Something Different. French Mediation in Iraq.

France shifts its stance on the conflict in Iraq

By Katrin Bennhold International Herald Tribune
Tuesday, August 21, 2007

PARIS: After years of shunning involvement in a war it said was wrong, France now believes it may hold the key to peace in Iraq, proposing itself as an "honest broker" between the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions.

The shift was one of the most concrete consequences yet of the thaw in French-American relations following the election in May of President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose administration no longer feels bound by the adamant refusal to take a role in Iraq that characterized the reign of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.

During a three-day visit to Baghdad that ended Tuesday, the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said that the time had come for France, and Europe, to play a greater role in Iraq.

"I believe this is the moment. Everyone knows the Americans will not be able to get this country out of difficulty alone," Kouchner told the French radio station RTL on Tuesday before returning to Paris. "I really believe that depending on what happens here it will change the world."

"This is about having an opinion and knowing what positive things one can do and what role France can play in this region," he said, adding that Iraq was "expecting something" from France.

The United States broadly welcomed Kouchner's visit to Baghdad this week, saying it was evidence that the world was increasingly intent on bringing stability to Iraq. British and German diplomats also hailed greater French involvement in the country.

A senior official close to Kouchner explained that the French sought a role in political mediation in Iraq, and had no intention to enter the military conflict.

One of the options under consideration, the official said, is a peace conference that would bring Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish representatives around one table, modeled on a similar gathering that Kouchner organized for various Lebanese factions last month. Such a conference could be organized in France or in one of the countries neighboring Iraq, said the official, who declined to be identified because the issue was still under discussion.

Another possibility was shuttle-diplomacy led by Kouchner among the factions, the official said.

The French move carries the personal mark of Kouchner, who was one of the few French politicians who backed the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and whose longstanding and close relations with Kurdish and Shiite leaders have earned him credibility in the region. During his visit to Iraq, he held talks with religious and political leaders, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani, whom he has known for three decades.

"France in general and Bernard Kouchner in particular are uniquely placed to be a honest broker in Iraq," the French official said.

He did not rule out that France would at some point help train more Iraqi security forces or that French companies might participate in the country's reconstruction as part of a larger European initiative, but he stressed that this was not the focus of the current proposal.

Kouchner's trip, the first to Iraq by a French minister since the invasion in 2003, renewed interest in reports that the French oil company Total may seek a stake in Iraqi oil fields. This month, the French media reported that Total and one of its American rivals, Chevron, were seeking to jointly explore Iraq's fourth-largest oil field.

But Kouchner's office said that no executives had accompanied Kouchner to Iraq and that economic interests were not the focus of the trip.

Previously, France had limited its involvement in postwar Iraq to scrapping €4 billion, or almost $5.5 billion, in debt the country owed and using its permanent seat in the UN Security Council to vote for a greater role for the United Nations.

British officials, in particular, voiced their enthusiasm, saying they had barely discussed Iraq with their French counterparts over the past year, knowing that Paris had earlier had no intention of getting involved.

"This is a real bonus. Anything is better than nothing," said one senior diplomat. "Kouchner has the credibility and he knows all the players - with his record and his style, you can easily see him doing more negotiation between the parties."

But selling the idea to the French people may prove more difficult. Even within Kouchner's own Foreign Ministry, a number of diplomats remain skeptical toward his initiative, warning that it could put France and its citizens at greater risk from terrorist attack.

One French diplomat explained: "The prevailing view in a significant part of the French diplomatic community is that mediation in Iraq is futile and that the civil war needs to run its course and hand a decisive victory to one faction before the violence can end."

Meanwhile, political opponents of the French leadership jumped at the opportunity to criticize Kouchner, a founder of the aid organization Doctors Without Borders and a former UN administrator for Kosovo.

Jean-Pierre Chevènement, a former Socialist minister and presidential candidate, accused Kouchner of "repenting" before President George W. Bush for France's opposition to the war, and said the trip risked destroying France's diplomatic standing in the Arab world.

Nonetheless, in the French press a cautious consensus appeared to emerge on both sides of the political divide that it might be in the French interest to take a role in Iraq.

"France owed it to itself to return to Iraq," the conservative newspaper Le Figaro said in an editorial Tuesday. "You can shut yourself off for four years in the conviction to have been right but that doesn't increase the role our country plays on the international scene."

Or, as left-leaning Le Monde put it: "It's time to stop lecturing the Americans about their errors and start contributing to a solution."

The Revenge of the Jackasses

Yes the private equity guys are a bunch of greedy ruthless capitalist running dogs. The thing is, the ones who want to take their money and find a better use for it are far far worse.

Schumer expected to push for PE taxation

By Nicholas Rummell Financial Week
August 15, 2007

The movement to tax private equity and hedge funds just gained a powerful ally, as Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is expected to propose legislation raising the tax on carried interest on investment partnerships.

Private equity groups had counted on Mr. Schumer to oppose increasing taxes, and have frequently cited him as evidence of a schism among Democrats on the bill. Mr. Schumer is known for his close ties to Wall Street and hedge funds in particular. But by proposing such a bill, the New York senator may be trying to take the focus off private equity firms and apply it specifically to other industries, such as oil and real estate.

Mr. Schumer’s bill would be a lot like legislation proposed in the House, which would raise the tax on private equity carried interest from 15% to as much as 35%. The bill, proposed by Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) and supported by several key Democrats in the House, including Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), would impact investment management services to public partnerships. That legislation does not specifically mention oil and gas or real estate, but many have interpreted the legislation as applying to those industries.

On the other hand, Mr. Schumer is trying to explicitly apply the increased tax to those other partnerships, not just private equity. In a recent Senate hearing, Mr. Schumer said he wants to ensure that Wall Street firms are not singled out by tax bills. “If we’re going to change how we tax financial partnerships, we should treat oil and gas and venture capital and real estate and everything else the same,” he said at the July hearing.

Robert Stewart, a spokesman for the Private Equity Council, said that his organization “believes the current tax treatment of carried interest is the appropriate one,” and declined to comment specifically on Mr. Schumer’s planned legislation.

Still, other key Democrats are leery about boosting private equity taxes. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he will postpone legislative action on PE taxes until next year. Mr. Reid has also been cited as an unlikely ally in taxing PE firms because of the recent interest in Hilton and other hotels and casinos by private equity firms. Some “blue dog” Democrats in the House, including Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), have met with private equity lobbyists and have expressed concerns about the bill.

Private equity is a hot target for lawmakers looking to raise revenue. A bill proposed in June by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) would eliminate the tax exemption on publicly traded partnerships that receive investment advisory fees. Mr. Baucus’ finance committee, which handles all tax issues in the Senate, is also looking at a proposal to increase taxes on loans made by hedge funds.

Such loans are often transferred to offshore funds after a waiting period, and are therefore free from taxation. A committee staffer said no specific legislation has been drafted yet.

The Ways and Means and Finance committees plan to hold additional hearings on private equity taxation after Congress reconvenes next month. Also pending is a congressional report on how much revenue would be generated by the House carried-interest legislation.

Can Coal Technology be Sexy?

I have no doubt that in the near future we can indeed harvest up to 80 percent of the methane trapped in coal beds. Furthermore, there is so much of it that it can fulfil the energy needs of the planet for about 200 years. That gives us time to make the change to a hydrogen economy. And, as far as I'm concerned, the best thing of all: if you use the methane on the spot for a local power plant, you can use the CO2 that the plant produces for extracting more methane from the coal bed. It's a closed circle. And completely clean. -Henk Pagnier"

Clean energy from coal bed gas

BY THIJS WESTERBEEK Radio Netherlands
16-08-2007
Click to listen to the programme, which was first aired in January 2006 (mp3)
A new method of extracting energy from coal layers that until now were considered too deep to access can help 'bridge the gap' between today's fossil-fuelled economy and the potential hydrogen economy of the future. Better still, this method can be efficient and clean.


Methane production well

Coal contains methane gas, a combustible gas with a high caloric value that can be used in much the same way as natural gas. Many coal layers are simply too deep underground, or too thin to be exploited in the traditional way. Yet, they can hold large deposits of methane. The Dutch research and development institute TNO has recently conducted a large-scale test in Poland of a new way of extracting this valuable gas.

Existing methods

Extracting gas from coal beds is not entirely new; in several parts of the world, it's already common practice. Civil engineer Henk Pagnier explains how the existing methods work:

"First, you can simply pump away the water column from a coal reservoir at a depth of, say, five to six hundred metres. Thus, the coal is depressurised and the gas naturally escapes. It's a rather crude method and it doesn't get all the gas out of the coal, but it is efficient in easily accessible layers. The method is called CBM, Coal Bed Methane."

"Another method is underground, subsurface gasification of coal. That means that you burn or gasify the coal in the subterranean layers themselves and then harvest the production gasses, mostly hydrogen, but also some methane. It is a complex process and fairly difficult to control. The amount of gas produced can be disappointing and the burning coal beds can be dangerous; rocky layers above the coal can crack or even collapse. Therefore, early attempts in the 1980s were abandoned. Still, new research has begun in the United States and the first results seem promising."

CO2 injection well

The new method that Henk Pagnier and his colleagues from TNO have been working on is called ECBM, 'Enhanced Coal Bed Methane'. It takes the old CBM method one step further: the methane gas is not simply released naturally by depressurising the coal, but pushed out by injecting another gas, preferably a gas we want to get rid of anyway, like greenhouse gas CO2. Henk Pagnier says:

"The beauty of the whole thing is that CO2 happens to bind to the coal when injected. Better still, it dissolves the methane gas from the coal in the same chemical process. Instead of the 40 percent of gas which can be extracted from the coal by using the old method, CBM, Enhanced Coal Bed Methane can extract up to 80 percent, and that makes the whole concept economically viable in many more cases."

Problem

The purpose of the field experiment in Poland was to prove that the theory could be put into practice. The location was perfect: a depleted CBM production site, where the drill hole for pumping out the water column and harvesting the methane gas could still be used. A second hole was drilled, and CO2 gas pumped in.

The first results were disappointing. Only a minimal amount of methane could be squeezed out, as it were. Dr Pagnier and his colleagues then applied a little trick, inserting a small amount of sand into the CO2. The grains of sand kept open the small cracks that inevitably appear in the coal when pressurised. This hugely enlarged the surface area where CO2 gas could get into direct contact with coal and suddenly the old 'CBM well' did produce promising amounts of Methane.

Checkout the Pajamas. Now a Chinese Clothing Scare.

New Zealand investigates chemical contaminant in Chinese clothing imports

Monday, August 20, 2007 - WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) The China Post

The New Zealand government launched an investigation Monday after children's clothes imported from China were found to contain dangerous levels of the chemical formaldehyde, officials said.
The probe was ordered after scientists testing clothes for TV3's "Target" consumer watchdog program discovered formaldehyde concentrations up to 900 times above the safe level in woolen and cotton clothes from China.

"Target" producer Simon Roy said scientists from government agency AgriQuality had tested a variety of new children's and adult's clothes and the results were so astounding they thought they had made a mistake.

"Our results were shocking, ranging from 230 ppm (parts per million) to 18,000 ppm," he said. "Some of the clothes tested have a reading of 900 times the level that actually causes harm."

Formaldehyde _ a preservative that is used to give a permanent press effect to clothes and also as an embalming fluid _ can cause problems ranging from skin rashes to cancer.

Ministry of Consumer Affairs general manager Liz MacPherson said it had launched an investigation into the nature and size of the problem.

"We're taking some urgent action to investigate it ... We're taking it very seriously," she told National Radio.

"Target" production manager Juanita Dobson said the garments tested were "randomly selected items" that are "readily available from common outlets around New Zealand."

Dobson told The Associated Press that "Target" producers would not release details of brand names or importers ahead of the show's airing on Tuesday.

Cut price retailer The Warehouse issued a recall for children's pajamas made in China at the weekend after two children were burned when their flannelette pajamas caught fire.

The Warehouse's corporate affairs manager, Cynthia Church, said the pajamas had a label that read: 'Made in China' and 'Low Fire Danger.'

Church said all children's nightwear sold in New Zealand must comply with rigorous safety standards.

"As a result, the (consumer watchdog) Commerce Commission is having this particular brand of pajamas independently tested to ensure that they comply with the relevant product safety standards," she said.

Earlier 115,000 Mattel toys made in China were recalled in New Zealand because of hazards from powerful magnets and lead paint.

Chinese exports have been under scrutiny, especially in the U.S., China's most important export market. Regulators have turned up tainted pet-food ingredients, seafood and toothpaste with potentially dangerous chemicals and drugs.

The War on Drugs is Lost. Continuing it is a Security Problem.

"The price of drugs is falling, the Afghan poppy crop is booming, and traffickers are turning as big a profit as ever."

The "war on Drugs" is a failure. The drug culture was glorified and promoted by Hollywood and it is now a global phenomenon. Drugs have always been part of human society. They are a scourge on humanity. It is difficult to find a life that has been improved by the habitual use of drugs. Misery, disease, ruined lives and now terrorism are all by-products of the illicit drug trade. What to do about it?

"Confiscated drug money from one Mexican raid."

Drugs are all about money and image. Take away the money and the drug culture is reduced to a clinical problem. I see no serious solution that does not include the regularization of drug use. That begins with a legal distribution at a price that is far lower than what is available on the street. The use of drugs should be treated the same way we treat alcoholism, tobacco and mental illness. Nothing else has worked. Nothing else will work.

Here is a very sobering assessment on the link between terrorism and the drug wars from the Washington Post:

The Lost War
We've Spent 36 Years and Billions of Dollars Fighting It, but the Drug Trade Keeps Growing
By Misha Glenny
Sunday, August 19, 2007

Poppies were the first thing that British army Capt. Leo Docherty noticed when he arrived in Afghanistan's turbulent Helmand province in April 2006. "They were growing right outside the gate of our Forward Operating Base," he told me. Within two weeks of his deployment to the remote town of Sangin, he realized that "poppy is the economic mainstay and everyone is involved right up to the higher echelons of the local government."

Poppy, of course, is the plant from which opium -- and heroin -- are derived.

The price of drugs is falling, the Afghan poppy crop is booming, and traffickers are turning as big a profit as ever. Former BBC reporter Mischa Glenny examines the failures of U.S. War on Drugs -- which many authorities point to as the biggest booster of the narcotics trade.

Docherty was quick to realize that the military push into northern Helmand province was going to run into serious trouble. The rumor was "that we were there to eradicate the poppy," he said. "The Taliban aren't stupid and so they said, 'These guys are here to destroy your livelihood, so let's take up arms against them.' And it's been a downward spiral since then."

Despite the presence of 35,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, the drug trade there is going gangbusters. According to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Afghan opium production in 2006 rose a staggering 57 percent over the previous year. Next month, the United Nations is expected to release a report showing an additional 15 percent jump in opium production this year while highlighting the sobering fact that Afghanistan now accounts for 95 percent of the world's poppy crop. But the success of the illegal narcotics industry isn't confined to Afghanistan. Business is booming in South America, the Middle East, Africa and across the United States..."

...More here

Putin - "The Man Who Made Russia Strong Again"

Joint military exercises and routine bomber patrols. Is Putin seriously threatened or is it all for domestic consumption?

The Brits had enough in Basra. Success or failure?

>

...American criticism of Britain's desire to pull back in southern Iraq has recently become public, with a US intelligence official telling The Washington Post this month that "the British have basically been defeated in the south". A senior British commander countered, "That's to miss the point. It was never that kind of battle, in which we set out to defeat an enemy." Other officers said the British force was never configured to "clear and hold" Basra in the way the Americans are seeking to do in Baghdad."...

Military commanders tell Brown to withdraw from Iraq without delay

By Raymond Whitaker and Robert Fox
Published: 19 August 2007 Independent

Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve "nothing more" in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.

Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province – the last of the four held by the British – "will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground". He added: "Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October]."

Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, "We've done what we can in the south [of Iraq]". Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as "nightly suicide missions" – by the end of August.

The withdrawal of 500 soldiers has already been announced by the Government. The Army is drawing up plans to "reposture" the 5,000 that will be left at Basra airport, and aims to bring the bulk of them home in the next few months.

Before the invasion in 2003, officers were told that the Army's war aims were to bring stability and democracy to Iraq and to the Middle East as a whole. Those ambitions have been drastically revised, the IoS understands. The priorities now are an orderly withdrawal, with the reputation and capability of the Army "reasonably intact", and for Britain to remain a "credible ally". The final phrase appears to refer to tensions with the US, which has more troops in Iraq than at any other time, including the invasion, as it seeks to impose order in Baghdad and neighbouring provinces.

American criticism of Britain's desire to pull back in southern Iraq has recently become public, with a US intelligence official telling The Washington Post this month that "the British have basically been defeated in the south". A senior British commander countered, "That's to miss the point. It was never that kind of battle, in which we set out to defeat an enemy." Other officers said the British force was never configured to "clear and hold" Basra in the way the Americans are seeking to do in Baghdad.

Immediate American discontent is said to centre on the CIA's reluctance to leave Basra Palace, an important base for watching Iran, which may explain why Britain has held on to the complex until now. But last week it was reported that US intelligence operatives were in the process of pulling out. Further ahead, the US is concerned over the security of its vital supply line from Kuwait, with some American commanders saying that if the British withdraw, American troops will have to be sent south to replace them. As the hub of Iraq's oil industry, Basra is also a tempting prize for the Shia militias battling each other for control.

There are fears that the bloody power struggle in Basra will escalate sharply if and when British troops depart, but commanders point out that up to 90 per cent of the violence is directed against their forces. They are understood to believe it was never the role of occupation troops to intervene in a "turf war" among factions from the same community, all of which have links to the government coalition in Baghdad.

Mr Brown will have to take these wider concerns into account, in reaching a decision that has political as well as military implications. At Camp David he stressed that "we have duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep" in support of the Iraqi government and "the explicit will" of the international community. The 15 September report on the progress of the security "surge" by the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the American ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, will be crucial to British as well as US military plans.

General Petraeus is expected to report mixed results, and to plead for more time for the surge to work. But the White House, under pressure from Republicans facing disaster in the 2008 elections, is likely to announce at least some troop reductions. British commanders, and some US commentators, believe that will enable the Prime Minister to spell out plans for a British withdrawal when MPs return in October, although the process may last well into next year.

Dr. Pangloss in the White House.

"the best of all possible worlds."

Mideast Muslims aren't American Methodists
By Rich Lowry Real Clear Politics

In September 1898, an outnumbered British-led army battled the forces of a Muslim fanatic in Omdurman, Sudan. The Brits unleashed machine-gun fire and artillery on the primitive warriors and suffered a loss of 48 dead and 434 wounded, while killing 9,700, wounding 13,000 and capturing 5,000 of the enemy. Winston Churchill, who was present, called it "the most signal triumph ever gained by the arms of science over barbarians." The British ruled Sudan for another five decades.

In October 1993, badly outnumbered American troops battled the forces of a Somali clan leader in Mogadishu. We unleashed machine-gun fire and helicopter gunships on the primitive warriors and suffered 18 fatalities and 73 wounded to as many 5,500 Somali killed and wounded. It was a fight nearly as lopsided as the Battle of Omdurman, but the U.S. was out of Somalia within a year.


Since the 1990s, we have witnessed the revenge of the tribes. For hundreds of years, the result -- with some spectacular exceptions -- of a clash between modern and primitive armies was a bloodbath and disorienting humiliation for the primitive forces. When Inca emperor (and sun god) Atahualpa ventured out into battle in 1532 with a force of 80,000 against an invading Spanish contingent of 168, he was immediately captured and eventually executed. Now, tribes, clans, and primitives of all sorts represent one of the most intractable problems in the war on terror.

Throughout the past century, the rules and goals of the West have changed. We are thankfully no longer as comfortable slaughtering people, and we no longer want to directly govern third-world areas. Our goal, on humanitarian and -- since Sept. 11 -- on security grounds is to create decent indigenous governing authorities where otherwise chaos would reign. And this is the problem -- tribes and clans can't beat back a conquering Western army but they can, quite naturally, frustrate attempts to govern them.

In western Pakistan, Gaza, southern and eastern Afghanistan, Somalia, and western Iraq, it has been ungoverned spaces that have created the environment in which terrorists can thrive. Our problem in the war on terror is less the absence of democracy than the absence of strong states. Tribes are inherently difficult to govern because they, as James Kurth writes in The American Interest, "do not see themselves as citizens who enjoy equal rights within one homogeneous nation," but as "at most a collection of nations in a nation, but not of it."

This is why even the mind-bogglingly brutal Saddam Hussein had trouble handling the tribes of Iraq. The extraordinary progress we have seen in Iraq in the past six months has less to do with winning new converts to our ideological vision of liberal democracy, and more with how we have -- through inspired and very practical work at the local level -- turned the tribes in our favor. We have greased palms, stroked egos, and benefited from the excesses of an al Qaeda so savage and dark that it represents a threat even to the not particularly gentle or enlightened way of life of the tribes.

President Bush doesn't appear to have entirely absorbed this. He still insists that Muslims desire freedom as much as Methodists do. This may well be true of Muslims who are as deracinated as most Methodists are -- living in societies that have dissolved traditional ties of clan and sect to make possible the individualism upon which modern liberal democracies are built. Most Muslims in the Middle East don't live in such societies, of course, and creating them would represent a radical social revolution almost as threatening to tribal sheiks as the vision of al Qaeda.

What we are instead witnessing in Iraq is a necessary American accommodation to people for whom blood and soil mean much more than constitutional rights or democratic procedure. Is that ideal? No, but consider it part of the revenge of the tribes.