Our Friend and Barista Teresita at The Elephant

A Time for Waterboarding

Three are arrested in Eastern Europe with powdered uranium. The first question to come to mind is where was it going? Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has called on European countries to pull their forces out of Afghanistan. Is this foreshadowning?

In a new audio-tape message attributed to the al-Qaeda head, bin Laden urged Europeans to pressure their governments to withdraw from Afghanistan. Bin Laden just happened to mention that he takes responsibility for the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York. He said the Taliban knew nothing of the plans to attack. It must be a pride of authorship thing.

Like a drug addict, bin Laden needs a new fix. He wants to up the ante. The Europeans have been warned. There is a demand for nuclear material and these three were on their way to supply it. They were ready for new BMW's and Europe, in exchange, would be thrown into a financial and terror abyss.

Get out the waterboards.

Uranium for 'dirty bomb' seized by Slovak police
By Karel Janicek and William K Jole
Published: 30 November 2007 Independent

Enriched uranium that could have been made into a "dirty bomb" by terrorists has been seized by Slovakian police after it was allegedly offered for sale for $1m.

Two Hungarians and a Ukrainian suspected of peddling the radioactive material were arrested in eastern Slovakia and Hungary on Wednesday. Michal Kopcik, a senior Slovakian police official, said the men had 481.4 grams of uranium in powdered form. It is believed to have come from a former Soviet republic, but the identity of the intended buyer was not disclosed.

"It was possible to use it in various ways for terrorist attacks," Mr Kopcik said. "The uranium was even more dangerous because it was in powder form."

Police intelligence suggested that the suspects – aged 40, 49 and 51 – planned to close the deal earlier this week, he added. One of the Hungarians had been living in Ukraine. Officers moved in when the sale did not take place as expected. Three other suspects, including a Slovak, were arrested in the Czech Republic in October for allegedly trying to sell fake radioactive material. It was unclear to what degree, if any, they played a role in this week's thwarted sale.

"According to initial findings, the material originated in the former Soviet republics," Mr Kopcik said.

The uranium was kept in lead containers. Tests showed it contained 98.6 per cent uranium-235. Uranium is considered weapons-grade if it contains at least 85 per cent uranium-235.

The arrests heightened long-standing concerns that eastern Europe is serving as a source of material for a "dirty bomb", which would use conventional explosives to scatter radioactive debris. Roughly 25 kilos of highly-enriched uranium or plutonium is needed to fashion a crude nuclear device. But experts say a tiny fraction of that is enough for a dirty bomb – a weapon whose main purpose would be to create fear and chaos, not human casualties.

Vitaly Fedchenko, of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said people should not worry that the world was awash with easily-obtainable bomb components. "The danger is definitely there but there is no reason to panic," he added. "Most of the 'buyers' are law enforcement agents, and not all the materials out there are weapons grade."

Eastern Slovakia's border with Ukraine is the European Union's easternmost frontier. In recent years, the authorities have spent millions tightening security, fearing that terrorists or organised crime syndicates could smuggle weapons, explosives and other contraband into the EU. In 2003, Czech police arrested two Slovaks in the city of Brno after they allegedly sold undercover officers natural depleted uranium for $715,000 (£350,000).

Ukrainian authorities, Western governments and international watchdogs repeatedly have warned that radioactive material from the nation's 15 operational reactors and the Chernobyl plant could find its way into terrorist hands.

Can We Stop Genuflecting to Veterans?

I have been using my dog tag(s) for forty years as a key ring. I was issued one of the last sets with the tooth notch, which we were told was to be inserted between your two front incisors if and when. I was in the Air Force so the odds of using the notch were not that high, but the dog tags have come in handy as a tool.

Every now and then someone recognizes them for what they are and thanks me for my service. I should remind them that thanks was not necessary because I was in the Air Force.

Last night, at the CNN/YouTube Republican debate, a retired general presented his military credentials, then asked about gays and lesbians serving in the military.

The Republicans genuflected and answered his question. Later we learned that the good general failed to mention he was a a co-chair of Hillary Clinton's National Military Veterans group.

Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was named a co-chair of the group this month, according to a campaign press release.

He was also active in John F. Kerry's 2004 campaign for president.

Shall we thank him for his disservice in the disclosure department?

Can't We All Just Get Along?

I guess not.

Rodney King Shot MSNBC

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. -- Southern California police said 1991 police beating victim Rodney King has been shot, but the wounds are not life-threatening.
Rialto police Sgt. Don Lewis told the Riverside Press-Enterprise that King was hit in the face and arm by shotgun pellets on a San Bernardino street corner Wednesday night. He bicycled to his home in Rialto to call police and was taken to a hospital.
Police said when they arrived at the home, King and others there appeared drunk and few were cooperative in providing information.

San Bernardino police Lt. Scott Paterson tells the San Bernardino County Sun that the shooting may have involved a domestic dispute.
King was beaten by Los Angeles police in 1991 and the officers' subsequent acquittal on criminal charges sparked deadly rioting in 1992.

Will Hugo Chavez Lose His Constituency?

Probably not. This is Hugo country. Other than the doctrinaire lefties, these are the neighborhoods that are his base of power. Rob from Pedro to pay Pablo and you will always get Pablo's vote, and he does. Chavez is an embarrassment to many, but there are more neighborhoods like this in Latin America than is healthy. Without those sprawling tin roofs there would be no Hugo Chavez.

What happens in Latin America matters.

Old Allies Abandon Chávez as Constitution Vote Nears
By Juan Forero
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, November 29, 2007; Page A01

CUMANA, Venezuela -- Few associates had been as loyal to President Hugo Chávez as the governor of the coastal state of Sucre, Ramón Martínez. And few are now more determined to defeat Chávez as he campaigns for constitutional changes that, if approved by voters on Sunday, could extend his presidency for life.

Chávez, 53 and in his ninth tumultuous year in office, was until recently predicted to win a referendum that would permit him to run for 8office indefinitely, appoint governors to federal districts he would create, and control the purse strings of one of the world's major oil-producing countries.

But Martínezand a handful of others who once were prominent pillars in the Chávez machine, have defected, saying approval of 69 constitutional changes would effectively turn Venezuela into a dictatorship run at the whim of one man. They have been derided by Chávez as traitors, but their unimpeachable leftist credentials have given momentum to a movement that pollsters say may deliver Chávez his first electoral defeat...

(continue)

____________________________

Chavez vows no ties with Colombia BBC

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez says he will have "no type of relationship" with the Colombian government while it is headed by President Alvaro Uribe.
"I could not, out of dignity," Mr Chavez told supporters in the town of Tachira in western Venezuela.

The Venezuelan government announced on Tuesday it was withdrawing its ambassador to Colombia.

The feud between neighbours and trading partners began when Mr Uribe stopped Mr Chavez mediating with Colombian rebels.

In response, Mr Chavez said he would freeze Venezuela's bilateral ties with its neighbour and close trading partner.

'Barefaced lies'

Speaking to supporters on Wednesday, Mr Chavez was forthright in his criticism of his Colombian counterpart.

"While President Uribe is president of Colombia I will have no type of relationship with him or with the government in Colombia," he said.

Mr Uribe was a president "capable of such barefaced lies, [who] disrespects another president that he has called a friend, one that he called on for help".

Mr Chavez accused Mr Uribe - a close US ally - of being a "pawn of the empire".

Relations between the two men seemed close in August - despite their apparent ideological differences - when Mr Uribe enlisted Mr Chavez's help in trying to arrange an exchange of prisoners with rebel-held hostages.

But last week Mr Uribe ended Mr Chavez's involvement, saying it was because the Venezuelan leader had directly contacted Colombia's army chief despite being told not to do so.

Earlier, Mr Uribe appeared to try to calm the situation, saying presidents should put aside their "angers" and "vanities" to get on with their work.

The US Navy Should Not be Distracted

The US Navy has enough to worry about other than shore leave in Hong Kong. They could start with simple question, "Why are the Chinese not rushing into building aircraft carriers?"

The Chinese have already determined to develop an asymmetric response built around carrier vulnerabilities. They rightly understand that the weakest link in the US Naval chain is space based communications. Control space and you can control all that is under it. The US better wake up fast. Here is an essay that discusses the real Chinese threat. China’s Space Ambitions—And Ours


This article in the NY Times illustrates the silliness of misplaced concern with the Chinese:

China’s Denial of Port Calls by U.S. Ships Worries Navy

By THOM SHANKER
Published: November 28, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — Two senior American admirals expressed concern on Tuesday over decisions this month by China to refuse access to the port of Hong Kong for three American warships, including two seeking fuel and sheltered waters ahead of a major storm.

The officers, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, and Adm. Timothy J. Keating, commander of American forces in the Pacific, said neither the Chinese government nor its military had offered explanations.

Two minesweepers, the Patriot and the Guardian, were sailing in international waters this month when a serious Pacific Ocean storm threatened. The two vessels, relatively small, asked for permission to enter Hong Kong’s harbor for fuel and safety. The request was denied.

The admirals said China’s refusal to lend assistance to the minesweepers was a worrisome repudiation of historical principles calling on all nations to assist ships in danger at sea.

“As someone who has been going to sea all my life, if there is one tenet that we observe, it’s when somebody is in need, you provide — and you sort it out later,” Admiral Roughead said during a morning round table with Pentagon correspondents.

The two minesweepers were refueled by an American tanker and suffered no damage from the storm, Admiral Roughead said.

In a second incident just days later, the Kitty Hawk, an American aircraft carrier based in Japan, was already en route to Hong Kong for a Thanksgiving holiday visit scheduled for last Wednesday through Saturday when the Chinese withdrew their previous permission for the port call. China later approved the visit, but it was too late for the Kitty Hawk to turn around and return.

Hundreds of family members of the crew aboard the Kitty Hawk and vessels in its strike group had already flown to Hong Kong for the visit when the Chinese canceled entry “at the last minute,” according to the Navy.

During a video news conference from his headquarters in Hawaii, Admiral Keating said he found the Chinese decisions “perplexing, troublesome.”

“It is not, in our view, conduct that is indicative of a country that understands its obligations of a responsible nation,” Admiral Keating said. “There is little strategic benefit to it.”

But Admiral Keating also stressed the importance of maintaining a military-to-military dialogue to avoid any calamity in relations, and he said he planned to visit China early next year.

The State Department was asking China about its refusal to let the three Navy ships into the Hong Kong harbor.

Cmdr. Pamela S. Kunze, chief spokeswoman for Admiral Roughead, said about 50 Navy ships visited Hong Kong each year. Before the recent refusals, the last American warship to be denied access to the harbor was the Curtis Wilbur, a guided-missile destroyer, in 2002. The Chinese did not provide a reason at the time, she said.

Hunting Buffalo or Shooting a Ford Pickup?

I started hunting at 12. No stocked game, an old Stevens single shot 12 gauge and a love for the outdoors all came together for me. My uncles and father taught me the rules of hunting. I learned to respect nature, and understand the need for balance between hunter and game.

Sentimentality aside, there is a time to kill. It is not a season as much as a natural balance.

We were contemptuous of bad hunters, those that lost wounded game or made a bad kill. Trophy hunters that left meat in the field were not sportsman. Slaughter was not hunting.

I no longer hunt. I like those that do. To me, hunting a buffalo would be like shooting a Ford F-150. I would not do it, but if others choose to, that is there business, but this small story makes no sense to me. There is no balance here and states don't get much bigger and less populated than Montana.

Open Season on America’s Last Wild Bison
By LetBuffaloRoam, New West Unfiltered 11-15-07

Montana’s Buffalo Hunt Opens Without Any Buffalo in Montana

WEST YELLOWSTONE & GARDINER, MONTANA – Today marks the opening day for Montana’s bison hunt, authorized by the Montana Department of Livestock. Montana has issued 44 tags to kill members of America’s last wild bison population that migrate out of Yellowstone National Park into Montana. It is expected that the Nez Perce as well as Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes will conduct separate buffalo hunts under treaty right. The state’s hunt will continue through February 15, 2008.

There are currently no wild bison in Montana.

Glenn Hockett, President of the Gallatin Wildlife Association, a hunting organization that opposes the current bison hunt and is working to help restore wild bison in Montana had this to say, “Recent reports from Yellowstone National Park indicate there are no bison in the state of Montana for hunters to hunt. I think this points out the flawed nature of this shoot ‘em at the border Department of Livestock led “hunt” with no year round habitat.”

Wild American bison, while native to vast expanses of North America, are granted no year-round habitat in Montana. There is never a time that wild bison are allowed to be in the state without being subjected to harassment, capture, slaughter, quarantine, or shooting. Wild bison are ecologically extinct everywhere outside of Yellowstone National Park.

Montana’s bison hunt is not authorized by the state’s wildlife agency Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, but by the Montana Department of Livestock, an agency that promotes cattle interests.

“I don’t think most people understand that only the Department of Livestock can authorize the hunting of wild bison in Montana, and their goal is no bison left standing in Montana,” said Glenn Hockett.

“Allowing the Department of Livestock to have authority over the management of wild bison or any wildlife species is a clear conflict of interest,” said Buffalo Field Campaign spokeswoman Stephany Seay. “They have no interest whatsoever in wild bison or their habitat, and you may as well put the fox in charge of guarding the hen house.”

Fewer than 4,700 continuously wild American bison exist in the United States; all reside in Yellowstone National Park. A joint state-federal agreement signed in 2000, the Interagency Bison Management Plan prohibits wild bison from migrating to lands outside of the Park and maintains a zero population of wild bison in Montana in an effort to benefit cattle interests who claim they fear the spread of the livestock disease brucellosis from wild bison to cattle. There has never been a documented case of wild bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle.

Buffalo Field Campaign strongly opposes Montana’s bison hunt as well as the Interagency Bison Management Plan. BFC maintains that wild bison should be allowed to naturally and fully restore themselves throughout their native range, especially on public lands, and must be managed as a valued native wildlife species by wildlife professionals, not cattle interests.

“Our position on the hunt is clear,” said Buffalo Field Campaign’s cofounder and subsistence hunter Mike Mease, “No habitat, No hunt.”

2,018 wild American bison have been killed or otherwise removed from the remaining wild population in Yellowstone since 2000 under actions carried out by the Interagency Bison Management Plan, as well as state and treaty right hunts.

Buffalo Field Campaign is the only group working in the field, every day, to stop the slaughter of the wild Yellowstone buffalo. Volunteers defend the buffalo and their native habitat and advocate for their lasting protection. Buffalo Field Campaign has proposed real alternatives to the current mismanagement of Yellowstone bison that can be viewed at For more information, video clips and photos visit .

Black and Arab Thugs Injure 77 French Cops

You can scour the headlines and read about the French youths on their motorbike. First it was not their motorbike. It was stolen. They were speeding and not wearing helmets. You can pick many nouns to describe the two. Youths seems to be the universal choice. The youths were ethnically diverse. They were troubled youths. When their rap sheets appear, the safe money bet is that the youths could more accurately be described as trouble. Now they are dead, 'tant pis."

This is how the New York Times sees it:

VILLIERS-LE-BEL, France (AP) -- Rampaging youths rioted overnight in Paris' suburbs, hurling Molotov cocktails and setting fire to dozens of cars. At least 77 officers were injured and officers were fired at, a senior police union official said Tuesday.

The violence was more intense than during three weeks of rioting in 2005, said the official, Patrice Ribeiro. Police were shot at and are facing ''genuine urban guerillas with conventional weapons and hunting weapons,'' Ribeiro said.

Some officers were hit by shotgun pellets, Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said. She said there were six serious injuries, ''people who notably were struck in the face and close to the eyes.''

The riots were triggered by the deaths of two teens killed in a crash with a police patrol car on Sunday in Villiers-le-Bel, a town of public housing blocks home to a mix of Arab, black and white residents in Paris' northern suburbs.

Residents claimed that officers left the crash scene without helping the teens, whose motorbike collided with the car. Officials cast doubt on the claim, but the internal police oversight agency was investigating.

Youths first rioted Sunday and again overnight Monday to Tuesday, when the violence apparently got worse.

Police barricades were set on fire and youths threw stones and Molotov cocktails at officers, who retaliated with tear gas and rubber bullets. In Villiers-le-Bel and surrounding areas, youths set fire to 36 vehicles, the area's prefecture said.

Youths were seen firing buckshot at police and reporters. A police union official said a round from a hunting rifle pierced the body armor of one officer who suffered a serious shoulder wound.

Among the buildings targeted by the youths was a library, which was set afire.

In Sunday's violence, eight people were arrested and 20 police officers were injured -- including the town's police chief, who was attacked in the face when he tried to negotiate with the rioters, police said. One firefighter also was injured.

Residents drew parallels to the 2005 riots, which were prompted by the deaths of two teens electrocuted in a power substation while hiding from police in a suburb northeast of Paris.

A recent study by the state auditor's office indicated that money poured into poor French suburbs in recent decades had done little to solve problems vividly exposed by the 2005 riots, including discrimination, unemployment and alienation from mainstream society.

------

Associated Press writer Angela Doland in Paris contributed to this report.

Two-Bit, Tin Horn Dictator

Pat Robertson was right about Chavez. He just should have kept his opinion to himself

The Meltdown Of Hugo Chavez

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Latin America: Hugo Chavez's reaction to being fired as mediator between Colombia and his narcoterrorist pals shows the evil game Venezuela's dictator has played against his neighbor. It also signals trouble at home.

Related Topics: Latin America & Caribbean

In telling Chavez that his services would no longer be needed, Colombia President Alvaro Uribe was firm but polite. He thanked Chavez for his "help" in seeking a swap between 500 FARC guerrillas in jail in Colombia and some 45 "high value" hostages being held by the same terrorists who've been at war with Colombia since 1964.

But as a mediator, Chavez proved he could keep neither a promise nor a secret, mainly because it was a fiction to think he could be partial. But the blow to his ego obscured any knowledge of that. "Colombia has spit in our faces," he said.

In theory, a mediator should persuade two sides to each give up something to achieve a common end. The only one who gave up anything, however, was Uribe, who watched Chavez cavort with terrorists before TV cameras, giving them a legitimacy in Caracas they never had known.

Even worse, Chavez proved to be acting as an agent of the terrorists. Uribe's sudden cutoff of the mediation effort at a hastily organized press conference last Wednesday suggested disturbing new information.

On Sunday, Chavez confirmed it: "I think Colombia deserves another president, it deserves a better president," he said.

That followed a discussion in a U.S. prison between extradited FARC terrorist Ricardo Palmera, aka "Simon Trinidad," and another mediator and Chavez ally appointed by Uribe, Senator Piedad Cordoba. They discussed "a transitional government" with the terrorist as a bargaining chip for the hostage swap.

On Monday, Chavez repeated what he had in mind to make sure Uribe understood. "Reconciliation is impossible," he said. "We have to wait for a new government in Colombia we can talk with. I hope it arrives sooner rather than later."

No wonder Uribe lashed out, saying Chavez was less interested in mediating than in overthrowing Colombia's government. That may have sounded far-fetched, but it's what the guerrillas have been fighting for since 1964, and Chavez's admiration for them is no secret. Uribe, who has come down on the guerrillas harder than any other Colombian leader, is the president they want gone.

"You seek continental domination" Uribe said, and "a Marxist FARC government" to replace Colombia's elected one. He also pointed out that it was prime time for Chavez to be trying this, with the Venezuelan's public support at home flagging just one week before a constitutional referendum to grant him absolute power.

What better way to make Venezuelans forget their problems than to whip up populist sentiment against Colombia. It also is noteworthy that he's rousing military support against the neighboring state, something he may really find use for as rebellion grows at home.

Weekend polls showed that ever since the king of Spain publicly told him to "shut up" in Chile two weeks ago, support for Chavez's move to seize absolute power in Venezuela has fallen below 50%.

Student protests have engulfed Caracas and other towns in protest against his dictatorship. Chavez has denounced them as "rich spoiled brats." But in reality, they often are a pivotal political force, particularly since they include young people from Marxist and lower-class backgrounds.

Meanwhile, the shelves at food stores are empty and TV shows run by shuttered station RCTV have been canceled.

For Chavez, this could be a long, hard winter of discontent. Globally, he's become a laughingstock. He's fighting with Chile's socialist leader, Michelle Bachelet, over high oil prices while at home he is facing some of the strongest challenges yet to his iron rule.

To achieve absolute power, he likely will resort to coercion and political-machine tactics. Yet there's growing likelihood he won't be able to cheat his way out of defeat against a sizable margin.

What's left, then, but to jealously whip up sentiment against Uribe, a neighbor who has always paid him undeserved courtesy and whose free market policies have made Colombia a star in the hemisphere. Don't be surprised if he looks to destabilize or confront this nation as testimony to the ruin of his own.

Chavez is a clown. Unfortunately, he's a clown with a lot of money and a lot of support from the Left. Compare the treatment he gets from the MSM to that given Pervez Musharraf. Chavez has been given wide latitude in order to serve as a socialist counterbalance to the heretofore unchecked capitalist juggernaut. The problem is that Chavez is a thug. A brute. He's like a Tony Soprano. At times you like the guy but then, all of a sudden, out of the blue he snaps and in an instant someone is dead or brutally maimed. How many times does the world have to witness the outbursts before the allure of Chavez is completely dispelled.

The American World According to Buchanan. Where is He Wrong?

"America is in an existential crisis from which the nation may not survive."
Drudge

• The U.S. Army is breaking and is too small to meet America’s global commitments.

• The dollar has sunk to historic lows and is being abandoned by foreign governments.

• U.S. manufacturing is being hollowed out.

• The greatest invasion in history, from the Third World, is swamping the ethno-cultural core of the country, leading to Balkanization and the loss of the Southwest to Mexico.

• The culture is collapsing and the nation is being deconstructed along the lines of race and class.

• A fiscal crisis looms as the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare remain unaddressed.

All these crises are hitting America at once -- a perfect storm of crises.
Specifically, Buchanan contends:

• Pax Americana, the era of U.S. global dominance, is over. A struggle for global hegemony has begun among the United States, China, a resurgent Russia and radical Islam

• Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a product of hubris and of ideology, a secular religion of “democratism,” to which Bush was converted in the days following 9/11

• Torn asunder by a culture war, America has now begun to break down along class, ethnic and racial lines.

• The greatest threat to U.S. sovereignty and independence is the scheme of a global elite to erase America’s borders and merge the USA, Mexico and Canada into a North American Union.

• Free trade is shipping jobs, factories and technology to China and plunging America into permanent dependency and unpayable debt. One of every six U.S. manufacturing jobs vanished under Bush

• “Sovereign Wealth Funds,” controlled by foreign regimes and stuffed with trillions of dollars from U.S. trade deficits, are buying up strategic corporate assets vital to America’s security

• As U.S. wages are stagnant, corporate CEOs are raking in rising pay and benefits 400 to 500 times that of their workers

• The Third World invasion through Mexico is a graver threat to our survival as one nation than anything happening in Afghanistan or Iraq

* European-Americans, 89% of the nation when JFK took the oath, are now 66% and sinking. Before 2050, America is a Third World nation

• By 2060, America will add 167 million people and 105 million immigrants will be here, triple the 37 million today.

• Hispanics will be over 100 million in 2050 and concentrated in a Southwest most Mexicans believe belongs to them

Buchanan’s Recommendations:

• A new foreign-defense policy that closes most of the 1000 bases overseas, reviews all alliances, and brings home U.S. troops

• A purge of neoconservative ideology and the “Cakewalk” crowd” from national power.

• To avert a second Cold War, the United States should “get out of Russia’s space and get out of Russia’s face,” and shut down all U.S. bases on the soil of the former Soviet Union

• To reach a cold peace in the culture war, Buchanan urges a return to federalism and the overthrow of our judicial dictatorship by Congressionally mandated restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

• To end the trade deficits and save the dollar, Buchanan urges a Hamiltonian solution: a 20% Border Equity Tax on imports, with the $500 billion raised to be used to end taxation on American producers

• To prevent America becoming “a tangle of squabbling nationalities” Buchanan urges: No amnesty for the 12-20 million illegal aliens; a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville; Congressional declarations that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens and English is the language of the United States; and a “timeout” on all immigration.

Taiwan and Kosovo- I Love the Smell of Hypocrisy in the Morning.

"In Euros we trust."

Lots of news this morning. I can't wait to dive into Buchanan, but three little tidbits jumped out at me and they are all related in my pre-coffee brain.

Our new best friend, Niclolas Sarkozy, is in China and sold beaucoup Airbuses and a few nuclear power plants to the tune of €20 billion. (He did not take the Dalai Lama with him.) Not surprisingly, he also opposed any Taiwanese independence. Meanwhile back in Europe, the US, France and most of the EU are behind independence for the land dump called Kosovo.

Truth be told, I do not care about either Taiwan or Kosovo. They are not my problem nor are they US or EU problems until our collective rulers and masters make them a problem, and they do and will. I do have a question.

If enclaves of minorities in one part of the world desire independence and freedom are they entitled to them because of a universal human right? Is the right and entitlement as valid in Kosovo, Taiwan and say New Mexico? It can't be related to trade can it?

________________

France opposes Taiwan referendum: Sarkozy
Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:40am ES

BEIJING (Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy told his Chinese counterpart on Monday that France opposes Taiwan's contentious plan to hold a referendum on U.N. membership next year, a comment apparently intended to placate China.

A diplomatically isolated but increasingly assertive Taiwan plans to go ahead with the referendum on whether to seek to rejoin the world body despite repeated warnings from the United States and China.

"It is important to promote dialogue, cooperation and stability in the region," Sarkozy said in a speech in the presence of Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing.

"France therefore firmly opposes the proposal to hold a referendum on joining the United Nations under the name of Taiwan. It is not a useful initiative. It is therefore regrettable and I hope it will not be pursued".

Sarkozy earlier made similar remarks to Hu at the opening of bilateral talks.

He also said that he had taken note of Hu's offer in a speech last month to the Communist Party Congress to enter into negotiations with Taiwan to reach a peace agreement.

China has claimed sovereignty over Taiwan since their split in 1949 when Mao Zedong's Communists won the Chinese civil war and drove Chiang Kai-shek's defeated Nationalists to the island...

the rest here

______and then on the other hand________

Kosovo: A Chapter Closes

By Tim Judah in London BIRN
26 11 2007

Serbia’s reliance on Russia to keep Kosovo appears to have backfired by prompting EU countries to line up behind the independence option in order to show their unity.

Since the Kosovo problem began back in 1912, 1981, 1989 or 1998, (take your pick…) no one would – or should – be foolish enough to predict that we are now entering the Kosovo endgame. However it is clear that one chapter in this tortuous story is closing and, over the next few months, a new one opening.

Beginning Monday in the Austrian spa of Baden, Serbian and Kosovo Albanian leaders are meeting for one last time under the aegis of the Troika of mediators from the US, Russia and the EU.

No one expects any significant results. The Kosovo Albanians have stuck firm to their demand for independence and Serbia has insisted that it will concede no more than autonomy.

Even Wolfgang Ischinger, the EU’s representative on the Troika, has admitted that the chances of a breakthrough are virtually nil. "Naturally, an agreement on the status would be ideal,” he says, “but, unfortunately, this is something we cannot expect."

So what next? According to diplomatic sources an international conference could be held on Kosovo some time early in the New Year. However, nothing is yet fixed, nor even what the conference should do, if indeed it happens.

A few ideas are now doing the diplomatic rounds. One is that pressure should be put on the Kosovo Albanians to delay declaring independence until well into the New Year. This should be relatively easy to achieve, but the reason for this is not yet clear to the public in Kosovo who would need an explanation.

Hashim Thaci, whose party came out top in Kosovo’s November 17 poll, has said that Kosovo would declare independence immediately after December 10, the date the Troika must hand in their report on their mission to Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General. In private however he has been telling diplomats that he is willing to hold on until spring.

While news of this delay has begun filtering out in the press, the reason for it has been less clear, and with good reason. What the diplomats hope to achieve by securing a delay on Kosovo’s independence is the re-election of Boris Tadic as president of Serbia.

The logic of this is simple. There are, thus far at any rate, only two serious candidates for the presidency, Tadic and Tomislav Nikolic, the acting leader of the Serbian Radical Party, whose founder, Vojislav Seselj is on trial before the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

Western diplomats fear that if Nikolic wins the presidency in February, then there would be a serious risk of “losing Serbia”, but that if Tadic secures a second term, there is a far higher chance of Serbia, after a period of anger at losing Kosovo, staying the path when it comes to Euro-Atlantic integration.

If Tadic can indeed win, then he should be in a strong position to finally assert some serious influence in government, (which he has not done in the last year,) bearing in mind the low poll ratings of Vojislav Kostunica, the prime minister who, after having been seen to lose Montenegro will now be seen to have lost Kosovo.

One way this may be done is to argue, despite recent friendly words from Russia for Tadic, that it was above all Kostunica’s belief that Moscow could save Kosovo for Serbia which has backfired spectacularly. Indeed Kostunica’s party is formally allied to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party.

Even until a few weeks ago it appeared that the EU was going to be badly split over the Kosovo issue. Now it appears that only Cyprus remains a “bitter ender” in opposing Kosovo’s recognition by EU states.

In a new paper by the European Council on Foreign Relations, Cyprus and Greece were given the unenviable title of the Russian “Trojan Horses” within the EU. But now, even Greece is signalling quietly that while it will not recognise Kosovo immediately, it will, given a decent interval of time.

Indeed, when Serbia comes to analyse “who lost Kosovo”, a debate which may come sooner rather than later, it may be seen to have proved a huge strategic error to try and rely on Russia. What appears to have happened is that the large number of countries which were either ambiguous about Kosovo’s independence or even opposed it, were highly alarmed by the way that Russia appeared willing to use the issue as a battering ram with which to divide the EU as part of its campaign to keep it weak.

Quite simply, a lumbering Russian bear, roaring: “I am back…” egged on by Serbia, terrified the flock of undecided EU sheep, including most prominently Germany, into rushing into the pen labelled “EU Unity”.

Last March Martti Ahtisaari the former Finnish president presented his plan for supervised independence for Kosovo to the UN. There Russia ensured that it failed to get Security Council backing.

Now, as it becomes clear that Russian policy is heading for failure over Kosovo, Ahtisaari is saying, with only the slightest hint of irony in his voice, that “the Russian attitude has reinforced the unity of the EU. I don’t think that was the original intent.”

One only needs to look at the map to consider why this was so. Kosovo, like the rest of the Western Balkans, is now an enclave deep inside EU and NATO territory. Russia’s attempt to set the agenda here in the face of what most EU leaders wanted has proved most unwelcome and counter-productive.

If an international conference is indeed called in the New Year, one scenario is that it could lay down the conditions for the recognition of the new state. Prime amongst them is likely to be the implementation of those parts of the Ahtisaari plan that can be realised without Serbian cooperation. They are also likely to include a demand for an invitation for the EU to send a Police and Justice mission and a so-called International Civilian Office, which would wield considerable power, to replace the current ailing UN mission.

In this way, the chapter that began with the Kosovo riots of March 2004 and then featured the diplomacy of Ahtisaari and the Troika, will close and a new one, full of fresh problems, will begin. It will almost certainly feature a new frozen conflict in Europe, which will include Belgrade’s blockade of the young state and the reality of a breakaway Serb-controlled region in the north of Kosovo itself.

Tim Judah, a leading Balkan commentator, is the author of The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia; and Kosovo: War and Revenge. Balkan Insight is BIRN's online publication.

Ideological Warfare

"Not for nothing did the founders of the American republic insist that its functioning was unimaginable without the Christian religion. The purely negative aspects of the American constitution, namely the balance of powers that protects minority interests, means nothing without transcendent trust in something higher than the elements that constitute the body politic." Israel, The Hope of the Muslim World Spengler, Asia Times, Nov 20, 2007

He was referring in part to this quote by John Adams:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

******

I had a few paragraphs prepared but I'll let you draw your own conclusions .

Free Trade is for Goods and Services. Not for the Farm.

I am not buying the idea that the market is the be all and end all to our lives, property and future. Free trade is a good idea when confined to goods and services and it is between equals. We accept the fact that trade in weapons systems that are going to come back at you is rarely a good idea. Free trade in drugs is not accepted and free trade in human beings, protected lumber, animals and antiquities are also banned or restricted. The term "free trade" is relative.

Trade between equals is important and both sides of a trading relationship should respect property rights and share rules of conduct. This is necessary in an age where intangible intellectual property is so important. Trade always has a political component. The highest form of free trade should be a privilege between defined equals or compatible parties. Free trade of goods and services need not be extended to ownership of property or equities. Free trade expanded to include equities and property should be between equals. Russia and China do not rise to that standard. The Euros have it right.


EU right to defend against sovereign funds-Juncker
Reuters Monday November 19 2007

BERLIN, Nov 19 (Reuters) - Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker was quoted on Monday as saying the European Union has the right to retaliate against sovereign wealth funds from countries under certain conditions.
"Countries that protect their own markets cannot expect to be allowed to make unimpeded investments in Europe," Juncker told Germany's Handelsblatt newspaper.
Juncker, who is also the Eurogroup president, said he did not view such moves as protectionism and argued that Europe had a right to take measures he described as "retaliatory action".
According to a draft law in Germany, foreign investors seeking to take large stakes in German firms can choose to inform the government of their plans ahead of time or risk a lengthy probe into their purchases.
The draft addresses Berlin's concerns about takeovers of firms by sovereign wealth funds and other outside investors. Chancellor Angela Merkel's government has been talking for months about introducing new legislation to shield German companies from cash-rich, state-owned funds, particularly from China, Russia and the Middle East.
Government-owned investment vehicles control around $2 trillion and are expected to grow rapidly to $12 trillion by 2015.
In one deal which sparked worries in Germany, China's state investment agency agreed in May to buy a non-voting stake of nearly 10 percent in U.S. private equity firm Blackstone Group , which holds shares in Deutsche Telekom .

(Writing by Erik Kirschbaum)

The Saturday Night Juke Box

whit on the way to Saturday night at the EB.

The Elephant Bar's

Saturday night Juke Box

Progressing into the Future

As Doug said two posts back, "More morons in charge."

After 11 years as Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard's party has been defeated in Parliamentary elections and Mr. Howard will probably even lose his seat in Parliament. This should come as no surprise. It's been obvious that both Australia and New Zealand have tilted left for quite some time and the BBC has reported that it was Howard's refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol and his support of the war in Iraq that fueled a desire for change. The Wall Street Journal reported:

Australia's opposition Labor party, headed by former diplomat Kevin Rudd, who has promised to boost relations with China, pull some troops from Iraq, and re-make Australia as a leader in the global effort to stop global warming. The defeat appears so complete that the 68-year-old Mr. Howard, Australia's second-longest-serving prime minister, appeared likely to lose his own parliamentary seat, which he has held for 33 years.

The WSJ also referred to the current en vogue development of "progressive" societies of distancing themselves from the United States. In spite of a robust Australian economy with the lowest unemployment in 33 years, voters there have decided that it's time for a new, younger leader as Australia moves toward China and a "greener" future. Mr. Rudd campaigned on tax cuts but it remains to be seen what demands the greens will extort from the new government.

Reuters shed more light on what motivated Australian's voting for change:

The seeds of the election defeat were sewn with his fourth victory in 2004, when Howard won a majority in the upper house Senate, making him the most powerful prime minister in 25 years and allowing him to pass his agenda without amendments.

Emboldened by his new mandate, Howard set about his long-held goal of reforming Australian employment laws, making it easier for employers to sack workers and promoting individual work contracts instead of union-based award conditions.

The changes were unpopular with workers, and prompted widespread protests across the country and a concerted campaign from unions, who said the reforms undermined job security and would drive down wages.

The changes have been a lightning rod for disgruntled voters Australia's biggest cities, with job security falling while house prices and home mortgage interest rates rise.

"Howard has had some successes in managing a prosperous economy," political analyst Nick Economou told Reuters. "But then they made a major error by instilling insecurity in people at a time of prosperity."

It seems that in some ways, Howard brought too much change or the wrong kind of change to Australia. More and more, it seems that people want economic prosperity but are unwilling to accept the risks of life. The Reuters article also pointed out:

Howard's tough stand against asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, who are detained in remote immigration detention camps or sent to centers in Nauru or Papua New Guinea, has attracted widespread criticism from human rights groups.

There it is - the human rights groups. Heaven help you when the "greens" and the human rights groups get you in their sights. So, another one bites the dust. One by one, George Bush's old associates and allies are going down as we move forward in a brave new world.

I have no idea what kind of leader Mr. Rudd will be for Australia, but I do suspect that one of the greatest challenges all leaders will face in the coming years is resisting the "populist" impulses to accede to or champion the ill-considered causes of the left. If we're not careful, much wealth will be squandered on one half-baked scheme after another which in the end, will prove to be nothing more than Soros style attacks on the traditional institutions of the west. Good Luck, Australia.

Pursuing Liberty and Happiness in Life.

“Marital satisfaction decreases dramatically after the birth of the first child and increases only when the last child leaves home.”

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," is probably one of the single most intriguing phrases in any constitution, anywhere, at anytime. It defines a meaning to life and a right of citizenship and mankind. It is a radical departure from living one's life for the benefit of a deity or a collective societal responsibility. I would love to have seen and experienced the shock and awe of the first readers of those words. What Jefferson meant when he penned them in The United States Declaration of Independence, and the debate about how they got accepted is not totally clear and it is not important. The point is that they were written and we all own them. They are the legacy of mankind.

The words increase in meaning the further one travels along the path through life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how sweet it is.


Happy to be unhappy
By Chrystia Freeland
Published: November 23 2007 15:03 Financial Times

Recent studies suggesting a growing “happiness gap” between men and women have captured the headlines. That’s no surprise: the battle of the sexes is at least as old as Adam and Eve.

But, if you read the fine print, you may agree with me that these familiar gender duels are the less interesting aspect of Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers’ September paper on “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness”. What caught my eye was the authors’ assertion that their findings “raise provocative questions...about the legitimacy of using subjective well-being to assess broad social changes”.

I liked the contrarian sound of that, particularly because these days “subjective well-being”, which you and I might prefer to term “happiness”, is no longer the exclusive province of poets, philosophers and the makers of pre-school children’s videos. It is starting to be claimed by public policymakers, especially those of a progressive bent.

The New York Times, for example, this month published an editorial comment arguing that “30 years from now, reducing unhappiness could become another target of policy, like cutting poverty”.

Now, I am as much in favour of happiness as the next person. But I’ve also lived in a society built, at least in part, on utopian dreams of making everyone happy through enlightened government action – it was called the Soviet Union and I think we can all agree it didn’t really work. So I called Prof Stevenson with high hopes of discovering a well-reasoned debunking of what its practitioners are calling the new “science” of happiness.

Honesty compels me to admit that I didn’t quite find one. What Prof Stevenson thinks her paper has revealed is how hard it is to compare the happiness of similar populations over time. Thus, she thinks we need to be cautious about assuming that women reported their own happiness in the same way 35 years ago as they do today. Maybe women haven’t become less happy, we just talk about our feelings in different ways.

Beyond that, I can’t claim Prof Stevenson as a thorough-going happiness sceptic. She reminded me of the research tying our self-reported levels of happiness to clinically measurable signs of well-being. And she believes “we could do a better job of helping people get more happiness out of their lives”.

One favourite example of the happiness camp is the trade-off between having a big house and a longer commute. We think a bigger house will make us happy, so we move to the suburbs. But in making that choice, most of us don’t take enough account of how swiftly our pleasure in our beautiful new home will be ground down by the twice daily misery of a longer commute. Helping us as individuals make these kinds of specific life choices seems like an eminently sensible use of happiness research.

But as a guiding principle for living our lives or shaping our societies, I think we could do worse than remember that the framers of the Constitution put the pursuit of happiness after life and liberty in their list of inalienable rights. And it is not just that life and liberty are more important than happiness, but that some very important life pursuits probably make us unhappy.

Take having children. As Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert points out in Stumbling on Happiness, “Every human culture tells its members that having children will make them happy.” The problem, Gilbert writes, is that studies show the opposite: “Marital satisfaction decreases dramatically after the birth of the first child and increases only when the last child leaves home.”

My children are too young to read the FT, so I can safely admit I don’t find Gilbert’s assertion too surprising. But I don’t find it to be very disturbing, either. Most things I am pleased to have done – being a mother, writing this column – involve a lot of minute-by-minute unhappiness. And some of the people I admire the most have chosen lives that involve a lot worse than that.

Consider Dmitry Muratov, the editor of Russia’s Novaya Gazeta, who came to New York this week to collect an International Press Freedom award. He said his prize gave him no pleasure: one reason he got it was that three of his friends who reported for Novaya Gazeta have been killed. Muratov doesn’t think he’ll ever really be happy again.

Thanksgiving is my favourite American holiday and my favourite expression of it this week was the ritual at my two-year-old’s nursery school of asking the children what they are thankful for. I’m thankful for my own personal happiness, of course – diminished though I now know it to be by my offspring – but I’m also thankful for people such as Muratov who are forgoing theirs.

Chrystia Freeland is the FT’s US managing editor

chrystia.freeland@ft.com

county club

Start Spreading the News!

Start Spreading the news.

These little town blues, are melting away...

The pessimism in the media and on the street lately has been almost unbearable. The medias' unrelenting onslaught of bad news seems to be taking a toll on everyone, regardless of political persuasion. People seem to be running scared so here's my feeble attempt to calm some fears. Call me a starry-eyed optimist but here's how I see America's current economic situation and outlook for the future:

Energy costs. High energy costs are a real problem with a real financial impact on America's household budgets for heating and air conditioning, travel and food. There is little that the government can do in the short term about energy costs. Individuals can adjust thermostats and driving and dining habits but unlike years past, oil prices are not expected to drop significantly due to demand in India and China. The silver lining is that higher oil prices accelerate research and development of alternative energy. The outlook is short term pain but long term will be a huge gain as the U.S. moves away from its dependency on oil. The big winner will be the Nuclear Industry which increasingly is being seen by both the left and right as a safe, efficient, and cost effective source of electricity. The increased use of nuclear energy will get the the carbon hysterics off our backs but the respite will be short lived as they find new crises to beat us with.

Housing. A real estate boom followed by a contraction and a perceived crisis in financial markets are creating uncertainty, however bank loans have been rising at the same rate as before the crisis. Banks do not face a liquidity problem but the exact extent of bank losses is not yet known and rules and regulations require that losses must be written down possibly more than will be actually required. The actual number of non-performing subprime loans may be statistically insignificant.

But...
I heard a Wall Street Hedge Fund Manager claim that the losses would be around $1 trillion. He expects this to drag the world economy to go into a "moderate depression" which would idle even the factories of China. Most experts are not this pessimistic.

There is an excess of housing stocks which must be reduced by the system and until that happens, the traditionally "boom and bust" housing industry will suffer. Some experts say that real estate prices could see a 20% downward adjustment. This is seen as a reduction in wealth but in most cases, these are paper losses. If the adjustment is against the inflated evaluations of the bubble years, the good news is that housing will approach more affordable levels. Although it's just a hunch, I think the current housing crisis is more of a crisis of confidence rather than an actual economic disaster. It's a buyers' market.

"Weak dollar." Some experts say that the "competitive dollar" shouldn't be seen as a "weak dollar." They say a "competitive dollar" will serve the useful purpose of correcting our trade imbalance by making our exports more competitive and imports more expensive. Reduced consumer spending could increase the savings rate or offset the increased energy costs. Of course, reduced consumer spending could lead to a recession - a risk some experts say is 30% - 40% for next year. Other experts say that while they expect a weak economy through '08 they see a GDP growth rate of 2.0+%. A weak dollar may cause a temporary rise in prices but the risk of inflation is seen as very low. Ignore the doomsayers.

Long Term Outlook:

Remember, this is America. As bad as it may seem here, there are few places in the world which are as safe and stable as the US. Money seeks not only the highest return but also security and in that regard, America is Fort Knox to the world. Continuing chaos in the world will benefit the US economy as capital seeks safe harbor.

A competitive dollar means a revitalized, state-of-the-art U.S. manufacturing industry. This new American manufacturing will enjoy operating costs which enable it to compete in the International Market.

China, Russia, Japan and Europe are aging. Their low birth rates mean that long term, they will become less vibrant and productive. China may have more time than the others but whether they have enough time to realize the "Chinese Century" is questionable. India, the quiet overlooked sleeper is moving into the modern world but has a tremendous burden with its huge, abjectly poor and illiterate population.

Capitalism is alive and thriving. Communism has been exposed as an idealistic fraud and socialism is in the autumn of its years. Finally, even Democrats are acknowledging the dangers of unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. Only the most rigid ideologues argue for the discredited Keynesian economics of higher taxes or the dying systems of socialist health care. Repeatedly, we have seen that reducing taxes leads to increased Federal revenues and reduced deficits. It is becoming increasingly difficult for Democrats to make their traditional arguments for a big government, nanny state.

"Go long" on the USA. It won't be a bed of roses and there will be pain but as long as we can maintain our "can do" American spirit and keep the transnationals out of our pockets and our heads, we'll be "king of the hill - top of the heap."

Start spreading the news,
we're leaving today.

Disclaimer: This advice and three dollars may buy you a cup of coffee and two donuts at Krispy Kreme.

Slap, Counter-slap. China Perplexes.

China has an array of industrial spies roaming the planet. It freely takes and pirates US and western technology with no regard for intellectual rights. China has used purloined technology to cyber attack Germany, blast a satellite out of orbit and has demonstrated it can neutralize the satellite nervous system of the US defense body. A few years ago, China could barely make a stable rocket launch. No longer, the Chinese tuned up their program with purchased and stolen American technology. What is murky about their message? China is an aspiring global power.

Power is a zero sum game. Super power is no different and is fairly easy to understand. Super power rests on a director's stool with three legs.

The first leg is ideology, an intellectual or philosophical model. China is a communist super state rapidly expanding with directed state run regimentalism, capitalism and mercantilism. The ideology is credible because it appears to the rulers and the ruled, that it is working. They believe, because the ideology is producing tremendous wealth which conveniently for the Chinese makes up the second leg, economic power.

There is no period in history where so much wealth and economic power has been created in such a short period of time. From that wealth and industrial power comes the ability to ensure the third leg of a super power and that is military might. The Chinese are rapidly militarizing despite the wishful thinking of many that it is not. China, in a few short years, will be able to neutralize American ability to control events in Asia without Chinese approval. Taiwan will become whatever China wants it to be. The United States will have to adapt to the change.

What is murky about that message?

China's snub of U.S. vessel sends murky message

The aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk's Thanksgiving visit to Hong Kong is scuttled, leaving sailors at sea and their visiting families on land. But Beijing's point is unclear.

By Mark Magnier, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 23, 2007

BEIJING -- China's decision to block the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk from a long-planned Thanksgiving visit to Hong Kong, before relenting 24 hours later "on humanitarian grounds," had all the markings of a diplomatic slap in the face, analysts say. It just wasn't terribly clear whose face it was aimed at.

Word spread Wednesday afternoon that China's Foreign Ministry had suddenly and inexplicably blocked a five-day visit by the giant vessel and its strike group, despite prior approval and weeks of planning.

A day later, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told journalists that Beijing would relent, saying its change of heart was "a decision out of humanitarian consideration only." Repeated efforts by foreign reporters to get him to explain the reversal failed.

"It's a little odd," said Eric Hagt, editor of China Security journal, a defense publication based in Washington. "It all seems rather unforeseen and unknowable."

China's Defense Ministry offered no public statement. Nor, said U.S. military officials, did it provide any back-channel explanation.

The Chinese turnaround came too late, said Lt. Cmdr. John Filostrat, a spokesman with the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. The Kitty Hawk waited as long as it could, but logistics and bad weather forced it to leave.

The decision was not intended as some sort of U.S. counter-snub, he added. "It's now en route to its base in Yokosuka, Japan."

Pundits near and far sought to explain what appeared to be behind the Chinese government's blunt yet hazy message.

Theories included anger over President Bush's recent meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Chinese-held Tibet; displeasure over an announced $940-million U.S. upgrade to Taiwan's Patriot II antimissile shield; a desire to send a message before an imminent Hong Kong election; and pique over a U.S. report that criticized Chinese espionage activities.

One reason China may have reversed itself was the prospect of a public relations calamity in the making, although in the end the damage was done. About 8,000 American sailors face several glum days at sea, after hundreds of their family members traveled to Hong Kong from Japan and the United States to meet them.

"Wives, newborn babies, are all sitting at Fenwick Pier," said Paul Buxton, manager of Hong Kong's Quarterdeck Club restaurant, which has a contract to feed and entertain the hungry hordes.

This is not the only time recently that China has made a military move without apparently considering its public relations implications. In January, the Foreign Ministry was caught flat-footed when the People's Liberation Army destroyed an aging satellite, spewing debris in space and sparking questions about the PLA's intentions, why there was no warning and even whether China's senior leadership had been fully informed in advance.

The snafu calls into question whether a proposed military hotline between the U.S. and China would be worth the effort, said Larry M. Wortzel, a former U.S. military attache in Beijing.

Amid the head-scratching, some praised this week's moves, even if they too were uncertain about the intent.

"My guess is the U.S. did something that wasn't so friendly toward us," said Ni Lexiong, a military expert with the Shanghai Institute of Political Science and Law. "It's good to let them know in a rather abrupt way, otherwise they might not notice."

Whatever the reason for this week's flip-flop, a few things stand out, analysts said. Beijing is clearly not happy with U.S.-Chinese military relations, for whatever reason.

"It's become routine to have the Kitty Hawk visit Hong Kong," said Andrew Yang, secretary-general of the Taiwanese-based Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies. "So this sends a strong message to the U.S."

The incident also suggests both that China doesn't always speak with one voice and that it is increasingly willing to play the nationalism card, some said.

"Sometimes the Chinese government gives us an example of how it is not a monolithic organization," said David Wolf, head of a strategic public relations firm in Beijing. "And nationalism is an excellent way to unify everyone behind one guy."

For Buxton, whose restaurant now faces the prospect of disposing of 1,000 pounds of turkey, 1,200 pounds of coleslaw, 100,000 hamburger buns and 3,000 pizzas, the experience has been something of a financial disaster.

"This whole thing is unbelievable," he said. "And everyone says it's not their fault. What can I do, send a chit to the PLA?"

mark.magnier@latimes.com

Yin Lijin of The Times' Beijing Bureau contributed to this report.

More Bombings Are No Surprise

We knew this was coming. Twin Bombings in Baghdad kill 26. The main vehicle for change in the Muslim world is chaos and instability. Good news must be countered with bad and what better way to do it than with senseless carnage such as these most recent bombings in Baghdad and Mosul.

"Today, the view of many young men coming with pets, colorful fish in aquariums and dogs was very encouraging and cheerful," he said. "There were also teenagers selling sandwiches and tea in wheeled carts giving the impression that life is back to normal again, but about 9 o'clock, we heard the sound of an explosion."

"Young men with pets, colorful fish in aquariums and dogs..." Senselessly murdered by the young men on missions for Allah. Come on Ummah, when are you going to put an end to the madness?

... and thanks for Being Part of the Elephant.

China Sends Her Regrets. Dalai Who?

What is that around W's neck?

Face is a very big deal to the Chinese. Two of the most important concepts in Chinese culture are guanxi and mianzi. The first, guanxi, sharing favors between individuals, connections, relationships, and the ability to exert influence. The second, mianzi, means face: saving face, losing face, and giving face. They figure W may have poked them in the eye with a recent visitor in a crimson dress who also thinks he is divine. W gave them some bad mainzi. The Chinese had to settle face.

The Chinese consider Tibet an internal matter. There are six million people in Tibet and the country or region has ebbed and flowed between being an invader and a subject to outsiders, including the British, for two millennium.

News about Tibet? Lately, China has been trashing the Tibetan forests at an unsustainable rate, but that is nothing personal, the Chinese do that everywhere.

We have enough problems without getting involved with the billion plus Chinese and their old scores with the Tibetans. The Chinese have settled their score with W, the US Navy, and settled face. Pass the Nivea please.

U.S. aircraft carrier denied access to Hong Kong
Wed Nov 21, 2007

HONG KONG (Reuters) - China has refused permission for a U.S. aircraft carrier and accompanying vessels to visit Hong Kong for a long-planned Thanksgiving holiday visit, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday.

The Kitty Hawk group and its crew of 8,000 U.S. airmen and sailors had been expected in Hong Kong on Wednesday, but will now spend the holiday on the South China Sea.

Hundred of relatives of crew members of the USS Kitty Hawk had flown to Hong Kong to celebrate Thanksgiving with their loved ones. Hong Kong has been a regular port of call for U.S. sailors on "R & R" (rest and recuperation) since the Vietnam War.

The Chinese move comes as a surprise just weeks after a visit to China by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, which he said he hoped would lead to a long-term dialogue.

"At present, it appears the USS Kitty Hawk strike group will not be making a port call in Hong Kong as previously planned as a result of a last minute denial by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs," State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson said.

The United States was pressing China for an explanation and to reconsider its decision, she added.

There are several possible sources of discontent that may have prompted the decision -- including U.S. plans to sell Taiwan a $940 million upgrade to its missile system and a meeting last month between President George W Bush and the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan Buddhist leader who Beijing considers a traitor.

The Foreign Ministry in Beijing declined to make an immediate comment.

Last year, a Chinese submarine surfaced uncomfortably close to the Kitty Hawk near the Japanese island of Okinawa, an incident that highlighted the potential for friction between the two powers.

"The U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong is in touch with the Kitty Hawk families," said Anthony Hutchinson, a Public affairs director at the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong.

"I've seen some spouses and family come in, they're now sightseeing ... they'll adjust," said another U.S. consular official who asked not to be named.

The move by Beijing coincides with "airspace controls" on Wednesday which Xinhua news agency said affected the air travel plans of 7,000 people in south and east China.

The controls were introduced for "unspecified reasons".

The Kitty Hawk, laid down in 1956, has the second longest active service of any ship in the U.S. navy after the USS Constitution, a 208-year-old ceremonial sailing ship kept in Boston Harbor.

It is the only conventionally fuelled carrier in the U.S. fleet and is due to be decommissioned next year.

(Reporting by Joanne Allen, James Pomfret and Lindsay Beck; editing by Nick Macfie

Good News to be Thankful For.

Here's a bit of good news that we have heard a little about lately. How long it will last we don't know but at least we can enjoy it today.

Road Map To Peace

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:20 PM PT

War On Terror: A sketchy diagram of al-Qaida's defenses left behind by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may prove to be the key to victory in Iraq. Sometimes in the fog of war, the fog lifts.

It may not rank in the annals of warfare with the breaking of the Imperial Japanese Code, which led to our naval victory at Midway in World War II, or the cracking of the Nazi Ultra Codes, which Dwight Eisenhower said was decisive in the Allied victory. But a map left behind in a safe house by the deceased leader of al-Qaida in Iraq may have helped doom the jihadist cause.

Winston Churchill spoke of the "hinge of fate" — events on which the outcome of a war is later seen to have depended. For Churchill, it was El Alamein and the turning back of Erwin Rommel's vaunted Afrika Korps. "Before Alamein," he said, "we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat."

The surge of Gen. David Petraeus that is winning Sen. Harry Reid's "lost" war is our El Alamein. The general's soldiers broke Al-Qaida's code when, last December in an al-Qaida safe house, they recovered a map drawn by Zarqawi. It gave U.S. war planners insight into how al-Qaida was able to move weapons, explosives, fighters and money into Baghdad.

The map showed four rings surrounding Baghdad where al-Qaida and its terrorist operatives were holed up in sort of an underground railroad for jihadists. With the aid of the map and the added surge troops, U.S. forces became lords of the rings, flushing al-Qaida out of its urban strongholds and picking them off as easy targets in the desert.

Al-Qaida was forced to flee Baghdad and tried to regroup in the northern city of Baqouba. A year ago al-Qaida in Iraq declared Baqouba as the capital of the Islamic State in Iraq. It also claimed to control Anbar and Diyala. Now Baqouba is al-Qaida's Dunkirk.

We're not attributing victory in Iraq to blind luck. Victory was achieved by brave U.S. troops who stormed places like Fallujah and made the lost province of Anbar safe for a news conference by a U.S. president.

It was that commitment and perseverance in the face of cut-and-run demands of the Democrats that won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and turned the tide against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Bush, like Churchill, pledged we would never surrender. Seeing that, and seeing U.S. troops in their towns and neighborhoods every day, Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders united against al-Qaida under the umbrella provided by U.S and increasingly skilled and numerous Iraq forces.

Even the New York Times, which had also proclaimed the war to be lost, reported Tuesday that people in Baghdad now move freely without fear, even at night. It reports that "20,000 Iraqis have returned to their Baghdad homes, a seeming trickle that may soon become a flood as the city springs back to life."

As the Associated Press reports: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops. To many in America, it seems little short of a miracle."

Not to President Bush and Gen. Petraeus. To them, it's the natural outcome of Ronald Reagan's famous strategy for winning the Cold War: "We win, they lose."

Things could turn on a dime. One well placed explosion could once again grab the MSM's attention. But for today and hopefully tomorrow and the next day, this is something to be thankful for.

The Jig is Up. Get Back to Work!

From the BBC.

French trains 'hit by sabotage'

France's high-speed TGV rail network has been damaged by a "concerted campaign of sabotage", the SNCF state-owned rail operator has said.

It said acts of sabotage overnight, including fires, caused huge delays to TGV services already hit by a long transport union strike over reforms.

The SNCF blamed militants for the attacks, saying they wanted to harm negotiations to end the strike.

The talks between rail unions and the government opened on Wednesday.

*************

Oh my God, they've offended the militants! The Beeb also reported:

On Tuesday, hundreds of thousands of civil servants joined striking transport and energy workers over what they say is an erosion in their earnings and proposals to slim France's large public sector.

We are witnessing the end of the Golden Era for Socialism in Europe. What a rude awakening these poor Frenchmen are in for. With their 35 hour workweeks, five weeks of annual vacation and retirement at age 50 (at least for the transport workers) they have been living in a socialist dreamworld. It has become demographically untenable there as it will soon be in Canada. And lest we engage in too much schadenfreude, we're in the same boat. Most of us bought into the various scares regarding the overcrowding of PlanetEarth. Based on the advice of our generation's chicken little scaremongers, we quit breeding enough offspring to support us in our golden years. It's a sad commentary on our intelligentsia (and the system that educated them) that even now, many of them haven't figured out that the jig is up.

Can you say Allu Akbar?

Remember the British documentary we linked to some months back? It went undercover to show the hatred and bigotry being preached in British mosques. Who did the British police turn their attention to? The documentary's producers. Is there any hope for a people when their police are so politically correct? Can you say Allu Akbar?

Channel 4 vindicated over Undercover Mosque

By Duncan Hooper and agencies
Last Updated: 12:57pm GMT 19/11/2007

Channel 4 has been vindicated by the media watchdog Ofcom after police complained about an investigative programme that exposed extremism in British mosques.

West Midland's police had faced criticism for targeting the producers of the show rather than the controversial preachers depicted in it.

Ofcom added fuel to that debate by praising Undercover Mosque as a "legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest."

The watchdog added: "Ofcom found no evidence that the broadcaster had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity.

"On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context."

Police claimed that the Dispatches programme had misrepresented the views of Muslim preachers and clerics with misleading editing.

Following today's ruling, the Channel 4 called the police's actions "perverse" and said they had, in some people's eyes, given "legitimacy to people preaching a message of hate".

The programme featured undercover recordings from speakers alleged to be homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist and condemnatory of non-Muslims.

Excerpts from preachers and teachers included "Allah created the woman deficient" and "by the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her (young girls) to wear hijab and if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her".

Other statements included "take that homosexual and throw him off the mountain" and "whoever changes his religion from Al Islam to anything else - kill him in the Islamic state".

Police initially launched an investigation into whether criminal offences had been committed at the mosques and other organisations featured in the programme.

They then said that it considered offences may have been committed by those involved in the production and broadcast of the programme, specifically in stirring up racial hatred.

After the Crown Prosecution Service advised that the prospect of conviction was unlikely, police referred Undercover Mosque to Ofcom, complaining that intense editing had misrepresented those featured in the programme.

Ofcom also rejected the 364 viewers' complaints it received after the programme was broadcast, which it said appeared to be part of a campaign.

*****

"Europe has all but succumbed to the opiate of multiculturalism. In its drowsy numbness, it stirs but has no idea what to do and so does nothing. One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obligated to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want - including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers." Mark Steyn, America Alone.

Imported Oil and Imperial Overreach Has a Price.

The Pain begins. I do not see how the Republicans can talk their way out of this mess which has been building and accelerating under a Republican President and a Republican Congress. This will be a much larger concern than what is happening in Iraq.

A prescient article written June 2005

The Deal Story of 2008:
Will the U.S. Get LBOed?
November 20, 2007 WSJ

China and the Gulf states are hungry, and they've just sat down for an American buffet. In the last few months alone, state-affiliated funds and companies have taken bites of American icons, picking up small stakes in Advanced Micro Devices, MGM Mirage, Nasdaq Stock Market, Blackstone Group and Bear Stearns.

The deals were designed to be small enough to avoid scrutiny from the U.S. government. This conveniently played into the hands of sellers, who were able to offload pricey positions while giving virtually nothing in return, such as board seats or veto rights.

But the mergers-and-acquisitions story of 2008 will be how these foreign sovereign funds -- sitting on an estimated $2 trillion to $3 trillion of reserves -- direct their appetites. Fattened by the U.S.'s own trade imbalances and encouraged by favorable currency rates, they aren't likely to stay so compliant for long. Further down the buffet line sit entire U.S. companies.


Seven sovereign funds, including those of Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, China, Singapore and Russia, now sit on piles greater than $100 billion. Outside the U.S., these funds have proven more adventuresome, with a Dubai company recently moving to take ownership of the airport in Auckland, New Zealand.

This foreshadows some uncomfortable economic and cultural reckonings for the U.S. The modern gamesmanship of corporate interests is beginning to look more like "The Great Game" of national interests, where capital, as much as armies, can be deployed for strategic effect. And on this field of play, the U.S. looks caught off guard -- not unlike the cocksure Olympic basketball squad, run out of the gym by ostensibly weaker teams.

"When governments act in this field, the motives are different," says Deszo J. Horvath, Dean of the Schulich School of Business at Canada's York University. "The motives are longer-term security issues, which can have nothing to do with current economics."

Sen. Evan Bayh captured the new concerns at a congressional hearing last Wednesday. "The definition of national security interest is broader than it used to be," he said. "[Y]ou'll see the Chinese going around the world acquiring what they view as strategic energy interests, and it is not impossible that financial positions might be used in a similar vein."

That's why this incoming wave of foreign money will reveal more about the U.S. than about countries initiating the deals. Laws overseeing foreign investments were just given a much-needed overhaul. But at its core, the issue is as much about emotion and pride as it is about process, says Ivan Schlager, a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Skadden Arps, who handles cross-border transactions.

Foreign investments touch a nerve, especially when so much American economic power appears at the mercy of China, which holds U.S. Treasury bills, or the Gulf states, which have such a big say over U.S. energy costs. For 2007, foreign buyers have accounted for 20% of M&A in the U.S., according to Dealogic, the second-highest level since 1995.

"We have not fully grasped what is happening here, and we have no counterstrategy," said Patrick Mulloy, Washington representative of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, a group studying technology, business, and economics.

Can the U.S. accept the foreign investments as an essential element for lubricating a dynamic economy? Tighter economic ties create less incentive for war and terrorism. And below the radar, a recent series of foreign investments have closed without incident. "No one raised serious objections when Sabic [a state-owned Saudi Arabian company] bought GE Plastics in a competitive auction. Are we culturally ready? We're a very welcoming and open society," adds Mr. Schlager.

Until it's not. Already the country has proven touchy, famously fretting when a Japanese businessman overpaid for the Pebble Beach golf resort back in 1990, or when a Dubai-backed company looked to take over a series of U.S. ports in 2006, setting off a talk-radio furor that squelched the deal.

It's easy to find conspiracies in these governmental funds, in part because they have such little transparency. The Group of Seven leading nations recently called upon the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to study ways to improve disclosure and accountability.

With a weak dollar and the ever-enriched positions of petro-based economies, it's inevitable that the worries will continue to stew. And it's inevitable that they will one day interfere with a big sovereign-fund investment plan.

The irony is the U.S. is, in essence, funding its own potential takeover. In Wall Street parlance, they call it getting LBOed. "We're moving to a sharecropper economy," said Mr. Mulloy in an interview. "The other guys are going to be owning, and we're going to be working for them."

Email dennis.berman@wsj.com. For a daily comprehensive look at the world of deals visit wsj.com/deals.

Does a Bloomberg Candidacy Hurt Democrats or Republicans?

...and he has a good eye for the ladies. Jennifer Stockman with Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

There seems to be a bottlenecking of the current crop of presidential candidates indicating a growing sense of, "None of the Above." That applies to both parties, more so with the Republicans, but it exists with the Democrats as well.

Iraq appears to be declining as a predominate concern being overtaken by worry about the economy. There is a general unease about everything, the dollar, the banks, Iran, China, Russia; it is a growing list. All of this is fertile ground for a third party candidate.

None of the potential interlopers to the Republocrats party have the wherewithal, money and ego of Michael Bloomberg. The question is simple but I am uncertain if the answer is. Where would Bloomberg get his votes? The question is complicated by the electoral college.

My opinion is that he hurts the Democrats most of all in the general vote but the Republicans, especially Giuliani, in some key states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, but I am uncertain. That is after all what this is all about, uncertainty.


November 20, 2007
Can Bloomberg Fill JFK-Sized Hole in American Politics?
By Mort Kondracke Real Clear Politics

Michael Bloomberg is back in the 2008 presidential picture, and one thing is for sure: There is a statesman-sized hole to fill in the center of American politics. It would fit a figure who is strong on national security, unlike all the Democratic candidates, yet fiscally responsible and socially moderate to liberal, unlike the Republicans.

It's a Franklin Roosevelt-, Harry Truman-, Dwight Eisenhower-, John F. Kennedy-sized hole that's currently occupied by no one except perhaps Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.), a man without a party.

The problem with American politics now is that Democrats have driven themselves, once again, to the left end of the political spectrum on foreign policy - as was demonstrated once again last week on the floors of Congress and in the Las Vegas presidential debate.


Not one candidate in the debate, nor any Democratic leader in Congress, would acknowledge that important progress has been made in Iraq since Gen. David Petraeus launched his counterinsurgency strategy.

To the contrary, Democrats are playing a dangerous game of "chicken" with the country's armed services, threatening to cut off funding for the military to force President Bush to accept a goal of full withdrawal from Iraq in 2008 - despite the chance Petraeus has created for a successful outcome.

It's hard to disagree with what Lieberman has said in the past two weeks - that Democrats are "emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq" and that "it is deeply irresponsible for anti-war forces in Congress to hold hostage the funds our men and women in uniform need to continue their successful efforts."

Democrats are following the same pattern in requiring a court order for electronic intercepts of terrorists overseas because they might contact someone in the United States. Democrats act as though Bush presents a greater danger to this country than Osama bin Laden.

Meantime, Republicans have driven themselves to the right edge of the economic and social spectrum, as demonstrated by Bush's vetoes of spending and children's health bills, by Republicans' penchant for borrowing to pay for their outsized tax cuts and by the presidential candidates' hard-line positions on abortion and immigration.

Republicans in Congress sustained Bush's vetoes despite their own record of piling up $1.9 trillion in accumulated deficits since he took office and the fact that Democratic spending proposals represent just a $5 billion increase over current levels, designed to pay for student aid, medical research and energy assistance for the poor.

As demonstrated on the House floor last week, Republicans oppose paying for a needed "fix" in the alternative minimum tax with higher taxes elsewhere, preferring to borrow the money from their children and grandchildren.

On the campaign trail, no candidate dares talk about higher taxes to pay America's bills and there's next to no attention among GOP candidates to the fact that America's middle class feels economically stressed.

And the feeling is legitimate, given a new report showing that upward mobility in the United States lags behind that in other industrialized countries and that only people in the best-educated third of the U.S. population can expect to be better off than their parents.

Except Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the leading Republican candidates are pandering to a loud anti-immigrant claque in the party and, except for Rudy Giuliani, all are vying to appeal to the right-to-life movement as ardently as Democrats appeal to the abortion-rights movement.

There's a huge gap in the middle that could be filled by a candidate who called for perseverance in Iraq and tough diplomacy toward Iran, yet also favored adequate funding for education and health care and was moderate on abortion and immigration.

Candidates pay lip service to the public's evident desire for its politicians to stop partisan squabbling and start solving their real problems, but the gap remains wide in view of anyone's offering nonideological solutions to those problems.

New York Mayor Bloomberg arguably could fit well into the space, although he has to begin speaking out on national and international issues if he hopes to be successful as an independent candidate.

He is privately telling visitors that the chances of his running are 50-50. Clearly he wants to keep a buzz going about his candidacy, having cooperated with Newsweek in a cover profile two weeks ago. The article exhaustively covered Bloomberg's life, mayoral record and political prospects but was short of details on his views.

He is clearly pro-choice on abortion, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights and favors merit pay for teachers and controls on climate change. His view on Iraq, as expressed in Newsweek, is that "the current situation is intolerable" because "the public doesn't understand why we are there, and part of leadership is explaining, bringing people along."

That could mean explaining why America has to see the task through to success, if it can be attained, but Bloomberg didn't say. It is encouraging that in 2006, he campaigned for Lieberman's re-election.

On the other hand, he sounds like a Democrat on Iran, virtually ruling out military action and promising negotiations. That doesn't necessarily make him a hopeless dove, but he didn't mention the word "sanctions," either. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) did.

Bloomberg aides say he won't run unless he thinks he can win. A Newsweek poll indicated that, right now, he garners only 11 percent of the vote, to Clinton's 44 percent and Giuliani's 38 percent, and pulls more support from Giuliani than Clinton.

But that's all theoretical because Bloomberg is hardly known outside New York and its environs. He has to stop teasing and start talking in order for the public to determine whether he is what America desperately needs - a centrist choice dedicated to keeping America safe, solving its problems and building consensus.

Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955. © 2007 Roll Call, Inc.

The US Will Regret the Bush Legacy on Latin America

This article by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs does a reasonable job of presenting a synopsis on the results of the US-Latin un-policy.

Pluralism Bursts into the Western Hemisphere

• While Russia, Europe and China are wooing Latin America and the Caribbean, the Monroe Doctrine now becomes the “Putin, Zapatero and Chinese – Corollary”

• Iran’s increased presence in the region may lead to bad press, but for now only shows increased investments

• The “Great Game” of political and economic influence is set to be played in the southern hemisphere

No one is arguing that Latin America and the Caribbean have become a priority matter for international diplomacy, save for the U.S., which has witnessed a massive retreat of Washington's vigilance for what it once insisted were its longtime national interests and influence in the hemisphere. Concentrating on its "War on Terror" has resulted in a detour of the U.S. military and diplomatic corps to a series of sorties, like Afghanistan, Iraq, and now, likely enough, to Iran. The 1823 Monroe Doctrine is no longer relevant as nations like Russia, the People's Republic of China as well as the European Union (and its individual members) increase their influence in the Western Hemisphere. This penetration is due to the fact that numerous hemispheric countries are themselves looking to diversify their pool of allies and trading partners by contracting ties to other nations besides the U.S., with Venezuela being at the core of this movement.

From Brussels to Moscow and Beijing, not to mention other emerging middle powers like India, it seems as though everyone wants a piece of Latin America these days. With Washington's grip on the region loosening, there is an increase in opportunity for potentially valuable non-traditional relationships – Iran's aggressive courting of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua is one example– demonstrating that the Western Hemisphere has become a multipolar continent, with Washington no longer being the exclusive choice, and with diplomatic initiatives originating from around the globe.

Enter the Dragon
China has diverse interests in the Western Hemisphere, and although most of them are primarily economic, there are pressing political factors at play as well. Of key importance to Beijing is its quest for new product markets, in combination with creating multiple portals through which it can import the mineral resources and produce what it needs to maintain a booming economy. The most recent example is the $10 billion contract signed between Beijing and Caracas to search for crude oil reserves in Venezuela's oil-rich Orinoco belt. This arrangement occurred shortly after Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez expelled a number of Western oil companies from the country, including Exxon and Conoco, for failing to take a minority stake in their Orinoco oil holdings.

Another reason for China's interest in the Western Hemisphere has to do with the status of neighboring Taiwan. Beijing and Taipei's hostile attitude toward each other and quest for diplomatic recognition has been transferred to the Americas, as both governments attempt to gain new allies in order to bolster support for their positions on the issue of Beijing's claim to the island of Taiwan. Inevitably, Beijing is winning its diplomatic and public relations showdown with Taipei, due to its geopolitical weight. While Taiwan has gained the formal recognition of a number of countries in this hemisphere, it subsequently lost some of this support. This is being achieved as a result of an "open checkbook" policy for economic aid, access to the Chinese market, and the availability of loans for the disadvantaged economies of the Americas. The critical factor here is that China has been able to decisively beat out its adversary, with Taipei having diplomatic ties with only a handful of countries in the Western Hemisphere, most of which have only marginal importance other than their ability to cast a vote in international forums.

An example of this "financially mercenary" is the Caribbean island of Dominica, which cut ties with Taiwan in 2004. According to a report by the BBC, after the decision of Dominican Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit to cut off Taipei, Beijing was prepared to hand over more than $100 million in aid over the next five years to the now blessed Caribbean island.

The Russian Bear
Russia has just begun to regain a privileged position of influence in the Western Hemisphere, a status once enjoyed during the days of the Cold War when, as a result of its close ties with Havana, it was able to maintain close relations with Nicaragua, Grenada, and Allende's Chile. Moscow also had the sympathy of military governments like Peru during the Juan Velasco Alvarado rule (1968-1975). Today, Russia is attempting to come up with a new strategy to recover a resource-drilling position of influence in the hemisphere, and has focused on the military export industry as its line of attack. During the Cold War several Latin American governments purchased Soviet weaponry, and today are familiar with utilizing this type of equipment and prefer its use (not to mention Russian weapons are currently very inexpensive) over having to purchase them from other manufacturers (i.e. France, Israel). For example, Peru is in the process of upgrading its Soviet-era Mi-8 helicopters, having placed its order with Moscow.

Moscow has also capitalized on non-U.S. friendly countries like Venezuela to increase its client base. Last year Venezuela purchased $3 billion of military equipment from the Vladimir Putin regime. This summer, during a trip to Moscow, Chávez ordered five submarines, with the option of buying four more in the near future. In addition, Russia's Izhevsk Manufacturing Plant has reported that it will build two factories in Venezuela to manufacture Kalashnikov rifle-type AK-103 as well as ammunition for it. The objective is to have both plants completed by 2010.

However, it is doubtful that military sales alone will be enough for Russia to once again cement anything like the position of influence in the Western hemisphere that it episodically had in the post-World War II period. Trade is still somewhat lagging between the two sides of the Pacific, and there have been instances of rapprochement between Kremlin officials and a number of hemispheric leaders. Cuba has yet to receive anything approaching a major volume of Russian investment and economic aid, as it once did, although there is always the possibility that this situation may change in the near future. There have been some important visits by high level Kremlin officials, like President Vladimir Putin's trip to Cuba in 2000, as well as several meetings between Putin and Chávez in Moscow, however, these ties have to be amplified in order to make Russia into a bigger player in Latin America. Meanwhile, the region increasingly looks to Moscow for both friendship and, more importantly, trade and investment.

European Unity for All
Understanding Europe's presence in Latin America and the Caribbean may require two separate streams of analysis. On the one hand, the Europe Union has a common policy towards the Americas, and, at the same time, individual European countries have their own foreign policies and interests in the region. When it comes to the EU, Brussels has focused on greater economic and political interaction with the region's major blocs, namely MERCOSUR, the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), and the Rio Group. In fact, the EU has already been discussing a free-trade agreement with CAN for a number of months. In recent weeks, Venezuela has been placed in the spotlight as President Chávez is looking to possibly return to CAN after leaving the bloc in 2006. Chávez is not in favor of an FTA between CAN and the EU, so it is yet to be seen how these feints will transpire. In the meantime, CAN has scheduled its second round of negotiations with the EU in Brussels this coming December. Additionally, the EU has pursued free trade talks with countries like Mexico and Chile.

Individual European governments are pursuing their own foreign policy initiatives vis-à-vis the Western Hemisphere in line with their own national interests. France has increased its cooperation in recent years with Brazil. Likewise, Britain continues to make use of its historical influence on the English-speaking Caribbean, for example, maintaining a military base in Belize (the British Army Training Support Unit Belize – BATSUB). The goal of the base is to provide jungle training to British troops, with the additional objective of protecting the sovereignty of the country, which has had a historical territorial dispute with neighboring Guatemala. In addition, British naval ships regularly patrol the Caribbean and aid with drug-enforcement operations. In 2005, the frigate HMS Cumberland stopped a vessel off Nicaragua's Caribbean coast, which was carrying two tons of cocaine.

In addition, Spain and Portugal, in an attempt to project their presence in Latin America, encouraged the creation of the Ibero-American Secretaria (SEGIB) in 2006. The organization is based in Madrid and scored something of a coup after the distinguished Uruguayan official Enrique Iglesias was selected as its first secretary-general in 2005. Iglesias brought a significant amount of prestige to the organization as he is a former president of the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, Uruguay's foreign minister from 1985-1988 and also served as the head of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Nevertheless, it is yet to be seen if SEGIB can make much progress in bringing both sides of the Atlantic effectively together.

In early November, the XVII Ibero-American Summit took place in Santiago, Chile. The meeting was not without controversy as at one point King Juan Carlos of Spain told President Chavez "por qué no te callas?" (why don't you shut up?). Ironically, SEGIB's secretary Iglesias declared in a press conference that the summit had been a success. The next meeting will take place in October 2008 in San Salvador, El Salvador.

Holland's presence in the region is mainly a result of its connection to its former colonies of Suriname and the islands of Aruba (Curacao and Saba off the coast of South America in the Caribbean), as well as St. Maarten, which it shares with France. Finally there are some European nations that particularly are at odds with one or more Latin American countries, especially with Fidel Castro's Cuba. The Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia are famous for their rejection of any effort to be made to moderate the current hostility that these former Soviet satellites currently have towards Cuba, which has rendered them a gaggle of Castro bashers serving on European bodies.

The Growing Persian Shadow
Iran is another country that has a mixed diplomatic-trade and security relationship with a number of regional countries, with Venezuela immediately coming to mind. Recently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused an uproar in New York when he visited the UN and gave a fiery speech after being booed during a presentation he made at Columbia University. After his stopover in Caracas, Ahmadinejad traveled to Bolivia, prompting rumors of a possible Caracas-Tehran-Sucre/La Paz alliance. In order to explain his meeting with the Iranian leader, Bolivian President Evo Morales declared "we are from the culture of dialogue and life, without marginalization and discrimination. We are about unity [and] solidarity."

Visits by Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials to the Western Hemisphere are examples of Tehran's growing presence in the continent. In early November, Iranian Minister of Commerce Masood Mirkazemi traveled to Havana and signed an agreement to form a joint shipping company between the two governments.

During his trip to Bolivia, the first made by an Iranian president, Ahmadinejad pledged to invest $1 billion over the next five years to improve the Bolivian economy. According to September 27 Associated Press file, "Bolivia-Iran trade can hardly go anywhere but up. Bolivia exported nothing to Iran between 2000 and 2006, and Iranian exports to Bolivia totaled just $10 million last year, according to government statistics, down from $24 million a year earlier." Closer relations between La Paz and Tehran have more than raised eyebrows among Bolivia's opposition parties. There are rumors that there may be a deal between both countries for the mining of Bolivia's uranium, which opposition senators would try to block, if true. "No one has assured us that Bolivian uranium will be used for benign purposes, so we cannot take risks," said Senator Arturo Murillo of Unidad Nacional.

In Ahmadinejad's September trip to Caracas, he met with Chávez and the two leaders signed three cooperation accords regarding the petrochemical, agricultural and automobile sectors. In addition, as reported by Latin America News Digest, Venezuela's state-run oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) and Iranian state-run energy firm Petropars have agreed to set up a 50/50 joint venture named Venirogc. The article explains that the goal is to challenge the supremacy of oil and gas giants Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and Eni by creating international oil and gas enterprises along the entire value chain, from production to retail merchandizing through gasoline stations.

Additional Players
Brazil's increasing links to South Africa and India have aided both emerging middle-rank powers to gain a foothold in the Western Hemisphere. India also has a growing research-based presence in Guyana, which it gained by deploying historical ethnic ties, and has also used a diplomatic offensive to permit it to step up investments in mineral-rich Peru.

Pluralism in the Americas
Washington's semi-divorce from Latin America and the Caribbean has been the catalyst that has allowed other nations and international organizations to move rapidly into the regions. What can be seen now is the possibility of the creation of a new system in the Western Hemisphere, with the U.S. becoming no longer the omnipotent and omnipresent player. Washington may have to adjust to being one of many actors in the hemisphere along with Beijing, Moscow, Brussels and, oddly enough, Tehran.

In effect, a dramatically pluralistic hemisphere is in the making, which cannot help but profoundly affect the inter-American system, with the Organization of American States—which has always been regarded as Washington's protégé—losing ground to one or more of a variety of other possible regional blocks, like CARICOM, the Rio Group, the Andean Community of Nations, as well as Chávez' Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA).

Caribbean Security
While important from a geo-strategic point of view, the Caribbean does not usually attract the international media coverage it deserves. In spite of this fact, security forces from major powers like the U.S. and Britain continue to maintain security a presence in the area, especially as the Caribbean has become a major point for the shipment of illegal drugs coming from South America on their way to Europe.

London's BATSUB provides specialist training for over 4,000 British troops per year and offers back-up support to the Belize Defense Force (BDF). The British base also regularly receives visits by British vessels, like the Cumberland, that take part in anti-narcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea, often in conjunction with the U.S.

Washington aggressively has pressed the relatively unknown but very important "Shiprider Agreement" with a number of Caribbean countries. The objective of this pact is to combat illegal drug trafficking, arms smuggling and transnational crime by increasing cooperation between U.S. security forces (particularly the Coast Guard) and Caribbean governments. From the onset, the "Shiprider Agreement" has been surrounded by controversy; for example, there have been confrontations between the U.S., Jamaica.
According to a February 2004 article in the Jamaica Gleaner, “in 1996, then U.S. President Bill Clinton’s administration was on the verge of imposing financial sanctions against Jamaica because it was dissatisfied with Jamaica’s co-operation on narcotics. Sanctions were eventually averted after the crisis prompted a Caribbean summit in Barbados with Clinton in 1997.” Jamaica and Washington signed a new “Shiprider” accord in 2004.

On January 26, 2006 an article was published in Caribbean Net News, which included comments by the U.S. ambassador to Suriname, Marsha Barnes. In the article the American diplomat said that so far, there are no tangible results from the proposed cooperation since Suriname doesn't have a Coast Guard. The diplomat noted that agreements with other Caribbean nations were exercised differently. Some Caribbean nations' vessels patrolling off-shore Puerto Rico have U.S. law enforcement officers on board, while in other instances Caribbean law enforcement personnel are on board U.S. Coast Guard vessels.

Additionally, the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, sponsors a series of military exercises held with Caribbean nations, known as TRADEWINDS. The May 2007 TRADEWINDS exercises were held in Belize with the participation of the British Royal Marines. It is noteworthy to mention that the Caribbean has strived to achieve independence when it comes to security issues. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the need for a collective response to security threats led to the creation of the Regional Security System. This concept first appeared in concrete terms through a Memorandum of Understanding which was signed in October 1982 between Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia and Barbados, in order to provide for "mutual assistance on request." The RSS' first deployment was a part of the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983. Grenada itself joined the RSS in 1985.

Who Supports Who?
In spite of the growing presence of extra-hemispheric nations in the Western Hemisphere, it might be an exaggeration to assume that exclusive alliances have been cemented between any Latin American or Caribbean nations with particular European or Asian powers. Brazil has developed close relations with India and South Africa (through the tri-national organization known as IBSA), which is perhaps the closest there is to an inter-hemispheric alliance at the moment. In addition, Britain has a strong relation with its former colonies, but at the same time, the Caribbean states have had success in forming their own identity through regional organizations like CARICOM.

Mexico's growing closeness with the EU, China and India on trade issues will continue to be dwarfed by its relationship with the U.S., its major trading partner by far. The same can be said about Central America and the Dominican Republic, after the ratification by all members of CAFTA-DR. President Chávez has turned to Russia as a weapons supplier, but he had no problems granting China, Russia's competitor in the quest for overseas resources, a multi-billion dollar deal for oil exploration.

An issue that needs to be addressed is that of shifts and movements in inter-state relations on the continent and the search for external alliances. Brazil, with is global ambitions, has teamed up with other regional powers in other parts of the world that share similar interests. Venezuela turned to Russia for military equipment because when requested, the U.S. would not sell the Chávez administration spare parts to repair the country's squadron of aging F-16 fighter planes. Adjoining countries like Peru, Uruguay and Paraguay, have yet to feel any need to seek stable extra-hemispheric alliances.

Another condition that deserves to be considered is the fear that allowing too many foreign companies or foreign influence in a country will be detrimental to local economies or create neo-colonial scenarios. For example, some Caribbean analysts still bitterly recall CARICOM's distrust which was directed against France's then-Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, with some officials of the Caribbean organization alleging that he was one of the main plotters of the Haitian 2004 coup that overthrew President Jean Bertrand Aristide.

It is unrealistic to believe that a Russian or Asian military base may be located in the Western Hemisphere anytime soon. However, it is necessary to keep in mind that non-American military bases in Latin America and the Caribbean do exist. One example is the aforementioned British military training facility in Belize. France has also deployed members of its Foreign Legion to French Guyana, an overseas department, for training exercises and to protect the European Space Agency spacecrafts which are launched from there. Furthermore, the status of U.S. facilities in the region is no longer secure or, for that matter, sacred. Ecuador's President Rafael Correa adamantly insists that once the lease to the U.S. facility in Manta expires in 2009, Quito will refuse to renew it. Meanwhile Mexican authorities have stressed that no U.S. military forces will be allowed in the country as part of the newly signed Merida initiative.

El Gran Juego
Like the struggle for influence in Central Asia in the 19th century between the Russian and British empires, which was referred to at the time as the Great Game, Latin America and the Caribbean have entered into their own version of this quest, with non-hemispheric players like Russia, China and the European Union all attempting to win influence in the region. This translates into investment, access to resources and local markets; however it is not a winner-takes-all type of game. One thing is clear: for the rest of the world, efforts at associating with Latin America and the Caribbean signifies the region's emergence as an important political and economic force with potential for further growth, which is even far beyond what Washington is now able to conceptualize.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sánchez

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs. All Rights Reserved.
1250 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 1C Washington, D.C. 20036, USA
Tel. (202) 223-4975 Fax (202) 223-4979
For contacts, suggestions and comments: coha@coha.org

Sophie Anderton, Super Model and Hooker

A super model, Coke user and hooker. If you like it, you have to pony up the $20K. The dollar just does not go as far as it used to.

NY Times Discloses Classified US Program to Secure Pakistani Nuclear Weapons

The NY Times has decided that it will depart from reporting on foreign policy to changing it and according to the Times, it has the blessing of the Bush Administation in doing so. It justifies the release and approval by the Bush Administraion in this language:

...The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan’s arsenal remained vulnerable. The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons.

Since then, some elements of the program have been discussed in the Pakistani news media and in a presentation late last year by the leader of Pakistan’s nuclear safety effort, Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai, who acknowledged receiving “international” help as he sought to assure Washington that all of the holes in Pakistan’s nuclear security infrastructure had been sealed.

The Times told the administration last week that it was reopening its examination of the program in light of those disclosures and the current instability in Pakistan. Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.

In recent days, American officials have expressed confidence that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is well secured. “I don’t see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy, but clearly we are very watchful, as we should be,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference on Thursday..."

November 18, 2007 NY Times
U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms

By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.

But with the future of that country’s leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan’s reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.

The aid, buried in secret portions of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a facility that American officials say is nowhere near completion, even though it was supposed to be in operation this year.

A raft of equipment — from helicopters to night-vision goggles to nuclear detection equipment — was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclear material, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worst known case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age.

While American officials say that they believe the arsenal is safe at the moment, and that they take at face value Pakistani assurances that security is vastly improved, in many cases the Pakistani government has been reluctant to show American officials how or where the gear is actually used.

That is because the Pakistanis do not want to reveal the locations of their weapons or the amount or type of new bomb-grade fuel the country is now producing.

The American program was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration debated whether to share with Pakistan one of the crown jewels of American nuclear protection technology, known as “permissive action links,” or PALS, a system used to keep a weapon from detonating without proper codes and authorizations.

In the end, despite past federal aid to France and Russia on delicate points of nuclear security, the administration decided that it could not share the system with the Pakistanis because of legal restrictions.

In addition, the Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret “kill switch,” enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons.

While many nuclear experts in the federal government favored offering the PALS system because they considered Pakistan’s arsenal among the world’s most vulnerable to terrorist groups, some administration officials feared that sharing the technology would teach Pakistan too much about American weaponry. The same concern kept the Clinton administration from sharing the technology with China in the early 1990s.

The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan’s arsenal remained vulnerable. The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons.

Since then, some elements of the program have been discussed in the Pakistani news media and in a presentation late last year by the leader of Pakistan’s nuclear safety effort, Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai, who acknowledged receiving “international” help as he sought to assure Washington that all of the holes in Pakistan’s nuclear security infrastructure had been sealed.

The Times told the administration last week that it was reopening its examination of the program in light of those disclosures and the current instability in Pakistan. Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.

In recent days, American officials have expressed confidence that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is well secured. “I don’t see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy, but clearly we are very watchful, as we should be,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference on Thursday.

Admiral Mullen’s carefully chosen words, a senior administration official said, were based on two separate intelligence assessments issued this month that had been summarized in briefings to Mr. Bush. Both concluded that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was safe under current conditions, and one also looked at laboratories and came to the same conclusion.

Still, the Pakistani government’s reluctance to provide access has limited efforts to assess the situation. In particular, some American experts say they have less ability to look into the nuclear laboratories where highly enriched uranium is produced — including the laboratory named for Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man who sold Pakistan’s nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

The secret program was designed by the Energy Department and the State Department, and it drew heavily from the effort over the past decade to secure nuclear weapons, stockpiles and materials in Russia and other former Soviet states. Much of the money for Pakistan was spent on physical security, like fencing and surveillance systems, and equipment for tracking nuclear material if it left secure areas.

But while Pakistan is formally considered a “major non-NATO ally,” the program has been hindered by a deep suspicion among Pakistan’s military that the secret goal of the United States was to gather intelligence about how to locate and, if necessary, disable Pakistan’s arsenal, which is the pride of the country.

“Everything has taken far longer than it should,” a former official involved in the program said in a recent interview, “and you are never sure what you really accomplished.”

So far, the amount the United States has spent on the classified nuclear security program, less than $100 million, amounts to slightly less than one percent of the roughly $10 billion in known American aid to Pakistan since the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of that money has gone for assistance in counterterrorism activities against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The debate over sharing nuclear security technology began just before then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was sent to Islamabad after the Sept. 11 attacks, as the United States was preparing to invade Afghanistan.

“There were a lot of people who feared that once we headed into Afghanistan, the Taliban would be looking for these weapons,” said a senior official who was involved. But a legal analysis found that aiding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program — even if it was just with protective gear — would violate both international and American law.

General Musharraf, in his memoir, “In the Line of Fire,” published last year, did not discuss any equipment, training or technology offered then, but wrote: “We were put under immense pressure by the United States regarding our nuclear and missile arsenal. The Americans’ concerns were based on two grounds. First, at this time they were not very sure of my job security, and they dreaded the possibility that an extremist successor government might get its hands on our strategic nuclear arsenal. Second, they doubted our ability to safeguard our assets.”

General Musharraf was more specific in an interview two years ago for a Times documentary, “Nuclear Jihad: Can Terrorists Get the Bomb?” Asked about the equipment and training provided by Washington, he said, “Frankly, I really don’t know the details.” But he added: “This is an extremely sensitive matter in Pakistan. We don’t allow any foreign intrusion in our facilities. But, at the same time, we guarantee that the custodial arrangements that we brought about and implemented are already the best in the world.”

Now that concern about General Musharraf’s ability to remain in power has been rekindled, so has the debate inside and outside the Bush administration about how much the program accomplished, and what it left unaccomplished. A second phase of the program, which would provide more equipment, helicopters and safety devices, is already being discussed in the administration, but its dimensions have not been determined.

Harold M. Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, which designed most of the United States’ nuclear arms, argued that recent federal reluctance to share warhead security technology was making the world more dangerous.

“Lawyers say it’s classified,” Dr. Agnew said in an interview. “That’s nonsense. We should share this technology. Anybody who joins the club should be helped to get this.”

“Whether it’s India or Pakistan or China or Iran,” he added, “the most important thing is that you want to make sure there is no unauthorized use. You want to make sure that the guys who have their hands on the weapons can’t use them without proper authorization.”

In the past, officials say, the United States has shared ideas — but not technologies — about how to make the safeguards that lie at the heart of American weapons security. The system hinges on what is essentially a switch in the firing circuit that requires the would-be user to enter a numeric code that starts a timer for the weapon’s arming and detonation.

Most switches disable themselves if the sequence of numbers entered turns out to be incorrect in a fixed number of tries, much like a bank ATM does. In some cases, the disabled link sets off a small explosion in the warhead to render it useless. Delicate design details involve how to bury the link deep inside a weapon to keep terrorists or enemies from disabling the safeguard.

The most famous case of nuclear idea sharing involves France. Starting in the early 1970s, the United States government began a series of highly secretive discussions with French scientists to help them improve the country’s warheads.

A potential impediment to such sharing was the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which bars cooperation between nations on weapons technology.

To get around such legal prohibitions, Washington came up with a system of “negative guidance,” sometimes called “20 questions,” as detailed in a 1989 article in Foreign Policy. The system let United States scientists listen to French descriptions of warhead approaches and give guidance about whether the French were on the right track.

Nuclear experts say sharing also took place after the cold war when the United States worried about the security of Russian nuclear arms and facilities. In that case, both countries declassified warhead information to expedite the transfer of safety and security information, according to federal nuclear scientists.

But in the case of China, which has possessed nuclear weapons since the 1960s and is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Clinton administration decided that sharing PALS would be too risky. Experts inside the administration feared the technology would improve the Chinese warheads, and could give the Chinese insights into how American systems worked.

Officials said Washington debated sharing security techniques with Pakistan on at least two occasions — right after it detonated its first nuclear arms in 1998, and after the terrorist attack on the United States in 2001.

The debates pitted atomic scientists who favored technical sharing against federal officials at such places as the State Department who ruled that the transfers were illegal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and under United States law.

In the 1998 case, the Clinton administration still hoped it could roll back Pakistan’s nuclear program, forcing it to give up the weapons it had developed. That hope, never seen as very realistic, has been entirely given up by the Bush administration.

The nuclear proliferation conducted by Mr. Khan, the Pakistani metallurgist who built a huge network to spread Pakistani technology, convinced the Pakistanis that they needed better protections.

“Among the places in the world that we have to make sure we have done the maximum we can do, Pakistan is at the top of the list,” said John E. McLaughlin, who served as deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, and played a crucial role in the intelligence collection that led to Mr. Khan’s downfall.

“I am confident of two things,” he added. “That the Pakistanis are very serious about securing this material, but also that someone in Pakistan is very intent on getting their hands on it.”

Are the Iranians Changing Tactics?

Is a decrease in Iraqi IED attacks an indication of Iranian progress in developing a nuclear weapon? The last thing that I would do if I were an Iranian leader intent on procuring nuclear weapons is to portray a bellicose profile to the West. The most obvious first step would be to rein in those that were trafficking in EFP's in Iraq.

There is little benefit to Iran in supplying weapons to Iraq. The war in Iraq is obviously unpopular and will end through political changes in the US. If Iran can succeed in appearing "responsible and helpful", there will be a lessening of diplomatic and economic pressure put upon her. After all, there are other nuclear powers who are acceptable to the World.

A sane and reasonable appearing Iran has a better chance of getting and keeping nuclear weapons than a bunch of crazed mullahs. A declining Iranian support for Iraqi violence may not be as benign as it seems.


Drop in Iran-related attacks in Iraq a puzzle
(AFP)

17 November 2007

WASHINGTON - Even as President George W. Bush pressed Iran on its nuclear program on Friday, US officials said the US military was puzzling over the meaning of a sharp drop in Iranian-related attacks in Iraq.


Defence Secretary Robert Gates and other senior Defence officials have said it is too soon to judge the significance of the three-month decline in the use of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) and other Iranian made weapons.

But a deputy corps commander in Iraq, Major General James Simmons, said Thursday that Iran appears to be living up to a commitment to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki to stop the flow of the weapons into the country.

Senior Defence officials in Washington suggested that Simmons’ conclusion was overstated, but said there was little doubt that the flow of weapons from Iran to Iraq has slowed or stopped.

Armor-piercing EFPs have turned up in recently captured weapons caches in Iraq, but those are believed to pre-date a pledge Iranian leaders made to Maliki during a visit to Tehran in August, officials have said.

Attacks involving EFP’s dropped from 99 in July to 53 in October.

What remains unclear is whether the Iranians decided to stop the flow of weapons, and if so why, and whether it points to a broader change in direction by Tehran or just a temporary respite.

“We’re not there yet,” a senior US Defence official said, explaining that more time was needed to assess the development and its implications.

“We certainly hope that the Iranians have decided to fulfill their commitments to the Maliki government,” the official added.

The developments in Iraq come as the Bush administration is trying to ratchet up international pressure on Iran on the nuclear front.

At a White House meeting Friday with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, Bush said international pressure “must, and will, grow” on Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program.

“The prime minister and I agree that a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the security of the Middle East and beyond. Our two nations are united in our efforts to change the regime’s behaviour through diplomacy,” Bush said.

Senior Defence officials said the nuclear issue is the administration’s primary concern.

But a turnaround on Iraq by Tehran would be a major break for the US military, which is banking on a sustained reduction of violence in Iraq to undertake a phased drawdown of US forces.

Wary that it might be too good to be true, US officials point to what they say is Iran’s record of arming and training “special groups” of Shiite extremists that have killed US forces.

“That they have had a negative influence in the past, that they have assisted in the killing of coalition, Iraqi and American soldiers is a matter of fact,” said a senior US military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A Return of the Great Airships

Notice the size of the people at the Lakehurst derrigible hangars.

As a young boy running through a field sometime in the early fifties I saw my first airship. It flew from a naval air station in Lakehurst, New Jersey, the crash site of the Hindenburg. The airships were captured from the Germans and the navy flew them for some reason, probably fun. This one flew low over a hedgerow and totally filled the sky. It glided over the trees and did not seem that it would ever stop. It was more like a silent passing freight train than a flying machine. I was never more impressed with anything before then or since.

Several years ago I found myself taking a drive through the New Jersey Pine Lands and came across Lakehurst. The empty hangars are truly amazing in size. If you ever get a chance to go, do so. It will give you an appreciation for the great airships that once flew there.

Sustainable Zeppelins?
BY THIJS WESTERBEEK VAN EERTEN RNL
15-11-2007

Airships or Zeppelins are a sustainable form of aviation. At least according to Senator Wolfgang von Zeppelin, grandson of the famous German airship pioneer Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin.

The Senator - a German term for a high ranking executive - is a firm believer in the environmental benefits of airship transport and has just rounded off a European tour, on which he has been presenting the latest version of his airship to the public. The new model goes by the name of Zeppelin NT, which stands for 'new technology'.

"At present it is not possible for airships to replace airline passenger planes. Far too expensive! But Zeppelins could well have a part to play on holiday flights to destinations such as Majorca, where speed is not as important."
Of course, Von Zeppelin is quick to point out that tourists should see the flight itself as part of the holiday.
"During the flight, passengers can enjoy space, peace and quiet, and good cuisine, to say nothing of the fantastic view. When you look at it that way, who cares if a flight to a holiday island takes a day and a half?"
Cleaner?

The vision of the future sketched by Senator Von Zeppelin certainly sounds idyllic, but what about his claim that Zeppelins are fundamentally better for the environment than traditional aircraft? After all, they still have to cover the same distance, while the journey may take up to eight times as long. Surely on balance the level of air pollution must be more or less the same?

"A Zeppelin doesn't use any fuel at all to stay airborne. The gas that makes the whole craft lighter than air takes care of that. This reduces fuel consumption by half, thereby reducing emissions of greenhouse gas CO2 to the same extent.
Secondly, the new generation Zeppelin NT runs on ordinary diesel engines with soot filters, and they cause far less pollution than jet engines that burn kerosene."

Devil's advocate

But this claim is disputed by Dr Alexander de Haan, a researcher in sustainable technology at Delft University of Technology. In his opinion, airships are not so clean after all.

Dr De Haan put forward this argument at the same symposium on the sustainability of airships at Rotterdam Airport. He was invited to attend as a kind of devil's advocate, the man who was supposed to ensure the requisite level of scientific objectivity.

But in Dr De Haan, Senator Von Zeppelin and the other airship advocates probably got more than they bargained for. Especially when he went on to dismiss the argument that the diesel Zeppelins fly on is relatively clean.
Quieter

But Wolfgang von Zeppelin is not one to admit defeat so easily. He points out that airships produce much less noise than traditional aircraft and that this too is a form of environmental pollution. And then there is the fact that the airship takes up far less space on the ground. No need for a runway: a humble meadow is enough to facilitate take-off and landing.

'Soft' tourism

In addition, there is also the possibility of enabling people to visit vulnerable areas of natural beauty without the risk of causing any damage. Sightseers can hover above tropical rainforests or glacial lakes without causing any disturbance to the ecosystem.
There is not even the danger of a discarded Coke can falling to the ground, since the cabin is completely closed at all times. For these reasons, Senator Von Zeppelin and his backers believe they are justified in promoting their airships in the name of 'soft' or ecologically sound tourism.

Some Battles Last a Lifetime

The one enduring lesson to be learned about warfare is that the war had better be worth it. The costs always fall disproportionately on a few. For those few, the war never ends. At a minimum we owe it to them to do whatever we can as a nation and a people to ensure that they have everything necessary to redeem what they can from their future lives.

Wounded warriors face home-front battle with VA

Ty Ziegel lost an arm, part of his skull when he was attacked in Iraq
VA initially rated his brain injury at 0%, meaning he got no compensation for it
Another vet: VA rejected his claim, saying his wounds were "not service connected"
Ziegel: "I want to make the VA system better"


WASHINGTON, Illinois (CNN) --

Ty Ziegel peers from beneath his Marine Corps baseball cap, his once boyish face burned beyond recognition by a suicide bomber's attack in Iraq just three days before Christmas 2004.


Ty Ziegel, a Marine, was badly wounded in Iraq. He battled the VA over disability benefits when he returned.

He lost part of his skull in the blast and part of his brain was damaged. Half of his left arm was amputated and some of the fingers were blown off his right hand.

Ziegel, a 25-year-old Marine sergeant, knew the dangers of war when he was deployed for his second tour in Iraq.

But he didn't expect a new battle when he returned home as a wounded warrior: a fight with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Watch Ziegel display his model skull »

"Sometimes, you get lost in the system," he told CNN. "I feel like a Social Security number. I don't feel like Tyler Ziegel."

His story is one example of how medical advances in the battlefield have outpaced the home front. Many wounded veterans return home feeling that the VA system, specifically its 62-year-old disability ratings system, has failed them. See photos of these Iraq war heroes »

"The VA system is not ready, and they simply don't have time to catch up," Tammy Duckworth -- herself a wounded veteran who heads up the Illinois Department of Veteran Affairs -- told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee in March.

VA Acting Secretary Gordon Mansfield said cases like Ziegel's are rare -- that the majority of veterans are moving through the process and "being taken care of." He also said most veterans are fairly compensated.

"Any veteran with the same issue, if it's a medical disability, ... it is going to get the same exact result anywhere in our system," he said.

More than 28,500 troops have been wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including about 8,500 that have needed air transport, according to the U.S. military.

A recent Harvard study found that the cost of caring for those wounded over the course of their lifetime could ultimately cost more than $660 billion....

more here

Sarkozy Rolls the Dice

A Stratfor analyst says Sarkozy is more popular at this point in his term of office than any French President since DeGaulle. He better be. The power of his presidency could be riding on the outcome. So far, the French public seems to be sympathetic to Sarkozy's call to increase the Transport Union workers retirement age from 50 years old. But, if these strikes continue for weeks on end, Sarkozy's government could fall, leaving him as a four year lame duck President.

French transport strike bites

Friday, October 19, 2007
PARIS - Agence France-Presse

French commuters struggled to work yesterday as public sector workers put President Nicolas Sarkozy's reform agenda to the test with a 24 hour strike in defense of pensions privileges.

With nearly three-quarters of railway staff joining the action, nationwide rail traffic was at a near standstill with just 46 TGV high-speed trains running out of the normal 700. The Paris metro and bus networks laid on only a skeleton service.

Police reported 165 kilometers (100 miles) of traffic jams on access roads into the capital - twice the normal amount. Many walked or rode bicycles to work.

Tourists found several Paris museums shut, including the Musee d'Orsay and most of the Louvre, while the Opera de Paris and Comedie Francaise theatre cancelled evening performances.

Striking electricity workers also cut off supply to La Lanterne, an official residence in the grounds of the palace of Versailles.

Crucial timing:

The strike came as France prepared to host Saturday's final of the Rugby World Cup, with tens of thousands of British and South African fans due in Paris. State rail operator SNCF assured supporters that Eurostar services will be normal from today.

Street demonstrations were being held in some 60 towns and cities, as trade unions try to force Sarkozy to drop plans to reform France's "special" pension systems enjoyed by 1.6 million rail, energy and other workers.

The president has begun moves to lengthen contribution periods for these workers from 37.5 years to 40, closer in line with other public and private sector employees. Currently some railway staff can retire on a full pension at the age of 50.

The protest movement is seen as the first major challenge to Sarkozy, who has promised a root-and-branch overhaul of the country's economy and society.

Juppe's defeat:

The last time a government tried to change the "special" pensions regimes was in 1995, when then prime minister Alain Juppe was forced into a humiliating climbdown by weeks of strikes and street protests.

But Sarkozy's government insists that conditions have moved on in the last 12 years and that most French people now accept the reform.

"We are ready to listen to the fears and anxieties and try to respond to them. But the increased contribution period is something on which we will not give way," said government spokesman Laurent Wauquiez.

But Bernard Thibault of the General Labor Confederation (CGT) said that the strikers had been forced to take action by the government's intransigence.

"The people who decided to go on strike did so because they had no choice. The government never created the conditions for dialogue, for negotiation, for setting out the future of their pensions," he said.

Unions were to meet Monday to decide on whether to stage more strikes.

Rail strikes hit Germany

BERLIN - Reuters

German commuters struggled with major disruptions for the second time in a week yesterday as train drivers struck again to back pay demands.

The drivers' union GDL began walkouts on regional services across Germany at 2 a.m. (midnight GMT), intensifying a dispute with rail operator Deutsche Bahn that has dragged on for months. The strike ended at 11 a.m. (0900 GMT).

As the morning rush hour got under way, only about half the regional and urban "S-Bahn" commuter trains were in service across the country, Deutsche Bahn passenger service chief Karl-Friedrich Rausch told reporters in Frankfurt.

© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr

*****

So, for Sarkozy, a win means he can move ahead with his herculean task of implementing modernising reform in the most socialist and recalcitrant country of "Old Europe." As Stratfor put it, the Unions are actually "striking Sarkozy" who has everything to lose and little to show for a win. In other words, his payout may be at 6:5. We don't know much the public confidence in Sarkozy's pocket is worth. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. A win against the Transport Unions means he can stay in the game a while longer. But if he loses big, he may be forced to stand and watch while others play the game. Gentlemen, place your bets.

Stratfor Report

Russian Organized Crime

By Fred Burton and Dan Burges

When the dust settled following a bus explosion in Togliatti, Russia, on Oct. 31, few explanations emerged as to who was responsible for the attack, which killed eight people and injured at least 50. Although terrorism is a possibility, two leading theories place the blame on Russian organized crime.

One such theory suggests that a person (or people) riding the bus was a target of the Russian mob and the other casualties simply collateral damage. Though this act might seem excessive, Russian organized crime has a history of ensuring that it eliminates its targets through excessive use of explosives. A second theory is that Russian organized crime targeted the bus itself as retribution against the bus company, perhaps because the company refused to pay protection money to the mob.

Given the speculation, it is a good time to explore the nature of Russia's crime syndicates and to examine just how far they reach and the lengths they will go to ensure that they maintain an iron grip on the enterprises under their control.

The Network

Russian organized crime is an intricate network throughout Russian society whose operations include extortion, fraud, cargo theft, prostitution, drug- and arms-trafficking and more. The Russian mafia has penetrated business and state-run enterprises to a degree unheard of anywhere in the Western world, a fact that start-up firms soon discover. Moreover, its reach in the business realm extends throughout the former Soviet Union.

Unlike the normal situation in civilized societies, there is no clear distinction in Russia between criminal enterprises and the government. In fact, criminal organizations and their leadership often have direct ties to oligarchs and others in positions of power. In order to conduct business in Russia, companies are finding that dealings with the government lead directly to dealings with thugs demanding pay, not for product or services but for protection and other vague promises, including "permission" to conduct business. The protection they are purchasing, however, is from the people they are paying.

When demands are not met or lines are crossed, the result often is a violent and bloody death, regardless of who erred or what sin he committed. In the fall of 2006, a rash of mob-related murders occurred in Russia, often targeting high-profile Russian businessmen in the financial and banking sectors. Contract killings, car bombs, planted explosives and even death by wood chipper are techniques in the Russian mob's repertoire, as would be expected in a country in which "incitement to commit suicide" is a crime.

The Roots of Organized Crime

Corruption in the Soviet Union was bred largely by a state-run economy that left citizens lacking basic goods. Small groups of entrepreneurs emerged to provide items otherwise not available -- and the black market was born. During the transitional period to the Russian Federation, however, organized crime was called upon to facilitate reform in the region -- and the line between business and the criminal underworld became significantly more blurred, perhaps even nonexistent. The new Russian government, however, felt that combating such corruption, at least in the initial stages, would hinder the shift to capitalism.

The social, political and economic crises in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union have caused significant concern in the West, though the connection between Russia's dilemmas and organized crime is not often acknowledged. Moreover, since the Iron Curtain fell, Russian organized crime groups have used the economic reforms and crises to increase their wealth and influence. When then-President Boris Yeltsin called Russia the "biggest mafia state in the world" and "the superpower of crime" in 1994, even he probably had little idea that the situation would only worsen -- particularly in the late 1990s. According to a 1997 report on Russian organized crime by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Western intelligence agencies had proof that the ruling oligarchy protected organized crime syndicates.

In 1992, when Russia began to privatize state property, Russian organized crime groups snapped up the assets. This not only helped to expand and solidify the emerging relationship between the state and organized crime but also gave the crime groups tremendous economic and political power -- as the property gave the criminal organizations direct access to the Russian government. Over the years, organized crime also has conducted certain functions of the government, including dividing territory among competing economic actors, regulating business markets, imposing "taxes" (protection fees) and setting up tariffs, legitimizing the Mafia in the eyes of many Russians as a type of de facto government. Many of the organization's actions are enforced through violence or other forms of coercion -- and it is that propensity for violence that brings organized crime in conflict with the state.

Russian organized crime developed from four main centers of criminality. The first was the historical criminal elite in Russia, the Vory v zakone (thieves-in-law), which was primarily made up of common criminals. This group has been around since before the Soviet Union and has established its own code of conduct and organization.

A second central group was formed by corrupt Communist Party members, government officials and businessmen of the Soviet elite who abused their positions and established mutually beneficial relations with criminal groups. They operated through bribery, payoffs and an underground barter economy. The high profiles of many members of this group and their actions throughout the Soviet era laid the groundwork for the corruption and criminality that followed the collapse of the Soviet system, especially since many of them remained in positions of power. Additionally, former KGB, Spetsnaz commandos and other government officials continue to provide a significant amount of expertise to the Russian mob, including intelligence operations, weapons and demolitions training, as well as operational security techniques.

Another center of organized crime is rooted in Russia's various ethnic and national groups. Among the most influential are the Chechens, Armenians, Azeris, Dagestanis, Georgians and Ingush. These ethnic-based groups are active throughout Russia, as well as in Central Eurasia, and are considered the most violent of criminal groups. Unlike in the United States, however, most organized crime groups in Russia are not based on ethnicity.

The largest of the four centers is a compilation of disparate criminal associations, some controlling a certain geographical sector, others engaging in only one kind of criminal activity and still others with shared experiences, common membership in a sports club or a common leader. These groups operate as organized crime, though they also could be classified under the U.S. definition of a gang.

The diversity of organized crime in Russia is one of the main challenges to fighting it, mainly because it is increasingly difficult to adopt a single approach to the different problems each organization presents. Furthermore, because of the relationships between the government and organized criminal groups, the state finds itself in the unique position of trying to fight the very groups with which it is collaborating.

Unlike groups such as La Cosa Nostra, Russian organized crime cannot be diagrammed using the typical pyramid structure. This is because Russian organized crime is made up of gangs that act autonomously for the most part and have only loose ties to regional, national or international networks. This is where the media portrayal of the monolithic "Russian Mafia" diverges from reality because Russian organized criminal groups are not distinct, centralized entities, and they usually lack the membership rules and codes of honor described in most mafia stories.

Expansion

Organized crime is a problem in many parts of the former Soviet Union, including Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Ukraine -- much of it originating in Russia. Russian organized crime initially moved from Russia into Eastern Europe and from there into Western Europe, eventually landing in the Western Hemisphere (specifically the United States). Moreover, there are indications that the Russian organized crime sphere of influence now includes Latin America and the Caribbean.

Reports from Interpol and other law enforcement agencies indicate that a variety of Russian criminal organizations, including Poldolskaya, Tambovskaya, Mazukinskaya and Izamailovskaya, have moved into Mexico, operating through multiple small cells and engaging in a wide variety of criminal enterprises. These groups, among others, are known to engage in extortion, prostitution and trafficking in drugs, arms and humans, as well as kidnapping and credit card fraud. Links between Russian organized criminal groups and one or more of the principal Mexican criminal organizations have allowed the Russians to obtain and transport illicit narcotics at a low cost and under relatively secure circumstances for shipment to Europe and Russia. In order to maintain low profiles in Mexico, these groups often operate out of resorts owned by their Mexican business partners.

U.S. law enforcement also has established links between Russian organized crime in the United States and La Cosa Nostra. The two groups appear to be cooperating in such ventures as gambling, prostitution, fraud and extortion. The Russian Mafia is responsible for vice operations from Miami to Tokyo to the Persian Gulf, and it also is deeply tied into Turkish and Israeli organized crime, most of which came from Russia. Additionally, Russian organized crime groups reportedly have been involved in such enterprises as drug trafficking, money laundering and counterfeiting with several other international organized crime groups, including the Sicilian Mafia, the Camorra, the Japanese Yakuza, Chinese Triads, Turkish drug traffickers and Colombian drug cartels.

The Challenge Ahead

With the arrest in August of Vladimir Barsukov, leader of the Tambov crime group, the Russian government took the first step toward cracking down on organized crime -- though the move could have been motivated by internal politics or business. Although ridding Russia of organized crime is probably impossible, if there ever was a time to begin the process, now could be it. Russian President Vladimir Putin might just be powerful enough to attack the Russian Mafia and begin to dismantle its operations from the inside out -- with the government happily taking the pieces -- and he might be able to do so without direct retribution against himself.

With powerful allies (and members) of the Russian mob operating at the highest levels of government, Putin would need to begin with internal housecleaning, forcing those members who abuse their positions for reasons of money and power to choose their loyalty. The most significant source of power for the Russian mob is its connections within the government, and destroying those connections would be a huge feather in Putin's cap.

With hundreds of small groups operating with relative independence and very little formal structure, however, Russian organized crime will not simply collapse should the bosses be taken into custody. Also, with the expansion of the Russian mafia into numerous countries, its members literally can run from the law like rats from a fire. They will find holes to operate in, means for monetary income and illicit activities by which to maintain their chosen lifestyles. Therefore, should Moscow attempt serious overt actions against Russian organized crime families, it will be a critical first step down a long, hard -- and very bloody -- path.

*****

reprinted by permission of Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com.

The Islamic Hymen. Putting Buttons on Broken Zippers

WOMEN GET 'VIRGINITY FIX' NHS OPERATIONS IN MUSLIM-DRIVEN TREND This is London
15.11.07

Women are being given controversial "virginity repair" operations on the NHS, it emerged last night.

Taxpayers funded 24 hymen replacement operations between 2005 and 2006, official figures revealed.

And increasing numbers of women are paying up to £4,000 in private clinics for the procedure apparently under pressure from future spouses or in-laws who believe they should be virgins on their wedding night.
Doctors said most patients are immigrants or British of ethnic origin.


The popularity of the operation is said to be the result of social regression caused by Islamic fundamentalism

The trend has been condemned by critics as a sign of social regression driven by Islamic fundamentalists. Some countries have made hymen reconstruction operations illegal.

Dr Magdy Hend, consultant gynaecologist at the Regency Clinic, Harley Street, London, who started hymen reconstruction more than 18 years ago in the Middle East and the Gulf, said: "In some cultures they like to see that the women will bleed on the wedding night. If the wife or bride is not a virgin, it is a big shame on the family."

Dr Hend said he was surprised by the "very good response" to the service and said there is "big competition on the market".

Most of his clients, he told More4 News, are in their teens or early 20s.
"They might be British of ethnic background, they might be immigrants, or some people come from abroad, Asia, Middle East, the Gulf, and they don't want to have it done back home," he added.

Dr Hend said demand is increasing, particularly from UK residents.
The operation can involve suturing of a tear in the hymen, such as might be caused by sexual assault, to help healing.

But it can also be conducted as a purely cosmetic procedure. A membrane is constructed, sometimes including a capsule of an artificial blood-like substance.
This operation is intended to be performed within a few days before an intended marriage.

Tory health spokesman Mike Penning expressed concern.
He said: "If there is any cultural or other pressure being put on the women from any source to have this done, that would be a very retrograde step.
"If a woman has been violated or raped and lost her virginity, clearly everything possible should be done to assist her.

"But what nobody would understand is if taxpayers' money is being used to fund operations of this kind for cultural or cosmetic reasons."

Labour MP Ann Cryer said she was "absolutely horrified" to learn of the phenomenon.
She added: "We should be trying to protect girls from this.

"It is a form of abuse of women and it may be that the woman who is asking for the operation to be done does not recognise the abuse that is taking place against her, but in later life she certainly will.

"We have to also ask whether our National Health Service should be providing this sort of facility. I don't think it should be available on the NHS."
The Department of Health said "certain cosmetic procedures" are available on the NHS "to secure physical or psychological health".

Virginity repair operations have become a source of controversy in France, where gynaecologists report a growing number of requests from women.

The procedure is supposed to be funded by the state only if the patient claims she has been raped. But some doctors agree to carry it out for cultural or cosmetic reasons.

Isabelle Levy, an author who studied the issue for her book Religion in the Hospital, said young Muslim girls are "modern and they have adventures like other Europeans - which never happened in the past.

"But on the other hand, fundamentalism is spreading and these girls are getting sent back to their countries of origin to marry. And they will be rejected if it is found out that they are not virgins."

Pakistan Coup, Mid-term Review

Does he take his coffee black?

Some people are better at coups than others. The Russians always seemed good at these sort of things as they were particularly vicious and clumsy at crushing dissent. The clumsiness part always seemed to work well because it served the purpose of dishing out lots of collateral damage which had a colon cleansing effect on nosy civilians. You can always tell a good coup by studying the street litter and the degree of emptiness on the streets. Empty streets well sprinkled with discarded shoes and other personal affects are always good signs. Think Tianeneman square. Streets, crowded with thousands of lawyers in Armani Knock-offs, is not the same and does not have the desired panache.

Successful coups require brutal simplicity, a large black coffee approach. The Pakistani coup has more of a "marble mocha macchiato with skim milk" feel to it. I am sure you agree.

Responding to internal or external threats is always a good idea for a coup. It provides justification and virtue. Musharraf may be getting around to that part.

Overall I give him a "D-" on his coup, but finals are coming and we shall see.

Army claims Pakistan rebel deaths BBC

Militants in Swat maintain a highly visible profile

At least 33 militants have been killed in clashes between the army and pro-Taleban rebels in north-western Pakistan, the military has said.
The troops attacked rebel positions in the mountains of Swat using helicopter gunships and artillery.

Two soldiers were also killed in the attack, the army said.

Located near the country's restive tribal area along the Afghan border, Swat has been the scene of recent clashes between the two sides.

The authorities say there are fears that the Swat valley is becoming a haven for al-Qaeda and the Taleban and last month the army sent reinforcements to the area.

Shelling

The men were killed on Wednesday in a series of attacks in Swat, a valley about 160kms (100 miles) northwest of the capital, Islamabad, army spokesman Maj Gen Waheed Arshad said.

"Helicopters were used in the operation. They shelled known militant positions on hill tops," he said.

"In one incident a vehicle carrying 17 militants was targeted, the vehicle fell from a hilltop and all were killed. They were militants, there is no doubt, they had arms," he added.

Officials said the dead militants were loyal to a pro-Taleban rebel cleric, Maulana Fazlullah.

An army statement said militants fired six mortar rounds on Wednesday at the airport near Mingora, the region's main town, killing two troops and injuring five more.

Ringed by mountains, the Swat Valley is a scenic area traditionally popular with tourists, but has been overrun by militants in recent times.

An Airbus A380 is Green? Launching into Carbon Nirvana.

A lean green machine?

Perhaps they mean the green upholstery.

You really have to see this ad to understand how absurd big corporations think we are. There is nothing green about a monster airplane screaming down a massive concrete airstrip blowing out carbon based molecules from four fire breathing volcanic sized engines. 

It is an airplane. A lean green machine it is not.

PS: Boeing is no better.

People of New York Kick Spitzer's Sorry Ass

Spitzer to Drop His License Plan

By DANNY HAKIM
Published: November 13, 2007

ALBANY, Nov. 13 — Gov. Eliot Spitzer is abandoning his plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, saying that opposition is just too overwhelming to move forward with such a policy.

The governor, who is to announce the move formally on Wednesday, said in an interview Tuesday night that he did not reach the decision easily. “You have perhaps seen me struggle with it because I thought we had a principled decision, and it’s not necessarily easy to back away from trying to move a debate forward,” he said.

But he came to believe the proposal would ultimately be blocked, he said, either by legal challenges, a vote by the Legislature to deny funding for the Department of Motor Vehicles or a refusal by upstate county clerks to carry it out.

“I am not willing to fight to the bitter end on something that will not ultimately be implemented,” the governor said, “and we also have an enormous agenda on other issues of great importance to New York State that was being stymied by the constant and almost singular focus on this issue.”

Mr. Spitzer’s plan touched off a national debate over whether issuing licenses to illegal immigrants would make the state more secure or improperly extend a privilege to them that should be reserved for those here legally.

Opposition to the proposal sent his poll numbers plunging and completely stalled his broader agenda.

The decision is likely to be a relief to many of his fellow Democrats in Albany and in Washington, who feared the issue could haunt them into next year’s election season.

In the interview, the governor sounded disappointed but resigned. He acknowledged that he would be criticized for changing course on the issue for the second time in three weeks (“You think so?” he said facetiously when a reporter suggested as much).

“Part of leadership is listening to the public’s opposition,” he said. “Having heard that, and assessed the realities of implementing this policy, part of leadership is realizing that getting results is more important than sticking to what may be a principled position.”

Mr. Spitzer first unveiled his initiative in September, when he announced that the Department of Motor Vehicles would begin issuing driver’s licenses without regard to immigration status and said he wanted to bring illegal immigrants “out of the shadows.”

But the proposal, which was formulated with scant consultation with other politicians, set off a backlash far greater than the administration had anticipated.

So late last month, the governor shifted course and said the state would offer three tiers of licenses: a limited driver’s license that illegal immigrants could obtain, which could not be used for boarding planes or crossing borders; a secure, federally recognized license known as Real ID, which would be available only to legal residents; and an even more secure identification for people who travel across the border to Canada frequently, which would comply with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

But the revised plan pleased almost no one.

On Tuesday night, the governor said the state would make the third tier of license available for frequent border crossers, and continue offering the same driver’s license it offers now, but not extend eligibility for it to illegal immigrants.

He said the state would put on hold the plan to adopt the Real ID, which has been championed by the Bush administration. The governor said he wanted to wait until federal regulations for Real ID licenses were issued next year before deciding how to proceed.

Mr. Spitzer’s abandoning of his plan comes as a poll released Tuesday by Siena College found that seven in 10 New York voters who had heard about the plan — and more than 80 percent of the 625 registered voters polled had — opposed it. It also found that for the first time, more people viewed the governor unfavorably than favorably.

The governor and his aides said that they were not reacting to the slumping poll numbers, but acting pragmatically. That the dispute had even tripped up Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who stumbled to answer a question about it in a presidential debate, “was symptomatic of where we were,” he said.

“The issue was gaining traction not based on thoughtful discourse, but based on sound bites and less than careful analysis,” he added.

Mr. Spitzer’s latest shift is likely to further complicate his relations with Hispanic lawmakers, who heartily supported his original policy but were upset when he moved to a three-tier system. Some felt that offering a lesser tier of license to illegal immigrants would stigmatize them and attract the suspicions of law enforcement.

“I stood up on a very tough issue,” the governor said. “I may not have succeeded in implementing the policy they desired, but I didn’t hesitate to stand up when not many have done so.”

The governor said he hoped the storm would pass and that the state would be able to begin tackling other issues. Even before the license plan was unveiled, he and Republican lawmakers were locked in a standoff, some of it over policy but much of it the result of a feud between the governor and Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader.

Asked how his new position would be received, Mr. Spitzer responded: “The reaction will be what it is.”

More Sense of a New Direction on Iran.

November 13, 2007

Is World War III on Hold?

By Patrick Buchanan

Is a Bush pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz, or on the Al Quds force of the Revolutionary Guard, a more remote possibility today than it was several weeks ago?

So it would seem.

The latest indication is a candid interview in the Financial Times with Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, head of Central Command, who would be the Tommy Franks of any naval or air war on Iran.

"The Pentagon is not preparing a pre-emptive attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers," concluded the FT in the lead of its story.


Dealing with Iran is a "challenge," a strike is not "in the offing," Fallon is quoted. His comments, said the Times, "served as a shot across the bows of hawks who argue for imminent action."

"(G)enerally, the bellicose comments" out of Washington "are not particularly helpful," said our CentCom commander. That is naval gunfire directed right across the bow of the West Wing.

For the ranking man in Washington said to be arguing loudest for imminent action is Dick Cheney. And the most "bellicose comments" about Iran coming out of Washington have come from George W. Bush.

Here, again, is Bush at the American Legion Convention:

"Iran ... is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. ... Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. ... Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. ... Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

Last month, Bush ventured further, "(I)f you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

If terms like "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" are not "bellicose rhetoric," what is?

Why might the administration be backing away from war on Iran?

First, Pakistan. With a nation of 170 million with nuclear weapons in a political crisis that could lead to civil war, igniting a war with Iran would seem suicidal -- especially with the war in Iraq about to enter its sixth year this spring and the war in Afghanistan about to enter its seventh year next month.

Second, there is no guarantee U.S. air strikes could denuclearize Iran, except temporarily. Bombs cannot destroy knowledge. And Iran has been gaining knowledge for years on how to enrich uranium. Moreover, Iran has surely secreted away many of the centrifuges it has constructed, far from the Natanz plant -- ground zero -- where 2,000 or 3,000 are said to be operating.

Third, no one can predict where an attack on Iran will lead. While the United States could smash all known nuclear facilities, Iran could ship IEDs, sniper rifles and surface-to-air missiles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and send in thousands of Revolutionary Guard and cause chaos in the Gulf that would double or treble the price of oil, setting off a worldwide recession. Sleeper cells could retaliate for Iranian casualties with suicide bombings at U.S. malls.

We went into Iraq and Afghanistan without an exit strategy. In Iran, other than the naval and air strikes of the first weeks, we do not know how or where the war would go. We do know the Iranians have been preparing surprises.

Fourth, Congress seems to have found its voice, and 30 senators have written to inform President Bush that he does not have the authority, absent an Iranian attack on U.S. forces, to launch a war on Iran. While Rudy Giuliani and John McCain remain hawkish, the Democratic candidates are moving in the other direction.

Fifth, there has been a downturn in roadside attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, suggesting Iran may no longer be supplying the enhanced IEDs. And U.S. forces have released several Iranians held captive in Iraq. There may be progress behind the scenes, as both countries could suffer horribly in a war.

We are not out of the woods yet. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling the truth about those 3,000 centrifuges working perfectly, Iran could have the nuclear material for a single bomb in a year. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports this month on whether Iran is meeting its commitments to come clean. It is not. And the European Union will report on whether the sanctions have succeeded, or failed. And the latter is the case.

And there are those in Tehran who would relish U.S. strikes, to unite the nation against us and consolidate the mullahs' power.

Nevertheless, the forces against war now and for negotiations with Tehran -- Condi Rice, Robert Gates, the Pentagon brass, the most outspoken of the retired military and NATO Europe -- seem to be gaining the ascendancy in the last great battle of the Bush presidency.

And the War Party, which began its propaganda offensive around Labor Day, seems to have shot its bolt. For now.

Hillary and Rudy Slipping... Now Another New Yorker?

Bloomberg Teams with Nancy Reagan

Monday, November 12, 2007 12:17 PM

By: Newsmax Staff

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is meeting this week with Nancy Reagan and hosting a fundraiser for the Ronald Reagan Library — and political observers say the link between the two would be a boost for Bloomberg if he runs for president.

Ronald Reagan’s name is frequently invoked on the GOP campaign trail and Republican candidates sought to link themselves to his legacy during the first GOP debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., in May.

If Bloomberg does decide to run as an independent, “his only real chance of winning is to attract people from across the spectrum,” Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, told the New York Sun.

“This certainly is one way to get the attention of Republicans. There are going to be a certain number of Republicans disgruntled with the nominee, no matter who it is.”

Bloomberg left the Republican Party in June, sparking speculation that he was positioning himself for a presidential run as an independent.

Bloomberg and Nancy Reagan share an interest in stem cell research. Last year Bloomberg donated $100 million to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, much of which was earmarked to fund stem cell research, Reuters reported.

Nancy Reagan became a vocal proponent for the research after her husband developed Alzheimer’s disease, which is opposed by many conservatives.

Political consultant Joseph Mercurio told the Sun that Bloomberg’s meeting with the former first lady at his Manhattan townhouse and the Reagan Library fundraiser are part of a schedule that increasingly suggests he is eyeing a White House run.

He will speak Friday at a National League of Cities convention in New Orleans, and is planning a trip to the Bali in Indonesia to attend a U.N. summit on climate change in December.

Hosting the Reagan Library fundraiser and being photographed with Nancy Reagan, Mercurio said, “sounds like a very good thing to be doing if you are a presidential candidate.”

© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Heather Mills Porn Star. What Was Paul McCartney Thinking?

How could a man with so much money and resources not have known about this before he married her?

Trish said: "Think we chipped those eleven Iranian returnees?"

Robert "Bud" McFarlane's favorite recipe.

UPDATE and COMMENT:

Based on comments by Condi Rice, the reported discussions between Chancellor Merkel of Germany with President Bush and a joint statement this afternoon from the German and French leaders calling for Russia and China to help increase pressure on Iran over its disputed nuclear program, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy saying that Teheran must get "no nuclear weapon," it is clear a deal is in the works.

Sarkozy recently has led European calls for tougher sanctions against Iran over its defiance of UN Security Council demands to halt uranium enrichment, which could be used both to generate nuclear power and create the fissile core of warheads. Sarkozy said as much in the address to Congress and in reported discussions during his Washington visit.

France has suggested new European Union economic sanctions against Iran. Chancellor Angela Merkel has made clear that Germany wants to concentrate on negotiating sanctions at the UN.

Merkel said after the two countries' Cabinets held a twice-yearly meeting that there was "a very great level of agreement" on Iran. 

The US military is very reluctant to get involved with a difficult war with Iran while it is engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. With rising oil prices, a falling dollar, a heating up of the US election process, it is evident that every effort short of war will be used to make a deal.

The continued belligerence of Vladimir Putin has probably added to the developing European view that a stronger relationship with the United States, based on diplomacy and negotiation, without taking a military option off the table, has the best chance at success.

US strike on Iran ‘not being prepared’

By Demetri Sevastopulo, Daniel Dombey and Andrew Ward in Washington
Published: November 12 2007 00:01 | Last updated: November 12 2007 00:01
Financial Times

The Pentagon is not preparing a pre-emptive attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers.

Admiral William Fallon, head of Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, told the Financial Times that while dealing with Iran was a “challenge”, a strike was not “in the offing”.


“None of this is helped by the continuing stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war which is just not where we want to go,” he said.

“Getting Iranian behaviour to change and finding ways to get them to come to their senses and do that is the real objective. Attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice in my book.”

Adm Fallon did not rule out the possibility of a strike at some point. But his comments served as a shot across the bows of hawks who are arguing for imminent action. They also echoed the views of the senior brass that military action is currently unnecessary, and should only be considered as an absolute last resort.

In recent months, President George W. Bush and his top officials have made a string of tough statements that have fuelled speculation that the US was preparing to strike Iran over its nuclear programme. Adm Fallon declined to comment specifically on whether the US rhetoric was feeding the speculation, but said that “generally, the bellicose comments are not particularly helpful”.

“That said we have to make sure that there is no mistake here on the part of the Iranians about our resolve in tending to business in the region,” said Adm Fallon. “There has got to be some combination of strength and willingness to engage. How to come up with the right combination of that is the real trick.”

Several senior active and retired miltary officers told the FT that the Pentagon believes striking Iran at this point would be a strategic mistake, as even a limited air strike could spark a broader conflict.

“The US might think in terms of a limited strike but military officers like to point out that the enemy has a vote,” said Jo-Anne Hart, an Iran expert at Brown University who consults for the military. Retired General Anthony Zinni, a former Centcom commander, said the US military was “stretched too thin” to fight a protracted war with Iran.

Retired Gen John Abizaid, who preceeded Adm Fallon, recently said the US should avoid a war with Iran, which would be “devastating for everybody”. He added that the US should do everything to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon, but said Washington could live with that outcome if it happened.

In another sign that the Pentagon is trying to reduce tensions with Iran, the US military this week released nine Iranians it had been holding in Iraq. The move came after Robert Gates, defence secretary, confirmed that Tehran had told the Iraqi government it would be willing to stop sending weapons to militias in Iraq.

Speaking to the FT before the release, Adm Fallon said there had “certainly been a downturn” in roadside bomb attacks on US forces, but that the “jury is still out” on whether Iran had reduced its support for militias in Iraq.

“We need to see them do something along the lines of ‘we are serious about having a dialogue’ and then maybe we can do something,” he added.

the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month

Armistice Day

In June of 1914 Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, Serbia. The Austro-Hungarian empire wanted to extradite the killer, but Serbia refused.

• 28 July 1914: Austria declared war on Serbia.
• 1 August 1914: Germany declared war on Russsia.
• 3 August 1914: Germany declared war on France. WWI had begun.
• 4 August 1914: Britain declares war on Germany.
• 11 November 1918: It ended on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.
  

*****

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

3071

Whereas it has long been our customs to commemorate November 11, the anniversary of the ending of World War I, by paying tribute to the heroes of that tragic struggle and by rededicating ourselves to the cause of peace; and Whereas in the intervening years, the United States has been involved in two other great military conflicts, which have added millions of veterans living and dead to the honor rolls of this Nation; and

Whereas the Congress passed a concurrent resolution on June 4, 1926 (44 Stat. 1982), calling for the observance of November 11 with appropriate ceremonies, and later provided in an act approved May 13, 1938 (52 Stat. 351) , that the eleventh of November should be a legal holiday and should be known as Armistice Day; and

Whereas, in order to expand the significance of that commemoration and in order that a grateful Nation might pay appropriate homage to the veterans of all its wars who have contributed so much to the preservation of this Nation, the Congress, by an act approved June 1, 1954 (68 Stat. 168), changed the name of the holiday to Veterans Day:

Now, Therefore, I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America , do hereby call upon all of our citizens to observe Thursday, November 11, 1954 , as Veterans Day. On that day let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain.

I also direct the appropriate officials of the Government to arrange for the display of the flag of the United States on all public buildings on Veterans Day.

In order to insure proper and widespread observance of this anniversary, all veterans, all veterans' organizations, and the entire citizenry will wish to join hands in the common purpose.

Toward this end, I am designating the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs as Chairman of a Veterans Day National Committee, which shall include such other persons as the Chairman may select, and which will coordinate at the national level necessary planning for the observance. I am also requesting the heads of all departments and agencies of the Executive branch of the Government to assist the National Committee in every way possible.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and cause the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this eighth day of October in the Year of our Lord nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and seventy-ninth.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

Iraq to US: Hold the Helicopters Please.

Very, very interesting. A small news snippet from a source that has hardly been a cheerleader for the US mission in Iraq. That part of giving advance notice to the Iraqi police and requesting no US Helicopters is very telling.

Ex-Sunni insurgents clash with al-Qaeda DW
NEWS | 11.11.2007 | 10:00 UTC

At least 18 people have been killed in heavy fighting between former Sunni insurgents and members of al-Qaida in Iraq. Sixteen militants were captured. Fighters of the Islamic Army in Iraq staged the surprise attack Friday afternoon near Samarra, north of Baghdad, sending advance word to Iraqi police and requesting that US helicopters stay away. Much of the Islamic Army in Iraq has joined the US-led fight against al-Qaida in Iraq, along with Sunni tribesmen and other former insurgents repelled by the terror group's brutality and extremism.

The Real Islamic Nuclear Threat

“Securing the Bomb 2007”, a report by Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government on behalf of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-proliferation advocacy group, concluded that Pakistan posed a serious challenge to efforts to prevent terrorist groups from obtaining nuclear weapons.

It said Pakistan’s relatively small nuclear stockpile faced “huge threats” from al-Qaeda and other jihadi terrorist groups, as well as from insiders with a demonstrated willingness to sell sensitive nuclear technology throughout the world and proven sympathy for extreme jihadi causes.

Officials fail to ease nuclear threat fears
By Jo Johnson and Farhan Bokhari Financial Times
Published: November 8 2007 18:20 | Last updated: November 9 2007 02:24

Pakistani intelligence officials on Thursday dismissed suggestions that the country’s nuclear arsenal could be at risk of falling into terrorist hands in the volatile political climate created by General Pervez Musharraf’s imposition of a state of emergency and brushed aside concerns expressed by a senior US general and Nicolas Sarkozy, French president .

“Pakistan has come a long way since the A.Q. Khan episode,” one senior Pakistani official told the Financial Times, referring to the illicit trade in nuclear secrets conducted by Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist that was exposed in 2004. “The problem is that the west doesn’t believe us. No matter how much we clarify, they will still suspect our intentions.”

Hasan Askari Rizvi, a defence analyst and former visiting professor of Pakistan studies at Columbia University, said mounting instability was bound to trigger fresh international concerns for the security of the country’s nuclear assets: “If we head towards growing confrontation on the streets, there is bound to be growing global pressure on Pakistan on the nuclear front.”

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Lieutenant General Carter Ham, director of operations for the US joint chiefs of staff, said the Pentagon was watching developments in Pakistan closely. “Any time there is a nation that has nuclear weapons that has experienced a situation such as Pakistan is at present, that is a primary concern,” he said.

Adding his voice to calls for swift elections, Mr Sarkozy, on a visit to the US, said: “This is a country of 150m people, which happens to have nuclear weapons. This is very important for us that one day we shouldn’t wake up with a government, an administration in Pakistan which is in the hands of the extremists.”

The US has stepped up its nuclear security co-operation with Pakistan in the wake of Mr Khan’s activities, famously described as a “nuclear Wal-Mart” by Mohamed ElBaradei, the International Atomic Energy Agency chief. Islamabad, however, has made it clear that it will not allow US visits to its sensitive nuclear sites and the effectiveness of US monitoring is unknown.

In his recently published memoir George Tenet, former Central Intelligence Agency chief, recalled a conversation with Gen Musharraf in which the president assured him that Pakistani nuclear experts had dismissed the possibility that “men hiding in caves” could build a nuclear bomb. “Mr. President, your experts are wrong,” Mr Tenet said he replied.

“Securing the Bomb 2007”, a report by Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government on behalf of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-proliferation advocacy group, concluded that Pakistan posed a serious challenge to efforts to prevent terrorist groups from obtaining nuclear weapons.

It said Pakistan’s relatively small nuclear stockpile faced “huge threats” from al-Qaeda and other jihadi terrorist groups, as well as from insiders with a demonstrated willingness to sell sensitive nuclear technology throughout the world and proven sympathy for extreme jihadi causes.

“If al-Qaeda terrorists can twice come close to assassinating President Musharraf with help from Pakistani military officers, who can rule out the possibility that other military officers guarding nuclear weapons might be convinced to help al-Qaeda?” the report, written by Matthew Bunn, said.

Recent US intelligence assessments, including the National Intelligence Estimate, suggest that al-Qaeda’s central command has been reconstituting its ability to direct complex operations from the border areas of Pakistan. The Pakistani government has rejected suggestions that al-Qaeda has found a haven in the tribal areas.

Islamabad claims that Mr Khan’s export of sensitive nuclear technology to third countries, believed to include Iran, were unauthorised, suggesting that his activities over two decades represented a massive security failure. Pakistani officials say they have since taken wide-ranging – but unspecified – measures to ensure that rogue proliferation cannot happen again.

A non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, Pakistan may have up to 100 nuclear weapons in a number of locations, analysts say. Facilities are heavily guarded, though probably not equipped with state-of-the-art protection and material control and accounting technologies, according to Securing the Bomb 2007.

Business Talk

THE PROACTIVE TOOL OF PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart. Stratfor.com

On Nov. 4, 46-year-old Spanish businessman Edelmiro Manuel Pérez Merelles was freed from captivity after being held for nearly two weeks by kidnappers who grabbed him from his vehicle in the Mexico City metropolitan area. The fact that a kidnapping occurred in Mexico is not at all unusual. What is unusual is the enormous press coverage the case received, largely because of the audacity and brutality of the attackers.

Pérez Merelles was snatched from his car Oct. 22 after a gang of heavily armed assailants blocked his vehicle and, in full view of witnesses, killed his bodyguard/driver, delivering a coup de grâce shot to the back of his head. The abductors then shoved the driver's body into the trunk of Pérez Merelles' car, which was later found abandoned. After the abduction, when the family balked at the exorbitant amount of ransom demanded by the kidnappers, the criminals reportedly upped the ante by sending two of Pérez Merelles' fingers to his family. A ransom finally was paid and Pérez Merelles was released in good health, though sans the fingers.

In a world in which militants and criminals appear increasingly sophisticated and brutal, this case highlights the need for protective intelligence (PI) to augment traditional security measures.

Action versus Reaction

As any football player knows, action is always faster than reaction. That principle provides offensive players with a slight edge over their opponents on the defense, because the offensive players know the snap count that will signal the beginning of the play. Now, some crafty defensive players will anticipate or jump the snap to get an advantage over the offensive players, but that anticipation is an action in itself and not a true reaction. This same principle of action and reaction is applicable to security operations. For example, when members of an abduction team launch an assault against a target's vehicle, they have the advantage of tactical surprise over the target and any security personnel protecting the target. This advantage can be magnified significantly if the target lacks the proper mindset and freezes in response to the attack.

Even highly trained security officers who have been schooled in attack recognition and in responding under pressure to attacks against their principal are at a disadvantage once an attack is launched. This is because, in addition to having the element of tactical surprise, the assailants also have conducted surveillance and have planned their attack. Therefore, they presumably have come prepared -- with the number of assailants and the right weaponry -- to overcome any security assets in place. Simply put, the criminals will not attack unless they believe they have the advantage. Not all attacks succeed, of course. Sometimes the attackers will botch the attempt, and sometimes security personnel are good enough -- or lucky enough -- to regain the initiative and fight off the attack or otherwise escape. In general, however, once an attack is launched, the attackers have the advantage over the defender, who not only is reacting, but also is simultaneously attempting to identify the source, location and direction of the attack and assess the number of assailants and their armament.

Furthermore, if a gang is brazen enough to conduct a serious crime such as kidnapping for ransom, which carries stiff penalties in most countries, chances are the same group is capable of committing homicide during the crime. So, using the kidnapping example, the gang will account for the presence of any security officers in its planning and will devise a way to neutralize those officers -- as the attackers neutralized the bodyguard in the Pérez Merelles abduction.

Even if the target is traveling in an armored vehicle, the attackers will plan a way to immobilize it, breach the armor and get to their victim. In a kidnapping scenario, once the target's vehicle is stopped or disabled, the assailants can place an explosive device on top of it, forcing the occupants to open the door or risk death -- a tactic witnessed several times in Latin America -- or they can use hand tools to pry it open like a can of sardines if given enough time. Since most armored vehicles use the car's factory-installed door-lock system, techniques used by car thieves, such as using master keys or punching out the locks, also can be used effectively against an immobilized armored vehicle.

This same principle applies to physical security measures at buildings. Measures such as badge readers, closed-circuit TV coverage, metal detectors, cipher locks and so forth are an important part of any security plan -- though they have finite utility. In many cases assailants have mapped out, quantified and then defeated or bypassed physical security devices. Physical security devices require human interaction and a proactive security program to optimize their effectiveness.

Armed guards, armored vehicles and physical security devices can all be valuable tools, but they can be defeated by attackers who have planned an attack and then put it into play at the time and place of their choosing. Clearly, a way is needed to deny attackers the advantage of striking when and where they choose or, even better, to stop an attack before it can be launched. In other words, security officers must play on the action side of the action/reaction equation. That is where PI comes in.

Protective Intelligence

In simple terms, PI is the process used to identify and assess threats. A well-designed PI program will have a number of distinct and crucial components or functions, but the most important of these are countersurveillance, investigations and analysis. The first function, countersurveillance, serves as the eyes and ears of the PI team. As noted above, kidnapping gangs conduct extensive preoperational surveillance. But all criminals -- stalkers, thieves, lone wolves, militant groups, etc. -- engage in some degree of preoperational surveillance, though the length of this surveillance will vary depending on the actor and the circumstances. A purse-snatcher might case a potential target for a few seconds, while a kidnapping gang might conduct surveillance of a potential target for weeks. The degree of surveillance tradecraft -- from very clumsy to highly sophisticated -- also will widely vary, depending on the operatives' training and street skills.

It is while conducting this surveillance that someone with hostile intentions is most apt to be detected, making this the point in the attack cycle that potential violence can most easily be disrupted or prevented. This is what makes countersurveillance such a valuable proactive tool.

Although countersurveillance teams are valuable, they cannot operate in a vacuum. They need to be part of a larger PI program that includes the analytical and investigative functions. Investigations and analysis are two closely related yet distinct components that can help to focus the countersurveillance operations on the most likely or most vulnerable targets, help analyze the observations of the countersurveillance team and investigate any suspicious individuals observed.

Without an analytical function, it is difficult for countersurveillance operatives to note when the same person or vehicle has been encountered on different shifts or at different sites. In fact, countersurveillance operations are far less valuable when they are conducted without databasing or analyzing what the countersurveillance teams observe over time and distance.

Investigations also are important. Most often, something that appears unusual to a countersurveillance operative has a logical and harmless explanation, though it is difficult to make that determination without an investigative unit to follow-up on red flags.

The investigative and analytical functions also are crucial in assessing communications from mentally disturbed individuals, for tracking the activities of activist or extremist groups and for attempting to identify and assess individuals who make anonymous threats via telephone or mail. Mentally disturbed individuals have long posed a substantial (and still underestimated) threat to both prominent people and average citizens in the United States. In fact, mentally disturbed individuals have killed far more prominent people (including President James Garfield, Bobby Kennedy and John Lennon) than militants have in terrorist attacks. Furthermore, nearly all of those who have committed attacks have self-identified or otherwise come to the attention of authorities before the attack was carried out. Because of this, PI teams ensure that no mentally disturbed person is summarily dismissed as a "harmless nut" until he or she has been thoroughly investigated and his or her communications carefully analyzed and databased. Databasing is crucial because it allows the tenor of correspondence from a mentally disturbed individual to be monitored over time and compared with earlier missives in order to identify signs of a deteriorating mental state or a developing intent to commit violence. PI teams will often consult mental health professionals in such cases to assist with psycholinguistic and psychological evaluations.

Not all threats from the mentally disturbed come from outside a company or organization, however. Although the common perception following a workplace incident is that the employee "just snapped," in most cases the factors leading to the violent outburst have been building up for a long time and the assailant has made detailed plans. Because of this, workplace or school shootings seldom occur randomly. In most cases, the perpetrator has a targeted a specific individual or set of individuals that the shooter believes is responsible for his plight. Therefore, PI teams also will work closely with human-resources managers and employee mental health programs to try to identify early on those employees who have the potential to commit acts of workplace violence.

In workplace settings as well as other potential threat areas, PI operatives also can aid other security officers by providing them with the photographs and descriptions of any person identified as a potential problem. The person identified as the potential target also can be briefed and the information shared with that person's administrative assistants, family members and household staff.

Another crucial function of a PI team is to "red team," or to look at the security program from the outside and help identify vulnerabilities. Most security looks from the inside out, but PI provides the ability to look from the outside in. In the executive protection realm, this can include an analysis of the principal's schedule and transportation routes in order to determine the most vulnerable times and places. Countersurveillance or even overt security assets can then be focused on these crucial locations.

Red teams also sometimes perform cyberstalker research. That is, they study a potential target through a criminal or mentally disturbed person's eyes -- attempting to obtain as much open-source and public record information on that target as possible in order to begin a surveillance operation. Such a project helps to determine what sensitive information is available regarding a particular target and highlights how that information could be used by a criminal planning an attack.

Red teams also will attempt to invade a facility in order to test access control or to conduct surveillance on the operations in an effort to identify vantage points (or "perches") that would most likely be used by someone surveilling the facility. Once the perches around one's facility are identified, activities at those sites can be monitored, making it more difficult for assailants to conduct preoperational surveillance at will.

One other advantage to PI operations is that, being amorphous by nature, they are far more difficult for a potential assailant to detect than are traditional security measures. Even if one PI operative is detected -- regardless of whether the team has identified its targets -- the surveillers' anxiety will increase because they likely will not know whether the person they encounter is a countersurveillance operative.

This combination of countersurveillance, analysis and investigation can be applied in a number of other creative and proactive ways to help keep potential threats off balance and deny them the opportunity to take the initiative. Although a large global corporation or government might require a large PI team, these core functions can be performed by a skilled, compact team, or even by one person. For example, a person living in a high-threat environment such as Mexico City can acquire the skills to perform his or her own analysis of route and schedule, and can run surveillance detection routes in order to smoke out hostile operations.

The details of the Pérez Merelles kidnapping indicate that it was a professionally planned and well-executed operation. Crimes of this caliber do not occur on the spur of the moment, but rather require extensive surveillance, intelligence gathering and planning -- the very types of activities that are vulnerable to detection through the proactive tool of PI.

Reprinted by permission of Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at Stratfor.com

Crisis and Scams

The Sub-Prime Media Crisis

A BBC gloom and doom story on the sub-prime crisis this week reported that there are 55,000 homes for sale in Phoenix with about one-third of those being vacant. 55,000 homes for sale sounds like an enormous number but is it? According to WikiPedia, the population is just over 1.5 million but a Phoenix area realtor reports that the population for the Metropolitan Statistical Area is nearly 3.6 million. Another site reports that as of the 2000 census (before the bubble), the housing units for Phoenix City were 495,832 with the vacant units right at 30,000 (6.1%.) Is the sub-prime crisis as bad as the press would have us believe or will it suddenly improve after the Presidential election? Maybe the real crisis is the sub-prime media.

*****

Speaking of Arizona, I heard an interview with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She struck me as a reasonable person but her support of quotas was obvious as she expressed her disappointment that Bush did not nominate a woman to replace her. She also said that the Courts had come under increasing attack from political corners. She sounded as if she felt the Judiciary should be immune from criticism. That has never been the case in the history of the Country. We are not required to quietly defer to whatever decisions the Courts hand down. I'm glad she's gone.

Here's some interesting reading: How Arizona Compares.

The Great Global Warming Scam

Faith Triumphs over Science.

The founder of the Weather Channel, meteorologist John Coleman, writing at the website for the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

Someone Must Pay!

Al Gore and his Green Mountain Boys have dominated the headlines and ordained that "the debate is over" and for all practical purposes, it is. Sensing opportunity, every decent hustler in the world is looking for an angle and who can blame them now that the issue has been steamrolled through the various world bodies. Man caused global warming is now gospel so why fight it? There some is hope for the long term but in the coming years...well, as the Greens often point out...there will be some pain. Their great ideas being floated about include:

• budgeting 3% of a nation's GDP to "combating" climate change.
• 25% carbon taxes on travel such as airline tickets.
• Government subsidies for more "energy efficient but more expensive" appliances, devices and automobiles. This is already occurring in California which gives rebates on more efficient household appliances so that the "payback" is reduced from say five to two years.
  

There is no end to the carbon hysteria and call for fees, taxes, penalties, subsidies and compensation. Smaller third world countries at risk from rising sea levels are demanding monies now to compensate for the future damages. In response, the Saudis recently called for compensation for future revenue losses due to the carbon backlash. This is only a portent of the future. Every carbon alternative scheme known to man is competing for your future tax dollars but be assured that whatever you pay will be a "small price for the greater good." And be assured, that you will pay and pay and pay.

The Climate Change Express has left the station and all the green grifters, grafters and grabbers are on board. Weak-minded Republicans in the US such as the Governors of California and Florida have just managed to take their seats. I suspect that nothing will stop this runaway until it derails itself through its own greed and avarice. When that happens, probably concurrent with the collapse of the now rising one-world government, we'll see a world the likes of which has not been seen since the Tower of Babel.

Europe Needs to Take Lead in Resolving Iranian Nuclear Issue

For most of American history, wise leaders rejected the concept of preemptive wars. In fact, during the Cold War, hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on a deterrence that insured the certain knowledge that no enemy could survive a nuclear attack on the United States of America or any of its allies. It was a strategy built on confidence and strength. It created a system of universal respect for American authority. It demonstrated strength and wisdom.

Recent events have not been kind to the world view of American strength and wisdom. Few look at the Iraq war and come to the conclusion that it strengthened America and was a good idea, well conceived, and well executed. The world is a more dangerous place with a less confident view of America.

Iran offers an opportunity to correct some of that damage. That correction will not be made by a rash preemptive military attack on Iran. It must come from a joint American and European effort. The irresponsible Russians and agnostic Chinese will not be helpful unless the EU takes bold and effective diplomatic and economic action against Iran. That action will send a signal to the Russians and Chinese that will not be missed by them.

American military strength and resolve can guarantee the certain end of history for Iran, if she develops and uses a nuclear weapon. That ultimate threat of action by America, with meaningful European economic sanctions is sufficient to deter Iran. It requires the balanced coordination of effort by wise and confident leaders.

09 November 2007

Iran's Nuclear Program Focus of European Leaders' U.S. Visits

French, German leaders join Bush in effort to end impasse with Iran

By David McKeeby
USINFO Staff Writer

Washington -– Growing international concern over Iran's controversial nuclear program is likely to dominate the agenda as German Chancellor Angela Merkel arrives at the Bush family ranch in Crawford, Texas, November 9, as it did for French President Nicolas Sarkozy's first official visit to Washington earlier in the week.

"It is unacceptable that Iran should have at any point a nuclear weapon," Sarkozy told reporters in a November 7 joint appearance with President Bush in Mount Vernon , Virginia. "But Iran is entitled to the energy of the future, which is civilian nuclear energy," he added, a point on which Bush agreed.

The Iranian government claims that its nuclear enrichment activities are geared toward developing civil nuclear power plants. But the regime's continued refusal to allow United Nations' nuclear inspectors full access to all facilities lead many, including the United States, to suspect that Tehran secretly is seeking nuclear weapons.

"I firmly believe we can solve this problem diplomatically and will continue to work to do so," Bush told Germany's RTL and N-TV November 6. "That's going to be an important topic with the chancellor."

France and Germany are active diplomatic participants in the "P5 +1," which also includes China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The group is working together to convince Tehran to suspend its nuclear program and return to the negotiating table.

The United Nations Security Council already has approved two rounds of economic sanctions against the Iranian government, and currently is considering a third, to add pressure for a diplomatic solution to the ongoing nuclear standoff. (See related article.)

"Iran deserves a better fate than isolation," Sarkozy said.

The United States announced new sanctions of its own October 25, blocking U.S. businesses and financial institutions from doing business with Iranian-owned banks and enterprises linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. (See related article.)

Bush has discussed Washington's latest move with Sarkozy and Merkel and urged them to consider imposing additional sanctions as well.

All the Iranians need to do, Bush said November 6 in the interview with the German broadcast outlets, "is suspend their enrichment program and then there will be a dialogue and a way forward." The choice is for the Iranian government to make, he added.

NEW LEADERS, NEW RELATIONS, ENDURING TIES

Merkel's Crawford visit, her sixth official trip to the United States, follows Bush's visit to the chancellor's home district in northern Germany in June while attending the G8 Summit of industrialized nations, hosted by the Merkel in Heiligendamm.

"It's not very formal," Bush said in the November 6 interview about talks at the ranch, "but it will be conducive to a conversation amongst friends."

Observers note that Merkel's visit, like Sarkozy's will be a marked change from Bush's meetings with their predecessors, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder and France's Jacques Chirac, who were critics of military operations in Iraq.

"I never really felt that a disagreement over Iraq should yield a rupture in relations, I mean, I fully understand why people disagree with my decision," Bush told a reporter from France's TF 1 November 7.

"I value the relationship a lot," Bush later added, "And the United States and France have had a long history."

In democracies, Bush said November 6 at a White House state dinner to welcome Sarkozy, differences among individual leaders in policies and in personalities never should mask the enduring bond of shared values.

"French and American troops are helping to defend a young democracy in Afghanistan. Our two nations support the democratic government of Lebanon," Bush said. "We agree that reconciliation and democracy in Iraq are vital to the future of the Middle East. And our two nations condemn violations of human rights in Darfur [Sudan], in Burma and around the world."

"I wish to reconquer the heart of America," Sarkozy replied in his toast to Bush. "France and the United States are allies, have been allies, and will continue to be allies, and have been so forever."

Other topics on the agenda in talks with French and German leaders, say Bush administration officials, include NATO operations in Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process, human rights abuses in Burma and Darfur, climate change, and the future status of Kosovo.

Transcripts and video links of Bush and Sarkozy's toasts and press conference, as well as Bush's interviews with TF 1 and RTL and N-TV, are available on the White House Web site.

(USINFO is produced by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

The Wall Street Journal or Rufus?

Who the f*** is Rufus?

rufus said...

The Wall Street Journal has some of the worst reporting on the planet. They've never written an article that I knew anything about that was even remotely accurate.

A few years back we had twelve oil fields that were producing a million barrels/day. Today, we have four, and Cantarell will drop out pretty quickly. It went down 26% last year.

Today there are five hundred and sixty some-odd Giants. The Peak year for discovery of Giants was 1972 I believe. Dry land Giants go into decline somewhere between age 25 and forty usually. Offshore Giants go into decline much quicker. 5 of the 6 Saudi Giants are flat, or declining, and everyone is suspicious of Ghawar.

We're finding about One Giant a year, now.

Look, I could go on, and on, but the bottom line is we peaked in crude production in June, I think it was, of 05'. You add up the consumption, and subtract the Production and you get a difference of about 1.8 million barrels/day.

No one can point to where much more crude is coming from Next Year, or the two (or twenty) years after that. But, China, and India are growing like weeds. About 10%/year between the two.

We have about 250 working offshore rigs, and they have an average age of 20 some-odd years (well past their expiry date.) Nobody much is finding squat.


As for lifting costs: Ask Norway what it costs to spend two years drilling a "Sure Thing" in the North Sea and hitting a "Dry Hole," as they just finished doing.

5 of the 6 largest oil companies saw production "Decrease" last year. The North Sea is falling rapidly. Cantarell has fallen off a cliff. The Gulf of Mexico peaked in 02'.

Iran? It used to produce Six Million Barrels/Day; now, it produces a little over Three. Venezuela used to produce a little over 3.2; now, it's 2.2. Alaska peaked several years, ago. Our Crude production is now about 5 mbpd. That means we're importing about 13. Russia's flat. Saudi is flat. Kuwait is struggling to remain flat.

China used to "export;" now they're "Importing." Indonesia's production is Falling. Now, they're importing. Even the U.K. is starting to Import.

With production falling off a cliff, when does Mexico put a "Cap" on exports? Getting oil out of "tar sands," and "shale" is a Nightmare. Goddawful expensive, energy intensive, and an ecological disaster. We're probably getting about all out of the Canadian tar sands as we're going to get. Shale? Fuggedaboutit.

Think Ethanol. It's where we're going. PDQ. The "Jig is Up." Believe me, or believe the WSJ. Pick wisely.

Will Syria make it to the Party?

Here we go again. The fools are everywhere.

The question on everyone's mind is "Will the Syrians be in Annapolis for the big peace conference?"

Condi wants them there, Ehud wants them there and the Syrians themselves want to be there, but only if the Golan Heights are "on the agenda."

The Syrians are taking pains to portray themselves as westernized and secular. They say that they "drink liquor and mix with women" just as we do. They ask, "Do we look like terrorists?" They say, "Yes, we are Arab Muslims but also Mediterranean and we have always looked to the west."

Yes, they are a very reasonable, peace-loving and misunderstood people. To listen to them, one could almost forget the assassinations that have occurred in Lebanon. The war between Hezbollah and Israel seems to be all but forgotten. The Syrians say that they only want peace and are ready to live side by side with Israel. It is Israel, they say, that wants no part of peace. They say the Jews "inexplicably bombed a vacant building in the desert" and offer this as proof of Israel's aggressiveness.

There's an old saying in the middle-east, that there is no war without Egypt and no peace without Syria. Egypt has made peace with Israel but for all their "reasonableness," the Syrians have repeatedly said in the past few days that there will be no peace until Israel gives back the Golan Heights.

James Baker says that the Syrians can be "flipped." That is, with a little effort, some strategic land and a lot of money, we can turn them away from Iran and the "axis of evil" and bring them back into the world of corrupted respectability. All we have to do is give back the Golan Heights, pour millions and millions into their rat holes, forgive all their transgressions and kiss their "westernized, secular" posteriors. In other words, capitulate to blackmail, murder, mayhem and terror. That sounds like a good plan. Give them everything they want on a hope and a prayer that there will be "peace for our time."

Memo to Turk Soldiers: Surrender is Not an Option.

Interesting differences between British or Israeli reactions and that of the Turks regarding the capture and return of military personnel. Shall we say it is a little less touchy-feely?


Cold welcome for freed Turkish soldiers
By Sarah Rainsford
BBC News, Istanbul

The release of eight soldiers after two weeks held hostage by the PKK has not been celebrated in Turkey.

Turkey has massed soldiers on the border with Iraq
Some here have branded them cowards - even traitors.

Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin told an audience at Ankara University on Monday that he could not be entirely happy about the soldiers' release.

They were captured in an ambush by the PKK close to the Iraqi border on 21 October. Twelve other soldiers were killed in what was the worst clash of its kind with Kurdish separatists in many years.

"No member of the Turkish Armed Forces should have found themselves in such a situation," the minister began.

"As a Turkish citizen I cannot accept the fact that they went with the terrorists that night. Our soldier is prepared to die if necessary when he is protecting the country."

'Shame!'

The soldiers' families kept a very low profile while their sons were held hostage. The justice minister's statement prompted one mother to break her silence.

"Why is our family honour being trampled upon just because my son was taken hostage?" demanded Aynur Atakul in one Turkish newspaper.

"I sent my son to his military service in a dignified manner. Would it have been better if he had died there?"

Many comments left on the webpage of Hurriyet, Turkey's most widely-read newspaper, suggest precisely that.

"Shame, shame, what shame! Eight weak soldiers. I wish they had stood and fought and become martyrs," reads one typical entry.

"What were they doing when their comrades were martyred beside them? If I were them I would be unable to look anyone in the face after this," says another.

There are only a few expressions of sympathy with the hostages.

Barely a mention

The October ambush itself sparked mass street protests across Turkey against the PKK, which is recognised as a terrorist organisation by the United States and the European Union.


PKK fighters strike Turkey from bases in northern Iraq
When the coffins of the 12 soldiers were returned home, huge crowds turned out for their funerals. Newspapers and the airwaves were filled with calls for revenge strikes against PKK bases inside Northern Iraq.

But the eight missing men barely got a mention.

And when their release came, the official announcement - like that of their capture - was terse.

"During an armed clash with the PKK terror organization communication was cut with eight members of the Turkish Armed Forces," read a statement on the Chief of Staff's website.

"As of 4 November 2007 those eight soldiers have rejoined the Turkish Armed Forces," it read.

Unlike recent hostage crises involving Israeli and British military members, here in Turkey the government, military and media played this one very low-key.

One explanation is concern, in the current nationalistic climate, about the potential for clashes between Turks and Kurds in Turkish cities.

But some read more into the near-silence.

"The reflex of the mainstream press here is to turn a blind eye to anything they see as humiliating to national pride," explains Burak Bekdil, of the Turkish Daily News.

"The military did not want this debated in public, because people had already started asking questions about how the hell it happened," says respected columnist Mehmet Ali Birand.

"Something went dreadfully wrong for the soldiers to be taken by the PKK - and that reflects badly on the Turkish military," he says.

"The media played it down on purpose."

Voluntary surrender?

Four days after their release, the former hostages are still being questioned by military prosecutors. An already suspicious public is ready to believe the rumour that one of them has links to the PKK.

"Prosecutors will be focusing on whether or not the soldiers left with the PKK voluntarily," explains retired military judge Umit Kardas.

"If they did they could be charged with membership of a terrorist organisation."

"This has really shaken the military," he adds.

In a further blow to Turkish pride, pictures from the handover of the eight soldiers have now made their way into local newspapers.

They show three members of the Turkish parliament from the pro-Kurdish DTP party standing beside a poster of Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned PKK founder. In others, the MPs are seen greeting the hostage-takers with handshakes and kisses.

Though the DTP insist they were present for humanitarian reasons, to aid the soldiers' release, they are now being investigated on suspicion of supporting a terrorist organisation.

Putin Spending His Oil Money

Marching back  to the future good old days.

Russia really needs to restore a conventional land force against the Latvian, Polish and Czech armies mobilizing against it. Putin continues to enable the natural state of Russian paranoia. Europe is beginning to notice. Good.

Hilversum, Wednesday 07 November 2007 18:16 UTC



Russia suspends conventional weapons treaty

Moscow - The Russian Duma has ratified a decree issued by President Vladimir Putin in June suspending the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE). The move comes into force on 12 December. The treaty, limiting the number of conventional weapons in Europe, was brokered between NATO and the Warsaw-Pact countries at the end of the Cold War.

Mr Putin argues that NATO is no longer upholding the treaty, citing developments including US plans for a missile defence system based in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Don't You Dare

It's interesting that Bill is trotted out every time Hill gets into hot water. Her waffling prevarication on Spitzer's catering to illegals has drawn some reaction from the former President. Lately, Bill Clinton seems to use the word "dare" a lot in his public speeches. Last week, he said to some hecklers, "How dare you..." He also told them to "shut up and listen." Now, he said to some unionistas, "Don't you dare let them take this election from you." Hill and Bill are like gods to the left and apparently can be forgiven for most anything but as Dennis Miller said "there's a little too much grifter there." I agree and I can't help but think back to the White House China which Hillary took with her when she left in 2001.

I would add that if George W. Bush ever tells someone to "shut up", there will be no end of the bad media about the "Imperious King George."

They may be grifters and dirty rotten scoundrels, but to the Democrats, they're family...

Clinton Defends Wife on Licenses
By RYAN NAKASHIMA
Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Former President Clinton on Monday compared Republican criticism of his wife's position on driver's license for illegal immigrants to the ads that helped sink John Kerry's White House hopes in 2004.

"I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again," Clinton told some 3,000 members of the American Postal Worker's Union at a convention.

At the end of a televised Democratic presidential debate last week, Hillary Rodham Clinton hedged on whether she supported a plan by her home state governor, New York's Eliot Spitzer, to issue licenses to illegal immigrants.

Republicans _ and her rivals for the Democratic nomination _ quickly criticized her answer, accusing her of trying to have it both ways.

But Bill Clinton said the issue is too complicated for sound bites.

"It's fine for Hillary and all the other Democrats to discuss Governor Spitzer's plan. But not in 30 seconds _ yes, no, raise your hand," he said.

The former president told the union members not to let the Republican attacks distract them from the important issues of health care and education reform.

He compared the driver's license dustup to television ads during the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned Kerry's patriotism, and campaign commercials in 2002 suggesting that former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was soft on terrorism.

Clinton urged the union members to vote Democratic for president no matter who the party nominates.

"So do I hope you vote for my wife? You bet I do. It'd be good for America, and good for the world. But, more than that I came here to tell you today, don't you dare let them take this election away from you. This belongs to you."

Clinton also was to speak later Monday at a rally for his wife at the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy.

Is the Sauce for the Goose Good for the Gander?

Martha's goose was cooked for less.

CITI'S DIRECTORS FIDDLED WHILE DEBT CRISIS GREW
By ZACHERY KOUWE and PAUL THARP NY Post

November 6, 2007 -- Citigroup's board saw the writing on the wall months ago, but did little to stop the world's largest bank from crashing and taking the rest of Wall Street with it.

A handful of Citigroup's highly paid directors did take a few timid baby steps last summer to find a replacement for then-chief Chuck Prince, but backed down almost as soon as they had embarked on their quiet coup, according to a source familiar with the matter.

As Citigroup's turmoil deepened yesterday, stocks of Wall Street's top seven banks tanked - with five of them hitting new 52-week lows and wiping out nearly $17 billion in stock value - pushing the blame game wider across the economic landscape.
Governance experts said the brunt of the blame for Citigroup's problems and turmoil rests with its 13 directors, excluding Prince, who collectively earned $43.8 million in compensation last year.

"Directors are not like some kind of 1950s housewife who was always the last to learn about the misadventures of her husband," said J. Richard Findlay, head of The Centre for Corporate & Public Governance.

"Their job is to oversee the CEO and to be aware of key events in strategy and risk at every stage along the way," Findlay added.

Sandler O'Neill analyst Jeff Harte said, "Public comments in support of Mr. Prince and recent management changes made by Mr. Prince suggest that the board was as surprised as anyone by [Citi's] CDO related exposures."

Insiders said some directors had been anticipating carnage from its junk mortgages as far back as the summer of 2006, with the board's risk-management panel holding more sessions than any other committee in that year and in early 2007.
But before the risk panel or board ever made its fears public, insiders began selling their shares, according to regulatory filings.

Robert Rubin - the board's key director who was named the chairman Sunday - unloaded the most stock. He sold $4.5 million worth of shares on Jan. 24, 2007, at $55.05 before shares collapsed.

Two other senior executives also sold shares as the woes in the credit markets began gathering momentum in August 2006.

Chief Operating Officer Robert Druskin sold $1.8 million worth of shares between August 2006 and January 2007 as the stock traded in the $54 range.

Pakistani Lawyers at the Barricades

Lawyers vs the General (hattip: Whit)

As lawyers in Pakistan take to the streets in fierce defiance of martial law, Iftikhar Chaudhry - the Chief Justice who sparked the crisis - issues a warning to Musharraf in an exclusive statement smuggled out from under house arrest

By Andrew Buncombe and Omar Waraich in Islamabad Independent
Published: 06 November 2007

Pakistan’s ousted Chief Justice has issued a message of defiance from house arrest, accusing General Pervez Musharraf of acting illegally, and demanding the restoration of the rule of law.

In a statement passed to The Independent, Judge Iftikhar Chaudhry, whose home has been surrounded by dozens of armed police and his phone lines cut, warned General Musharraf that he would not be deterred from launching a fresh struggle to restore the constitution and the rule of law. He also dismissed the general’s claims that the judiciary was interfering with the government’s efforts to combat terrorism.

Mr Chaudhry, who is now at the centre of the crisis in Pakistan after refusing to ratify General Musharraf’s order suspending the country’s constitution, said: “I and all the honourable judges of the Supreme Court were exercising our jurisdiction in accordance with the law and constitution and are determined to do so in the future.”

The judge, who has been a thorn in General Musharraf’s side for months and has become a rallying figure for opponents of the military regime, was sacked on Saturday after leading seven Supreme Court justices in refusing to ratify the decree that ushered in emergency rule.

In his statement he said: “The whole of the judiciary is struggling for the supremacy of the constitution.” Any actions taken by the government under the emergency provisions were illegal, he added, as was the detention of lawyers, human rights activists and members of civil society. “Their only sin is that they opposed the emergency.”

General Musharraf appeared ready to bend to international pressure yesterday when he told foreign diplomats he still intended to stand down as head of the army, and his Attorney General announced that parliamentary elections would be held within two months. With the US and UK warning that billions of pounds of aid to Pakistan could be at stake, the Attorney General, Malik Abdul Qayyum, said elections would be held before 15 January next year.

Last night, President George Bush urged President Musharraf to lift a state of emergency and hold elections but stopped short of threatening to cut off billions of dollars in US aid.

Mr Bush said he had instructed his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to convey that message to President Musharraf, who defied US pressure when he imposed emergency rule on Saturday and detained hundreds of political opponents. “We expect there to be elections as soon as possible and that the President should remove his military uniform,” Mr Bush said.

But softening his remarks, Bush also pointed out that General Musharraf has been “a strong fighter against extremists and radicals ¿ after all they tried to kill him three or four times”.

On the streets of Pakistan, General Musharraf’s determination to crush his opponents showed no sign of letting up. In Karachi and Lahore, police used tear gas and baton charges against lawyers protesting against his actions. The government said 1,800 politicians, activists and campaigners have been arrested since he imposed emergency rule, though some observers believe the true number could be double that. In Karachi journalists were also attacked. Domestic and international television channels remained off the air and police raided the presses of one of the country’s leading Urdu-language newspapers as the government continued its dual-pronged efforts to silence both the media and the legal community.

General Musharraf spent two hours yesterday speaking to ambassadors from more than 80 countries, explaining why he had suspended the constitution, sacked the seven Supreme Court judges and placed them under house arrest. He told the diplomats that the decision to impose emergency rule had been the hardest of his life. He also insisted he still planned to move towards democracy. “I am determined to execute this third stage of transition fully and I’m determined to remove my uniform once we correct these pillars in judiciary and the executive and the parliament,” he said on state-run Pakistan Television.

Unlike during his televised address on Saturday night, General Musharraf apparently referred very little to terrorism during his briefing of the diplomats and instead appeared angry and upset by what he termed the intervention of the Chief Justice.

In March, General Musharraf tried to suspend the Chief Justice for what were seen as transparently political reasons. The move backfired as lawyers mounted a spirited campaign to reinstate Mr Chaudhry, and tens of thousands of ordinary people rallied behind the ousted judge.

Confronting sliding public support, General Musharraf had little option later but to accept a ruling by the Supreme Court that the Chief Justice should be reinstated. Now, with the Supreme Court reportedly poised to rule that General Musharraf’s election victory on 6 October was invalid, it appears he decided this was |the time to get rid of the judge once and for all.

The international community has been urging the general to return to the planned “transition” towards democracy that he said he wished to see happen.

Split on Iran

The dilemma on Iran is that no matter what we do, it could end badly, and to do nothing may be worse. In either case let's not fool ourselves with wishful thinking.

Americans split on Iran action: poll
Mon Nov 5, 2007 11:09pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans are concerned about Iran's nuclear program but split on whether the United States should take military action to shut it down if diplomatic efforts fail, according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll released on Monday.

Seventy-three percent of those surveyed said the United States should use economic sanctions and diplomacy to stop Iran's nuclear program and 18 percent favored military action, the poll found.

However, 46 percent said military action should be taken either now or if diplomacy fails while 45 percent ruled out a military strike altogether, USA Today said.

Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to endorse taking military steps, the poll said.

President George W. Bush has suggested a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three. Bush last week imposed sanctions on Iran's military and its financial sector, hoping to increase pressure on Tehran to stop uranium enrichment and curb what the U.S. government says are terrorist activities.

Iran has so far refused to heed United Nations demands to halt nuclear work that has both civilian and military uses.

Three of four Americans polled said they were concerned the United States "will not do enough to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons," USA Today said.

An equal number also said they were concerned that the United States will be too quick to use military force against Iran.

The telephone survey of 1,024 adults was taken Friday through Sunday. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Musharraf Should Ignore the US and UK.

Musharraf will get no advice from the US or UK that will do him any good. Britain is slathered in political correctness and the Bush-Carter Administration is still delusional with the push for democracy in the Islamic world.

Musharraf warned: hold elections and quit as army chief


Envoys to spell out ultimatum in talks today in Pakistan

Declan Walsh in Islamabad and Julian Borger
Monday November 5, 2007
The Guardian

The US and Britain are today expected to demand that Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, honour pledges to hold elections in the next two months and step down as the army chief, or face a cut in western support.
The diplomatic showdown will come in the form of a meeting in Islamabad between the Pakistani leader and a group of ambassadors, two days after he declared emergency rule - and three days after giving assurances to the prime minister, Gordon Brown, and the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, that he would stick to an election deadline in mid-January, and step down as head of the country's army.


Last night Pakistan's prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, called those promises into question when he said the government had not decided when to hold the elections and warned they could be delayed by up to a year. Wielding his new powers with an iron fist yesterday, Gen Musharraf rounded up hundreds of opposition and human rights activists and introduced tight media regulations. Mr Aziz's statement directly contradicted personal assurances Gen Musharraf apparently gave to Mr Brown and Ms Rice on the eve of the emergency declaration.
The pledge to the prime minister was made on Friday, when Mr Brown telephoned Mr Musharraf and expressed concern over reports that an emergency decree was being planned.

"He [Mr Brown] said we had heard he was considering this and we thought it was a bad idea," a British official said.

Downing Street and the Foreign Office denied claims from Islamabad yesterday that Britain had, in fact, sanctioned Gen Musharraf's declaration.

A Musharraf aide told the Guardian that the Pakistani president had "satisfied" objections raised by Mr Brown during the conversation. "There was pressure from the US and Britain in the beginning. But later on, when the government gave them the detail that elections will be held on time, and the president will take off his uniform, they did not have any objections," the official said, on condition of anonymity. A Foreign Office official insisted "no consent was implied or given".

In his address to the nation on Saturday night Gen Musharraf said the step was necessary to combat growing Islamist extremism that has seen a succession of suicide bombings and a battle in the previously peaceful northern area of Swat.

But yesterday his police turned their batons on political opponents and human rights critics from a wide spectrum of society - although notably not from Benazir Bhutto's People's party. Ms Bhutto, who has been edging towards a power-sharing deal with Gen Musharraf for months, condemned emergency rule but did not call her supporters on to the streets.

In Lahore police armed with assault rifles raided the offices of the national human rights commission.

Police seized camera equipment belonging to journalists. The ousted chief justice, Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, was trapped behind a cordon of police at his Islamabad house.

The leader of the lawyer's movement, Aitzaz Ahsan, was held incommunicado at Adiala Jail near Rawalpindi. Tammy Haq, a colleague who attempted to visit him, said she feared he was being tortured. "I've seen martial law before, my brother was in jail, and this is exactly the same," she said.

Mr Aziz said the former cricketer Imran Khan and retired intelligence chief Hamid Gul were among 500 people being held in preventative detention. Private TV channels remained off air and senior journalists said they feared arrest. The only news coverage came through the state TV channel, which broadcast a report into the lack of press freedom in India.

The British and US reaction has so far been cautious. It has fallen short of condemnation. More severe measures, as well as a reassessment of western aid to the Musharraf government will hinge on today's critical meeting.

"What we will make very clear is that the government must keep to the commitment to hold elections on time, the commitment to take off the uniform, the commitment to a free press, the commitment to reach out other parties, and the commitment to release political prisoners," a senior British official said. "How they respond to that will determine how our reaction thereafter."

Ms Rice, speaking to journalists in Jerusalem, said yesterday the US would "review" aid to Pakistan, which has totalled $11bn (£5.5bn) since 2001.

British officials said they would reassess aid in coordination with the US.

In Lahore a human rights campaigner, Asma Jahangir, sent an email from home where she has been placed under detention for 90 days. "Those he has arrested are progressive, secular minded people while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires," she wrote.

Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, president of the ruling PML-Q party, said the decision to impose emergency rule was triggered by fears that the supreme court would rule against Gen Musharraf's recent re-election in a legal appeal. A friendly judge passed the information to the government last Wednesday. "He said the verdict may be unanimous. So we had no choice," he told the Guardian. "The debate was whether to impose emergency before or after [the court ruling]."

Asked how long the emergency measures would be in place Mr Aziz said: "As long as it is necessary."

Musharraf Prefers to be a General. Pray He Not Become a Shah.

General Musharraf has crossed the Rubicon. Unless he wants to end with a rope around his neck or a bullet in his brain, he needs to be more ruthless and determined to see his coup completed. Pakistan is not going to be ruled by an elected president. If Musharraf listens to the US and the West, Pakistan will become another Iran after the Shah, only worse. It will be an Iran with nuclear weapons. A democratic change in Pakistan will only weaken the central government and play into the hands of the Islamists. US pressure on Pakistan to become a democracy, by the Bush Administration, is right out of the Jimmy Carter play book on losing.

Musharraf would be wise to look at the mistakes made by Batista in Cuba or the Shah in Iran and copy what the Chinese Communists did after Tiananmen Square. There is no democratic alternative for Pakistan as long as the Islamists infiltrate Pakistan society. Waziristan is ungovernable. Musharraf would be wise to recognize Waziristan as an independent state, let the crazies go there, and allow the West to figure out what to do with them. Musharraf has the worst job on the planet. He deserves our sympathy.

Musharraf declares martial law in Pakistan
By Massoud Ansari in Islamabad Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:16am GMT 04/11/2007

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan last night declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution and was expected to halt planned parliamentary elections for at least a year.

In a dramatic move ahead of an expected ruling by the Supreme Court to disqualify him as president, General Musharraf ordered soldiers into the court building to tell the country's chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry, that he was sacked.

Just 30 minutes after news was broadcast that the government was imposing emergency law, eight judges of the Supreme Court met and declared Gen Musharraf's orders "unconstitutional" and "illegal". But even as they did so, police and soldiers began detaining lawyers.

They also took most television and radio stations off the air and disrupted mobile telephone networks in the capital, Islamabad, and other cities.

Armoured vehicles moved into Islamabad soon after sunset and soldiers took over strategic buildings, including parliament. The streets emptied rapidly as residents returned to their homes.


Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister and opposition party leader who returned to Pakistan from exile last month, last night flew back to Karachi from Dubai, where she had been visiting family. She was escorted from the airport towards her house - itself surrounded by troops - by more than 100 police guards.

She said she believed that emergency rule was designed to delay elections by "at least one or two years".

Nisar Khuhro, a senior PPP leader, declared: "We cannot accept the derailment of democracy and will definitely resist and rally around people against it. Otherwise we will be back to square one."

Aitzaz Ahsan, a leading opposition lawyer who is president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said outside his home: "One man has taken an entire nation hostage. The time has come for Gen Musharraf to go."

Fellow lawyers shouted "Go Musharraf, go!" as Mr Ahsan was arrested and driven away by police, giving a defiant victory sign to his supporters.

Gen Musharraf blamed the imposition of emergency law on the need for a crackdown which had been prevented by the judiciary. The proclamation order claimed that militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers were being released from prisons on the orders of the judges.

It added: "Some members of the judiciary are working at cross-purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism."

In a recorded television address last night, Gen Musharraf said emergency powers were needed to defend Pakistan from Islamic fundamentalists.

"Extremists are roaming around freely and they are not scared of law enforcement agencies," he said. "They want to run a parallel government and impose their extremist views on the rest of the country. It is a direct challenge to the stability of Pakistan."

After giving the majority of his address in Urdu, he gave a special message in English, asking Western nations to give Pakistan time to implement democracy.

"Please do not expect or demand your level of democracy which you learned over a number of centuries. Please give us time," he said.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Gen Musharraf's decision was made secretly on Friday. Soldiers were discreetly deployed across the country in preparation for yesterday's move.



In a television address Gen Musharraf said emergency powers were needed to defend Pakistan from islamic fundamentalists

Sources at the country's broadcasting authority, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, said they had orders to keep the dozens of independent television channels off the air indefinitely. Only the official state station was broadcasting subdued news reports last night.

The Supreme Court had been expected to rule this week on whether or not Gen Musharraf's recent re-election by MPs to a third term of office was valid. It forbade the election commission to declare the result officially until the case had been decided.

The plan - encouraged by America and Britain - had been for Ms Bhutto to support Gen Musharraf as president in return for the freedom to contest parliamentary elections, from which she hoped to emerge prime minister.

Gen Musharraf made up his mind to declare emergency law after hearing that the chief justice planned to summon the head of Pakistan's intelligence agencies this week to ask why hundreds of people were being held without charge.

Constitutional experts said the fact that eight of the court's 13 judges had immediately ruled the declaration of emergency illegal suggested that they would refuse to swear a new oath of loyalty.

Baz Khan Kakar, a lawyer at the Supreme Court, said: "The country will be in chaos as there will be no courts functioning." But the government said last night that another judge, Hameed Dogar, had been sworn in as the new chief justice.

Al Qaeda Defeated in Anbar. Al-Maliki Suspicious. Al Gore Leads over Hillary.

Remind you of Hillary, just a little bit?

All true. Good news from our favorite province: Anbar 'almost' free from al Qaeda's grip Washington Times , but even better news for those entertained by Democratic politics. Strange as it seems, Iraq may not be quite as large in the coming presidential election as once thought. More and more concern about the economy, energy, environment and immigration seem to be ratcheting Iraq down the political thermometer. And how about our own Nurse Ratched, was there a little bit of a melt down in the campaign of Hillary Clinton?

It seems as if a lot of Democrats think so:

Al Gore Leads Top Democratic Candidates in "Blind Bio" Poll
Submitted by Julie on November 2, 2007 - 7:50pm. Elections 2008 News Politics U.S. Politics

Zogby International recently conducted a "blind bio" telephone poll which revealed that former Vice President Al Gore is currently favored over leading Democratic candidates by likely Democratic Party voters across the nation.

In a "blind bio" poll, candidates names are not used. Instead, their names are replaced with a brief description of their biographies.

The poll showed that when likely Democratic voters were given descriptions of the top three Democratic candidates - Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, along with the biography of Al Gore, Gore won with 35% support. Clinton captured 24%, Obama snagged 22%, and Edwards trailed far behind with just 10% support. Gore's bio was the top choice for both men (39%) and women (31%)m and was most favored by younger voters.

Self-described liberal Democrats strongly favored Al Gore's bio (43%), over those of Clinton (21%), Edwards (17%), and Obama (12%). Moderate Democratic voters, who are believe to most closely represent the choices of likely Democratic voters overall, also showed the greatest preference for Gore's bio at 36%.

The poll was commissioned by AlGore.org, an organization dedicated to getting Al Gore to run for the presidency, and was conducted from October 24-27, 2007. It included 527 likely Democratic voters nationwide, and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points.

Pakistani TV, Radio Off the Air. Land Lines and Mobile Phones Down.

Musharraf imposes emergency rule BBC

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule, state-run TV has said, amid reports that police have surrounded the Supreme Court.
Judges are believed to be inside the building in Islamabad, reports say.

Troops have been deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels have gone off air.

Gen Musharraf is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on whether he was eligible to run for re-election last month while remaining army chief.

Pakistan has been engulfed in political upheaval in recent months, and the security forces have suffered a series of blows from pro-Taleban militants opposed to Gen Musharraf's support for the US-led "war on terror".

The BBC's Barbara Plett reports from Islamabad that fears have been growing in the government that the Supreme Court ruling could go against Gen Musharraf.

Land and mobile telephone lines are down in Islamabad, reports say.

Private channels Geo News and Dawn News earlier quoted unnamed sources as saying the government had made up its mind to declare emergency rule. Shortly afterwards they came off air.

One TV channel reported that emergency rule may involve the suspension of the constitution.

Parliamentary elections are due in January - it is not clear whether they will go ahead.

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who recently returned to the country after years of self-exile to lead her party in the elections, is currently in Dubai on a personal visit.

Which of These Were Registered to Vote?

I'll Give you a Hint. There were eight!

JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL WSJ

'This Will Make
Voter Fraud Easier'
Why does Mrs. Clinton want driver's licenses for illegal aliens?

Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked during a debate this week if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. At first she seemed to endorse the idea, then claimed, "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."

The next day she took a firmer stand (sort of) by offering general support for Gov. Spitzer's approach, but adding that she hadn't studied his specific plan. She should, and so should the rest of us. It stops just short of being an engraved invitation for people to commit voter fraud.

The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote.

But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen. That greatly concerns New York election officials, who processed 245,000 voter registrations at DMV offices last year. "It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to . . . get a number of people registered who aren't citizens and went ahead and got them drivers' licenses," says Lee Daghlian, spokesman for New York's Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Ginny Fields, a Long Island Democrat, warns that the state's "Board of Elections has no voter police" and that the state probably has upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants old enough to drive.

The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election" in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.
Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.

Gov. Spitzer is treading perilously close to that. Despite a tactical retreat this week--he says he will only give illegal immigrants a license that isn't valid for airplane travel and entering federal buildings--Mr. Spitzer has taken active steps to obliterate any distinctions between licenses given to citizens and non-citizens.

In a memo last Sept. 24, he ordered county clerks to remove the visa expiration date and "temporary visitor" stamp on licenses issued to non-citizens who are legally in the country. A Spitzer spokeswoman explained the change was made because the "temporary" label was "pejorative," given that some visitors might eventually stay in the U.S. Under fire, Mr. Spitzer backed down this week, delaying the cancellation of the "temporary visitor" stamps through the end of next year.

But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver's licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don't "have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form." What's more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.

Gov. Spitzer's office told me the courts have upheld their position on Social Security numbers. Sandy DePerno, the Democratic clerk of Oneida County, says that makes no sense. "This makes voter fraud easier," she told me.

While states such as New York are increasing the risk of such fraud, a half-dozen states have recently adopted laws requiring voters to offer proof of identity or citizenship before casting a ballot. A federal commission, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, gave such laws a big boost in 2005 when it called for a nationwide policy requiring a photo ID before voting.

Mr. Carter has personal knowledge of why such laws are needed. He recounts in his book "Turning Point" how his 1962 race for Georgia State Senate involved a local sheriff who had cast votes for the dead. It took a recount and court challenge before Mr. Carter was declared the winner.

Measures that curb voter fraud on the one hand and encourage it on the other will be central to the 2008 election. The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Indiana's photo ID law next spring, while lawsuits challenging Gov. Spitzer's moves will be in New York state courts.
Despite her muddled comments this week, there's no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration--easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure that she attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate she's pitted against--even libertarian Ron Paul. She knows she may have trouble winning next year. Maybe that's why she's thrown herself in with those who will look the other way as a new electoral majority is formed--even if that includes non-citizens, felons and those who suddenly cross a state line on Election Day and decide they want to vote someplace new.

Mr. Fund, a columnist for OpinionJournal.com, is author of a forthcoming revised edition of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." (Encounter).

Friday, November 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Given a Choice, Why Would a Parent Want Their Children in a Public School?

Given a choice, there is not one East Coast American city where I would want my children in a public school. There are pockets of suburban schools which would be acceptable. Most of these schools would be fixable if the federal government would get out of public education and all parents of all students paid a modest tuition regardless of income. The diversity cultists, school unions and single parent homes have taken a huge toll on American Public Schools. The single payer system for public education needs to be changed in order to change the public school system and only then will the middle classes return.


SOUTH'S PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN ARE NOW MAINLY LOW INCOME
For the first time in 40 years, more than half of public school students in the South are eligible for free or reduced lunch.

By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 1, 2007 edition

ATLANTA - The plight of the South's school-reform movement now hangs on kids from families that make less than $36,000 a year.

For the first time in 40 years, two new studies show, more than half of public school students in the South are eligible for free or reduced lunch – a watershed moment in a 15-year wealth slide that comes amid resurging racial and economic inequalities in the former Confederacy. The rise is part of a nationwide surge: Low-income students now represent 12 percentage points more of the student body than in 1990.

In response, schools from the Delta's cypress region to the Carolina pine flats face a struggle: How to continue to improve test scores, attract good teachers, and reduce dropout rates amid growth of a group of students whom studies show have greater difficulty reaching grade-level benchmarks?

"Measuring low-income students' success is now measuring the majority of students' success," says Steve Suitts, co-author of "A New Majority," a study released Tuesday by the Southern Education Fund (SEF) in Atlanta.

Nationwide, two overarching factors seem to be driving public-school woes, experts say: In recent years, the erosion of middle-class, blue-collar jobs has led to more people working for lower wages, and many parents who can afford private school have taken their children out of public schools altogether. This skews the average income of remaining families lower. The South in particular has been hard hit by the closing of textile plants in South Carolina and the changing coal economy of the Appalachian highlands. Another reason for the shift, some experts note, is the influx of poorer Latinos at least into the Carolinas and Georgia.

FROM ONE STATE TO 13

In 1989, Mississippi was the only state with a majority of students who needed free or reduced lunch, according to the SEF study. In 2006, 13 states had a majority of low-income students, 11 of them in the South. The only states in the South unlikely to hit the tipping point are Virginia, with 33 percent, and Maryland, at 31 percent. (North Carolina hovered at 49 percent last year.)

Some 54 percent of students in the region come from families who make less than $36,000 annually, the cutoff point to qualify for free or reduced lunch, compared with a national average of 46 percent.

"Something has happened in the nation from 1990 to 2006, where our economic base has gotten more bottom-heavy," says Joan Lord, vice president for education policy at the Southern Regional Education Board in Atlanta, which released its own study this week that found the same phenomenon.

This is not to say that lower income automatically equals lower grades. Some of the best public high schools in the nation, many of them racially and economically integrated, are in the South. But in aggregate, the disparities are apparent. In Alabama, for instance, 43 percent of low-income students scored below basic, the lowest passing classification, on the 2007 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) math test, compared with 14 percent of students with incomes above $36,000.

What's more, studies show that low-income students are more likely to be held back in first and second grade and more likely to drop out of high school.

Those who do graduate from high school are less likely to go on to get a college degree.

"I think this data brings home why progress has been slow in improving education achievement in the South," says Cynthia Brown, a school policy expert at the Center for American Progress.

Many Southerners say the erosion of wealth in the public schools also reveals deeply ingrained attitudes in the South, where strong legislatures, weak governors, fiscal conservatism, and racial stereotypes stymie school progress. "I don't know how many times I've heard that public schools are really for the black kids," says Neal Thigpen, a political scientist at Francis Marion University in Florence, S.C.

The civil rights era challenge to raise up black people through education is at stake, says William Taylor, chairman of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights in Washington. "If we're going to figure out how to get out of it, we have to figure out ways to change the dynamics."

Some school districts are implementing a variety of solutions. In Miami-Dade County, school officials are setting up "parent academies" in local churches and community halls in an attempt to make education a higher priority for families.

In Perry County, Ala., predominantly black schools with 80 percent low-income students regularly graduate 90 percent of their high-schoolers. Teaching the basics and character education are part of that success, residents there say.

RISE OF RESEGREGATION

In some cases, districts that once sought to integrate feel they must re-embrace resegregation as a way to keep the public schools intact. Tuscaloosa, Ala., recently rezoned its middle schools, effectively ending the busing of black city kids to a suburban school.

School board member Ernestine Tucker, who voted against the plan, said the threat from white parents was implicit but obvious: "Rezone, or we pull our kids out of the public schools." "The only difference there is they have options," she says. "We don't have the same options."

Seapower in the 21st Century

The U.S. unveils a collaborative plan for policing the seas

by Robert D. Kaplan

The Navy's New Flat-Earth Strategy

Over the decades our Navy has been slowly disappearing on us. At the end of World War II we had 6,700 ships. Throughout the Cold War we had around 600 ships. In the 1990s we had more than 350. Now we are down to fewer than 280. This decline is occurring while China is in the midst of a shipbuilding and acquisition craze that will result in the People's Liberation Army Navy having more ships than the United States Navy sometime in the next decade. Qualitatively, the United States will still very much have the edge, but China is catching up. And China is merely one of many challenges—terrorism, piracy, port security, and humanitarian disaster assistance are others—that the Navy now faces.

The Navy has plans to increase the number of ships from below 280 to more than 310. But according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service, cost overruns of 34 percent, plus other factors, mean that these plans may be overly optimistic. In fact, over the next decade and beyond, if the Navy builds only seven ships per year with a fleet whose life expectancy is 30 years, the total number of its ships may dwindle to the low 200s. And yet we live in a world where 75 percent of the Earth's population is within 200 miles of the sea, and in an era when 90 percent of commerce travels by sea, including two-thirds of petroleum exports.

Such is the sobering context for the United States's new maritime strategy, just released after many months of study—particularly at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The study was commissioned by Chief of Naval Operations Michael Mullen, recently promoted to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was released by the Navy, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard—the first time the three maritime services have jointly authored a common strategy.

This is very much a diplomatic document, meaning it is necessary to read between the lines. Without mentioning China and without going into specific numbers—or even asserting the need for more ships—the 16-page document makes the case for a Navy that must do, if not everything, then nearly everything. And it makes its case within an intellectual framework that should resonate with the public and a Democratic Congress: the dialectic of globalization. "Our Nation's interests are best served by fostering a peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and governance."

As this document sees it, our world is interconnected, its population clustered in dense, pulsing demographic ganglia near the seas that will be prone to disruptions such as asymmetric attacks and natural disasters. The document pointedly does not rule out great-power military conflicts, asserting that "peace does not preserve itself." But according to the new strategy, even great-power conflicts are apt to be subtle and asymmetric. There is little talk here of conventional sea and land battles and the need to spread democracy. This is a post-Iraq document, with an emphasis on soft power. Indeed, the war in Iraq appears less relevant to the document than the Indian Ocean tsunami emergency of December 2004/January 2005. To wit: "Building on relationships forged in times of calm, we will continue to mitigate human suffering as the vanguard of interagency and multinational efforts ... Human suffering moves us to act, and the expeditionary character of maritime forces uniquely positions them to provide assistance."

The title of the report aptly describes its essence: "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower" is all about cooperation between the three maritime services and, more significantly, between the United States and allied nations. For the past few years, Admiral Mullen has been talking about a 1,000-ship Navy—an international coalition of friendly navies to share intelligence and help each other police the world's coasts and seas. The phrase "1,000-ship Navy" does not appear in the document. (I heard reports and rumors that the Bush administration did not like it.) But the spirit of the 1,000-ship Navy and "collective security" is everywhere in these pages. In fact, the new strategy goes further than Admiral Mullen's concept, expanding the definition of partnership beyond friendly navies to other institutions. "No one nation has the resources required to provide safety and security throughout the entire maritime domain. Increasingly, governments, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and the private sector will form partnerships of common interest to counter ... emerging threats."

In essence, this new maritime strategy represents a restrained, nuanced yearning for a bigger Navy, albeit one whose mission will be cooperation with other navies. That requires more than just new ships. "A key to fostering such relationships is development of sufficient cultural, historical, and linguistic expertise among our Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen to nurture effective interaction with diverse international partners." Such training costs money and creates bureaucratic challenges, but it helps lay the groundwork for an exceedingly gradual, elegant decline of the Navy's capabilities—a future in which it has fewer platforms but gets more out of the ones it does have by working more closely with others.

Strategies make bets, often subtly. This document does not disappoint. While it refers to the need to project massive power in a conventional conflict, its focus represents a clear wager that it would be a mistake to mirror-image a future peer competitor like China. "Adversaries are unlikely to attempt conventional force-on-force conflict and, to the extent that maritime forces could be openly challenged, their plans will almost certainly rely on asymmetric attack and surprise, achieved through stealth, deception, or ambiguity." In other words, even if China does emerge as a peer competitor as the Soviet Union once was, it will act subtly and be just one of myriad threats that the United States is best positioned to handle through a Navy that's forward deployed and interlocked with allied ones. As bets go, this seems like a reasonable one—but it's still a bet.

Bottom line: The new maritime strategy posits an unconventional naval vision for a flat world, as Thomas Friedman calls it. Consistent with that vision, it also calls for a powered-down command structure, with junior officers better trained and more influential than ever, working in dispersed networks around the world, in which marines and coastguardsmen are integrated with sailors in the same units: each unit built around a specific task, be it combat, irregular warfare, or humanitarian relief.

Hard-liners will be frustrated by the spirit of the new maritime strategy, if not its language. Yet because the new strategy travels with the prevailing political winds in Washington, it is likely to win support among Congress and the larger public. And that could produce what the Navy needs but the new strategy doesn't really talk about: more ships.

The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200710u/kaplan-navy.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form