future events or future performance. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as "may", "will", "should"," expects", "projects", "plans", "anticipates" and similar expressions. These statements represent management's expectations or beliefs concerning, among other things, future operating results and various components thereof affecting the economic performance of Iteration. Undue reliance should not be placed on these forward-looking statements which are based upon management's assumptions and are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties, including the business risks discussed below, which may cause actual performance and financial results in future periods to differ materially from any projections of future performance or results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Accordingly, readers are cautioned that events or circumstances could cause results to differ materially from those predicted. The Company undertakes no obligation, except as required by applicable securities legislation, to update publicly or to revise any of the included forward looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
In particular, this discussion contains forward-looking statements and information pertaining to the following:
- The quantity and recoverability of our reserves;
- The timing and amount of future production;
- Prices for natural gas produced;
- Operating and other costs;
- Business strategies and plans of Management;
- Supply and demand of natural gas;
- Expectations regarding our ability to raise capital and to add to our
reserves through acquisitions as well as exploration and development;
- The focus of capital expenditures on development activity rather than
exploration;
- The sale, farming in, farming out or development of certain
exploration properties using third party resources;
- The use of development activity and acquisitions to replace and add
to reserves;
- The impact of changes in natural gas prices on cash flow after
hedging;
- Drilling plans;
- The existence, operations and strategy of the commodity price risk
management program;
- The approximate and maximum amount of forward sales and hedging to be
employed;
- The Company's acquisition strategy, and the criteria to be considered
and the benefits to be derived;
- The impact of Canadian federal and provincial governmental regulation
on the Company relative to other issuers of similar size;
- Our treatment under governmental regulatory regimes;
- The goal to sustain or grow production and reserves through prudent
management and acquisition;
- The emergence of accretive growth opportunities; and
- The Company's ability to benefit from the combination of growth
opportunities and the means to grow through the capital markets.
Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in our forward-looking statements as a result of the risk factors set forth below and elsewhere in this MD&A which include but are not limited to:
- Volatility in market prices for natural gas;
- Risks inherent in our operations;
- Uncertainties associated with estimating reserves;
- Competition for, among other things: capital, acquisitions of
reserves, undeveloped lands and skilled personnel;
- Incorrect assessments of the value of acquisitions;
- Geological, technical, drilling and process problems;
- General economic conditions including fluctuations in the price of
natural gas;
- Royalties payable in respect of Iteration's production;
- Governmental regulation of the oil and gas industry, including
environmental regulation;
- Fluctuation in foreign exchange or interest rates;
- Unanticipated operational events that can reduce production or cause
production to be shut-in or delayed;
- Stock market volatility and market valuations; and
- The need to obtain required approvals from regulatory authorities.
Many of these risk factors and uncertainties are discussed in further detail in the Management's Discussion and Analysis and the Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2005, which is available through the internet on the Company's SEDAR profile at www. sedar.com. The above list of risk factors should not be construed as exhaustive.
The TSX has not reviewed this press release and does not accept
responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data presented here-in.
Iteration Energy Ltd
Iteration (www.iterationenergy.com) is an Alberta based corporation engaged in the business of exploring for and developing oil and natural gas reserves in Western Canada and acquiring natural resource properties. Iteration's common shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "ITX".
>>
%SEDAR: 00002576E
For further information: Mr. Brian Illing, President and CEO, or Mr. Sean Johnson, CFO at (403) 261-6883
Politics of oil: Cheney visits Kazakhstan
U.S. eyes huge resources, also notes country’s weak human rights record
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:43 a.m. ET May 5, 2006
ASTANA, Kazakhstan - Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to Kazakhstan on Friday for talks with President Nursultan Nazarbayev, seeking to maximize access to the vast oil and gas reserves in the central Asian nation with a troubled human-rights record.
Cheney became the fourth top administration official to visit the former Soviet republic in recent months, underscoring the importance placed on a country that is strategically located and an ally in the war on terror, as well as rich in energy resources.
Administration policy favors development of multiple means of delivering Kazakhstan’s energy supplies to markets in the West and elsewhere.
Among them, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher told Congress recently, the United States is “working on securing the flow of oil” from North Caspian oil fields by tanker to a pipeline terminus in Azerbaijan. That route would bypass Russia and Iran. There has also been periodic talk of building a pipeline under the Caspian Sea.
Rights record ‘remains poor’
Energy aside, one senior administration official said the vice president would prod Nazarbayev to make further democratic reforms in the country he has ruled since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.
“The government’s human-rights record remains poor,” according to a recent State Department report.
It was unclear how Cheney would attempt to balance the two concerns — American energy needs in a time of high prices alongside a desire for political reforms. His talks came one day after a speech to East European leaders in Lithuania that sharply criticized Russia for backsliding on democracy.
One senior administration official traveling with Cheney said the remarks, which drew quick criticism from Moscow, had been “very well vetted” in advance within the administration.
Officials disclosed belatedly that while in Lithuania to attend a meeting of eastern European leaders, Cheney had met Thursday afternoon with Inna Kulei, the wife of the jailed Belarusian opposition leader, Alexander Milinkevich.
Meanwhile, a private group said Kazakh authorities on Friday barred an opposition leader from traveling to the capital Astana for a meeting with Cheney.
Police refused to grant Galymzhan Zhakiyanov permission to leave his home city, the commercial capital Almaty, the For a Fair Kazakhstan Alliance said in a statement. Zhakiyanov and other leaders of the alliance were invited to meet with Cheney in Astana on Saturday.
Last month, Zhakiyanov and another opposition leader, Bolat Abilov, were barred from leaving the country for meetings with European officials. Sentenced to seven years in prison for abuse of office, Zhakiyanov was considered the Central Asian nation’s highest-profile political prisoner before his early release in January.
Earlier visits
The vice president’s stop in Kazakhstan followed visits in recent months by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and Samuel Bodman, secretary of energy.
According to the Web site of the U.S.-Kazakhstan Business Association, the Asian country has potential oil reserves of as much 110 billion barrels.
American energy companies are heavily invested in that nation’s oil industry, and Halliburton, the company Cheney ran before becoming vice president, has an oil-field services presence there.
“Kazakhstan, an economic success story, is rapidly becoming one of the top energy producing nations in the world,” Boucher told a House committee on April 26.
Along with its economic reforms, Boucher said, the nation “has an opportunity to achieve stability by upholding standards of democracy and human rights.”
Nazarbayev has ruled the country, which shares borders with China and Russia, since the Soviet Union broke up, and recently was elected to what he has said will be his last term. The elections have been criticized for failing to meet international standards, but administration reaction has been muted. One official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters that the “trend, even though it’s not as fast as we would like, is in the right direction.”
Still, an opposition leader, Altynbek Sarsenbayev, was killed earlier this year, prompting protests.
The vice president concludes a three-nation trip with a weekend visit to Croatia and is scheduled to return home Monday.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12643191/
USAID OFFICIAL OUTLINES PLAN TO BUILD CENTRAL-SOUTH ASIAN ELECTRICITY LINKS
Joshua Kucera 5/04/06
A newly announced US plan to foster stronger energy links between Central and South Asia aims to marginalize Uzbekistan while making it easier for Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and Pakistan to meet their growing needs for electricity. A broader goal is the reduction of Russia’s growing energy influence in the region.
As part of the Regional Energy Market Assistance Program (REMAP), the US Agency for International Development (USAID) will aim to make it easier for Central Asia’s main electricity producers, specifically Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, to connect with power consuming neighbors.
Top US officials first spoke about the plan during a congressional hearing in late April. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Several American experts believe the initiative is a response to Russia’s aggressive moves in recent months to expand its energy role in Central Asia. Perhaps the highest profile move was a deal signed in early April between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Kazakhstani counterpart, Nursultan Nazarbayev, in which the Central Asian nation pledged to significantly increase the amount of oil it exports via Russia. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The American plan wants stronger Central-South Asian energy and trade links to counterbalance Russian influence.
A significant preliminary step in the program will involve the drafting and implementation of reforms to open the way for development of Tajikistan’s and Kyrgyzstan’s electricity export capacity. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. USAID officials are hoping that Dushanbe and Bishkek can emulate Kazakhstan’s experience. Kazakhstani officials have implemented measures to make the country’s electricity market the most open in Central Asia, said Robert Ichord, USAID’s Chief of Energy and Infrastructure for the Bureau for Europe and Eurasia. The US energy company AES Corp. now operates six power plants in Kazakhstan.
"Very early on the Kazakhs made the reforms, developed the competitive market, opened their market to private investment. So we have a major investor, a US company, in Kazakhstan. It’s in that context that REMAP will build on this base," Ichord said in an interview with EurasiaNet.
Kazakhstan, with its abundance of oil and gas, is the key factor in US strategic thinking. US Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to arrive May 5 in the Central Asian nation, and energy issues will dominate his discussions with Kazakhstani leaders.
Many in Washington hope REMAP will help prevent Kazakhstan from developing closer energy links with Russia, a development that could tip the region’s geopolitical balance firmly in Moscow’s favor. Kazakhstan’s demand for electricity is increasing at about a 10-percent rate per year, and importing electricity would be cheaper than Kazakhstan developing its own additional power-generating capacity, Ichord contended.
Driven by oil-and-gas development, the Kazakhstani economy has been growing at a roughly 10 percent pace in recent years, and Nazarbayev has announced plans for the country to join the ranks of the world’s top 50 economies within the next decade. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. A 2004 World Bank study served as the basis for the development of REMAP. That study said Kazakhstan – which now has a small electricity surplus – should become a net power importer between 2015 and 2020. At the same time, the export potential of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are expected to grow to many times their current levels: in Tajikistan from 1,607 Gigawatt-hours last year to 20,887 in 2020. Kyrgyzstan’s exports figure to grow from 2,645 Gigawatt-hours last year to 12,167 in 2020. Much of this growth will be in power stations set to come online over the next decade. Planned in the Soviet era, there is now little domestic need for their prodigious capacity. One such plant is Tajikistan’s Sangtuda I, which is projected to begin generating electricity in March 2007.
The same study showed that South Asia is suffering from a lack of electricity-generating capacity, thus enhancing Tajikistan’s and Kyrgyzstan’s export prospects. As of 2003, Afghanistan’s electricity needs were roughly 750 Gigawatt-hours yearly, while the country’s power generating capability stood at 285 megawatts. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s energy needs are projected to grow at about 6 percent a year, meaning Islamabad could become a net importer as early as this year, the study estimated
In developing REMAP, US officials are ignoring some aspects of the study. For instance, the World Bank report suggested that China, Russia and Iran could possibly serve as markets for Tajik and Kyrgyz electricity. The REMAP plan pointedly leaves China, Russia and Iran out of the export picture. The two-year, $3.3 million REMAP program emphasizes the strengthening of regional power transmission systems, mainly to build links from Kazakhstan to its southern neighbors. The plan also envisions the development of a blueprint for electricity exports to South Asia to fill the growing demand of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Afghanistan has no national power grid, and its connections with Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are small and in poor repair. Ichord characterized the improvement of Afghanistan’s connections with the South Asia as a medium- to long-term goal.
The hub of the Soviet-era Central Asian power grid is in Tashkent, and part of REMAP will be designing a way to make the grid work without going through Uzbekistan. "Right now you have to go through Uzbekistan, so that’s one of the issues with strengthening the grid and dealing with the current, and hopefully not forever, political constraints in Uzbekistan," Ichord said. Turkmenistan is no longer part of the regional grid.
While REMAP appears promising on paper, the plan must overcome several significant geopolitical hurdles if it is ever to become a reality. Tajikistan’s and Kyrgyzstan’s ability and willingness to implement needed reforms remain uncertain. But perhaps the most significant obstacle is Russia’s heavy involvement in Tajikistan’s electricity market. For example, the Kremlin-controlled energy entity, Unified Energy Systems, is completing construction on the Sangtuda-1 power plant, and will retain a 75 percent ownership stake. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Regional experts say there is virtually no chance that a Russian energy company would strike a deal that is deemed damaging to the Kremlin’s geopolitical interests. Likewise, Tehran is helping Tajikistan build a power plant, Sangtuda-2, which upon completion will export electricity to Iran.
Editor’s Note: Joshua Kucera is a Washington, DC,-based freelance writer who specializes in security issues in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East.
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/business/articles/eav050406.shtml
Iran and Pearl Harbor syndrome
19:41 | 03/ 05/ 2006
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) - The Paris meeting on Iran, which the media dubbed "secret" because journalists were barred from it from start to finish, ended in failure as expected.
The positions of the sides remained the same. The United States wants the UN Security Council to pass the toughest possible resolution on Iran's nuclear file. By and large, the Europeans are leaning toward the U.S. proposal, while permanent members of the Security Council Moscow and Beijing insist on talks. The negotiators were trying hard to conceal what has long become an open secret.
Trying to help Beijing and Moscow out of the predicament, U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has suggested that they should abstain from voting on the problem at the Security Council. If the Council is torn apart by contradictions and fails to exert pressure on Iran, the U.S. and other countries may themselves punish Iran. Other U.S. officials have expressed the same opinion. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack has just made another statement to this effect.
Moscow also has to adjust its position. Chairman of the Duma committee on international affairs Konstantin Kosachyov has just declared that Iran's ostentatious refusal to comply with the Security Council requirements was fraught with serious consequences. He did not rule out sanctions against Iran.
It is even more interesting to hear the opinions of intelligence officers, military men and independent experts. U.S. intelligence spokesmen openly admit that they know very little about Iran; such statements, however, should not calm Tehran down because they clearly show that the U.S. and its foremost allies are channeling all the necessary financial, material and intellectual resources into the effort. It is hardly a coincidence that when U.S.-Iranian dispute reached its peak, the military announced successful testing at the Eglin air base in Florida of the 10-ton Massive Ordnance Air Burst (MOAB), which the press immediately dubbed the Mother of All Bombs. The use of tactical nuclear arms, primarily anti-bunker weapons, has not been ruled out, either. It is not surprising that Moscow insists on negotiations - it does not want a nuclear war near its borders, all the more so since nuclear issue is no bluff. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that the American military should analyze all options against Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons.
It is not merely the doctrine of a preventive strike that is pushing the U.S. to be tough. In effect, the doctrine itself reflects the painful Pearl Harbor syndrome, and a highly dubious assumption that it was possible to nip Hitler in the bud if the U.S. had intervened in Europe earlier. The trauma inflicted on the U.S. by the barbarous hostage seizure in Iran has not healed, either. Good old Freud is here again.
Finally, the Americans are worried by some forecasts. Zbigniew Brzezinski thinks that the U.S. will wage war with Iran for 30 years and lose its world supremacy as a result. This prediction suggests the conclusion - either not go to war at all, or strike without mercy and win a quick victory. Thus, the American Eagle is now looking around with particular attention and is ready to nip in the bud anything it perceives as an attack. Invasion of Iran on the basis of unverified data may be just a prelude, all the more so since presumption of innocence does not apply to Iran. Defending its right to a civilian nuclear program, Tehran has already said too much and got bogged down in contradictions.
Even some independent Russian experts believe that war is inevitable. Chairman of the Presidium of the Institute of Globalization Problems Mikhail Delyagin said: "I think that the actions, which have been taken, and the propaganda accompaniment, which we have been hearing, give us enough grounds to predict that the decision on a missile attack... has been made. Considering the election race, this should happen in late spring or summer."
It is rumored that in Yerevan, capital of Armenia, wealthy Iranians of Azeri background have already rushed to buy housing, just in case...
In turn, the press is trying to predict what Iran will do in return. Quoting its sources in Tehran, the British Sunday Times writes that Iran is ready for an adequate reply. There are 40,000 trained suicide bombers, who will attack American, Israeli and British targets, 29 of which have already been selected. The Iranian president is talking about an asymmetrical blow at Israel. Tehran has also repeatedly threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.
To sum up, Pearl Harbor and the good old Freud are spelling a lot of trouble.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060503/47177837.html
US rejects direct talks with Iran
The United States cannot control Iran if direct talks should, god forbid, lead to a settlement.
For the current "War on Terrorism" in Asia, a closer equivalent
to "Mein Kampf" is "The Grand Chessboard", by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former
National Security Advisor to President Carter (Basic Books, 1997). In it,
he claims that for the USA to fulfil its destiny of controlling the world,
it must control Central Asia. That region has huge reserves of oil and gas,
and in 1998 the oil company Unocal was lobbying the US government for
legislation to facilitate building a pipeline from Central Asia through
Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. Indeed, Brzezinski's book contains a map of projected pipelines, including the one through Afghanistan.
Iran rather than Iraq is the real prize. Iran is the main obstacle to US plans to develop international oil and gas projects in the Caspian or Central Asia.
#msg-1263010
-Am
US rejects direct talks with Iran
May 5, 2006
Updated at 1250 PST
WASHINGTON: The White House again rejected the idea of one-on-one talks with Iran, saying that the dispute over Tehran's nuclear program is not bilateral, but one
that affects many countries.
"This is a threat posed to the region and to the world," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
He added: "This is not a bilateral issue between the regime and the United States, this is an issue between the regime and the international community."
Iran and the United States have not had direct relations since 1980, which many experts say is a big factor in the current diplomatic impasse.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp#1395
Iran seeks euro-denominated oil market
Friday, May 5, 2006 · Last updated 3:22 a.m. PT
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's oil ministry took a step toward establishing an oil trading market denominated in euros, rather than the U.S. dollar, by granting a license for the bourse, state-run television reported Friday.
Just who would trade on the market wasn't immediately apparent. Iranian television did not mention traders or governments willing to market or purchase products on the exchange, nor did it say when it would open for business.
"Iran has registered an oil bourse on the Persian Gulf island of Kish in which oil would be sold in euros," the broadcast said. Kish, located off the coast of southern Iran, houses the offices of some 100 Iranian and foreign oil companies.
Oil trading is currently only conducted in dollars on markets in New York and London.
Iranian legislators earlier this year urged the government to set up the market to reduce the United States' influence over the Islamic republic's economy. They also criticized Oil Minister Sayed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh, saying he had delayed setting up the bourse.
If the market succeeds, observers say euro-denominated oil sales could eventually convince central bankers to convert some U.S. dollar reserves into euros, possibly causing a decline in the dollar's value.
First floated in 2004 when reformist president Mohammad Khatami was in power, the idea of a euros-traded oil bourse gained new life after the stridently nationalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president last summer.
As the fourth-largest oil producing country in the world, the second in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries and controlling about 5 percent of the global oil supply, Iran has a measure of influence over international oil markets. Tehran also partially controls the Persian Gulf's Strait of Hormuz through which much of the world's oil supply must pass.
Iran has sought to wield its oil resources as a bargaining tool in Tehran's ongoing standoff with the West over its nuclear program.
Iran's deputy oil minister, M.H. Nejad Hosseinian, said Thursday he doubted the U.N. Security Council would impose sanctions on Iran's oil sector because such a move would drive oil prices higher.
Council members are considering imposing sanctions on Iran for defying their request to halt all uranium enrichment-related activities by late last month.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1310AP_Iran_Oil_Euros.html
Korea, China, Japan to Kickstart Single Asian Currency
Single Asian Currency Comes a Step Closer to Reality
Korea, China and Japan have agreed to start joint research at government level on introducing an Asian single currency comparable to the euro. Finance Minister Han Duck-soo made the agreement with his Chinese counterpart Jin Renqing and Japan’s Sadakazu Tanigaki on the sidelines of the 39th annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in India.
This is the first time governments have decided to make concrete efforts toward the launch of the Asian currency unit (ACU), which only exists as a theoretical construct. So far, calls have mostly come from the private sector.
The three countries will set up a research team staffed by government officials and experts at public and private research institutes by the end of the year and come up with a framework for the ACU. The finance ministers agreed the research efforts should start at the ASEAN+3 Finance Ministers' Meeting.
While the ministers were on the same page in their optimism about the three countries’ economic prospects this year, they warned that continuing high oil prices and rising interest rates worldwide pose a threat to the regional economy.
(englishnews@chosun.com )
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200605/200605040024.html
Chávez plays oil card in Nicaragua
from the May 05, 2006 edition -
By Tim Rogers | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
MANAGUA, NICARAGUA - Venezuela's populist president Hugo Chávez has been accused of using his country's oil wealth to help elect like-minded leaders in Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, and Nicaragua. But there's been little evidence, until now.
A cooperation agreement signed last week between Nicaragua's Sandinista leader - and longtime US nemesis - Daniel Ortega and Mr. Chávez is being touted by many here as an initiative to sell oil to Nicaragua on credit, allowing the country to invest more in poverty-fighting projects. Critics call it a blatant attempt to buy the Nov. 5 presidential election for Mr. Ortega.
"Central America is important for Chávez because the rest of his influence is concentrated in the Andean countries [of South America]," says Michael Shifter, vice president for the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue. Mr. Shifter says Chávez is clearly on a mission to challenge US influence in the region, but that he also appears genuinely concerned with helping the poor - two traits that don't necessarily contradict one another. "This shows a larger ambition, and he is focusing his resources on Nicaragua and calculating that Ortega has a chance to win [elections in November]."
In the past few years, Chávez has made high-profile deals to sell discounted oil to Central American and Caribbean nations, and even to poor citizens in US states such as New York and Massachusetts.
But the deal struck between Chávez and Ortega comes during a grinding energy crisis, and before a pivotal election that could see another leftist leader come to power in the region. In the past year, energy shortages here have led to power-rationing blackouts and transportation strikes. Under the agreement, Venezuela will accept 60 percent of payment within 90 days of shipment, while the remaining 40 percent will be paid off over 25 years at 1 percent interest, including a two-year grace period.
The deal could be one of the most important real-world applications to date of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), a Latin American integration initiative started a year ago by Cuba and Venezuela to counter US efforts to promote hemispheric free-trade integration. ALBA promotes the principles of social and economic justice, but so far is known more for its symbolism than concrete action.
Yet the pact is gaining steam, with newly elected Bolivian President Evo Morales signing on to ALBA in Havana this past weekend to much fanfare. On Monday, Mr. Morales also sent shockwaves throughout the energy sector when he announced that he would nationalize Bolivia's gas reserves, the second largest in the region.
When in Venezuela last week, Ortega vowed to join ALBA if elected this November. But critics say the agreement between Chávez and Ortega, signed during Ortega's visit, effectively means Ortega has joined ALBA early, undermining the legitimacy of the current Nicaraguan government, and using Venezuelan oil money to boost his campaign bid.
"This is just a sophisticated mechanism for Ortega to launder Venezuelan money for his campaign," charged congressman Wilfredo Navarro, vice president of the incumbent Liberal Constitutional Party (PLC). "Forty percent credit is the same as 40 percent of the money that will disappear and end up in Ortega's campaign."
The Sandinistas, however, claim the pact with Venezuela is an example of how they offer solutions to problems that the pro-business government has been unable to resolve - a form of "governing from below," which Ortega promised he would do when his revolutionary government was voted out of office in 1990.
Since that time, Ortega's party has managed to consolidate enormous power in the legislative, judicial, and electoral branches of government, despite losing three presidential bids in the process. He's currently polling third among Nicaragua's presidential candidates, but is only six points behind the pro-business frontrunner and US favorite, Eduardo Montealegre.
Last month, the incumbent PLC accused Chávez of planning to finance Ortega's campaign to the tune of $50 million - an allegation that was denied by both Ortega and Venezuela's ambassador to Nicaragua.
President Enrique Bolaños, in statements to the local press, went as far as to warn Chávez that giving oil on credit to Sandinista mayors could constitute an electoral offense in Nicaragua.
Ortega maintains that the oil agreement is about helping the people of Nicaragua, rather than helping himself get elected. Yet the political implications of the pact with Chávez are obvious, and Ortega isn't afraid of playing that card.
"Where is the United States when Bolaños needs help resolving problems with oil prices?" Ortega demanded last September, following Chávez's initial promise to broker a deal with the Sandinistas. "The yanquis had hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in the war in Nicaragua; hundreds of million of dollars to kill Nicaraguans. But where is the US when Nicaragua has to start rationing energy?
"Chávez has an alternative, a proposal that's being implemented," Ortega added.
The US government, for its part, maintains that its commitment to Nicaragua's economic and social development is "longstanding, regardless of political affiliation," says US Embassy spokeswoman in Managua, Preeti Shah. "Since 1990 the United States has provided the people of Nicaragua with more than $1 billion with programs designed to improve health, education, trade and development, as well as democracy and the rule of law."
The Chavez-Ortega pact has led to the creation of a Nicaraguan-Venezuelan oil firm, Alba Petróleos de Nicaragua, which will be managed by Nicaragua's Sandinista-controlled municipal government association, known as AMUNIC.
Patricia Delgado, executive director of AMUNIC, says that the agreement is still "in the beginning stages of analysis," and that the logistics are still being worked out.
She estimates that the first shipment of oil could be made in October, but admits there are a lot of external factors at play. But once the company is up and running, she says, it could generate some serious income for the local governments.
"This will strengthen the autonomy of municipal governments and facilitate local development," Ms. Delgado says. "The municipalities can't wait for the central government, we have to keep moving forward and advancing with whomever will take our hand."
Sandinista congressman and hardliner Bayardo Arce agrees that the initiative will strengthen his party's leadership. "We are trying to offer answers on the municipal level, but when we return to govern the country, we will start to offer more integral answers," he said, after returning from Venezuela to help negotiate the oil deal.
Political analyst Carlos Fernando Chamorro says the Sandinistas should wait until the oil is distributed before they take too much credit for resolving the countries problems. "There is still a lot that is not clear about this agreement, and as long as the oil isn't coming, it remains just a campaign promise."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0505/p01s04-woam.html
U.S., British Forces Obtain Document Outlining Al Qaeda's New Iraq Strategy
Updated 9:56 PM ET May 4, 2006
ABC News has obtained a document seized by U.S. and British Special Forces during a recent raid of an alleged Zarqawi safe house about 20 miles southwest of Baghdad in the town of Yusufiyah. This was the raid where the military believes it narrowly missed capturing Zarqawi himself. The five-page document appears to sketch out a new strategy for Al Qaeda in Iraq: Reduce attacks in the Sunni dominated areas in the West and concentrate attacks inside Baghdad. "We will reduce our operations against [the Americans] in our areas for the near future, and will perform our work against them in Baghdad itself," the document says. It also calls for attacks on the Shia neighborhoods of Baghdad, "Move the battle to the Shia depths," the document says. "Put pressure on them to leave their areas." It states the strategy is aimed at two goals: 1) Incite people against the Shia and provoke sectarian war. 2) Bringing down the government or at least weakening it (and then destroying the Shias' four year rule). There is quite a bit of detail in the document with targets mentioned, and tactics ("plant [explosives] by night; explode by day"). There is also some interesting self-criticism. The document complains that the losses of American forces in Baghdad "are hardly worth mentioning" compared to American losses in the Western provinces. And, in the concluding paragraph, the document says the "rank and file" of the mujahideen in Baghdad know their leadership does not have "a broad view" or "a well-knit plan" and that "this has led to strategic losses for us." The document was seized by "Task Force 145" -- the top secret special operations group (made up of the military's elite operators, including Delta Force and Navy SEALs as well as British Special Forces) that heads up the hunt for Zarqawi.
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=060504&cat=frontpage&st=frontpagekarl_alq...
Brazil to Negotiate Gas Price With Bolivia, Lula Says (Update2)
Note: It is possible that a moderate left, represented by the Brazilian and Argentinean governments, will try to put pressure on more socialist- and populist-oriented leaderships, such as those of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, in order to limit their strong economic nationalism; additionally, the moderate left may call for more coordinated energy policies for the whole Latin American continent. Similar to the European Union, energy security is perceived by Latin American decision-makers as a regional issue and one that needs consistent regional policies.
Should the four states fail to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis, political tension between the two different leftist orientations in today's South American political landscape may escalate. One key development to watch is whether La Paz offers more favorable terms to Brazil's Petrobras than it offers to multinational companies not located on the continent.
Additionally, in light of the resistance to Bolivia's actions against multinational energy corporations, it will be important to note whether La Paz continues its aggressive actions in other critical sectors of the economy, such as in the mining industry.
www.pinr.com
-Am
Brazil to Negotiate Gas Price With Bolivia, Lula Says
May 4 (Bloomberg) -- Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva sought to diffuse tensions with Bolivia over natural gas supplies, saying the two countries will negotiate energy prices ``in the most democratic way possible.''
Lula, after a three-hour meeting with Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Argentina's Nestor Kirchner, also backpedaled on yesterday's decision by Brazil's state-controlled oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro SA, to stop investing in Bolivia.
``Petrobras will continue to invest abroad including in Bolivia,'' Lula, 60, said in a news conference following today's meeting in Puerto Iguazu, Argentina. ``Prices will be discussed in the most democratic way possible. What is important about this meeting is it guaranteed there will be supply.''
The failure of the meeting to resolve anything beyond an agreement for further talks means Bolivia and its biggest customer for natural gas, Brazil, are at a stalemate on prices, said Christopher Garman, an analyst at Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy based in New York that has covered Latin America since 2000. Brazil will continue with a cautious strategy in dealing with Bolivia he said.
``They left the meeting not much different from when they arrived,'' Garman said. ``Despite his statements of goodwill, Lula wasn't able to extract any concessions from Morales.''
Chavez came away from the session the winner, said David Fleischer, a professor of political science at Federal University of Brasilia.
'Offensive to Brazil'
``Lula was very weak again, reneging what Petrobras had said yesterday. He basically pulled the rug from under Petrobras. Chavez's backing for the takeover is very offensive to Brazil,'' Fleischer said.
Lula said Brazil's supply of gas from Bolivia, which accounts for about half the country's needs, won't be disrupted by Morales' nationalization of reserves. Morales deployed the army to 56 oil and gas fields on May 1 and gave international oil companies 180 days to revise contracts with the state energy company.
The nationalization of the energy fields and higher prices for the gas threatens to spark inflation in the Brazil and Argentina and lead to losses for Petrobras. Bolivia accounts for about 5 percent of Argentina's natural gas consumption.
Petrobras, which has a fifth of its gas reserves in Bolivia, yesterday canceled all plans to invest more in the country to expand production capacity beyond the 30 million cubic meters a day available now, and said it would move quickly to find new gas sources.
Contracts
Under a contract maturing in 2019, Petroleo Brasileiro, or Petrobras, pays Bolivia less than half the natural gas prices in North America. Morales, making good on campaign pledges to enable Bolivia's poorest citizens to share in the nation's energy wealth, vowed to set export prices himself.
Petrobras is Bolivia's largest oil and gas producer, accounting for 57 percent of the nation's 35.4 million cubic meters a day of gas output -- most of which is exported -- and 40 percent of its 51,966 barrels a day of oil output.
``The risk is terribly high for Bolivia, because companies go where there is the possibility of having their investments tied to market conditions,'' said George Baker, director of Houston-based energy consulting firm energia.com. ``If you take that away companies will leave. It is very important for Bolivia to keep the market doors open.''
To contact the reporter on this story:
Andrew J. Barcen in Sao Paulo barden@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 4, 2006 18:40 EDT
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aphHpbVmbOPA&refer=news_index
China left out of US-hosted anti-terror meet
By Jim Wolf
Reuters
Thursday, May 4, 2006; 8:25 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. generals did not invite China to a meeting last week attended by 91 countries and aimed at boosting cooperation in the U.S.-declared global war on terrorism, the military said on Thursday.
China borders several hot spots, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is home to ethnic groups whose members have been detained by the United States as enemy combatants. President Bush has highlighted the importance of working with China in the post-September 11 world.
"We intend to deepen our cooperation in addressing threats to global security -- including the nuclear ambitions of Iran, the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, the violence unleashed by terrorists and extremists, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," Bush told President Hu Jintao of China at a White House welcoming ceremony April 20.
Five days later, more than 230 participants from 91 countries, met in Washington to compare notes on counterterrorism issues, without China, which the Pentagon calls a potential strategic competitor.
Among the 91 nations represented in the so-called Multilateral Planners Conference were traditional U.S. allies plus such countries as Albania, Tajikistan, Tonga and Djibouti, a member of the military joint staff said.
China was not invited "because the (U.S.) inter-agency coordination requirement and timeline didn't allow sufficient time to extend an invitation," Maj. Almarah Belk of the Air Force, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an e-mailed reply to a query from Reuters.
A Chinese Embassy spokesman did not respond to a request about whether China would have liked to attend.
BRINGING TOGETHER SECURITY PLANNERS
The April 25-26 meeting was the fourth in a series held since May 2004 to bring together security planners from around the world.
A Feb 3. invitation to the session was sent to counterparts by Lt. Gen. Victor Renuart of the Air Force who, as the joint chief's director for strategic plans and policies, is the U.S. military's top strategist.
In the invitation, he described the forum as designed "to enhance our understanding of global and regional security environments and foster a common vision for confronting the challenges in the 21st century."
A copy of the invitation appears on the conference's Web site, www.jcs.mil/j5/conference/. Renuart said he hosted the conference on behalf of Gen. Peter Pace of the Marine Corps, chairman of the joint chiefs.
Twenty nations attended the conference for the first time, including Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Yemen, a member of the joint staff said.
Failing to include China was a mistake, said Kurt Campbell, a former Asia policy chief at the Pentagon, because fighting radical Islamic fundamentalism "is one area where we can and have worked well with China."
"The only U.S. agency that has difficulty clearing a meeting with China is the office of the secretary of defense," added Campbell, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
James Mulvenon, who runs a 15-member team of China analysts at the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, a group that consults for U.S. intelligence agencies, said leaving China out sends a wrong signal to the Chinese, "especially when we're trying to form a strategic relationship with them."
(Additional reporting by Paul Eckert)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050401679.html
Interesting course for Sadr as he goes for those ministries in the public-sector that most influence public opinion and the ministries that affect the future of Iraq, its youth. Good way to build a lasting following.
Sadr's followers, who control as many as 35 of 275 parliament seats, representing working-class Shiites in eastern Baghdad and the country's south, already hold the ministries of health and transportation. But they are eyeing education, youth, commerce, agriculture and electricity as possible additions to their portfolio.
The thirtysomething cleric and his fast-growing movement have become a formidable political force. They agreed to forgo claims on the important ministries of interior, defense, finance, oil and foreign affairs and instead focused on building up power and patronage through public-sector jobs and services.
"We prefer to control only those ministries that serve the Iraqi people to build a strong base," said Fadhil Sharih, one of Sadr's deputies. "We will also be directly involved with the Iraqi society, to listen to their needs and serve them."
-Am
Sadr Loyalists Push for More Cabinet Posts
Demands by lawmakers tied to the radical Shiite cleric are typical of a process that some Iraqis say puts political wants above public needs.
By Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writer
May 3, 2006
BAGHDAD — Loyalists of radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr have demanded control of a greater share of Iraq's public-service ministries, in what many worry is a trend toward a government more concerned with satisfying demands for political patronage than serving Iraqis.
Prime Minister-designate Nouri Maliki, a Shiite, has three weeks to form a government acceptable to rival Sunni Muslim Arab and Kurdish blocs.
ADVERTISEMENT
But already ministries are being divided up during bruising backroom negotiations according to a sectarian and ethnic formula that parallels election results: 14 posts for Shiites, eight for Kurds, seven for Sunnis and three for a secular coalition. Some warn that it could be a recipe for disaster.
Izzat Shahbandar, an Iraqi lawmaker loyal to former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, said that the proposed Cabinet divisions had "established the basis for an ethnic and sectarian system that will lead Iraq to hell."
Sadr's followers, who control as many as 35 of 275 parliament seats, representing working-class Shiites in eastern Baghdad and the country's south, already hold the ministries of health and transportation. But they are eyeing education, youth, commerce, agriculture and electricity as possible additions to their portfolio.
Iraqi and Western officials have criticized the ministries under Sadr's control during the last year as corrupt and ideological. Doctors, nurses and pharmacists say the health system is poorly run and deteriorating. Sadr's loyalists in the Transportation Ministry have removed alcohol from airport duty-free shops and put portraits of ayatollahs on the billboard in front of the Baghdad train station.
The thirtysomething cleric and his fast-growing movement have become a formidable political force. They agreed to forgo claims on the important ministries of interior, defense, finance, oil and foreign affairs and instead focused on building up power and patronage through public-sector jobs and services.
"We prefer to control only those ministries that serve the Iraqi people to build a strong base," said Fadhil Sharih, one of Sadr's deputies. "We will also be directly involved with the Iraqi society, to listen to their needs and serve them."
The formula is similar to the tack taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.
U.S. officials would like to see technocrats without strong sectarian affiliations in charge of the government, but face strong challenges. For example, several Shiite political parties are laying claim to the Oil Ministry, but Iraqi professionals and Western officials want the Cabinet position to revert to former interim Oil Minister Thamir Ghadhban.
In some cases, politicians offer to resolve disputes over ministries by creating new titles that risk increasing an already bloated public sector and diluting executive power. Faced with competing Kurdish and Sunni Arab claims on the Foreign Ministry, for example, negotiators are toying with the idea of creating a separate ministry that deals specifically with Arab countries.
Security posts remain the biggest stumbling block in forming the government. Sunnis and Shiites have an agreement to divvy up the defense and interior ministries between themselves. But insiders say Allawi, a perennial U.S. favorite for sensitive security posts, might chair a newly created Cabinet-level committee that could override the prime minister on major decisions.
Amid the frenzied haggling over Cabinet posts, rank-and-file legislators were scheduled to meet today to discuss the potentially combustible issue of revising the constitution and to take up some procedural matters.
Pressed to keep pace with deadlines, Iraq's political factions last year failed to resolve fundamental constitutional questions, including Iraq's identity and the extent of autonomy granted to regions.
Iraq's main Sunni Arab political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, agreed to call on its supporters to vote in October's constitutional referendum on condition that the charter allow for a four-month revision period.
"I think the amendments should be made early so we can move on," said Wael Abdul Latif, a parliamentarian and judge loyal to Allawi. "I believe this will be a lot simpler than drafting the constitution."
Iraq's Sunnis and secular nationalists, many of them former loyalists to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, cite more than two dozen changes they'd like to see in the charter. Some are semantic, but others call for fundamental shifts, including a stronger central government and removal of language condemning Iraq's 35 years of Baathist rule.
Iraqis worry about renewing the harrowing negotiations that characterized the constitutional debate, which dragged on for months and undermined the power of the interim government.
"We are talking about core issues that form the basis for the constitution," said Jinan Jasim Ubaidi, a Shiite legislator. "I am sure many disagreements and much delay will occur."
Times staff writers Raheem Salman, Zainab Hussein, Caesar Ahmed, Saif Hameed and Shamil Aziz contributed to this report.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sadr3may03,1,2772386.story?coll=la-news-a_se....
General: Zarqawi 'Bloopers' Tape Found
Updated 1:16 PM ET May 4, 2006
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted man in Iraq, doesn't exactly look like a terrorist mastermind in a new videotape released by the U.S. military today. In blooper-type footage from a Zarqawi video released last week, the al Qaeda in Iraq leader is seen fumbling with a machine gun. U.S. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said the video was found during a series of raids in April on purported terror cell safe houses southwest of Baghdad. Lynch said Zarqawi decided not to publicize the piece, which shows him decked out in New Balance sneakers. In it, he said, Zarqawi had trouble firing his automatic weapon and needed assistance from an aide, and his associates "do things like grab the hot barrel of the machine gun and burn themselves." In the version that appeared on the Internet last week, Zarqawi swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden and said any government formed in Iraq would be just a "stooge." The U.S. military says 161 leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have been killed or captured since January. ABC News' John Berman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=060504&cat=frontpage&st=frontpagezarqawi_....
The outrageous strategy to destroy Russia
But, was Beslán’s hostages event, as claimed by Bassaiev, part of Chechnya independence demand process or part of Russia’s destabilizing process?
The United States has previously used the Chechens to initiate terrorists attacks against Russian. The most notable was Bush’s slaughter of the Russian school children at Beslan.
#msg-3953878
RUSSIANS: "SCHOOL SEIZURE WAS PLANNED IN WASHINGTON AND LONDON." #msg-4307815
US urges new terrorist attacks against Russia
#msg-10724046
Apart from the U.S. and Western Europe, Japan should be included (...)
Japan has been included.
Japan to step up its Asia security role
#msg-10898805
-Am
by Arthur Lepic*
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s former adviser, embodies the continuity of U.S. foreign policy whether it is democratic or republican. A great admirer of Henry Kissinger, Brzezinski has always defended, praised and shown an absolute respect for the master’s two diplomacy concepts: the balance of the powers theorized by Metternich and George Kennan’s containment doctrine. Zbigniew Brzezinski recommends how Russia should be militarily weakened and intimidated. He is convinced that the best way to achieve it is by destabilizing its border regions, a political strategy that arouse the interest of former presidential candidate John Kerry’s team who recruited his son Mark Brzezinski as its foreign policy adviser.
22 October 2004
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Based on George W. Bush’s speech during year 2000 presidential campaign, a rigid, even aggressive attitude towards Vladimir Putin’s Russia would have been expected -according to his adviser “hawk” Wolfowitz’s doctrine. But, instead, we have seen an unprecedented approach in the political relations of these two great nations. And this has happened after September 11, 2001.
For many observers and analysts there was an agreement between Putin and Bush not to criticize Russian military operations in Chechnya whereas Putin would ignore American interventions and interferences in the Middle East.
This explanation does not really value September 11 facts. It actually considers them as an abstraction and the same with Kremlin’s position on this. We can say that Republican administrations have always attached too much importance to the Middle East whereas Democrat’s political tradition on foreign policy has been more focused in Eurasia.
To design its strategy towards the former USRR and then on the Easter states, recently emancipated from the Soviet influence, Democrats have trusted -since Jimmy Carter took power- a brilliant, unscrupulous and anti-Russian man: Zbigniew Brzezinski.
This well-known professor’s doctrine has many followers outside of the Democratic Party because it has defined the actual imperative of the empire’s survival and prosperity: the conquest of Eurasia.
This professor was born in Warsaw in 1928, the son of a Polish diplomat. At the age of ten, Brzezinski immigrated to Canada when his father was distinguished. He did his degree and his master at the University of Mc Gill, Montreal, and then his PhD at Harvard in 1953. After that, he became an American citizen and married the daughter of Czechoslovakia’s former president Eduardo Benes.
Between 1966 and 1968 he was a member of the Council of Policy Planning of the State Department where he developed the “peaceful involvement” strategy towards the Soviet Union in the framework of the Cold War. In October 1966, he convinced President Johnson to modify the strategic priorities in order to have the “thawing-out” before the German reunification.
During 1968 presidential campaign, Brzezinski was the head of the working party in charge of democratic candidate Hubert H. Humphrey’s foreign policy, who would lose to Richard Nixon.
The Inspiring Leader of the Trilateral Commission
At the beginning of the 1960s, Brzezinski distinguished himself as an analyst when prophetically announced the appearance of bigger actors in the world power. He was talking about Europe and Japan whose economies have had a rapid growth after WWII.
In an article published in Foreign Affairs magazine in 1970, he talked about his vision of this “new world order”. «A new and more daring vision is needed - the creation of a community of developed countries capable of efficiently handling the problems of mankind. Apart from the U.S. and Western Europe, Japan should be included (...) A good start would be a council formed by representatives of the U.S, Western Europe and Japan, which will hold regular meetings among the heads of governments and less relevant personalities.»
In 1970, Brzezinski also proposed new ideas in his new book Between two Ages [1] where he explained that the moment to balance world power had arrived and it had to be in the hands of a new global political order based on a trilateral economic tie between Japan, Europe and the U.S. The revolution in production techniques and the transformation of the heavy industry into electronics had to cause a disruption of political systems and a new generation of power elites. David Rockefeller, excited about these concepts, hired him to create the Trilateral Commission and appointed him director. The commission was officially established in 1973 and gathered important personalities related to world trade, the international banking system, governors and the big European, Japanese and American media.
When the first oil crisis took place, the main concern of these world finance masters was to get rid of the foreign debt of developing countries by strengthening the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It was also about strengthening and extending U.S.’s hegemony - by that time vulnerable due to its military defeat in Viet Nam- in every geographical boundary of the Eurasian continent where they were very influential after WWII
This mission, if analyzed from an outsider’s point of view, depicts Brzezinski as a peace advocate, a man in favor of multilateral relations and diminishing world tension (Cold War) and -to the eyes of the extreme right- as a man inspired by Marxism.
The best to be done in order to implement the plans of the Trilateral Commission was to make one of its members the President of the United States.
President Carter and the Double-Dealing
Since the creation of the Trilateral Commission, shepherd Jimmy Carter was among the members of Rockefeller-Brzezinski’s team. He has opened the first trade offices of the state of Georgia in Brussels and Tokyo and this turned him into the ideal model or the founding concept of the Commission. [2] For his nomination as an election candidate and to the presidential election in 1976, Rockefeller used his relations in Wall Street and put Brzezinski to work, whose academic influence assisting democratic candidate Jimmy Carter was very helpful for wining the election. And, of course, when Carter won the elections, Brzezinski was appointed national security adviser. [3]
Brzezinski examining the weapon
of a pakistani officerAs president, Carter stated the reduction of the military nuclear arsenal of the two blocks (U.S. -USRR) as a priority. However, the Soviet SS-20 missile crisis aimed at Europe forced Carter to deploy the Pershing missiles, an action that ruined his efforts, whether they were sincere or not, and caused the reciprocal distrust of the two countries.
It can be affirmed that by that time, the Soviet block had good reasons to believe that its adversary was involved in double-dealing: the U.S. military defeat in Viet Nam forced it to keep certain reserve in the strategic and military fields whereas Brzezinski was working on his war plan to set a trap for the Soviet Union and force it to come into a peripheral conflict.
The destabilization of the Afghan communist regime and the financing and delivering of the first weapons to anticommunist Jihad followers in 1979 caused, as expected, the intervention of the Red Army in Afghanistan. Brzezinski had the support of Pakistan intelligence and espionage services, the fearful ISI.
When the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur interviewed Brzezinski in 1998, he admitted that the equipping of Bin Laden’s anti-Soviet troops was before the Russian invasion and was aimed at provoking its reaction:
Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director, Robert Gates, says in his memoirs: the American secret services assisted Afghan mujahedeen six months before the Soviet invasion. By that time, you were President Carter’s adviser and you played a key role on this. Do you confirm it?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of the story, the CIA began to assist mujahedeen in the year 1980, that is, after the invasion of the Soviet army against Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the truth that remained secret until today is quite different: it was on July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed his first order on the secret assistance to Kabul’s pro-Soviet regime opponents. That day I wrote a memorandum to the President in which I told him that that assistance would cause the Soviet intervention (...) we did not force the Russian intervention, we just, conscientiously, increase the intervention possibilities.
NO: When the Soviets justified their intervention by affirming they were fighting against a secret American interference nobody believed them, though they were telling the truth. Don’t you regret it?
Z. Brz.: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. Its objective was to lead the Russian to the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it? The very same day the Soviets crossed the Afghan border I wrote the following to President Carter: «This is our chance to give Russia its Viet Nam» (...).
N.O.: Aren’t you sorry either for favoring Islamic fundamentalism and providing weapons and consultancies to future terrorists?
ZBrz.: What is the most important thing when you look at world history, the Taliban or the fall of the Soviet empire? Some excited Islamists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? [4]
When Brzezinski talked about «some excited Islamists» in this interview, he did not underestimate Al Qaeda’s power. He just described the reality of what the neo-conservatives has turned into a myth while justifying their world crusade. It is obvious that none of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations would be so categorical.
Objective Alliance with China and Unconditional Support to the Shah of Iran
Even when Nixon and Kissinger were cautious about besieging the Soviet Union and restored relations with China, a number of Carter’s closest advisers did not support this rapprochement Brzezinski had in mind.
When Carter became President, he stated he would establish a dialogue with the USRR and keep the People’s Republic of China at a distance. But, his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, opposed Brzezinski anti-Russian obsession and Carter had no choice but to conciliate its administration’s antagonism.
Usually, the mediator between these two poles was Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. future ambassador to the UN and John Kerry’s foreign policy adviser during his campaign, along with Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew’s son. According to Cyrus Vance and some others in favor of establishing the dialogue, like democrat renegade Averell Arriman, the triangular logic of besieging would only lead, at its best, to a misunderstanding with the USRR, not to mention war.
Meeting between the Shah of Iran, Alfred Atherton, William Sullivan, Cyrus Vance, president Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1977
They recommended dialogues on disarmament and cooperation with the Soviet Union to neutralize the Third World conflicts. The re-establishment of relations with China kept on; Brzezinski even completed a joint program of strategic cooperation and managed to have good personal relations with Deng Xiaoping, something that has really helped him nowadays.
Brzezinski’s distrust towards the USRR can be perceived again in his attitude towards Iran, which under the Shah’s regimen was considered as a bastion against the Soviet influence in the Middle East. Brzezinski promised Shah his support until the last moment and requested U.S. military intervention to keep him in power even when part of Carter’s administration, led by his Secretary of State, opposed it.
However, Washington’s concrete actions were implemented according to the state Department’s point of view and despite all negotiations with the generals that defeated Shah to guarantee a moderate regime in the country; it was Khomeini who took power after a popular seafloor spreading. Khomeini joined Carter at Camp David negotiations in 1977 and played a key role in the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt without even being present in the most important debates. However, when the USRR was the main topic, he was always there.
The Russian Threat and the American Supremacy
In 1989, Brzezinski quit his job at Columbia University where he taught since 1960 to work on Ukraine’s independent status plan. This marks the beginning of his compromise to prevent the resurgence of Russia as a superpower. He defended Russia’s integration to the Western system and the “geopolitical multiparty system” in the territory of the former Soviet Union.
He also developed a “plan for Europe” that included NATO’s expansion to the Baltic republics, a dream that came true when three of them joined NATO in 2002. During the 90s he was the special envoy of the American President to promote the most important oil infrastructure project of the world: the Baku-Tbilissi-Ceyhan pipeline which was his best opportunity to prevent the resurgence of Russia. He has also been, since 1999, the president of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, whose headquarters are located at the Freedom House facility. This position allows him to intervene in peace negotiations between the Russian government and independence fighters led by Mashkadov. However, the truth behind these good will “democratic” activities is to assist independence followers to maintain a war in the area, like the Afghan one, to weaken Russian and to keep it away from the gains of the Caspian Sea.
Brzezinski’s doctrine («The power ruling Eurasia will control two of the most economically advanced and productive areas of the world») is related to NATO’s expansion to the East, something the Clinton’s Administration actively worked on. But, how could they sell NATO to Europeans? «The European region located in the Western border of Eurasia and next to Africa is much more exposed to the risks of the increasing global disorder than a more politically united, military powerful and geographically isolated America (...).
The Europeans will be more exposed to risk if an imperialist chauvinism encourages Russia’s foreign policy», said Brzezinski to National Interest magazine in year 2000. [5] The whole thing is quite clear: the deployment of NATO’s forces around Russia was a preventive measure. If Russia’s reaction is to be defensive, it means that it is planning to restore its empire and totalitarianism.
Brzezinski has been working also as a consultant for BP-Amoco and Freedom House in Azerbaijan. His objective is to worship Heidar Alyiev’s image and in a New York Times interview he characterized the dictator as a «nice guy». [6] Brzezinski justifies Aliyev’s Anglo-Saxon support by explaining that after seven decades of communist government nobody can expect Azerbaijan and the former Soviet republics to become democratic nations in such a short period of time.
Even when Aliyev’s political repression increased during the last few years and the gains from the Caspian Sea diminished, Azerbaijan was still considered by Freedom House as a “partially free” country. In 1999, Secretary of State and Brzezinski’s disciple, Madeleine Albright, invited Heidar Aliyev to NATO’s anniversary ceremony. On their part, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine organized some joint military maneuvers, sponsored by NATO’s “Association for Peace” program, on April 16, 1996. [7]
Despite his activities as BP-Amoco and Freedom House’s consultant, Brzezinski assisted a system of funds and NGOs (non governmental organizations) in support of the former Soviet top-classes, intellectuals and elites.
As an initiative of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, whose chairman was Brzezinski, a meeting between the main leaders of the Chechnya movement was held from August 16 to August 18, 2002 in Lichtenstein, two months after the one held in Bassaiev and Maskhadov, where an agreement was signed on the mutual direction of the “Armed Forces of the Ichkeria Republic of Chechnya”. The participants concluded that Chechnya should not longer be a part of Russia, that a real autonomy was necessary and the time to negotiate with Maskhadov had arrived. But, was Beslán’s hostages event, as claimed by Bassaiev, part of Chechnya independence demand process or part of Russia’s destabilizing process? [8]
Several questions could be raised if we take into account that the main consequence of this action was a tightening of tensions between North Odessa and neighboring Inguchia, that is, a much more relevant balkanization of the region.
Mark BrzezinskiNowadays, Brzezinski is very active in CSIS but he still the brain of the Democrats foreign policy program, something that is quite evident in candidate Kerry and his partner John Edwards’s obsession with Russia. Following Mark Brzezinski’s advises they chose as their main priority Russia’s nuclear disarmament in a moment in which it has recovered the same oil production it had before its demise and is benefiting widely of the current oil prices which has allowed it to double its defense budget. Therefore, Russia’s nuclear arsenal is not, as John Kerry says, a present-day threat.
Kerry’s real objective is related to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s strategy of Russia’s subordination but, from now on, it will be much more difficult to convince the world public opinion of Russia’s evil and totalitarianism. [9] Therefore, it is necessary to provoke its reaction as was done with the Afghan case in 1979, because Russia will have no problems with its energy supply in the next decades, a real concern the U.S. has. This is why in some recent Wall Street Journal and Novaya Gazetta interviews, Brzezinski characterized Vladimir Putin as «Russian Benito Mussolini».
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:rXENLeSyR_wJ:www.voltairenet.org/article30038.html+Zbigniew+Brze....
ht
Cheney wants to control the flow of Russian oil. He can do that through a bogus democratic setup in Russia.
But would the reality be democracy or corporate domination?
The U.S.--and specifically the Clinton White House--was determined to oppose any "north/south" pipelines. The White House adopted a plan, cooked up by long-time ruling class strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, to create an "east-west" pipe which would bypass both Russia and Iran.
The U.S. intends to strip Russia of control over this oil. And the U.S. wants the Caspian oilfields to be completely independent of the Persian Gulf--to diminish the importance of Persian Gulf states in the world economy.
#msg-3775550
The plan belongs to Brzezinski.
Mein Kampf" for the 21st Century?
"The Grand Chessboard", by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Review by Norman Thyer - May 2002
In the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler wrote a book entitled "Mein Kampf" (My
Struggle), extolling German nationalism, expressing his contempt for other
ethnic groups, such as Jews and Slavs, and his admiration of war, and
stating the need for Germany to expand eastwards. Following the destruction
of a highly significant building in Berlin in 1933, he attained power and
proceeded to carry out his plan. At first, other powerful nations did not
interfere with his actions.
At one point in "Mein Kampf", he said that what cannot be achieved
amicably, it is up to the fist to take. Eventually his "amicable" approach
failed to achieve his aims, and World War II resulted.
Reference to the "fist" has reappeared in recent years. In a March 28,
1999 New York Times article, Thomas Friedman wrote: "For globalization to
work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it
is... The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -
McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the
F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's
technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine
Corps."
The need for a belligerent policy had been expressed earlier by a
Pentagon official:
"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes,
there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe.
Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic
struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role
of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and
open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of
killing."
- Constant Conflict - RALPH PETERS
From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14.
The full article is on the website:
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/peters.htm
Madeleine Albright, US ambassador to the UN, is reported to have said:
"What's the point of having this superb military ... if we can't use it?"
Friedman's article was written at the time of NATO's attack on
Yugoslavia. For the current "War on Terrorism" in Asia, a closer equivalent
to "Mein Kampf" is "The Grand Chessboard", by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former
National Security Advisor to President Carter (Basic Books, 1997). In it,
he claims that for the USA to fulfil its destiny of controlling the world,
it must control Central Asia. That region has huge reserves of oil and gas,
and in 1998 the oil company Unocal was lobbying the US government for
legislation to facilitate building a pipeline from Central Asia through
Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. Indeed, Brzezinski's book contains a map of
projected pipelines, including the one through Afghanistan.
In the introduction (p.xiv), he writes: "The ultimate objective of
American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly
cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with
the fundamental interests of humankind. But in the meantime, it is
imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating
Eurasia and thus also of challenging America."
In principle, a world united in peace and democracy sounds like a good
thing, even under a "benign" hegemony or quasi-dictatorship. But would the
reality be democracy or corporate domination? Does the reality of US
hegemony in Latin America over the past two centuries give us any reason
for optimism?
While some chapters deal specifically with Europe and east Asia, a
significant portion covers central Asia, concerning which he says: "It
follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single
power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global
community has unhindered financial and economic access to it. Geopolitical
pluralism will become an enduring reality only when a network of pipeline
and transportation routes links the region directly to the major centers of
global economic activity via the Mediterranean and Arabian Seas, as well as
overland. Hence, Russian efforts to monopolize access need to be opposed as
inimical to regional stability."
Brzezinski also states: "The public supported America's engagement in
World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor." (pp.24-25)
And: "But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular
passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the
public's sense of domestic well-being" (p.36)
And: "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society,
it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy
issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived
direct external threat. ... In the absence of a comparable external
challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach
agreement regarding foreign policies ... that still require an enduring and
sometimes costly imperial engagement." (p.211)
In other words, an external threat is the most effective way of uniting
the American people behind their leader, even when the enemy is as vague as
"terrorism". The attacks of 11 September, 2001 appear to have achieved that
result. Indeed, they could well have been a necessary prelude to the
current military actions in Asia. What will it take to get public support
for attacking Iraq?
Related to the above quotations is an extract from a report of the Project for a New American Century. That organization's Statement of Principles ( www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) is signed by several people including Elliott Abrams, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. That same organization wrote the following in its report of September 2000, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ( www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf):
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions."
[Rebuilding America's Defenses - p51 - p63 of pdf file]
Well they got a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" a year later. Be careful what you wish for - you may get it!
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:uGp39rSodPEJ:mypage.uniserve.ca/~nthyer/br/chesbord.htm+Zbigniew....
Also note:
IAE forecasts 150-pct growth of world demand for fuels by 2030
03.05.2006, 19.07
HELSINKI, May 3 (Itar-Tass) - The International Energy Agency (IAE) has forecast a 150-percent growth of world demand for fuels by 2030.
The countries that once constituted the former Soviet Union, including Russia, would account for 40 percent of fuel exports to international markets, IAE Executive Director Claude Mandril said summing up the results of a world economy trends survey.
He pointed to the importance of stable energy exports from Russia, including those of natural gas, and to the increase of capital investments into Russia’s gas sector.
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=62868f4f74998d49&cat=b8de8e630faf3631
Azeri analyst says Armenia funding Kurds' resettlement in occupied lands.
Armenia could use the Kurds against Azerbaijan and Turkey.
-Am
Text of Olaylar news agency report by Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on 31 August entitled "300 Kurdish families have been resettled in Lacin"
Armenians want to resettle Kurds in Azerbaijan's western region
The resettlement of Kurds in Azerbaijan's occupied territories, especially Lacin and Kalbacar Districts, is under way. A political scientist, Cumsud Nuriyev, has said that 300 Kurdish families have so far been moved to Lacin District.
Most of them are families of PKK [Kurdistan Workers' Party] members who fought against Turkey: "Most of them are families of the PKK members killed in fighting against Turkey. There is information that Armenia has funded the resettlement. Most probably, in the near future Armenia will use Kurds for provocations against Azerbaijan."
Nuriyev said that a problem could emerge if Azerbaijan failed to take this seriously: "Kurds are being resettled on Azerbaijan's unoccupied territories too. The aim is to resettle Kurds in the whole western region over a 10-year period. This plan was devised long ago."
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:0RubvGIx2MgJ:www.akparti.org.tr/disbasin/071299f1.htm+Said+Nuriy...
Armenia has become a cultural center for Kurds. There are radio broadcasts in the Kurmanji dialect and there is a Kurdish publishing house
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:p5ocjnZAFZ4J:www.ksafe.com/profiles/p_code/1066.html+armenia+kur...
IAE forecasts 150-pct growth of world demand for fuels by 2030
03.05.2006, 19.07
HELSINKI, May 3 (Itar-Tass) - The International Energy Agency (IAE) has forecast a 150-percent growth of world demand for fuels by 2030.
The countries that once constituted the former Soviet Union, including Russia, would account for 40 percent of fuel exports to international markets, IAE Executive Director Claude Mandril said summing up the results of a world economy trends survey.
He pointed to the importance of stable energy exports from Russia, including those of natural gas, and to the increase of capital investments into Russia’s gas sector.
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=62868f4f74998d49&cat=b8de8e630faf3631
Mexico conservative with small lead in new poll
Thu May 4, 2006 12:53 AM ET
MEXICO CITY, May 3 (Reuters) - Mexico's ruling party presidential candidate has taken a slight lead in a poll released on Wednesday, confirming his new position as front-runner ahead of July elections.
The new poll by Consulta Mitofsky gave Felipe Calderon 35 percent of the expected vote -- four points higher than last month and one point more than his leftist rival and long-time election favorite Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.
The survey, presented on television news channel Televisa, showed Lopez Obrador with 34 percent, shedding four percentage points since last month's poll. Roberto Madrazo, of the main opposition group, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, slipped two percentage points to 27 percent.
It is the latest in successive string of poll to show Calderon in the lead.
Lopez Obrador has taken a battering from a campaign that presented him as a danger for Mexico. His failure to defend himself against the attacks or take part in a recent televised debate in which Calderon performed strongly are widely seen as having contributed to his sliding popularity.
The poll researchers did not say when the survey was taken, how many people were interviewed or what the margin of error was.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-05-04T045347Z....
They can vote all the want and will probably elect to oust the US. In the past there have been indications of voter fraud but the even harder part is getting Iraq's leaders to implement the wishes of their citizens as seen through the ballot box. That is a common problem throughout the world.
-Am
It's showdown time in Pakistan
Two important factors have recently emerged, Bush wants to get rid of Musharraf and the US does not consider Taliban terrorists anymore. I am not sure what we are looking at. Is the US using the Taliban to get rid of Musharraf? Is Bush going to let the Taliban take over as a means to contain Iran who has long mistrusted the Taliban which comprises fundamentalist Sunni Muslims whereas Iran is predominantly a Shiite Muslim nation. ...
Or are we playing both sides.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Taliban movement is poised to enhance its nuisance level significantly in the United States' strategic back yards in the region - notably Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Acutely aware of this, the US is leaning heavily on Pakistan, its key ally in the "war on terror" in the region, to go on the offensive against the strong Taliban foothold in the North and South Waziristan tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.
-Am
It's showdown time in Pakistan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
May 5, 2006
KARACHI - Across the jihadi world, there is a strong conviction that by the end of this year Taliban leader Mullah Omar will be back in power in Afghanistan, from where he was driven by US-led forces in 2001.
Realistically, eight months is likely to be too ambitious a time frame for a Taliban victory, if victory is achievable at all.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Taliban movement is poised to enhance its nuisance level significantly in the United States' strategic back yards in the region - notably Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Acutely aware of this, the US is leaning heavily on Pakistan, its key ally in the "war on terror" in the region, to go on the offensive
against the strong Taliban foothold in the North and South Waziristan tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.
What the US is asking for, in effect, is a Tora Bora-style aerial bombing of the area, similar to that undertaken in the mountains of that name in Afghanistan during the rout of the Taliban five years ago. (Incidentally, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora long before the bombs began to fall.)
The Taliban are integrated into the local population and there would be high civilian casualties. This is considered acceptable as civilians would be deemed Taliban sympathizers.
According to highly placed officials who spoke to Asia Times Online, the Pakistani military has already drawn up a blueprint for such an attack, which could be implemented in the near future.
In response, the Taliban, along with al-Qaeda, have a counter-plan in which they will go on the offensive, and an extensive network is primed to launch attacks on the Pakistani establishment.
This is the first time since the fall of the Taliban that the al-Qaeda leadership has activated Pakistani jihadis all over the country for operations both inside and outside the country.
The effect of this is illustrated by an incident in Kandahar, Afghanistan, recently in which three suicide bombers were arrested after they failed to detonate their devices because of technical problems.
All three were from the Pakistani port city of Karachi. Detailed investigations at the Kandahar military base by agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed a network starting from a book shop in Karachi, going on to a contact in Quetta, the capital of Balochistan province in Pakistan, and then on to Chaman in the same province. From there the three men launched their attack in Kandahar.
These arrests spotlight just one of many powerful networks established across Pakistan to carry out jihadi activities on a scale that has not existed since the fall of the Taliban.
This is reinforced by a recent broadcast by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's No 2, in which he called on Pakistanis to topple President General Pervez Musharraf, calling him "a bribe-taking, treacherous criminal". He especially asked the Pakistani army to mutiny against Musharraf.
Zawahiri made a similar broadcast in 2003, but a lot has changed since then. At that time, the Taliban were bruised and down, scattered and without central leadership. Al-Qaeda was also on the run, its network in a shambles, and survival was the only issue. Broadcasts by bin Laden and Zawahiri had only two purposes: to keep the morale of the jihadis high and to sow uncertainty in the ranks of the rival camp.
Both aims were achieved. Each message kept the jihadis spiritually connected with their leadership, and opponents were kept guessing about the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Soon after Zawahiri's call, a number of assassination attempts were made on Musharraf's life, with the complicity of sections within the armed forces.
In the meantime, al-Qaeda began to develop its "netwar" strategy - a complex organization of cells and groups. While Zawahiri continued his broadcasts, bin Laden disappeared from the scene.
To keep thousands of inactive jihadis in Pakistan involved and to bring them into al-Qaeda's net, various methods were used, including the distribution of training manuals, motivational compact discs and action clips of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
At the same time, al-Qaeda and the Taliban established a foothold in North Waziristan, renaming it the "Islamic State of North Waziristan" and seizing virtual control of the area. Jihadis were invited to the base, which has expanded to parts of South Waziristan and neighboring villages in Afghanistan.
This was in preparation for the Taliban's powerful spring offensive, which is now under way, directed toward Kabul as well as Islamabad.
The sudden emergence of bin Laden in a broadcast this month was a global message to the jihadi movement, urging them to come to the base (Waziristan) as a new "war" had begun, of which the spring offensive is the first major salvo.
This was followed by Zawahiri's call to do battle against Musharraf. Unlike in 2003, the jihadis are now much better organized to take on the Pakistani establishment.
The situation is now dangerously poised. Musharraf, under US pressure, is prepared for an all-out attack on the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At the same time, the military rulers are well aware of the renewed strength of the jihadis, and are extremely reluctant to go for the "final solution" and all it would involve.
Asia Times Online contacts claim that in this explosive environment, some sort of a compromise deal, as in the past, might be worked out, with both sides agreeing to back off for the time being. In such an eventuality, the only winners would be the Taliban and al-Qaeda: they can only go from strength to strength, and they will not give up on their ultimate goal of toppling the administrations in Kabul and Islamabad.
Zawahiri's message for Pakistan
The following are translated excerpts from a broadcast by Ayman al-Zawahiri that was aired on Arabic television last weekend.
... As for the second thing I wish to talk to you about, it is the dark fate toward which the traitor Musharraf is pushing Pakistan. Without a doubt, Pakistan is one of the most important of the countries targeted by this new colonialist crusade which seeks to weaken Pakistan and fragment it into entities under the control of India, which is allied with the Americans and Jews.
And here I wish to clarify an extremely important point, which is that the anti-Islamic American/Crusader/Zionist plan has no place for the presence of Pakistan as a strong, powerful, able state in South Asia, because this plan doesn't forgive Pakistan for separating from India in the name of Islam, and doesn't forgive it for including the largest Islamic schools with wide influence among the Muslims of South and Central Asia, and doesn't forgive it for the flourishing of the popular jihadi movements in it against the Indians in Kashmir and first the Russians and then the Americans in Afghanistan, and doesn't forgive it the favorable response of its people, scholars, students, mujahideen and tribes to the Islamic emirate in Afghanistan - since its founding and to this very day - and to its amir the lion of Islam, Mullah Mohammed Omar, may Allah protect him, and doesn't forgive it its overwhelming public sympathy for the call of Sheikh Osama bin Ladin for jihad to expel the Americans and Jews from the holy places of the Muslims and their homes.
In this context, India appears to be the best candidate to implement the Zionist/Crusader plan to humiliate Pakistan and weaken it and tear it apart. And [President George W] Bush's recent visit to Pakistan at the beginning of March was one of the biggest pieces of evidence of that, as he gave a strong push to India's nuclear program, while handing out orders and instructions in Pakistan. And I will review with you in brief just a few of the many woes and misfortunes which Musharraf and his supporters have brought on Pakistan.
The first of these woes is Musharraf's combating of Islam in Pakistan. With an order from the Crusaders, he provided all the backing needed to expel the Islamic emirate from Kabul. And he has made war on the Islamic schools, and is seeking to review the Hudood Act related to rape], in addition to inventing - with Crusader guidance - a new Qadiani creed which invites the people to an Islam without jihad and without enjoining of good and prohibition of evil and without observation of the rules of the sharia, which he calls "Enlightened Moderation".
The second of these woes is Musharraf's threat to Pakistani national security. Musharraf was the primary backer of the ouster of the Islamic emirate from Kabul, and was the primary reason for the establishment of a government in Kabul allied to America and India and hostile to Pakistan. And as a result of Musharraf's betrayal, Indian intelligence has crept close to the Pakistani-Afghan border and opened its consulates in the cities adjacent to Pakistan. And the Pakistani army, with the exit of the Taliban government from Kabul, became a double loser: first, the Pakistani army lost the strategic depth which Afghanistan, with its highlands and mountains, can offer it in any Pakistani-Indian confrontation. And second, the Pakistani army's back became exposed to a regime hostile to it and allied with its enemies. And if you add to this India's success in exploiting air bases in Tajikistan and its seeking military cooperation with the Central Asian states, you will realize the extent of the predicament which the Pakistani army has gotten itself into.
And Musharraf is the one who placed the Pakistani nuclear program under American - and hence Jewish and Indian - supervision. Musharraf exploited America's accusation of Abdul Qadeer Khan [father of Pakistan's nuclear program] to impose its surveillance on the Pakistani nuclear program. And then is it credible that Abdul Qadeer Khan was outside the surveillance of Pakistani military intelligence? Thus the first ones who should be brought to trial in the case of Abdul Qadeer Khan are the leaders of the Pakistani army and intelligence. But Abdul Qadeer Khan was used as a scapegoat to please America.
And Musharraf is the one who is fanning the flames of civil war in Pakistan on behalf of America, in Waziristan and Balochistan, in a bloody conflict whose losses have no end, and which will only rebound on Pakistan with the worst of damages. The worst thing any army in the world could wish for is that it be assigned to defend the borders of its country at a time when it is embroiled in an internal civil war. Pakistani memory has yet to forget the catastrophe caused by the civil war in East Pakistan [that led to the creation of Bangladesh]. And what Musharraf has done in Bajaur, Waziristan and Balochistan he will repeat in Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar, and indeed, any place the Americans request him to strike.
And Musharraf is the one who is seeking to change the combat doctrine of the Pakistani army by repeating that the real danger to Pakistan is from within and not foreign: ie, he is inciting the Pakistani army to fight its people and brothers and turn a blind eye to the Indian threat. And if the combat doctrine of any army becomes corrupted, and its fighting turns into fighting for the sake of salary and position alone, then this army will run away from the battlefield whenever fighting breaks out.
And how is it possible for the Pakistani officer or soldier to be persuaded that he is defending Islam when he is the one who enabled the Americans to kill tens of thousands of Muslims in Afghanistan, and enabled them to oust the Islamic emirate from Kabul? And how is it possible for the Pakistani officer or soldier to be persuaded that he is defending the sanctity of Pakistanis when his commanders order him to kill women and children in his own country? And how is it possible for the Pakistani officer or soldier to be persuaded that he is defending the honor and dignity of Pakistan when he sees his leaders order him to carry out a new slaughter every time they are visited by a high-ranking American official?
The third of these woes is Musharraf's squandering of the issue of Kashmir and his painstaking effort to dispose of it at any cost. Musharraf is the one who strangled the jihadi resistance against India, which led it to increase its savagery and draw up the borders. And Musharraf is the one who made and continues to make one concession after another in the Kashmir issue, even as India hasn't budged one step from its stance. And Musharraf is the one who seeks to deceive the Muslim ummah [community] in Pakistan by pretending to them that the problem with India will be resolved with confidence-building measures, in order to neutralize the effort to liberate Kashmir, which is the real problem between Pakistan and India.
And Musharraf is the one who wars against the Arab mujahideen and their brothers from all corners of the Islamic world, who represent one of the most important weapons in the liberation of Kashmir, in the same way that they contributed before to the liberation of Afghanistan from the Russians. And Musharraf is the one who brought American military and intelligence forces to Kashmir under the pretext of helping the victims of the earthquake. They came in under this cover and commenced to strengthen their defenses and fortifications in order to establish permanent Crusader bases on the Pakistani-Indian border.
The fourth of these woes is Musharraf's recognition of Israel, to prepare the Pakistanis psychologically to recognize a Hindu state in Kashmir. The fifth of these woes is his affront to Pakistani dignity and sovereignty when he gave free reign to American intelligence and investigative agencies in Pakistan, and turned Pakistan's army and security services into hunting dogs at the service of the Crusaders.
The sixth of these woes is his corruption of political life in Pakistan. Through bribery and election fraud, Musharraf declared himself president and formed a party of bribe-takers and opportunists which he provided with a parliamentary majority, and distributed to them and the rest of his supporters the country's treasures, which he had seized, even though he is the same one who claimed at the beginning of his rule that he came to combat fiscal corruption in Pakistan.
And the West, which claims to defend democracy, was hostile to Musharraf at the outset of his rule, but later did a U-turn in admiration of him and his treachery, and indeed, today encourages him to stay in power by any means, after he demonstrated his aptitude for killing Muslims. Musharraf's real problem is bribery. And Musharraf reckons that his success in procuring wealth will only be achieved by betraying Pakistan and appeasing America and throwing himself at its feet.
But he forgets the other half of the reality, which is that America tosses its agents into the rubbish bin when there is no longer any need for them. And were he to look across his western borders, he would see the fate of the shah [of Iran] bearing witness to that, when they ordered him to leave Iran, and then deprived him of asylum and indeed, even medical treatment, which he only found with his friend the bribe-taker Anwar Sadat [of Egypt].
And in keeping with Musharraf's worship of wealth and his mad dash for bribes, he tries to persuade the Pakistani people that they must take care of their interests without paying attention to any moral or religious considerations. This is the same logic of drug dealers, white-slavery gangs, spies and traitors, and the outcome of this attitude is the loss of this world and the next. Allah the Exalted says, "Satan threatens you with poverty and bids you to immorality, while Allah promises you His forgiveness and bounties, and Allah cares for all and He knows all things." - Al-Baqarah 2:268.
I address the Pakistani people, to call on them to stand today in the ranks of Islam against the Zionist/Crusader assault on the Islamic ummah and on Pakistan, and I call on them to strive in earnest to topple this bribe-taking, treacherous criminal, and to back their brothers the mujahideen in Afghanistan with everything they have until they defeat the plan of the Crusaders and Zionists allied with India.
I also call the Pakistani army's attention to the dismal fate which awaits them in this life and the other, for the Pakistani army has turned into forces aligned under Bush's cross in his crusade against Islam and Muslims, just as it has become a tool in the destruction and tearing apart of Pakistan. Let every soldier and officer in the Pakistani army know that Allah has threatened anyone who allies himself with the infidels against the Muslims with a painful punishment. Allah the Exalted says, "To the hypocrites give the good tidings that there is for them a grievous chastisement; those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Is it honor they seek among them? Nay, all honor is with Allah." - Al-Nisa 4:138-139.
And let every soldier and officer in the Pakistani army know that Musharraf is throwing them into the burner of civil war in exchange for the bribes which he took from the Americans, and that he doesn't care if 10,000 or 20,000 Pakistani troops are killed, as long as his pockets are full of bribes. And let them know that Musharraf has made preparations to flee abroad - where he has his secret accounts - on the victory of the popular revolution.
For this reason, I call on every officer and soldier in the Pakistani army to disobey the orders of his commanders to kill Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or otherwise he will be confronted by the mujahideen who repelled the British and Russians before. The Truth - Exalted is He - says, "Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease [from disbelief], their past will be forgiven. But if they return [thereto], then the examples of those [punished] before them have already preceded [as a warning]. And fight them until there is no more fitnah [disbelief and polytheism] and the religion will all be for Allah alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease [worshipping others besides Allah], then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do. And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your maula [patron, lord, protector and supporter] - [what] an excellent maula, and [what] an excellent helper." - Al-Anfal 8:38-39.
Syed Saleem Shahzad is Bureau Chief, Pakistan, Asia Times Online. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HE05Df02.html
Reference:
There are indications that the Bush administration is now imagining a Pakistan without Gen Pervez Musharraf, according to Stratfor, an American news and analysis service. The principal reason the Bush administration supported the Musharraf regime was due to Pakistan’s critical role in the US-jihadist war. It would appear Washington believes it does not need Musharraf at the helm for the United States to continue to prosecute its struggle against militant Islamism, and no longer believes the Pakistani state would collapse without Musharraf.
#msg-10760612
US does not consider Taliban terrorists
#msg-10930388
Iraq as a US political football
By Ehsan Ahrari
May 5, 2006
No one should doubt that Iraq will be the central issue in US congressional elections this November and of the presidential election in 2008. The war in the Middle Eastern country has wreaked havoc with the popularity of President George W Bush and his Republican Party. But that does not mean the opposition is guaranteed a walk-in.
The Democratic Party has been stymied by the perception that it has no ideas of its own to solve the Iraq mess other than to "cut and run". Senator Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination, voted Yes on the authorization to go to war in 2002 and still says as little as possible on subject.
This week Senator Joseph Biden offered a comprehensive plan
that calls for the creation of separate and autonomous regions for Iraq, leading to the withdrawal of US troops by the end of 2008. Biden, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is his party's most respected spokesman on foreign policy.
But more to the point, Biden is widely expected to run for president as the nominee of the Democratic Party. By making his plan to extricate the US from Iraq public, he provides some cover for Democrats running this year but, more important, helps himself in 2008. The voters may not care that much about the details; they care simply that the opposition has a plan.
That might be one of the reasons the White House quickly denounced it, thereby establishing the fact that the plan could emerge as an alternative between the Bush administration's refusal to spell out an exit strategy and Democrats' increasing demand that he come up with an exit strategy without offering any ideas of their own.
There is little doubt that Biden is trying to carve a niche for his candidacy. In contrast with Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 who could do no better than present himself as the "Bush lite" version of his Republican opponent, Biden wants people to see him as the man with the plan.
The Biden proposal, which the senator depicts as the "third way", is carefully calculated to appeal to the US experience with its emphasis on federalism and a central government with limited powers. Never mind that these elements may not transfer easily to the Middle East.
Iraq, in Biden's vision, would be divided into three largely autonomous regions with a viable but limited central government in Baghdad "responsible for border defense, foreign policy, oil production and [distribution of] revenues". The Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis would be responsible for administering their own regions.
He proposes to gain agreement from the Sunnis for the federal system by making them "an offer they can't reasonably refuse". That offer is a constitutional guarantee that they would receive 20% of "all present and future oil revenues", which is based on their proportion of Iraq's population.
US assistance for the reconstruction of Iraq under this plan would be based on the condition that the Iraqi government protects minority and women's rights. In addition, it proposes convening a "regional security conference", where Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran, pledge to respect its borders, "and work cooperatively to implement this plan".
Finally, the Biden plan proposes a gradual redeployment of US forces from Iraq by 2008 or even earlier if feasible.
There are a number of "sacrosanct" concepts of US democracy that, in the view of American politicians, should be equally sacred to the rest of the world. Foremost is the desirability of a federal (or federally based) democracy.
However, they tend to forget that, when first established, the United States was not a federal democracy as we know it today. The great Civil War of 1861-65 was one of the chief reasons for its emergence as a federal democracy.
Yet a federal government with limited power is a recipe for disaster in Iraq. In the first place, "autonomy" is a code word that the Kurds hope to use to break away eventually and establish an independent Kurdistan. Emulating the Kurdish practice, a number of Shi'ite groups envisage the creation of an autonomous region in the south.
The Shi'ite aspirations, to be sure, may not be a prelude to the integration of that region with Iran. However, the very notion of an autonomous southern province of Iraq would certainly be viewed by the neighboring Arab states, as well as Iran, as a prelude to the potential creation of another Shi'ite country.
Obviously, Biden has not given much thought to such an eventuality, but the Iraqi Sunnis certainly have. That is one reason they are fighting so hard against any notion of autonomy and for a strong central government as a guarantor of the integrity of Iraq in its present borders.
Autonomy is an effective administrative arrangement, but only in mature states. Biden points to Bosnia-Herzegovina as an effective example of an autonomous federal arrangement; however, even that arrangement seems to be working only under foreign occupation. No one knows whether that arrangement would survive once foreign troops are gone.
The proposal of guaranteeing 20% of oil revenues to Sunni Arabs is interesting. However, given the intensifying sectarian animosity, one wonders whether the Kurds, or even the Shi'ites, would go along with it. It should be kept in mind that in their zeal to have substantial, if not total, control of their own oil revenues, the Kurds have yet to demonstrate how far they would go to compromise on that issue.
Another chief drawback of this particular proposal is that various sectarian groups in Iraq are currently operating on the basis of two principles: "winner take all" and "zero-sum game". The first principle drives them to seek as many political and economic advantages over other groups at a given time as possible, without contemplating the implications of such advantages on other groups.
The second principle prevents them from cooperating with other groups, fearing that any ground thus lost would be converted into permanent victory by the other groups, without offering any concessions of their own. This is not a unique trait of the Iraqi polity. All political entities where ethnic, racial or religious rivalries and hatred are intensified also manifest similar traits.
The proposal to hold a security conference on Iraq is both timely and thoughtful. However, Iran is not likely to give any serious guarantees on Iraq unless the Bush administration forswears any idea of regime change and preemptive attack on Iran.
What the United States does not understand - or maybe it does understand, but refuses to admit - is that Iran has every right and interest to influence events in its immediate neighbor Iraq as the US itself does regarding Mexico and Canada. If any one of those two countries were to become hostile toward America's interests - admittedly a very unlikely scenario - Washington would not sit still and do nothing.
Similarly, as long as Iran respects the national integrity of Iraq, it has every right to influence events. Besides, aside from being its neighbor, Iraq has many hundreds of years of Islamic ties with Iran.
If or when such a security conference were to take place, the US should take special care to bring in a number of major Sunni neighbors of Iraq, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, as well as Egypt (even though Egypt is not one of its neighbors, it certainly is an important Arab state). The participation of these countries would also send clear signals to the Iraqi Sunnis that their interests are not being jeopardized. Such an assurance is extremely vital at this stage in the evolution of a national-unity government.
The gradual withdrawal of US troops appears reasonable. However, the proposed date is highly contingent on what happens in that country between now and 2008. In the most optimistic scenario, the Iraqi security forces would become strong and effective, and the US forces would start leaving within a year or so.
In the pessimistic scenario, the situation in Iraq would get so bad that there would be a growing clamor for immediate US withdrawal. It is interesting to note that a visible critic of US presence in Iraq, former US Army General William Odom, [1] is already proposing that the United States should "cut and run" from Iraq.
Even though Biden's plan depicts itself as an "alternative" to partition, quite ironically, it is likely to be envisaged as a well-intended argument for precisely that. However, inside Iraq it is not likely to get much notice or attention. The fight in Iraq is getting bloodier as the national-unity government is about to become a reality. Its chief adversary, the insurgency, is doing its very best to make the emergence of that government impossible.
But inside the US, the Biden proposal is likely to emerge as a major source for debate, especially as this November's congressional election gets closer. After all, a plan, any plan, is better than no plan at all.
Note
1. See Cut and run? You bet, Foreign Policy, May/June. Odom was director of the US National Security Agency from 1985-88.
Ehsan Ahrari is the CEO of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, Virginia-based defense consultancy. He can be reached at eahrari@cox.net or stratparadigms@yahoo.com. His columns appear regularly in Asia Times Online. His website: www.ehsanahrari.com.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE05Ak01.html
For what reasons do you think a military budget in excess of $600 billion for the coming year can’t be partially better spent?
Under fire: US's misguided defense budget
By Jim Lobe
May 5, 2006
WASHINGTON - With Congress on the verge of approving yet another record Pentagon budget, a task force of nearly two dozen progressive policy analysts is calling for major changes in the way the United States allocates money for its common defense.
Noting that Washington currently spends $6 on its military for every dollar it spends on homeland security, diplomacy, foreign aid and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the group argues that a three-to-one ratio is more reasonable and well within reach.
The Task Force on a Unified Security Budget for the United States, 2007, calls in particular for shaving US$62 billion from the pending 2007 defense budget of nearly $440 billion, with most of the cuts coming from advanced weapons systems that have little relevance to threats faced by Washington today.
Of those savings, $52 billion should be added to homeland security, particularly to upgrade port inspections, and to diplomatic accounts, such as foreign aid, that are designed to reduce or preempt discontent or hostility toward the US before it develops into an actual military threat, according to the task force report, which was sponsored by the Center for Defense Information, the Security Policy Working Group and Foreign Policy in Focus.
In particular, the 45-page report argues in favor of using a new framework for Congress to consider in allocating national security spending - a "unified security budget" that would divide the main components into "offence" consisting primarily of military forces; "defense" for homeland security; and "prevention", which would include diplomacy, weapons non-proliferation and foreign aid.
"This budget would give Congress a look at the big picture and provide the basis for a better debate over this nation's security priorities," according to the report, which also pointed out that it echoes recommendations made nearly two years ago by the bipartisan 9-11 Commission.
The commission report, which became an overnight best-seller, called for the adoption of "a preventive strategy that is as much, or more, political as it is military" and urged the president and Congress to adequately fund the "full range" of non-military, as well as military, security tools to effectively fight the "global war on terrorism".
That view has recently received additional support from a growing number of conservative commentators, such the former chief of the US Central Command, General Anthony Zinni, and foreign policy intellectual Francis Fukuyama who, in his recent book, America at the Crossroads, criticized US policy as over-militarized.
At some $440 billion for 2007, the Pentagon's defense budget would exceed the combined military budgets of the world's 25 next most-powerful nations, according to recent estimates.
In fact, the Pentagon's budget substantially understates the amount Washington spends on the military. Nuclear weapons activities, on which the George W Bush administration hopes to spend nearly $22 billion next year, for example, are allocated to the Energy Department.
In addition, the regular Pentagon budget does not include the costs of US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which currently are running at nearly $10 billion a month.
"When these costs are added in, military spending for the coming year will exceed $600 billion - a figure that would exceed both the heights of the [president Ronald] Reagan military buildup [in the early 1980s] and the Vietnam War, in inflation-adjusted terms," said Miriam Pemberton, the report's co-author based at the Institute for Policy Studies.
That trend cannot be sustained, particularly given the huge budget deficits - more than $400 billion this year - Washington has incurred under Bush's presidency and the projected growth in Pentagon spending as laid out in its Quadrennial Defense Review released earlier this year, according to the report.
At the same time that Pentagon spending continues to grow, however, the Bush administration has recommended some cuts to the homeland security budget.
Thus, even while the Central Intelligence Agency has warned that weapons of mass destruction are mostly likely to enter the US through its ports, the administration intends to spend "four times more deploying a missile defense system that has failed most of its tests than [it] will spend on port security".
Those priorities should change, according to the report, which calls above all for major cuts in weapons systems that, like the missile defense system, are either unproven or that are designed to counter conventional threats that, given Washington's current military dominance, are very unlikely to materialize over the next decade or beyond.
National missile defense programs, for example, should be cut from a proposed $10.4 billion in 2007 to $2.4 billion; similarly, $14 billion could be saved by reducing the US nuclear arsenal to 1,000 weapons and eliminating the Trident II nuclear missile.
Nearly $20 billion could be cut from several major weapons programs, including the Virginia-Class submarine, the DD(X) destroyer, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the troubled V-22 Osprey rotor-aircraft and C-130 transport programs, and offensive space-based weapons systems, according to the report.
"We need to stop spending money on those weapons systems that do not advance national security," said co-author Lawrence Korb, a senior Reagan Pentagon official who is now based at the Center for American Progress.
Some $7 billion could be saved by deactivating two air force wings and one navy carrier battle force, as well, according to the report. The resulting savings should be reallocated to key diplomatic and homeland security programs, the report urged.
In particular, State Department programs to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction should be increased from a proposed $1.3 billion to nearly $6 billion; US contributions to international organizations and peacekeeping should be increased from $2.8 billion to more than $5 billion; and development assistance to poor countries, currently a little more than $3 billion, should be increased by $10 billion.
On homeland security, the report calls for increasing spending on public health infrastructure and "first responders", such as police and firefighters, from $5.5 billion to $14 billion. Spending on container and port security should increase from a proposed $2.4 billion to $5 billion.
The report also calls for increasing the budget to develop alternative energy sources - an initiative that Bush himself touted in his state of the union address - from a proposed $1.2 billion to $10 billion in 2007.
(Inter Press Service)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HE05Aa01.html
Kurd rebel chief in threat to attack Iran and Turkey
Karayilan said the PKK was not operating in Iran but that its Iranian wing had bases along the Iraq-Iran border.
According to the information of the same TV channel, referring to the Azeri APA agency, the United States are training 20 thousand Kurds in Iraq, in the camps arranged in the territories under the control of Jalal Talabani. The training is aimed at involving the units of Kurd soldiers in the struggle against the Irani regime.
According to the CNN-Turk, the trainings are carried out with the participation of the Kurd fighters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is considered a terrorist organization in Turkey.
CNN-Turk reported about the termination of the first stage of training. According to the TV channel, the officers of the Talabani guard are involved in the trainings. 500 Kurd fighters have already finished military training and crossed the border of Iran . They allegedly have delivered control blows on three objective points on the border of Iran. #msg-6273446
-Am
Kurd rebel chief in threat to attack Iran and Turkey
SHIRKO ABDULLAH
IN RANIYAH, IRAQ
A KURD rebel commander threatened yesterday to retaliate if Turkey or Iran attacked guerrilla bases inside Iraq.
The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), based in north-east Iraq, accuses Turkey and Iran of massing forces near their borders with Iraq and of mounting co-ordinated operations against the rebels using troops backed by tanks and artillery.
"If Iran and Turkey continue attacking the bases of the PKK or other Kurdish factions, the PKK will launch a guerrilla war against Turkey because the PKK has forces in Turkish areas," Murat Karayilan, a PKK leader, told a news conference.
More than 30,000 people have been killed since the PKK began its fight for a Kurdish homeland in south-east Turkey in 1984. The PKK has in the past launched bomb attacks in Turkish cities and tourist resorts as well as fighting troops in the mountains.
Turkey and Iran are wary of the autonomy Iraqi Kurds have consolidated since the 2003 Iraq war and fear it might lead to more unrest among their own large Kurdish populations.
Iraqi defence officials and the Iraqi Kurdish administration say Iranian forces have twice entered Iraq in the past two weeks to attack Iranian Kurdish rebels allied to the PKK.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, last month tried to ease Turkey's concerns that instability in Iraq was threatening its security, pledging continued support for Ankara's fight against the PKK, branded terrorists by Washington.
Some 5,000 PKK rebels are believed to be operating out of camps in the mountains of northern Iraq.
PKK violence tapered off after the capture of its leader, Abdullah Ocalan, in 1999. But it has started up again since the rebels called off a unilateral ceasefire in 2004.
Karayilan said the PKK was not operating in Iran but that its Iranian wing had bases along the Iraq-Iran border.
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=664622006
The attack on Yugoslavia started in 1986 as an aggressive CIA campaign under Republican President Reagan it intensified under Republican President George H W Bush and it was left to Democratic President Clinton to start military action in Yugoslavia in this long running bipartisan campaign.
The latest most aggressive CIA campaign is now underway in Iran. (#msg-9927571) Bush may or may not pull the trigger sending this issue into a full scale military involvement. It doesn’t matter. Given our choice of presidential hopefuls all committed to the preconceived foreign policy of the Council on Foreign Relations, the people that brought us Yugoslavia and now Iran among other campaigns, the game can continue no matter which ‘party’ assumes power.
Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, Republican Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden and Republican Senator John McCain are all of the same allegiance. (#msg-10940746)
01.05.200607:39 (GMT)
The CIA and other intelligence corps were working against Yugoslavia from the inside and from the outside, especially from Austria, Italy, West Germany and Greece, Serbianna's analyst Marko Lopusina wrote. In 1986 the Yugoslav presidency and military high command began to move with the assessment that a special war was being waged in Slovenia, and that the CIA wanted to exploit the nationalist emotions of the Slovenian youth and break up Yugoslavia. One of the top-ranking specialists on the CIA in Yugoslavia is Dr. Petar Knezevic, a military-political commentator and former head of the Analytical Department in General Staff of Yugoslav Army, and the Security Management Department of the Federal Ministry of National Defense. In all analyses, Dr. Knezevic encountered examples of CIA activities in the world while he followed its activities in the Balkans as an analyst at Counterintelligence Corps of the Yugoslav Army. Due to its geopolitical and geostrategic position, the former SRFY was continuously in the sphere of interest of the intelligence corps of alliances, and especially of the leading states of NATO and the Warsaw agreement, as well as some neighboring countries who had and still have territorial claims to parts of the former Yugoslavia, such as Albania and Hungary. Emboldened by Western support they are now pursuing their goal of re-drawing the borders of Yugoslavia with renewed aggressiveness, in violation of existing international norms, as in case of Kosovo. The intelligence-subversive activity on the territory of the former Yugoslavia and especially Serbia is now in service of the current policy of the European Union, NATO, the U.S. and some neighboring states and their connections with secessionist parties and movements in country. The CIA intensified its intelligence-subversive activity during the ‘90’s and by the time of ending the NATO war over Kosovo in 1999, pursues its goals almost openly, Lopusina marks.
http://www.axisglobe.com/news.asp?news=8396
Bull in a China Shop
by Eric Margolis
Diplomacy is the art of discreetly convincing other nations to do things you want them to do by convincing them it’s in their best interests. The deft French have turned diplomacy into an art form, both in foreign and boudoir affairs.
Few, by contrast, would accuse the Bush Administration of any diplomatic finesse. To the contrary, the current administration more often than not acts with all the subtly and tact of an angry bull in a china shop.
The latest example was the visit to Washington by President Hu Jintao of China. Watching this event made me squirm in embarrassment over the Bush Administration’s diplomatic ineptitude and outright rudeness.
Building and sustaining good relations with China is and will remain America’s most important foreign policy challenge for the next decade. Historically, the emergence of new powers that force change on the strategic status quo has always been a time of maximum danger and the primary generator of major wars.
Managing China’s arrival as the world’s second superpower will demand consummate diplomatic skills. The United States must devise ways of living with China’s economic competition, surging demand for resources, and inevitable growing geopolitical influence in Asia and the western Pacific while avoiding confrontation. Two highly nationalistic, muscular, and assertive great powers must somehow learn to co-exist.
President Hu Jintao’s visit to Washington was a grand way not to build a positive, fruitful relationship. First, it was not even a state visit, the type usually afforded heads of state. The visit was downgraded to an economy-class event known as an "official visit." This was a huge insult and major loss of face for President Hu and 1.2 billion Chinese. I was surprised that Hu did not cancel the visit.
But it got worse. The White House did not even give an official dinner for Hu and his entourage, but a luncheon. This may sound trivial, but in the world of diplomacy – or business, for that matter – such an act is a clear sign of the status of the visitor. To give a mere lunch for the leader of the world’s most populous nation that holds close to $200 billion in US debt was a diplomatic outrage and a slap in the face.
Why was the Bush Administration so grossly disrespectful? First, to please its Christian fundamentalist core supporters – known as "theocons" – who are strongly anti-Chinese because of Beijing’s suppression of various Christian sects.
Second, because US East Asia policy is still being made by the same extremist neoconservatives who fabricated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and are waging an anti-Muslim jihad from the White House, Pentagon and US media.
They are bent on putting China and the US on a collision course, believing that US military power will be able to intimidate China and keep its influence penned up on the mainland. This is an extremely dangerous idea that could easily lead to a future Sino-American conflict.
President Hu, noted for blandness and platitudinous speeches, showed no reaction to President Bush’s slight, not even when a Falun Gong protestor disrupted the welcoming addresses. But in private, the Chinese must have been furious by the bargain-basement reception and convinced that the protestor’s interruption was sanctioned by the Americans.
Nor did Hu show any outward reaction to Bush’s lectures on human rights. China’s record in this regard is terrible, but public hectoring is not the way to motivate the proud, prickly Chinese to change their ways. Anyway, President Bush should be the last person to criticize other nations over human rights abuses after revelations of the horrors of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, kidnappings and the CIA’s secret torture camps.
When confronted by US demands that China force North Korea into giving up its nuclear weapons, Hu might have fired back by demanding the US force Israel to get ride of its huge nuclear arsenal, thereby halting a budding Mideast arms race.
Or Hu could have told Americans who scolded him about the artificially low exchange rate of China’s yuan to deal with their own reckless credit binge and gargantuan deficits first. As for Washington’s complaints that China was being too aggressive in seeking oil and other resources around the world, Hu might have reminded his hosts that America consumes three times more energy than China, and invaded Iraq, among other reasons, to grab more oil.
Regarding US claims that China is spending too much on its military, Hu could have noted that US defense spending amounts to 50% of the world’s total military spending, and while the US 7th Fleet cruises off the China coast, China’s navy keeps to the littoral of the western Pacific.
But Hu was too polite, and kept smiling without relent in spite of losing a great deal of face in Asian eyes. He and his entourage must have returned to China with the feeling that the US was still determined to dominate rather than cooperate, and that China had better keep building up its military power.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis28.html
Similarly, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, another likely contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush administration of "ignoring and then largely deferring management of this crisis to the Europeans". Taking the diplomatic route, according to Bayh, "has certainly been damaging to our national security".
#msg-10937660
I am getting Bayh is a member of Bilderberg and plays an important role in the CFR.
Our presidential hopefuls are of the CFR. As such they will represent the CFR agenda and not the people of the United States.
See also:
#msg-10911045
#msg-9920721
-Am
Moving to the right is what could be called "middle of the road" imperialists. These are people who play important roles in both the Democratic Party and the CFR, people like former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton; current and former Senators John Kerry, Christopher J. Dodd, Joseph I. Lieberman, Bob Graham, Sam Nunn, Gary Hart, John D. Rockefeller, Evan Bayh, and Diane Feinstein; AFL-CIO head John J. Sweeney; Robert E. Rubin of Citicorp; international businessperson George Soros; former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright; Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Laura d'Andrea Tyson of Morgan Stanley and the Brookings Institution; and many others.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:bQVbUlVufXAJ:www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy_Instituti....
Democratic Socialists of America's Progressive Caucus
of the U.S. House of Representatives
CFR - Trilateral - Bilderberg
Dominance of the U.S.A.
"The Council on Foreign Relations...
is the American branch of a society which organized in England... (and)... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established."
- from WITH NO APOLOGIES by Senator Barry Goldwater, Berkley Books, NY, p. 126
"The Trilateral Commission...
is international... (and)... is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States."
- from WITH NO APOLOGIES by Senator Barry Goldwater, Berkley Books, NY, p. 293
The Bilderberg...
is a quasi-secret consortium of international elite who meet annually to plan world economic and political policies. The Bilderberg has on membership per se'. Those identified with "B" in this chart have attended past Bilderberg meetings.
This chart illustrates the dominance by - the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg - in the major decision making processes and institutions of the United States of America over the last seventy years.
Members are identified by "C", "T", or "B".
U. S. Presidents
George Walker Bush - non-member
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton
- B,C,T
George Herbert Walker Bush - C,T
James Earl Carter - C,T
Gerald R. Ford, Jr. - B,C
Richard Milhous Nixon - C
Dwight D. Eisenhower - C
Herbert Clark Hoover - C
U. S. Vice Presidents
Richard B. Cheney - C,T
George H. W. Bush - C,T
Walter Mondale - C,T
Nelson Rockefeller -
CIA Directors
George J. Tenet - C
William O. Studerman - C
John M. Duetch - B,C,T
James Woolsey - C
Robert M. Gates - C
William H. Webster - C
William J. Casey - C
Stansfield Turner - C
George H.W. Bush - C
William E. Colby - C
James Schiesinger - C
Richard Helms - C
John A. McCone - C
Allen W. Dulles - C
Walter Bedell Smith - C
Secretaries of Commerce
Ronald H. Brown - C
Juanita M. Kreps - C,T
Elliot Lee Richardson - C,T
Peter G. Peterson - C
John Thomas Conner, Jr. - C
Barbara Hackman Franklin - C
Secretaries of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld- B
William S. Cohen - C,T
William J. Perry - B,T
Les Aspen - C
Richard B. Cheney - C,T
Frank C. Carlucci, III - C,T
Casper W. Weinberger - C,T
Harold Brown - C,T
Donald H. Rumsfeld - C
James R. Schlesinger - C
Elliot L. Richardson - C,T
Melvin R. Laird - T
Robert S. McNamara - B,C,T
Neil H. McElroy - C
Charles E. Wilson - C
George C. Marshall - C
James V. Forrestal - C
Chairmen Joint Chiefs of Staff
John M. Shalicashvilli - C
Colin L. Powell - B,C
William J. Crowe, Jr. - C,T
John W. Vessey - C
David C. Jones - C
Maxwell D. Taylor - C
Lyman Lemnitzer - C
Chiefs of Staff - Air Force
Ronald R. Fogleman - C
Merrill A. McPeak - C
John T. Chain, Jr. - C
Lew Allen, Jr. - C
Michael J. Dugan - C
Charles A. Gabriel - C
Larry D. Welch - C
Chiefs of Staff - Army
Dennis J. Reimer - C
Gordon R. sullivan - C
John A. Wickham, Jr. - C
Edward C. Meyer - C
Secretaries of Energy
William b. Richardson - B,C
James R. Schlesinger - C
Charles W. Duncan, Jr. - C
Directors of the FBI
William H. Webster - C
William D. Ruckelshaus - C,T
Secretaries of
Health & Human Services
Donna E. Shalala - C,T
Joseph A. Califano, Fr. - C
Casper a. Weinberger - C,T
Elliot L. Richardson - C,T
Abraham A. Ribicoff - C
Secretaries of HUD
Henry G. Cisneros - C,T
Carla a. Hills - C,T
James T. Lynn - C,T
Secretary of Interior
Bruce E. Babbitt - C,T
Attorneys General
Richard Thornburgh - C
William P. Rogers - C
Elliot L. Richardson - C,T
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach - C
Secretaries of Labor
Elaine L. Chao - C
Lynn Martin - C
Secretaries of State
Colin Powell - B,C
Madeline Albright - C
William B. Richardson - C
Warren M. Christopher - C,T
Lawrence S. Eagleburger - C,T
George P. Schultz - C
Alexander M. Haig, Jr. - C,T
Edmund S. Muskie - C
Cyrus R. Vance - C,T
Henry A. Kissinger - B,C,T
William P. Rogers - C
Dean Rusk - B,C
Christian A. Herter Jr. - B,C
John Foster Dulles - C
Dean G. Acheson - C
George C. Marshall - C
Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. - C
Cordell Hull - C
Henry L. Stimson - C
Frank B. Kellogg- C
Current U.S. Senators
Evan Bayh (D) IN - B
Hillory Rodham Clinton (D) NY - B
Christopher J. Dodd (D) CT - C
Dianne Feinstein (D) CA - C,T
Bob Graham (D) FL - C
Chuck Hagel (R) NE - B
John F. Kerry (D) MA - C
Joseph I. Lieberman (D) CT - C
John McCain (R) AZ - C
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D) WV - C,T
Paul Sarbanes (D) MD - C
Charles Shcumer (D) NY - C
Olympia J. Snowe (R) ME - C
Robert G. Torricelli (D) NJ - C
Current U.S. House Members
Douglas K. Bereuter (R) NE - C
Howard L. Berman (D) CA - C
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (D) GA - C
Norman D. Dicks (D) WA - C
Barney Frank (D) MA - C
Richard A. Gephardt (D) MO - C
Amory Houghton, Jr. (R) NY - C
Henry Hyde (R) IL - C
Nancy Lee Johnson CT - C
James T. Kolbe (R) AZ - C
James A.S. Leach (R) IA - T
John P. Lewis GA - C
Robert T. Matsui (D) CA - C
James A. McDermott (D) WA - C
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) DC - C
Ed Pastor (D) AZ - C
Thomas E. Petri (R) WI - C
Charles B. Rangel (D) NY - T
Carlos A. Romero-Burcelo (D)PR - C
John M. Spratt, Jr. (D) SC - C
Former U.S. Senators
Lloyd Bentsen (D) - B
David L. Boren (D) - C
Rudy Boschwitz (D) - C
Edward Brooke (R) - B
William L Bradley (D) - C
John H. Chafee (R) - B,C,T
William S. Cohen (R) - C,T
Dick Clark (D) IA - C
Alan Cranston (D) CA - T
John C. culver (D) IA - C,T
John C. Danforth (R) MO- T
Fred R. Harris (D) OK - B
Gary Hart (D) CO - C
J. bennett Johnston (D) LA - B
Charles McC. Mathias (D) MD - B,C
George S. McGovern (D) SD - C
George J. Mitchell (D) ME - C
Daniel Moynihan (D) NY - C
Sam Numm (D) GA - B
Claiborne Pell (D) RI - C
Charles H. Percy (R) IL - C
Larry Pressler (R) SD - C
Abraham Ribicoff CT - C
Donald W. Riegle MI - B
Charles S. Robb (D) VA - C,T
Terry Sanford (D) NC - C
Hugh Scott PA - B
Adlai E. Stevenson, III (D) IL - B,C
William V. Roth, Jr. (R) DE - C,T
Timothy Wirth CO - C
Harris L. Wofford PA - C
Former House Members
John B. Anderson IL - C
Michael D. Barnes MD - C
Anthoney C. Beilenson (D) CA - C
Landrum R. Bolling MT - C
John Brademas NY - B,C,T
Thomas J. Campbell (R) CA - C
Richard B. Cheney (R) WY - C
William F. Clinger, Jr. (R) PA - C
Barbara B. Conable (D) NY - T
Mervyn M. Dymally CA - C
Dante B. FGascell FL - C
Geraldine A. Ferraro (D) NY - C
Thomas S. Foley (D) WA - C,T
Donald M. Frazer MN - T
Sam Gejdenson (D) CT - C
Newton L. Gingrich (R) GA - C
William H. Gray, III LA - T
Bill Green NY - C
Lee H. Hamilton (D) IN - B,T
Jane Lakes Harmon (D) CA - C
Mel Levine CA - C
Dave K. McCurdy OK - C
Susan K. Molinari (D) NY - C
Jim Moody WI - C
Donald M. Payne (D) NJ - C
John Edward Porter (R) IL - C
Ogden R. Reid - C
William B. Richardson (D) NM - C
Patricia Scott Schroeder (D) CO - C
Charles Schumer (D) NY - C
Peter Smith VT - C
Stephen J. Solarz (D) NY - C
Louis Stokes (D) OH - C
Esteban Edward Torres (D) CA - C
Robert G. Torricelli (D) NJ - C
Vin Weber MN - C
Charles W. Whalen, Jr. OH - C
Howard Wolpe MI - C
Federal judiciary
Stephen G. Breyer
Assoc Jus S.Ct - C
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Assoc Jus S.Ct - C
Sandra Day O'Connor
Assoc Jus S.Ct - C
Felix Frankfurter
Fmr. Assoc. Jus S. Ct - C
Charles E. Hughes
Fmr. Assoc. Jus S. Ct - C
Dudley Baldwin Bonsal
Dist Ct Judge, NY - C
Jose Alberto Cabranes
Dist Ct Judge, CT - C
William W. Schwarzer
Dist Ct Judge, CA - C
Laurence Hirsch Silberman
Cir Ct Ap Judge, WA - C
Barrijngton D. Parker
Dist Ct Judge, - C
Richard Clark Allison
US Claims Tribunal Judge
The Hague - C
Stephen Myron Schwebel
Int Ct Judge, The Hague - C
Theodore Tannenwald, Jr.
Tax Ct. Sr. Judge - C
Federal Reserve System
Alan Greenspan
Chairman Bd Gov - C,T
Alice Mitchell Rivlin
Vice Chmn Bd Gov - C,T
Alan Stuart Blinder
Vice Chairman - C
Paul Adolph Volcker
Chairman Bd (frmr) - B,C,T
Eugend R. Black
Chairman Bd Gov (frmr) - C
Authur F. Burns
Chairman Bd Gov (frmr) - C
William McC. Martin
Chairman Bd Gov (frmr) - C
Thomas B. McCabe
Chairman Bd Gov (frmr) - C
Eugene Meyer
Chairman Bd Gov (frmr) - C
G. William Miller
Chairman Bd Gov (frmr) - C
Ellen Victoria Futter
Chairman FRB, NY - C
Maurice R. Greenberg
Dep. Chairman (frmr)
FRB, NY - B,C,T
William J. McDonough
Pres FRB, NY - B,C
Dorothy Meadow Sobol
FRB, NY - C
Willene A. Johnson
Sr. Officer, FRB, NY - C
Ernest T. Patrikis
Dep. Gen Counsel, FRB, NY - C
Harold W. Anderson
Pres FRB, Kansas City (frmr) - C
Robert Patrick Forrestal
Pres FRB, Atlanta - C
Warren Bruce Rudman
Dep Chmn, FRB, Boston - C
A. William Reynolds
Chmn, FRB, Cleveland - C
Margaret L. Greene
Dep Mgr. FRB, Foreign Ops - C
Sam Y. Cross
Mr. Fed Open Mkt Acct - C
Export-Import Bank
John D. Macomber
President & Chairman - C
Kenneth D. Brody
President & Chairman - C
Eugen K. Lawson
1st VP, V. Chairman - C
William Richard Cline
Mem. Adv. Board (former) - C
Rita Maria Rodriguez
Director - C
International Monetary Fund
William Brown Dale
Dep. Mng. Director, Geneva - C
Helen B. Junz
Spec. Trade Rep., Geneva - C
Richard David Erb
Dep Mng. Director, Wash - C
The World Bank
Jessica P. Einhorn
Managing Director - C,T
James David Wolfensohn
President - B,C
Robert Strange McNamara
President (former) - B,C,T
Raymond Vernon
Visiting Professor (former) - B,C
John M. Page, Jr.
Chief Economist - C
David A. Wirth
Economist Assistant - C
Barbara Herz
Division Chief - C
Ann O. Hamilton
Director - C
Int'l Bank of Reconstruction
& Develop.
Lewis Thompson Preston, Pres - C
Andrew M. Kamarck, Wash. Off. - C
Bank of America
(Bankamerica Corp)
A.W. Clausen
Chairman & CEO (frmr) - T
Nicholas Burhs Binkley
Chairman & CEO - C
Rudolph A. Peterson
Chairman Exec Comm - B,C
George William Coombe, Jr.
Exec VP (frmr) - C
Ignazio E. Lozano, Jr.
Director - C
Bankers Trust Company
Charles S. Sanford, Jr.
Chairman & CEO - C
George J. Vojta
Vice Chairman - C
Donald L. Staheli
Director - C
Brown Brothers Harriman
Robert Livingston Ireland, III
General Partner - C
Alexander Tonio Ercklemtz
Partner - C
Walter H. Brown
Ltd. Partner - C
Frank W. Hoch
Ltd. Partner - C
Chase Manhattan Bank
David Rockefeller
Chmn Int Adv Comm - C,T
Walter Vincent Shipley
Chairman & CEO - C,T
Thomas O. Lebrecque
President & COO - C,T
Robert Royal Douglas
Vice Chairman (frmr) - C
John Donald Wilson
Sr. VP (frmr) - C
John P. Lipsky
Chief Economist - C
Riorden Roett
Director - C
Marina Von N. Whitman
Director - C,T
The information on this page has been transcribed from a chart produced by:
Fund to Restore an Educated Electorate (FREE)
Copies may be ordered from:
F.R.E.E.
P.O. Box 33339
Kerrville, Texas 78029
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:U3veruqIfAgJ:www.restoringamerica.org/EnemiesofFreedom/cfr_trila....
I have that the US is helping with the ‘cultural reawakening among Iranian Azeris’.
The Azeris being too good a ‘weapon’ to pass.
According to reports of CNN-Turk, the leaders of Azeri groupings – the opponents of Irani regime are already in Washington , where the details of the operation with the participation of Azerbaijanis against Iran are being considered.
According to APA, CNN-Turk reminded about the fact that Azerbaijanis constitute the greater part of the Irani population, and Tehran has been keeping them under control for a long time. As a case in point, the TV channel reported that the Azerbaijanis were deprived of the right to provide education in their native language.#msg-6273446
-Am
US To Form Anti-Iran Coalition If UN Rejects Sanctions
Washington (AFP) May 03, 2006
The United States is ready to form a coalition of countries to take sanctions against Iran if the UN Security Council does not agree measures, the US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said Tuesday.
Bolton told a Congress committee that the United States and its allies would press ahead with a first UN Security Council resolution condemning Iran even if Russia and China abstain.
He added that if one of the permanent members of the Security Council vetoed a later measure ordering sanctions, the United States would seek alternative ways to punish Iran.
"If we were faced with a veto by one of the permanent members, if for whatever reason the council couldn't fulfill its responsibilities, then I think it would be incumbent on us, and I'm sure we would press ahead to ask other countries or other groups of countries to impose those sanctions," Bolton said.
The ambassador said Iran had been "very effective at applying their oil and natural gas resources to apply leverage against countries to protect themselves" from international pressure.
He said the United States and its allies were preparing a resolution this week under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter "which will make mandatory on Iran all of the existing IAEA resolutions calling on it to suspend its uranium enrichment program and so on."
Chapter 7 allows for economic sanctions and eventually military strikes. But the first resolution is not expected to threaten sanctions.
The United States, Britain, France and Germany believe the Iranian program hides an attempt to build a nuclear weapon.
"While it would be desirable to have a unanimous Security Council when we adopt this resolution ... it's not impossible that we would proceed without them (China and Russia)", Bolton told US lawmakers.
"And if they abstain, then that resolution will go into effect, as would subsequent sanctions resolutions if we get to that point."
China and Russia, as two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, could veto any resolution. They could abstain and the resolution would still pass if it gets a majority of at least nine votes on the 15 member council.
The White House voiced skepticism earlier at Iran's assertions that it had received assurances from China and Russia of their opposition to UN sanctions over its nuclear program.
Spokesman Scott McClellen said President George W. Bush had spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday and the two had a "good" dialogue which underscored their similarity of view on the need to ensure that Iran does not obtain an atomic bomb.
"We're all united in our goal of preventing the (Iranian) regime from attaining a nuclear weapon capability or nuclear weapons," McClellan told reporters.
Iran's Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said that Russia and China have signaled their opposition to UN sanctions and are seeking a more diplomatic approach to resolve the standoff with Iran, Tehran media reported.
"We believe now is the time to move ahead on a Chapter 7 resolution," McClellan said.
Such a provision, he said "has the force of international law to compel the regime to change its behavior."
Tehran insists it is only developing a peaceful nuclear energy program. But the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Friday that Iran had ignored a UN order to halt uranium enrichment, a key element in making a nuclear bomb.
Source: Agence France-Presse
Related Links
Follow the world's second virtual nuclear war at Nuke Wars
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_To_Form_Anti_Iran_Coalition_If_UN_Rejects_Sanctions.html
The US betrays the Kurds again: American-Turkish rapprochement over the Iranian crisis
May 2, 2006
The growing tensions over Iran are beginning to have an immediate impact on the foreign political stance of Turkey. On the one hand, the US is very much interested in involving Turkey in its anti-Iranian coalition, and on the other, Turkey is very much interested in using this opportunity for strengthening its foreign political positions. And so, they are beginning a big haggle.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has got into the spotlight by her visits to Greece, Turkey and Iraq on her way to Sofia for the April 28-29 informal NATO FM summit. Turkish media called Rice’s visit “a new page in the history of bilateral relations.” Turkish officials said it was very fruitful. In fact, Rice’s 16-hour visit was a good chance for Turkey to further improve its cooperation with the US, particularly, over Iran and the Kurdish rebels.
When in March 2003 the Turkish parliament refused to provide US troops a land corridor for attacking Iraq from the north, the Americans grew cold towards Turkey. They put all blame on Turkish generals and said that, henceforth, they would cooperate with politicians, namely, with the Party of Justice and Development (PJD), an Islamist force that has been in power since 2002. This was in line with the US’ Big Middle East project, where Turkey was supposed to assume leadership as an 'Islamic moderate'.
But the crisis over Iran has made Turkey’s generals relevant again. Since December 2005 the US military officials have been frequent guests in Turkey, and the Turkish generals have gradually restored their status in the country’s internal politics. Even though PJD will be the only ruling party in Turkey, at least, till the autumn 2007 parliamentary elections, and the acting Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has excellent chances to win the spring 2007 presidential race, the Bush administration is improving its relations exactly with the Turkish military.
In March 2006 Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace visited Turkey and met with Chief of Turkey’s General Staff, General Hilmi Ozkok and Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. The sides discussed the problems of Iran, PKK, the internal political situation in Iraq, the visit of a HAMAS delegation to Ankara.
This was exactly the agenda of Rice’s meetings with the Turkish top officials. Rice met with President Ahmed Necet Sezer, Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. The sides agreed to draft a Common Strategic Vision. In Ankara Rice said that Turkey is the US’ key partner. The brief few-page Common Strategic Vision will consist of three main chapters: (1) fight with terrorism, (2) relations with the EU, (3) Big Middle East project and addenda concerning Cyprus, PKK, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process and relations with Russia. To date, the US has a similar document only with India.
The Turkish public had been well prepared for Rice’s visit. On the eve of the visit, all Turkish media reported that during the last few years the US has been providing the Turkish armed forces with information support, particularly, through the Echelon global surveillance system. Even though most of this information was about PKK (it was this very source that enabled the Turkish armed forces to hold a series of successful operations in Turkey’s south-eastern regions in March-April), Rice did not give a specific yes to Turkey’s request to stifle PKK’s positions in Northern Iraq or to let it do it itself. At the same time, she hinted that the US may close its eyes on this, i.e. on a forthcoming Turkish military operation in Northern Iraq. It’s noteworthy that Turkey launched this operation while Rice was still in its territory. So, we can say that the US has, in fact, given a sanction to it.
One more interesting point of fact is that before coming to Ankara Rice had signaled that she supports Turkey’s position on Cyprus, thereby, creating a favourable climate for her talks in Ankara. Particularly, in Athens she said that Turkey is already a European country and that the Republic of Cyprus should do its best to make Turkey’s EU membership a reality. Ankara made a reciprocal gesture: it turned down Iran’s request for National Security Secretary Ali Larijani’s visit to Turkey. The Turks advised Larijani to put off his visit for early May, i.e. after Rice’s visit. They may well act as a go-between at the talks with Larijani by telling him what the US has said. This is quite typical of Ankara: to get most of the tensions between two allies and to act as a negotiator between them.
Yet one more interesting point of fact is that Turkey had launched its all-time big anti-Kurdish military campaign exactly by the time of Rice’s Ankara visit. Fearing Europe’s anger, Turkey had, thereby, tried to “legitimize” its action. Turkey’s goal is to curb the activity of Kurds in its south-eastern regions, to provoke them into counter-action and, with US acquiescence, to track the fighters down to Northern Iraq and to put an end to them there. This is, in fact, a repetition of campaigns it used to hold in Saddam times.
The events of the last week have confirmed this conclusion. Turkey was holding its military campaign while Rice was talking with Turkish leaders in Ankara and had crossed the Iraqi border when Rice was still in the Turkish capital. During the night of Apr 26-27, after being informed that fighters from the PKK training camps in Khaftanin and Metina (Northern Iraq) were planning to infiltrate into the Turkish territory, the Turkish army launched a preventive attack, threw back the enemy and pursued it into the Northern Iraqi territory. Armed with night vision cameras, the Turkish soldiers liquidated the covers of the Kurds.
The chief of Turkey’s general staff, Gen. Hilmi Ozkok refused to answer any questions. Instead, Ms Rice “calmed down” the Iraqi authorities by saying that Turkey was not going to cause damage to Iraq but was only trying to destroy PKK bases. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the same. This means that when in Ankara Rice gave her consent to Turkey’s operation in Northern Iraq. We can’t yet give all the reasons of this consent but, undoubtedly, it was the result of 'horse trading' .
The next day Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul confirmed that Turkish troops had violated the Turkish-Iraqi border but said that the Iraqi authorities' protests were uncalled for (the note of protest handed by Iraqi Ambassador to Turkey Umran Sabah) as “the destruction of PKK fighters in the territory of Northern Iraq is good for Baghdad too.” “For as long as Iraq is unable to guard its own borders, we’ll do it ourselves,” Gul said. This statement shows how confident Turkey is in this matter. It undertakes to 'protect' the border of a neighbor country without its consent and, in the meantime occupies, part of its territory. Obviously, Washington has not only agreed to but also guaranteed Turkey’s actions.
In his turn, the leader of the Iraqi Democratic Party of Kurdistan Masud Barzani attempted to refute the fact of the Turkish invasion into Iraq. This shows that, sacrificed by the US once again, the leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan are trying to save their faces. Meanwhile, the Turkish troops are reported to have gained control over 20-km area in Northern Iraq and to be holding a large-scale operation to destroy PKK fighters. They have already destroyed the Zap training camp near Ahmediye – 30 km deep into Iraq. During the operations Turkish planes heavily bombed the PKK bases. Availing itself of the opportunity, Turkey’s general staff has hurried to deploy a 110,000-strong corps on the border with Iran and to say that this border is fully controlled. This may be part of Turkey’s preparations for the anti-Iranian campaign.
Summing up the results of Rice’s visit to Ankara, we can say that the US is pressing hard on Turkey so as to prevent the recurrence of the Mar 2003 events, but, at the same time, it is catering for some of Ankara’s major interests. According to confidential information, Rice has demanded a straightforward answer from Turkey – “who is it with: with the US or Iran?” The Turkish officials are pretending they have given no specific promises to Washington yet and will act in line with the UN Security Council’s resolution. But there are facts that prove that during its secret talks with the DS and Pentagon and earlier this year with Tel Aviv, Turkey showed that it might well join the US and Israel.
Turkey’s key argument is the fear of its generals that a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran may break the balance of forces between Ankara and Tehran. Turkish military analysts say that the decades-long peace between Turkey and Iran is fragile and is based on the parity of their armed forces. At the same time, the political rulers of Turkey, namely, the pro-Islamist PJD, fear that strong Iran may be a strong enemy in the struggle for sway in the Muslim world and want to weaken it.
But given the growing anti-American moods and upcoming elections in the country, PJD would still like to get the UN SC’s sanctions for the military campaign against Iran: PJD is careful in its policies and is not going to say yes to whatever the US wants. Meanwhile, Turkey’s General Staff, on the contrary, hopes that joint actions with the US will help it to strengthen its position in own country and to curb the further rise of Islamism there, particularly, to prevent PJD leader Erdogan from becoming president.
This is proved by the following circumstances: (1) a number of scandalous differences between PJD and US officials, particularly, the premier’s advisor Zapsu’s appeal to Washington not to give up PJD and Erdogan; and (2) the frequent visits of US representatives to Turkey. So, we can assume that Rice’s promise of a new strategic partnership treaty soon may well come from an agreement between Pentagon and Turkey’s General Staff. And so, we can accept the view of Turkish analysts about “a new stage” in Turkish-American relations with one proviso: just like several years ago, the US and Turkey will build their relations on the basis of military cooperation. Ankara has two problems the US can help it to solve: Cyprus and PKK. Rice’s Athens statement that Cyprus should do its best for Turkey to become an EU member, the entry of Turkish troops in Northern Iraq (something Ankara has been demanding for three years already) and the US’ connivance in the matter show that Ankara and Washington have, in principle, agreed on their cooperation over several important directions, including over Iran.
The approval of Turkey’s entry into Iraq may also imply that the sides have agreed on Kirkuk. Particularly, the Turkish prime minister and foreign minister told Rice that this town is very important in both internal political and regional terms and one can’t leave it under the control of one ethnic group. By “ethnic group” they obviously meant the Kurds.
There is a strong possibility that Washington is playing a situational game with several players at once. Getting strong support in Iraq in 2003, the US realized once again how important it is to cooperate with the Kurdish Peshmarga. But, obviously, Washington is not hurrying to give the Kurds official independence so as to have something to offer the next time the Kurds may become useful. In case of a campaign in Iran, the US will need not only Turkey, but also Kurds: who will help it to keep up stability in Iraq and to break stability in Iran through local Kurds. There is a strong possibility that Kurds may be used by Iran. And so, by letting Turkey into Northern Iraq, i.e. Kurdistan, Washington has, on the one hand, dealt a card to Ankara but, on the other, secured a card for itself – for promising at later meetings with Kurds that it will urge Turkey to withdraw from Kurdistan if they promise to cooperate over Iran. Ankara perfectly knows that the US’ approval of its campaign in Northern Iraq does not yet mean approval of its deployment in that territory.
So, obviously, in the next 10-15 years the US’ foreign policy will be focused on Middle East, Caspian Basin, Caucasus, Central Asia, South-Eastern Asia. Apparently, the US still needs Turkey as a military and political partner. Besides, Turkey is still the only partner of Israel despite the recent tensions over the PJD’s Islamist policies.
Turkey also needs the US. If Iran gets stronger, and the balance of forces in the region is changed, Turkey will find it hard to keep its positions alone. Turkey is obviously conceding in its relations with the US so as not to face Islamism tête-à-tête. Today it wants Washington just to curb Iran but not to war with it. If a war starts Turkey will find it hard to avoid being involved. But for the time being, it is just trying to capitalize on the regional crisis.
At its regular monthly conference on April 27, Turkey’s National Security Council focused on Turkey’s military campaign against PKK, Rice’s contacts in Ankara and the new government and nuclear program crises in Iraq and Iran, respectively. Particularly discussed was the strategy of Turkish military operations on the other side of the border. It’s noteworthy that after the 5.5-hour conference the Turkish premier had a tête-à-tête meeting with Transport Minister Yildirim, who had just come back from Iran. The council also discussed internal political problems, particularly, the strengthening of the Islamist policy.
Naturally, for us the dynamics of Turkish-American relations are interesting mostly in terms of Turkey’s relations with Russia and its role in the Caucasus. Having decisive rapprochement plans with Turkey, the US, at the same time, demands that Ankara stop its big plans with Moscow. Particularly, when in Ankara, Rice demanded that Gazprom be removed from the 600 mln EUR project to connect the gas networks of Turkey and Greece. She had earlier demanded the same in Athens. Some sources say that Rice proposed replacing the Russian gas by the Azeri one to be imported to Turkey via the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline. This demand has upset Turkey’s plans to become a mediator between Russia and Europe and to, thereby, show its importance for the EU. But Turkey’s tighter relations with the US may lead to its stronger positions in the Caucasus, particularly, in the South Caucasus.
So, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipelines, to be launched in 2007, will link Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey even tighter. In Ankara the US and Turkey might also discuss the building of a railroad Kars (Turkey)-Tbilisi-Baku, particularly, the possibility of US support in the project. If we add to this the talk that Turkey may be allowed to have a greater say over the South Caucasus, we may well assume that very soon the Russian military bases in Georgia will be replaced by Turkish troops under the NATO aegis. Then, by forcing Georgia to populate the Turkish-Georgian borderline regions with ethnic Turks (Meskhetins), the EU and the US will chain it up to the West, with Ankara gaining bigger influence over Tbilisi’s policy.
Ankara has repeatedly said that it is ready to become a mediator in the Karabakh peace process. This would give Turkey the authority of big regional power. Despite Armenia’s resistance, the US may well involve Turkey in the process, though, initially, just as an observer. In summary, we should note that the unpredictability of the developments over Iran and the further deepening of Turkish-American relations are very negative factors for Russia’s positions in the South Caucasus.
Permanent news address: www.regnum.ru/english/632614.html
09:57 05/02/2006
http://www.regnum.ru/english/polit/632614.html
Saudi Arabia caught in Iraqi jihad
By Christopher Boucek
May 4, 2006
It is widely recognized that Saudi nationals are participating in the Iraqi insurgency and have been involved in operations that have targeted the US-led coalition force, aspects of the nascent Iraqi security forces, and segments of Iraq's majority Shi'ite population.
The presence of Saudis in Iraq is deeply troubling not just for the viability of Iraq, but also for the future security of Saudi Arabia and the smaller Persian Gulf monarchies.
Iraq today is the primary jihadist venue. For the first time in recent history, the jihadi movement is centered in the Arab heartland, engaged in what many in the movement interpret as a struggle for a pivotal Arab country.
Moreover, Iraq is a target-rich country for those inclined to stage attacks against the US-led coalition's military presence. Attackers in Iraq stand a better chance of escaping to fight again because of the severely poor security situation; they also need not fear the ubiquitous security services that exist elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Iraq is also emblematic of a larger jihadist project, the successes of which many in the movement seek to export back to their home countries. Iraq, therefore, is unlike Afghanistan, which as a non-Arab country never quite carried the urgency and fervor of those currently active in Iraq.
The Saudi government is extremely concerned by the presence of jihadist Saudi nationals in Iraq. It is feared that the return of Saudi jihadis to Saudi Arabia will revitalize what has become a waning domestic insurgency. These fighters not only have learned new techniques, but may also alter the insurgent landscape in Saudi Arabia by introducing techniques, methods and operations that heretofore have not existed in the kingdom.
To their credit, Saudi authorities have taken significant measures to combat this trend. The government has launched a multi-pronged strategy composed of improvement of border security along the Saudi-Iraqi frontier, an uncompromising and thorough investigative monitoring program of people who have spent time in Iraq, a concerted assault on Saudi Arabia's home-grown indigenous terrorists, and significant cooperation with foreign intelligence organizations (including a major joint program with their US counterparts).
A major issue for Iraqi security forces and their Saudi counterparts is that nomadic Bedouin tribes (who have previously been suspected of supporting the insurgency) exist on both sides of the Iraqi-Saudi border. These tribes frequently move throughout the vast and sparsely populated southern Iraqi desert and maintain clan ties in both Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, these elements know the area intimately and are well versed in avoiding contact with security forces. As such, it is possible that they are assisting in the movement of fighters into Iraq.
Saudi al-Qaeda leader Saleh al-Oufi wrote in support of Saudi jihadis in Iraq in the July 8, 2004, issue of the Voice of Jihad online magazine, strengthening suspicions that Oufi himself had fought in the strife-torn country. Saudi Islamic militants have also claimed operations such as the assassination of US contractor Paul Johnson and the assault on the US Consulate in Jeddah in the name of the "Fallujah Brigades", demonstrating - at the very least - a symbolic linkage between Saudi and Iraqi insurgents.
In April 2005, Saudi national Hadi bin Mubarak Qahtani killed himself in a suicide operation near Qaim, Iraq. According to the Washington Post, "Five other Qahtanis have been reported killed in Iraq, including Muhammed bin Aedh Ghadif Qahtani, a captain in the Saudi National Guard who allegedly used his guard identification badge to help gain entry into Iraq when he was stopped for questioning."
On March 2, an al-Qaeda operative identified as Abdullah Salih al-Harbi was captured by Iraqi border guards trying to cross the Saudi border near Samawah. Reports at the time indicated that he confessed during his interrogation to participating in the al-Qaeda terrorist assault on the massive Abqaiq Saudi oil facility.
Saudi security agencies have taken major steps to monitor possible travel to Iraq and other jihadi locales. It has emerged that some Saudis have sought to hide their travel to Iraq by reporting their passports stolen, thus erasing any consular evidence of travel either to Iraq or to Syria, widely seen as the most important way station for those en route to Iraq.
In an effort to end this practice, the Saudi government no longer issues replacement travel documents with "no questions asked". Saudis who have presented themselves at embassies abroad claiming either theft or loss of their passports are now subjected to a rigorous investigation on their return to the kingdom.
A Saudi intelligence-agency interrogation revealed that a number of Yemenis served as facilitators for Saudis going to Iraq. The same report summary noted that Syria was the main point of entry into Iraq, largely because of successful Saudi efforts to increase security on its own Iraqi frontier.
There exists a well-worn route into Iraq, from recruitment and indoctrination in Saudi Arabia to hand-off to facilitators in Syria prior to crossing the Iraqi border. Saudi support for the Iraqi insurgency has also included the issuance of a fatwa in 2004 by more than two dozen senior Saudi mullahs, including the influential former dissident Salman al-Awda, endorsing Saudi and Muslim support of the insurgency.
The Saudi National Security Assessment Project (an independent consultancy that works closely with the Saudi government on security and oil issues) has produced some original analysis on the subject of Saudi nationals fighting in Iraq.
Among the findings, the project has noted that Saudis - and other Persian Gulf Arabs - often travel with large sums of cash. This fact makes them especially sought after, and recruiting affluent Saudis has been perceived by Iraqi insurgent leaders as a quick method to finance terrorist operations. Furthermore, private intelligence reports have intimated that the Saudis are so valued by insurgents that they have been sold and traded by insurgent "brokers" in Iraq.
While the true number of Saudis fighting in Iraq may never be known, there have been unsubstantiated reports that the number of Saudis who have perished in the insurgency has been exaggerated in a bid to boost recruitment. A March 2005 Israeli report, "Arab Volunteers Killed in Iraq: An Analysis", that has been subjected to wide criticism claims that 94 (or 61%) of insurgents killed in a six-month period were identified as Saudis, while 70% of suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudi.
A separate confidential US report has identified a Saudi participation rate in excess of 50%, while a jihadist Internet forum has stated that Saudis make up 44% of insurgents. According to Nawaf Obaid, however, the Saudi government-controlled press has only acknowledged 47 Saudis who have been identified as participating in the insurgency. These figures, however, have not been independently verified or confirmed.
It is extremely worrying that, according to a Saudi national-security source, of those Saudis who have been detained and questioned on their return from Iraq, about 80% were unknown to the security services. This fact - if true - is concerning, as it indicates that the Saudi intelligence and security services may not have as good a handle on the issue as they may otherwise try to portray.
In the end, this may well be a significant contributor to greater violence and domestic insurgency in Saudi Arabia. Of course, returning jihadis will not simply abandon their world view and objectives. Moreover, the Iraq war and the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan have polarized a large segment of the Saudi population.
Some senior Saudi sources have even sought to blame the domestic terrorist struggle against al-Qaeda on the situation in Iraq. It is unknown what, if any, effect disaffection with the ruling family and anger over the rampant corruption has had on the motivations of Saudi nationals to travel to Iraq, to engage in terrorism, and learn skills and gain experiences that they can eventually bring back to the kingdom.
In large part, the problem is greater for the Saudi government than for the US military and its Iraqi partners. The overarching question is what the Saudi government will do to neutralize Saudi fighters in Iraq once they have returned as technically adept jihadis and battle-hardened fighters.
At that point, with potentially the fate of the kingdom in the balance, many analysts fear that the problem of returning Saudi jihadis may have moved well past any comfortable or easily achievable solutions.
Note
This article is based on extensive research with knowledgeable sources who dealt with the author only on the strict condition of anonymity and non-attribution.
(This article first appeared in The Jamestown Foundation. Used with permission.)
(Copyright 2006 The Jamestown Foundation.)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE04Ak02.html
Israel: Iran stands in the way of US designs
Good read, gets into how the US uses Israel.
-Am
Israeli satirist B Michael describes US aid to Israel as a situation where "my master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation."
Just as the ruling elites of medieval Europe used the Jews as money-lenders and tax collectors to avoid the wrath of an exploited population, the elites of the world's one remaining superpower would similarly be quite willing to use Israel to do their dirty work against Iran. That way Israel, not the US, will get the blame. (In fact, there are those who blame Israel even when the United States takes military action itself, such as the various conspiracy theories now circulating that the US invasion of Iraq was done on behalf of Israel.)
By Stephen Zunes
May 4, 2006
(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus)
Note: On Tuesday, the five veto-wielding permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom) and Germany failed to reach an agreement on a Security Council resolution with regard to Iran's nuclear program that would open the possibility of imposing sanctions on Iran. In his report to the Security Council last Friday, International Atomic Energy Agency director general Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran had failed to halt its uranium-enrichment activities within the 30-day period prescribed by the Security Council on March 29.
With even mainstream media outlets such as the Washington
Post and The New Yorker publishing credible stories that the
United States is seriously planning a military attack on Iran, increasing numbers of Americans are expressing concerns about the consequences of the US launching another war that would once again place it in direct contravention of international law.
The latest US National Security Strategy document, published this year, labeled Iran as the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country. This should be an indication of just how safe the US is in the post-Cold War world, where the "most serious challenge" is no longer a rival superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems capable of destroying the country, but a Third World nation on the far side of the planet that, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate out of Washington, is at least 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon.
Furthermore, Iran has no capacity to develop any delivery system in the foreseeable future capable of landing a weapon within 16,000 kilometers of US shores.
However, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons in the first place, the Bush administration and congressional leaders of both main US parties argue that simply having the technology that would make it theoretically possible for Iran to manufacture a nuclear weapon at some point in the future is sufficient casus belli.
As part of his desperate search for enemies, President George W Bush claimed in January that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "a grave threat to the security of the world", words that echoed language he used in reference to Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion of that oil-rich country.
Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran did not give up its nuclear program, and US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton claimed there would be "tangible and painful consequences" if Iran did not cooperate.
The Washington Post quoted White House sources as reporting that "Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends", apparently out of concern that neither a Democratic nor Republican successor might be as willing to consider a military option.
Not that he needs to worry about that. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, widely seen as the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush administration in January of not taking the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously enough, criticized the administration for allowing European nations to take the lead in pursuing a diplomatic solution, and insisted that the administration should make it clear that military options were being actively considered.
Similarly, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, another likely contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush administration of "ignoring and then largely deferring management of this crisis to the Europeans". Taking the diplomatic route, according to Bayh, "has certainly been damaging to our national security".
Despite the hostility of these two Democratic senators toward diplomatic means of resolving the crisis and the similarity of their rhetoric to the false claims they made prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was a threat to global security and that diplomatic solutions were impossible, both Clinton and Bayh are widely respected by their fellow Democrats as leaders on security policy.
Indeed, in May 2004, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution, with only three dissenting votes, calling on the Bush administration to "use all appropriate means" - presumably including military force - to "prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons".
As with the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have tended to call witnesses before the relevant committees who would present the most alarmist perceptions as fact. Last month, for example, Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy testified before the Senate International Relations Committee: "So long as Iran has an Islamic Republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely."
None of the senators present, however, bothered to mention the inconvenient fact that under the secular regime of the shah that preceded the Islamic Republic, Iran also had a nuclear program (which was actively supported and encouraged by the United States). However, Clawson said that since a nuclear program was inevitable under the Islamic Republic, only by overthrowing the government - not through a negotiated settlement - would the US be safe from the nuclear threat. He insisted, therefore, that "the key issue" was not whether an arms-control agreement could be enforced, but "how long will the present Iranian regime last?"
The risks from a US attack on Iran
With the ongoing debacle in Iraq, any kind of ground invasion of Iran by US forces is out of the question. Iran is three times as big as Iraq, in terms of both population and geography. It is a far more mountainous country that would increase the ability of the resistance to engage in guerrilla warfare, and the intensity of the nationalist backlash against such a foreign invasion would likely be even stronger.
An attack by air- and sea-launched missiles and bombing raids by fighter jets would be a more realistic scenario. However, even such a limited military operation would create serious problems for the US.
The Washington Post, in a recent article about a possible US strike against Iran, quoted Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Central Intelligence Agency Middle East specialist, as noting that "the Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is so constrained" by ongoing operations in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan.
Similarly, the Post quoted a former Pentagon official in contact with his former colleagues as observing, "I don't think anybody's prepared to use the military option at this point." Given the growing opposition to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 's handling of the war in Iraq within the leadership of the armed services, as expressed by a number of prominent recently retired generals, a major military operation without strong support from America's military leadership would be particularly problematic.
Fears expressed by some opponents of possible US military action against Iran that the Iranians would retaliate through terrorist attacks against US interests are probably not realistic. Indeed, Iran's control over foreign terrorist groups and its role in terrorist operations have frequently been exaggerated by US analysts.
However, there are a number of areas in which the United States would be particularly vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. One would be in the Persian Gulf, where US Navy ships could become easy targets for Iranian missiles and torpedoes.
Perhaps more serious problems would be in Iraq, where US troops are operating against the Sunni-led insurgency alongside Iranian-backed pro-government militias. If these Iranian-backed militias also decided to turn their guns on American forces, the US would be caught in a vise between both sides in the country's simmering civil war with few places to hide.
It would be difficult for the US to label militias affiliated with the ruling parties of a democratically elected government fighting foreign occupation forces in their own country as "terrorists" or to use such attacks as an excuse to launch further military operations against Iran. (Given that the Iraqi government is ruled by two pro-Iranian parties, recent charges by the Bush administration that Iran is aiding the anti-government Sunni insurgency are utterly ludicrous and have been rejected by Baghdad.)
A US air strike would be a clear violation of the UN Charter and would be met by widespread condemnation in the international community. It would further isolate the US as a rogue superpower at a time in which it needs to repair its damaged relations with its European and Middle Eastern allies.
Even Britain has expressed its opposition to military action. Pro-Western Arab states, despite their unease at Iran's nuclear program, would react quite negatively to a US strike, particularly since it would likely strengthen anti-American extremists by allowing them to take advantage of popular opposition to the US utilizing force against a Muslim nation in order to defend the US-Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region.
As a result, the negative consequences of a US attack may be strong enough to persuade even the Bush administration not to proceed with the military option.
Israel as a proxy
Though direct US military action against Iran is still very possible, it is more likely that the United States will encourage Israel to take military action instead. In such a scenario, US officials believe that the United States would gain the perceived benefits of a military strike against Iran while limiting the damage to the US by focusing the world's wrath on Israel.
Fox News has reported that Bush administration officials in effect told the Israelis that "we are doing the heavy lifting in Iraq and Afghanistan ... and that Israel needs to handle this themselves".
Israel has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to violate international legal norms and - with US veto power blocking the Security Council from imposing sanctions on Israel, and the United States providing vast sums of unconditional military and economic assistance to the Israeli government - its ability to get away with doing so.
The Israeli government is convinced that the US occupation of Iraq has radicalized the Iranian clerical leadership and that Iran, unlike Iraq in the final years of Saddam Hussein, poses a risk to Israel's national-security interests. However, for reasons mentioned above, Israeli leaders have been reported to believe that the US will not move militarily against Iran and that they will end up using their own forces instead.
An Israeli strike is not inevitable, however. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Israelis oppose the idea. Policy analyst Steve Clemons was quoted in the Washington Monthly as saying, "I have witnessed far more worries about Iranian President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust and anti-Israel rhetoric in the US than I did in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem ... Nearly everyone I spoke to in Israel, who ranged in political sympathies from the Likud right to ... left, thought that ... Israel thought it wrong-headed and too impulsive to be engaged in saber-rattling with Iran at this stage."
He added, "Israeli national-security bureaucrats - diplomats and generals - have far greater confidence that there are numerous potential solutions to the growing Iran crisis short of bombing them in an invasive, hot attack."
There is no indication that Iran would ever contemplate a first strike against Israel or any other country. Tehran, like other Islamic governments in the region, has used Israel's repression of the Palestinians for propaganda purposes, but has rarely done anything actually to help the Palestinians. It is inconceivable that the Iranians would ever consider launching a nuclear attack on Israel - which possesses at least 300 nuclear weapons and sophisticated missiles and other delivery systems that could destroy Iran - for the sake of the Palestinians, many thousands of whom would die as well. However, an Israeli attack could give Iran grounds for retaliation.
Despite these dangers, Israel - with US encouragement - has long considered the possibility of an attack against Iran.
In the mid-1990s, prior to the election of the US-backed Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu to office, the peace process with the Palestinians was progressing steadily, a peace treaty had been signed with Jordan, and diplomatic and commercial ties with other Arab states was growing.
With the prospects of a permanent Israeli-Arab peace, US arms exporters and their allies in Congress and the administration of president Bill Clinton, along with their hawkish counterparts in Israel, began emphasizing the alleged threat to Israel from Iran as justification for the more than $2 billion worth of annual US taxpayer subsidies for US arms exporters for them to send weapons to Israel.
Among these was an agreement to provide Israel with sophisticated F-15 fighter-bombers. As the peace process faltered because of increased repression and colonization by Israel and increased terrorism from radical Palestinian groups and as reformists appeared to be gaining momentum in Iran, Israel began focusing on more immediate threats closer to home, though deliveries of the F-15s continued through 2001.
Last year, however, the US unexpectedly provided Israel with an additional 30 long-range F-15s at a cost of $48 million each. The US has also recently provided Israel with 5,000 GBU-27 and GBU-28 weapons, better known as "bunker-busters", warheads guided by lasers or satellites that can penetrate up to 10 meters of earth and concrete to destroy suspected underground facilities.
Reuters reported a senior Israeli security source as noting, "This is not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker-busters could serve Israel against Iran ..." Israel also has at least five submarines armed with sea-launched missiles that could easily get within range of Iranian targets.
One scenario reportedly has Israel sending three squadrons of F15s to fly over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, currently controlled by the US Air Force, to strike at major Iranian facilities. The US would provide satellite information for the attack as well as refueling for the Israeli jets as they leave Iranian air space for their return to Israel.
The London Sunday Times has reported that the Israelis have been "coordinating with American forces" for such a scenario. That same article described Israeli commando training operations at a full-sized mockup of Iran's Natanz nuclear facility at a military facility in Israel's Negev Desert and the dispatch of clandestine Israeli Special Forces units into Iran. Meanwhile, the Israeli Ofek-6 spy satellite is now reported to have been moved to an orbit over Iranian facilities.
As far back as April 2004, Bush exchanged letters with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in which he stated, in reference to Iran, that "Israel has the right to defend itself with its own forces".
Despite the widely held tail-wagging-the-dog assumptions, history has shown that the US has frequently used Israel to advance its strategic interests in the region and beyond, such as aiding pro-Western governments and pro-Western insurgencies, keeping radical nationalist governments such as Syria in check, and engaging in covert interventions in Jordan, Lebanon, and now Kurdistan.
During the 1980s, Israel was used to funnel arms to third parties the US could not arm directly, such as the apartheid regime South Africa, the Guatemalan junta, the Nicaraguan Contras and, ironically, the Iranian mullahs. Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 - despite formal criticism - was enthusiastically supported by the administration of US president Ronald Reagan.
One Israeli analyst was quoted as saying in the Washington Post during the Iran-Contra scandal, "It's like Israel has become just another federal agency, one that's convenient to use when you want something done quietly." Nathan Shahan wrote in Yediot Ahronot that his country serves as the "Godfather's messenger", since Israel "undertakes the dirty work of the Godfather, who always tries to appear to be the owner of some large, respectable business".
Israeli satirist B Michael describes US aid to Israel as a situation where "my master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation."
Just as the ruling elites of medieval Europe used the Jews as money-lenders and tax collectors to avoid the wrath of an exploited population, the elites of the world's one remaining superpower would similarly be quite willing to use Israel to do their dirty work against Iran. That way Israel, not the US, will get the blame. (In fact, there are those who blame Israel even when the United States takes military action itself, such as the various conspiracy theories now circulating that the US invasion of Iraq was done on behalf of Israel.)
It won't work
A military strike against Iran, either directly by the US or through Israel, will not likely succeed in curbing Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, it will likely motivate the Iranian government, with enhanced popular support in reaction to foreign aggression against their country, to redouble its efforts.
Iran has deliberately spread its nuclear facilities over a wide geographical range, in at least nine major locations. Even the bunker-buster bombs may not fully penetrate a number of these facilities, assuming all the secret sites could be located.
The US-backed Israeli raid of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, according to virtually all accounts by Iraqi nuclear scientists, was at most a temporary setback for Saddam Hussein's nuclear program and ultimately led to the regime accelerating its timetable for the development of nuclear weapons until it was dismantled under the watch of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in the early 1990s. Despite this, the US Congress passed a resolution in 1991 defending Israel's action and criticizing the UN for its opposition to Israel's illegal military attack.
The only real solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program is a diplomatic one. For example, Iran has called for the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East in which all nations in the region would be required to give up their nuclear weapons and open up their programs to strict international inspections. Iran has been joined in its proposal by Syria, by US allies Jordan and Egypt, and by other Middle Eastern states. Such nuclear-weapons-free zones have already been successfully established for Latin America, the South Pacific, Antarctica, Africa and Southeast Asia.
The Bush administration and congressional leaders of both US parties have rejected such a proposal, however, insisting that the United States has the right to decide unilaterally which countries get to have nuclear weapons and which ones do not, in effect imposing a kind of nuclear apartheid.
In 1958, the US was the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East region, bringing tactical nuclear bombs on its ships and planes. Israel became a nuclear-weapons state by the early 1970s with the quiet support of the US government. To Iran's east, Pakistan and India have developed nuclear weapons as well, and the Bush administration recently signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India and has provided both countries with nuclear-capable jet fighter-bombers.
Located in such a dangerous region, then, it is not surprising that Iran might be seeking a nuclear deterrent. The US and Israel do not want Iran to have such a deterrent, however, since it would challenge the US-Israeli nuclear monopoly in that oil-rich region. In other words, what those in the Bush administration, the Israeli government and the bipartisan leadership in Congress are concerned about is protecting the hegemonic interests of the US and its junior partner Israel, not stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Such a policy does not protect the interests of the American or Israeli people, nor does it help the people of Iran and the Middle East as a whole. It remains to be seen, however, whether the American public will once again allow the Bush administration and the leadership of both parties in Congress successfully to employ exaggerated stories of potential "weapons of mass destruction" controlled by an oil-rich country on the far side of the world to justify a disastrous war.
Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy In Focus Project. He serves as a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and is the author of Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus )
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE04Ak04.html
Iran: Two can play the game of politics
By Ramzy Baroud
May 4, 2006
When the deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammad Saeedi, said recently that his country is willing to allow "snap inspections" by the International Atomic Energy Agency, he conditioned his country's concession on excluding the United Nations Security Council from any involvement in inspecting Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.
Quite properly, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran was "playing games" with the international community. Indeed, Iran is playing games - in the sense that it is repeatedly testing US resolve to find out how far the Bush administration is willing to go to escalate the conflict.
Ironically, the "games" that Rice was protesting against are called "realpolitik", where practical matters are weighed, considered and taken into account based exclusively on statistical, cost-effective analysis, and where ethics and law carry little weight. It's ironic, because no Middle Eastern government comes even close to the US and the so-called EU-3 - Germany, France and Britain - in exercising realpolitik. After all, the term Realpolitik ("practical politics") was coined by a German writer describing the attempt to balance the powers of European empires in the 19th century.
True, Iran is no empire and is unlikely to metamorphose into one. Moreover, no real balance of power is possible between Iran and its Western nemesis, considering the US military might, especially if combined with that of its "willing allies", no matter how hard Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad labors to build a fearsome aura around his nation's military force. But thanks to other factors - precisely President George W Bush's low ratings at home and his embattled military in Iraq - Tehran is finding itself in a much more comfortable position than that of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein prior to the US invasion.
Some are rightfully observing that Washington's rhetoric concerning the Iranian nuclear-enrichment matter is almost an exact replica of that employed in the lead-up to the Iraq war. First, there was the exaggeration of Iraq's military might, which was seen as a "threat" to its neighbors - most notably Israel - and US regional interests. Then came the sanctions, formidable and suffocating, meant to "contain" the Iraqi regime and "impede" Saddam's alleged incessant drive for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Then there was the muscle-flexing and awesome military deployment. Finally came the showdown: war, forced regime change, and occupation.
The Bush administration and the war enthusiasts in the US Congress - and they are many - sound equally gung-ho for another Middle East showdown, with Tehran its new target. Once again, it's not respect for the law - since Iran's nuclear enrichment does not violate its commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nor is it democracy, for Iran is much closer to having an actual democratic system than many of the US-favored, yet corrupt and authoritative, allies. Nor can it be human rights, since the US, as the effective ruler of Iraq, is the region's top human-rights violator. Rather, it's realpolitik.
Iran alone provides 5% of the world's total oil exports. At a time when access to and control of energy sources translate into political power and strategic affluence, and in an age of uncertain oil supplies and fractious markets, Iran is an enviable prize.
But realpolitik alone can hardly justify the seemingly irrational readiness to expand the battlefield for an already over-stretched US military. That's where the infamous pro-Israel, neo-conservative warmongers are most effective. The same way they managed to concoct a pro-war discourse prior to the disastrous war on Iraq - using the ever-willing mainstream media - they're working diligently to create another false doomsday scenario required for a military encroachment on Iran.
If all of this is true, then why is Iran "playing games"?
While Iran is no match for an empire, it also understands that it has great leverage through its significant influence over Iraq's Shi'ite population and its leaders. While the invasion of Iraq has disaffected most of the country's population - regardless of their sectarian affiliation - the Shi'ite leadership has yet to demand a US withdrawal, and for strategic reasons are not yet ready to join the blazing insurgency. Using its influence in Iraq, Iran could significantly alter the equation, a decision that would not likely suit long-term US interests in occupied Iraq.
But Iran has even more cards to play. When the price of a barrel of oil recently reached US$75, the Group of Eight rich nations sent out terrible warnings of an impending global economic crisis. Imagine if the price hit the $100 mark? Or even $120 according to some estimates? How will already fractious energy markets treat such a possibility, keeping in mind the already vulnerable Nigerian oil production, the less accommodating - read more independent - Venezuelan oil supplies? "Unexplained" acts of sabotage against Iraq's oil production facilities and export pipelines will likely add fuel to the fire.
All of these outcomes exclude entirely the implausible likelihood that the US military is in fact capable of leading a ground war or maintaining a long-term occupation of a country that has not been weakened by years of debilitating sanctions and is several times the size of Iraq.
As optimistic as it may sound, one can, to an extent, allude to the idea of a "balance of power". Wherever such balance can be struck, realpolitik and its associated "games" can also be found in profusion. While the US wishes to maintain the posture of the uncompromising, hard-headed party, ready to execute its many military "options" at the stroke of an executive order, Iran is calling the bluff by confidently trumpeting its various options, notwithstanding military ones.
Iran in 2006 is certainly not the Iraq of 1990-91, or 2003, the year of invasion. Some major changes to the political map of the Middle East have taken place, and serious challenges are appearing day after day to the astonishment of the beleaguered US government and its president.
Whether it still genuinely believes in military options as decisive retorts to its many global challenges, the Bush administration must learn to deal with new political realities, and it must also accept that playing politics is no longer restricted to empires alone.
Veteran Arab-American journalist Ramzy Baroud teaches mass communication at Australia's Curtin University of Technology, Malaysia Campus. He is the author of Writings on the Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London). He is also the editor-in-chief of PalestineChronicle.com.
(Copyright 2006 Ramzy Baroud)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE04Ak03.html
China gets energized over ethanol
An energy independent China will make it more difficult for Bush to control the Dragon.
In a world that runs on oil, the nation that controls the flow of oil has great strategic power. U.S. policy-makers want leverage over the economies of competitors -- Western Europe,
#msg-4798276
-Am
By Matt Young
May 4, 2006
SAO PAULO - Even knowing that Brazil heavily uses ethanol in transportation doesn't prepare one for the startling sight of roadside vendors selling beer to motorists during a recent rush hour traffic jam in Sao Paulo.
But the fact remains that many of the cerveja-swilling drivers had more ethanol in their tanks than in their bellies. The highway was full of vehicles required by the Brazilian government to operate on at least 20% ethanol, causing less pollution and likely less economic instability than their gasoline-fueled counterparts. Many cars were "flex-fuel" vehicles, which can be filled with either gasoline or ethanol at any one of 29,000 Brazilian fueling stations (flex-fuel engines are designed to run on arbitrary combinations of
gasoline and ethanol, provided at least 20% ethanol is present).
Now China appears to want a trade deal that would allow it to sample - and perhaps help ultimately reproduce - Brazil's success with alcool, as ethanol is called in Portuguese. With an economy booming at a 10% growth rate, transforming the world's most populated country from a nation of peasants into one of middle-class consumers, China's dependency on oil and gasoline is growing untenable.
With the price of oil hovering at record levels, China is looking seriously at alternative fuel sources, and Brazil's experience with ethanol is attracting serious notice in Beijing.
"I just came back from Brazil last Friday," said Dehua Liu, one of China's foremost experts on ethanol, who was appointed by the National Development and Reform Commission to investigate its potential viability as a fuel source. "I guided some people from the Ministry of Science and Technology. In July, another team including ... China ethanol producers and central government [officials] want to visit Brazil again.
"I think in the coming trip, we will travel to Brazil and maybe talk about the possibility [of buying] some ethanol from Brazil for China," said Liu, adding that it would probably be a modest amount to start with.
Until now, China's relationship with fuel-grade ethanol, particularly Brazilian ethanol, hasn't developed beyond flirtation. While China has been aware of the ethanol alternative for some time - experimentation with ethanol was under way in nine provinces by the end of last year - the country has had virtually no relationship with Brazil's ethanol industry, which has developed into an empire over the past 30 years. That has begun to change as Chinese and Brazilian ethanol experts appear to be on their way to a committed trade relationship.
"Many Chinese companies and also the central and local governments are very interested in the Brazilian experience to use ethanol and produce ethanol," said Liu, a professor in the department of chemical engineering at Beijing's Tsinghua University.
Only a couple of months earlier, Alfred Szwarc, a consultant for Unica, which represents Sao Paulo's enormous sugar-cane and alcohol industries and fights to open foreign markets to them, had been concerned that China was ignoring Brazil's offers to establish trade in fuel-grade ethanol.
"I think they were more interested in developing their domestic industry than importing [refined ethanol] from Brazil," said Szwarc, one of his country's foremost authorities on the bio-fuel. "We said, okay, we don't want to compete with your farmers or ethanol companies; however, we would like to be considered preferential partners. We had people going there and people coming here just on exploratory missions ... but as far as I know we didn't make much progress in practical terms."
Actually, Liu said, the more tepid response was coming from the Brazilians. He said he tried to make trade headway by contacting Brazilian ethanol trade officials last year on behalf of Henan Tianguan Group, one of the biggest Chinese producers of the bio-fuel. He said he got nowhere.
"They were waiting for a [price] quotation," Liu said. "Then I didn't get any response."
But whichever country was ignoring the other in the past, it appears now that the two are set for a collision course resulting in a real ethanol deal. "Whenever it's needed, Brazil could become a preferential supplier of ethanol to China if China needs to import," Szwarc said.
Emulating Brazil's ethanol success
Indeed, China will need to import ethanol - at least initially - if it plans on fueling its automotive needs with anything other than a trickle of the bio-fuel. From 2000-05, courtesy of about a dozen plants, China developed a million tons per year of ethanol production capacity, which it plans to double by 2010, Liu said. But China's gasoline consumption already is in the tens of millions of tons annually.
Liu estimated that by 2020, power generation by renewable energy will make up 10% of the total, with biomass fuels such as ethanol being only a portion of that.
"This is why China's government and many ethanol producers are interested in the Brazilian experience," Liu said.
And the Laotian experience. Already, Henan Tianguan Group has entered into a contract with the government of Laos to lease 15 square kilometers of land for the production of cassava-based ethanol, Liu said.
Ultimately, however, if China were to emulate Brazil's ethanol success liter-for-liter, it would have to develop self-sufficiency, which takes dedicated farming space.
"My city is a big producer of cana," or sugar cane, said Felipe Fischer, a 23-year-old Brazilian university student from Minas Gerais. "You need to have this space. It's not like oil where you drill the ground and the oil comes up. You need to plant, so you need enormous [land] areas. But China is a big country ..."
And it's a big country with a variety of crops other than sugar cane, several of which, including corn, cassava and rice, can be used to produce ethanol. In fact, 80% of China's current ethanol production is derived from these three crops, Liu said.
While China has some logistical advantages in producing ethanol - and other drawbacks (such as needing to feed the world's most populated sovereign state, first and foremost) - the country could be ripe to become another world bio-fuel leader, based on historical similarities between the two nations.
In 1975, Brazil imported about 85% of its oil needs and was hurt badly by that decade's oil shocks. At that time, a strong centralized military government was in power, and acted decisively to help develop the technology for vehicles to run on 100% ethanol or gasoline-ethanol blends.
"China has a central government that defines policies in a similar way [to what] we had back in 1975 in Brazil," Szwarc said. "It centralized decisions in terms of energy. China already has started an ethanol program and is benefiting from it. The situation is not exactly like Brazil, but to some extent I think [Brazil's experience] could be replicated in China."
The saying "be careful what you wish for" may apply here. With oil prices remaining sky-high, China's leadership may well decide to grow its own ethanol supply or just import the alternative fuel extensively. And while Brazil's ethanol experience has largely been a pleasant one, surprisingly, that isn't particularly the case at the moment.
"Today, the price of alcool is higher than when the flex system started," said Renato Astur, a salesman with Caoa Ford, a car dealership in Sao Paulo. "Now, the people who buy [flex-fuel cars] don't see a big advantage."
Partly, this is because ethanol has a lower energy content per liter than gasoline does. Drivers can travel about 10 kilometers per liter of gasoline in Brazil, compared with only 7 per liter of ethanol, Astur said. So the price of alcool has to be 70% of the price of gasoline, or less, for consumers to see a financial advantage; of late, it has been greater than this.
And while for the most part the environmental benefits of ethanol are clear, including the fact that it is a minimally toxic fuel, improves air quality where it is widely used, and biodegrades rapidly, Fischer notes that large-scale ethanol production can harm soil because of the need to plant the same crops again and again, depleting ground nutrients.
Fischer acknowledged, though, that ultimately people aren't motivated by the environment to invest in ethanol. It's money that makes the world's wheels go around, and convenience.
Astur said: "If tomorrow we don't have gas, we can put in alcohol. If we don't have alcohol, we can put in gas." For a man who struggled to speak English, Astur flawlessly described why Brazil's success with ethanol has become the envy of nations worldwide. China's envy, at least, is now morphing into action.
Matt Young is a Washington, DC-based freelancer and a staff writer for EyeWorld Magazine and EyeWorld Asia-Pacific Magazine.
(Copyright 2006 Matt Young. Used by permission.)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HE04Cb01.html
Peddling democracy the US way
By Chalmers Johnson
May 4, 2006
There is something absurd and inherently false about one country trying to impose its system of government or its economic institutions on another. Such an enterprise amounts to a dictionary definition of imperialism. When what's at issue is "democracy", you have the fallacy of using the end to justify the means (making war on those to be democratized), and in the process the leaders of the missionary country are invariably infected with the sins of hubris, racism and arrogance.
We Americans have long been guilty of these crimes. On the eve of our entry into World War I, William Jennings Bryan, president Woodrow Wilson's first secretary of state, described the United States as "the supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes".
If there is one historical generalization that the passage of time has validated, it is that the world could not help being better off if the American president had not believed such nonsense and if the United States had minded its own business in the war between the British and German empires. We might well have avoided Nazism, the Bolshevik Revolution, and another 30 to 40 years of the exploitation of India, Indonesia, Indochina, Algeria, Korea, the Philippines, Malaya and virtually all of Africa by European, American and Japanese imperialists.
We Americans have never outgrown the narcissistic notion that the rest of the world wants (or should want) to emulate us. In Iraq, bringing democracy became the default excuse for our warmongers - it would be perfectly plausible to call them "crusaders", if Osama bin Laden had not already appropriated the term - once the George W Bush lies about Iraq's alleged nuclear, chemical and biological threats and its support for al-Qaeda melted away.
The president and his neo-con supporters have prattled on endlessly about how "the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East", but the reality is much closer to what Noam Chomsky dubbed "deterring democracy" in a notable 1992 book of that name. We have done everything in our power to see that the Iraqis did not get a "free and fair election", one in which the Shi'ite majority could come to power and ally Iraq with Iran. As Noah Feldman, the Coalition Provisional Authority's law advisor, put it in November 2003, "If you move too fast the wrong people could get elected".
In the election of January 30, 2005, the US military tried to engineer the outcome it wanted (Operation Founding Fathers), but the Shi'ites won anyway. Nearly a year later in the December 15 elections for the national assembly, the Shi'ites won again, but Sunni, Kurdish and American pressure has delayed the formation of a government to this moment. After a compromise candidate for prime minister was finally selected, two of the most ominous condottiere of the Bush administration, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, flew into Baghdad to tell him what he had to do for "democracy" - leaving the unmistakable impression that the new prime minister is a puppet of the United States.
Hold the economic advice
After Latin America, East Asia is the area of the world longest under America's imperialist tutelage. If you want to know something about the US record in exporting its economic and political institutions, it's a good place to look. But first, some definitions.
The political philosopher Hannah Arendt once argued that democracy is such an abused concept we should dismiss as a charlatan anyone who uses it in serious discourse without first clarifying what he or she means by it. Therefore, let me indicate what I mean by democracy. First, the acceptance within a society of the principle that public opinion matters. If it doesn't, as for example in Joseph Stalin's Russia, or present-day Saudi Arabia, or the Japanese prefecture of Okinawa under American military domination, then it hardly matters what rituals of American democracy, such as elections, may be practiced.
Second, there must be some internal balance of power or separation of powers, so that it is impossible for an individual leader to become a dictator. If power is concentrated in a single position and its occupant claims to be beyond legal restraints, as is true today with our president, then democracy becomes attenuated or only pro forma. In particular, I look for the existence and practice of administrative law - in other words, an independent, constitutional court with powers to declare null and void laws that contravene democratic safeguards.
Third, there must be some agreed-upon procedure for getting rid of unsatisfactory leaders. Periodic elections, parliamentary votes of no confidence, term limits and impeachment are various well-known ways to do this, but the emphasis should be on shared institutions.
With that in mind, let's consider the export of the American economic, and then democratic "model" to Asia. The countries stretching from Japan to Indonesia, with the exception of the former American colony of the Philippines, make up one of the richest regions on earth today. They include the second most productive country in the world, Japan, with a per capita income well in excess of that of the United States, as well as the world's fastest growing large economy, China's, which has been expanding at a rate of more than 9.5% per annum for the past two decades. These countries achieved their economic well-being by ignoring virtually every item of wisdom preached in American economics departments and business schools or propounded by various American administrations.
Japan established the regional model for East Asia. In no case did the other high-growth Asian economies follow Japan's path precisely, but they have all been inspired by the overarching characteristic of the Japanese economic system - namely, the combining of the private ownership of property as a genuine right, defensible in law and inheritable, with state control of economic goals, markets and outcomes.
I am referring to what the Japanese call "industrial policy" (sangyo seisaku). In American economic theory (if not in practice), industrial policy is anathema. It contradicts the idea of an unconstrained market guided by laissez faire. Nonetheless, the American military-industrial complex and our elaborate system of "military Keynesianism" rely on a Pentagon-run industrial policy - even as American theory denies that either the military-industrial complex or economic dependence on arms manufacturing are significant factors in our economic life. We continue to underestimate the high-growth economies of East Asia because of the power of our ideological blinders.
One particular form of American economic influence did greatly affect East Asian economic practice - namely, protectionism and the control of competition through high tariffs and other forms of state discrimination against foreign imports. This was the primary economic policy of the United States from its founding until 1940. Without it, American economic wealth of the sort to which we have become accustomed would have been inconceivable. The East Asian countries have emulated the US in this respect. They are interested in what the US does, not what it preaches. That is one of the ways they all got rich. China is today pursuing a variant of the basic Japanese development strategy, even though it does not, of course, acknowledge this.
Marketing democracy
The gap between preaching and self-deception in the way we promote democracy abroad is even greater than in selling our economic ideology. Our record is one of continuous (sometimes unintended) failure, although most establishment pundits try to camouflage this fact.
The Federation of American Scientists has compiled a list of more than 201 overseas military operations from the end of World War II until September 11, 2001, in which we were involved and normally struck the first blow. (The list is reprinted by Gore Vidal in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated, p 22-41.) The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not included. In no instance did democratic governments come about as a direct result of any of these military activities.
The United States holds the unenviable record of having helped install and then supported such dictators as the Shah of Iran, General Suharto in Indonesia, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Sese Seko Mobutu in Congo-Zaire, not to mention a series of American-backed militarists in Vietnam and Cambodia until we were finally expelled from Indochina. In addition, we ran among the most extensive international terrorist operations in history against Cuba and Nicaragua because their struggles for national independence produced outcomes the US did not like.
On the other hand, democracy did develop in some important cases as a result of opposition to our interference - for example, after the collapse of the Central Intelligence Agency-installed Greek colonels in 1974; in both Portugal in 1974 and Spain in 1975 after the end of the US-supported fascist dictatorships; after the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines in 1986; following the ouster of General Chun Doo-hwan in South Korea in 1987; and following the ending of 38 years of martial law on the island of Taiwan in the same year.
One might well ask, however: what about the case of Japan? Bush has repeatedly cited our allegedly successful installation of democracy there after World War II as evidence of our skill in this kind of activity. What this experience proved, he contended, was that we would have little difficulty implanting democracy in Iraq. As it happens though, General Douglas MacArthur, who headed the American occupation of defeated Japan from 1945 to 1951, was himself essentially a dictator, primarily concerned with blocking genuine democracy from below in favor of hand-picked puppets and collaborators from the pre-war Japanese establishment.
When a country loses a war as crushingly as Japan did the war in the Pacific, it can expect a domestic revolution against its wartime leaders. In accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, which Japan accepted in surrendering, the State Department instructed MacArthur not to stand in the way of a popular revolution, but when it began to materialize he did so anyway.
He chose to keep Hirohito, the wartime emperor, on the throne (where he remained until his death in 1989) and helped bring officials from the industrial and militarist classes that ruled wartime Japan back to power. Except for a few months in 1993 and 1994, those conservatives and their successors have ruled Japan continuously since 1949. Japan and China are today among the longest-lived single-party regimes on earth, both parties - the nucleus of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Chinese Communist Party - having come to power in the same year.
Equally important in the Japanese case, MacArthur's headquarters actually wrote the quite democratic constitution of 1947 and bestowed it on the Japanese people under circumstances in which they had no alternative but to accept it. In her 1963 book On Revolution, Hannah Arendt stresses "the enormous difference in power and authority between a constitution imposed by a government upon a people and the constitution by which a people constitutes its own government." She notes that, in post-World War I Europe, virtually every case of an imposed constitution led to dictatorship or to a lack of power, authority and stability.
Although public opinion certainly matters in Japan, its democratic institutions have never been fully tested. The Japanese public knows that its constitution was bestowed by its conqueror, not generated from below by popular action. Japan's stability depends greatly on the ubiquitous presence of the United States, which supplies the national defense - and so, implicitly, the fairly evenly distributed wealth - that gives the public a stake in the regime. But the Japanese people, as well as those of the rest of East Asia, remain fearful of Japan's ever again being on its own in the world.
While more benign than the norm, Japan's government is typical of the US record abroad in one major respect. Successive American administrations have consistently favored oligarchies that stand in the way of broad popular aspirations - or movements toward nationalist independence from American control.
In Asia, in the post-World War II period, we pursued such anti-democratic policies in South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Indochina (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam), and Japan. In Japan, in order to prevent the Socialist Party from coming to power through the polls, which seemed likely during the 1950s, we secretly supplied funds to the representatives of the old order in the Liberal Democratic Party.
We helped bring wartime minister of munitions Nobusuke Kishi to power as prime minister in 1957; split the Socialist Party by promoting and financing a rival Democratic Socialist Party; and, in 1960, backed the conservatives in a period of vast popular demonstrations against the renewal of the Japanese-American Security Treaty. Rather than developing as an independent democracy, Japan became a docile Cold War satellite of the United States - and one with an extremely inflexible political system at that.
The Korean case
In South Korea, the United States resorted to far sterner measures. From the outset, we favored those who had collaborated with Japan, whereas North Korea built its regime on the foundation of former guerrilla fighters against Japanese rule. During the 1950s, we backed the aged exile Syngman Rhee as our puppet dictator. (He had actually been a student of Woodrow Wilson's at Princeton early in the century.) When, in 1960, a student movement overthrew Rhee's corrupt regime and attempted to introduce democracy, we instead supported the seizure of power by General Park Chung-hee.
Educated at the Japanese military academy in Manchuria during the colonial period, Park had been an officer in the Japanese army of occupation until 1945. He ruled Korea from 1961 until October 16, 1979, when the chief of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency shot him to death over dinner. The South Korean public believed that the KCIA chief, known to be "close" to the Americans, had assassinated Park on US orders because he was attempting to develop a nuclear-weapons program the US opposed. (Does this sound familiar?) After Park's death, Major General Chun Doo-hwan seized power and instituted yet another military dictatorship that lasted until 1987.
In 1980, a year after the Park assassination, Chun smashed a popular movement for democracy that broke out in the southwestern city of Kwangju and among students in Seoul. Backing Chun's policies, the US ambassador argued that "firm anti-riot measures were necessary". The American military then released to Chun's control South Korean troops assigned to the United Nations command to defend the country against a North Korean attack, and he used them to crush the movement in Kwangju. Thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators were killed. In 1981, Chun would be the first foreign visitor welcomed to the White House by the newly elected Ronald Reagan.
After more than 30 post-war years, democracy finally began to come to South Korea in 1987 via a popular revolution from below. Chun made a strategic mistake by winning the right to hold the Olympic Games in Seoul in 1988. In the lead-up to the games, students from the many universities in Seoul, now openly backed by an increasingly prosperous middle-class, began to protest American-backed military rule. Chun would normally have used his army to arrest, imprison and probably shoot such demonstrators as he had done in Kwangju seven years earlier, but he was held back by the knowledge that, if he did so, the International Olympic Committee would move the games to some other country.
In order to avoid such a national humiliation, Chun turned over power to his co-conspirator of 1979-80, General Roh Tae-woo. To allow the Olympics to go ahead, Roh instituted a measure of democratic reform, which led in 1993 to the holding of national elections and the victory of a civilian president, Kim Young-sam.
In December 1995, in one of the clearest signs of South Korea's maturing democracy, the government arrested Chun and Roh and charged them with having shaken down South Korean big business for bribes - Chun allegedly took US$1.2 billion and Roh $630 million. Kim then made a very popular decision, letting them be indicted for their military seizure of power in 1979 and for the Kwangju massacre as well.
In August 1996, a South Korean court found both Chun and Roh guilty of sedition. Chun was sentenced to death and Roh to 22-and-a-half years in prison. In April 1997, the Korean Supreme Court upheld slightly less severe sentences, something that would have been simply unimaginable for the pro forma Japanese Supreme Court. In December 1997, after peace activist Kim Dae-jung was elected president, he pardoned them both despite the fact that Chun had repeatedly tried to have Kim killed.
The United States was always deeply involved in these events. In 1989, when the Korean National Assembly sought to investigate what happened at Kwangju on its own, the US government refused to cooperate and prohibited the former American ambassador to Seoul and the former general in command of US Forces Korea from testifying. The American media avoided reporting on these events (while focusing on the suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing in June 1989), and most Americans knew next to nothing about them. This coverup of the costs of military rule and the suppression of democracy in South Korea, in turn, has contributed to the present growing hostility of South Koreans toward the United States.
Unlike American-installed or supported "democracies" elsewhere, South Korea has developed into a genuine democracy. Public opinion is a vital force in the society. A separation of powers has been institutionalized and is honored. Electoral competition for all political offices is intense, with high levels of participation by voters. These achievements came from below, from the South Korean people themselves, who liberated their country from American-backed military dictatorship.
Perhaps most important, the Korean National Assembly - the parliament - is a genuine forum for democratic debate. I have visited it often and find the contrast with the scripted and empty procedures encountered in the Japanese Diet or the Chinese National People's Congress striking indeed. Perhaps its only rival in terms of democratic vitality in East Asia is the Taiwanese Legislative Yuan. On some occasions, the Korean National Assembly is rowdy; fist fights are not uncommon. It is, however, a true school of democracy, one that came into being despite the resistance of the United States.
The democracy peddlers
Given this history, why should we be surprised that in Baghdad, such figures as former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority L Paul Bremer, former ambassador John Negroponte and current Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, as well as a continuously changing cohort of American major-generals fresh from power-point lectures at the American Enterprise Institute, should have produced chaos and probable civil war? None of them has any qualifications at all for trying to "introduce democracy" or American-style capitalism in a highly nationalistic Muslim nation, and even if they did, they could not escape the onus of having terrorized the country through the use of unrestricted military force.
Bremer is a former assistant and employee of former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig. Negroponte was American ambassador to Honduras, 1981-85, when it had the world's largest Central Intelligence Agency station and actively participated in the dirty war to suppress Nicaraguan democracy.
Khalilzad, the most prominent official of Afghan ancestry in the Bush administration, is a member of the Project for a New American Century, the neo-con pressure group that lobbied for a war of aggression against Iraq. The role of the American military in our war there has been an unmitigated disaster on every front, including the deployment of undisciplined, brutal troops at places such as the Abu Ghraib prison.
All the United States has achieved is to guarantee that Iraqis will hate it for years to come. The situation in Iraq today is worse than it was in Japan or Korea and comparable to the US tenure in Vietnam. Perhaps it is worth reconsidering what exactly the US is so intent on exporting to the world.
Chalmers Johnson is, most recently, the author of The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, as well as of MITI and the Japanese Miracle (1982) and Japan: Who Governs? (1995) among other works. This piece originated as "remarks" presented at the East Asia panel of a workshop on "Transplanting Institutions" sponsored by the Department of Sociology of the University of California, San Diego, held on April 21. The chairman of the workshop was Professor Richard Madsen.
(Copyright 2006 Chalmers Johnson)
(Used by permission Tomdispatch )
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HE04Aa01.html
Energy proves a volatile weapon
Updated 5/2/2006 10:49 PM
By Jeffrey Stinson, USA TODAY
LONDON — Bolivia's military seizure of natural gas fields and oil refineries helped drive the price of oil to a near-record Tuesday. The action fed worries that more nations will use energy resources as political weapons at a time of tight supplies and soaring prices.
Evo Morales, Bolivia's leftist president, sent soldiers to gas fields and refineries Monday. He declared the facilities nationalized and threatened to evict foreign energy companies unless they agreed to new gas and oil contracts that would give the Bolivian government control over production and a larger share of profits.
Oil prices in New York rose to $74.61 on Tuesday, up 91 cents from Monday. The record, not adjusted for inflation, is $75.17, set April 12. Natural gas and heating oil prices also rose.
"Ten years ago, (Bolivia) wouldn't have created a ripple because there was enough world supply," says Phil Flynn, vice president and energy analyst with Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. "But now we're in a sellers' market. What we're seeing now is any nation with any supply is trying to cash in. It's a very dangerous trend."
The Bolivian move follows actions by:
•Venezuela. President Hugo Chavez, an anti-American populist, is demanding dramatic increases in royalties and taxes paid by foreign energy producers in his country. He has also threatened to seize some of those companies' assets.
At the same time, Chavez has tried to counter U.S. influence in Latin America and the Caribbean by engaging in "oil diplomacy" — offering to supply oil to Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and 12 other countries at below-market prices.
•Ecuador. Last month, it passed a law that would force oil companies to turn over at least half their profits on oil sold above a specified price.
•Russia. President Vladimir Putin has tightened government control over the country's gas monopoly, Gazprom, and oil producer Rosneft. Earlier this year, Gazprom cut off supply to Ukraine in a price dispute. Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller has suggested that Gazprom will look for new customers if its expansion plans in Europe are blocked by countries worried that Gazprom can dictate prices.
Russia has sought to use its gas monopoly and large oil reserves as a political tool by promising lower prices to certain countries or by showing that supplies can be cut off. "Putin's idea of energy security is security for Russia," says Frank Verrastro, director of the energy program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "He's learned that he can use (Gazprom) for his own political purposes."
Says Flynn, "Power has gone to the heads of these countries."
Meanwhile, Iran, the world's No. 4 oil producer, is engaged in diplomatic showdown over its nuclear program.
Iranian officials have sent conflicting messages about whether United Nations sanctions would prompt them to withhold oil from thirsty markets. On Tuesday, Deputy Oil Minister M.H. Nejad Hosseinian predicted oil prices of $100 a barrel this winter.
"If there was 4 billion barrels extra supply in the world, do you think Iran would be pushing forward with its nuclear program?" Flynn says.
Verrastro says it is too soon to know whether Morales has political aims like Chavez of Venezuela or merely wants more royalties from the gas and oil companies in Bolivia. "If he's taking lessons from Chavez, it's worrisome," he says.
Gwyn Prins, a professor at New York's Columbia University who is teaching here at the London School of Economics, warns that countries that nationalize oil and gas resources and use energy as a political tool risk driving prices too high.
"You can kill the goose that lays the golden egg," he says. "The world will find alternatives."
France, Italy, Britain and other countries in Western Europe already have reacted to Russia's implied gas threat by announcing new energy initiatives, as well as looking at relying more on nuclear energy and other alternative sources.
Prins says President Bush has advocated weaning the USA from foreign oil because of the danger of being held hostage for energy by nations that can pose a threat.
TOP PRODUCERS
Top natural gas producers
1. Russia
2. USA
3. Canada
4. United Kingdom
5. Indonesia
42. Bolivia
Top oil producers
1. Saudi Arabia
2. Russia
3. USA
4. Iran
5. China
8. Venezuela
Source: CIA World Factbook
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-02-bolivia-gas_x
US does not consider Taliban terrorists
The Taliban are not terrorists and bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI in conjunction with 9/11, he is merely a suspect.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
-Am
posted May 2, 2006 at 12:00 p.m.
Even as the Taliban attacks US, Canadian, and British forces, organization is left off terrorist list in 'political' decision.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
When the US State Department issued its annual Country Reports on Terrorism last Friday, it listed numerous state-sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, and groups it considers foreign terrorist organizations, like Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Hizbullah. Conspiciously absent from the lists, however, was the Taliban.
In an article entitled "Terrorism's Dubious 'A' List," the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) reports that the religious extremist organization has never been listed as a terrorist group by the US, Britain, the EU, Canada, Australia, or any of the coalition partners, despite the fact that during its six year rule in Afghanistan, it provided save haven for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and currently is staging terrorist attacks against coalition forces and waging a national campaign of intimidation and fear.
The new report did designate the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region as a terrorist "haven," however.
In a CFR Q&A on the Taliban, Chistopher Langdon, a defense expert at the Institute for International Strategic Studies, describes the group as "an insurgent organization that will periodically use terrorism to carry out its operations."
According to Kathy Gannon, the former Associated Press bureau chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan, these [Taliban] have at times aligned themselves with Al Qaeda fighters and with mujahadeen (holy warriors) led by the anti-government warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. During the Soviet occupation, Hekmatyar received more support from US and Pakistani agents than any other fighter. "The Afghan Taliban is better organized today than it was in 2001," says Gannon, "they have more recruits [and they] have been able to take advantage of the lawlessness, the criminal gangs, and the corruption in the government."
Langton says Taliban forces "have largely recovered from their initial defeat," and are proving a savvy enemy for coalition forces. Taliban fighters have become encouraged by the domestic opposition some NATO nations face as they deploy in former Taliban strongholds previously patrolled by US forces, he says. "They are very adept at reading these signals and seeing where the weaknesses lie."
Some experts, like Mr. Langdon, say the Taliban aren't terrorists. "You could never say that the Taliban themselves espoused the wholesale use of terror," Langton says. But the CFR article points out that many others, like Amin Tarzi, the Afghanistan analyst for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, say that if the activities that the Taliban are carrying out were happening in any other country, they would be called terrorism.
He says a political motive is behind this double standard. In order to gain a broad base of support, Afghan President Karzai has reached out to Pashtuns, many of whom were members of the Taliban. "You can't call them 'terrorists' and at the same time reconcile with them," Tarzi says. In an April 2003 speech, Karzai noted a distinction between "the ordinary Taliban who are real and honest sons of this country [and those] who still use the Taliban cover to disturb peace and security in the country." Steven Simon, CFR's Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, says Tarzi's explanation is plausible, "The designation of 'Foreign Terrorist Organization' has always been highly political," he says.
Former National Public Radio reporter Sarah Chayes, who has been living and working in Afghanistan since 2002, wrote in the March/April edition of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that one only needs to look at how the traditional Afghan values of hospitality have changed to see how effective the Taliban have been in their campaign of intimidation and terror. In previous years, Ms. Chayes could freely visit local villages to buy produce and goods from local farmers for the organizations she helps run. But now she must ask them to come to her office because if she is seen talking to them publicly, they will probably be killed.
In reality, the four years since the Taliban's demise have been characterized by a steady erosion of security in distinct phases. The most recent phase, signaled by the rebuffs I received from the farmers, may represent a point of no return. These rebuffs are the consequence of a highly effective intimidation campaign that has been carried out in tightening circles around Kandahar by, for lack of a better term, resurgent Taliban. Handbills appear in village mosques threatening anyone who dares collaborate with foreigners or the Afghan government. Homes receive armed visitors, demanding provisions or other assistance. One of my farmer friends, afraid even to pronounce their name, refers to them as "fairies who come at night."
Chayes also writes that the US military obsession with Al Qaeda and "an Osama bin Laden-style, ideological confrontation" have acted like a set of blinders to the real problem with the Taliban, and that this has greatly disillusioned the average Afghan.
The steadily worsening situation in southern Afghanistan is not the work of some ineffable Al Qaeda nebula. It is the result of the real depredations of the corrupt and predatory government officials whom the United States ushered into power in 2001, supposedly to help fight Al Qaeda, and has assiduously maintained in power since, along with an "insurgency" manufactured whole cloth across the border in Pakistan – a US ally. The evidence of this connection is abundant: Taliban leaders strut openly around Quetta, Pakistan, where they are provided with offices and government-issued weapons authorization cards; Pakistani army officers are detailed to Taliban training camps; and Pakistani border guards constantly wave self-proclaimed Taliban through checkpoints into Afghanistan.
Chayes says the result is that people in Kandahar, where she lives, "have reached an astonishing conclusion: The United States must be in league with the Taliban ... In other words, in a stunning irony, much of this city, the Taliban's former stronghold, is disgusted with the Americans not because of their Western culture, but because of their apparent complicity with Islamist extremists."
The Globe and Mail of Toronto reported Tuesday how Afghanistan's new parliament is having troubles learning to function correctly, but it is still moving ahead. The new parliament is "odd mixture of Muslim fundamentalists, former Taliban commanders, ex-Communist politicians, Western-educated women and even a former United Airlines pilot." The parliament is a baby, its members say, but they are hoping to "build and institution that lasts" longer than they do.
Finally, the Associated Press reports that, in a study being released Tuesday, Afghanistan and Iraq are listed as two of the world's ten most vulnerable states. Foreign Policy magazine, in its second annual "failed states index," ranked Sudan as the country under the most severe stress. The magazine goes on to say that the situation in Iraq (No. 4) and Afghanistan (No. 10) has deteriorated since 2005, the first year the survey was taken.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0502/dailyUpdate.html
Hamas heading to endorse two state solution to break western siege…
2006-05-02 00:00:00 : Palestine > Politics
Al Hayat, a privately owned newspaper, reported in its May 2 issue about the latest developments in Palestinian politics. The newspaper wrote: "Official sources in the Hamas movement revealed the existence of discussions within the movement's leadership about endorsing the Arab initiative which includes an implied recognition of Israel. A highly placed official in the movement told Al Hayat that the discussions have reached an advanced stage and that the intentions are to use this initiative as a means to break the western siege.
"But the official clarified that the endorsement of the initiative will be in the name of the government and not the movement and that it will be conditional upon Israel's acceptance of the two state principal. The spokesman for the government Doctor Ghazi Hamad refused to confirm or deny the news and only commented that 'it was not accurate'. He added: 'There is no one among us who is against the peaceful solution but we want a solution that is based on the right to establish an independent Palestinian state and the right of return for the Palestinian refugees and freedom for the prisoners'. The highly ranked Hamas official postulated that the Arab initiative might be endorsed in the national dialogue conference in the 15th of the current month."
The newspaper continued: "Disagreements had arisen in recent days between the Hamas and Fatah movements about the proposed national dialogue conference which ended with an agreement between the representative of the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas… and the representative of the Hamas movement…to postpone the conference which was set for the 2nd of May to the 15th…" - Al Hayat, United Kingdom
http://www.mideastwire.com/topstory.php?id=7558
Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of CFR, says it all.
Good find!
Iran Threatens Israel if U.S. Attacks
Israel has previously threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike and is doing so again in the following text.(#msg-10731126) Nukes being the only means to reach Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. Iran is saying they will strike Israel as a retaliatory target in this latest barrage.
-Am
Iran Threatens Israel if U.S. Attacks
Updated 2:01 PM ET May 2, 2006
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A top Revolutionary Guards commander said Tuesday that Israel would be Iran's first retaliatory target if attacked by the United States.
Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani also said Israel was not prepared to go war against Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly spoken out against Israel and threatened to wipe it "off the map."
"We have announced that whenever America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel," the semiofficial Iranian Student News Agency quoted Dehghani as saying.
"We will definitely resist ... U.S. B-52 (bombers)."
President Bush has said a military option remained on the table if Iran did not agree to international demands for it to stop enriching uranium. However, he also has said Washington wanted to solve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program through diplomacy.
Israeli elder statesman Shimon Peres called on Iran to scrap its nuclear program and warned: "Remember that Israel is exceptionally strong and knows how to defend itself."
Dehghani, who served as a spokesman during large-scale Revolutionary Guards war games last month, said the exercises were held ahead of schedule to send a message to the United States and its allies over Tehran's nuclear activities.
"We were due to organize the maneuvers in May but due to timing conditions and issues related to (our) nuclear energy and upon the recommendation of Mr. (Ali) Larijani (Iran's top nuclear negotiator), it was held 40 days sooner than planned," he said.
Friday marked the deadline set by the U.N. Security Council for Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment program. Council members are now considering next steps, which could include punishing sanctions, although Russia and China oppose that step.
Israel's military chief said in comments published Tuesday that if Iran does obtain nuclear capability, it will constitute a threat to Israel's existence. When asked if the world can, militarily, stop Iran's nuclear program, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz told the Maariv newspaper: "The answer is yes."
Asked whether Israel would be involved in such a military operation, Halutz said, "We are part of the world."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=060502&cat=news&st=newsd8hbptbg2&src=....