Sections on today's Signs Page:
Signs Editorials
Editorial: What the Pentagon Video Should Have Shown
Signs of the Times
May 18, 2006
Thanks to our friends at Onnouscachetout, we can finally present you with the video the Pentagon should have released... if a Boeing 757 had really hit the Pentagon.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Iran: Russia, China drift toward US
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
May 19, 2006
Asia Times
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned that the current US-led push for United Nations sanctions against Iran could turn out to be a "pretext for war", and yet both Russia and China, long thought to be opponents of any sanctions, are now inching toward the US strategy with regard to Iran.
It is China that has taken the lead, by putting its weight behind the yet-to-be-submitted set of European "conditional incentives" for Iran to give up its uranium-enrichment program, which has had the effect of forcing Moscow to follow suit.
There is, after all, a diplomatic minuet involved here, with Beijing and Moscow carefully crafting every step according to the ebbs and flows of a fluid crisis that features multiple players with distinct, shared, parallel and opposing interests.
The news of China's slow accommodation with the US-EU plan was broken by US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick in his May 10 congressional testimony. He assured members that China "has agreed in principle" to play along. This was followed by a similar report by the Los Angeles Times that Tang Jiaxuan, a leading member of the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee, has called for an Iranian moratorium on all enrichment-related activities.
As expected, this has had the desired effect, from the US point of view, of mollifying Russia, which has been seething at the recent US criticisms of its human-rights and energy policies. Thus at a press conference with his Chinese counterpart, Li Zhaoxing, Lavrov echoed China's backing of the European Union proposal by stating, "We will suggest this approach and will expect Iran to respond to it in a constructive way. We are firmly convinced that this is the only way to settle the situation."
The pertinent question, of course, is what will Moscow and Beijing do once the EU proposal is formally submitted and rejected by Iran, in light of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's preemptive "don't give a damn" reaction? Are they willing to set aside their opposition to UN sanctions? Another question is: How far are China and Russia willing to go to sacrifice their relations with Iran in order to maintain healthy relations with the United States?
The latter question touches on, among other things, the future of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Unfortunately, contrary to the earlier official announcements, particularly by China's officials, the SCO is now on the verge of changing its mind about expanding its membership and accepting Iran, as well as Pakistan and India, as new members.
"There are no plans to fundamentally enlarge the SCO. I don't think the number of SCO members will greatly increase in the foreseeable future," Lavrov said at a press conference on Tuesday, exactly one month prior to the SCO summit in Shanghai, in reaction to the news that the US government has asked Russia for "explanation" about the news that Ahmadinejad plans to attend the June summit.
In turn, the Iranian press has reacted negatively to Russia's turnabout on Iran's membership in the SCO and has questioned the wisdom of Ahmadinejad's participation in the absence of full membership. Iran has only been given observer status so far. Without doubt, should Moscow keep firm on its present line against Iran's inclusion in SCO, this will be interpreted as a major diplomatic setback for Iran and will negatively influence the course of Iran-Russian relations.
Interestingly, precisely at a time when the Russian and Chinese foreign ministers were holding a joint press conference and implicitly, if not explicitly, criticizing Iran's defiant stance, their respective ambassadors in Tehran were meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, praising Iran's diplomacy and willingness to engage in dialogue with the US on the nuclear issue. Both Russia and China have a history of making deals over Iran with Washington, and naturally one wonders whether we are now witnessing another sad spectacle of trading principles for quid pro quos from Uncle Sam by both countries.
EU's old proposal sold as new
Whereas a top US official has admitted that the EU's "new" package is actually a "dusting off" of the pre-existing proposals "on the table", the Western media have uniformly praised the "new European package of incentives", including the offer of a modern light-water reactor.
In fact, while the final package has yet to be unveiled, and there are reports of serious US misgivings about any EU pledge of nuclear assistance to Iran, awaiting the verdict of the upcoming London meeting of the Permanent Five plus Germany, it is worth remembering that in November 2004, the EU-3 (Germany, France and Britain) signed an agreement in Paris with Iran that called for "cooperation" on "nuclear issues".
The Paris Agreement is dead, long live the Paris Agreement. It stated: "The E3/EU recognize Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty exercised in conformity with its obligations under the treaty, without discrimination." The agreement called for Iran's suspension of its enrichment-related activities on a temporary basis. There is in fact no ambiguity about this aspect of the document that reads: "The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence-building measure and not a legal obligation."
By all indications, Iran faithfully implemented the terms of the Paris Agreement until January, when it resumed enrichment activities after the EU-3/EU's radical departure from their own agreement by calling for a permanent suspension, after the United States' blunt criticisms of the Paris Agreement. Turning history upside down, Western media pundits have now manufactured a consent about Iran's blameworthy behavior breaking the Paris Agreement, when in reality it was the surrogate Europe that caved in to US pressure and disrespected its own pledge to Iran - to respect Iran's nuclear rights "without discrimination".
Consequently, the EU is about to hurl an old package under new wraps, deemed as "generous" by the German negotiator, Michael Schaffer, in his recent communication to this author, without an iota of guilty conscience or moral qualm about its own pattern of misbehavior toward Iran. The irony that the EU has turned a complete blind eye to Brazil's simultaneous declaration of an ambitious new plan to accelerate its nuclear-fuel program, simply because the world "trusts Brazil" (but don't tell that to Brazil's neighbors!), has simply escaped the attention of Western media.
Jealous of Moscow's monopoly of Iran's nuclear market, the EU's latest proposal is partially aimed at preempting the recent Russian announcement of plans to build two new nuclear reactors in Iran, by potentially luring Iran away from such a deal and toward the more technologically advanced European nuclear market. Russian policymakers would indeed be remiss to overlook the purely self-interest elements of the latest European proposal.
Another clue to the EU's perceived hypocrisy, from Iran's point of view, is the recent joint EU/GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) statement expressing concerns about Iran's nuclear program, coinciding with new, and more energetic, efforts by the GCC with respect to the disputed islands of Abu Mussa, Little Tunb and Big Tunb. The EU's hidden tactic is, in other words, to lend support to the GCC over these Iran-controlled islands, to put additional pressure on the nuclear front.
The SCO historic bloc
Surely the SCO would be hobbled by new headaches caused by a significant expansion of membership that would, in turn, add to its qualitative weight and geopolitical significance. But to assume that the negative side-effects will necessarily outweigh the advantages is to succumb to the seeds of doubt planted by the West, which is wary of the emergence of a formidable anti-North Atlantic Treaty Organization counterweight via the SCO. The SCO, now and in the prospective future, is not so much an anti-NATO coalition as a potential countervailing bloc to the United States' interventionist policies. But surely the time is ripe to take the SCO to the next level.
Certainly, this is not to fall into the naive analyses of an impending "new Cold War" favored by certain Russian politicians, given the complexities of the post-Cold War world order. Taking account of these complexities, including a certain lack of fit between the geo-economic and geopolitical considerations, China and Russia would be well advised to eschew their present drift against the SCO's expansion, which will only appease the US.
One potential advantage of Iran's membership in the SCO is that it would allow China and Russia to influence more positively Iran's foreign policy and, by implication, the Muslim World. The SCO's chief concerns about terrorism can clearly benefit from Iran's inclusion, as this would translate into greater regional cooperation against Islamist extremism in, among others, Russia's and China's Muslim-led regions as well as the entire Central Asia-Caspian basin.
The SCO calls for "force sharing", and this would also translate into enhanced military cooperation among the member states, which, if inclusive of Iran, would have net benefit vis-a-vis the common Russia-China concerns about the undue expansion of NATO in the East.
Concerning the latter, there is talk of a NATO "encirclement of Iran" in Washington these days, championed by certain leading Republican senators, such as Senator John Warner, who have praised NATO's decision to more than double its forces in Afghanistan and to expand ties with some of Iran's other neighbors such as Azerbaijan. This must resonate with Moscow, which has similarly complained of NATO expansion and "encirclement" post-September 11, 2001.
A point of no return
Both China and Russia are on record opposing the Security Council's recourse to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter declaring Iran a threat to peace, in which case the US would be justified, from the prism of international law, in taking unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. And yet instead of exploring the perfectly viable options of full-scope international monitoring of Iran's limited, contained enrichment program, Russian and Chinese policymakers are slowly but surely adjusting themselves to precisely such a scenario, whose net effect would be detrimental to their own geopolitical vested interests, particularly if war breaks out.
Already, Washington is awash with self-justifying arguments for war against Iran, the main one being that Iran is on the verge of reaching a "point of no return" in terms of nuclear know-how and technology. The other argument is that this situation resembles the pre-World War II period of appeasement, as if 2006 were 1938 again.
Indeed, it is fascinating how many prominent journalists, academics, and present and/or former officials in the US have lent their penmanship to the "never again" 1938 scenario. The long list includes the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, and former secretary of state Henry Kissinger. To his credit, Kissinger has, however, nuanced this alarmist view with a prudent call for US-inclusive multilateral talks with Iran.
Unfortunately, in the present debates in the US on Iran, the upper hand belongs to those nay-sayers who have persuaded the administration of President George W Bush to turn down Ahmadinejad's call for direct talks, arguing that the "UN is the best forum". Since when have the same neo-conservatives, who have carved out an inglorious history for themselves for hammering the UN for six consecutive years, become such big fans of the UN?
John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, has recently lashed out at International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei for making political statements as the head of only a "technical organization". ElBaradei's latest guilt is that he has played down the news of certain reports by IAEA inspectors regarding traces of highly enriched uranium at a razed military site in Iran.
US nuclear experts have, however, wasted little time putting the right spin on this news, by claiming that this "casts serious doubt" on Iran's declarations on that particular site and the broader issue of alleged military involvement in Iran's civil nuclear program. According to IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming, ElBaradei had been misquoted. His main point had been that the analysis of environmental sampling at Lavizan was still ongoing and that it was too early to reach a definitive conclusion. Iran has already flatly rejected Western media's report on this issue as false.
As the heavyweights gear up for the next round, portending more serious initiatives against Iran at the Security Council, both China and Russia need seriously to re-examine the present drift of their policy, which will only strengthen the United States' "unipolar moment" and weaken their hoped-for multilateralist breakout. The stakes in the Iranian nuclear crisis transcend Iran.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He is also author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction.
Original
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Martin Van Creveld: Israel the Mad Dog
Wednesday May 17th 2006, 7:42 pm
Kurt Nimmo
Another Day in the Empire
Let's hand it to Martin Van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, for speaking the mind of nearly half of all Israelis. "The Palestinians should all be deported," declared Van Creveld in 2003. "The people who strive for this (the Israeli government) are waiting only for the right man and the right time. Two years ago, only 7 or 8 per cent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 per cent, and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent."
Actually, according to Haaretz and the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, "46 percent of Israel's Jewish citizens favor transferring Palestinians out of the territories, while 31 percent favor transferring Israeli Arabs out of the country.... In 1991, 38 percent of Israel's Jewish population was in favor of transferring the Palestinians out of the territories [i.e., militarily occupied land] while 24 percent supported transferring Israeli Arabs," or rather ethnically cleansing them.
Such a "final solution" to the fact millions of Arabs live in Palestine-and have for centuries-would be a serious violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and 1977 Additional Protocols, not that Israel believes in humanitarian law when it comes to Arabs and Muslims. "Israeli-Arabs pose a threat to Israel's security, according to 61 percent of the Jewish population, while around 80 percent are opposed to Israeli-Arabs being involved in important decisions, such as delineating the country's borders, up from 75 percent last year and 67 percent in 2000," Haaretz continues. In other words, a large majority of Israelis believe Arabs should suffer in perpetuity as second class citizens, mere "hew'ers of wood' and draw'ers of wa'ter," as described in the Old Testament (Josh. 9:21).
Moreover, Van Crevel boasted "Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons," a remark especially pertinent now, as the Israelis and Americans claim Iran will do likewise the moment it develops a nuke. "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force." Iran has never made such a remark (or threat) and yet we are told the country is a threat to world peace. "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother," Van Crevel explained. "Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under."
Of course, Israel really has no intention of "hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons," as this would be counterproductive to its real agenda-using its nukes and conventional military (lavished with U.S. tax-payer money) to dominate the Muslim and Arab Middle East. "Abdul Sattar Qassem, a professor of political science and former candidate for President in the Palestinian Authority, said Israel wanted all Arabs and Muslims in this region to remain in a 'perpetual state of strategic and military inferiority....This means they can invade, attack and occupy any rampage through any Arab or Muslim country in this region with impunity,' he said while speaking during a symposium in Dura Tuesday, marking the 58th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba, the forced usurpation of Palestine by Zionist Jews," the Islamic Republic News Agency reports. According to Qassem, it is "imperative that Muslim states seek to create military and strategic parity with Israel" in order "to prevent Israel from annihilating millions of Muslims.... Just imagine if some crazy Jewish fundamentalists take power in Israel, would it be far-fetched to imagine the possibility that these racists would seek to attack neighboring states with nuclear bombs in order to fulfill their messianic aspirations."
In order to preserve its illegal stockpile of nukes-and thus its trump card against all Muslims in the Middle East-Israel and its collaborators in the corporate media here in America (and Europe) have distorted the words of Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In order to assure Iran will be unable to protect itself, Ahmadinejad is now being portrayed as Hitler, as Saddam Hussein was before him. Iran will be shock and awed before it can produce one single nuclear bomb. Iran, not unlike like Iraq, will be broken down into mutually antangonistic bantustans.
Our problem is Israel, not Iran. I fear Israel and its 46 percent of ethnic cleansing and Islam hating fanatics-who are essentially racists, no different than troglodytic members of the KKK or the millions of deluded Germans who believed the racial theories of the Nazi Alfred Rosenberg. I am more worried about our bought and sold Congress-almost all prostituted down to the man and woman-on the AIPAC food chain and the neocon leash. I fear the rabid Van Crevel and his fellow citizens more than I fear Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs.
Rosenberg, at least, suffered the noose as a war criminal at Nuremberg.
Original
Comment on this Editorial
All Hail the Homeland!
Bush: 'Alpha Male on the Cruise Ship'
By Robert Parry
May 18, 2006
When future historians scratch their heads and wonder how George W. Bush came to lead the world's most powerful nation at the start of the Twenty-First Century, it might help them to know that many Americans found his type familiar - and thus reassuring. Bush was the alpha male on the cruise ship.
He was like the wise-cracking guy leading a pack of vacationers out of the elevator toward the all-you-can-eat buffet bar, while poking fun at Charlie for getting too much sun on his bald head or at Mildred for putting on a few extra pounds. The others in the group titter with nervous amusement, fearing their ribbing will come next.
Like that dominant male on the cruise ship, Bush exhibits a freedom to mock the appearance of almost anyone, holding up both American citizens and foreign leaders to public ridicule for how they look.
At a joint White House press conference May 16 with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, as the two men stood side by side, Bush slipped in a couple of zingers about Howard's bald head and supposed homeliness.
Bush joshed, "Somebody said, 'You and John Howard appear to be so close, don't you have any differences?' And I said, 'yes, he doesn't have any hair.'"
Getting a round of laughs from reporters, Bush moved on to his next joke: "That's what I like about John Howard," Bush said. "He may not be the prettiest person on the block, but when he tells you something you can take it to the bank."
Howard played the role of gracious guest, smiling and saying nothing in response to the disparaging comments about his physical appearance.
Though many men are very sensitive about losing their hair, Bush seems to find their baldness a source of humor, a way to put them in their place.
At a press conference on Aug. 24, 2001, Bush called on a Texas reporter who had covered Bush as Texas governor. Bush said the young reporter was "a fine lad, fine lad," drawing laughter from the national press corps.
The Texas reporter then began to ask his question, "You talked about the need to maintain technological ..." But Bush interrupted the reporter to deliver his punch line:
"A little short on hair, but a fine lad. Yeah."
As Bush joined in the snickering, the young reporter paused and acknowledged meekly, "I am losing some hair."
Bush exhibits other physical alpha-male tendencies, such as when he greets another man by cupping his hand behind the man's neck, a sign of both affection and control.
Bush also demonstrates who's boss by assigning goofy nicknames, often tied to a person's appearance. Bush called two different tall, male reporters "Stretch" before eventually dubbing the taller one "Super Stretch."
Tart Tongue
Over the years, Bush has regularly poked fun at the looks of both close friends and casual acquaintances. While Texas governor, Bush lined up for one photo and fingered the man next to him. "He's the ugly one!" Bush laughed. [NYT, Aug. 22, 1999]
Other times, Bush goes beyond playful banter and just tongue-lashes people who have gotten on his wrong side.
In 1986, for instance, Bush spotted Wall Street Journal political writer Al Hunt and his wife Judy Woodruff having dinner at a Dallas restaurant with their four-year-old son. Bush was steaming over Hunt's prediction that Jack Kemp - not then-Vice President George H.W. Bush - would win the Republican presidential nomination in 1988.
Bush stormed up to the table and cursed Hunt out. "You [expletive] son of a bitch," Bush yelled. "I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this." [Washington Post, July 25, 1999]
In one of Campaign 2000's most memorable moments, Bush uttered an aside to his running mate Dick Cheney about New York Times reporter Adam Clymer. "There's Adam Clymer - major league asshole - from the New York Times," Bush said as he was waving to a campaign crowd from a stage in Naperville, Ill.
"Yeah, big time," responded Cheney. Their voices were picked up on an open microphone.
Bush even seems to take pleasure from holding power over a person's life or death.
In an interview with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson at the start of Campaign 2000, Bush joked about how condemned murderer Carla Faye Tucker pleaded for her life with him as Texas governor. "Please don't kill me," Bush whimpered through pursed lips in an imitation of the woman whom Bush put to death.
Later, during a presidential debate, Bush again made light of people facing the death penalty in Texas. While arguing against the need for hate-crimes laws, Bush said the three men convicted of the racially motivated murder of James Byrd were already facing the death penalty.
"It's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they're put to death," Bush said, with an out-of-place smile across his face. Beyond the inaccuracy of his statement - one of the three killers had received life imprisonment - there was that smirk again when discussing people on Death Row.
Quick Temper
Over the years, Bush has gained a reputation, too, for dressing down subordinates.
Former Bush speechwriter David Frum painted a generally flattering portrait of Bush in the 2003 book, The Right Man, but Frum acknowledged Bush's autocratic behavior and harsh humor.
Bush is "impatient and quick to anger; sometimes glib, even dogmatic; often uncurious and as a result ill informed," Frum wrote. When referring to environmentalists, Bush would call them "green-green lima beans," according to Frum.
Bush's hot temper also has complicated U.S. foreign policy, including the tense relations with North Korea. During a lectern-pounding tirade before Republican leaders in May 2002, Bush insulted North Korea's diminutive dictator Kim Jong Il by calling him a "pygmy," Newsweek reported. The slur quickly circulated around the globe.
While many Bush backers find his acid tongue and biting humor refreshing - the sign of a "politically incorrect" politician - some critics contend that Bush's off-handed insults fit with a dynastic sense of entitlement toward the presidency and toward those he rules.
Some observers of the Bush Family say George W. inherited this imperious style from his mother, Barbara, more than from his father, George H.W. Bush. Mrs. Bush is known for flashes of prickly humor, such as describing Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 as a word that "rhymes with rich."
After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Mrs. Bush demonstrated a stunning lack of empathy for the disaster's victims, many of whom had lost homes and family members. While visiting New Orleans evacuees at the Houston Astrodome, she noted how poor they were before the flood and then quipped, "this is working very well for them."
By contrast, George H.W. Bush is generally gracious in social settings, though he has been known to hurl insults at his campaign opponents, such as calling Al Gore "Ozone-Man" in 1992 or dismissing Gore and Bill Clinton as "bozos."
While always ready to deliver insults, the Bush family is famously thin-skinned about receiving them. For instance, George H.W. Bush restricted Newsweek's coverage of his 1988 presidential campaign after the magazine published a cover photo of Bush with the headline, "Fighting the Wimp Factor."
His eldest son, George W. Bush, doesn't even want to take chances with unfriendly audiences. He routinely has his advance teams and Secret Service details weed out people from his speeches who might be inclined to heckle him or ask hostile questions.
Indeed, between his pre-screened crowds and his layers of protectors, Bush has gone through five-plus-years as President with barely a single note-worthy incident of anyone challenging him to his face.
Unlike alpha males in the wild, Bush has managed to mark out his territory knowing that virtually nobody - not another head of state nor a private citizen - is in any position to contest his supremacy.
Comment on this Article
Bush terms Republicans "party of the future"
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-18 10:56:00
WASHINGTON, May 17 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said the Republican Party controlling both the White House and Congress is "the party of the future," saying that he was confident American voters would reelect the party to the majorities in both chambers of the parliament in November.
Speaking at the Republican National Committee gala in Washington, Bush said candidates of the party would run against "the party of the past," apparently referring to the Democratic Party.
The Democrats, he alluded, "offers no new ideas like the Republican Party...can only offer opposition."
News reports said the gala helped the Republican party raise 17 million U.S. dollars, at a time when both the president and Republican lawmakers had sagging approval ratings for their job performances.
Some 800 people, with some paying more than the 1,500 dollar ticket price, attended the gala, a major fund-raising event for the Republican Party.
All the 435 House seats and one-third of the 100 Senate seats are to be reelected in the midterm elections in November.
Currently, the Republicans, facing a uphill battle to keep control of Congress in November, have 231 seats in the House and 55 seats in the Senate, while the Democrats hold 201 seats in the House and 44 seats in the Senate.
Comment on this Article
Democrats take heart as Americans turn their back on Bush policies
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Thursday May 18, 2006
The Guardian
The Republicans could face a substantial electoral defeat later this year, leaving George Bush a lame-duck president, a poll published yesterday suggests. The poll, for the Washington Post and ABC television, confirmed a rapid slide in support for Mr Bush and raised hopes of a Democrat revival by putting the party ahead on all important indicators, from the economy to Iraq and immigration.
Mr Bush is now just hovering above lows reached only by presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Harry Truman and his father. He has been unable to reverse the slump, despite a series of initiatives that included reshuffling his White House team last month, making a televised address to the nation on Monday night on Mexican immigration, and talking up progress on a new government for Iraq.
David Frum, who was responsible for writing Mr Bush's "axis of evil" speech, said yesterday: "It is not clear he has hit bottom yet. My view is that 2006 will not be a good year for Republicans."
Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and strategist, echoed Mr Frum, who is now a resident fellow at the rightwing Washington thinktank the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). "This is not going to be a good year for parties in power, not just in America. There is an anxiety in western democracies right now that has led voters to oust parties in power. There is unease and frustration with the status quo and a desire for change."
The Democrats are hoping that in November's election they can regain control of the House of Representatives, lost after 40 years in a traumatic Republican landslide in 1994, and possibly gain the Senate. Control of either house would see a series of investigations launched that would add to pressure on Mr Bush in the last two years of his administration.
Mr Luntz said: "It is absolutely possible for the Democrats to take one or both [houses]. I was involved in 1994. It feels like a 1994-style election. Voters will come to the ballots for candidates they do not even know [to get the incumbent out]." Mr Frum was less pessimistic: "It is not impossible that Republicans could eke out a hold in both houses."
The Post/ABC poll, consistent with the trend in other polls during the past month, found that 69% of those surveyed thought the country was now off track and 56% would prefer to see Democrats in control of the US Congress. The Democrats recorded majorities over the Republicans on 10 crucial issues: health, education, the federal budget, petrol prices, taxes, phone-tapping and other privacy matters, the economy, Iraq, immigration, and the campaign against terrorism.
Mr Bush's personal approval rating is only 33%, down five points in a month, with the decline sharpest among Republicans. Only 32% of those polled said they approved of the way he is handling Iraq. A toll of soldiers killed in Iraq is listed daily in US papers and on television. Karl Rove, Mr Bush's top election strategist, told an AEI meeting on Monday that Iraq was the issue that soured everything.
But the issue that seems to be hurting the president most among Republicans is immigration. Mr Frum said that the unskilled, white working-class had not seen any rise in their wages since 2000 and blamed this partly on immigration.
Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, said: "It has been an extraordinary collapse of support for the president and the Republican party. If you look at the poll ratings for the government on a range of issues, all of those are more damning than 94 was for the Democrats." He said people had lost trust in Mr Bush as a result of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. He had given a reasonable speech on immigration,"but no one is listening any more".
Comment: Be sure to read all of the above with a massive dose of skepticism. For the past two U.S. elections, the will of a majority of the American people had nothing to do with the result. Bush stole 2000 and 2004, that much is very clear. If you are unaware of the details, do some research. There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans - both are controlled by the same behind-the-scene forces in American politics: Big business and Israel. There may be a swing towards the Democrats in this year's mid term elections, but only if a suitable Democratic Presidential candidate can be found who will promise to "change everything" but who will simply follow the same downward path that the Bushites have begun.
Comment on this Article
Assembly green lights contested immigration law
PARIS, May 17, 2006 (AFP)
The French National Assembly on Wednesday approved a controversial new immigration law which is intended to tilt the system in favour of qualified foreign workers.
Drawn up by Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy who says he wants France to "choose" rather "undergo" the process of immigration, the law has prompted a strong hostile reaction from the left-wing opposition, rights groups, the Catholic church and some African countries.
After passage in the lower house of parliament, it will be debated in June in the upper house or Senate.
Critics say the law risks creaming off the most talented people from countries where they are badly needed, and will make life harder for ordinary migrants.
"Keeping the best and sending back the worst is not exactly Christian," said Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, Archbishop of Lyon.
Ivorian reggae singer Alpha Blondy said: "This notion of chosen immigration, this migratory apartheid takes us back to the time of slavery, when the traders chose the strongest or those with the best teeth to take them to the west."
Sarkozy - a frontrunner to become French president after next year's elections - left France Wednesday to visit Mali and Benin, where he faces protests from opponents of the law.
The law creates a new type of residence permit - named a "skills and talents permit" - open to foreigners with qualifications which are judged to be important for the French economy and labour market.
At the same time rules are tightened for migrants moving to France for family reasons, as the vast majority currently do.
Foreigners will be allowed in only if they can be supported not from state hand-outs but earned income; in order to fight convenience marriages foreign spouses will wait longer for residence cards; and migrants will sign an "integration contract" committing them to respect the French way of life.
Sarkozy has said the November riots in France's high-immigration suburbs - where unemployment is rampant among young males - is evidence of the failures of France's current system of immigration.
"The violence which exploded in our suburbs is not unconnected with the shocking failure of our policies of integration and immigration," he told the National Assembly.
"We are closing the doors to those who have a job and opening it for those who don't. This absurd system is an essential ingredient in our malaise."
France's last census figures - for 1999 - showed 4.33 million foreign nationals living in France, and every year a further 140,000 are entering using legal channels.
In addition some 90,000 are believed to enter illegally every year, mainly by overstaying on short-term visas. According to Sarkozy, only five percent of those entering the country legally do so for work reasons.
The government believes there are between 200,000 and 400,000 'sans-papiers' - paperless ones - but it is resisting calls to regularise their situation.
In recent years the number of deportations has shot up, as has the number of people refused asylum. In 2006, the government is banking on making 26,000 repatriations, many on flights run jointly with Britain.
Sarkozy, who is himself the son of a Hungarian father, says his aim is to strike a sensible mid-way path between the immigrants-out rhetoric of the far right and the laissez-faire approach of the left.
In an open letter Wednesday he rebutted the slavery comparison made by reggae singer Blondy, who is a UN "messenger of peace" for the Ivory Coast.
"African slavery was one of the worst tragedies of history and it is essential not to trivialise this crime against humanity by inapt comparisons. Chosen immigration means regulated immigration, organised with reference to the reception capacity of our country," he said.
Comment on this Article
Pentagon's intelligence role rising
By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - If the recent past is any guide, Thursday's Senate hearing to consider Gen. Michael Hayden for the post of CIA director will spend no small amount of time examining the nominee's military ties.
At any point during the past few decades, the plan to put a military man at the head of America's premier civilian spy agency would probably have caused some controversy. But the nomination of General Hayden comes at a time when the Pentagon is already working to dramatically expand its role in intelligence operations.
For their part, experts widely agree that Hayden is independent and not likely to be bullied by the Department of Defense. But the issue points to how the war on terror is reshaping the US intelligence structure - and whether it is wise for the Pentagon to take more of the nation's spying needs upon itself.
Perhaps more than in past conflicts, success in the war on terror depends upon good intelligence and prompt action, so "it's only natural that the Department of Defense wants to have more control," says Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "The issue becomes: Where do you draw the line?"
As in all matters that involve clandestine intelligence gathering, the outlines of who does what are not immediately clear. America's intelligence structure is a tangled bureaucracy of 16 civilian and military agencies.
Yet traditionally, the Pentagon had focused its sensors and satellites mostly on enemy militaries, and some 80 percent of the annual intelligence budget has gone to agencies under the Pentagon's umbrella. Other missions, most notably counterterrorism, have fallen to other agencies such as the CIA.
But current Pentagon officials have put greater emphasis on intelligence. In 2003, for instance, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created the post of undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and made it the third most senior civilian position.
Moreover, the Pentagon has shown a willingness to make inroads into what was previously CIA territory. Before the US invasion of Afghanistan, Secretary Rumsfeld was reportedly troubled by having to wait on the CIA to make contact with important local warlords. Since then, numerous reports suggest that the Pentagon is sending teams of intelligence specialists abroad to work with special- operations forces in the war on terror.
The apparent goal is not to replace the CIA, but simply to lessen the military's reliance on the CIA for information that directly impacts operations.
Part of this, some say, is simply a product of the nature of the current conflict. "At a time when you are trying to use covert operations for more quick, rapid-response strikes, you have to have better intelligence," says Dr. O'Hanlon.
Other longer-term trends also come into play. The CIA's ability to carry out the sort of paramilitary operations central to the war on terror "atrophied" during the 1990s, says analyst John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org - while the military's capabilities have been on an "upward trajectory" since the Iran hostage crisis.
But he and others worry that the Pentagon may be trying to push too far. In the past, the CIA has been responsible for "covert" operations - actions where United States sponsorship is not detectable. These require congressional authority. The military, meanwhile, has been at liberty to conduct "clandestine" operations - actions that are simply hard to detect, and do not need congressional authority.
The concern is that the Pentagon will broaden - or already has - its definition of clandestine operations to include covert activities. "You wind up provoking [your enemies]," says Mr. Pike. "They regard it as retaliation, but to the American people [who know nothing of the covert operations], it looks like an unprovoked attack."
The Pentagon insists that it has followed the laws for intelligence gathering. But even if it has, say others, there's a risk that the Pentagon and the CIA will knock heads as they both pursue the same types of missions. "[Military leaders] have a legitimate interest in having a strong military- intelligence capability, so it's important that civilian intelligence works closely with defense intelligence," says John McLaughlin, former acting director of the CIA. "It's important that they not bump into each other."
He suggests a civilian director, outside the CIA, to oversee and coordinate all human intelligence-gathering activity. Nominee Hayden would also play a part. His job, if confirmed, is to implement the vision of the director of national intelligence and carve out a distinct space for the CIA in the US intelligence community. A major part of that could be warding off an exuberant Pentagon.
"He is an intelligence professional first and foremost," says O'Hanlon. "The fact that he comes out of the Department of Defense makes him more likely to stand up to the Department of Defense."
Yet in a post-9/11 world where the needs and uses of intelligence have changed dramatically, deciding which agency should do what will still be a work in progress. "This is going to have to be worked out in practice," says Mr. McLaughlin. "They're still sorting out all the roles and responsibilities."
Comment on this Article
Hayden to Lament Politics of Intelligence
By KATHERINE SHRADER
Associated Press
May 18, 2006
WASHINGTON - President Bush's CIA director-nominee, Gen. Michael Hayden, is to face what undoubtedly will be the toughest public questioning of his 37- year government career at a Senate confirmation hearing this morning.
Hayden is at the center of the debate over the Bush administration's controversial domestic surveillance programs, which allowed the National Security Agency under Hayden's leadership to eavesdrop without warrants on telephone calls when one party was overseas and suspected of terrorism.
In a statement prepared for delivery, Hayden complained that intelligence-gathering has become "football in American political discourse."
"For the past few years, the intelligence community and the CIA have taken an inordinate number of hits, some of them fair, many of them not," Hayden was expected to say in prepared remarks at his Senate confirmation hearing.
His reception by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday was expected to be much different than a year ago, when the panel approved him unanimously to be the nation's first principal deputy director of national intelligence.
"I was actually delighted when you were appointed," the Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, told Hayden in April 2005.
This time, Rockefeller wrote Hayden on Wednesday to lay out concerns regarding the general's independence from the administration, given his aggressive defense of the decision to conduct the warrantless monitoring.
"It is of the utmost importance that officials of the intelligence community avoid even the appearance of politicization, and that its senior leaders set an example," wrote Rockefeller, who will miss Hayden's hearing while recovering from back surgery.
He said he hoped Hayden would explain how he planned to repair the CIA, which is struggling to find its footing after a 2004 overhaul law that reorganized the U.S. spy community. Rockefeller wants to be sure the Pentagon and CIA are adequately coordinating their classic spy operations.
Some have questioned whether it is appropriate to have someone like Hayden, with his lengthy resume in military intelligence, directing the civilian spies at the CIA at a time when the intelligence community is increasingly dominated by the Pentagon. In closed door meetings with senators, Hayden, 61, indicated a willingness to retire from the Air Force if necessary.
Republicans generally have praised Hayden. "I don't think he'll be under the thumb of the Defense Department," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, adding that Hayden brings a tremendous intelligence background to the job.
Much of the hearing was expected to focus on a recent newspaper report that the NSA was able to analyze the calling records of millions of ordinary Americans.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said there were serious privacy concerns. If the government maintains a database of Americans' calls, he said, "that has got to be addressed." Levin and other Democrats have not said publicly yet whether they will support Hayden, waiting to see how he handled himself in Thursday's open and closed committee hearings.
To help smooth Hayden's path, the administration reversed course after five months and decided this week to provide more information to Congress about the ultra-secret NSA's activities. That includes full briefings for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who supports Hayden, said the information was necessary to have a fully informed confirmation hearing.
"This issue will be central to the committee's deliberations on General Hayden's nomination," Roberts said, "and there was no way we could fulfill our collective constitutional responsibilities without that knowledge."
President Bush chose Hayden as CIA director-nominee after consultation with Hayden's current boss, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. Outgoing CIA Director Porter Goss announced his retirement earlier this month after disputes with Hayden and Negroponte about the CIA's direction.
Comment on this Article
Hayden, if confirmed, to head CIA in "crisis": lawmakers
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-18 13:08:22
BEIJING, May 18 (Xinhuanet) -- Michael Hayden, whose Senate confirmation hearing begins on Thursday, has been nominated to head the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in "crisis", according to lawmakers.
"Everybody understands that we need to operate quite differently at the CIA," said Senator Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican on the Intelligence Committee. "You need the kind of leadership to give it the direction, to rebuild and revitalize the agency."
Hayden is now deputy director for national intelligence, a post to which he was named in August. He was chosen by President Bush earlier this month to replace Porter Goss as director of the beleaguered CIA.
He headed the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1999 to 2005, and has come under fire in recent months as senators are expected to grill him on the NSA's collection of phone records of millions of Americans and its warrantless eavesdropping on conversations between U.S. residents and suspected foreign terrorists.
USA Today reported last week that three of four major phone companies -- BellSouth , AT&T and Verizon Communications -- provided information on the calling records of millions of Americans.
Snowe said that, while Hayden's chances for confirmation are "obviously very good," the nominee will face tough questions on the NSA surveillance as well as other issues. "We have to make sure all questions are asked and all questions are answered," she said in an interview.
If confirmed by the full Senate, Hayden, 61, will find himself in the middle of one of the most fundamental debates about the agency's mission since Congress created the CIA in 1947.
Comment on this Article
The Buck Stops Here
Dow has worst day in 3 years
By Vivianne Rodrigues
Reuters
Wed May 17, 2006
NEW YORK - U.S. stocks plunged on Wednesday, wiping out $64 billion in market value from the 30 companies that make up the Dow and giving the blue-chip average its biggest one-day drop in three years, as investors bet the Federal Reserve will need to keep raising interest rates to fight inflation.
Investors particularly hammered shares of banks, industrial conglomerates and other rate-sensitive companies. An index of bank stocks slid 1.8 percent, while shares of blue-chip Citigroup Inc. dropped 1.4 percent.
The blue-chip Dow dropped more than 200 points, the biggest slide since March 2003. The market's rout left the Nasdaq mired in its longest losing streak in five years.
Stocks fell after economic data showed the pace of inflation accelerated in April, boosting speculation that the Fed will raise rates longer than Wall Street had expected.
"Inflation, which is the principal focus of the Fed, is higher than Chairman Bernanke will feel comfortable with," said Hugh Johnson, chief investment officer at Johnson Illington Advisors. "It adds to the belief the Fed may raise rates further, and that is a problem for both the bond market and the stock market."
The Dow Jones industrial average slid 214.28 points, or 1.88 percent, to end at 11,205.61. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 21.76 points, or 1.68 percent, to finish at 1,270.32. The Nasdaq Composite Index tumbled 33.33 points, or 1.50 percent, to close at 2,195.80.
The Nasdaq is now down 0.4 percent for the year.
The Dow has lost more than 500 points this week, paring its advance for 2006 to 4.6 percent. The S&P 500 is up 1.8 percent this year.
NYSE TRADING COLLARS IN EFFECT
The sharp sell-off in stocks was part of a broader market rout, with U.S. Treasuries also tumbling amid signs of accelerating inflation. At 4:30 p.m., the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note was down 12/32 at a price of 99-25/32, while its yield was up 4 basis points at 5.15 percent.
"Stocks that are getting hit the hardest are those that have been the darlings of the Street," said Christopher Zook, chairman and chief investment officer at CAZ Investments in Houston, Texas. He listed industrial companies, raw materials and energy shares.
The New York Stock Exchange imposed limits on index-arbitrage sell orders on the Standard & Poor's 500 index after the New York Stock Exchange Composite Index fell more than 160 points. The index fell 2.24 percent, its biggest daily drop in three years, to close at 8,199.38.
Citigroup shares fell 1.4 percent, or 71 cents, to $48.83 and JPMorgan Chase & Co., another blue chip, lost 2.4 percent, or $1.07, to $43.25 in NYSE trading.
Industrial conglomerates, including 3M Co. and Caterpillar Inc., were among the Dow's biggest decliners. Both stocks were down about 2 percent, with 3M falling $1.88 to $84.42 and Caterpillar dropping $1.43 to $75.91.
THE COLD BREATH OF CPI
Wall Street got the inflation chills before the market's opening bell, when the Labor Department said the
Consumer Price Index rose 0.6 percent in April, above economists' forecast for a rise of 0.5 percent. Core CPI, which excludes food and energy costs, advanced 0.3 percent, also faster than forecast.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and other monetary policy-makers said last week the Fed might have to continue to raise rates to control inflation.
Shares of Boeing Co., the biggest drag on the Dow, fell 3 percent, or $2.63, to $83.77. Boeing, a big U.S. defense contractor and jet manufacturer, on Wednesday kept its profit and revenue forecasts unchanged for this year and the next.
HP RISES, BUT APPLIED MATERIALS FALLS
Of the 30 stocks in the Dow average, the only gainer was Hewlett-Packard Co., the No. 2 computer maker, which rose after it reported higher quarterly profit late on Tuesday.
Hewlett-Packard shares gained 3.4 percent, or $1.05, to $32.16.
On the Nasdaq, communication stocks and semiconductors were the top decliners. Qualcomm Inc. fell 2.7 percent, or $1.29, to $46.90 and Applied Materials Inc. slid 5.2 percent, or 92 cents, to $16.93.
Trading was heavy on the NYSE, with about 2.09 billion shares changing hands, above last year's daily average of 1.61 billion, while on Nasdaq, about 2.43 billion shares traded, above last year's daily average of 1.80 billion.
Declining stocks outnumbered advancing ones by a ratio of about 14 to 3 on the NYSE and by about 11 to 4 on Nasdaq.
Comment on this Article
U.S. inflation higher than expected
Last Updated Wed, 17 May 2006 11:06:33 EDT
CBC News
U.S. consumer prices rose by a higher-than-expected 0.6 per cent last month - boosting the odds that the U.S. Federal Reserve may again increase interest rates to keep a lid on inflation.
Economists had been forecasting the CPI would rise by 0.5 per cent. The core inflation rate, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, jumped 0.3 per cent.
That boosted the year-over-year core inflation rate from 2.1 per cent in March to 2.3 per cent in April - its the highest annual rate in 13 months.
"More importantly, this does suggest that rising energy costs and possibly emerging capacity constraints may be causing inflationary pressures to suddenly start bubbling up from beneath the surface," said TD Bank economist Beata Caranci in a morning commentary.
The growing possibility of a further hike in U.S. interest rates helped to drive U.S. stocks lower on Wednesday. The Dow Jones industrial average was down 115 points to 11305 at 11:05 a.m. EDT.
The Federal Reserve has been on a steady, two-year-long campaign to raise interest rates. It has hiked its key lending rate 16 consecutive times, most recently to 5 per cent, and warned last week that further rate hikes were possible, depending on the economic data.
Canada's inflation report for April is released Thursday.
Comment on this Article
New bout of inflation jitters hits markets
By Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt, Jennifer Hughes in New York and Jamie Chisholm in London
FT.com
May 17 2006
Financial markets on both sides of the Atlantic witnessed a fresh and aggressive sell-off on Wednesday, driven by fears over inflation in the US and Europe and heightening worries that the recent correction in asset prices is sharpening rather than ending.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average had its worst one-day points drop since March 2003, tumbling 214 to 11205.61, or 1.9 per cent, while Europe's main bourses all suffered falls of about 3 per cent.
In London, the FTSE 100 registered its biggest one-day reversal in more than three years, leaving traders discussing whether the three-year equity bull market was now formally over. The UK's leading equity barometer has lost 400 points, or 6.5 per cent, in a week.
It was the publication of fresh inflation data in the US that triggered the latest wave of selling in New York. The US consumer price index rose 0.6 per cent last month, boosted by high energy prices. But it was a 0.3 per cent acceleration of the closely watched core rate, which excludes volatile energy costs, for the second month in a row that spooked the markets and reinforced expectations that rises in global interest rates would now accelerate.
Financial markets' expectations about higher inflation were a challenge to central bankers' credibility, economists said, pointing to a jump in US Treasury yields as both stocks and commodity prices went into broad retreat.
"This is not welcome news to the US Federal Reserve or the financial markets," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist for PNC Financial Services Group. "We believe the Fed would prefer to take no action at their June meeting but this is precisely the type of inflation data that argues against such a pause."
The dollar rallied as investors hastily retreated to the relative safety of the US, unwinding risky trades involving emerging market currencies.
Alan Ruskin, chief international strategist at RBS Greenwich Capital said: "The numbers will add to volatility across all asset classes."
Meanwhile, in Europe inflation data for the 12-country eurozone showed the core rate, also excluding energy costs, jumped in April to an annualised rate of 1.6 per cent. The acceleration is likely to stoke European Central Bank fears about inflation dangers.
The ECB is expected to raise its main interest rate in June from 2.5 per cent, possibly by half a percentage point.
It became clear on Wednesday that the Bank of England's interest rate-setting body had a three-way split at its meeting this month, pointing to mounting concerns about inflationary pressures and increasing the chances that the UK would also raise borrowing costs this year.
Michael Dicks, economist at Lehman Brothers, said central bankers were "talking the same language" about inflation risks.
"It is almost as if they are looking at each others spread-sheets, and looking at the world in the same way," he added.
Comment on this Article
Inflation's rising toll on consumers
By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
The US economy is remarkably strong and buoyant, but high energy prices and rising interest rates are starting to take a toll on consumers.
- The pace of home-mortgage applications is down 15 percent, compared with this week a year ago, as "for sale" signs stay up longer in a slowing home market.
- Half of Americans have changed their vacation plans to stay closer to home, according to an Associated Press/Ipsos poll this month.
- Prices beyond the gas pump are also edging up. The "core" consumer price index (CPI), which excludes volatile food and energy costs, surprised analysts by jumping 0.3 percent last month, according to a government report Wednesday.
These pocketbook pressures don't signal a return of "stagflation" - the harsh blend of recession and rapid inflation that surfaced three decades ago.
But they do represent an economic climate less friendly to consumers - a gray zone where the pace of economic growth may be slowing even as the threat of inflation remains in the foreground.
"It's finally caught up" to average Americans, says economist Michael Cosgrove, who publishes The Econoclast newsletter in Dallas. "The cost of credit has gotten to a level where it's starting to impact people's decisions negatively."
This represents a reversal from just a few years ago, when gas was cheap, the interest on a fixed-rate mortgage was below 6 percent, and home prices hadn't yet soared to today's peaks.
The new head winds also include a weakening dollar, which eats away at Americans' spending power for imported goods or foreign travel.
In short, prices have gone up for several key items: credit, foreign currency, housing, and the fossil fuels that are a basic cost for virtually every home and business.
All this explains why indexes of consumer confidence have sagged in recent weeks, despite signs of healthy economic growth and a strong labor market.
It's a confusing period even for Federal Reserve policymakers, now weighing whether additional interest-rate hikes are needed to stamp out inflation, or whether the pinch on consumers is already starting to slow the economy to a sustainable pace of growth.
"Clearly we are seeing a slowdown in housing," and autos sales are weak, says Ed Yardeni, chief economist at Oak Associates in Akron, Ohio. Yet "it takes a while for interest rates to get to levels that really bite." Indeed, many forecasters see the economy growing at a still-solid 3 percent pace in the second half of the year, as exports and business investment help make up for possibly weaker consumer spending.
Against this backdrop of uncertainty, the Fed may decide to hold off before hiking interest rates further, to see how consumers fare in the months ahead.
But Wednesday's inflation report prompted new concern. Stock prices fell sharply on the expectation that the Fed may need to boost interest rates further at its June meeting to prevent consumer prices from spiraling out of control. Still, some analysts remain hopeful that the Fed can steer a steady course between inflation and downturn: The economy may be less cyclical than in the past, when interest-rate hikes often prompted sharp housing downturns and then recessions.
It's possible that could happen again. Builders this week posted a third straight monthly drop in new-home starts, a key indicator of the current housing slowdown. And home prices in some markets are lower now than at the end of last year.
But bank credit is not drying up as it sometimes has in the past. At 6.6 percent, the interest on a 30-year fixed rate mortgage still makes many homes affordable by historical standards.
The rising cost of housing was one factor behind Wednesday's rise in the consumer price index.
Costs of shelter, clothing, and healthcare all rose in April, pushing the core rate of inflation up 0.3 percent for the month, higher than the 0.2 percent rate expected by forecasters. That means the core rate is now advancing at a 3 percent pace, up from a 2.2 percent rise for last year.
Consumer prices overall, driven by rising energy costs, are heading up at a 5.1 percent annual pace. They rose 3.4 percent last year.
Those energy costs are top of mind for many consumers.
"I would say that it's the biggest thing right now" driving consumer sentiment, says Raghavan Mayur of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence in Oradell, N.J., a pollster who conducts the monthly TIPP survey of economic optimism.
It goes beyond sticker shock at the pump, he says. "They feel that their economic security is threatened" by America's reliance on the world oil market.
Not many people will cancel vacation plans outright due to fuel prices, predicts Sean Comey, a spokesman for AAA of Northern California in San Francisco.
But many are planning shorter trips, and coping with rising airfares by buying night or midweek tickets.
The good news for consumers is that their incomes may be going up, thanks to a tightening labor market. "Thirty percent of [business] owners say there's at least one opening they can't fill," says William Dunkelberg, chief economist at the National Federation of Independent Business.
But recent surveys, he adds, show that businesses are starting to pass higher labor costs along in the form of higher prices. "It's not good."
Comment on this Article
Venezuela 'may swap oil currency'
BBC News
17/05/2006
Venezuela has hinted it could price its oil exports in euros rather than US dollars, further weakening its links to the US.
President Hugo Chavez said he was considering taking the step following a similar declaration by Iran.
Earlier this month, Iranian authorities gave backing for the launch of an oil exchange that traded solely in euros.
Some reports have suggested Iran's move may be part of a bid to undermine the importance of the dollar.
But in an interview with Channel 4 News in London, Mr Chavez said the move was merely a matter of choice.
"I think the European Union has made a large contribution with the euro," he said.
"So what the president of Iran says ... is recognising the power of Europe - they have succeeded in integrating and have a single currency competing with the dollar, and Venezuela might also consider that - we are free to do that," he added.
Dollar concerns
Experts have suggested that, should Iran demand payment for its exports in euros, central banks could opt to convert some of their dollar reserves to euros and therefore possibly trigger a further decline in the US currency.
The dollar has already come under pressure in foreign exchange markets in recent weeks, triggering nervousness in world stock markets.
Central banks, especially in Asia, who hold large amounts of the US dollar, could find the value of their foreign currency reserves substantially reduced.
Tensions rising
Iran is currently embroiled in a stand-off with the US in a row over its nuclear ambitions.
Iran, the second-largest exporter in oil producing nations group Opec, insists merely wants to build power stations, but the US claims it is building nuclear arms.
Meanwhile, Venezuela - the world's fifth largest oil producer - has been trying to reduce its dependence on the US, as relations have been strained under President Hugo Chavez.
In April it signed a joint venture with Cuba - a long time opponent of the US - to revamp an oil refinery and supply unrefined oil to the country.
Comment on this Article
Protesters Arrested at Halliburton Meeting
By SHAUN SCHAFER
Associated Press
May 17, 2006
DUNCAN, Okla. - Sixteen people protesting Halliburton Co.'s role as a military contractor were arrested Wednesday outside a building where shareholders discussed spinning off the subsidiary that provides meals, clean laundry and other services to U.S. troops in Iraq.
One man was accused of vandalism for tearing up a plastic fence holding back protesters, and the rest were accused of trespassing as they left an enclosure and headed toward the meeting.
Halliburton announced plans last month to sell just under 20 percent of KBR, which has diluted the company's financial results and drawn criticism of its multibillion contracts in Iraq.
Dave Lesar, the company's chairman and chief executive officer, said Wednesday the company planned to follow the initial offering with either additional public offerings or a sale to a competitor of the remaining 80 percent.
As a standalone company, KBR would have a better opportunity to prosper, Chief Financial Officer Christopher Gaut told about 200 shareholders. He described KBR as Halliburton's nearly lowest margin business and one that has seen contract activity in Iraq decrease.
A spin-off "would unlock the value of KBR for shareholders," Gaut said.
Shareholders of the world's largest provider of products and services to the petroleum and energy industries looked back on a year of record earnings. Halliburton, founded in 1919, earned $2.4 billion in 2005.
Shareholders approved a company request to increase its authorized share count to 2 billion from 1 billion. Lesar said a stock split was planned sometime in the next two months.
Shareholders rejected a request by a group of Texas and Kansas shareholders for adoption of a policy based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Halliburton directors, noting that the company does business in more than 100 countries and refrains from doing business where prohibited by the U.S. government, did not support the proposal.
About 100 people protested outside the meeting. A masked man beat on a large empty jug and protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching," and "Shame on you," while police made the arrests. A designated area had been set up for the protest, and police had told protesters not to leave that area.
One of those arrested was wearing a Dick Cheney mask. The vice president formerly headed Halliburton, which has drawn criticism for its big government contracts, some awarded without competitive bidding. Its KBR unit provides support services for troops stationed in the Middle East.
Lesar said afterward that the protest did not bother him.
"I cannot change the fact that my predecessor is the vice president of the United States," he said.
Protesters carried signs such as "Bush Lied," and "Record Corrupt Blood Soaked Profits." Oklahoma Veterans for Peace lined up 37 pairs of combat boots to represent Oklahoma soldiers killed in Iraq.
"I think many Americans, myself included, are concerned that America is becoming a nation of, for and by corporate profits," said Nathaniel Batchelder, a member of the veterans group.
Jan Gaddis of Duncan held up an "I Support Halliburton" sign.
"It is not some monolithic organization that is devoid of humanity," she said. "They are a very responsible corporate citizen and their employees are involved in the local community and churches."
The Houston-based company said it decided to meet in the southern Oklahoma city of Duncan where it was founded to highlight company operations that remain here.
Critics accused it of seeking a friendly and remote location in an attempt to duck protests. The company is the leading employer in Duncan, which is about 80 miles south of Oklahoma City.
Halliburton spokeswoman Cathy Mann has said potential protests played no role in deciding where to hold this year's meeting. She said the company has done a good job of supporting American troops overseas.
"Halliburton supports the rights of demonstrators, even when they have the facts wrong," she said.
Halliburton shares fell $1.25 to close at $73.76 on the
New York Stock Exchange. The stock has traded from $39.65 to $83.97 over the last year.
Comment on this Article
Zionism Everywhere
The "Israel lobby" controversy
May 19, 2006
ERIC RUDER
Socialist Worker
IN MARCH, two academics touched off a firestorm of debate with a paper called "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
In it, they argued that a powerful group of pro-Israel lobbyists made up of Washington insiders has become so dominant that U.S. foreign policy officials pursue Israel's strategic interests over and above the strategic interests of the U.S. itself.
The two authors of the paper--John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at the prestigious Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University--are highly respected within mainstream circles.
But almost immediately, they came under fierce attack from Israel's defenders.
Eliot Cohen, professor of international studies at Johns Hopkins University, used the pages of the Washington Post as a bully pulpit for his diatribe against Mearsheimer and Walt. Cohen called the article "inept" and "kooky," and claimed that it recycled standard anti-Semitic themes--"obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews"; accusations of "disloyalty, subversion or treachery"; and charges of "participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments."
The campaign of criticism led Harvard University's Kennedy School to remove its logo from the article and strengthen its disclaimer that the paper only reflected the views of the authors. In the midst of the furor over the article, Walt announced that he would end his tenure as dean in June, but Harvard officials denied the move was related to the backlash against the article.
Ironically, the uproar proved the existence of the Israel lobby that critics of Mearsheimer and Walt are trying to deny--and underscored the unwillingness of Israel's apologists to allow even faint criticism of this lobby.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BUT DEFENDING Mearsheimer and Walt's description of the Israel lobby from Israel boosters is less critical than pointing out what's wrong with other points they make.
That's because their argument that Israel has become a "strategic liability" to the U.S. is a view shared by some in the pro-Palestinian movement.
Mearsheimer and Walt are on firm ground when they outline the many channels employed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other pro-Israel organizations to influence elected officials, government policy and public opinion.
"The lobby pursues two broad strategies," write the authors. "First, it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker's own views may be, the lobby tries to make supporting Israel the 'smart' choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena."
There's nothing particularly insightful in these observations, which would apply to every effective lobby in Washington--from the farm lobby to the American Association of Retired Persons.
But according to Mearsheimer and Walt, the Israel lobby is so good at what it does that its influence has swamped any rational assessment of actual U.S. interests. "Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country--in this case, Israel--are essentially identical," they argue.
In their view, the U.S. receives very little in exchange for the $3 billion it annually gives to Israel in direct aid and the unswerving diplomatic support the U.S. provides to Israel. They claim that the U.S. loses out in the deal because its reputation in the Arab world is tarnished by its association with Israel's violations of Palestinian human rights.
But Mearsheimer and Walt don't stop there. They assert that the influence of the Israel lobby was a "critical" reason for the U.S. war on Iraq. "Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim," they write. "Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN REALITY, Mearsheimer and Walt have the causal connection between U.S. support for Israel and the Israel lobby backwards. Support for Israel as a centerpiece of U.S. strategy to dominate the oil-rich Middle East largely explains the power and influence of the Israel lobby, not the other way around.
U.S. support for Israel took on central importance in 1967--at a time when there was no Israel lobby and when most American Jews in fact had little interest in Israel. That year was when Israel proved its effectiveness as an ally--by waging war on Egypt and neutralizing the growing influence of secular Arab nationalism.
In subsequent years, Israel could be relied on to strike out at Arab regimes that fell afoul of Washington (such as its 1981 destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor) and to serve as a conduit for sending arms to forces that the U.S. was legally barred from or too embarrassed to support directly (such as apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia and the Nicaraguan contras).
Israel's Yediot Ahronot newspaper once compared the U.S. to the Godfather, and Israel to 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."
The danger in Mearsheimer and Walt's reversal of cause and effect is the confusion that follows from saying, in the words of Columbia University professor Joseph Massad, that "absent the pro-Israel lobby, America would at worst no longer contribute to the oppression of Arabs and Palestinians, and at best would be the Arabs' and the Palestinians' best ally and friend.
"What makes this argument persuasive and effective to Arabs? Indeed, why are its claims constantly brandished by Washington's Arab friends to Arab and American audiences as a persuasive argument? I contend that the attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States' government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world and gives false hope to many Arabs and Palestinians who wish America would be on their side, instead of on the side of their enemies."
In denying the role of Middle East oil in the U.S. decision to wage war on Iraq, Mearsheimer and Walt echo both the Bush administration as well as some in the Israel lobby.
Oil "has barely been on the administration's horizon in considering Iraq policy," said Patrick Clawson, an oil and policy analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in 2003.
But in 1999, Clawson--whose think tank was founded by a former deputy director of research at AIPAC--Clawson was reading from a different script at a Capitol Hill forum on a post-Saddam Iraq. "U.S. oil companies would have an opportunity to make significant profits," he said. "We should not be embarrassed about the commercial advantages that would come from a reintegration of Iraq into the world economy."
But even if oil played a bigger part in the decision to go to war, Mearsheimer and Walt believe they have an airtight argument about why Israel serves no useful purpose for the U.S. During the 1991 and 2003 wars on Iraq, far from drawing on Israel's regional military superiority to help subdue Saddam Hussein, the U.S. had to restrain Israel from becoming involved militarily.
However, to conclude from this, as Mearsheimer and Walt do, that Israel is therefore a "strategic liability" is absurd. The U.S. relies on its strategic relationship with Israel first and foremost, but it also has firm supporters among several other Middle Eastern countries--most notably, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others.
The very existence of Israel--and its stability as a U.S. foothold in the region--greatly enhances the ability of the U.S. to force Arab regimes to make agreements at the negotiating table. After all, if Israel has already assured the U.S. a secure grip on the region, why shouldn't Arab leaders derive benefits from making their own deals with the U.S.?
If the U.S. can wage war on Iraq with the help of its Arab allies, then the U.S. is happy to restrain Israel. But the U.S. knows that it's dangerous to become too dependent on any given Middle Eastern country, because the populations of those countries resent their own leaders' collaboration with the U.S. Israel's population, on the other hand, overwhelmingly supports the U.S., making Israel a far more predictable and stable ally.
And in any case, even if the U.S. had to restrain Israel during its war on Iraq, Israel nevertheless can act on behalf of the U.S. when the U.S. wants it to--such as Israel's 2003 air strikes deep in Syrian territory.
Though the billions that the U.S. gives to Israel seem exorbitant, the U.S. spends far more annually to maintain its military bases throughout the Arab world, not to mention its many military installations throughout Europe and Asia. In that sense, U.S. support of Israel is a bargain--and the Israel lobby serves the useful purpose of protecting the U.S. government's investment.
But even without an Israel lobby, the U.S. would support Israel, just as it supports Colombia and Egypt--the second- and third-largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid--even though those countries don't have lobbies with anything near the clout of the Israel lobby.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IT SHOULDN'T come as a surprise that liberal critics of U.S. foreign policy, like Mearsheimer and Walt, would conclude that lobbying has blown U.S. war planning off course.
But the truth is that the misadventures of U.S. imperialism can't be corrected by curtailing the influence of a "lobby." The U.S. has opposed national liberation movements and backed nasty dictatorships all over the world, not just in the Middle East.
And as Middle East expert Stephen Zunes points out, "There are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC--such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."
There are no shortcuts in the fight for justice for Palestinians, for Iraqis and for all peoples oppressed by U.S. imperialism. An anti-imperialist movement--built right here in the belly of the beast--is the essential ingredient for bringing an end to U.S. crimes around the world.
Comment from Jeff Blankfort: "U.S. support for Israel took on central importance in 1967--at a time when there was no Israel lobby and when most American Jews in fact had little interest in Israel. That year was when Israel proved its effectiveness as an ally--by waging war on Egypt and neutralizing the growing influence of secular Arab nationalism."
Here is another attack on the Mearsheimer-Walt paper by the Trotskyist International Socialist Organization which has become very influential among certain Palestinian campus groups. In this one paragraph, selected at random, the author repeats the "conventional wisdom" regarding the 1967 war when, in fact, US support for Israel was minimal and France was its major arms supplier. The Israel lobby not only existed at the time and in less organized form had existed since before 1948, but in the early 60s, when it had become more organized, Senator Fulbright held hearings to investigate its lobbying activities and exposed the fact that money being sent to Israel was being recycled to pay for pro-Israel propaganda in the US.
What this article reveals about the author and the Palestine "liquidarity" movement, in general, is a real lack of knowledge about the history of the lobby, what it consists of, how it operates and a lack of interest in filling that void . That most of those from the Left who have criticized the Mearsheimer-Walt paper happen to be Jewish is not an accident. They have been conditioned from childhood to automatically resist anything that appears to be "blaming the Jews" even when the accusation applies to only a certain segment of the Jewish population. That their influence in the Palestine support movement has been pervasive is one of the major reasons for its utter failure to date.
Comment on this Article
The NYT Confronts Mearsheimer and Walt--Not Quite Head On
By LENNI BRENNER
May 17, 2006
I've been a political activist for 54 years. During that time I've had plenty of chances to do stupid things and I've taken full advantage of the opportunities. But I've developed only one perversion: I not only read New York Times editorials, I collect them.
One thing is for certain. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" has made the big time. It's been discussed in the Times, read by the city's intellectuals and many others worldwide via its website, which 1.9 million individuals hit daily.
'Out of town' born residents may have wondered why "Essay Stirs Debate About Influence of a Jewish Lobby" was placed in the paper's 4/12 Metro section, reserved for stories about corruption trials of Brooklyn Democrats. But, while Jews are only ca. 2% of Americans, there is nothing more local than an attack on Zionism in a city where 8% of the total population, and 30% of all whites, are Jews.
Alan Finder told us that other "opinion journals" attacked the professors, "part of a group of foreign policy analysts, known as realists, who believe that international politics is fundamentally about the pursuit of power," as anti-Semitic. But he took no position on the contents of their critique.
The Times hasn't taken a stand on the merits of their arguments for two reasons: Its record on Jewish issues before the creation of Israel in 1948 was shameful and got worse afterwards. A former executive editor spoke for it in the 11/14/01 issue. It's willful blindness to the holocaust was "surely the century's bitterest journalistic failure."
Forbes Magazine laughingly calls itself a "capitalist tool," but today's Times is convinced that it is capitalism's official organ. Indeed if control still rests tightly in the hands of the Ochs and Sulzberger families, publishers since 1896, now worth well over half a billion dollars, a former Federal Communications Commission Chair is on its board of directors and Bear Stern Securities, Brown Brothers Harriman, Charles Schwalb, Citibank, Goldman, Sachs & Co., JP Morgan Chase Bank and Merill Lynch are major stockholders.
Originally from Germany, the Ochs and Sulzbergers started as members of the "Reform" Jewish sect, which preached Tory American patriotism. When the Times defended Atlanta Jew Leo Frank, lynched in 1916 after false rape and murder charges, death threats put Adolph Ochs under "neurological" treatment. He recovered, but thereafter it deliberately fled from fights against anti-Semitism and spiraled right. In 1922 it hailed Mussolini's Fascism as "the most interesting governmental experiment of the day .... We should all be glad that he is going at it vigorously."
Of course, when Hitler came to power in 1933, even it admitted to "qualms which the news from Berlin must cause to all friends of Germany." But
"It is announced that the national finances will be kept in strong and conservative hands .... There is thus no warrant for immediate alarm. It may be that we shall see the 'tamed Hitler' of whom some Germans are hopefully speaking. Always we may look for some such transformation when a radical or demagogue fights his way into responsible office."
Tame Hitler quickly vanished from editorials. But wherever possible the paper evaded dealing with Nazi anti-Semitism. By 1942 it buried Washington's 1st announcement of the Holocaust on page 10.
Of course the present publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., bears no responsibility for his kin's Hitler era infamies. But he knows that if the Times prints an editorial word in favor of any Mearsheimer/Walt thesis, Zionists would fight back, exposing its morbid role in the Hitler era. That can't do it any good. But there is a more important reason why it can't accept their line.
The Ochs and Sulzbergers privately dismissed pre-state Zionism as utopian and sectarian, raising questions as to Jews' loyalty to the US. In 1946, Arthur Hays Sulzberger gave a synagogue speech denouncing Zionist attacks on calls for liberalizing America's immigration laws, passed in 1924 to keep down the number of Catholic and Jewish immigrants. These Zionists wanted Jews in Displaced Persons camps in Germany to have no choice but to go to Palestine. They retaliated by getting the city's Jewish department stores to pull ads from the paper.
Zionism was an offstage noise in 1933-39 Jewish New York. The important political players were the reformist socialists who led the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. They quit the Socialist Party to support Roosevelt. Their major rival were the Communist Party's Jews. Both despised Zionism for seeking charity donations from Jewish capitalists who should have given the money to their Jewish and other workers. They condemned the World Zionist Organization for its "Transfer" Agreement with Hitler. To get Jewish money out of Germany, the WZO sold Nazi goods in the Middle East and shipped it oranges to Europe via Nazi boats. But the holocaust stunned them. Both left elements regressed into nationalism.
Most capitalists mobilized by the Zionists had shared the broad community indifference to Zionism. Most knew little to nothing about Zionism's Hitler era record. But the slaughter had the same effect on them as on 90% of the Jews, who suddenly supported the creation of a Jewish state as a refuge for survivors.
Then Joseph Stalin decided to back Israel's creation. The cold war on, he wanted the British out of the Middle East. He reasoned that if the Zionists ran them out of Palestine, London's Arab puppets would finally start kicking them out of the region. Stalin's line allowed the CPUSA's ranks to do what they wanted to do, and the emotional wave generated by this singular cross-class unity inundated the Times. Thousands of Jews joined hundreds of young Communists, Jew and gentile, black and white, in dancing the hora, the Israeli folk dance, around the Times Tower as its electric sign announced the creation of Israel and its recognition by Stalin and the US.
Sulzberger surrendered. The 5/16/48 editorial after Israel's independence declaration even insisted that "The decision by the Government of the United States to recognize Israel calls logically for a corollary decision by the same Government to lift its present arms embargo."
Support for US taxpayers arming Israel to the teeth remains unquestioned dogma, even though Sulzberger is aware of Zionist bigotry. His assimilationist father married a Christian and she raised him. In 1969 he visited Israel. "The Family," a 4/19/99 New Yorker article, told of his
"challenging a senior official of the Israeli government who suggested that, no matter what happened in the world, everyone around the table would always have a homeland in Israel. 'Excuse me, but I'm an Episcopalian! Is this still my country?' Arthur, Jr. said loudly. Thirty years later, he continues to regard the Israeli's comment as racist."
Can we reasonably hypothesize that Sulzberger sees much of what we see, whatever Times editorials say and don't say? Lefts and Zionists argue with Mearsheimer and Walt re the degree of pro-Zionist neo-con responsibility for the Iraq invasion, but no one doubts that the lobby played a major role in building public support for what the paper now knows is a disastrous war, won or lost. However Sulzberger's national Democratic electoral commitment makes it very difficult for his paper to editorially denounce the lobby.
The Democrats are more crucially dependent on Zionist campaign contributions than the Republicans. If the paper put the lobby under a critical editorial microscope, they would still hustle rich Zionists for bucks. And it knows it can't go over to McCain or any 'moderate' national Republican candidate and hold the allegiance of its educated readers, who cynically see the Democrats as lesser evils, domestically, or share its support for them as rational imperialists.
Unfortunately for the Times, sooner or later it will have to take an editorial position on the lobby. It can't evade what is being discussed in its pages. As soon as Finder's reportage appeared, the Council for the National Interest put an ad in its 4/16 issue:
"What happens in Palestine deeply influences what will happen in Iraq and in the war on terror. As a recent study by professors at Harvard and the University of Chicago concludes, 'Saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around.'"
Paul Findley of CNI was driven out of Congress by the lobby when he questioned US ties to Israel. We have met. His anti-Zionism started from conservative premises similar to Mearsheimer/Walt but he is now genuinely devoted to justice for the Palestinians.
The issue got hotter with a 4/19 op-ed by Tony Judt, an ex-editor of the New Republic who broke with Zionism in 2003:
"Is Israel, in Mearsheimer/Walt's words, 'a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states?' I think it is, but that too is an issue for legitimate debate."
Judt gave us the classic right-wing argument against concern that anti-Semites cheer on Mearsheimer/Walt.
"The damage that is done by America's fear of anti-Semitism when discussing Israel is .... bad for Israel: by guaranteeing it unconditional support, Americans encourage Israel to act heedless of consequences."
Dialectically, the Times' dilemma also exposes Mearsheimer/Walt's and Judt's contradictions. In the tale, the mice decided that if the cat had a bell around its neck, they would hear it and hide. Unfortunately, they had no answer to an old mouse's "But how do you bell the cat?" Mearsheimer and Walt were cofounders of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. Its prime organizers were Cato Institute conservatives with 1980s Democratic presidential wannabe Gary Hart providing 'center' cover. To all observers' amazement, they proclaimed to be "united by our opposition to an American empire."
They claim a 'libertarian' vision of what American capitalism should be like. The US is on top of the world economically. It should relax. Constantly expanding militarily imperialism is too statist for them. They want someone in capitalist Washington to make Israel 'make nice' to the Palestinians so that rich Muslims can make nice to America. But who do they think is going to do this? Bush? Rebellious Republicans? The Democrats?
The Democrats and Republicans have been imperialists since before the Spanish-American war. Opposing Bush and neo-con imperialism but not opposing both parties isn't anti-imperialism. De facto it's a call for a new emperor with smarter advisers, i.e., themselves. Sociologist C. Wright Mills encountered their type in academia during the Vietnam war. 'We have to be realistic' was the pro-war professors' national anthem as they and Washington marched to defeat. His "crackpot realist" description of them perfectly fits Mearsheimer and Walt.
Judt broke with Zionism but he also has realpolitik concerns for "the imperial might and international reputation of the United States." Alas, Washington has "chosen to lose touch with the rest of the international community on this issue."
Bush and the neo-cons are so close-linked that its hard to envision a scenario where he breaks with them and retains credibility with anyone. Some Republicans are beginning to wonder where he is leading them. However its his ties to Islamic fanatics, not his hyper-Zionism or Christian zealotry, that upset most of them. Rank and file Republicans were scandalized by pictures of two happy guys, Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, holding hands at the ranch. Then Bush's Iraqi Shia clients responded to Sunni terror with their own. Then came the Afghan Abdur Rahman infamy.
Bush was ahead there. Al-Qaada and the Taliban were on the run. Suddenly his native satraps' prosecution of a Christian convert outraged them. They can't justify Christian military dying to establish 'friendly' Islamic states with laws calling for executing converts to their religion. Their critique of Bush has little in common with the profs' or Judt's.
That leaves conservative anti-Zionists with the Democrats, exactly as with the Times. Except that Hillary Clinton still stands by her vote for funding the invasion. And now she constantly makes the rounds of New York's sex-segregated Orthodox synagogues, seeking support from rabbis and male congregants who begin every day with a prayer to God: "Thank you for making me a man, not a woman."
The 1/11/06 Village Voice described her ties to Brooklyn State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, Zionism's David Duke. The Klansman mainstreamed into the Republicans. Hikind went from Meir Kahane's Jewish Defense League, listed by the US and Israel as terrorists, to the Democrats. He is against giving even an inch of the West Bank back to the Palestinians. He opposed her 2000 campaign until she went to him. Now he's in and out of her office. "'Are you going to endorse Hillary Clinton?'.... Hikind said yes, stressing how great a friend she is."
THE GREAT PROTESTANT CRUSADER
The Zionist response to the profs started with 'Duke praises Mearsheimer and Walt.' That didn't work. So Martin Peretz pointed out, in the 4/10 New Republic, that their working paper is nearly 35,000 words, with 210 footnotes, yet
"The word 'oil,' however, appears in the document exactly seven times -- all of them generic or trivial. None of the references relate to the systematic U.S. dependence on foreign crude or ... to the truly powerful lobby that has worked for many decades to satisfy it through arranging that the producer governments get what they want: mainly protection against radical Muslims."
That a denunciation of the Zionists around Bush has gotten so much media attention is certain evidence that Bush has lost his home-front. But Zionists insisting that the US truthfully is the Marxists' oil-greedy imperialist ogre, is just as sure a sign that Israel is likewise losing the propaganda war here. Un fortunately neither realists nor Zionists completely describe the Bush/neo-con relationship that produced the Iraq debacle.
Modern history is full of governments rushing into disastrous wars. However we have to go back to Portugal's 1578 invasion of Morocco for the closest analog to Bush invading Iraq. King Sebastian was three when he came to the throne. Educated by fanatic Jesuits, he grew up with a passion for a crusade against Morocco. Advisors inherited from his father opposed him. Portugal had a lot on its hands in Brazil and the East Indies. But the more they argued against it, the more he surrounded himself with mad monks who thought a crusade was a terrific idea.
Sebastian and 40,000 troops sailed away. Six, not 6,000, came back, none named Sebastian. The kingdom collapsed. In 1580 Spain marched in. Portugal literally disappeared from the map until 1640 when a nobles' revolt regained independence. The Jesuits and monks were Sebastian's neo-cons. Without them, no crusade. But he was king. He went to war, not them. If he wasn't crazy, he would have listened to dad's staff.
"Over-determined" is the historians' term for such phenomena. The neo-cons are Bush's monks. But he was President. If he wasn't as demented as Sebastian he wouldn't have listen to them.
It is also possible to blame oil imperialism for Iraq and apparently explain it. And Bush does have God's unlisted phone number and chats with him at least once a day. Each theory seems to cover the facts. But neither oil, the lobby nor born-again fanaticism, alone, explain our Sebastian. He is simultaneously ex-governor of the epicenter of America's oil industry and a Jesus freak who surrounds himself with Jewish nationalists. Yet, when he got up after 9/11 to announce a "crusade" against Al-Qaada, Jesus, the oil industry and the Zionists were equally stunned when he used the worst possible word under those circumstances.
'MONEY DOESN'T JUST TALK. IT SHOUTS!
Naturally the lobby had to respond to the Times' discussion of itself with 4/22 letters. Seymour Reich of the Israel Policy Forum insisted that Washington is only pro-Zionist because, "beginning with President Harry S. Truman's, every American administration has viewed Israel as an important strategic ally."
Except that we know, from his daughter, Margaret, exactly why he backed creation of a Zionist state. In her book, Harry S. Truman, she describes how
"More than once, the Palestine question was put to Dad in terms of American politics. At a cabinet luncheon on October 6, 1947, Bob Hannegan almost made a speech, pointing out how many Jews were major contributors to the Democratic Party's campaign fund and were expecting the United States to support the Zionists' position on Palestine."
Reich invented Truman viewing Israel as an important Middle Eastern ally. His State Department had pointed out that, strategically, it was the Arabs who had the oil. But Hannegan was Truman's Postmaster General. In those good ol' days, that meant Graftmaster General. He convinced Truman that unless these newly agitated Jewish rich funded him, he would lose the 1948 election. Like Richard Wagner presenting lead-motives in overtures to his operas and then dramatically repeating them throughout the shows, from that day to this, pandering to rich Zionists for campaign money is the 1st consideration in the Democratic Party's "strategic" thinking concerning the Middle East.
Later, after Israel pulverized the Arab armies in 1967, Washington realized that those armies would fold if the Soviets invaded the Middle East. From then until the collapse of the Soviet Union, Israel was a standby military ally. But this didn't negate the party's central concern re campaign funding.
Naturally Mearsheimer and Walt point to this. Jews "make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates 'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money.'" But they present no notion of how to stop this. As old-cons, they don't call for abolition of private election funding.
This is a basic difference between "realism" and leftism. But this is also the core distinction between the Times and radicalism. In 1999, New York's other Senator, Charles Schumer, made a Senate speech:
"We have a tremendously serious problem. We have a poison that is in the roots of this great tree of democracy.... That poison is cynicism. That poison is a view of the average citizen, rightly or wrongly -- and in many cases, it is right -- that the average person doesn't have the influence of a person or a company or a group of great wealth.... [I]f we can no longer have the citizens believe, when this body debates an issue, that the debates are being divided by firmly held beliefs rather than by who is manipulating, controlling, or contributing to whom, then we can't survive as a democracy. That fatal distance between people and their government will get larger and larger and larger."
With readers sharply aware of local and national corruption, Times chief editorialist Gail Collins constantly takes up reform. On 5/6, she warned us yet again re congress: "There's also no reason to believe that the average lawmaker has any real intention of following even the extremely modest ethics improvements that do make it into law."
But she never mentions Zionist contributions. These aren't a state secret. Major pro-Zionist 'Jewish community' journals, Forward and Jewish Week, run detailed accounts of them. Jews are only two percent of Americans. Zionists admit that they are an ever shrinking minority of that two percent, and the rich who put money into the hacks' pockets are a minority among Zionists. How serious can the Times be about campaign reform if it never editorially confronts this egregious example of a moneyed minority of a minority of a minority corrupting both parties?
Indeed, this is in keeping with Times general hypocrisy about money in politics. For all of Collins' wearisome sarcasm re politicians, at election time the Times lists the local Democrats and occasional Republicans it wants readers to vote for. The winners among them are a huge percentage of those crooked average lawmakers Collins whines about.
The wide discussion of Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's policy paper, including the gingerly Times take, tells us that most pro-capitalist intellectuals see Bush in deepening trouble throughout the Middle East. So they debate who to blame for getting us into these wars, without making the slightest effort to build a movement to get the US out of them.
Still, we thank the profs, Zionists and the Times. The academics succeeded in mainstreaming critical discussion of the lobby. But their approach is so narrow that it almost forced Zionists to respond by shouting about how, well and truly, the US is imperialist. And the Times' failure to editorially draw even one conclusion from a discussion in its own pages, much less call for a new policy towards Zionism, focuses us on cleaning up the antiwar movement's own act.
We have yet to set up an educational program, giving a rounded explanation of Washington's wars, clearly identifying the sins, crimes and follies of all the players on the stage, foreign and domestic. With that in place, we can organize Americans to defeat the bipartisan demagogues and imperialists in the streets and electorally, once and for all and forever.
Comment on this Article
Aipac Case Impacting Security Clearance
BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
May 17, 2006
The Pentagon is invoking the prosecution of two pro-Israel lobbyists and a Defense Department analyst for illegal use of classified information as a basis for stripping security clearances from government contractor employees who have dual citizenship in America and Israel or family members living in the Jewish state.
In at least three instances, Defense Department attorneys have used or attempted to use the case involving the former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to justify withdrawing a security clearance or denying one in the first place, according to a Virginia lawyer who closely tracks such disputes, Sheldon Cohen.
"In my personal experience, I know of at least three cases," Mr. Cohen told The New York Sun yesterday. "I assume they're raising it in every Israel case."
Asked why government lawyers were invoking the Aipac case in security clearance disputes with no known connection to the pro-Israel group, Mr. Cohen said, "The only reason to possibly use it is to implicate anybody with a connection to Israel, to imply they cannot be trusted. There is no other conceivable reason to bring it up."
The two former Aipac staffers, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, and the Pentagon analyst, Lawrence Franklin, were indicted in August 2005 on charges they conspired to pass classified information to persons not entitled to receive it, including Israeli officials and members of the press.
Franklin pleaded guilty in October. Messrs. Rosen and Weissman, who were fired by Aipac last year, have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to go on trial in federal court in Alexandria, Va. in August. However, a judge is considering their motion to throw out the case on the grounds that they were not government employees and had no legal obligation to protect any secrets Franklin may have provided.
Lawyers familiar with the security clearance review process said it is impossible to determine the full impact of the Aipac case on clearances because large swaths of the clearance process take place out of public view, including nearly all cases involving government employees. Only a few hundred cases involving government contractor employees are made public each year by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, a quasi-judicial body which is overseen by the defense department's general counsel. The most recent cases on the Pentagon's Web site are from 2005.
Mr. Cohen, who recently completed a study of the Israel-related security clearance cases, found that "an unusually large number" of the public cases involving concerns about foreign influence appear to relate to Israel. The names are deleted from cases made public by the Pentagon and most of those involved in clearance disputes do not wish to be identified, Mr. Cohen said.
One of the pending clearance cases where government lawyers have sought to rely on the Aipac prosecution involves an Israeli-born mechanical engineer who has worked at a major defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, for more than two decades, the employee's attorney, David Schoen, told the Sun.
"There was some basis for McCarthyism. Here there's nothing, just this dual loyalty business," Mr. Schoen said. "It really strikes me as un-American."
The Lockheed employee, whom Mr. Schoen declined to name, was born in Israel but emigrated to America 25 years ago. "His wife is American. His kids are American," the lawyer said. "He has never had a problem at Lockheed."
More than 7 years ago, the engineer was assigned to the F-22 fighter jet project and granted a "secret" clearance, Mr. Schoen said. A few months ago, defense department officials moved to revoke the employee's clearance, citing his dual Israeli citizenship, his possession of an Israeli passport, and the fact that his mother and siblings live in Israel.
Mr. Schoen said his client fully disclosed the citizenship, the passport, and the family ties when he was first granted the clearance and was puzzled by the sudden claim that he was a security risk.
At a hearing a few weeks ago on the Lockheed engineer's case, Mr. Schoen said, a government attorney sought to file the indictment of Messrs. Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman as an exhibit. The government argued that the indictment showed Israel was actively spying on America, Mr. Schoen said.
Mr. Schoen said he strenuously objected that the indictment was irrelevant to his client's case and, as a charging document, no proof of anything. "The only relevance can be is here are two Jews in Washington who are accused of spying for Israel so now any Jew is suspect for that," he said.
Mr. Schoen said the government argued that Franklin's guilty plea confirmed the validity of the charges, but the administrative judge conducting the clearance review hearing declined to admit the exhibit.
Mr. Schoen said his client, whose hearing was continued to June, was recently laid off by Lockheed.
The Defense Department public affairs office initially referred the Sun's questions about these issues to the Defense Security Service, which said it could not respond. A Pentagon spokesman later referred the questions to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals. An official there, Peregrine Russell-Hunter, said no one in the office was authorized to speak with the press. "We haven't had a press inquiry here in a very long time," he said.
After courts ruled that dual citizenship alone was insufficient to deny a clearance, in 2002, the defense department adopted a policy that denied clearances to most people who hold foreign passports. Mr. Schoen said his client offered to give up his Israeli passport if the government would agree to grant him a clearance, but the government declined.
A law professor who studies issues of dual nationality, Peter Spiro, said he saw no legitimate connection between the Aipac prosecution and the security clearance cases involving dual citizens. The professor, who teaches at the University of Georgia, noted that Messrs. Franklin and Weissman are not Israeli citizens. "All it says then is that somebody of a certain ethnicity may be more amenable to do the bidding of a foreign government," Mr. Spiro said. "These folks are being picked out for their national association which in this case is a proxy for their ethnic identity.... It's sort of like corruption of the extended blood."
The professor said there have been no major espionage cases involving dual nationals and intelligence agencies would be foolish to enlist people with such obvious ties.
A Jewish leader in Washington, Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, said he was disturbed by the challenges to security clearances. "This is terrible," he said. "People around the country are turning to use and telling us of ongoing cases where people are stripped of their livelihoods just because they're Jewish."
Mr. Cohen said he has not seen evidence the Pentagon is hostile to Jews. Rather, he said, people with ties to Israel have been casualties of a general tightening of the clearance process since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "There is an intensification of government interest in people who have ties to any country in the Middle East," he said. "Aipac may just have added fuel to the fire."
In 2000, an attorney for the CIA, Adam Ciralsky, made headlines when he charged that the agency fired him because he is Jewish, studied Hebrew, and traveled to Israel. The agency denied that anti-Semitism played any role in his firing, but acknowledged that some memos written by investigators were offensive and inappropriate.
Nearly six years after Mr. Ciralsky filed suit over his firing, his case against the CIA is still pending before a federal court in Washington.
Comment from Jeff Blankfort: "There was some basis for McCarthyism. Here there's nothing, just this dual loyalty business," Mr. Schoen said. "It really strikes me as un-American."
"Just this dual loyalty business?" Unintentional satire from the NY Sun. Contrary to what is written here, I am not aware that there is any charge that the AIPAC spies gave any information to the media.
Comment on this Article
Fmr. US Pres. Carter Called Convergence Plan "Illegal"
May 17, 2006
Arutz Sheva
Former US President Jimmy Carter has called Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's unilateral Convergence Plan "illegal" and a violation of the Camp David Accords he brokered between Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1978. Carter further characterized the plan to retain large Jewish communities under Israeli sovereignty as a "confiscation of land".
Comment on this Article
The convergence bluff
opendemocracy.net
17/05/2006
The new Israeli prime minister's "convergence plan" is a Trojan horse, Ehud Olmert's record in office shows that he is not preparing for peace.
The Kadima party's victory in Israel's elections last month reveals the deep shift that has taken place in Israeli politics. By bringing Ehud Olmert into power with a solid leftwing majority in the Knesset, the Israeli public has made it clear to its politicians that it is ready to give up the dream of a Greater Israel. A leading hawk and life-long revisionist until only recently, Olmert based his electoral campaign on a promise to carry out his "convergence plan" (which in Hebrew rhymes with and evokes Ariel Sharon's "disengagement plan") to evacuate settlers from the West Bank.
However, Olmert's actions since being elected suggest that he does not intend to act in accordance with the mandate given to him by the public. Olmert rejected talks with the Israeli Arab parties and has shown little enthusiasm for Meretz, despite the fact that these parties have been calling for the evacuation of settlements for years, making them the most natural partners for a government sincere about ending the settlement enterprise.
Instead Olmert began by courting the hardline nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, whose leader recently said that certain Israeli Arab members of the Knesset should be executed. He eventually brought the rightwing Shas party into his government, and may yet recruit another anti-pullout party for his coalition, in addition to the Labour Party and the Pensioners, to the left of Kadima. In light of this unexpected coalition, a closer look at the details of the convergence plan is in order.
Between the lines
The stated aim of the convergence plan is to evacuate approximately seventy thousand Jewish settlers from their homes on the other side of the fence separating Israel from the Palestinians. (Lately, Kadima members have been saying that the number of evacuated settlers will actually be lower). Even if Olmert keeps his promise, this figure represents less than a third of the Jewish settlers on the West Bank of the Jordan, not counting another 184,000 Jewish residents of East Jerusalem who also live over the Green Line, and are considered settlers by the Palestinians and much of the international community. Thus the convergence plan will not spell the end of the Jewish settlement enterprise in the West Bank.
Nor will the convergence plan end Israel's military occupation of the West Bank. Olmert has assured the public on several occasions that unlike in Gaza, where the army was pulled back to the Green Line, in the West Bank the army will remain even in those areas where settlements are to be evacuated. Thus Palestinian life will continue to be disrupted by military checkpoints; Israeli soldiers serving in the West Bank will continue to be exposed to attacks by Palestinian militants; and Israel's military front lines will not be shortened (a step widely seen as a means to free up funds for education, health and other social spending).
Olmert's promise finally to determine permanent and recognised borders for Israel also appears doubtful. Recognised borders by definition must be agreed in negotiations with the Palestinians. Olmert has promised to hold an internal dialogue with the settler movement, and to coordinate his positions with the Bush Administration in Washington later this month, but he seems to have no intention of negotiating in good faith with the Palestinians.
In fact, the prime minister has stated on many occasions that he sees no partner for negotiations on the Palestinian side unless several preconditions are fulfilled, including a change in the democratically elected Hamas government. He has made it clear that he will implement his plan unilaterally if negotiations fail, despite the fact that its outlines have already been rejected by the Palestinians in past negotiations. They are roughly the same lines that Ehud Barak brought to Camp David in 2000, which the Palestinian leadership rejected out of hand. Barak's map was later reincarnated as the approximate route of Sharon's separation wall, and is now to form the basis of Olmert's proposed permanent eastern border.
For their part, the Palestinians have called on the new Israeli government to sit down for talks with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Neighbouring Arab countries have also called for negotiations rather than unilateral actions. The Hamas government has made it clear that it views Olmert's unilateralism as "a declaration of war", and experienced Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat has stated that "peace and settlements cannot go together".
Maps produced in recent unofficial negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders provide a better picture of what a final negotiated settlement might look like. In these maps, certain settlement blocks disappear, while others are preserved in a scaled-down form.
Facts on the ground
Like Ariel Sharon before him, Olmert has pledged that the settlement blocks will be a part of Israel forever. The basis of this promise is a letter from George W Bush to Sharon last April recognizing the settlement blocks as "new realities on the ground". The Israeli government sees this as proof of the Bush Administration's acquiescence to Israel's territorial ambitions regarding these areas - hence the urgency to accomplish the convergence by the end of Bush's term.
Labour chairman Amir Peretz has called on the new government to set up a legal and budgetary framework for the immediate evacuation of those settlers who are willing to move back over the Green Line. There are many of these, and early coordinated relocation is certainly preferable to coerced evacuation. There are also enough existing empty homes in communities and urban neighbourhoods within the Green Line to provide at least a partial solution for their absorption. But Olmert instead plans to build thousands of new housing units in the West Bank settlement blocks for the future evacuees. This will likely translate into reactivating controversial shelved building plans. One plan that has the potential to absorb at least half of the evacuees is the E1 plan, east of Jerusalem. Previously rejected by the US, and bitterly opposed by the Palestinians, the E1 plan now looks set to make a comeback. If built, E1 would sandwich Palestinian East Jerusalem between Jewish West Jerusalem and a massive block of Jewish settlements to the east.
Just as a former advisor to Sharon, Dov Weisglass, once revealed that the Gaza evacuation was meant to spoil any chance for peace negotiations with the Palestinians, it appears that relocating settlers en masse to Jewish settlement blocks would make future negotiations that much more difficult, if not impossible.
And just as Gaza evacuees were relocated to the Halutza area, previously seen as an area to be potentially handed over to the Palestinians in a land swap, settlers evacuated from isolated West Bank settlements will be shifted to consolidated settlement blocks to solidify Israel's hold on these territories. These blocks are unacceptable to the Palestinians, and the chances of evacuating settlers for a second time in the future are slim. It appears that Olmert is following Sharon's strategy of using ostensible peace moves to predetermine the results of any future agreement.
Thus the actual objectives of the convergence plan appear to be the following:
* to continue the military occupation of the West Bank;
* to expand settlement construction by winning US approval for building projects that until now have met with opposition in the Bush Administration;
* to continue the transfer of state resources to the settlers, against the wishes of the voting public, by providing them with massive compensation packages and new homes outside the Green Line;
* to use public funds to create profitable business opportunities for influential building contractors - who, with the completion of the separation wall over the next couple of years, will soon be keen for more massive government-funded projects - by fast-track approval of the construction of thousands of new apartments;
* to predetermine the results of any future negotiations with the Palestinians by cementing the status of the settlement blocks as irreversible "facts on the ground".
In any case, it is clear that the convergence plan will not end the conflict and bring peace in the middle east. The Gaza disengagement showed that unilateral actions strengthen radical elements on the Palestinian side, thus potentially raising the intensity of the conflict.
Olmert's convergence is scheduled to be completed by 2010, the same year his term in office ends. It appears that the Israelis and the Palestinians will have to wait until at least the next decade for a serious chance for peace in the region.
Comment on this Article
Gaza on brink as Hamas deploys militia
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
18 May 2006
The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority has deployed a new militia in Gaza under the command of a leading militant and in direct defiance of a veto by the PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
The paramilitary "implementation force", led by Jamal Abu Samadhana, prominent on Israel's wanted list, took up positions on the streets of Gaza City and elsewhere yesterday with the stated aim of restoring order in the increasingly lawless Strip. Late last night security force units loyal to Mr Abbas began patrolling Gaza as part of what a security official told Reuters would be the largest such deployment since the run-up to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last August.
The moves risked increasing tension between Fatah and Hamas after two Hamas militants were killed in drive-by shootings which the faction blamed on the Fatah-dominated Preventative Security Force. But by 1am there had been no clashes between the rival forces.
Hamas partly fought the January election on a law and order ticket amid hopes that it would put an end to tribal and factional shootings, kidnappings and other violence.
But witnesses told Associated Press that members of the Hamas-supporting force many with the beards favoured by Gaza's devout Muslims had also beaten demonstrators at the education ministry offices in the southern Gaza town of Khan Yunis. Ministry officials and protesters said around 40 militiamen had jumped from jeeps and fired in the air before entering the building and attacking protesters with clubs and rifles.
Jamal Abu Samadhana is a prominent member of the Popular Resistance Committee, which is believed to be responsible for many of the rocket attacks on Israel and has been suspected of involvement in the bombing which killed three Americans travelling through Gaza in October 2003.
Units of the force said to number 3,000 in all were ordered on to the streets by the Hamas Interior Minister Said Syam after the shootings " to protect the security of the citizens and their property".
This was despite explicit rejection of the new force by Mr Abbas, who insisted he was in overall charge of security and has been building up his own personal security force with US help. Maher Mekdad, a Fatah spokesman in Gaza, declared: "The formation of this unit is illegal. It violates the presidential decree, and it's a unit outside the law."
There were no claims of responsibility for the drive-by shootings but Mushir al-Masri, a prominent Hamas parliamentarian in Gaza, said: "This is a plan of the Preventative Security to draw Hamas into a civil war and to make the government appear ineffective." Meanwhile in Strasbourg, Mr Abbas said in an interview with AP that Hamas "can't survive" if it continues to ignore international demands that it refrain from violence and recognise Israel. "They should adapt to international standards, they should be part of the international community. Without that I don't think they can survive, I don't think they can deliver," he said. Mr Abbas added: "Whether it is reasonable to expect a change or not we have to give them a chance. They've been in office less than a month and a half. They should take their chance."
Meanwhile the new Labour Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, signalled a new approach to Gaza's economic crisis by requesting the army to reopen the Karni cargo crossing into Israel for export cargo. Yesterday was the first day the crossing which has been closed for much of the past six months was opened for outgoing traffic since Palestinian police foiled an attack on it on 26 April.
Professor Rafi Walden and Professor Zvi Bentwich, two senior Israeli clinicians on the board of Physicians for Human Rights Israel, called on the Israeli government to take immediate action to pay directly for drugs, medical salaries and hospital treatment for Palestinians to relieve what they warned was now a rapidly worsening medical emergency in Gaza. They rejected claims that the international and Israeli boycott of funding to the PA would not affect humanitarian needs. Professor Bentwich said of the government: "The reality of what they have done is clearly not fitting with what they have stated."
An Israeli official said that Israel was now discussing the creation of an independent unit at every medical centre to pay Palestinian clinicians' salaries. The official added that provisions had been made for the direct payment to Israeli hospitals for Palestinian patients out of the revenues it is withholding from the PA. But officials at Shifa hospital in Gaza City say that 270 patients are awaiting transfer to Israel partly because the PA has no funds to pay for treatment there.
The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority has deployed a new militia in Gaza under the command of a leading militant and in direct defiance of a veto by the PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
The paramilitary "implementation force", led by Jamal Abu Samadhana, prominent on Israel's wanted list, took up positions on the streets of Gaza City and elsewhere yesterday with the stated aim of restoring order in the increasingly lawless Strip. Late last night security force units loyal to Mr Abbas began patrolling Gaza as part of what a security official told Reuters would be the largest such deployment since the run-up to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last August.
The moves risked increasing tension between Fatah and Hamas after two Hamas militants were killed in drive-by shootings which the faction blamed on the Fatah-dominated Preventative Security Force. But by 1am there had been no clashes between the rival forces.
Hamas partly fought the January election on a law and order ticket amid hopes that it would put an end to tribal and factional shootings, kidnappings and other violence.
But witnesses told Associated Press that members of the Hamas-supporting force many with the beards favoured by Gaza's devout Muslims had also beaten demonstrators at the education ministry offices in the southern Gaza town of Khan Yunis. Ministry officials and protesters said around 40 militiamen had jumped from jeeps and fired in the air before entering the building and attacking protesters with clubs and rifles.
Jamal Abu Samadhana is a prominent member of the Popular Resistance Committee, which is believed to be responsible for many of the rocket attacks on Israel and has been suspected of involvement in the bombing which killed three Americans travelling through Gaza in October 2003.
Units of the force said to number 3,000 in all were ordered on to the streets by the Hamas Interior Minister Said Syam after the shootings " to protect the security of the citizens and their property".
This was despite explicit rejection of the new force by Mr Abbas, who insisted he was in overall charge of security and has been building up his own personal security force with US help. Maher Mekdad, a Fatah spokesman in Gaza, declared: "The formation of this unit is illegal. It violates the presidential decree, and it's a unit outside the law."
There were no claims of responsibility for the drive-by shootings but Mushir al-Masri, a prominent Hamas parliamentarian in Gaza, said: "This is a plan of the Preventative Security to draw Hamas into a civil war and to make the government appear ineffective." Meanwhile in Strasbourg, Mr Abbas said in an interview with AP that Hamas "can't survive" if it continues to ignore international demands that it refrain from violence and recognise Israel. "They should adapt to international standards, they should be part of the international community. Without that I don't think they can survive, I don't think they can deliver," he said. Mr Abbas added: "Whether it is reasonable to expect a change or not we have to give them a chance. They've been in office less than a month and a half. They should take their chance."
Meanwhile the new Labour Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, signalled a new approach to Gaza's economic crisis by requesting the army to reopen the Karni cargo crossing into Israel for export cargo. Yesterday was the first day the crossing which has been closed for much of the past six months was opened for outgoing traffic since Palestinian police foiled an attack on it on 26 April.
Professor Rafi Walden and Professor Zvi Bentwich, two senior Israeli clinicians on the board of Physicians for Human Rights Israel, called on the Israeli government to take immediate action to pay directly for drugs, medical salaries and hospital treatment for Palestinians to relieve what they warned was now a rapidly worsening medical emergency in Gaza. They rejected claims that the international and Israeli boycott of funding to the PA would not affect humanitarian needs. Professor Bentwich said of the government: "The reality of what they have done is clearly not fitting with what they have stated."
An Israeli official said that Israel was now discussing the creation of an independent unit at every medical centre to pay Palestinian clinicians' salaries. The official added that provisions had been made for the direct payment to Israeli hospitals for Palestinian patients out of the revenues it is withholding from the PA. But officials at Shifa hospital in Gaza City say that 270 patients are awaiting transfer to Israel partly because the PA has no funds to pay for treatment there.
Comment: It really is an amazing coincidence that the Palestinians are slowly moving towards all-out war with each other rather than combining their forces to fight the illegal occupying Israeli force. Is it perhaps not clear enough to the them just who the enemy is? Have they somehow forgotten the hundreds of their own children that have been deliberately murdered by the IDF over the past 5 years? Of course not. As is true in the case of Iraq at the moment, an indigenous people do not normally respond to an outside aggressor by fighting and killing each other. Such a stiuation only develops as a result of deliberate provocation in the form of covert bombings and assassinations by a "fifth column" acting on behalf of the aggressor in an attempt to turn the conflict into an internal one and thereby destroy the resistance. It would appear therefore that Hamas, being originally a creation of Israel, or certain elements within Hamas, have been infiltrated in this way.
Comment on this Article
Israelis, Palestinians plan high-level meeting
Last Updated Thu, 18 May 2006 06:12:37 EDT
CBC News
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will meet with Israel's foreign minister this weekend in the first high-level meeting between the two sides since the new Israeli government took office.
The meeting is to take place on the sidelines of an international economic conference in Egypt.
It would also coincide with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's first visit to Washington.
Abbas will meet Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Sunday at the Egyptian resort of Sharm-el-Sheik. Both men will attend the World Economic Forum.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry wouldn't immediately confirm the meeting, but indicated that Livni's schedule for the weekend had not been finalized.
Comment on this Article
Genetics and Evolution
Final chromosome in human genome sequenced
By Reuters
May 17, 2006
Scientists have reached a landmark point in one of the world's most important scientific projects by sequencing the last chromosome in the human genome, the so-called "book of life".
Chromosome 1 contains nearly twice as many genes as the average chromosome and makes up eight percent of the human genetic code.
It is packed with 3,141 genes and linked to 350 illnesses including cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.
"This achievement effectively closes the book on an important volume of the Human Genome Project," said Simon Gregory, who headed the sequencing project at the Sanger Institute in England.
The project was started in 1990 to identify the genes and DNA sequences that provide a blueprint for human beings.
Chromosome 1 is the biggest and contains, per chromosome, the greatest number of genes.
"Therefore it is the region of the genome to which the greatest number of diseases have been localized," added Gregory, from Duke University in the United States.
The sequence of chromosome 1, which is published online by the journal Nature, took a team of 150 British and American scientists 10 years to complete.
Researchers around the world will be able to mine the data to improve diagnostics and treatments for cancers, autism, mental disorders and other illnesses.
Final chapter
Chromosomes, which are found in the nucleus of a cell, are thread-like structures that contain genes that determine the characteristics of an individual.
The human genome has an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 genes. The sequencing of chromosome 1 has led to the identification of more than 1,000 new genes.
"We are moving into the next phase which will be working out what the genes do and how they interact," Gregory told Reuters.
The genetic map of chromosome 1 has already been used to identify a gene for a common form of cleft lip and palate. It will also improve understanding of what processes lead to genetic diversity in populations, according to Gregory.
Each chromosome is made up of a molecule of DNA in the shape of a double helix which is composed of four chemical bases represented by the letters A (adenine), T (thymine), G (guanine) and C (cytosine). The arrangement, or sequence, of the letters determines the cell's genetic code.
The scientists also identified 4,500 new SNPs--single nucleotide polymorphisms--which are the variations in human DNA that make people unique.
SNPs contain clues about why some people are susceptible to diseases like cancer or malaria, the best way to diagnose and treat them and how they will respond to drugs.
Comment on this Article
Early humans, chimps were kissing cousins, gene study suggests
Last Updated Wed, 17 May 2006 22:25:06 EDT
CBC News
Early human ancestors interbred with chimpanzees after the two species split, researchers propose.
The break from our chimpanzee cousins was messier, more recent, and occurred over a longer timescale than thought, according to a new genetic analysis.
"The genome analysis revealed big surprises, with major implications for human evolution," said study co-author Eric Lander, director of the Broad Institute of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Scientists had thought humans and chimps shared a common ancestor, but split about 6.5 million to 7.4 million years ago.
Previous research on the split of the species focused on average genetic differences.
Lander and his colleagues took advantage of the full genetic codes of humans and chimpanzees to estimate the age of sequences, rather than relying on an average.
'Evolutionary smoking gun'
If early humans and chimps separated, interbred and then parted ways again, it would explain the young nature of the human X chromosome.
"[T]he speciation itself occurred in an unusual manner that left a striking impact across chromosome X," Lander said in a release.
"The young age of chromosome X is an evolutionary 'smoking gun.'"
The two species split no more than 6.3 million years ago and probably no more than 5.4 million years ago, the team said in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. That's one to two million years more recent than previous estimates.
The team plans to use the complete genome sequence of the gorilla and other primates to refine their timeline of when humans and chimps became separate species.
Comment on this Article
'Pyow hack!' Monkeys can talk to each other using sentences
Published: 18 May 2006
Geneviève Roberts
Making different sentences out of the same words was thought to be a unique feature of human language but scientists have now discovered syntax in monkeys.
A study of wild putty-nosed monkeys in Africa has found that they can mix different alarm calls to communicate new meanings to fellow members of a troop.
Scientists found that the two basic sounds - ''pyows'' and ''hacks'' - which are used to warn against different predators can be combined to mean something quite different. The monkeys call out ''pyows'' to warn against a loitering leopard and ''hacks'' are used to warn about hovering eagles overhead. However, combining pyow and hack means something like ''let's go'', according to scientists from the University of St Andrew's.
''To our knowledge, this is the first good evidence of syntax-like natural communication system in a non-human species,'' said Klaus Zuberbühler, one of the researchers.
The putty-nosed monkeys in the study live in the Gashaka Gumti National Park in Nigeria and were frequently heard using different sounds in response to different threats. Kate Arnold, the other member of the team, said that she became aware that the monkeys used several ''pyows'' followed by a few ''hacks'' as a way of telling a group to move away to safer terrain.
''These calls were not produced randomly and a number of distinct patterns emerged. One of these patterns was what we have termed a ''pyow-hack sequence'. This sequence was either produced alone or inserted at certain positions in the call series,'' Dr Arnold said.
''Observationally and experimentally we have demonstrated that this call sequence serves to elicit group movement in both predatory contexts and during normal day-to-day activities such as finding food sources,'' she said.
The scientists demonstrated in a study published in Nature that they would imitate the communication syntax of the monkeys by playing recorded calls to the wild troop living in the forest.
''The pyow-hack sequence means something like 'let's go' whereas the pyows by themselves have multiple functions and the hacks are generally used as alarm calls,'' Dr Arnold said.
''Previously, animal communication systems were considered to lack examples in which call combinations carried meanings that were different to the sum of the meanings of the constituent elements,'' she said.
''This is the first good example of calls being combined in meaningful ways. The implications of this research are that primates, at least, may be able to ignore the usual relationship between an individual call and any meaning that it might convey under certain circumstances,'' Dr Arnold added.
Sounding off: how animals communicate
* DOLPHINS
While it is not known whether dolphins have a formal language, they do have a signature whistle to identify themselves. Though they lack vocal chords, their sphincter muscles produce a complicated series of moans, trills and clicks. When a dolphin sees an object in the distance, particularly in murky water, it emits clicking sounds and listens to the echo to identify distance and object size.
* BIRDS
Bird calls are used to express alarm, and to keep members of a flock in contact, whereas songs which mainly come from male birds are used to claim territory or advertise for a mate. Basic song is the same for all members of a species, and it is believed that young birds learn the details of songs from their fathers. As variations build up over generations, they form a dialect. In a 2005 study in Science, it was shown that the number of "dees" in a chick-a-dee call corresponds to the degree of danger that a predator poses.
* WHALES
Whales communicate and navigate through sound. The best-known whale communication is the song performed by male humpback whales during the mating season. The song is believed to be part of sexual selection, but whether the songs are "flirting" from male to female, competitive behaviour between males or a means of marking territory is still the subject of research.
* FROGS
Frogs have a complex system of calls, the most notable when they have returned to the body of water where they were born. The male frog then uses calls to attract a mate, either by themselves, or collectively as a chorus. In some species of frog, including Polypedates leucomystax, the female frog will reply to the call. If mounted by another male, the frog emits a release call. Tropical species use a callto signal the start of rain. The only call the frog makes with its mouth open is the high-pitched distress call.
Comment on this Article
Monkeys And Humans Are Both Irrational
by Maggie Wittlin • Posted May 16, 2006 12:39 AM
A group of Yale researchers studying the origin of irrational decision-making found that choosing impractically isn't a behavior exhibited only by humans. Our evolutionary cousins, capuchin monkeys, exhibit the same tendency with respect to loss aversion, or the tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses rather than acquiring gains.
The findings, published in the Journal of Political Economy, indicate these biases are innate in primates and have existed since before capuchins and humans split 40 million years ago.
"Some of the most deeply ingrained economic behaviors turn out to be very, very ancient and hardwired parts of our decision-making processes," said Yale economics professor and the study's lead author, Keith Chen. "If I showed a string of capuchin monkey data to an economist, he couldn't, with any statistical test, tell the difference between a capuchin monkey and your average American stock market investor."
Advertisement
In every 20-year period of American history, Chen said, a person who invested in stocks rather than bonds would end up making far more money. This is true, he said, even if the person had invested the Monday before Black Tuesday in 1929. Stocks, while riskier, always do better in the long run than the slowly-but-steadily appreciating bonds.
However, the average investor has puzzled economists by choosing to invest far more in bonds than is profitable, Chen said.
This odd phenomenon of risk aversion is one example of loss aversion-guarding against losing what you have over going for what you can get.
In a similar experiment, the Yale researchers trained monkeys to use money by providing them with coins and teaching them to purchase food from different vendors. One seller showed the monkey two apple slices, but when the monkey paid, half of the time the seller would only give the monkey one slice. Another showed one apple slice but half the time provided a second, bonus slice.
Instead of consistently buying from the vendor who presented the stronger visual cue of two apples or realizing that the expected return from either vendor was equal and buying from both vendors, the monkeys regularly chose the one who gave the bonus.
"Loss aversion behavioral economics intuition says, 'Well, wait a minute: One of these guys half the time delivers you a loss, whereas the other guy half the time delivers you a gain,'" Chen said. "And if you like gains and you dislike losses, in fact the monkeys should prefer trading with the guy who walks around only displaying one piece of apple. And in fact that's exactly what they do."
Chen further affirmed that we are no better than monkeys by saying our similarities are quantitative as well as qualitative, with capuchins weighing loss almost exactly as much as we do.
"Not only in types of behavior but even in levels of behavior," Chen said, "these monkeys look just like us."
Comment on this Article
70,000 Beer Cans Found in Ogden Townhouse
John Hollenhorst
KSL.com
May 17th, 2006
A seemingly unbelievable mess discovered last year in an Ogden townhouse has suddenly become an Internet legend.
It's all TRUE!
You know how some people, after they use something, just can't bear to throw it away. That might make sense if it's magazines or clothes. But what if it's empty beer cans? In astounding numbers?
When property manager Ryan Froerer got a call from a realtor last year to check on a townhouse, he knew something was up.
Ryan Froerer, Century 21: "Said it was the sickest thing he's ever seen. Just unimaginable that someone could live in that."
He couldn't even open the front door. It was blocked from inside.
Ryan Froerer, Century 21: "There was beer cans I would say probably this high up on the door."
The realtor had forewarned him about the smell.
Ryan Froerer, Century 21: "He poked his head in, the smell was so awful he couldn't go in. "
At the back door, Froerer was astounded by what he saw in the kitchen.
Ryan Froerer, Century 21: "As we approached the door, there were beer boxes, all the way up to the ceiling."
Inside, he took just a few snapshots to document the scene. Beer cans by the tens of thousands. Mountains of cans burying the furniture. The water and heat were shut off, apparently on purpose by the tenant, who evidently drank Coors Light beer exclusively for the eight years he lived there.
Ryan Froerer, Century 21: "It's just unbelievable that a human being could live like that. "
To all outward appearances, the person who lived in the townhouse was the perfect tenant. He always paid on time and he never complained. He kept a low profile in the neighborhood.
Kirk Martin, Letter Carrier: : "Yeah I never delivered any mail there at all. I thought the apartment was vacant."
The cans were recycled for 800 dollars, an estimated 70,000 cans: 24 beers a day for 8 years.
Froerer e-mailed his photos to a couple of friends, who sent them to friends. Now he's getting calls from faraway places
Ryan Froerer, Century 21: "It's amazing how the internet can have the effect and get around. I'm sure it's been around the world. "
The townhouse was cleaned up last year and it's just fine today.
The man who lived there seems to be back on his feet. We spoke to him today and he says he's completely stopped drinking. He was welcomed back to his old job a few months ago, and his co-workers speak highly of him.
Comment on this Article
For Your Health
Discovery of poultry exposed to bird flu virus was kept from public
James Meikle
Thursday May 18, 2006
The Guardian
Government scientists found evidence of bird flu in poultry in October but did not report their concerns to the public, the Guardian can reveal. The scientists placed movement restrictions on a bird rescue centre in south-west England after finding evidence that 13 free-range geese had been exposed to an H5 virus, one of two types of virus most likely to become deadly to birds and a group known to be a health risk to people.
The restrictions, which lasted at least a week until further tests ruled out any infection, came shortly after the highly dangerous H5N1 strain had been found in imported birds kept in quarantine. No mention was made of the incident by the environment department, Defra, either then or during last month's scares caused by the dead swan at Cellardyke, Fife, which had H5N1, and by the outbreak of H7N3 on three farms in Norfolk.
The incident is referred to in one paragraph in the annual report on animal health by the government's chief veterinary officer, Debby Reynolds. The government insisted that it did not report the incident before because subsequent tests had not confirmed disease. It was "not unexpected" for free-range birds to be exposed to low-pathogenic viruses from wild birds, and they were the only suspect cases found among 5,000 blood samples taken on 438 poultry sites between September and the end of January this year.
Separate surveys involving more than 13,000 samples from live and dead wild birds, including 1,000 swans, between November and April, found only one case of highly pathogenic infection - the Cellardyke swan - and evidence of low pathogenic infection in five other birds, including low pathogen H5 in a teal.
These tests were different from those of poultry in that they detected virological material even though the virus itself could not be isolated in some cases.
Chris Huhne, environment spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, is demanding more details on the incident after being alerted to the admission by the Guardian. He has tabled a parliamentary question asking if the government believes H5 viruses have been circulating in Britain for some time. "If antibodies show these birds were exposed to H5, how long before would that exposure have taken place? Is there a suggestion they had recovered from infection?"
Peter Ainsworth, bird flu spokesman for the Conservatives, said: "It is surprising the department didn't issue any public statement [that] they were imposing movement restrictions related to a suspected case of avian flu. It must raise questions about the openness of Defra's approach to handling bird flu last autumn."
John Oxford, professor of virology at St Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, found the incident "slightly disquieting" because it suggested the geese had been in contact with wild birds and picked up an H5 sub type from them.
Maria Ball, poultry adviser at the National Farmers' Union, said that if the NFU had been told at the time "we would have been making our own inquiries with regards to other farms in the area".
The incident occurred as Europe went on high alert against H5N1, with the virus spreading into Russia, Turkey and Romania. The NFU advised bird keepers to take their animals indoors.
Dr Reynolds' report says that samples from the unidentified premises tested positive for antibodies to H5N2 and H5N7 strains, prompting movement restrictions and a veterinary inquiry. "The geese were healthy. Further [tests] did not isolate avian influenza viruses ... it is likely the positive antibody result was due to previous exposure to low pathogenic avian [flu] viruses. It is not uncommon to find LPAI viruses in wild birds. These geese had a high level of exposure to wild birds."
A Defra spokesman later told the Guardian: "It was all routine." No birds had been killed, and restrictions had lasted just seven to 10 days.
Comment on this Article
Five more bird flu deaths in Indonesia
Last Updated Wed, 17 May 2006 18:21:26 EDT
CBC News
The World Health Organization has confirmed that five more Indonesians have died of bird flu.
Four of the victims were from the same family in north Sumatra, while the fifth was from the country's second largest city, Surabaya, the WHO said.
A sixth person linked to the family in north Sumatra has also tested positive and is undergoing treatment.
The latest deaths from the H5N1 strain of the virus bring the official toll in Indonesia to 30, the second highest number after Vietnam, which has 42 deaths.
The north Sumatra outbreak has caused international concern, but Indonesian health authorities say it is not a case of human-to-human transmission.
Since late 2003, bird flu has killed 115 people, mostly in Asia.
Experts fear the virus may mutate into a form that can pass easily between humans, sparking a pandemic.
Comment on this Article
Duck in Laos infected with bird flu
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-18 19:42:36
HANOI, May 18 (Xinhua) -- Laos has, for the first time, detected a duck contracting a bird flu virus since 2004, according to news reports which reached here Thursday.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization said the duck detected in a farm, 20 km off southern Vientiane capital, in February, was infected with a kind of bird flu virus, reported Laos' newspaper Vientiane Times.
The duck has been sent to the World Organization for Animal Health in Paris for testing.
Laos's government is calling relevant agencies for monitoring the disease in the country.
Comment on this Article
Rare antibiotic found that fights superbugs
Last Updated Wed, 17 May 2006 15:51:30 EDT
CBC News
Scientists say bacteria from soil in South Africa make a potent antibiotic that destroys some of the most dangerous superbugs - ones that kill 8,000 people each year in Canadian hospitals alone.
The antibiotic was used on mice and successfully fought the superbugs - methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) - according to Jun Wang of Merck Research Laboratories in New Jersey and his colleagues.
MRSA, VRE and other bacteria that are resistant to commonly used antibiotics infect another 250,000 Canadians a year and cost the country's health-care systems at least $100 million annually, according to a CBC News investigation in 2005.
It's thought that part of the problem of drug resistance is that most antibiotics work in a similar way, which makes it easier for microbes to quickly adapt and fight back.
In the past 40 years, only two new classes of antibiotics that work in different ways have reached the clinic.
Patensimycin, the newly discovered antibiotic, also has a new mode of action, Wang's team says in a study published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
It blocks enzymes that bacteria use to make fatty acids - the building blocks of cell membranes and bacterial surfaces.
The researchers found it as they screened 250,000 extracts from microbes that produce antibiotics, says their study.
"Wang and colleagues' report of a compound representing a novel class of antibiotic with activity against Gram-positive bacterial pathogens is thus particularly exciting," said Eric Brown, a biochemistry professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
Brown, who was writing in a commentary accompanying the study in Nature, said it was an "added bonus" that platensimycin was effective against superbugs.
The researchers showed that platensimycin fights bacterial infection in mice without apparent side-effects.
It would need to undergo extensive tests to show it works and is safe to use in humans.
Nevertheless, Brown called the findings "encouraging."
He also noted that it was heartening to hear that the discovery was made by workers at Merck, given that pharmaceutical companies have generally shifted their focus away from searching for new antibiotics in favour of work on chronic diseases.
Comment on this Article
Anti-puffing spies to police Quebec smoking ban
Last Updated Wed, 17 May 2006 16:00:58 EDT
CBC News
Quebec Health Minister Philippe Couillard has acknowledged there will be "undercover" inspectors in the province's bars and restaurants to make sure a new anti-smoking law is enforced when it comes into effect May 31.
The new legislation will ban smoking in all public indoor places, including bars and restaurants.
Some critics say the province has not hired enough inspectors to ensure compliance with the new law, but Couillard says that's not true.
"The municipal police can also be used if the municipalities give them the authority," he said Wednesday. "They are under their jurisdiction. They can certainly work in collaboration with the inspectors.
"And again, on this question of the tobacco law, such a majority of citizens want to exercise the right to be in a smoke-free environment that I see a positive implementation of the law," Couillard said.
One in four Quebec adults still smoking
The province's smoking rate has been in steady decline, according to Health Canada figures.
However, Quebec still has one of the highest smoking rates in Canada, with 23 per cent of all adults lighting up at least occasionally. The rate is 26 per cent for those aged 15 to 19, and soars to 38 per cent among Quebecers aged 20 to 24.
Louis Gauvin of the Quebec coalition for tobacco control says that last group was in its young teens when the Quebec government slashed cigarette taxes about a decade ago.
That's the group whose behaviour could be modified most by the upcoming smoking ban, Gauvin told CBC News Online in an interview Wednesday.
"Each smoking ban that occurs in a society has a direct impact on society, and particularly on young people," he said.
Gauvin is looking forward to a Quebec where non-smokers can go to restaurants and clubs and breathe more easily.
"Many people have told me, 'Well, I'm backing out. It's not an interesting time to me.' We know it's not good for our health."
Comment: So the anti-smoking fascists are getting the upper hand in Quebec, long Canada's "smoking section".
Comment on this Article
Foreign Relations
Chavez accused of ties to terrorists
05/17/06
Washington Times
Venezuela has allowed its intelligence service to become a clone of Cuba's while it shelters groups with ties to Middle East terrorists and allows weapons from its official stockpiles to reach Colombian guerrillas, a senior U.S. official said yesterday.
Those were the principal reasons why the Bush administration blacklisted Venezuela on Monday, saying it has failed to fully cooperate on counterterrorism, Thomas A. Shannon, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, told editors and reporters at The Washington Times.
"It's our hope now that we've gotten their attention," he said of the Venezuelans, who are banned from purchasing U.S. weapons because of the listing. "We hope that we are going to be in a position where we can talk with them and look for how we can improve [our] cooperation."
An immediate impact of the decision is that Venezuela will be unable to buy spare parts from the United States to maintain its aging fleet of U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets. A senior military adviser to President Hugo Chavez said yesterday that Venezuela might now sell the planes to another country, possibly Iran.
It was not clear what Iran might do with the planes, because it is also subject to U.S. sanctions.
The United States stopped selling Venezuela sensitive upgrades for the F-16s even before the latest action, which Mr. Shannon described as "regrettable."
"This is actually an issue we've been wrestling with for quite some time," Mr. Shannon said. "We did this with a lot of reluctance, because we really want to find a way to work with them and improve our cooperation, but they are just unprepared and unwilling."
The U.S. official said that in dealing with Mr. Chavez, "the purpose is not just to ignore him," he said. "The purpose is not to allow him to define the terms of the confrontation and to make sure that as we engage with him, we are not doing so in a way that harms our larger interests. "It would be a mistake for U.S. foreign policy in the region to overly concentrate on the guy," Mr. Shannon said. "If we allow ourselves to get trapped in the kind of confrontation that he wants to have with us, it lessens our influence with others in the region."
He said the administration could no longer certify that Venezuela was cooperating on counterterrorism because of its close ties with Cuba and Iran, both of which Washington considers state sponsors of terrorism.
"Cuban intelligence has effectively cloned itself inside Venezuelan intelligence to the point that [our] ability to cooperate and have a relationship with Venezuela on the intelligence side is very difficult," Mr. Shannon said.
"We are worried about the kind of relationship [Mr. Chavez] wants to have with Iran on the intelligence side," he added. Mr. Shannon, a career diplomat serving in a post usually held by a political appointee, also expressed concern about "groups and individuals" in Venezuela with "links to terrorist organizations in the Middle East."
He declined to be more specific, but U.S. military officials have in the past noted the presence in Latin America of groups linked to Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist organization.
In addition, he said, "the western part of Venezuela has always been a wild place," and members of Colombian guerrilla groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [FARC] and the National Liberation Army [ELN] have "moved with a certain amount of ease." "But over time, we've seen what appears to be a more structured relationship," he said. "There appears to be more movement of weapons across the frontier into Colombia, and some of it comes from official Venezuelan stockpiles, and it almost certainly involves the participation of Venezuelan officials, either corrupted or not."
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Ali Rodriguez accused the Bush administration yesterday of climbing to "new heights of cynicism and shamelessness" with its Monday decision on arms sales
"Behind its despicable accusations is a useless campaign of shame designed to isolate Venezuela, destabilize its democratic government and prepare the political conditions for an attack," Mr. Rodriguez said.
Mr. Shannon, speaking broadly about Mr. Chavez's influence in the region, said he seems popular at the moment because he is "awash" in oil money.
Comment: At this stage, it can be said with 100% confidence that any state that is accused by the US government of being a "terrorist state" or "supporting terrorism" is 100% NOT a terrorist state. So what is the real reason that Venezuela is now in the sights of the US war mongers?...
Comment on this Article
The Real Libya Model
05/117/06
Newsweek
Here is the real story on Libya, corroborated by multiple sources. Kaddafi cut his deal in 2003 only after the British and Americans assured him that Bush would settle for "policy change"-that is, giving up his nukes-rather than regime change.
Here is the official story on Libya, which Washington removed from its list of terror-sponsoring states this week. As the Bush administration likes to tell it, Muammar Kaddafi was scared straight by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On Dec, 19, 2003, just six days after Saddam Hussein was hauled from his spider hole, Kaddafi gave up his life's work as an international terrorist, renouncing both his weapons of mass destruction program and his terror tactics. Shocked by the fall of his fellow dictator, Kaddafi turned into as much of a quivering stoolie as any doomed character on "The Sopranos." In a matter of months he exposed the global black market created by Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan, and he began passing on intelligence about Al Qaeda and insurgent-linked groups. Now the autocrat whom Ronald Reagan once called a "mad dog" has become, in the words of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "an important model as nations around the world press for changes in behavior by the Iranian and North Korean regimes.'' And Kaddafi's about-face is considered by Bush hard-liners to be a sweet vindication of its policy of confronting bad guys without quarter.
Here is the real story on Libya, corroborated by multiple sources. Kaddafi cut his deal in 2003 only after the British and Americans assured him that Bush would settle for "policy change"-that is, giving up his nukes-rather than regime change. Significantly, the agreement went forward only after the British, who took the real lead in the negotiations, insisted to the White House that Bush administration hard-liner John Bolton be barred from the talks. Bolton, who was then U.S. under secretary of State for arms control, had wanted to add Libya to the "axis of evil," but Jack Straw, British foreign secretary at the time, and David Manning, a top adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair, prevailed on Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell not to do so. Bolton also refused to reassure Tripoli that the United States did not intend regime change-in other words, he sought to take essentially the same uncompromising tack the administration is now pursuing with Iran and North Korea. The British again resisted, and the White House, which was then (as now) consumed with Iraq, didn't care enough to defy Blair on this one. Reason, for once, prevailed over ideology.
Only in one respect does the official story align with the real story. While Libya remains an antidemocratic and backward regime, it appears to have genuinely turned away from terror and WMD. Kaddafi, the terrorist poster boy from the 1980s, is cooperating fully in the fight against terrorism, according to Hank Crumpton, the unacknowledged CIA hero of the 2001 Afghanistan war and now the State Department's counterterrorism chief. So Libya is, for the moment, out of the headlines and out of our hair. Did the invasion of Iraq frighten Kaddafi into signing on the dotted line? Probably. But well before then America was negotiating with the self-admitted murderer of 189 Americans, who died together with 81 others when Libyan agents downed Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988. The talks with Libya also long predated the invasion of Iraq, and they began long before Tripoli gave up either its terrorist or WMD aspirations.
All of which raises an interesting question: just what kind of "model" is Libya really? It's certainly not a model for Bush's global democracy campaign; quite the opposite, in fact, although the administration is now touting the idea that diplomatic relations with Libya will give Washington more leverage in pressing for internal reform. (This is blatant nonsense: the Kaddafi clan, led by the leader's heir-to-be, his son Seif Kaddafi, will now become richer, and more powerful.) It is also a stretch to think that the Iranians or even the North Koreans are going to emulate the strategy followed by Kaddafi, who is mocked as a barmy Bedouin even by his fellow Arabs.
No, the real model that the Bush administration ought to be paying attention to is the British one for dealing with international rogues like Kaddafi. Rule one of this model is: if you can't destroy regimes-and we can't, not anymore, not after Iraq-then you try to turn them. You flip them. You hold your nose and negotiate, preferably from a position of strength. You have no other choice, unless you want to attack. And we really don't want to attack: even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, faced with a rebellion from inside his own Pentagon, has been publicly skeptical about the military options in recent days.
Yet the Bush administration has still not learned the lesson of its greatest diplomatic success. The most distinctive thing about this administration-and the source of so many of its troubles-is its seeming inability to alter its fixed ideas even in face of new realities. Hence the administration, still romantically harking back to Ronald Reagan's rejection of détente with the Soviet Union, continues to cling to the fiction that one doesn't negotiate terms with evil regimes. Seldom does the Bush team note that Reagan, Bush's own putative model, actually did come around to negotiating an understanding with the "evil empire" in his second term, helping to lead to a peaceful end to the cold war.
This uncompromising stance is still, in effect, the president's policy toward both North Korean and Iran. In both cases the administration is pretending to negotiate through proxies-through the Europeans in the case of Iran; through the Chinese in the case of North Korea-while in practice Washington is essentially issuing ultimatums as an opening bargaining position. Bush is maintaining his insistence that these regimes give up the store-agree to surrender their WMD programs-before Washington will even come to the table. In other words, the president continues to follow the old John Bolton line.
No one is suggesting there will ever be an easy way out of the Iran and North Korea problems. But there is ample evidence that, for several years, both Iran and North Korea have been seeking assurances similar to what Kaddafi got before they will negotiate. Flynt Leverett, who served on Bush's National Security Council in the first term, revealed last week that the president has squandered previous openings with Tehran. Leverett says Bush snubbed an offer to talk from Tehran in 2003-passed on by the Swiss through a "back channel"-mainly because he didn't want to deal with an "illegitimate regime." In November 2002, according to The Washington Post, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il sent a similar message asking for a basic recognition of his right to survive, offering to resume talks if the United States "recognizes our sovereignty and assures non-aggression." In September 2005, after much prodding from China, Washington did finally agree to a statement of principles in the six-party format (which also includes Japan, South Korea and Russia, as well as the United States and North Korea) that contained an assurance that America has "no intention to attack or invade" North Korea. But Bush has refused to build on this promise in bilateral talks, which may be what Pyongyang really wants.
Morally, the restoration of Libya's diplomatic status, and the rehabilitation of Khaddafi, are pretty hard to stomach. Strategically, however, these moves were probably necessary. Even Bush must see that America can't pursue a Michael Corleone foreign policy-we can't just kill off all our enemies. The president has but two and a half years left to work things out with Iran and North Korea. It's time to stop pretending.
Comment on this Article
US 'to soften North Korea approach'
Staff and agencies
Thursday May 18, 2006
The US is considering a major u-turn in its approach to North Korea that would see a push for regime change replaced by peace talks, it was reported today.
The softening of the US stance towards the communist country - which was included in George Bush's "axis of evil" - will take place even as efforts to dismantle its nuclear programme are under way, US administration officials and Asian diplomats revealed.
Aides told the New York Times Mr Bush was likely to approve the new approach as long as Pyongyang restarted multinational negotiations over its nuclear programme. The talks stalled in September.
The possible departure from Washington's hardline stance towards North Korea appears to have been partly triggered by growing concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.
"There has been a sense that they can't leave Korea out there as a model for what the Iranians hope to become - a nuclear state that can say no to outside pressure," a senior official told the paper.
The beginning of negotiations on a peace treaty would represent a fundamental shift in US policy. During his first term in office, Mr Bush repeatedly said he would never tolerate a nuclear North Korea.
However, faced with plummeting approval ratings among US voters, the president has come under pressure to soften his approach towards the North.
Earlier this week, the former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post that "focusing on regime change as the road to denuclearisation confuses the issue".
Although North Koreans have long demanded a peace treaty to replace the existing 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, it is unclear whether the country's leaders would take part in any new discussions.
The two Koreas remain technically at war because the Korean conflict ended in an armistice rather than a formal treaty.
The New York Times reported that Mr Bush's aides were hoping to start negotiations over a formal treaty that would include the original signatories of the armistice - China, North Korea and the US. They would also add South Korea, which declined to sign the original deal.
"I think it is fair to say that many in the administration have come to the conclusion that dealing head on with the nuclear problem is simply too difficult," an official told the paper.
"So the question is whether it would help to try to end the perpetual state of war [since 1953]. It may be another way to get there."
There is likely to be resistance in Pyongyang to any negotiations involving political change, human rights and opening up the country - issues Mr Bush has insisted would have to be part of any talks.
A South Korean official later insisted that negotiations on a peace treaty were likely only after substantial progress was made on ending the North's nuclear programme.
During the talks that stalled in September - which also involved the US, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia - North Korea agreed to give up nuclear weapons in return for energy, economic aid, more diplomatic recognition and a US promise not to attack.
However, a timetable for implementation was not agreed, and further negotiations broke down.
Comment on this Article
Former Dutch legislator Hirsi Ali welcome in US, Deputy Secretary of State says
06:31:12 EDT May 18, 2006
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) - Former Dutch legislator Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a prominent critic of fundamentalist Islam, will be welcome in the United States regardless of her immigration status in the Netherlands, the U.S. State Department's number two official said Thursday.
The Somali-born Hirsi Ali resigned earlier this week after the Dutch immigration minister said she lied about her name on her asylum application when she fled an arranged marriage to come to the Netherlands in 1992.
Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick Thursday called Hirsi Ali a "very courageous and impressive woman."
"She is welcome to come to the United States," he said at a press briefing in The Hague.
Hirsi Ali has lived under police protection since a film she wrote criticizing the treatment of women under Islam led to the murder of its director, Theo van Gogh, by an Islamic radical in November 2004.
She resigned Tuesday vowing to make a sequel to "Submission," a fictional study of women suffering abuse in Muslim households. It used scenes of near-naked women with texts from the Qur'an written on their flesh, which many Muslims found deeply offensive. She has received numerous death threats and recently was forced to leave her apartment in The Hague after neighbours complained security arrangements for her had become an unfair nuisance for them.
Zoellick declined to comment on what protection she will receive in the United States, but said "obviously she needs to be taken care of."
Hirsi Ali is "an important personage that whether in Europe or United States we can all learn from," he said.
The Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, who is currently locked in a close race for her party's nomination and a chance to become the country's first prime minister in 2007 elections, told Hirsi Ali Monday her citizenship was automatically invalid because she had lied about her name.
Hirsi Ali had confessed the lie in a 2002 book, but Verdonk said that only came to her attention after a Dutch television program aired last week.
Hirsi Ali resigned, saying it was impossible for her to function as a Dutch politician while fighting a legal dispute over her nationality.
In a debate Tuesday, Verdonk's decision was criticized heavily from all sides in Dutch parliament, including her own libertarian VVD party - of which Hirsi Ali is also a member.
Parliament passed a resolution ordering Verdonk to reconsider her decision, or to accelerate a new naturalization application for Hirsi Ali.
But Wednesday, Verdonk said she doubted she would change her mind.
"We have laws in the Netherlands, and those laws say when you can become Dutch," she said at a campaign event in Almere. "However fantastic I may think Ayaan is, I can't say yes, I must say no, and I have to uphold the law."
Hirsi Ali says she bears Verdonk no ill will.
"I'm still crazy about Rita. It would be vicious and opportunistic if I were to think otherwise," Hirsi Ali said after her tearful resignation announcement. "Verdonk applied the rules the way she read them."
Hirsi Ali has declined to confirm reports she intended to go to the American Enterprise Institute.
But the conservative think-tank's president, Christopher DeMuth, said in an open letter Tuesday he was "looking forward to welcoming you to AEI, and to America."
Comment on this Article
Brain Scans Get at Roots of Prejudice
05.17.06, 12:00 AM ET
WEDNESDAY, May 17 (HealthDay News) -- The human brain may have a built-in mechanism for keeping racially or politically distinct groups apart, a new Harvard study suggests.
U.S. researchers observed the brain activity of liberal college students who were asked to think about Christian conservatives. As they did so, a brain region strongly linked to the self and to empathy with others nearly shut down, while another center -- perhaps linked to stereotypic thoughts -- swung into high gear.
"It's as if you think that 'they' don't think like you do -- it's like you believe they are governed by a different set of rules when they think," explained study author Dr. Jason Mitchell, a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard University's department of psychology.
His team published its findings in the May 18 issue of Neuron.
According to Mitchell, social psychologists have long known that people engage different mental criteria when thinking about the possible thoughts and actions of people within their own ethnic, cultural or political group, vs. those outside that group.
The neurological mechanisms governing this process has been much less clear, however.
"Our work is about 'other-ness,' " Mitchell said. "There's this question of 'How do I figure out what's going on inside your head? How do I make inferences about what you are feeling?' "
One theory that's gained credence among social neuroscientists is that people look to themselves when thinking about people they already include in their "group."
"If you and I are similar, then I can use what I know about myself to figure out what you are thinking," said Mitchell, who will become an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard in July.
Previous studies have shown that an area toward the front of the brain, called the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), always lights up when people think about themselves or people they consider similar to themselves.
But which part of the mPFC activates when people think about those outside their group?
To find out, the Harvard team hooked up a group of liberal Boston college students to a functional MRI machine, which tracks real-time changes in brain energy use.
They then asked the students to read detailed profiles of two people: one, a liberal-minded person much like themselves, and the other, a fundamentalist Christian conservative with views and activities very different from their own.
"We showed that there are distinct brain regions active in the mPFC," depending on the political stripe of the object in question, Mitchell said.
When the students thought about the liberal person, the mPFC's ventral region -- strongly associated with thoughts about the self -- got very active. But it quieted down when the subject was the Christian conservative -- instead, the mPFC's dorsal area took over.
"The dorsal region is a lot more mysterious," Mitchell said. "It's more engaged when I think about a dissimilar other."
"These data challenge the naive view that we bring the same mental orientation to bear when we think about those who are similar or different from us," said study co-author Dr. Mahzarin Banaji, a professor of social ethics in Harvard's department of psychology. "In particular, it raises questions about who can, objectively speaking, sit in judgment on whom."
Mitchell stressed that scientists currently have no way to tell what kinds of thoughts get processed in the dorsal mPFC. But he suspects it could be responsible for stereotypic thoughts that fail to take similarities between people into account, and instead stress their dissimilarities. So, people may consult the dorsal mPFC when they make snap judgments that assume that the "other" does not think or act like they do.
That's unfortunate, Mitchell said, because when people of different political, racial or cultural backgrounds focus on what they have in common, tensions ease. "If I can find a way to reach common ground -- for example, we both love baseball -- that might be enough to trump our dissimilarities," he said.
Another social neuroscientist who's worked in this field praised the study.
"We already knew much of this from psychology, but what we know now is more about how this is represented in the prefrontal cortex," said Dr. Elizabeth Phelps, a professor of psychology and neural science at New York University in New York City.
She said it's natural that humans lean to stereotypes when thinking about those outside their circle.
"We evolved to be in groups, and somebody who is part of your group is seen as less of a threat than somebody who is not," she said. "And it's a natural thing to assume that people who are not like you are going to have a different set of qualities."
But Phelps also believes that we might be able to override our ingrained "dorsal" response to strangers. "I imagine that you can think compassionately, highlighting similarities between you and another person that will change your interpretation of their actions," she said.
Mitchell agreed. He said a new set of fMRI experiments will soon get under way to see if that neural switch can easily occur. But, he said, there are limits to empathy, of course.
For example, for most people, finding out that Adolf Hitler loved dogs "isn't going to be enough" to mentally allow him into one's group -- even for the most hardened dog-lover, Mitchell said.
"It's not everyday that you interact with Hitler, however," he added. "Hopefully, in your everyday life you'll encounter less extreme examples."
Comment on this Article
Bush's War: The Iraq Debacle
Prodi: War in Iraq Was 'Grave' Mistake
Thu May 18, 8:26 AM ET
ROME - Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said Thursday the war in Iraq was a "grave" mistake, but said Italy would remain on the front lines in the war against terror.
"We consider the war and occupation in Iraq a grave error that hasn't solved - but has complicated - the problem of security," Prodi said in his first address to the Senate as prime minister. "Terrorism has found a new base and new excuses for internal and external terrorist action."
Prodi said his government would participate in anti-terror operations if they are sanctioned by international organizations, such as the
United Nations.
"We are convinced participants in the war against terrorism, even militarily, when it is legitimized by an international organization to which we belong."
As opposition leader, Prodi opposed the war in Iraq and had said during the campaign that the remaining troops would be pulled out "as soon as possible."
The government of former conservative Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi sent about 3,000 troops to Iraq to help reconstruction after the ouster of
Saddam Hussein in 2003, but the move was widely opposed by Italians.
The contingent is being pulled out gradually, and Berlusconi's government had said the withdrawal would be completed by the end of the year.
Prodi did not give a precise timeline Thursday for the withdrawal, saying only it would happen in consultation with Iraqi authorities.
On a different topic, Prodi also vowed to do everything in his power to help make Europe a strong and unified force on the international scene, but was careful not to sideline the United States.
"And also to consolidate and enrich ... the historic alliance with the United States of America," Prodi said.
Comment on this Article
Iraq's oil: A neo-con dream gone bust
By Peter Kiernan
Asia Times
Crude-oil prices hit a record US$75 per barrel in late April, a level nearly three times the prices seen just prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Although oil prices have slipped a few dollars since then, the bullish price environment is not something the Bush administration banked on when it launched the military campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from power three years ago.
Indeed, there was an expectation that after Saddam's ouster Iraq would pump more oil, not just so it could finance its own reconstruction, but also to keep oil prices stable and preferably lower. A US-friendly post-Saddam Iraq realizing its potential as a major oil producer would, it was also hoped, strengthen US leverage in the Middle East. But the story of Iraq's oil over the
past three years has not been quite what was expected by the administration of President George W Bush and neo-conservative advocates for Saddam Hussein's removal.
The Bush administration hardly mentioned oil in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, obviously wary of the claim that the case for ousting Saddam was motivated by the desire to gain access to Iraq's oilfields for US oil companies. In fact the US oil lobby was not behind the push for regime change in Baghdad, but oil in the geostrategic sense was factored in by the Bush administration in the decision to invade.
Saddam's rule over a state that possessed 115 billion barrels of oil (the third-largest reserves in the world) had been seen as a threat to US strategic interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf region since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Although the United States is less dependent on Persian Gulf oil than Europe, Japan, and now China, securing the flow of oil from allied petro-states to US and global markets defines US interests in that region. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait threatened this strategic arrangement between the US on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab Gulf states on the other.
While former presidents George H W Bush and Bill Clinton preferred to contain a weakened Iraq throughout the 1990s, the push from neo-conservatives throughout that decade to remove Saddam from power found resonance with President George W Bush. A speech by Vice President Richard Cheney in August 2002 explained the Bush administration's view of Saddam Hussein's threat to the strategic balance in the Middle East.
He stated that, "armed with an arsenal of [weapons of mass destruction], and seated atop 10% of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, [and] directly threaten America's friends throughout the region".
In Saddam's place, ostensibly, would be the formation of an Iraqi government friendly to the US and the West that would first maintain a higher and more reliable flow of oil and, second, pursue policies conducive to US and other Western interests in the Middle East, a crucial region with nearly two-thirds of the world's oil reserves.
Oil as a geostrategic factor also figured in the neo-conservative mission to unseat Saddam as the first step of politically transforming the Middle East. Removal of his regime was seen as crucial to undermining the other established oil powers in the region, Saudi Arabia and Iran. These states are, respectively, the largest and second-largest oil producers in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a group dominated by Middle East oil exporters.
A US-friendly Iraq that abandoned OPEC and pumped more oil would, some neo-conservatives argued, weaken Saudi Arabia and Iran and break the grip of OPEC on the global oil market. In this way, so the theory went, the petrodollars that strengthen the grip on power of the House of Saud and Iran's mullahs and fund terrorist networks in the Middle East would dry up. The mission to remake the Middle East could be done by flooding the market with Iraqi oil.
The oil factor in the plan for a regional transformation in the Middle East was pushed by some conservative journals and think-tanks in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. The National Review, for example, wrote in January 2002, "There are two principal sources of power for Middle Eastern states and terrorist groups hostile to the West: weapons of mass destruction and oil. Therefore, the war on terrorism should also seek to diminish the influence of - and perhaps destroy - OPEC." In November that year the National Review also claimed, "Iraqis could withdraw from OPEC [after Saddam's ouster] and begin fully pumping oil into the world market, thus reducing Saudi market power and one of the incentives for the US to appease the [Saudi] regime."
In March 2003 the Washington, DC-based Heritage Foundation released a paper on Iraq's oil that recommended privatization of its oil industry and Iraq's departure from OPEC. It wrote, "Iraq's restructuring and privatization of its oil-and-gas sector could become a model for oil-industry privatizations in other OPEC states as well, weakening the cartel's influence over global energy markets ... and depending on the dynamics of global economic growth and world oil output, Iraq's increase in oil-production capacity could bring lower oil prices in the long term." The report also claimed, "An Iraq outside of OPEC would find available from its oil trade an ample cash flow for the country's rehabilitation."
Not everyone shared in this enthusiasm. Prior to the Iraq invasion, the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A Baker Institute at Rice University released a joint paper that cautioned against rosy scenarios about the ability of Iraq's petroleum to influence oil markets quickly, as well as of the receptiveness of Iraqis toward outsiders trying to influence decision-making on the big-picture issues (such as privatization and OPEC membership).
It commented, "There has been a great deal of wishful thinking about Iraqi oil." The report cautioned against expectations of an Iraqi oil bonanza with the assessment that "Iraq's oil industry is in desperate need of repair and investment" after more than two decades of wars and sanctions. It also warned that the pace of recovery in Iraq's oil sector would depend on the post-invasion political and security environment.
Those who had a cautious assessment about the prospects for Iraq's oil were prescient. Not long after Saddam's regime fell in April 2003, Iraq's oil industry, already deteriorating from under-investment for more than 20 years, suffered from widespread looting of its infrastructure. Meanwhile oil production temporarily ground to a halt in the chaos as the apparatus of the Iraqi state collapsed. By mid-2003, Iraqi insurgents began to target the oil infrastructure - especially by attacking pipelines - in sabotage attacks that have been ongoing for the past three years.
According to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, there have been at least 309 reported attacks on Iraq's oil pipelines, installations, and oil-security personnel. In particular the export pipeline that links the large northern oilfield of Kirkuk to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan - which normally transits about 40% of Iraq's oil exports - is frequently sabotaged and is currently not operating.
Insurgent attacks have been the main factor in poor output levels for both oil production and exports, while the state of Iraq's worn-out oil infrastructure, corruption and poor power output have exacerbated the situation. Despite Cheney's claiming in April 2003 that Iraq could increase oil production to 3 million barrels per day (mbpd) by the end of that year, Iraq's oil output is still lower than prewar levels. According to Energy Intelligence, Iraq's oil production is at 1.8mbpd, compared with 2.5mbpd just over three years ago, while oil exports are down to 1.4mbpd compared with about 2mbpd just over three years ago.
Because of much higher global oil prices, Iraq's annual oil revenue is greater now than three years ago, and this has more than compensated for the decline in oil exports. Nevertheless, the Bush administration's hopes that Iraq's oil revenue would pay for its hefty reconstruction bill were dashed. In March 2003, then deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz stated that, with Iraq, "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
But in September that year the White House asked Congress to approve $18 billion in US-financed reconstruction funds for Iraq. That Iraq faced a huge reconstruction bill was no mystery. A 2002 study by a Yale University economist put reconstruction costs at between $30 billion and $105 billion, while an October 2003 World Bank/UN Development Program estimate put the cost at $55 billion. Even with prices at $70 a barrel, Iraq still needs donor financing for reconstruction.
Facing declining production, huge reconstruction costs, and frequent sabotage attacks, Iraq's oil sector has not been able to alter the Middle East political landscape as neo-conservatives had hoped. In fact the opposite has occurred. Rather than post-Saddam Iraq being able to flood the market with oil to depress prices, its instability has instead been a contributing factor to the steady rise in the price of oil.
At the time of the invasion in March 2003 oil prices were hovering around the $25-$30 level, but they have since risen to reach a peak of $75 per barrel late last month. Market sensitivity about crises in several oil-producing states, including Iraq, have become more acute in a time of robust global oil-demand growth and tight OPEC spare capacity, which has driven prices higher than what market fundamentals would suggest.
Furthermore, high oil prices translate to high revenue for the other major oil exporters, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. These two states are earning vastly increased oil revenue compared with 2003. According to the US Department of Energy, Saudi Arabia will rake in $163 billion in oil revenue this year compared with $85 billion in 2003, while Iran will reap $50 billion in 2006 compared with $24 billion three years ago.
But high oil prices have provided more than just a financial cushion to these key petroleum exporters. They can also exercise greater geopolitical strength. In the current bullish oil-price environment, Saudi Arabia remains invaluable to US interests as a key oil supplier and doesn't fear this role being diminished by a resurgent Iraq. And Iran feels it can engage in more assertive diplomacy over its nuclear program with less risk of sanctions on its energy exports.
Iraq has had more urgent issues to worry about than reconsidering its membership of OPEC, and there has been no move by Iraqi officials to withdraw from the oil exporters' group. In fact, Iraq is some years away from even reaching its official OPEC quota of 3.5mbpd. Meanwhile, hopes that post-Saddam Iraq would in the short term open its oilfields to foreign investment were also unfulfilled. A combination of the poor security environment and policy uncertainty has postponed strategic decision-making on foreign investment in Iraq's oil, decisions that will only be made after a permanent government is formed and Iraq's legislature devises a petroleum law.
For the Bush administration, the ousting of Saddam Hussein removed a potential threat in the vital Persian Gulf region, but the subsequent instability in Iraq has severely constricted its ability to exercise leverage in the region. For example, Iran is not worried about the substantial US military presence in Iraq as long as US forces are preoccupied with battling a persistent insurgency. And Persian Gulf oil supplies remain vulnerable; not from an Iraq as a hostile state actor, but from Iraq's internecine violence with its regional implications.
Meanwhile, neo-conservative expectations that post-Saddam Iraq's oil could be used as a weapon to lower oil prices, undermine Saudi Arabia and Iran, and bust the OPEC cartel wide open have not been realized. Iraq's deteriorated security environment has played on oil-market fears that have contributed to higher oil prices. Iraq is producing less oil than it did before the invasion, leaving the market share of the region's two big oil powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran, unchallenged. And both those states are also enjoying near-record-level revenues. The grand dream of an Iraqi oil boom fueling transformation in the Middle East has gone bust.
Peter Kiernan is an associate covering energy and Middle East issues at AALC, a business consulting firm in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
Comment on this Article
Marines Killed Civilians "In Cold Blood"
Michael Scherer and Mark Benjamin
Spiegel
May 18 2006
Senior House Democrat Jack Murtha warns that the details of a reported massacre in Iraq last year will prove "a very bad thing" for the US.
A senior House Democrat with close ties to the military claimed Wednesday that U.S. Marines wantonly killed innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, in an early morning raid last November, buttressing a March report by Time.
"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," said Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, a decorated Marine Corps veteran who served in Vietnam and is among the most influential Democratic voices on military matters. "This is going to be a very, very bad thing for the United States."
Asked about his sources during a midday briefing on Iraq policy in the Capitol, Murtha confidently replied, "All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they are talking about." Although Murtha said that he had not read any investigative reports by the military on the incident, he stressed, "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine."
The civilian deaths are under review by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is also responsible for the Marine Corps. A Navy spokesman declined to comment on Murtha's claims, saying that the matter is part of an ongoing inquiry. He would also not comment on when the investigation into the incident would be completed.
In March, Time described an incident in the western Iraqi town of Haditha -- the worst alleged case of U.S. troops deliberately killing civilians in Iraq. Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, 20, was killed in the early morning of Nov. 19, 2005, by a roadside explosive device. In the hours that followed, Marines searched three houses, killing a total of 23 people. According to Time, the Marine Corps' initial report claimed that 15 civilians had died in the same blast that killed Terrazas -- and another eight insurgents were killed after a subsequent firefight with Marines.
But Murtha contended Wednesday that the military's initial report was wrong. "There was no firefight," he said. "There was no IED [improvised explosive device] that killed these people."
Last month, the Marine Corps relieved of command three officers who oversaw the military unit responsible for the Iraqi deaths at Haditha -- Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.
Murtha, widely known as a foreign-policy hawk, grabbed the national spotlight last fall when he suddenly called for the orderly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. His press briefing Wednesday was a six-month follow-up to that initial call for withdrawal. The Pennsylvania Democrat argued that part of the responsibility for the Haditha killings lay with the Pentagon leadership, who had stretched soldiers too thin. "These guys are under tremendous strain -- more strain than I can conceive of -- and this strain has caused them to crack under situations like this," Murtha said.
The psychological strain Murtha described has been well documented. Veterans describe the violence of war as having a numbing effect on soldiers, making it possible to carry out otherwise unthinkable acts. This is especially true when a fellow soldier has been killed. "Once you reach that point, all sorts of restrictions you may place on yourself are removed," says Rion Causey, a medic in the infamous Army platoon known as Tiger Force, which may have killed as many as several hundred unarmed civilians in the central highlands of South Vietnam in 1967. Causey did not participate in the atrocities.
Murtha visited the Haditha region in August, three months before the incident. According to Murtha, a U.S. general there said at the time, "I don't have enough troops to do my mission."
Comment on this Article
Baghdad mortuary overwhelmed by rising numbers of dead
17 May 2006
IRIN
An average of 70 civilians are killed in Baghdad every day...
Sajida Youssef, a housekeeper, waited more than 24 hours for the body of her son, who had been murdered by thieves, to be released from Baghdad's central morgue.
"Not only is there the suffering of having my son brutally killed, but now I must wait hours until the mortuary can examine his body," said Sajida.
Lack of space, a shortage of doctors and an increase in the number of victims of daily violence countrywide has put pressure on Baghdad's only mortuary, which used to release bodies in five hours or less. "We have a lack of equipment and professionals," said Dr Fa'aq Ameen, director of the health ministry's Forensic Medicine Institute.
"Our work is getting more difficult because more Iraqis are being brutally killed, requiring lengthy investigations and examinations that can take hours and sometimes days."
An average of 70 civilians are killed in Baghdad every day, largely a result of the sectarian violence which has been on the rise since the 22 February attack on a revered Shi'ite shrine in Samarra city. Every month, the mortuary receives more than 1,500 bodies, not including the bodies of people killed in the north and south of the country.
"We can store up to 120 corpses, but with the ongoing violence and examination delays, we sometimes find ourselves with double that number," Ameen said. He went on to warn of the possibility of disease if bodies remained without refrigeration for long periods of time and stressed the morgue's need for more refrigeration units.
The families and friends of victims, meanwhile, point the finger at government failures. "The government is responsible for all this because they cannot keep our lives secure," said Sajida. "During the regime of Saddam Hussein, families had never heard of the morgue - today it has become a common word in our vocabularies."
Hassan Abdel-Kadder, the father of a girl raped and killed as she left her school in the capital, also complained bitterly of procedural ineptitude. "We were informed of our daughter's death three days ago," he said. "But due to the incompetence of mortuary employees, who initially told us she wasn't there, we found her 72 hours later."
According to Ameen, bodies, usually brought to the mortuary by civilians or police officers, are initially checked for identifiable information. He pointed out, however, that in most cases there was a lack of documentation or contact information. What's more, bodies generally cannot be buried until they are claimed by next-of-kin.
"Sometimes, when families are late to claim bodies, we're obliged to bury them and write down all relevant information until someone comes searching for them," explained Ameen. "After that, bodies can be exhumed and reburied at a preferred place at the request of the family."
One morgue employee, preferring anonymity for security reasons, noted that families often go straight to the morgue whenever a family member goes missing. "Whenever there's an explosion, a huge number of people come to the morgue searching for their loved ones, even before we've received any bodies," he said.
Currently, there is no government organ mandated with informing people of slain relatives or with searching for those who have disappeared. While some local NGOs and organisations - such as the Iraqi Red Crescent Society - are trying to help families trace missing people, they can only deal with relatively small numbers.
Comment: Wondering why Bush's approval rating on Iraq is at 32%? It's simple: he is presiding over the slow and steady daily massacring of the innocent poopulation of a foreign nation. Doesn't sound much like freedom and democracy, does it? Oh yes, that's the other reason for the low approval ratings - every sane citizen in the U.S. knows that Bush and his administration are pathological liars, which doesn't sound much like freedom and democracy either, does it?
Comment on this Article
Bush's Other War: Afghanistan
Western projects are bleeding Afghanistan dry, says minister
By David Loyn in Kabul
Published: 18 May 2006
Samihullah is just the kind of returned refugee his country needs. Aged 30, with a wife and two children, he was well educated in the camps across the border in Pakistan. After the Taliban were pushed out in 2001, he returned home and joined the Afghan Ministry of Education, where he helped to rebuild the higher-education sector. But not any more.
I found him working as a security guard at the UN's World Food Programme headquarters in Kabul. With allowances he earns a total of $270 a month there, compared with $50 at the Afghan higher education. The decision to move jobs was not a hard one.
But it is the international system that is sucking Afghanistan dry. Any returnee who speaks English can be guaranteed a job at a higher level in the UN, or the myriad big NGOs that have set up shop in Kabul.
Ashraf Ghani, who was Finance Minister in the first year after the Taliban fell, and is now chancellor of Kabul University, says the international community has failed Afghanistan. Rather than build up the government, it has created a parallel system that has actively weakened the capacity of Afghanistan to run its own affairs.
Mr Ghani's greatest fear is that by failing to empower the Afghan government, the world could be helping the Taliban to regroup, as they feed on the resentment of people at the slow pace of change. He says "The cheapest way of bringing development and security is government."
The scale of the international machine has dwarfed the indigenous government. Large parts of the capital are closed to normal traffic because of security concerns. The remaining traffic paralyses the city for much of the day. To the east of Kabul the UN has built a headquarters, the size of a small town.
The frustration of the Afghan government system at the way the money is spent surfaced at the London conference on funding earlier this year. A World Bank report that came out just before the conference calculated that 90 per cent of international development spending continued to flow outside the government.
The report's author William Byrd, described it as an "aid juggernaut, still outside the budget and outside government control". He added: "It does not build domestic capacity which is what you need ..."
One initiative, called the National Solidarity Programme (NSP) is now channelling funds directly to Afghan control.
Much of the budget of the NSP is paid by Britain's Department for International Development, as it happens, but there are no sign boards boasting that. To the former commanders this is Kabul money.
The cabinet minister responsible for this programme, Hanif Atma, spent the Taliban years studying international development at Bradford University.
He said "a parallel structure was needed at the beginning, but no country can be run and managed without a state, and no state can be sustainable in a society without having legitimacy and credibility in what that state should be".
The former commanders in the village in Kunar, a savagely contested region for decades, had decided to spend their NSP money on a scheme to build a new road, and a proper wall to channel a flooded river away from the village. Lives have been saved since taxis can now come in to take people to hospital, and farmers have flourished.
One vivid example shows what happens when the international community goes aheads without proper local consultation. A half-finished school for girls is derelict after funds ran out. Above it another school is being built with Japanese money. The first school, could not be completed since it was not in their plan.
The Americans and the Japanese, both large donors to Afghanistan, are the two countries who are most responsible for spending money outside the government budget, and despite the claim of high standards in the village in Kunar, much of what they have built is sub-standard.
The American government's development arm USAID, boasts of the number of girls' schools it has built. I asked to see one in Kabul, and was shocked by the state of it. A plaque on the wall boasts of this as a gift from the American people, but the Lycée Mariam is nothing to be proud of.
Teachers there say the Americans did little more than add a coat of paint on the one standing building, and replace the roof of makeshift huts. The new roofs are already leaking, and in the courtyard hundreds of girls are still being taught in tents. The school looked like an emergency had just hit.
Comment on this Article
Canada's stay in Afghanistan extended by 2 years
Last Updated Wed, 17 May 2006 22:42:56 EDT
CBC News
With the latest death of a Canadian soldier fresh in their minds, members of Parliament have voted to approve an extension of the military mission to Afghanistan.
The vote was close, but the government prevailed 149-145. It means Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan two years longer than previously planned.
The death of Capt. Nichola Goddard, 26, was reported as the Commons gathered on Wednesday to debate the merits of a government proposal to extend the mission.
A defiant Prime Minister Stephen Harper led off the debate by declaring he would extend the mission by a year, with or without the support of the House, and would be willing to call an election on the issue, putting the ultimate decision directly into the hands of Canadians.
"We cannot walk away quickly," Harper told the House. "If we need further efforts or further mandate to go ahead into the future, we will go so alone and go to the Canadian people to get that mandate."
Harper said the mission is in Canada's interests and important in the fight against terrorism.
"The events of Sept. 11, 2001 was a wake-up call, not just to Americans but to people in all free and democratic nations. Two dozen Canadians were killed as result of the attacks on the twin towers ... Canada is not safe from such attack, and we will never be safe from such attacks as long as we're a society that defends freedom and democracy."
Under six-hour grilling
The Conservatives announced the vote for a two-year extension earlier this week, and MPs spent about six hours debating whether Canada's troops should come home next February or stay in Afghanistan until early 2009.
The Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party voted against the motion. NDP Leader Jack Layton said the mission would see Canada straying further from its traditional role as peacekeeper.
Liberal Leader Bill Graham had said he would wait to see if the Conservatives answered all his questions regarding the two-year extension before deciding which way to vote.
The Liberals allowed their members a free vote and in the end, Graham and 29 other Liberals supported the motion.
But Graham did criticize the government for holding a vote without providing sufficient time to debate the issue. Graham said his party supports the troops and the mission in Afghanistan, but that MPs would be voting "with a gun put to our heads."
Canada has about 2,200 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, part of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom.
Previously, Canada was a participant in the NATO-led International Stabilization Assistance Force (ISAF), and it has been reported that Canada could take over leadership of the larger NATO mission in Afghanistan in 2008.
Comment on this Article
Afghanistan sees violence upsurge
Thursday, 18 May 2006, 11:41 GMT 12:41 UK
Afghanistan has been hit by some of the heaviest fighting since the US-led invasion in 2001 to oust the Taleban.
Taleban fighters are battling police in Helmand province where officials say about 50 militants and 13 police died.
Coalition and Afghan troops have conducted more operations in Kandahar and say at least seven militants died.
A US national was killed by a suicide bomber on Thursday in Herat, where such attacks are rare, while another bomber blew himself up in the city of Ghazni.
The Ghazni blast happened at an Afghan army base as a US military convoy was passing. The bomber and a civilian were killed.
This came shortly after an attacker rammed a bomb-filled vehicle into a convoy in Herat, killing himself and a civilian American contractor.
So far this year there have been at least 20 suicide attacks compared with 17 for the whole of 2005 and five in 2004.
Biggest attack
The fighting in Helmand began on Wednesday when Taleban forces stormed the town of Musa Qala.
At least 13 Afghan policemen were killed, along with about 50 Taleban fighters, officials said.
"It was the biggest attack [in Helmand] since the fall of the Taleban," provincial governor Amir Mohammad Akhundzada told Reuters news agency.
Fighting was continuing on Thursday in the village of Sar Besha, about 20km (12 miles) north of the town, a spokesman for Helmand's governor told the BBC.
He said coalition forces were providing air support to chase away the militants.
'Ungoverned space'
The Taleban have stepped up attacks on foreign and Afghan forces as the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force expands to help the Afghan government with security and reconstruction.
Isaf currently has about 9,000 personnel but plans to build up to about 21,000 troops by November.
Nato spokesman in Afghanistan Mark Laity told the BBC that resistance to the deployment was only to be expected.
"Although the Americans have done a brilliant job down there, a lot of Helmand, Kandahar...all these areas in the south, are effectively ungoverned space," he said.
The aim was to move forces in to really take control of the territory later this year, he said.
"Now that is really bad news for people like the Taleban, al-Qaeda, criminals, narcotics traffickers and so on. So they are going to resist."
Britain, which is in charge of security in Helmand, has hundreds of soldiers there and the full complement of 3,300 will be deployed by June.
UK troops were not involved in the Helmand clashes.
Intense debate
The continuing violence comes a day after the Canadian parliament narrowly voted to extend Canada's military mission to Afghanistan by two years until 2009.
Canada currently has 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan, mainly in the south where the Taleban-led resistance is strong.
The Afghan government welcomed Canada's decision, saying it benefited the Afghan people and the rest of the world.
"We hope the international community, as they've shown in the past, stay committed with us until Afghanistan stands on its own feet," a presidential spokesman told the AFP news agency.
But the parliamentary debate in Ottawa was intensified amid news that a woman soldier, Capt Nichola Goddard, had been killed in an operation near Kandahar. She was the first female Canadian soldier to die in combat since World War II.
Canadian forces said 18 Taleban members had been killed and 26 captured in the fighting.
A further operation in Kandahar against insurgents was carried out on Thursday, the US-led coalition said.
"Seven members of the Taleban were killed with approximately 15 to 20 more possibly dead from an associated air strike. One coalition member was wounded," a coalition statement said.
Comment: We are sure you all recall Afghanistan. It was supposed to be the "successful" component in the war on terror. You know, where they had elections and formed a government, even if that dastardly Osama had managed to slip through the tightening knot around him when for some unknown foul-up, US troops backed off to leave a wide opening for him to "slip through". Another sign of "incomptence", no doubt.
Comment on this Article
Bush's New War: Iran
Annan urges int'l attention to Iranian nuclear issue
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-18 20:06:31
TOKYO, May 18 (Xinhua) -- Visiting U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called on Thursday in Tokyo for international attention to find solutions for the Iranian nuclear issue.
The Iranian nuclear issue "is a crisis in the sense we need to work very actively," Annan told reporters at the Japan National Press Club. He urged the international community to find solutions and said that discussions are still going on.
TOKYO, May 18 (Xinhua) -- Visiting U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called on Thursday in Tokyo for international attention to find solutions for the Iranian nuclear issue.
The Iranian nuclear issue "is a crisis in the sense we need to work very actively," Annan told reporters at the Japan National Press Club. He urged the international community to find solutions and said that discussions are still going on.
Earlier in the day, Annan said in a speech at Tokyo University that he hoped that "the current discussions in the Security Council will give new momentum to the quest for a negotiated solution" for the issue.
"There is also a need to lower the temperature, and refrain from actions and rhetoric that could further inflame the situation," Annan said.
Annan also called for a negotiated solution to solve the Korean Peninsular nuclear issue.
Iran said Wednesday that it would reject a deal with the European Union, which plans to offer incentives in exchange for Iran's halting uranium enrichment. Tehran also said that it would offer economic incentives to the European Union in return for its recognition of Iran's right to enriching uranium for peaceful purposes.
At the press club, Annan also said that leaders of the East Asian countries should make gestures to ease the strained relations.
"I'm sure the leaders (of the three countries) will find the wisdom and the means to put whatever difficulties that exists today behind them. But it will not go away by itself," the U.N. chief said.
"The countries in the region know each other well. They have been observing each other, they share certain history and they are all aware of what irritates or worries or provokes the other side," he said.
The relations between Japan and China, Japan and South Korea have been strained in recent years mainly due to Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, where 14 top war criminals are honored along with other war dead.
Without elaborating on what the gestures are, Annan said that he hoped that Japan, China and South Korea can be on better terms.
The world body chief also touched on U.N. reform, the war in Iraq and other issues.
When asked about the next U.N chief candidates, Annan, whose term expires at the end of this year, said that his successor should be selected from Asia, in agreement of an informal geographic rotation system of selecting a leader for the global body.
Annan arrived in Japan on Tuesday after visiting South Korea. He will travel to China and Vietnam after leaving Japan.
Comment on this Article
Ahmadinejad: A study in obstinacy
By Iason Athanasiadis
May 19, 2006
Asia Times
TEHRAN - The West is just coming to know the resoluteness of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad as he doggedly sticks to his beliefs with regard to Iran's nuclear program, despite the weight of international and domestic pressure building up against him.
To friends and colleagues who have known Ahmadinejad for a long time, though, his perseverance in the face of daunting odds comes as no surprise.
"Mahmud has not changed in the 30 years I've known him, at school and at university," Saeed Hadian told Asia Times Online, saying that Ahmadinejad had an obstinate streak and insistence on justice being served. "He's still the same Mahmud."
On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad continued the plunge into a spiral of confrontation with the West as he rejected a European offer to provide Iran with a light-water nuclear reactor in exchange for Tehran giving up nuclear enrichment activities. Iran's nuclear dossier is before the United Nations Security Council, with the possibility of sanctions growing.
Ahmadinejad compared the European offer to giving "a four-year-old ... candies or walnuts and taking gold from him in return".
While the populist rhetoric went down well with the large, open-air audience he was addressing in the central Iranian city of Arak, it is only likely to anger further a US administration seemingly hell-bent on imposing sanctions on Iran as a first step toward depriving it of the full nuclear cycle.
That is unlikely to disturb Ahmadinejad, a previously obscure, mid-ranking politician from a conservative background whose surprise victory in last June's presidential elections prompted rumblings of fear. Iran's middle and upper classes were convinced that Ahmadinejad would order a social crackdown, which has yet to materialize. But they predicted correctly that the country's economy would suffer from capital loss.
Last summer, Ahmadinejad made an explosive entrance into the international spotlight. He directed a combative address to the UN General Assembly in September, made controversial comments that called into question the Holocaust and the future of Israel in November, and was the first Iranian president of the Islamic Republic to address a letter to his US counterpart.
Two weeks ago, he confounded everyone by exhibiting a heretofore unseen liberal side and seeking to cancel a law that bans women from entering stadiums. He was immediately overruled by the country's clerical leadership, but reaped great popularity among the crucial secular, liberal Iranian electorate that is traditionally opposed to what he stands for.
Last week, Ahmadinejad was treated like a rock star in Indonesia, by an audience enchanted by the kind of direct rhetorical style that evokes memories of 1960s liberation ideology. In the Arab world too, increasingly people are expressing admiration for how Ahmadinejad is dishing it up to the West in a way that their own governments do not dare.
"Iran has often been at the receiving end of ultimatums from foreign powers," said Cyrus Safdari, an independent Iranian analyst. "The politicians who stood up to these ultimatums are treated as heroes, and the ones who caved are still considered to be traitors."
So how did a blacksmith's son from rural Iran manage to become an Islamic iconoclast who defied the West and the Iranian mullahocracy alike to deliver a highly controversial nuclear program to his country? How did an intensely pious war veteran manage to be elected in an poll marked by the absence of religious symbolism and accented by his rival's promise to continue the social liberalization characterized by the Mohammad Khatami era?
Naser and Saeed Hadian, two brothers who are childhood friends of the president, describe him as unchanged from the time they knew him. Still buddies, they all grew up together in the dusty streets of Narmak, a solidly middle-class neighborhood of east Tehran. Naser recalls playing soccer with the talented Ahmadinejad and other children.
He was as obstinate as a lad as he is now, said Naser. "[Now] everyone is against him," said Naser, who studied with Ahmadinejad at the Elm-o Sanat University. "From the super-secular elite to the super-religious elites, they have all turned against him. And he doesn't care. He says, 'Let them come, let them vote against me, I have the support of the people.'"
Typical of Ahmadinejad's temperament is the following anecdote, told by another acquaintance. In 1997, with newly elected president Khatami spearheading a rollback of hardliners, Ahmadinejad taught engineering classes at his alma mater, Elm-o Sanat University, proudly sporting a Palestinian kaffiyeh (scarf) around the campus. While kaffiyehs are standard symbols for the pro-Palestinian cause in the West, in Iran they also represent religiosity and a commitment to the hard right wing of the Islamic Republic.
To have worn one in the relative liberalism of a university environment at the peak of the reformist wave indicated his single-minded commitment to the founding principles of the Islamic Republic.
During the eight-year reformist period, Ahmadinejad worked his way up the provincial governorship ladder, eventually becoming mayor of Tehran. His tenure was marked by the improved organization of what is one of the world's most chaotic and traffic-choked cities.
In recognition, he was short-listed for an international Mayor of the Year competition in 2004, even as well-off Tehranis cracked jokes about how, if he could, Ahmadinejad's conservativeness would have extended to his instituting segregated male and female sidewalks, elevators and graveyards in Tehran.
For their part, upper-class Iranians sneer at his common looks and ordinary-Joe appearance, even as Ahmadinejad himself stresses it to appeal to large segments of the electorate.
But those who know him prefer to dwell on his "indefatigable habits of work" and "financial incorruptibility". A modest man, he inhabited an unpretentious home in the same neighborhood that he grew up in and drove a Paykan, Iran's cheapest, mass-produced car.
A talented soccer player and straight-A student, Ahmadinejad sailed through educational and professional hierarchies with great ease. When he inherited the president's office, he completed a process of donating all the lavish Persian rugs that used to decorate it to Tehran's carpet museum.
While Ahmadinejad's on-the-job performance has won him more fans since he became president, his threat to reform the system and root out corruption has created powerful enemies, including influential clerics.
Some believe that Ahmadinejad's systematic purge of the foreign service, provincial governorships and key economic posts - and his appointment of mostly former Revolutionary Guard comrades to those offices - is angering an older generation of clerics who see significant elements of their power base being eroded.
Further criticism is prompted by the fact that, whereas the time has probably come for the second revolutionary generation to start taking over, Ahmadinejad's abrupt manner in effecting this transition is ruffling too many feathers.
In the holy city of Qom, the primary center of Shi'ite scholarship in the world, Ahmadinejad has reportedly upset a number of senior figures. One senior cleric, Ayatollah Sanei, is more liberal than others and believes in equality between men and women and tolerance among religions. But when a conversation with Asia Times Online turned to Ahmadinejad and his recent, crowd-pleasing decision to allow women back into soccer stadiums for games, Sanei refused to comment.
"I didn't sign that letter," he said, referring to a letter issued by at least four grand ayatollahs that condemned the president's decision and instantly granted him impeccable liberal credentials. "I didn't get involved in that, it was all a game."
In private pictures taken in 1977 in shah-era Shiraz, a young, beardless Ahmadinejad stands next to his friends. Wearing scuffed running shoes and an ordinary brown jacket and sporting a solid, left-hand parting in his hair, he looks every inch the opinionated man he went on to become. He appears obstinately dowdy, every inch the mardomyar (people's man) that he went on to become.
Iason Athanasiadis is an Iran-based correspondent.
Comment on this Article
Dissent and defection: An Iranian confession
By Mahan Abedin
Asia Times
Masoud Banisadr is an Iranian historian and political analyst. He is a former senior member of the Iranian opposition group the Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organization (MEK), and was its representative in the United States from 1990-96. Banisadr left the MEK in in June 1996 and has lived in London since. He finished his PhD research in chemical engineering and engineering mathematics at Newcastle University in 1981. Banisadr's book Masoud: Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel is widely regarded as the most authoritative ideological exposition of the MEK.
The MEK, which in some countries, including the US, has been placed on a terror watch list, has been based since 1986 in Iraq. It has been backed in the US by right-wing lawmakers, hardline neo-conservatives and retired military officers, among others, who believe the MEK could be used to help destabilize the Iranian regime, if not eventually overthrow it in conjunction with US military strikes against selected targets. This interview was conducted on May 10 in London.
Mahan Abedin: This June will mark the 10th anniversary of your defection from the MEK. What is your feeling toward this organization today?
Masoud Banisadr: I am sad for the organization's members and supporters and those who lost their lives on this path. I am also sad to see the organization in its current state, when they are fighting for survival and have abandoned all their original core principles. At the same time, I am happy that I have at last freed myself of them, physically, emotionally and ideologically. When I left the organization I did not have a deep understanding of what was wrong with it. After 10 years I am confident I know what went wrong.
MA: And what is wrong with them?
MB: We were attracted to the organization for two reasons: its sacrifices during the struggle against the shah's regime and its sincere commitment toward the Iranian people. By changing from an ideological and political organization into a cult with a political agenda, the Mujahideen[-e-Khalq] fully disconnected themselves from this heritage. Many Iranians do not understand the concept of a "cult". This is partly rooted in language; the word "cult" is firqah in Persian and as such it has no negative connotations. When hearing the word firqah, Iranians immediately think of innocuous Sufi orders, so they don't fully appreciate the implications of this word.
The MEK is a cult in the conventional sense of the word, and as such it has no respect for the values to which it was originally committed. The organization had five original goals and aspirations for the Iranian people: (1) independence; (2) freedom (as in individual rights); (3) democracy; (4) progress and social justice, including some elements of socialism borrowed from Marxist-Leninist ideology; (5) Islamic culture. When it changed into a cult, the interests of the cult entirely eclipsed those of the country and the people. To advance the interests of the cult, they were prepared to collaborate closely with the worst enemies of the country, in particular Saddam Hussein, thus jeopardizing our independence.
A cult that is deeply committed to an "ideological leadership" cannot believe in equality, social justice and democracy. The first rule of membership in a cult is sacrifice of personal individuality; therefore a cult cannot believe in Western concepts of freedom and democracy based on individualism. Merit and personal ability are prerequisites for progress in any realm, but in a cult where lack of individuality and blind obedience toward the guru are conditions of membership and promotion, real progress is impossible.
For instance, despite the proliferation of talent, the Mujahideen have been unable to solve their financial problems, thus relying on Iran's enemies for funding. The Mujahideen's deeply rooted cult culture came to the fore in June 2003 when Maryam Rajavi and dozens of her closest advisers were detained by French counter-terrorism police. The Mujahideen's response was to encourage their members to set themselves on fire in major Western capitals.
How can you justify this level of submission and servitude toward another human being within the framework of Islamic monotheism? The real tragedy is the Mujahideen's acceptance that all their sacrifices and commitment [are] to the leadership and no other entity. This, by itself, highlights the depth of their ideological decline and is a stark reminder of their abandonment of all original values and objectives.
MA: How do you assess the MEK's activities against Iran's nuclear program?
MB: This goes back to the most important value outlined above, namely independence. When it was formed back in the 1960s, the organization was a vociferous champion of Iranian independence, but since its transformation it is exclusively preoccupied with the interests of the cult rather than the country. It was this transformation that led it to cooperate with Iran's national enemy Saddam Hussein, and is now leading it to side with those who want to sabotage Iranian aspirations for a peaceful nuclear program.
MA: But some people say the MEK has provided a valuable service by exposing aspects of Iran's nuclear program, not least the August 2002 exposure of the Natanz and Arak facilities.
MB: Despite being a cult, the organization has a distinct political agenda, and it uses a variety of methods to promote that agenda. For instance, it is well known for gross exaggerations and downright fabrications.
MA: But on that occasion its exposure proved accurate. My question is whether the MEK is providing a valuable service to international stability by exposing aspects of the country's nuclear program that the Iranian government wants to conceal.
MB: The Iranian nuclear program - as long as it remains peaceful - is a truly national aspiration regardless of the nature of the Iranian government. This is a national asset, and as such it belongs to all Iranians. Given this state of affairs, the MEK's activities are treacherous through and through. Even if there is any truth to its propaganda, every sensible and conscientious Iranian is well aware of our country's military weakness, vis-a-vis the Western powers and our immediate neighbors.
Moreover, every sensible observer knows that Iran has not committed a single act of aggression in the past 200 years and has, in fact, been invaded by a coterie of Western and regional enemies. Given this state of affairs, I don't think many Iranians would object to possessing nuclear weapons for defensive purposes.
MA: You have recently given media interviews, and the MEK has hit back through character assassination. I refer specifically to your interview with the Persian service of Radio France. How do you assess its reaction to your interviews?
MB: Well, they are very predictable in this regard. I am happy that they are showing such reaction because it vindicates my decision to leave the organization. If their reaction was any different, I would have doubted myself and my achievements in the past 10 years.
MA: What does it hope to achieve by these character assassinations?
MB: Since their transformation to a cult in the past two decades, their only interest is to advance the interests of the cult. So whatever they do is guided by this central goal. Their first priority is to safeguard the reputation of their "Guru" (Masoud Rajavi), and they do this by labeling any dissident member as a traitor and agent of the Iranian government. This is standard procedure for them.
MA: What do you think the MEK's reaction to this interview will be?
MB: (Laughs) Probably the same as always!
MA: But your critics do raise an interesting point, namely that you left the organization 10 years ago and for most of that period you were politically inactive. It is only recently that you have come out to defend yourself and criticize the organization. How do you explain the long years of silence?
MB: That is a very good question. First and foremost, it is important to understand that physical separation from a cult might happen overnight, but emotional, spiritual and, most important of all, ideological separation needs time and hard work. I had to understand what had happened to me. I had to get to know myself all over again. Don't forget that I was a member of a cult and had spent more than 15 years suppressing my personality.
When I left in June 1996, my personality had been reduced to virtually nothing, and I needed time to recover from this trauma. I had to understand what had attracted me to the MEK in the first place, and this led me to review the organization's history and ideology all over again. I had to go through this journey to be able to explain to myself, my children and whoever wants to know, what went wrong. I am afraid I feel that some of those who have left the organization and are currently engaged in a single-minded struggle against it are (despite appearances to the contrary) still trapped in the Mujahideen's ideological cosmos.
They are still living in the bipolar and black-and-white world of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. It seems that their opposition to the Mujahideen is more born out of personal grudges than a desire to expose the organization for its betrayal of our people. Furthermore, their activism (against the Mujahideen) is not even effective. It serves to make ordinary supporters more committed to the organization.
MA: Curiously the Mujahideen did not attack you for writing the book. But they started an onslaught of character assassinations when your book was translated into Farsi. Why is that?
MB: The book (in its English version) was published about two years ago. When it was translated into Farsi, it became immediately accessible to ordinary supporters. The Mujahideen were terrified of the prospect of supporters questioning them because of the contents of the book. You should note that ordinary supporters (as opposed to members and cadres) are more valuable to the organization as their support is more effective and doesn't cost much financially.
Furthermore, holding on to them doesn't require significant organizational effort. I believe the ordinary supporters are the real members of the Mujahideen, as they have not been forced to change their personality and individuality. Therefore, their support is truly meaningful. This is in stark contrast to the members who had to change into a new person to be able to remain fully committed to the organization. Moreover, members have to be supported financially and have to be kept under constant ideological surveillance, to prevent them from "rediscovering" their old personalities.
MA: Have you now completed the journey of self-discovery?
MB: There is now much more clarity. But on rare occasions I find myself exhibiting some old organizational behavior. The difference is that I recognize this instantly and fight it accordingly.
MA: Let us now discuss anti-Iran lobbying in the US. You spent many years as the MEK's main representative to the US and developed impressive lobbying skills in the process. Please summarize your insights.
MB: First you have to understand the American system. I don't know how much Asia Times Online readers understand the American foreign-policy establishment. Direct and intensive lobbying has a lot of influence on the key foreign-policy centers in the US, in particular the Senate and the House of Representatives. As for the State Department, the NSC [National Security Council], the administration, Pentagon and the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], lobbying takes the form of common interests. There is a lot of common interest between some of these centers, in particular the Pentagon, and exiled Iranian opposition outfits, regardless of the meager weight of these organizations. But insofar as the Congress is concerned, you need conventional lobbying power.
MA: Explain what you mean by lobbying power.
MB: There are three components: numbers of constituents, money, and organizational strength. There are basically two anti-Iran lobbies in the US. The first belongs to the supporters of the former monarchical regime and the second to the Mujahideen. Both lobbies are very weak and would be completely ineffectual were it not for the support of the pro-Israel lobby. To take a hypothetical case, if you need 1,000 lobbying units to influence Iran policy in the US Congress, 999 of these are provided by the pro-Israel lobby or the American administration, and the remainder by the weak and fragmented exiled opposition. Those 999 units constitute the weight and the one unit provided by the exiled opposition brings a fig leaf of legitimacy to these anti-Iranian activities. It also enables the pro-Israel lobby in the US or other American entities to claim there is effective opposition to the Iranian government.
MA: Explain the dynamics in the MEK-Israel lobby relationship.
MB: If there is an anti-Iran petition on the table in the Congress, the two lobbies would work hand-in-hand to promote it, without necessarily communicating directly.
MA: Are the two lobbies organizationally linked?
MB: To give you an example, we knew which members of Congress were influenced by AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], so when we needed signatures we'd go to these congressmen first. AIPAC has a lot of weight in Congress, and without having to communicate with them directly, we benefited enormously from their deep influence. We also copied their lobbying techniques. Consequently the Mujahideen's lobby in the US is organizationally strong but it lacks the two core elements I outlined earlier, namely numbers and money. They have a tiny constituency among Iranian-Americans, and even with the addition of imaginary names and addresses they cannot deliver votes or similar political advantages to congressmen. It also lacks an independent financial base. Much of its funding came from the former Iraqi regime.
MA: Your claim that there were no direct contacts between the MEK and the pro-Israel lobby is undermined by the organization's intensive and very direct cooperation with the "Iran Policy Committee", which seems to be a spin off of AIPAC. There are also regular media reports alluding to direct MEK-Israel ties.
MB: I would not be surprised if these links existed. As I said earlier, the MEK is exclusively motivated by the interests of the cult, and as such it will cooperate with any constituency. If there is any hesitation in collaboration, it stems from Israeli reluctance, since the Mujahideen, because of its close relationship with the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization], is not fully trusted by the Israelis. On the other hand, from an Israeli perspective, the MEK is the only viable tool against Iran.
Monarchists are deeply divided and lack organization. However, Western and Israeli intelligence are well aware of the MEK's limitations. They are perfectly aware of the cult nature of the organization and know that it has - at most - around 5,000 members and active sympathizers (most of whom are stranded in the Ashraf camp in Iraq) and are in no position to seriously threaten the Iranian government. This factor - coupled with the organization's cult-like and totalitarian ideology - dissuades the US State Department from working with them.
To put it simply, the Americans do not trust Mujahideen-e-Khalq, for they know they have no principles, save the interests of the cult. This is why, despite all the efforts of the organization in the past quarter-century, they have not been able to pass a single substantial resolution in support of the organization in Congress. Note also that the US government regards the Mujahideen as a terrorist organization and does not want to create another al-Qaeda.
MA: Do you think the current US administration is committed to regime change in Iran, regardless of the actions of the Iranian government? In other words, is the nuclear issue simply a pretext?
MB: Yes, as long as the neo-conservatives remain influential in the American administration. Moreover, it seems that most of the foreign-policy establishment and media in the US are mobilized against the Iranian regime. They are actively seeking to demonize the Ahmadinejad government, regardless of the nature and actions of this government.
MA: What is the source of US hostility toward Iran?
MB: The main source of friction is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Islamic Republic's hostility toward Israel disturbs the Americans not only because of their unreserved support for Israel but also because it represents Iran's clear opposition to American foreign policy, and as such is a powerful sign of Iranian political independence. This is why year after year the US State Department identifies Iran as the chief sponsor of terrorism in the world. This is a very political designation and is designed to dissuade the Iranians from working against Israeli interests in the Middle East. This conflict of interests has been sharpened by the recent election victory of Hamas.
MA: You think that a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would lead to the normalization of Iranian-American ties?
MB: Yes, as long as the Americans realize that their current foreign policy does not safeguard US interests and is in fact promoting instability the world over. From an Iranian perspective I think we cannot be more Palestinian than the Palestinians ...
MA: But the Iranian government has been for the past 27 years!
MB: That is because they thought the PLO did not represent the Palestinian people anymore. The situation is very different today. Iran's allies are in power in Palestine, and if they strike a lasting deal, Iran would have no option but to accept that.
MA: Aside from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what else divides Iran and the US?
MB: I believe that is the main issue, and the rest are just pretexts and excuses. Take the issue of human rights, for instance. Iran's record on this - while far from perfect - is in fact much better than its neighbors', some of which are America's closest allies in the region. Even the nuclear issue does not worry the Americans nearly as much as they claim it does. The US is confrontational because it feels it has been challenged by Islamic culture in general and by Iranian Islamic culture in particular.
MA: Let us discuss internal Iranian politics. How do you assess political developments since Mahmud Ahmadinejad's ascension to power?
MB: Economic issues are the main problem in Iran. Ahmadinejad won the presidential elections because he promised to promote social justice and redistribute wealth. Now he has to deliver on his promises. If he is serious about redistributing wealth, he will have to confront powerful factions within the regime. Is he prepared to do that? Alternatively he can promote greater Iranian integration into the global economy, but this would contradict his anti-American rhetoric.
MA: Many analysts believe Ahmadinejad is intent on reforming the Islamic Republic, perhaps even reforming it beyond recognition. Do you think these analysts are wrong?
MB: Politics and economics are deeply intertwined in the Iranian establishment. The reasons the previous two presidents [Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami] failed to reform is because they focused on only one of these spheres. Rafsanjani wanted to reform the economy without touching the political setup; he had the "Chinese" model in mind. And Khatami wanted political reforms, but he did not endeavor to reform the country's flawed economic structures. Not surprisingly, both former presidents failed badly. If Ahmadinejad wants to avoid failure, he will have to pursue reforms in a truly comprehensive manner. Moreover, 27 years after the revolution, Iranians have matured politically and are more than capable of separating fact from rhetoric. Therefore, if Ahmadinejad does not go beyond slogans and rhetoric, he will not be elected in four years' time.
MA: How do you assess Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli rhetoric?
MB: He clearly has ideological supporters, and this rhetoric is intended for that audience. I don't think he is addressing the Iranian people as a whole when he attacks Israel.
MA: Some people say Ahmadinejad is trying to appeal to a broader audience, mainly in the Arab world, where anti-Israeli rhetoric always goes down well.
MB: For what end?
MA: Presumably to mobilize Muslim public opinion in support of Iran's stance in the nuclear standoff.
MB: If he wanted to do that he would have had to say something about Iraq, which is currently the main point of grievance in the Muslim world.
MA: Twenty-seven years on, how do you assess the dynamics between the ideals of the Iranian revolution and the country's embattled pro-democracy movement?
MB: To be able to answer this question in depth without creating any misunderstanding, I'd have to write a book! But to summarize, we have to go back to the five values I outlined earlier, namely independence, freedom, democracy, Islam, and progress. As far as independence is concerned, the main factor is cultural independence, not least because of globalization and growing American cultural influence. In this respect Iran can be viewed as one of the most independent countries in the world, because the Islamic Republic has fought hard to safeguard Iranian culture.
However, we are faced with problems on the freedom-and-democracy front. But I don't think the problem necessarily stems only from the top. In this respect I disagree with the reform movement in Iran, which believes it can engineer meaningful change by removing the current rulers. Our problem stems from the society and the grassroots as well. We have to prepare the grassroots for understanding and accepting democracy first. People have to understand their rights and learn how to use and protect them.
MA: But surely if people at the top are obstructing change, nothing will happen.
MB: Changing the top is the final stage of democracy. Changing the top before preparing the people only perpetuates the status quo. Just look at the democratic revolutions in Western Europe. Democracy was achieved at the grassroots level before it penetrated the commanding heights of government. We ought to pursue the same strategy in Iran.
MA: What about freedom, and how do you separate it from democracy?
MB: When I talk about freedom, I have Western individualism in mind. The cultural problem in Iran, as in other Eastern countries, is the lack of individualism. We require a proper definition of individualism and individual rights. But Iran has a remarkable advantage over other Islamic countries, because it is Shi'ite.
MA: Why is that an advantage?
MB: Shi'ites have two concepts that resolve many issues and are powerful catalysts for democratization, namely ijtihad and gheybat [occultation - referring to the occultation of Imam Mahdi]. Unlike some branches of Sunni Islam, Shi'ism never suspended or impeded ijtihad, so it has always been exposed to new ideas and interpretations. Moreover, the concept and philosophy of occultation is premised on the notion that the just society can only be established by the Mahdi.
Therefore - absent the Mahdi - endeavors to create utopian states are futile. This immediately de-legitimizes any form of ideological government, including a pure Islamic one. Furthermore, the concept of occultation reinforces cultural relativism. This requires laws to be relative as well. In this situation the sharia becomes superfluous, if not obsolete.
Mahan Abedin is the editor of Terrorism Monitor, which is published by the Jamestown Foundation, a non-profit organization specializing in research and analysis on conflict and instability in Eurasia. The views expressed here are his own.
Comment: Note the leading questions of the interviewer, a member of the Jamestown Foundation, another neocon think tank.
Comment on this Article
The Big Blue Marble
Earthquakes hit Tonga, no damage reports
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-18 13:28:14
WELLINGTON, May 18 (Xinhua) -- A second earthquake has struck the South Pacific nation of Tonga within 24 hours.
There are no reports of human or property damages.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a magnitude 5.9 earthquake hit at 10:57 am local time Thursday (9:57 p.m. GMT Wednesday).
The epicenter was about 10 kilometers (6 miles) below the oceanat a point about 145 kilometers (90 miles) east-northeast of Nuku'alofa, the capital of the South Pacific nation.
At the almost the same location a magnitude 6.0 earthquake struck about 19 hours earlier at a depth of 35 kilometers, during a simulated tsunami warning drill Wednesday.
Tonga, which has a population of about 37,000, is about 2,100 kilometers (1300 miles) northeast of New Zealand.
Comment on this Article
Typhoon Chanchu kills 11, leaves 4 missing in China
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-18 19:45:40
BEIJING, May 18 (Xinhua) -- Typhoon Chanchu has killed 11 people and left 4 others missing in China by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, latest government statistics show.
Meanwhile, more than one million people have been evacuated as Chanchu swept through southern Guangdong Province and southeastern Fujian Province Thursday, according to the statistics released by the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters and the Ministry of Civil Affairs.
Eight people were killed in Fujian Province and another three in neighboring Guangdong Province, statistics show.
The victims in Guangdong included two children who died when the houses they lived in collapsed following Chanchu's landing in Shantou city Thursday morning.
Four people remained missing in Fujian.
Meanwhile, more than one million people have been moved to safety in the two provinces, including 709,000 in Fujian and 327,000 in Guangdong, statistics show.
Comment on this Article
Bolivia Plans to Redistribute Idle Farmland
By Monte Reel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 18, 2006; Page A20
SAO PAULO, Brazil, May 17 -- Two weeks after claiming control of the natural gas and oil under Bolivia's soil, the government of President Evo Morales has turned its attention above ground, launching a plan to redistribute parcels of idle farmland to the poor.
Officials announced Tuesday that they would start by redistributing about 12 million acres of state-owned land to indigenous rural workers. But officials say that amount could eventually triple if more privately held lands are declared unproductive, a prospect that some fear could inflame the divisions between rich and poor that have contributed to conflicts between Bolivia's east and west.
Morales sailed to victory in elections in December denouncing the inequality of Bolivia's economy, saying that money and resources flow downhill from the western highlands, populated largely by indigenous groups, and settle in the relatively wealthy lowlands of the east. Morales described his energy nationalization plan as an attempt to distribute income from national resources more equitably; the land reform plan is a continuation of that strategy.
Officials do not plan to confiscate property from "anyone who has legally obtained the land and who works on it every day and makes it productive," Hugo Salvatierra, the minister for rural development, told reporters Tuesday.
The land reform issue is even more politically volatile in Bolivia than energy nationalization, which has riled some foreign investors in the country's energy sector but was widely expected among Bolivians. Agrarian reform is a drama that will play out on large swaths of the countryside and could directly affect more than one-fourth of the population.
Salvatierra said as many as 35 million acres could be redistributed among about 2.5 million people in the next five years. That translates to about 13 percent of the country's land being given to about 28 percent of its people. Most of the recipients would be the indigenous peasants who are the majority of Bolivia's population, particularly in the western highlands. "They are the ones who most need the land and who have the least," Sergio Almaraz, vice minister for rural development, said in a statement.
Although officials emphasized that land in all parts of the country would be redistributed, most of the land would be in the east, where the population includes more Bolivians of European descent. Much of it will likely be in Santa Cruz, the wealthy district where the country's energy and agricultural sectors are centered.
Government officials have said that many properties in the region were acquired illegally or given free to wealthy landowners by the dictatorial governments of the 1970s. If current owners of those lands do not pay the government to legalize their deeds, the state would inherit the properties for redistribution.
It is also the area of the most concentrated opposition to Morales, and business and political leaders there have often called for more autonomy from government decision-making. While Morales's supporters argue that the residents of Santa Cruz get an unfair share of the country's wealth, many residents of the eastern province contend that their work produces most of the country's revenue.
Mauricio Roca, president of the Eastern Agricultural Chamber in Santa Cruz, said he was concerned that widespread migration of land recipients from the west could result in social disorder and overwhelm the resources of the eastern provinces. He said the government instead should invest in developing productive sectors in the west to help rural workers there better their lives.
"President Morales always has visualized the eastern productive sector of Bolivia as an enemy because it has a vision of the country that is different from his," Roca said during an interview Monday in Santa Cruz. "We believe in private enterprise and free markets. We believe poverty cannot be eliminated by discourse, but poverty can be eliminated with production."
Government officials discounted Roca's worries, saying that priority for the lands would be given to local recipients. There are no plans to move recipients to other parts of the country, they said.
Efforts at land reform in Bolivia date to 1953 and as recently as 1996. But current government officials said those programs were inefficient and did little to help indigenous people.
Bolivia's efforts to reclaim idle land follow similar moves by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, one of Morales's closest allies. Chavez's government has taken control of dozens of properties that did not have proper ownership records or were underutilized.
Comment on this Article
Odds n Ends
Japan passes measure to fingerprint foreigners
Last Updated Thu, 18 May 2006 06:58:04 EDT
CBC News
Japan's cabinet has given final approval to a plan to fingerprint and photograph all adult foreigners entering the country, six years after the country dropped a similar requirement because of privacy concerns.
Cabinet made the decision Wednesday, a day after its parliament's Upper House approved a bill toughening security measures.
Among other measures in the same bill:
- Japan's justice minister will be able to expel foreigners who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities.
- Airlines and ship lines will have to provide passenger and crew lists before they arrive in Japan.
Japan's lower house approved the bill in March. Now that it's been approved by cabinet, its measures are expected to take effect in November 2007.
After that date, in order to enter the country, those born outside Japan and aged 16 or older will have to agree to be photographed and have electronic images of their fingerprints taken.
The images will be checked against those in international crime and terrorism databases, as well as domestic crime records, and then stored for an unspecified time.
The only exceptions will be state guests, diplomats and some permanent residents of Japan.
Fingerprints collected until 2000
Japan fingerprinted all arriving foreigners until 2000, when the requirement was dropped because of a public outcry over invasion of privacy.
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has been pressing for the measure to be resumed, claiming that it will decrease crime and protect the country from terrorist activity.
Japan believes it is a potential target for militants linked to al-Qaeda because it has troops in Iraq as part of the American-led coalition keeping order in the country.
Japan recorded about 7.5 million foreign visits in 2005.
The United States has also brought in security measures that require all arriving foreigners to be fingerprinted. Canadians and Mexicans are exempt from the requirement.
Comment on this Article
Murdoch, 75, tells the PM, 66, it's time to go
By Mark Metherell
May 18, 2006
Sydney Morning Herald
THE most influential expatriate Australian, Rupert Murdoch, has suggested John Howard should quit while he's ahead.
Mr Murdoch, 75, who shows no sign of quitting himself, offered the retirement advice just before attending a White House banquet in honour of the Prime Minister, who is 66. Mr Howard was "on top of his form and much better to go out that way, than like Margaret Thatcher, or losing an election", he said.
Mr Murdoch's words come days after a columnist on one of his newspapers suggested Mr Howard was preparing to make an "elegant" departure by year's end. The media tycoon's words drew no objection from the man most likely, Peter Costello.
"Mr Murdoch is entitled to his view ... and he is a very, very significant businessman globally . .. and I always pay a great deal of attention to his view and I note carefully what he says but these are matters for him," Mr Costello said in Perth yesterday.
Mr Costello said he was "sure" Mr Howard would listen carefully to Mr Murdoch's views.
Mr Murdoch said he doubted whether Mr Howard would outlast George Bush's term in office, as the President suggested yesterday. "I think the Prime Minister could if he wanted to but I doubt it. I think he is probably planning to go out at the top."
He said he was not privy to his thoughts on retirement. "I would like to see him stay but I think that he's had 10 years and it's a record [sic] so ... it's always time for a change."
According to Mr Howard's former chief of staff and longtime confidant, Grahame Morris, there was nothing surprising or objectionable in Mr Murdoch's comments.
"Does he know what the PM is going to do? He doesn't because the PM himself doesn't," Mr Morris said.
"He has not turned his mind to it. He won't for a while.
"One individual's view is not going to influence what the PM does."
Among Liberal backbenchers there were mixed views about the import of Mr Murdoch's words.
One MP, who asked not to be identified, said the suggestion that Mr Howard should quit while he was on top was a view increasingly being expressed by Liberal Party members.
But the North Queensland MP, Warren Entsch, said it could be argued that Mr Murdoch should take his own advice, or alternatively that Mr Howard should follow Mr Murdoch's example.
"I think Howard has got a helluva lot left in him. I would say to him [Mr Howard] 'keep going'.
"I think we are all benefiting by his leadership."
Comment on this Article
Muhammad's Metamorphosis Impresses Some Trial Observers
By Eric Rich
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 18, 2006; Page A01
John Allen Muhammad strides into the Montgomery County courtroom looking every bit the lawyer. Gone is the orange jumpsuit he wore in Virginia when he was sentenced to death. Gone, too, is the hair that towered over him as he prepared for trial in Maryland.
He now wears suits and ties. He carries with him a stack of legal papers, shuffling them purposefully at the defense table. He speaks the language of law, begging the "court's indulgence" and asking that a "continuous objection" be noted for the record.
Although lawyers and other observers say a conviction is a near certainty, Muhammad's trial is providing fresh and sometimes surprising glimpses into the man accused in the 2002 sniper rampage that instilled fear across the region. Because he is acting as his own attorney, the trial, now in its third week in Rockville, has showcased Muhammad's personality and demeanor to a degree that his Virginia trial did not.
"You'd think he'd be rambling and off the wall," said Matthew E. Bennett, a Rockville lawyer who, after observing Muhammad in the courtroom, rated his performance "above average for a layperson."
The outlines of a strategy for sowing reasonable doubt have begun to emerge: Emphasize that witnesses did not see him shoot anyone, suggest that victims' injuries could have been caused by a gun other than his, and raise the possibility that repeated sightings of white box trucks could point to culprits still at large.
Muhammad's approach to fighting murder charges in the six slayings in Montgomery resembles the approach his attorneys took in Virginia, where he lost. And it might not overcome the strong ballistics and other scientific evidence that prosecutors promised in their opening statement.
In the jury's presence, Muhammad has said nothing of the elaborate conspiracy theory attributed to him by a psychiatrist: that he was framed because he knew of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's secret role in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He is not recognizable as the man that the psychiatrist, hired by his former attorney, diagnosed as "clearly psychotic, delusional, paranoid and incompetent to assist his attorneys, much less represent himself."
Instead, standing behind the defense table, Muhammad the trial advocate addresses witnesses as "sir" or "ma'am." At times, he laughs appropriately. Other times, he relishes catching witnesses in minor contradictions. He speaks softly, mumbles and sometimes stumbles over his words.
"Ma'am," he said last week to a prosecution witness, "are you, uh, trained in terminal ballistics?"
"I've received some training in ballistics . . ."
"Ma'am, yes or no," he interrupted, in true lawyerly fashion. "Are you trained in terminal ballistics?"
Although he has a high school education and no formal legal training, Muhammad was ready with a response on another occasion last week when prosecutors said he was trying to introduce a report improperly. "Your honor, I'll establish a foundation," he volunteered.
After dropping in one day last week, Philip Collins, a lawyer in Bethesda, said: "He's probably got more trial experience than a lot of second- and third-year attorneys."
Another spectator, claims adjuster Eric Ferebee, said that he has been cross-examined by less competent lawyers. "I think he got a great tutorial in the Virginia trial," Ferebee said. "He's ready. He's prepared. I hate to give the guy accolades, but you know. . ."
Even Roger Polk, a prosecution witness who testified that he saw Muhammad's car near a Bowie middle school where the youngest sniper victim was shot Oct. 7, said he had to concede that Muhammad "looked like a regular lawyer to me."
Muhammad, 45, has -- wisely, many lawyers say -- generally declined to cross-examine witnesses who were wounded or whose family members were killed.
He has not visibly reacted to gruesome pictures of sniper victims or to recordings of emotional 911 calls. He has made frequent unsettling references to a "lead snowstorm," a term of art that describes the pattern of damage caused when a high-velocity round fragments inside the body.
Montgomery Circuit Court Judge James L. Ryan allowed Muhammad -- who represented himself for two days in the Virginia trial -- to fire his public defenders more than a month ago. Three private attorneys are acting as standby counsel, permitted to advise Muhammad and help him prepare but not speak for him in court or to the media.
In one typical exchange highlighting his defense, Muhammad last week questioned Mary Ripple, the Maryland deputy chief medical examiner, about drawing inferences from photographs of the victims' injuries.
"Is there anything you can point to that can tell us who specifically shot these people?"
"No."
"Is there anything that you can point to in those pictures that can tell us who has something to do with shooting these people?"
"No."
And he pressed her to admit that the victims' injuries could have been caused by any number of weapons, not just the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle found in his aging Chevrolet Caprice when he and alleged accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo were arrested at a rest stop in Frederick on Oct. 24, 2002.
Lawyers not in the case said Muhammad's apparent defense strategy could unravel if Malvo, who is sentenced to life in Virginia, pleads guilty in Maryland and agrees to cooperate with prosecutors. Malvo, they noted, is the only person in a position to know as much as Muhammad does about the pair's activities during those 22 days in October. If Muhammad questions him carelessly, Malvo could say things that the jury might never otherwise hear. "He's going to be potentially opening some very wide doors," lawyer Robert C. Bonsib said.
Yet Muhammad at times has shown himself to be an able interrogator, at least once confronting a witness with a previous statement and forcing him to admit error. That witness was Steven Bailey, a Prince William County police officer who testified that he had seen Muhammad in his vehicle at the scene of a shooting at a Manassas gas station.
Bailey said he believed the driver of the Caprice was between 40 and 45 years old.
"Forty to 45, is that what you're saying?" Muhammad asked, before presenting Bailey with the report.
"Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what was the age of the person you said you had saw?"
"Forty-five to 50," Bailey said.
"I'm sorry, I didn't . . . "
"What I wrote down was 45 to 50," Bailey repeated.
"So you didn't write down 40 to 45."
At a trial that has included many reminders of the deadly sniper toll, Muhammad has occasionally used wit -- as many lawyers do -- to drive home a point. One such instance occurred at a hearing in March, when his public defenders argued that he had a "brain dysfunction" and was incompetent to act as his own attorney.
"Your honor, can I sit over there with them?" he blurted out, looking at the prosecution table.
Last week, Muhammad drew scattered laughter while cross-examining a D.C. police officer, Henry Gallagher, who described one of the numerous encounters in which Muhammad is alleged to have barely eluded capture. Gallagher said he pulled Muhammad over on Oct. 3, not far from where Pascal Charlot was shot later that evening, but issued him only a verbal warning for speeding and going through two stop signs.
"Sir, let me ask you something," Muhammad said. "What does it take to get a traffic citation in the nation's capital?"
Comment on this Article
Spaced Out
Smokeless rockets launching soon?
By Tom Krazit
CNET News.com
May 17, 2006
CORONADO, Calif.--Only time and money separate the current state of rocket propulsion science from the engine rooms of Star Trek's Starfleet, according to a university professor.
James Woodward, a history professor at California State University in Fullerton, presented his research into Mach-Lorentz thrusters Wednesday at the Future in Review conference here. Mach-Lorentz thrusters (MLTs), assuming they can be scaled up from lab tests, could provide a new source of propulsion that "puts out thrust without blowing stuff out the tailpipe," Woodward said.
MLTs are based on Mach's principle, which suggests that all particles in the universe have an effect on each other, and the work of Hendrik Lorentz, who conducted research into the movement of charged particles in a magnetic field. Woodward has constructed an engine that takes advantage of the fact that objects produce energy when their mass changes slightly, he said.
Woodward used capacitors to change the mass of an object and then applied a current to that mass. That produces a small amount of thrust. Increasing the voltage and frequency of the current increases the strength of the thrust, to the point where the engine could be used to adjust the orbit of a satellite, or push a rocket into space.
The MLT is similar to the "impulse engines" used by the starships in the "Star Trek" television series and movies, although on a much smaller scale. At some point, the MLT might be able to take things further and send space travelers across the universe at something approaching warp speed, but that's way out in the distance.
Only about a dozen of these MLTs have been produced in Woodward's labs, but they work, Woodward said. The issue now is getting the funding together to drive further research, and the time needed to overcome hurdles as these MLTs scale up to the size needed to send a payload into orbit. Right now, these devices produce a lot of heat as a byproduct that must be removed from the thruster. Early applications for MLTs could include booster rockets on satellites to allow them to adjust their position in orbit, he said.
Comment: See our podcast with Jean-Pierre Petit on magnetohydrodynamic propulsion.
Comment on this Article
Ark's Quantum Quirks
Ark
Signs of the Times
May 18, 2006
Fast Food hits Africa
Comment on this Article
Remember, we need your help to collect information on what is going on in your part of the world!
Send your article suggestions to: sott(at)signs-of-the-times.org