PROSPECTS FOR PEACE
4/2/08
What to Make of Rice's Latest Mid-East Visit
Daniel Levy
Condoleezza Rice has just completed her 11th visit to the Middle East in 15 months and her 3rd trip since the Annapolis Conference.
As Glenn Kessler pointed out in yesterday's Washington Post, time is running out on this Administration and the Secretary of State's "unfinished tasks" list is a dauntingly long one. Given the primacy accorded to Annapolis and the time and travel invested, the Israeli-Palestinian process would appear to assume pride of place.
The Annapolis season is scheduled to last one year, but with four months gone, the scorecard makes for predictably depressing reading. Economic conditions and freedom of movement in the West Bank have, if anything, deteriorated; settlements are expanding and not a single outpost has gone; Israelis and Palestinians are less secure. Both leaders – Ehud Olmert and Abu Mazen are still alive politically (and that admittedly was not a given) but both are still in a precariously fragile state.
Belief in the process barely registers with either public. Still the Administration continues to tout its goal of a breakthrough agreement by years-end, the president will visit in May and Rice even notched up some minor progress on this trip. So where do things stand and what are the prospects?
Here are five comments on the latest developments:
1 – One Step Forward, Two Steps…
The one deliverable from the Rice visit came from a trilateral meeting attended by, in addition to the Secretary herself, the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyed. This produced an agreement on "concrete steps to implement the Roadmap. This is a program that will improve the daily lives of Palestinians and help make Israel secure [. . .] Prime Minister Fayyad and Defense Minister Barak agreed on points of special, immediate emphasis and work."
Those steps are detailed in a one page document released by the State Department that includes Israeli commitments to ease certain movement restrictions, to allow additional Palestinian security deployments, building authorizations and economic projects. None of this is new. Similar commitments have been made before by Israel to the US and PA and were reneged on. To even squeeze this list out of MoD Barak was an achievement given the spoiler role he has assumed since returning to Government, and this time Secretary Rice promised "a more systematic approach [. . .] to monitoring and verifying."
The Catch 22 is that absent either a political deal or real change in the security environment (such as a comprehensive ceasefire with Hamas) – and the two are connected - the Israeli security default mode means consistent back-sliding on all these issues.
Take a closer look at that package produced in honor of the Secretary's visit:
There are now 580 obstacles to Palestinian freedom of movement in the tiny area of the West Bank, more than at the time of Annapolis and about 30 more than this time last year. Barak committed to removing 50, net change +/- 20 and that is if all is implemented and there is no slippage.
Barak agreed to allow PA security deployment in Jenin, with restrictions, and some new measures on security coordination. Nice, but the last town that received such treatment was Nablus and in that experiment the IDF continued ongoing military operations that undermined the PA security efforts and deeply embarrassed the PA leadership. This latest very public announcement will do nothing to stem the tide of internal Palestinian criticism that increasingly depicts the PA as a puppet of Israel. The third basket of commitments was described as follows:
"The two sides approved in concept the development of new housing in the West Bank for Palestinians."
"Master Plans for 25 Palestinian villages in Area C have been approved."
Nothing like this particular snippet to remind Palestinians just how much Israel still controls their lives and just about everything in the West Bank – and just how limited the mandate of the PA is.
The final treat in this festive Easter egg of goodies – economic projects – "Both sides have agreed to create a major new industrial park in Tarqumiya" and hold an "investment conference in Bethlehem". To anyone who has followed the last decade and a half of peace-processing this will sound tragically familiar. Industrial Park plans existed before (a 90 million dollar project called the Gaza Industrial Estate in 1999 and a 2007 joint government of Israel-PA plan for industrial parks in Jenin, Sha'ar Ephraim, Erez and Karni crossings, and Jericho) and stranger than strange none of them ever seem to materialize – would it be too mean-spirited to suggest that occupation, attendant insecurity and unpredictability and undefined borders do not provide the best climate for investor confidence or business success?!
And yes, that would be the same Bethlehem where Israel conducted a recent extra-judicial killing of four Palestinians that saw the largest protests that city can remember – 'welcome to happy, holy Bethlehem'.
It all sounds rather reminiscent of the Access and Movement Agreement negotiated by Secretary Rice in November 2005 and ignored by everyone ever since.
To give some credit, I think Rice has little faith that this list of action items will produce meaningful change – one of the successes of her recent diplomacy was to de-link day-to-day issues from negotiations and to recognize the limited potential of improvements on the ground absent real political progress. Rice had to produce something, Barak was willing to throw together this pick'n'mix menu, the PA could at least point to something and everyone settled for what they could get.
If these measures at least put a brake on the slide to an even worse West Bank situation then that too is an achievement, though the announcements of new Israeli settlement expansion literally hours after the Secretary's departure was hardly a good omen.
2 – How Many Generals Does It Take To Move A Checkpoint?
The US now has three generals deployed on the Israeli-Palestinian front as envoys with varying mandates and responsibilities. General Dayton oversees Palestinian security sector reform and cooperation, General Jones looks at regional security issues in the context of a prospective future peace deal, and General Fraser has perhaps the most thankless task – verifying the implementation of all those Roadmap commitments – including the new laundry list from this visit. The question for Secretary Rice is whether this latest mission served to strengthen or fatally undermine her new Special Envoy Lt. General William Fraser?
About two and a half weeks ago Fraser convened his first trilateral meeting on Roadmap implementation – The Palestinian PM Fayyad showed up, but Israeli MD Barak skipped the meeting and sent the senior Defense Ministry strategist General Amos Gilad. It was impossible to pretend that this was not a slap in the face to the new US mission and Envoy from Mr. Barak.
During this trip the Secretary of State convened a trilateral meeting – and lo and behold Barak found time to grace the occasion with his presence.
One of two things is happening here – either Barak has now set his bar for being there at nothing less than the Secretary level (with the corresponding impact on General Fraser's standing and ability to function), or Ms. Rice introduced Mr. Barak to her new Envoy and expressed the expectation that the two gentlemen would be seeing rather a lot of each other in the near future. Someone should ask Condi which it is.
3 – Where are those peace negotiations at?
The other trilateral meeting on the Secretary's schedule during this visit brought her together with the heads of the respective negotiating teams who are working for a framework agreement, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on the Israeli side and her PLO counterpart, Abu Ala.
Peace negotiations do not lend themselves to progress reports, half-time updates or latest scores, so in that respect the Secretary having nothing to announce was absolutely understandable and the act of sitting with and hearing from both sides was a good move. My sources tell me that these negotiations are serious, the ground being covered is significant and both sides are adopting a constructive, problem-solving approach.
At the same time, precious few people on the Israeli or Palestinian sides actually expect a deal to be reached. There is no contradiction here – with negotiations it ain't over til it's over and if the negotiations collapse over a 1% disagreement or a 90% disagreement the end result is the same.
I would argue that the dis-connect here is not related to the sincerity of the negotiators but rather to the environment or context in which those negotiations are taking place and the lack of anything other than an artificial deadline.
The need to take a fresh look at that surrounding environment – political division on the Palestinian side, Gaza, regional division, Syria, etc. is where Administration policy still comes up short in ways that are likely to ultimately defeat the Annapolis effort.
4 – Remember Gaza?
Gaza was barely mentioned by the Secretary, at least in official comments, during this trip. That may be a good thing. The rhetorical titudes that tend to accompany any reference to the Gaza situation are not helpful, they were repeated again, with Rice arguing that the democratically elected Hamas government "holds the people hostage," but on this visit such statements were the exception not the rule. Perhaps the Administration is allowing or even encouraging the quiet, Egyptian-led work with all the parties – Israel, the PA, and Hamas – aimed at building on the current de-escalation in order to create a sustainable ceasefire.
Probably the best way to improve the prospects for the peace talks would be to improve the security situation and re-establish a degree of national dialogue, agreed rules of the game and ultimately unity on the Palestinian side. That will require a locked-in ceasefire at least for Gaza and probably for the West Bank as well, which in turn necessitates not only an end to shooting but also arrangements for border crossings to open and efforts to prevent weapons smuggling. Obviously this requires the engagement, indirectly via third parties, of Hamas. In addition efforts need to be re-launched at talks for a Hamas-Fatah understanding and seen through to a successful conclusion. The Yemenis have recently acted as a go-between but internal Fatah disagreements are not only derailing that effort but also further tarnishing Fatah's credibility. Playing for time is not helping Fatah. Abbas may not be keen on unity talks but the apparent continuation of the US (and Israeli) veto of intra-Palestinian talks is crucial and it is a failed policy that actually undermines the likelihood of achievement in a peace process to which both sides are at least outwardly committed, and not the opposite as claimed.
5 – A Region-In-Waiting
There is a price to pay for getting serious on an Israeli-Palestinian peace effort not on day one of an administration but only after day 2,500. Part of that price is that much of the Middle East has already written off this Administration and is in a holding pattern awaiting the successor. And that will be another strike against the administration's last gasp peace effort. Those actors in the region who the Bush Administration discourages anyone from engaging with would probably not be amenable anyway to any change in policy at this late date. But even the Administration's allies are unlikely to go out on a limb and to make a serious effort to be helpful especially if there would be any price to pay.
So, What Next?
If the current intensification of diplomacy continues over the next months and prevents a further deterioration of the situation on the ground and maintains a ceasefire then maybe there will be no grand peace ceremony but there would still be something positive. If, in addition, the negotiations continue and this Administration hands over to its successor an ongoing process then there would certainly be no shame in that. The idea that the Administration takes its Middle East peace process home with it, as the Clinton Administration did, should not be continued. Under the current circumstances a Hail Mary peace process pass in '08 could well do more harm than good.
One could of course change those circumstances by shifting policy to actively promote a ceasefire, encourage Palestinian internal reconciliation not division, engage Syria, build real region support and apply real elbow grease to reach closure on a political deal...well it is April Fool's Day.
Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Muslim true/false by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed
LOS ANGELES TIMES
4/2/08
Muslim true/false
What you think you know about them is likely wrong -- and that's dangerous.
John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed
Winning hearts and minds -- the Bush administration, foreign policy wonks, even the U.S. military agree that this is the key to any victory over global terrorism. Yet our public diplomacy program has made little progress on improving America's image. Few seem to recognize that American ignorance of Islam and Muslims has been the fatal flaw.
How much do Americans know about the views and beliefs of Muslims around the world? According to polls, not much. Perhaps not surprising, the majority of Americans (66%) admit to having at least some prejudice against Muslims; one in five say they have "a great deal" of prejudice. Almost half do not believe American Muslims are "loyal" to this country, and one in four do not want a Muslim as a neighbor.
Why should such anti-Muslim bias concern us? First, it undermines the war on terrorism: Situations are misdiagnosed, root causes are misidentified and bad prescriptions do more harm than good. Second, it makes our public diplomacy sound like double-talk. U.S. diplomats are trying to convince Muslims around the world that the United States respects them and that the war on terrorism is not out to destroy Islam. Their task is made infinitely more difficult by the frequent airing of anti-Muslim sentiment on right-wing call-in radio, which is then heard around the world on the Internet.
Finally, public ignorance weakens our democracy at election time. Instead of a well-informed citizenry choosing our representatives, we are rendered vulnerable to manipulative fear tactics. We need look no further than the political attacks on Barack Obama. Any implied connection to Islam -- attending a Muslim school in Indonesia, the middle name Hussein -- is wielded to suggest that he is unfit for the presidency and used as fuel for baseless rumors.
Anti-Muslim sentiment fuels misinformation, and is fueled by it -- misinformation that is squarely contradicted by evidence.
Starting in 2001, the research firm Gallup embarked on the largest, most comprehensive survey of its kind, spending more than six years polling a population that represented more than 90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. The results showed plainly that much of the conventional wisdom about Muslims -- views touted by U.S. policymakers and pundits and accepted by voters -- is simply false.
For instance, Gallup found that 72% of Americans disagreed with this statement: "The majority of those living in Muslim countries thought men and women should have equal rights." In fact, majorities in even some of the most conservative Muslim societies directly refute this assessment: 73% of Saudis, 89% of Iranians and 94% of Indonesians say that men and women should have equal legal rights. Majorities of Muslim men and women in dozens of countries around the world also believe that a woman should have the right to work outside the home at any job for which she is qualified (88% in Indonesia, 72% in Egypt and even 78% in Saudi Arabia), and to vote without interference from family members (87% in Indonesia, 91% in Egypt, 98% in Lebanon).
What about Muslim sympathy for terrorism? Many charge that Islam encourages violence more than other faiths, but studies show that Muslims around the world are at least as likely as Americans to condemn attacks on civilians. Polls show that 6% of the American public thinks attacks in which civilians are targets are "completely justified." In Saudi Arabia, this figure is 4%. In Lebanon and Iran, it's 2%.
Moreover, it's politics, not piety, that drives the small minority -- just 7% -- of Muslims to anti-Americanism at the level of condoning the attacks of 9/11. Looking across majority-Muslim countries, Gallup found no statistical difference in self-reported religiosity between those who sympathized with the attackers and those who did not. When respondents in select countries were asked in an open-ended question to explain their views of 9/11, those who condemned it cited humanitarian as well as religious reasons. For example, 20% of Kuwaitis who called the attacks "completely unjustified" explained this position by saying that terrorism was against the teachings of Islam. A respondent in Indonesia went so far as to quote a direct verse from the Koran prohibiting killing innocents. On the other hand, not a single respondent who condoned the attacks used the Koran as justification. Instead, they relied on political rationalizations, calling the U.S. an imperialist power or accusing it of wanting to control the world.
If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans' general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.
Still, the typical American cannot be blamed for these misperceptions. Media-content analyses show that the majority of U.S. TV news coverage of Islam is sharply negative. Americans are bombarded every day with news stories about Muslims and majority-Muslim countries in which vocal extremists, not evidence, drive perceptions.
Rather than allow extremists on either side to dictate how we discuss Islam and the West, we need to listen carefully to the voices of ordinary people. Our victory in the war on terrorism depends on it.
John L. Esposito is an Islamic studies professor at Georgetown University. Dalia Mogahed is executive director of the Center for Muslim Studies at Gallup. They co-wrote Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think.
4/2/08
Muslim true/false
What you think you know about them is likely wrong -- and that's dangerous.
John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed
Winning hearts and minds -- the Bush administration, foreign policy wonks, even the U.S. military agree that this is the key to any victory over global terrorism. Yet our public diplomacy program has made little progress on improving America's image. Few seem to recognize that American ignorance of Islam and Muslims has been the fatal flaw.
How much do Americans know about the views and beliefs of Muslims around the world? According to polls, not much. Perhaps not surprising, the majority of Americans (66%) admit to having at least some prejudice against Muslims; one in five say they have "a great deal" of prejudice. Almost half do not believe American Muslims are "loyal" to this country, and one in four do not want a Muslim as a neighbor.
Why should such anti-Muslim bias concern us? First, it undermines the war on terrorism: Situations are misdiagnosed, root causes are misidentified and bad prescriptions do more harm than good. Second, it makes our public diplomacy sound like double-talk. U.S. diplomats are trying to convince Muslims around the world that the United States respects them and that the war on terrorism is not out to destroy Islam. Their task is made infinitely more difficult by the frequent airing of anti-Muslim sentiment on right-wing call-in radio, which is then heard around the world on the Internet.
Finally, public ignorance weakens our democracy at election time. Instead of a well-informed citizenry choosing our representatives, we are rendered vulnerable to manipulative fear tactics. We need look no further than the political attacks on Barack Obama. Any implied connection to Islam -- attending a Muslim school in Indonesia, the middle name Hussein -- is wielded to suggest that he is unfit for the presidency and used as fuel for baseless rumors.
Anti-Muslim sentiment fuels misinformation, and is fueled by it -- misinformation that is squarely contradicted by evidence.
Starting in 2001, the research firm Gallup embarked on the largest, most comprehensive survey of its kind, spending more than six years polling a population that represented more than 90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. The results showed plainly that much of the conventional wisdom about Muslims -- views touted by U.S. policymakers and pundits and accepted by voters -- is simply false.
For instance, Gallup found that 72% of Americans disagreed with this statement: "The majority of those living in Muslim countries thought men and women should have equal rights." In fact, majorities in even some of the most conservative Muslim societies directly refute this assessment: 73% of Saudis, 89% of Iranians and 94% of Indonesians say that men and women should have equal legal rights. Majorities of Muslim men and women in dozens of countries around the world also believe that a woman should have the right to work outside the home at any job for which she is qualified (88% in Indonesia, 72% in Egypt and even 78% in Saudi Arabia), and to vote without interference from family members (87% in Indonesia, 91% in Egypt, 98% in Lebanon).
What about Muslim sympathy for terrorism? Many charge that Islam encourages violence more than other faiths, but studies show that Muslims around the world are at least as likely as Americans to condemn attacks on civilians. Polls show that 6% of the American public thinks attacks in which civilians are targets are "completely justified." In Saudi Arabia, this figure is 4%. In Lebanon and Iran, it's 2%.
Moreover, it's politics, not piety, that drives the small minority -- just 7% -- of Muslims to anti-Americanism at the level of condoning the attacks of 9/11. Looking across majority-Muslim countries, Gallup found no statistical difference in self-reported religiosity between those who sympathized with the attackers and those who did not. When respondents in select countries were asked in an open-ended question to explain their views of 9/11, those who condemned it cited humanitarian as well as religious reasons. For example, 20% of Kuwaitis who called the attacks "completely unjustified" explained this position by saying that terrorism was against the teachings of Islam. A respondent in Indonesia went so far as to quote a direct verse from the Koran prohibiting killing innocents. On the other hand, not a single respondent who condoned the attacks used the Koran as justification. Instead, they relied on political rationalizations, calling the U.S. an imperialist power or accusing it of wanting to control the world.
If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans' general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.
Still, the typical American cannot be blamed for these misperceptions. Media-content analyses show that the majority of U.S. TV news coverage of Islam is sharply negative. Americans are bombarded every day with news stories about Muslims and majority-Muslim countries in which vocal extremists, not evidence, drive perceptions.
Rather than allow extremists on either side to dictate how we discuss Islam and the West, we need to listen carefully to the voices of ordinary people. Our victory in the war on terrorism depends on it.
John L. Esposito is an Islamic studies professor at Georgetown University. Dalia Mogahed is executive director of the Center for Muslim Studies at Gallup. They co-wrote Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think.
US Alarmed as Some Exports Veer Off Course
U.S. Alarmed as Some Exports Veer Off Course
Tamara Abdul Hadi for The New York Times
Port Rashid terminal in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Dubai is the host for more Navy ships than any port outside America.
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: April 2, 2008
WASHINGTON — Roadside bombings of American troops in Iraq were occurring with unnerving regularity when military investigators made a disturbing discovery: American-made computer circuits sold to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates had turned up in the bomb detonators.
That finding set off a clash with Washington last year when the Bush administration cited the diversion of the computer circuits to Iran, and eventually Iraq, as proof that the United Arab Emirates were failing to prevent American technology from slipping into the wrong hands. Administration officials said aircraft parts, specialized metals and gas detectors that have a potential military use had also moved through Dubai, one of the emirates, to Iran, Syria or Pakistan.
The diplomatic face-off, which drew little public attention, prompted the United States to threaten tough new controls on exports to the United Arab Emirates, an ally. The nation had invested billions to become a global trading hub and had begun a campaign to burnish its image in the United States after the uproar in 2006 over a proposal to allow a Dubai company manage some American port terminals.
The administration backed down only after the emirates promised to pass their own export control law. But it is unclear that much has changed nearly a year after the confrontation.
Yousef al-Otaiba, an adviser to the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates, said his country was more closely monitoring goods that it re-exported while blocking items that might help Iran build weapons systems. But trade experts and Iranian traders in Dubai said there was little evidence that the new export control law was being broadly enforced.
“It has virtually had no effect, to be honest,” said Nasser Hashempour, deputy president of the Iranian Business Council in Dubai. “If someone wants to move something — get it to Iran — it is easy to be done.”
Relations with the United Arab Emirates have long been delicate for the United States. Dubai, for example, is the host for more Navy ships than any port outside the United States and is an important listening post for American intelligence personnel. Emirates officials have complied with a Bush administration request to inspect American-bound ship containers for nuclear threats as they move through Dubai.
But the country, which is made up of the emirates Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Al Fujayrah, Umm al Qaywayn and Ras al Khaymah, has deep economic and cultural ties with Iran, which is only about 70 miles across the Persian Gulf from Dubai. As many as 400,000 Iranians live in the emirates, many of them traders who track down goods in the sprawling consumer bazaar of Dubai and then re-export them to Iran, at times ignoring United Nations trade sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program and a broader United States embargo.
Emirates Blame U.S.
Nearly $12 billion worth of American goods flowed into the emirates in 2007. Officials in the emirates say the United States — which prohibits American companies from directly selling most goods to Iran and bars foreign companies from reselling dual-use products there — has complicated efforts to follow the rules.
The officials, with trade experts, blame America for overstating the potential dangers of certain goods or passing on tips about illicit shipments that are inaccurate or too vague to act.
“They like to exaggerate, or at least try to point to some strategic significance of the item, like saying, ‘This software program could be used to design nuclear power plants,’ even if someone is just buying it to draw puppies and flowers,” said Clif Burns, an export control lawyer at Powell Goldstein in Washington.
American officials have been increasingly alarmed about trade in the United Arab Emirates since 2002, when the Commerce Department sent an inspector, Mary O’Brien, there. From her spot checks of factories, freight forwarders and other companies that had ordered American products subject to export controls, Commerce officials say, it was clear that dual-use goods, including computer equipment, were being diverted on a grander scale than imagined.
An entity said to be a woodworking shop, for example, had ordered a sophisticated American machine for making metal parts. The device, Ms. O’Brien knew, could also shape components for a missile system. The supposed factory contained almost no sawdust, and the few employees could not explain how they intended to use the machine.
“This is not right,” Ms. O’Brien said she had said to herself, convinced that she had turned up her first “briefcase business”— open for inspection, but closed for good as soon as she walked out.
She pressed a Dubai pistachio wholesaler on why he had bought an American infrared camera, which can detect living objects in the dark, and where it had gone. Later she found he had arranged its return from Iran, where it had apparently been diverted, while stalling a follow-up inspection.
In nearly 40 percent of her inspections in four years, she found that regulated items were missing or that the recipient would not cooperate. Many of those companies were placed on a list, warning American exporters to be careful when selling to them.
“This was a huge sieve,” said Lisa A. Prager, a former top Commerce export control official. “Almost nothing that said it was going to U.A.E. was staying in U.A.E.”
Ms. O’Brien’s efforts helped jump-start criminal investigations into the diversion of American-made goods to Iran. As of last year, 58 inquiries, nearly half of the total, involved the United Arab Emirates. A number of companies were fined or charged criminally, including Mine Safety Appliances of Pittsburgh, which admitted last year that its shipments of gas masks and other goods had been rerouted by its agent in Abu Dhabi to Iran and Syria. (In this case, the company turned itself in.)
The Bush administration turned up the diplomatic heat, sending top-level officials, including Frances F. Townsend, then the White House homeland security and counterterrorism adviser — to push emirates’ officials to confront the problem.
From Polite to Nasty
In 2005, the discovery of a American-made computer circuit in an unexploded roadside bomb in Iraq transformed what had been a polite diplomatic exchange into a nasty dispute.
By reading a serial number on the chip and studying shipping records, American investigators determined that it had moved from the manufacturer, AMD of Sunnyvale, Calif., to Mayrow General Trading in Dubai. It went to Iran, then turned up in Iraq in “limited numbers” of roadside bombs, a federal official involved in the inquiry said. No known deaths have been linked to the bombs, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Officials at the Commerce and Defense Departments would not discuss how they had connected Mayrow to the unexploded bomb. But Michael D. Turner, who until last year was director of the Commerce Department’s enforcement office, said investigators uncovered evidence definitively connecting the two. A spokesman for AMD said the company cooperated with the inquiry, adding that its customers are bound by agreements not to re-export its products to Iran.
American officials had no authority to act against Mayrow, a foreign company, and the Commerce Department had not required AMD to get an export license restricting resale of the chip because it was not considered particularly powerful. But American officials were angry that their United Arab Emirates counterparts had not immediately moved to close Mayrow.
“The Mayrow case is just one example of an alarming lack of export oversight by the government of the U.A.E.,” Christopher A. Padilla, a senior Commerce Department official, said in a December 2006 speech in Washington. “We continue to discuss this issue with U.A.E. authorities, but time for action is running short.”
To back up that threat, the Commerce Department proposed a new export controls for “governments unwilling or unable to cooperate with the U.S. in interdiction efforts.” The rules would mandate special reviews before certain dual-use American products could be exported to those nations. Emirati diplomats and lobbyists appealed to officials in the State Department and White House, and promised the Commerce Department that the emirates would adopt their own export control law, a commitment they carried out by August.
Mr. Otaiba, the international affairs director for the crown prince, said that the emirates’ officials now had a clearer legal ground to intercept dual-use goods being exported to Iran or elsewhere — and that they had already started to do so.
Late last year, his government shut down more than 12 companies suspected of exporting goods illegally or money laundering. It recently arrested a Jordanian businessman who was trying to import a metal used in nuclear reactors, with the intention of selling it to another country.
Progress and Prospects
At the Commerce and State Departments, officials said they were encouraged by actions the Emirates had taken in some recent cases — the details of which are classified — that relied on their new authority under the export law. But they said an export licensing system must still be introduced and other enforcement steps taken.
“The UAE has made progress,” said Mario Mancuso, the Commerce under secretary for export administration. “But more needs to be done.”
The Commerce Department, however, declined requests by The New York Times and Congressional investigators in recent months to publicly release any updated figures on how frequently inspections by American authorities turned up problems.
Mr. Turner, who still works in export control, said he still was awaiting evidence that the new law was being enforced. “I still don’t see any real change in what the U.A.E. is doing,” he said.
Nasir Khan, the Commerce Department investigator who has the job once held by Ms. O’Brien, said in a brief interview about the new export law, “Things are still very nascent,” he said.
Executives at several of the companies suspected of violating American export controls, said they had faced no increased scrutiny in Dubai.
S. M. Mir Ebrhimi, chief executive of Reza Nezam Trading, which operates mostly out of Iran, said he continued sending products with American-made components as usual. Mohammad Kazem, supervisor at Al Musafer Tourism and Cargo, said he had not even known his business was on the warning list. He said that the company followed the law, disputing any suggestion by American authorities that he had shipped prohibited items to Iran. He also said that he had seen no more inspections or spot checks by Emirati authorities.
“There is no problem in Dubai,” he said.
Nada El Sawy contributed reporting from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Tamara Abdul Hadi for The New York Times
Port Rashid terminal in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Dubai is the host for more Navy ships than any port outside America.
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: April 2, 2008
WASHINGTON — Roadside bombings of American troops in Iraq were occurring with unnerving regularity when military investigators made a disturbing discovery: American-made computer circuits sold to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates had turned up in the bomb detonators.
That finding set off a clash with Washington last year when the Bush administration cited the diversion of the computer circuits to Iran, and eventually Iraq, as proof that the United Arab Emirates were failing to prevent American technology from slipping into the wrong hands. Administration officials said aircraft parts, specialized metals and gas detectors that have a potential military use had also moved through Dubai, one of the emirates, to Iran, Syria or Pakistan.
The diplomatic face-off, which drew little public attention, prompted the United States to threaten tough new controls on exports to the United Arab Emirates, an ally. The nation had invested billions to become a global trading hub and had begun a campaign to burnish its image in the United States after the uproar in 2006 over a proposal to allow a Dubai company manage some American port terminals.
The administration backed down only after the emirates promised to pass their own export control law. But it is unclear that much has changed nearly a year after the confrontation.
Yousef al-Otaiba, an adviser to the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates, said his country was more closely monitoring goods that it re-exported while blocking items that might help Iran build weapons systems. But trade experts and Iranian traders in Dubai said there was little evidence that the new export control law was being broadly enforced.
“It has virtually had no effect, to be honest,” said Nasser Hashempour, deputy president of the Iranian Business Council in Dubai. “If someone wants to move something — get it to Iran — it is easy to be done.”
Relations with the United Arab Emirates have long been delicate for the United States. Dubai, for example, is the host for more Navy ships than any port outside the United States and is an important listening post for American intelligence personnel. Emirates officials have complied with a Bush administration request to inspect American-bound ship containers for nuclear threats as they move through Dubai.
But the country, which is made up of the emirates Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Al Fujayrah, Umm al Qaywayn and Ras al Khaymah, has deep economic and cultural ties with Iran, which is only about 70 miles across the Persian Gulf from Dubai. As many as 400,000 Iranians live in the emirates, many of them traders who track down goods in the sprawling consumer bazaar of Dubai and then re-export them to Iran, at times ignoring United Nations trade sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program and a broader United States embargo.
Emirates Blame U.S.
Nearly $12 billion worth of American goods flowed into the emirates in 2007. Officials in the emirates say the United States — which prohibits American companies from directly selling most goods to Iran and bars foreign companies from reselling dual-use products there — has complicated efforts to follow the rules.
The officials, with trade experts, blame America for overstating the potential dangers of certain goods or passing on tips about illicit shipments that are inaccurate or too vague to act.
“They like to exaggerate, or at least try to point to some strategic significance of the item, like saying, ‘This software program could be used to design nuclear power plants,’ even if someone is just buying it to draw puppies and flowers,” said Clif Burns, an export control lawyer at Powell Goldstein in Washington.
American officials have been increasingly alarmed about trade in the United Arab Emirates since 2002, when the Commerce Department sent an inspector, Mary O’Brien, there. From her spot checks of factories, freight forwarders and other companies that had ordered American products subject to export controls, Commerce officials say, it was clear that dual-use goods, including computer equipment, were being diverted on a grander scale than imagined.
An entity said to be a woodworking shop, for example, had ordered a sophisticated American machine for making metal parts. The device, Ms. O’Brien knew, could also shape components for a missile system. The supposed factory contained almost no sawdust, and the few employees could not explain how they intended to use the machine.
“This is not right,” Ms. O’Brien said she had said to herself, convinced that she had turned up her first “briefcase business”— open for inspection, but closed for good as soon as she walked out.
She pressed a Dubai pistachio wholesaler on why he had bought an American infrared camera, which can detect living objects in the dark, and where it had gone. Later she found he had arranged its return from Iran, where it had apparently been diverted, while stalling a follow-up inspection.
In nearly 40 percent of her inspections in four years, she found that regulated items were missing or that the recipient would not cooperate. Many of those companies were placed on a list, warning American exporters to be careful when selling to them.
“This was a huge sieve,” said Lisa A. Prager, a former top Commerce export control official. “Almost nothing that said it was going to U.A.E. was staying in U.A.E.”
Ms. O’Brien’s efforts helped jump-start criminal investigations into the diversion of American-made goods to Iran. As of last year, 58 inquiries, nearly half of the total, involved the United Arab Emirates. A number of companies were fined or charged criminally, including Mine Safety Appliances of Pittsburgh, which admitted last year that its shipments of gas masks and other goods had been rerouted by its agent in Abu Dhabi to Iran and Syria. (In this case, the company turned itself in.)
The Bush administration turned up the diplomatic heat, sending top-level officials, including Frances F. Townsend, then the White House homeland security and counterterrorism adviser — to push emirates’ officials to confront the problem.
From Polite to Nasty
In 2005, the discovery of a American-made computer circuit in an unexploded roadside bomb in Iraq transformed what had been a polite diplomatic exchange into a nasty dispute.
By reading a serial number on the chip and studying shipping records, American investigators determined that it had moved from the manufacturer, AMD of Sunnyvale, Calif., to Mayrow General Trading in Dubai. It went to Iran, then turned up in Iraq in “limited numbers” of roadside bombs, a federal official involved in the inquiry said. No known deaths have been linked to the bombs, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Officials at the Commerce and Defense Departments would not discuss how they had connected Mayrow to the unexploded bomb. But Michael D. Turner, who until last year was director of the Commerce Department’s enforcement office, said investigators uncovered evidence definitively connecting the two. A spokesman for AMD said the company cooperated with the inquiry, adding that its customers are bound by agreements not to re-export its products to Iran.
American officials had no authority to act against Mayrow, a foreign company, and the Commerce Department had not required AMD to get an export license restricting resale of the chip because it was not considered particularly powerful. But American officials were angry that their United Arab Emirates counterparts had not immediately moved to close Mayrow.
“The Mayrow case is just one example of an alarming lack of export oversight by the government of the U.A.E.,” Christopher A. Padilla, a senior Commerce Department official, said in a December 2006 speech in Washington. “We continue to discuss this issue with U.A.E. authorities, but time for action is running short.”
To back up that threat, the Commerce Department proposed a new export controls for “governments unwilling or unable to cooperate with the U.S. in interdiction efforts.” The rules would mandate special reviews before certain dual-use American products could be exported to those nations. Emirati diplomats and lobbyists appealed to officials in the State Department and White House, and promised the Commerce Department that the emirates would adopt their own export control law, a commitment they carried out by August.
Mr. Otaiba, the international affairs director for the crown prince, said that the emirates’ officials now had a clearer legal ground to intercept dual-use goods being exported to Iran or elsewhere — and that they had already started to do so.
Late last year, his government shut down more than 12 companies suspected of exporting goods illegally or money laundering. It recently arrested a Jordanian businessman who was trying to import a metal used in nuclear reactors, with the intention of selling it to another country.
Progress and Prospects
At the Commerce and State Departments, officials said they were encouraged by actions the Emirates had taken in some recent cases — the details of which are classified — that relied on their new authority under the export law. But they said an export licensing system must still be introduced and other enforcement steps taken.
“The UAE has made progress,” said Mario Mancuso, the Commerce under secretary for export administration. “But more needs to be done.”
The Commerce Department, however, declined requests by The New York Times and Congressional investigators in recent months to publicly release any updated figures on how frequently inspections by American authorities turned up problems.
Mr. Turner, who still works in export control, said he still was awaiting evidence that the new law was being enforced. “I still don’t see any real change in what the U.A.E. is doing,” he said.
Nasir Khan, the Commerce Department investigator who has the job once held by Ms. O’Brien, said in a brief interview about the new export law, “Things are still very nascent,” he said.
Executives at several of the companies suspected of violating American export controls, said they had faced no increased scrutiny in Dubai.
S. M. Mir Ebrhimi, chief executive of Reza Nezam Trading, which operates mostly out of Iran, said he continued sending products with American-made components as usual. Mohammad Kazem, supervisor at Al Musafer Tourism and Cargo, said he had not even known his business was on the warning list. He said that the company followed the law, disputing any suggestion by American authorities that he had shipped prohibited items to Iran. He also said that he had seen no more inspections or spot checks by Emirati authorities.
“There is no problem in Dubai,” he said.
Nada El Sawy contributed reporting from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Surge Success Runs Into Sadr by Khody Akhavi
April 2, 2008
Surge Success Runs Into Sadr
by Khody Akhavi
As the fifth year of U.S. discontent came and went, presidential candidates jousted with each other about how best to assuage the fears of ordinary citizens over a war that – in nearly all estimates – has gone terribly wrong.
The Iraq debacle may have temporarily faded from the U.S. public's consciousness, as recent polls show citizens increasingly concerned about the economy sliding into a recession.
But for anybody reading the news over the weekend, the military offensive waged by the U.S.-supported government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki last week was a palpable reminder that the "situation in Iraq" has not necessarily "turned around," as President George W. Bush claimed in a speech earlier this month that marked the fifth year of the war.
Fighting raged for more than four days since Maliki last Tuesday ordered the security forces to raid strongholds of Shia militiamen loyal to the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in the southern port city of Basra. On Sunday, Sadr ordered his militiamen to stop fighting Iraqi security forces, but as of that day, 488 people had been killed and more than 900 wounded, according to reports from the Iraqi Interior Ministry.
President Bush hailed the offensive as a "positive moment" and said it offered proof that the fledgling Iraqi government could defend itself. Conservative strategists continue to use the overall drop in violence in Iraq as a vehicle to bolster the fallacious logic that the troops "surge" has been an unqualified success. And so, at least discursively, a "success" for the Basra offensive should reflect the long-term gains made by the "surge."
"The surge," said Bush earlier this month, "has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. …We are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated."
While it is true that the surge has helped contain violence, it was initially implemented to provide the breathing space for political reconciliation that has not yet occurred between opposing factions.
"The security gains that we have seen are real, but they are perishable," said Michelle Flourney of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a Washington-based national security think tank established in 2007.
"Since November, things have sort of leveled off and it seems very difficult to drive down levels of violence any further," she said during panel discussion last week at the Washington-based think-tank the Center for American Progress. "The only way we will get below this plateau is through political accommodation."
The battles over the past week underscore a more troubling reality: the rhetoric coming from the White House cannot be corroborated on the ground, and in the long term, will have a damaging impact on the U.S. goals in Iraq, and broader national security and strategic objectives. In spite of the military force used by Maliki – in addition to air support provided by the U.S.-led coalition forces – the most recent conflict to erupt in Iraq will most likely be mitigated by negotiation.
As McClatchy Newspapers reported Sunday, Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom during the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Quds Brigades to persuade Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations against the Iraqi government.
The influence of Iran cannot be overstated, and more troubling for the Bush White House, runs counter to their military and political objectives; to presumably pacify Iraq by limiting Iranian influence. It appears that Tehran has used the latest incident to bolster its own position, in the process undermining that of Maliki and his patrons.
"The Qom discussions may or may not bring an end to the fighting but they almost certainly have undermined Maliki – who made repeated declarations that there would be no negotiations and that he would treat as outlaws those who did not turn in their weapons for cash," according to McClatchy.
"The blow to his credibility was worsened by the fact that members of his own party helped organize the Iran initiative," it said.
Wrote Anthony H. Cordesman in a New York Times opinion editorial that appeared Sunday: "Much of the reporting on this fighting in Basra and Baghdad – which was initiated by the Iraqi government – assumes that Mr. Sadr and his militia men are the bad guys who are out to spoil the peace, and that the government forces are the legitimate side trying to bring order. This is a dangerous oversimplification, and on that the United States needs to be far more careful about endorsing."
Cordesman is a fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
With the dreary milestone of 4,000 U.S. combat deaths past, politicians remain locked in a disingenuous debate that seems to obfuscate the profound challenges facing the U.S., not just in Iraq, but throughout the region in the coming years.
"The issue is not Iraq. The issue is dealing with the consequences of our failure in Iraq," said Andrew J. Bacevich, a platoon leader in Vietnam who is now a professor of international relations at Boston University.
The U.S., said Bacevich, faces monumental problems as it recalibrates its national security strategy to account for the failures of the Bush Doctrine, a shift that is unlikely to occur while Bush remains in office.
Referring to the Iraq Study Group report, a bipartisan effort that the Bush administration referred to as impractical and unrealistic, Bacevich said, "The biggest requirement is for some kind of a full-scale regional diplomatic effort based on the expectation … that every country in the region, even those who don't like us, like Syria and Iran … have a common interest in avoiding having the region descend into utter chaos."
Regardless of how the surge is couched, it will have to end, not due to shift in strategy, but because the available resources will dry up.
"You can't take a 43 brigade force, and have 23 of those 43 brigades deployed, and have a one to one exchange for time at home and time in the theater," said Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales, a Vietnam veteran and former president of the Army War College.
"Without reshaping our national military strategy and without re-slicing the defense pie to focus on the wars we have rather than the ones we want, we'll never have the resources to prosecute any kind of conflict in the future," he said.
"Your national security strategy is supposed to determine the number of troops that you need to affect that strategy rather than the actual number of troops that you have determining the national military strategy," said Scales.
The last time the White House had to shift strategy to meet conditions on the ground was during the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, he added.
(Inter Press Service)
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=12619
Surge Success Runs Into Sadr
by Khody Akhavi
As the fifth year of U.S. discontent came and went, presidential candidates jousted with each other about how best to assuage the fears of ordinary citizens over a war that – in nearly all estimates – has gone terribly wrong.
The Iraq debacle may have temporarily faded from the U.S. public's consciousness, as recent polls show citizens increasingly concerned about the economy sliding into a recession.
But for anybody reading the news over the weekend, the military offensive waged by the U.S.-supported government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki last week was a palpable reminder that the "situation in Iraq" has not necessarily "turned around," as President George W. Bush claimed in a speech earlier this month that marked the fifth year of the war.
Fighting raged for more than four days since Maliki last Tuesday ordered the security forces to raid strongholds of Shia militiamen loyal to the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in the southern port city of Basra. On Sunday, Sadr ordered his militiamen to stop fighting Iraqi security forces, but as of that day, 488 people had been killed and more than 900 wounded, according to reports from the Iraqi Interior Ministry.
President Bush hailed the offensive as a "positive moment" and said it offered proof that the fledgling Iraqi government could defend itself. Conservative strategists continue to use the overall drop in violence in Iraq as a vehicle to bolster the fallacious logic that the troops "surge" has been an unqualified success. And so, at least discursively, a "success" for the Basra offensive should reflect the long-term gains made by the "surge."
"The surge," said Bush earlier this month, "has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. …We are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated."
While it is true that the surge has helped contain violence, it was initially implemented to provide the breathing space for political reconciliation that has not yet occurred between opposing factions.
"The security gains that we have seen are real, but they are perishable," said Michelle Flourney of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a Washington-based national security think tank established in 2007.
"Since November, things have sort of leveled off and it seems very difficult to drive down levels of violence any further," she said during panel discussion last week at the Washington-based think-tank the Center for American Progress. "The only way we will get below this plateau is through political accommodation."
The battles over the past week underscore a more troubling reality: the rhetoric coming from the White House cannot be corroborated on the ground, and in the long term, will have a damaging impact on the U.S. goals in Iraq, and broader national security and strategic objectives. In spite of the military force used by Maliki – in addition to air support provided by the U.S.-led coalition forces – the most recent conflict to erupt in Iraq will most likely be mitigated by negotiation.
As McClatchy Newspapers reported Sunday, Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom during the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Quds Brigades to persuade Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations against the Iraqi government.
The influence of Iran cannot be overstated, and more troubling for the Bush White House, runs counter to their military and political objectives; to presumably pacify Iraq by limiting Iranian influence. It appears that Tehran has used the latest incident to bolster its own position, in the process undermining that of Maliki and his patrons.
"The Qom discussions may or may not bring an end to the fighting but they almost certainly have undermined Maliki – who made repeated declarations that there would be no negotiations and that he would treat as outlaws those who did not turn in their weapons for cash," according to McClatchy.
"The blow to his credibility was worsened by the fact that members of his own party helped organize the Iran initiative," it said.
Wrote Anthony H. Cordesman in a New York Times opinion editorial that appeared Sunday: "Much of the reporting on this fighting in Basra and Baghdad – which was initiated by the Iraqi government – assumes that Mr. Sadr and his militia men are the bad guys who are out to spoil the peace, and that the government forces are the legitimate side trying to bring order. This is a dangerous oversimplification, and on that the United States needs to be far more careful about endorsing."
Cordesman is a fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
With the dreary milestone of 4,000 U.S. combat deaths past, politicians remain locked in a disingenuous debate that seems to obfuscate the profound challenges facing the U.S., not just in Iraq, but throughout the region in the coming years.
"The issue is not Iraq. The issue is dealing with the consequences of our failure in Iraq," said Andrew J. Bacevich, a platoon leader in Vietnam who is now a professor of international relations at Boston University.
The U.S., said Bacevich, faces monumental problems as it recalibrates its national security strategy to account for the failures of the Bush Doctrine, a shift that is unlikely to occur while Bush remains in office.
Referring to the Iraq Study Group report, a bipartisan effort that the Bush administration referred to as impractical and unrealistic, Bacevich said, "The biggest requirement is for some kind of a full-scale regional diplomatic effort based on the expectation … that every country in the region, even those who don't like us, like Syria and Iran … have a common interest in avoiding having the region descend into utter chaos."
Regardless of how the surge is couched, it will have to end, not due to shift in strategy, but because the available resources will dry up.
"You can't take a 43 brigade force, and have 23 of those 43 brigades deployed, and have a one to one exchange for time at home and time in the theater," said Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales, a Vietnam veteran and former president of the Army War College.
"Without reshaping our national military strategy and without re-slicing the defense pie to focus on the wars we have rather than the ones we want, we'll never have the resources to prosecute any kind of conflict in the future," he said.
"Your national security strategy is supposed to determine the number of troops that you need to affect that strategy rather than the actual number of troops that you have determining the national military strategy," said Scales.
The last time the White House had to shift strategy to meet conditions on the ground was during the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, he added.
(Inter Press Service)
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=12619
NATO Marches Eastward by Justin Raimondo
NATO Marches Eastward
We're on a dangerous collision course with Russia, no matter who wins the White House
by Justin Raimondo
The relentless march of NATO, decades after the implosion of the Soviet Union and the death knell of the Leninist project, is surely an object lesson in the real motivations and character of "democratic" imperialism, here and in Europe. The Communist enemy may be long gone, but NATO soldiers ever onward, and ever eastward. Suddenly we're back in the heyday of the Cold War: once again we hear the War Party's clarion call – "The Russians are coming!"
What they really mean to say however – as the video clip above makes visibly and audibly clear – is that the Americans are coming, along with the Brits, actively seeking to delegitimize and destabilize the government still dominated by Vladimir Putin. A new campaign for "regime change" is in the making, this time aimed at Moscow.
When the neoconservatives launched their campaign to exclude Russia from the G-8 summit, in retaliation for their arming of Syria and refusal to get on board the Iraq war-wagon, Russo-American relations took a steep dive. Vice President Dick Cheney was quick to join the refrain, accusing the Russians of using oil as a "weapon" against Ukraine in what is presumably a new cold war. Bush, who had previously gazed into Putin's eyes and found a fellow spirit, is now championing NATO membership for Ukraine and – incredibly – Georgia.
The Europeans are having none of it, with France and Germany opposed outright and several of the smaller NATO members "skeptical," as news accounts put it. That doesn't really matter to the Bushies, however, who are doing this for domestic political reasons, as a show of support to McCain and the McCainiacs.
The links between the McCain campaign and the campaign for NATO expansion, and Russophobic circles in general, are extensive. Randy Scheunemann , McCain's top foreign policy adviser, is a key figure in the NATO expansion campaign: he has been a top lobbyist for British Petroleum, several major defense contractors, and various Baltic and Central European governments. He worked with Bruce Jackson, a former vice president in charge of planning for Lockheed-Martin and Pentagon official, on the U.S. Committee for NATO. Scheunemann has been an American adviser to the Georgian government and a registered lobbyist for Macedonia, Romania, and Latvia, as well as a corporate lobbyist for BP America and Lockheed-Martin. To top it off, Scheunemann was a founding member of the Project for a New American Century and a co-founder and director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He is, in short, the embodiment of all the pressure groups and special interests who profit, materially and ideologically, from the renewal of the Cold War.
The old drama has been revived, let there be no doubt. That is the meaning of the U.S.-funded and stage-managed "color revolutions" from Kiev to Kyrgyzstan, epitomized by that whole mysterious business with the alleged poisoning of Victor Yushchenko – an affair that resembled the hokiest sort of Cold War propaganda.
Even more bizarre is the case of Alexander Litvinenko, the ex-KGB spy who supposedly "knew too much" Рso much that his former bosses bumped him off by poisoning him with a rare radioactive isotope, a substance that just happens to play a key role in making triggers for nuclear devices. Was it a KGB assassination, or, perhaps, something along the lines of what Sibel Edmonds is describing Рan underground network of nuclear smugglers? In any case, it's like something out of a novel by John le Carr̩, or, perhaps, one of his substandard imitators.
In spite of these histrionics, however, the regnant anti-Russian hysteria – induced and maintained by these sensational stunts, which give every indication of being carefully staged – doesn't have much popular resonance, particularly in the front-line trenches of Cold War II. Ukrainian voters have since turned sour on the "Orange Revolutionaries," on account of their wrecking the country economically and their warmongering Russophobia, especially the radical wing led by the fiery Yulia Timoshenko, the "gas princess," whose ultra-nationalist tirades against Russia are the key to her limited electoral appeal. Support for Ukrainian NATO membership may be popular in Washington, D.C., but it is distinctly unpopular in Ukraine, where only 30 percent are in favor.
In Ukraine, many people can barely feed their families. Why should they care if the Ukrainian air force, such as it is, is being upgraded to meet NATO standards? The real constituency for this is in Washington, where lobbyists for arms contractors – Scheunemann's old buddies at Lockheed-Martin, for one – are delirious with joy at the prospect of more NATO members, all of which will have to be outfitted with and trained to use sophisticated new weapons systems. Guess who rakes in billions in profits, at taxpayers' expense?
Ideological ambidexterity is the key operating principle inside the Washington Beltway, where policymaking is all about corporate socialism for the rich – Lockheed-Martin and Bear Stearns – and social Darwinism when it comes time to foreclose on some poor schmuck's mobile home.
There is also an ideological motivation, congruent with the corporate interest in NATO expansion, and that is the neoconservative insistence on continental hegemony. In practice, this means the maintenance of American military supremacy in Europe as well as the Middle East. An important addendum to this is the extension of American military influence in the Caucasus, and, as usual, McCain has been in the vanguard of this trend. The candidate has been a big booster of Georgia, although he's had no comment on the recent government crackdown on the opposition, the obviously phony elections, and the spectacle of Georgian cops beating peaceful protesters in the streets of the capital city.
McCain once traveled to the disputed region of Abkhazia, whose pro-Russian inhabitants seek independence from Tbilisi and close relations with Moscow, where he declared the Russians must not be allowed to possess one square inch of "sovereign" Georgian territory. As president, he'd have us involved in every territorial dispute along the periphery of the former Soviet Union, from the snowy fields of Latvia to the steppes of Central Asia.
Unlike Bush, who keeps up the insulting pretense that the U.S. is intent on building a missile shield in Poland and the Czech republic to counter an alleged "threat" emanating from Iran, President McCain would make no secret of the real target of this "defensive" weapon – which, for the first time, makes a first strike on the Russians militarily feasible. McCain, the "Atlanticist," is unleashing the most feverish phraseology, describing Russia as "revanchist" and even accusing Moscow of launching cyber-attacks on Latvia – without, of course, any supporting evidence. Perhaps, as president, he would launch a preemptive cyber-strike at the Russians, applying the Bushian-neocon military doctrine to the Internet – and maybe not just there…
As for the other aspirants up for admission into this archaic Cold War conclave – Croatia, Macedonia, and Albania – NATO's secretary-general is cautiously optimistic that at least two out of three will be welcomed into the fold at the Bucharest summit. Macedonia may not make it because of a dispute that gives a hint as to why the word balkanize means to split up into a multitude of irreconcilable camps. The admission of Croatia and Albania, the allies of NATO during the Euro-American war of aggression against the former Yugoslavia, is a reward for their fealty, as well as alms for the American arms industry. It is also insurance that if Kosovo blows up again, the Croatians can repeat their performance in the Krajina, where they slaughtered nearly 2,000 Serbs, burned down 73 percent of Serbian homes, and forced thousands more to flee.
The really bad news is that U.S.-Russian relations are likely to undergo a radical decline no matter which presidential candidate takes the White House. What this means is that McCain's malevolent vision of a "revanchist Russia," backsliding into authoritarianism and a threat to its neighbors, may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the not-too-distant future. In our search for endless enemies, the worst, it seems, are our own creation.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12618
We're on a dangerous collision course with Russia, no matter who wins the White House
by Justin Raimondo
The relentless march of NATO, decades after the implosion of the Soviet Union and the death knell of the Leninist project, is surely an object lesson in the real motivations and character of "democratic" imperialism, here and in Europe. The Communist enemy may be long gone, but NATO soldiers ever onward, and ever eastward. Suddenly we're back in the heyday of the Cold War: once again we hear the War Party's clarion call – "The Russians are coming!"
What they really mean to say however – as the video clip above makes visibly and audibly clear – is that the Americans are coming, along with the Brits, actively seeking to delegitimize and destabilize the government still dominated by Vladimir Putin. A new campaign for "regime change" is in the making, this time aimed at Moscow.
When the neoconservatives launched their campaign to exclude Russia from the G-8 summit, in retaliation for their arming of Syria and refusal to get on board the Iraq war-wagon, Russo-American relations took a steep dive. Vice President Dick Cheney was quick to join the refrain, accusing the Russians of using oil as a "weapon" against Ukraine in what is presumably a new cold war. Bush, who had previously gazed into Putin's eyes and found a fellow spirit, is now championing NATO membership for Ukraine and – incredibly – Georgia.
The Europeans are having none of it, with France and Germany opposed outright and several of the smaller NATO members "skeptical," as news accounts put it. That doesn't really matter to the Bushies, however, who are doing this for domestic political reasons, as a show of support to McCain and the McCainiacs.
The links between the McCain campaign and the campaign for NATO expansion, and Russophobic circles in general, are extensive. Randy Scheunemann , McCain's top foreign policy adviser, is a key figure in the NATO expansion campaign: he has been a top lobbyist for British Petroleum, several major defense contractors, and various Baltic and Central European governments. He worked with Bruce Jackson, a former vice president in charge of planning for Lockheed-Martin and Pentagon official, on the U.S. Committee for NATO. Scheunemann has been an American adviser to the Georgian government and a registered lobbyist for Macedonia, Romania, and Latvia, as well as a corporate lobbyist for BP America and Lockheed-Martin. To top it off, Scheunemann was a founding member of the Project for a New American Century and a co-founder and director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He is, in short, the embodiment of all the pressure groups and special interests who profit, materially and ideologically, from the renewal of the Cold War.
The old drama has been revived, let there be no doubt. That is the meaning of the U.S.-funded and stage-managed "color revolutions" from Kiev to Kyrgyzstan, epitomized by that whole mysterious business with the alleged poisoning of Victor Yushchenko – an affair that resembled the hokiest sort of Cold War propaganda.
Even more bizarre is the case of Alexander Litvinenko, the ex-KGB spy who supposedly "knew too much" Рso much that his former bosses bumped him off by poisoning him with a rare radioactive isotope, a substance that just happens to play a key role in making triggers for nuclear devices. Was it a KGB assassination, or, perhaps, something along the lines of what Sibel Edmonds is describing Рan underground network of nuclear smugglers? In any case, it's like something out of a novel by John le Carr̩, or, perhaps, one of his substandard imitators.
In spite of these histrionics, however, the regnant anti-Russian hysteria – induced and maintained by these sensational stunts, which give every indication of being carefully staged – doesn't have much popular resonance, particularly in the front-line trenches of Cold War II. Ukrainian voters have since turned sour on the "Orange Revolutionaries," on account of their wrecking the country economically and their warmongering Russophobia, especially the radical wing led by the fiery Yulia Timoshenko, the "gas princess," whose ultra-nationalist tirades against Russia are the key to her limited electoral appeal. Support for Ukrainian NATO membership may be popular in Washington, D.C., but it is distinctly unpopular in Ukraine, where only 30 percent are in favor.
In Ukraine, many people can barely feed their families. Why should they care if the Ukrainian air force, such as it is, is being upgraded to meet NATO standards? The real constituency for this is in Washington, where lobbyists for arms contractors – Scheunemann's old buddies at Lockheed-Martin, for one – are delirious with joy at the prospect of more NATO members, all of which will have to be outfitted with and trained to use sophisticated new weapons systems. Guess who rakes in billions in profits, at taxpayers' expense?
Ideological ambidexterity is the key operating principle inside the Washington Beltway, where policymaking is all about corporate socialism for the rich – Lockheed-Martin and Bear Stearns – and social Darwinism when it comes time to foreclose on some poor schmuck's mobile home.
There is also an ideological motivation, congruent with the corporate interest in NATO expansion, and that is the neoconservative insistence on continental hegemony. In practice, this means the maintenance of American military supremacy in Europe as well as the Middle East. An important addendum to this is the extension of American military influence in the Caucasus, and, as usual, McCain has been in the vanguard of this trend. The candidate has been a big booster of Georgia, although he's had no comment on the recent government crackdown on the opposition, the obviously phony elections, and the spectacle of Georgian cops beating peaceful protesters in the streets of the capital city.
McCain once traveled to the disputed region of Abkhazia, whose pro-Russian inhabitants seek independence from Tbilisi and close relations with Moscow, where he declared the Russians must not be allowed to possess one square inch of "sovereign" Georgian territory. As president, he'd have us involved in every territorial dispute along the periphery of the former Soviet Union, from the snowy fields of Latvia to the steppes of Central Asia.
Unlike Bush, who keeps up the insulting pretense that the U.S. is intent on building a missile shield in Poland and the Czech republic to counter an alleged "threat" emanating from Iran, President McCain would make no secret of the real target of this "defensive" weapon – which, for the first time, makes a first strike on the Russians militarily feasible. McCain, the "Atlanticist," is unleashing the most feverish phraseology, describing Russia as "revanchist" and even accusing Moscow of launching cyber-attacks on Latvia – without, of course, any supporting evidence. Perhaps, as president, he would launch a preemptive cyber-strike at the Russians, applying the Bushian-neocon military doctrine to the Internet – and maybe not just there…
As for the other aspirants up for admission into this archaic Cold War conclave – Croatia, Macedonia, and Albania – NATO's secretary-general is cautiously optimistic that at least two out of three will be welcomed into the fold at the Bucharest summit. Macedonia may not make it because of a dispute that gives a hint as to why the word balkanize means to split up into a multitude of irreconcilable camps. The admission of Croatia and Albania, the allies of NATO during the Euro-American war of aggression against the former Yugoslavia, is a reward for their fealty, as well as alms for the American arms industry. It is also insurance that if Kosovo blows up again, the Croatians can repeat their performance in the Krajina, where they slaughtered nearly 2,000 Serbs, burned down 73 percent of Serbian homes, and forced thousands more to flee.
The really bad news is that U.S.-Russian relations are likely to undergo a radical decline no matter which presidential candidate takes the White House. What this means is that McCain's malevolent vision of a "revanchist Russia," backsliding into authoritarianism and a threat to its neighbors, may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the not-too-distant future. In our search for endless enemies, the worst, it seems, are our own creation.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12618
The Left Trades Places
The Left Trades Places
By Larrey Anderson
One sign that the left is losing (and subconsciously knows it) is the prominence of conspiracy thinking in its fantasies.
When I was in the ninth grade I decided to run for student body president of my junior high school, and became suddenly and vitally interested in all things political. My father's friend had given him some copies of American Opinion, the John Birch Society magazine. I read them cover-to-cover.
I learned that the Trilateralists, the CFR, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Bildebergers, the Jews, and the Imperial House of Hapsburg really ran America and-for that matter-the entire world. And they did it in secret.
I distinctly remember marching into the kitchen with the literature. I was panicky over the impending junior high election, but my misgivings had not stopped my family from spreading word of my campaign throughout the neighborhood and beyond. "How come ... if nobody in this family can keep a secret ... how come all these guys could keep all these secrets all these years?" I demanded of my father.
Dad grinned down at me and answered, "They couldn't and they didn't. Politics are public. You can't run for student body president without people knowing. People love to talk ... even when they don't know what they're talking about." He took the magazines from me and threw them in the trash.
My dad should have been a political philosopher, instead of a building contractor, because with those few sentences, and that one toss, he helped me understand two fundamental political truths: (1) conspiracy theories are rarely valid; and (2), conspiracy theories are almost always promulgated by people who do not currently wield political power. In other words, by people who do not know what they are talking about.
In 1969, the year I ran for student body president, conservatism was a wisp of a dream. Utterly powerless in any meaningful political sense. There were only a handful of conservative members of Congress. Ronald Reagan had just been elected governor of California. Conservatives had, effectively, no political voice in the United States.
The political right had no power; but it had plenty of ridiculous excuses. In addition to the Trilateralists, et al., conspiracy of the Birch Society, there was a communist conspiracy, a Jewish conspiracy, a "Negroid" conspiracy, and even, in 1975 when the Liberty Lobby started printing its weekly rag, The Spotlight, a communist/Jewish/ "Negroid" conspiracy. Outside of the vanguard led by William.F. Buckley, it seemed intellectually embarrasing to be a conservative in those days in most places; and conservatives with a lick of sense, like my father, knew it.
Then something strange happened. Instead of spinning yarns about how other people had usurped political authority, conservatives started to fight for it. Instead of making excuses, conservatives started to offer solutions.
The lion's share of credit for this change in conservative thought and attitude must go to ... the lion. Ronald Reagan was a positive person. He believed in conservative ideas. He saw communism for the disastrous ideology that it was, not as a hand wringing excuse for conservatism's failures. He was determined to change the idiom of conservatism from a second person party's derogatory deraignment of multiple conspiracies to a primary party's passion for ideas.
Then something stranger happened. It began to work. Conservatism got out of the illusory business of conspiracy theories and into the rough and tumble real world of politics. Conservatism stopped peddling its fears and started marketing its ideas. And the American people started buying them.
Then the strangest thing happened. It worked. Jimmy Carter's existential, and whiny, "malaise" became Bill Clinton's end of "the era of big government." Openly practicing liberals, for the first time in over fifty years, found themselves out of power.
What happened next may seem strange but it wasn't -- unless one finds human nature strange. Out of power liberals began to wonder where their power had gone. There were two possible explanations: (a) they had been beaten, fairly and squarely, in the marketplace of ideas or (b) conservatives had cheated.
It is difficult for human beings to acknowledge defeat, especially in ideological struggles, because admitting you have lost in the marketplace of ideas means admitting that you may have been wrong. All but the most practical and well-grounded on the left (Senator Joseph Lieberman comes to mind as one of these very few exceptions) sincerely believe that conservatives have taken control because they have cheated.
Whether they know it or not, liberals have taken over the feverish territory once occuppied by the John Birch Society.
The parallels between the once rabid right and the new loony left are staggering. The conspiracy is exactly the same: secret worldwide domination by a few tightly controlled special interest groups. Most of the names of the organizations in charge of the conspiracy have been changed, to convince the credulous. For the Trilateralists, the CFR, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Bildebergers, the Jews, and the Imperial House of Hapsburg simply substitute Haliburton, Big Oil, Pharmacuticals, Multinationals, The Military Industrial Complex, the Jews, and The Imperial House of Bush.
Thinking and speaking about the parallels between the rabid right and the loony left would be risible if it were not both sad and dangerous. It is sad because liberals should know better. Generally speaking, my liberal friends and family are wider-read, better educated and more informed than my conservative friends and family. Intellectually speaking, I expect more from liberal acquaintances than from conservative ones. Unfortunately, I can no longer have a rational conversation with more than half of my liberal friends about anything remotely dealing with politics. Every sentence that they speak is either a non sequitur ("We stole Iraq's oil.") or is viciously ad hominem ("Bush is Hitler.")
The loony left is dangerous because there are so many of them. Membership in The John Birch Society peaked at about 100,000 nitwits. MoveOn.org can count on millions. Never in the history of the United States have so many people bought in to conspiratorial theories. Conspiracy theorists, of any political stripe, are dangerous because they cannot think and act rationally about the world that they live in. It can't be good for a country when many of its best and brightest are totally convinced that every time they lose an election that the election was rigged.
There is one theme that haunts the conspiratorial hallucinations of both the rabid right and the loony left. It is both sad and dangerous. Only one group's name appears on both of the lists we saw above: The Jews. Anti-Semitism has fueled conspiracy theories for centuries. The fact that it is now being embraced by the loony left in America is one of the most frightening things I have seen in my life. It is two very short steps in conspiratorial logic from: "Our soldiers are dying to protect Zionism." To "Let the Jews take care of themselves." To "Kill the Jews." History screams that each step follows the next.
There is a glimmer of hope. Conservatives were able to shake off the coils of the rabid right once they remembered what it was that they believed in and started to market their ideas. Why not liberals?
For decades the left was a powerhouse of ideas and compassion. They saw the real evils of racism and poverty and they did something about it. America will always be indebted to them for that. So, there is a chance that America's liberals will come to their senses, stop tilting at invisible windmills, and start fighting, again, for what they really believe in. But first, they will have to stop making excuses.
Larrey Anderson is a philosopher and writer living in Idaho. He can be reached at ldandersonbooks.com
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_left_trades_places_1.html
By Larrey Anderson
One sign that the left is losing (and subconsciously knows it) is the prominence of conspiracy thinking in its fantasies.
When I was in the ninth grade I decided to run for student body president of my junior high school, and became suddenly and vitally interested in all things political. My father's friend had given him some copies of American Opinion, the John Birch Society magazine. I read them cover-to-cover.
I learned that the Trilateralists, the CFR, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Bildebergers, the Jews, and the Imperial House of Hapsburg really ran America and-for that matter-the entire world. And they did it in secret.
I distinctly remember marching into the kitchen with the literature. I was panicky over the impending junior high election, but my misgivings had not stopped my family from spreading word of my campaign throughout the neighborhood and beyond. "How come ... if nobody in this family can keep a secret ... how come all these guys could keep all these secrets all these years?" I demanded of my father.
Dad grinned down at me and answered, "They couldn't and they didn't. Politics are public. You can't run for student body president without people knowing. People love to talk ... even when they don't know what they're talking about." He took the magazines from me and threw them in the trash.
My dad should have been a political philosopher, instead of a building contractor, because with those few sentences, and that one toss, he helped me understand two fundamental political truths: (1) conspiracy theories are rarely valid; and (2), conspiracy theories are almost always promulgated by people who do not currently wield political power. In other words, by people who do not know what they are talking about.
In 1969, the year I ran for student body president, conservatism was a wisp of a dream. Utterly powerless in any meaningful political sense. There were only a handful of conservative members of Congress. Ronald Reagan had just been elected governor of California. Conservatives had, effectively, no political voice in the United States.
The political right had no power; but it had plenty of ridiculous excuses. In addition to the Trilateralists, et al., conspiracy of the Birch Society, there was a communist conspiracy, a Jewish conspiracy, a "Negroid" conspiracy, and even, in 1975 when the Liberty Lobby started printing its weekly rag, The Spotlight, a communist/Jewish/ "Negroid" conspiracy. Outside of the vanguard led by William.F. Buckley, it seemed intellectually embarrasing to be a conservative in those days in most places; and conservatives with a lick of sense, like my father, knew it.
Then something strange happened. Instead of spinning yarns about how other people had usurped political authority, conservatives started to fight for it. Instead of making excuses, conservatives started to offer solutions.
The lion's share of credit for this change in conservative thought and attitude must go to ... the lion. Ronald Reagan was a positive person. He believed in conservative ideas. He saw communism for the disastrous ideology that it was, not as a hand wringing excuse for conservatism's failures. He was determined to change the idiom of conservatism from a second person party's derogatory deraignment of multiple conspiracies to a primary party's passion for ideas.
Then something stranger happened. It began to work. Conservatism got out of the illusory business of conspiracy theories and into the rough and tumble real world of politics. Conservatism stopped peddling its fears and started marketing its ideas. And the American people started buying them.
Then the strangest thing happened. It worked. Jimmy Carter's existential, and whiny, "malaise" became Bill Clinton's end of "the era of big government." Openly practicing liberals, for the first time in over fifty years, found themselves out of power.
What happened next may seem strange but it wasn't -- unless one finds human nature strange. Out of power liberals began to wonder where their power had gone. There were two possible explanations: (a) they had been beaten, fairly and squarely, in the marketplace of ideas or (b) conservatives had cheated.
It is difficult for human beings to acknowledge defeat, especially in ideological struggles, because admitting you have lost in the marketplace of ideas means admitting that you may have been wrong. All but the most practical and well-grounded on the left (Senator Joseph Lieberman comes to mind as one of these very few exceptions) sincerely believe that conservatives have taken control because they have cheated.
Whether they know it or not, liberals have taken over the feverish territory once occuppied by the John Birch Society.
The parallels between the once rabid right and the new loony left are staggering. The conspiracy is exactly the same: secret worldwide domination by a few tightly controlled special interest groups. Most of the names of the organizations in charge of the conspiracy have been changed, to convince the credulous. For the Trilateralists, the CFR, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Bildebergers, the Jews, and the Imperial House of Hapsburg simply substitute Haliburton, Big Oil, Pharmacuticals, Multinationals, The Military Industrial Complex, the Jews, and The Imperial House of Bush.
Thinking and speaking about the parallels between the rabid right and the loony left would be risible if it were not both sad and dangerous. It is sad because liberals should know better. Generally speaking, my liberal friends and family are wider-read, better educated and more informed than my conservative friends and family. Intellectually speaking, I expect more from liberal acquaintances than from conservative ones. Unfortunately, I can no longer have a rational conversation with more than half of my liberal friends about anything remotely dealing with politics. Every sentence that they speak is either a non sequitur ("We stole Iraq's oil.") or is viciously ad hominem ("Bush is Hitler.")
The loony left is dangerous because there are so many of them. Membership in The John Birch Society peaked at about 100,000 nitwits. MoveOn.org can count on millions. Never in the history of the United States have so many people bought in to conspiratorial theories. Conspiracy theorists, of any political stripe, are dangerous because they cannot think and act rationally about the world that they live in. It can't be good for a country when many of its best and brightest are totally convinced that every time they lose an election that the election was rigged.
There is one theme that haunts the conspiratorial hallucinations of both the rabid right and the loony left. It is both sad and dangerous. Only one group's name appears on both of the lists we saw above: The Jews. Anti-Semitism has fueled conspiracy theories for centuries. The fact that it is now being embraced by the loony left in America is one of the most frightening things I have seen in my life. It is two very short steps in conspiratorial logic from: "Our soldiers are dying to protect Zionism." To "Let the Jews take care of themselves." To "Kill the Jews." History screams that each step follows the next.
There is a glimmer of hope. Conservatives were able to shake off the coils of the rabid right once they remembered what it was that they believed in and started to market their ideas. Why not liberals?
For decades the left was a powerhouse of ideas and compassion. They saw the real evils of racism and poverty and they did something about it. America will always be indebted to them for that. So, there is a chance that America's liberals will come to their senses, stop tilting at invisible windmills, and start fighting, again, for what they really believe in. But first, they will have to stop making excuses.
Larrey Anderson is a philosopher and writer living in Idaho. He can be reached at ldandersonbooks.com
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_left_trades_places_1.html
George W. Bush and NATO Expansion by William Pfaff
George W. Bush and NATO Expansion
William Pfaff
Paris, April 1, 2008 – The hawks are coming home to roost this week during President George W. Bush's travels. It has been apparent for many weeks that there was little chance for any of his major initiatives to succeed: expansion of NATO, new reinforcements for NATO in Afghanistan, or agreement with Vladimir Putin on missiles in Eastern Europe.
All date from the period in the Bush administration when its members, to use the Leninist phrase, were dizzy with success, and indifferent to criticism or challenge. The assumptions of the administration's foreign policy were that the Afghan and Middle Eastern interventions were successful – mission accomplished! -- and that the time had come to look to Europe, Russia and China.
The neoconservatives and the administration hawks – Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, their acolytes, and most of the Pentagon leadership – considered Russia and China the real obstacles to unchallenged American global leadership.
The most controversial issue the president deals with during his visits abroad this week is the offer of membership action plans, the first stage in preparing a NATO membership claim, to Georgia and Ukraine. Both formerly were part of the Soviet Union. Imagine the reaction of Washington were Mexico or Canada urged to join a Russian military alliance. Or Florida or Texas, after their having declared independence of the U.S.
In cold war Europe, there were important old nations of central, southern and southeastern Europe that had played major roles in the European past and were subjugated by Stalinist Russia after the second world war. These deserved restored independence. Russia acquiesced.
It has not even seriously objected to their joining NATO, notwithstanding the George H.W. Bush administration's assurances that NATO would not be extended to Russia's borders.
Even NATO's extension to the Baltic states has been accepted, although these former Roman provinces, or creations of Baltic Crusader knightly orders, have mixed histories over the ages of Swedish or Russian domination, and only intermittent independence.
In Georgia and Ukraine fundamental internal problems must be resolved before their stability and integrity can be assured. Inside NATO, they risk becoming sources of alliance weakness and internal controversy. Majority Ukrainian public opinion does not favor NATO membership. The country is a divided one, one half Roman (Uniate) Catholic in religion, looking westward towards Poland, and the other half, the poorer half, is Russian-speaking, Russian in culture, and Orthodox in religion.
The governing elite (and their supporters in Poland and elsewhere) think NATO membership is a solution to this internal problem. But if the country is in NATO, the Russian-inclined half of the population will effectively have been subordinated to the other, and a cultural, linguistic, religious and political division that goes back to the 14th century will be envenomed, not settled.
This is neither a good idea for Ukraine nor for NATO, exacerbating internal tensions in Ukraine and involving NATO in a quarrel it cannot resolve, and which weakens the alliance.
Georgia has a better claim to independence as it was a distinct autonomous kingdom as early as the 4th century B.C. Its subsequent history is one of largely unsuccessful struggles against the Persians, Turks, and in modern times, the Russians, to remain independent.
Its difficulties in staying independent have been its small size, predatory neighbors, and most important, so far as NATO is concerned, internal divisions that persist to the present day. Vladimir Putin's Russia supports separatist enclaves that Georgia claims, but that do not wish to be Georgian. Again, whatever sympathy may be felt for the Georgians, NATO membership and conflict with Russia are not the way to solve Georgia's problems.
What is the point of deliberate provocation? The West Europeans generally are against this expansion of the alliance, and they are the ones that have to worry about what turn Russian policy may take in the future.
A favorite refrain in Washington is that the Europeans must build up their military defenses. If the West Europeans do not do so, it is because they do not share the fear that is so marked a characteristic of the United States since 9/11.
The Europeans generally think that now, and in the future, the EU can deal comfortably with Russia on the basis of shared or convergent economic and political interests. If Russia should give sign of becoming a military threat to Europe, which they do not expect, they will no doubt react accordingly. They are much richer, more populous, with a much more powerful and advanced industry and advanced technology, than Russia, and they even have a reputation for a certain military competence when provoked.
Finally, unlike George Bush, most Europeans seem confident that Iran has no reason to fire nuclear missiles at them, and that what happens with the Taliban in Afghanistan does not threaten Europe, nor indeed that it is Europe's business. These views might prove complacent, or even foolish, but that surely is for the Europeans to worry about, which is exactly what Washington still is not ready to accept.
© Copyright 2008 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.
This article comes from William PFAFF
http://www.williampfaff.com
William Pfaff
Paris, April 1, 2008 – The hawks are coming home to roost this week during President George W. Bush's travels. It has been apparent for many weeks that there was little chance for any of his major initiatives to succeed: expansion of NATO, new reinforcements for NATO in Afghanistan, or agreement with Vladimir Putin on missiles in Eastern Europe.
All date from the period in the Bush administration when its members, to use the Leninist phrase, were dizzy with success, and indifferent to criticism or challenge. The assumptions of the administration's foreign policy were that the Afghan and Middle Eastern interventions were successful – mission accomplished! -- and that the time had come to look to Europe, Russia and China.
The neoconservatives and the administration hawks – Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, their acolytes, and most of the Pentagon leadership – considered Russia and China the real obstacles to unchallenged American global leadership.
The most controversial issue the president deals with during his visits abroad this week is the offer of membership action plans, the first stage in preparing a NATO membership claim, to Georgia and Ukraine. Both formerly were part of the Soviet Union. Imagine the reaction of Washington were Mexico or Canada urged to join a Russian military alliance. Or Florida or Texas, after their having declared independence of the U.S.
In cold war Europe, there were important old nations of central, southern and southeastern Europe that had played major roles in the European past and were subjugated by Stalinist Russia after the second world war. These deserved restored independence. Russia acquiesced.
It has not even seriously objected to their joining NATO, notwithstanding the George H.W. Bush administration's assurances that NATO would not be extended to Russia's borders.
Even NATO's extension to the Baltic states has been accepted, although these former Roman provinces, or creations of Baltic Crusader knightly orders, have mixed histories over the ages of Swedish or Russian domination, and only intermittent independence.
In Georgia and Ukraine fundamental internal problems must be resolved before their stability and integrity can be assured. Inside NATO, they risk becoming sources of alliance weakness and internal controversy. Majority Ukrainian public opinion does not favor NATO membership. The country is a divided one, one half Roman (Uniate) Catholic in religion, looking westward towards Poland, and the other half, the poorer half, is Russian-speaking, Russian in culture, and Orthodox in religion.
The governing elite (and their supporters in Poland and elsewhere) think NATO membership is a solution to this internal problem. But if the country is in NATO, the Russian-inclined half of the population will effectively have been subordinated to the other, and a cultural, linguistic, religious and political division that goes back to the 14th century will be envenomed, not settled.
This is neither a good idea for Ukraine nor for NATO, exacerbating internal tensions in Ukraine and involving NATO in a quarrel it cannot resolve, and which weakens the alliance.
Georgia has a better claim to independence as it was a distinct autonomous kingdom as early as the 4th century B.C. Its subsequent history is one of largely unsuccessful struggles against the Persians, Turks, and in modern times, the Russians, to remain independent.
Its difficulties in staying independent have been its small size, predatory neighbors, and most important, so far as NATO is concerned, internal divisions that persist to the present day. Vladimir Putin's Russia supports separatist enclaves that Georgia claims, but that do not wish to be Georgian. Again, whatever sympathy may be felt for the Georgians, NATO membership and conflict with Russia are not the way to solve Georgia's problems.
What is the point of deliberate provocation? The West Europeans generally are against this expansion of the alliance, and they are the ones that have to worry about what turn Russian policy may take in the future.
A favorite refrain in Washington is that the Europeans must build up their military defenses. If the West Europeans do not do so, it is because they do not share the fear that is so marked a characteristic of the United States since 9/11.
The Europeans generally think that now, and in the future, the EU can deal comfortably with Russia on the basis of shared or convergent economic and political interests. If Russia should give sign of becoming a military threat to Europe, which they do not expect, they will no doubt react accordingly. They are much richer, more populous, with a much more powerful and advanced industry and advanced technology, than Russia, and they even have a reputation for a certain military competence when provoked.
Finally, unlike George Bush, most Europeans seem confident that Iran has no reason to fire nuclear missiles at them, and that what happens with the Taliban in Afghanistan does not threaten Europe, nor indeed that it is Europe's business. These views might prove complacent, or even foolish, but that surely is for the Europeans to worry about, which is exactly what Washington still is not ready to accept.
© Copyright 2008 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.
This article comes from William PFAFF
http://www.williampfaff.com
The other Iraqi civil war by Pepe Escobar
THE ROVING EYE
The other Iraqi civil war
Even by George W Bush logic, "the terrorists" and Iran won the battle of Basra. In the north of Iraq, though, the pieces are falling into place for an alliance between the United States, Israel and a "greater Kurdistan". If only the pesky Iraqi nationalist Sunnis and Shi'ites don't get in the way. - Pepe Escobar (Apr 2, '08)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak01.html
The other Iraqi civil war
Even by George W Bush logic, "the terrorists" and Iran won the battle of Basra. In the north of Iraq, though, the pieces are falling into place for an alliance between the United States, Israel and a "greater Kurdistan". If only the pesky Iraqi nationalist Sunnis and Shi'ites don't get in the way. - Pepe Escobar (Apr 2, '08)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak01.html
Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil
Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil
With the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps showing how much control it has over the killing fields of Iraq, by stopping the fighting in the southern city of Basra, Iran has made both the Iraqi and United States governments look very foolish. Far beyond that, Iran has frustrated the joint US-British objective of gaining control of Basra, without which their strategy for establishing control over the fabulous oil wealth of southern Iraq will not work. - M K Bhadrakumar (Apr 2, '08)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html
With the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps showing how much control it has over the killing fields of Iraq, by stopping the fighting in the southern city of Basra, Iran has made both the Iraqi and United States governments look very foolish. Far beyond that, Iran has frustrated the joint US-British objective of gaining control of Basra, without which their strategy for establishing control over the fabulous oil wealth of southern Iraq will not work. - M K Bhadrakumar (Apr 2, '08)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html
FAS Launches Online Chemical Weapons Convention Archive to Mark 2nd Review Conference
FAS Launches Online Chemical Weapons Convention Archive to Mark 2nd Review Conference
Today the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) launches an online compilation of more than 500 documents on the U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The Archive includes a timeline of CWC negotiations, a history of its signing and ratification, and current news and commentary on the CWC.
Cheryl Vos, FAS Biology Research Associate, will report daily from The Hague during the Second Review Conference, 7 – 18 April 2008, on the proceedings, plenary sessions and open forum.
The online archive’s “Document of the Day” feature will kick off with a letter submitted by former Secretary of Defense and current Vice President Dick Cheney to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The letter expresses Cheney’s deep opposition to U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention and was read into the record by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger who, along with fellow former Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Caspar Weinberger, was present at the Committee hearing to provide testimony against the CWC.
“This website provides a much needed archive for documents, letters, and analysis of the Chemical Weapons Convention,” said Michael Stebbins, director of the biosecurity program at FAS. “It’s astonishing to read the vehement language used by our vice president urging Congress to reject the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
The CWC entered into force on April 29, 1997. The archive highlights accomplishments over the past 11 years, and arguments made for and against U.S. ratification in Congress. Many of the letters, petitions and reports have not been previously available online.
Visit the Chemical Weapons Convention Archive today.
Today the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) launches an online compilation of more than 500 documents on the U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The Archive includes a timeline of CWC negotiations, a history of its signing and ratification, and current news and commentary on the CWC.
Cheryl Vos, FAS Biology Research Associate, will report daily from The Hague during the Second Review Conference, 7 – 18 April 2008, on the proceedings, plenary sessions and open forum.
The online archive’s “Document of the Day” feature will kick off with a letter submitted by former Secretary of Defense and current Vice President Dick Cheney to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The letter expresses Cheney’s deep opposition to U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention and was read into the record by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger who, along with fellow former Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Caspar Weinberger, was present at the Committee hearing to provide testimony against the CWC.
“This website provides a much needed archive for documents, letters, and analysis of the Chemical Weapons Convention,” said Michael Stebbins, director of the biosecurity program at FAS. “It’s astonishing to read the vehement language used by our vice president urging Congress to reject the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
The CWC entered into force on April 29, 1997. The archive highlights accomplishments over the past 11 years, and arguments made for and against U.S. ratification in Congress. Many of the letters, petitions and reports have not been previously available online.
Visit the Chemical Weapons Convention Archive today.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
What will it take to heal US diplomacy by Fred Kaplan
SLATE
3/30/08
Foreign Policy
What it will take to heal U.S. diplomacy.
Fred Kaplan
The next president must repair our tarnished image in the world and restore some of our lost power. The good news is that, in some respects, the one goal goes along with the other. The bad news is that both are harder than they may seem, because our diminished condition stems not just from President Bush's policies but from our victory in the Cold War, which paradoxically made us weaker.
This seems odd at first glance (didn't we emerge as "the sole superpower"?), but for all its horrors, the Cold War was a system of international security. The world was dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union, and the countries in between often subordinated their own interests to accommodate—in the West by choice, in the East by force—the interests of their superpower protector. When the USSR evaporated, we didn't step into the vacuum; the vacuum expanded. Old allies realized they could go their own ways and pursue their own interests with less regard for what Washington thought. Other powers—China especially—moved up in the world, offering alternative alignments.
Bush accelerated this development by failing to recognize it. He and his top aides thought that since we were now all-powerful, allies were no longer necessary—when, in fact, they were more necessary, and harder to lure, than ever. The next president will have to do what Bush failed to do—step up diplomatic activity, renovate old alliances, devise new ones—not just because diplomacy is preferable to war but because we have no choice. In short, if handled shrewdly, the things the next president must do to repair our image will also enhance our power.
Here are some of the main things:
· Travel to all the Middle East countries and leave behind a full-time envoy to the region. It is appalling that President Bush made his first trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories in his final year and, even then, did nothing—and that he assured the envoy whom he did (finally) appoint that the job was a part-time post. The real agenda at the Annapolis summit, just before then, was to corral the Sunni nations into an anti-Iran coalition. But that won't happen—the leaders won't ally themselves so openly with the United States—until we at least seem to get serious about the Israeli-Palestinian talks. Each of the region's problems has its own dynamic, but each is also linked to the others. Bush has always known this. In 2002-03, he thought that the road to Jerusalem went through Baghdad (i.e., that by toppling Saddam and transforming Iraq into a democracy, the neighboring dictators would fall like dominoes)—when, if anything, the road goes in the opposite direction. Bush's father and Bill Clinton employed Dennis Ross as a full-time Middle East envoy. His job was to douse the flame whenever anyone lit a match and to pounce on any opportunity for a strategic breakthrough. As long as Arafat ruled the PLO, such opportunities were perhaps illusory. Ross or someone like him should go back to do what he used to do—in a more fluid, intriguing setting.
· Iraq: Use the troops as leverage. Most Democrats realize that total withdrawal in the next few years is impractical. If John McCain is elected, the Joint Chiefs will inform him that his vision of a 100-year occupation is impossible. (If deployments continue at anywhere near current levels, the Army might break before the end of his first term.) The goal should be to withdraw as quickly as possible while trying to keep Iraq from going up in flames. Some believe Iraq's leaders won't get their act together until they see that we really are leaving. Maybe. But it's equally, if not more, plausible that there is no act for them to get together and that the prospect of our departure will drive each faction to retreat and prepare for the imminent civil war. The major parties want us to leave—but not now. One way to exploit this ambivalence: Start the withdrawal but attach benchmarks. (The old benchmarks, which Bush put in place but ignored when they weren't met, might still be suitable.) If the Iraqis meet certain benchmarks, we'll suspend the withdrawal and help consolidate the progress until the next benchmark. If the Iraqis fail to meet them, we will continue the withdrawal. The surge—in fact, our entire military presence—is a means to an end: an instrument to provide security while Iraq's leaders settle their sectarian feuds. If the feuds are irresolvable, we can do only so much; there is little point in keeping our thumbs (and most of our fingers) plugging up holes in the bursting dike. If Iraq were like South Korea or postwar Europe (or even Bosnia), that would be one thing; but no Americans died in combat after those wars were over and the long occupations began. That's not the case with Iraq.
· Prevent Iraq's internal violence from spreading into neighboring countries. One can imagine Iran intervening to help the Shiites; Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Jordan stepping up to aid the Sunnis; Turkey moving in to crush the Kurds—in short, the civil war morphing into a regionwide conflagration. The next president, working with the United Nations, the Arab League, or whatever entities are suitable, should convene a regional conference. There should be no utopian aspirations. It should be a businesslike office where delegates of the interested nations regularly meet, so that if the violence does begin to spread, there will already be a forum for trying to contain it. This measure would save many days or weeks—which could mean all the difference in the world.
· In certain neighboring countries … In 2006, Condoleezza Rice was asked why she wasn't talking with Syria. She replied, "The Syrians know what they need to do." Maybe, but they didn't know what was in it for them if they did—what they would get for walking away from the Iranians and coming over to our side. Spelling out the trade is what diplomacy is about. Maybe there's nothing we can reasonably offer that they'd accept; but there's no harm in trying.
· Separately, open up talks with Iran with an eye toward negotiating a "grand bargain." These talks should cover all issues—including Western capital investment and the end of sanctions in exchange for concessions on enriching uranium and supporting terrorism. This effort may not go anywhere. But Bush's hostile rhetoric has only bolstered Ahmadinejad's domestic support. Diplomatic overtures, if made openly and (by all appearances) sincerely, may undermine his resistance to reform.
· Work toward new Pakistani alliances. In Pakistan, the situation is so fluid and uncertain, it's hard to know at this point what policies ought to be pursued 10 months from now. But backing away from Musharraf and moving toward whatever coalition of parties the Pakistani people support (as long as the Taliban or al-Qaida aren't involved) would be a smart move. In these kinds of situations, it's wise to invoke the Realist's slogan: Nations have interests, not friends. (In this case, our hardheaded security interests and our moral aspirations—to create conditions for the survival and, if possible, the spread of democracy—coincide.)
· Pursue public diplomacy. What we do sends a more potent signal to the world than the cleverest PR campaign. But once we start doing smarter things, we should also be smart about promoting our efforts. For instance: Revive the U.S. Information Agency—a once-vast independent entity that (though lecture programs, libraries, concerts, etc.) promoted not American policy but American values. Send as emissaries abroad people who understand the language and the area (not well-meaning provincials like Karen Hughes). Expand the Foreign Service. Offer scholarships for intense study in crucial languages. Train customs officers to treat foreign visitors more courteously at embassies and airports. It should be possible to be vigilant about security without assuming that every tourist is a terrorist.
Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and the author of Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power.
3/30/08
Foreign Policy
What it will take to heal U.S. diplomacy.
Fred Kaplan
The next president must repair our tarnished image in the world and restore some of our lost power. The good news is that, in some respects, the one goal goes along with the other. The bad news is that both are harder than they may seem, because our diminished condition stems not just from President Bush's policies but from our victory in the Cold War, which paradoxically made us weaker.
This seems odd at first glance (didn't we emerge as "the sole superpower"?), but for all its horrors, the Cold War was a system of international security. The world was dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union, and the countries in between often subordinated their own interests to accommodate—in the West by choice, in the East by force—the interests of their superpower protector. When the USSR evaporated, we didn't step into the vacuum; the vacuum expanded. Old allies realized they could go their own ways and pursue their own interests with less regard for what Washington thought. Other powers—China especially—moved up in the world, offering alternative alignments.
Bush accelerated this development by failing to recognize it. He and his top aides thought that since we were now all-powerful, allies were no longer necessary—when, in fact, they were more necessary, and harder to lure, than ever. The next president will have to do what Bush failed to do—step up diplomatic activity, renovate old alliances, devise new ones—not just because diplomacy is preferable to war but because we have no choice. In short, if handled shrewdly, the things the next president must do to repair our image will also enhance our power.
Here are some of the main things:
· Travel to all the Middle East countries and leave behind a full-time envoy to the region. It is appalling that President Bush made his first trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories in his final year and, even then, did nothing—and that he assured the envoy whom he did (finally) appoint that the job was a part-time post. The real agenda at the Annapolis summit, just before then, was to corral the Sunni nations into an anti-Iran coalition. But that won't happen—the leaders won't ally themselves so openly with the United States—until we at least seem to get serious about the Israeli-Palestinian talks. Each of the region's problems has its own dynamic, but each is also linked to the others. Bush has always known this. In 2002-03, he thought that the road to Jerusalem went through Baghdad (i.e., that by toppling Saddam and transforming Iraq into a democracy, the neighboring dictators would fall like dominoes)—when, if anything, the road goes in the opposite direction. Bush's father and Bill Clinton employed Dennis Ross as a full-time Middle East envoy. His job was to douse the flame whenever anyone lit a match and to pounce on any opportunity for a strategic breakthrough. As long as Arafat ruled the PLO, such opportunities were perhaps illusory. Ross or someone like him should go back to do what he used to do—in a more fluid, intriguing setting.
· Iraq: Use the troops as leverage. Most Democrats realize that total withdrawal in the next few years is impractical. If John McCain is elected, the Joint Chiefs will inform him that his vision of a 100-year occupation is impossible. (If deployments continue at anywhere near current levels, the Army might break before the end of his first term.) The goal should be to withdraw as quickly as possible while trying to keep Iraq from going up in flames. Some believe Iraq's leaders won't get their act together until they see that we really are leaving. Maybe. But it's equally, if not more, plausible that there is no act for them to get together and that the prospect of our departure will drive each faction to retreat and prepare for the imminent civil war. The major parties want us to leave—but not now. One way to exploit this ambivalence: Start the withdrawal but attach benchmarks. (The old benchmarks, which Bush put in place but ignored when they weren't met, might still be suitable.) If the Iraqis meet certain benchmarks, we'll suspend the withdrawal and help consolidate the progress until the next benchmark. If the Iraqis fail to meet them, we will continue the withdrawal. The surge—in fact, our entire military presence—is a means to an end: an instrument to provide security while Iraq's leaders settle their sectarian feuds. If the feuds are irresolvable, we can do only so much; there is little point in keeping our thumbs (and most of our fingers) plugging up holes in the bursting dike. If Iraq were like South Korea or postwar Europe (or even Bosnia), that would be one thing; but no Americans died in combat after those wars were over and the long occupations began. That's not the case with Iraq.
· Prevent Iraq's internal violence from spreading into neighboring countries. One can imagine Iran intervening to help the Shiites; Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Jordan stepping up to aid the Sunnis; Turkey moving in to crush the Kurds—in short, the civil war morphing into a regionwide conflagration. The next president, working with the United Nations, the Arab League, or whatever entities are suitable, should convene a regional conference. There should be no utopian aspirations. It should be a businesslike office where delegates of the interested nations regularly meet, so that if the violence does begin to spread, there will already be a forum for trying to contain it. This measure would save many days or weeks—which could mean all the difference in the world.
· In certain neighboring countries … In 2006, Condoleezza Rice was asked why she wasn't talking with Syria. She replied, "The Syrians know what they need to do." Maybe, but they didn't know what was in it for them if they did—what they would get for walking away from the Iranians and coming over to our side. Spelling out the trade is what diplomacy is about. Maybe there's nothing we can reasonably offer that they'd accept; but there's no harm in trying.
· Separately, open up talks with Iran with an eye toward negotiating a "grand bargain." These talks should cover all issues—including Western capital investment and the end of sanctions in exchange for concessions on enriching uranium and supporting terrorism. This effort may not go anywhere. But Bush's hostile rhetoric has only bolstered Ahmadinejad's domestic support. Diplomatic overtures, if made openly and (by all appearances) sincerely, may undermine his resistance to reform.
· Work toward new Pakistani alliances. In Pakistan, the situation is so fluid and uncertain, it's hard to know at this point what policies ought to be pursued 10 months from now. But backing away from Musharraf and moving toward whatever coalition of parties the Pakistani people support (as long as the Taliban or al-Qaida aren't involved) would be a smart move. In these kinds of situations, it's wise to invoke the Realist's slogan: Nations have interests, not friends. (In this case, our hardheaded security interests and our moral aspirations—to create conditions for the survival and, if possible, the spread of democracy—coincide.)
· Pursue public diplomacy. What we do sends a more potent signal to the world than the cleverest PR campaign. But once we start doing smarter things, we should also be smart about promoting our efforts. For instance: Revive the U.S. Information Agency—a once-vast independent entity that (though lecture programs, libraries, concerts, etc.) promoted not American policy but American values. Send as emissaries abroad people who understand the language and the area (not well-meaning provincials like Karen Hughes). Expand the Foreign Service. Offer scholarships for intense study in crucial languages. Train customs officers to treat foreign visitors more courteously at embassies and airports. It should be possible to be vigilant about security without assuming that every tourist is a terrorist.
Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and the author of Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power.
What will it take to heal US diplomacy by Fred Kaplan
SLATE
3/30/08
Foreign Policy
What it will take to heal U.S. diplomacy.
Fred Kaplan
The next president must repair our tarnished image in the world and restore some of our lost power. The good news is that, in some respects, the one goal goes along with the other. The bad news is that both are harder than they may seem, because our diminished condition stems not just from President Bush's policies but from our victory in the Cold War, which paradoxically made us weaker.
This seems odd at first glance (didn't we emerge as "the sole superpower"?), but for all its horrors, the Cold War was a system of international security. The world was dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union, and the countries in between often subordinated their own interests to accommodate—in the West by choice, in the East by force—the interests of their superpower protector. When the USSR evaporated, we didn't step into the vacuum; the vacuum expanded. Old allies realized they could go their own ways and pursue their own interests with less regard for what Washington thought. Other powers—China especially—moved up in the world, offering alternative alignments.
Bush accelerated this development by failing to recognize it. He and his top aides thought that since we were now all-powerful, allies were no longer necessary—when, in fact, they were more necessary, and harder to lure, than ever. The next president will have to do what Bush failed to do—step up diplomatic activity, renovate old alliances, devise new ones—not just because diplomacy is preferable to war but because we have no choice. In short, if handled shrewdly, the things the next president must do to repair our image will also enhance our power.
Here are some of the main things:
· Travel to all the Middle East countries and leave behind a full-time envoy to the region. It is appalling that President Bush made his first trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories in his final year and, even then, did nothing—and that he assured the envoy whom he did (finally) appoint that the job was a part-time post. The real agenda at the Annapolis summit, just before then, was to corral the Sunni nations into an anti-Iran coalition. But that won't happen—the leaders won't ally themselves so openly with the United States—until we at least seem to get serious about the Israeli-Palestinian talks. Each of the region's problems has its own dynamic, but each is also linked to the others. Bush has always known this. In 2002-03, he thought that the road to Jerusalem went through Baghdad (i.e., that by toppling Saddam and transforming Iraq into a democracy, the neighboring dictators would fall like dominoes)—when, if anything, the road goes in the opposite direction. Bush's father and Bill Clinton employed Dennis Ross as a full-time Middle East envoy. His job was to douse the flame whenever anyone lit a match and to pounce on any opportunity for a strategic breakthrough. As long as Arafat ruled the PLO, such opportunities were perhaps illusory. Ross or someone like him should go back to do what he used to do—in a more fluid, intriguing setting.
· Iraq: Use the troops as leverage. Most Democrats realize that total withdrawal in the next few years is impractical. If John McCain is elected, the Joint Chiefs will inform him that his vision of a 100-year occupation is impossible. (If deployments continue at anywhere near current levels, the Army might break before the end of his first term.) The goal should be to withdraw as quickly as possible while trying to keep Iraq from going up in flames. Some believe Iraq's leaders won't get their act together until they see that we really are leaving. Maybe. But it's equally, if not more, plausible that there is no act for them to get together and that the prospect of our departure will drive each faction to retreat and prepare for the imminent civil war. The major parties want us to leave—but not now. One way to exploit this ambivalence: Start the withdrawal but attach benchmarks. (The old benchmarks, which Bush put in place but ignored when they weren't met, might still be suitable.) If the Iraqis meet certain benchmarks, we'll suspend the withdrawal and help consolidate the progress until the next benchmark. If the Iraqis fail to meet them, we will continue the withdrawal. The surge—in fact, our entire military presence—is a means to an end: an instrument to provide security while Iraq's leaders settle their sectarian feuds. If the feuds are irresolvable, we can do only so much; there is little point in keeping our thumbs (and most of our fingers) plugging up holes in the bursting dike. If Iraq were like South Korea or postwar Europe (or even Bosnia), that would be one thing; but no Americans died in combat after those wars were over and the long occupations began. That's not the case with Iraq.
· Prevent Iraq's internal violence from spreading into neighboring countries. One can imagine Iran intervening to help the Shiites; Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Jordan stepping up to aid the Sunnis; Turkey moving in to crush the Kurds—in short, the civil war morphing into a regionwide conflagration. The next president, working with the United Nations, the Arab League, or whatever entities are suitable, should convene a regional conference. There should be no utopian aspirations. It should be a businesslike office where delegates of the interested nations regularly meet, so that if the violence does begin to spread, there will already be a forum for trying to contain it. This measure would save many days or weeks—which could mean all the difference in the world.
· In certain neighboring countries … In 2006, Condoleezza Rice was asked why she wasn't talking with Syria. She replied, "The Syrians know what they need to do." Maybe, but they didn't know what was in it for them if they did—what they would get for walking away from the Iranians and coming over to our side. Spelling out the trade is what diplomacy is about. Maybe there's nothing we can reasonably offer that they'd accept; but there's no harm in trying.
· Separately, open up talks with Iran with an eye toward negotiating a "grand bargain." These talks should cover all issues—including Western capital investment and the end of sanctions in exchange for concessions on enriching uranium and supporting terrorism. This effort may not go anywhere. But Bush's hostile rhetoric has only bolstered Ahmadinejad's domestic support. Diplomatic overtures, if made openly and (by all appearances) sincerely, may undermine his resistance to reform.
· Work toward new Pakistani alliances. In Pakistan, the situation is so fluid and uncertain, it's hard to know at this point what policies ought to be pursued 10 months from now. But backing away from Musharraf and moving toward whatever coalition of parties the Pakistani people support (as long as the Taliban or al-Qaida aren't involved) would be a smart move. In these kinds of situations, it's wise to invoke the Realist's slogan: Nations have interests, not friends. (In this case, our hardheaded security interests and our moral aspirations—to create conditions for the survival and, if possible, the spread of democracy—coincide.)
· Pursue public diplomacy. What we do sends a more potent signal to the world than the cleverest PR campaign. But once we start doing smarter things, we should also be smart about promoting our efforts. For instance: Revive the U.S. Information Agency—a once-vast independent entity that (though lecture programs, libraries, concerts, etc.) promoted not American policy but American values. Send as emissaries abroad people who understand the language and the area (not well-meaning provincials like Karen Hughes). Expand the Foreign Service. Offer scholarships for intense study in crucial languages. Train customs officers to treat foreign visitors more courteously at embassies and airports. It should be possible to be vigilant about security without assuming that every tourist is a terrorist.
Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and the author of Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power.
3/30/08
Foreign Policy
What it will take to heal U.S. diplomacy.
Fred Kaplan
The next president must repair our tarnished image in the world and restore some of our lost power. The good news is that, in some respects, the one goal goes along with the other. The bad news is that both are harder than they may seem, because our diminished condition stems not just from President Bush's policies but from our victory in the Cold War, which paradoxically made us weaker.
This seems odd at first glance (didn't we emerge as "the sole superpower"?), but for all its horrors, the Cold War was a system of international security. The world was dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union, and the countries in between often subordinated their own interests to accommodate—in the West by choice, in the East by force—the interests of their superpower protector. When the USSR evaporated, we didn't step into the vacuum; the vacuum expanded. Old allies realized they could go their own ways and pursue their own interests with less regard for what Washington thought. Other powers—China especially—moved up in the world, offering alternative alignments.
Bush accelerated this development by failing to recognize it. He and his top aides thought that since we were now all-powerful, allies were no longer necessary—when, in fact, they were more necessary, and harder to lure, than ever. The next president will have to do what Bush failed to do—step up diplomatic activity, renovate old alliances, devise new ones—not just because diplomacy is preferable to war but because we have no choice. In short, if handled shrewdly, the things the next president must do to repair our image will also enhance our power.
Here are some of the main things:
· Travel to all the Middle East countries and leave behind a full-time envoy to the region. It is appalling that President Bush made his first trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories in his final year and, even then, did nothing—and that he assured the envoy whom he did (finally) appoint that the job was a part-time post. The real agenda at the Annapolis summit, just before then, was to corral the Sunni nations into an anti-Iran coalition. But that won't happen—the leaders won't ally themselves so openly with the United States—until we at least seem to get serious about the Israeli-Palestinian talks. Each of the region's problems has its own dynamic, but each is also linked to the others. Bush has always known this. In 2002-03, he thought that the road to Jerusalem went through Baghdad (i.e., that by toppling Saddam and transforming Iraq into a democracy, the neighboring dictators would fall like dominoes)—when, if anything, the road goes in the opposite direction. Bush's father and Bill Clinton employed Dennis Ross as a full-time Middle East envoy. His job was to douse the flame whenever anyone lit a match and to pounce on any opportunity for a strategic breakthrough. As long as Arafat ruled the PLO, such opportunities were perhaps illusory. Ross or someone like him should go back to do what he used to do—in a more fluid, intriguing setting.
· Iraq: Use the troops as leverage. Most Democrats realize that total withdrawal in the next few years is impractical. If John McCain is elected, the Joint Chiefs will inform him that his vision of a 100-year occupation is impossible. (If deployments continue at anywhere near current levels, the Army might break before the end of his first term.) The goal should be to withdraw as quickly as possible while trying to keep Iraq from going up in flames. Some believe Iraq's leaders won't get their act together until they see that we really are leaving. Maybe. But it's equally, if not more, plausible that there is no act for them to get together and that the prospect of our departure will drive each faction to retreat and prepare for the imminent civil war. The major parties want us to leave—but not now. One way to exploit this ambivalence: Start the withdrawal but attach benchmarks. (The old benchmarks, which Bush put in place but ignored when they weren't met, might still be suitable.) If the Iraqis meet certain benchmarks, we'll suspend the withdrawal and help consolidate the progress until the next benchmark. If the Iraqis fail to meet them, we will continue the withdrawal. The surge—in fact, our entire military presence—is a means to an end: an instrument to provide security while Iraq's leaders settle their sectarian feuds. If the feuds are irresolvable, we can do only so much; there is little point in keeping our thumbs (and most of our fingers) plugging up holes in the bursting dike. If Iraq were like South Korea or postwar Europe (or even Bosnia), that would be one thing; but no Americans died in combat after those wars were over and the long occupations began. That's not the case with Iraq.
· Prevent Iraq's internal violence from spreading into neighboring countries. One can imagine Iran intervening to help the Shiites; Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Jordan stepping up to aid the Sunnis; Turkey moving in to crush the Kurds—in short, the civil war morphing into a regionwide conflagration. The next president, working with the United Nations, the Arab League, or whatever entities are suitable, should convene a regional conference. There should be no utopian aspirations. It should be a businesslike office where delegates of the interested nations regularly meet, so that if the violence does begin to spread, there will already be a forum for trying to contain it. This measure would save many days or weeks—which could mean all the difference in the world.
· In certain neighboring countries … In 2006, Condoleezza Rice was asked why she wasn't talking with Syria. She replied, "The Syrians know what they need to do." Maybe, but they didn't know what was in it for them if they did—what they would get for walking away from the Iranians and coming over to our side. Spelling out the trade is what diplomacy is about. Maybe there's nothing we can reasonably offer that they'd accept; but there's no harm in trying.
· Separately, open up talks with Iran with an eye toward negotiating a "grand bargain." These talks should cover all issues—including Western capital investment and the end of sanctions in exchange for concessions on enriching uranium and supporting terrorism. This effort may not go anywhere. But Bush's hostile rhetoric has only bolstered Ahmadinejad's domestic support. Diplomatic overtures, if made openly and (by all appearances) sincerely, may undermine his resistance to reform.
· Work toward new Pakistani alliances. In Pakistan, the situation is so fluid and uncertain, it's hard to know at this point what policies ought to be pursued 10 months from now. But backing away from Musharraf and moving toward whatever coalition of parties the Pakistani people support (as long as the Taliban or al-Qaida aren't involved) would be a smart move. In these kinds of situations, it's wise to invoke the Realist's slogan: Nations have interests, not friends. (In this case, our hardheaded security interests and our moral aspirations—to create conditions for the survival and, if possible, the spread of democracy—coincide.)
· Pursue public diplomacy. What we do sends a more potent signal to the world than the cleverest PR campaign. But once we start doing smarter things, we should also be smart about promoting our efforts. For instance: Revive the U.S. Information Agency—a once-vast independent entity that (though lecture programs, libraries, concerts, etc.) promoted not American policy but American values. Send as emissaries abroad people who understand the language and the area (not well-meaning provincials like Karen Hughes). Expand the Foreign Service. Offer scholarships for intense study in crucial languages. Train customs officers to treat foreign visitors more courteously at embassies and airports. It should be possible to be vigilant about security without assuming that every tourist is a terrorist.
Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and the author of Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power.
If It's Not Dead on Arrival, Someone should Shoot It Quick: Paulson's Fixit Plan for Wall Street by Mike Whitney
If It's Not Dead on Arrival, Someone Should Shoot It Quick
Paulson's Fixit Plan for Wall Street
By MIKE WHITNEY
It is being billed as a "massive shakeup of US financial market regulation", but don't be deceived. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposals for broad market reform are neither "timely" nor "thoughtful" (Reuters) In fact, its all just more of the same free market "we can police ourselves" mumbo jumbo that got us into this mess in the first place. The real objective of Paulson's so called reforms is to decapitate the SEC and increase the powers of the Federal Reserve. Same wine, different bottle. Paulson's motive is to preempt any regulatory sledgehammer that might descend on the entire financial industry following the 2008 election. There's growing fear that an incoming Democrat may tote a firehose down to Wall Street.
If Paulson's plan is approved in its present form, Congress will have even less control over the financial system than it does now and the same group of self-serving banking mandarins who created the biggest equity bubble in history will be able to administer the markets however they choose without the inconvenience of government supervision. That's exactly what Wall Street, the Treasury Secretary and the folk at the Fed want; unlimited power with no accountability.
Paulson is expected to lay out guidelines and principles that are intended to help regulators supervise the financial markets. According to AFP:
"The President's Working Group on Financial Markets said the current regulatory structure is working well despite calls by some US lawmakers."
In other words, the failing banking system, the housing meltdown, and the frozen corporate bond market are all signs of a robust financial system? This may be the most ludicrous statement since "Mission accomplished". The system is imploding and people are being hurt by the fallout. Thirty years of industry-led lobbying has dismantled the (admittedly frail ad porous) regulatory regime which made US financial markets the envy of the world. Whatever credibility and transparency once existed were washed out in the Clinton era, as with Glass-Steagall and government oversight of the explosive growth of over-the counter derivatives instruments. Now the system is prey to all types of dodgy debt instruments, suspicious "dark pool" trading and off-balance sheets operations which further reinforce the belief that cautious investment is no better than casino gambling.
"The regulatory line of sight today is by the counterparties," the official said, adding that the guidelines should be "beneficial to industry." (AFP)
How is that different than saying, "Caveat emptor"? That's not a motto that inspires confidence. Many people still naively believe that planning their retirement should not have to be a Darwinian tussle with a crafty junk-bond salesman.
Under Paulson's plan, the Federal Reserve will be granted new regulatory powers, but whatever for? The Fed doesn't use the powers it has now. No one stopped the Fed from intervening in the mortgage lending fiasco, or the ratings agency abuses or the off-balance sheets shenanigans. They had the authority and they should have used it. The folks at the Fed knew everything that was going on---including the mushrooming sales of derivatives contracts which soared from under $1 trillion in 2000 to over $500 trillion in 2006---but they decided to cheerlead from the sidelines rather than do their jobs. The fact is, they were worried that if they got involved they might upset the gravy-train of profits that was enriching their bankster friends.
Former Fed chief Greenspan used to croon like a smitten teenager every time he was asked about subprime loans or adjustable rate mortgages. And, as New York Times columnist Floyd Norris points out, (Greenspan) "praised the growth in the derivatives market as a boon for market stability, and resisted calls to use the Fed's power to increase regulation." Of course, he did. It was all part of Maestro's "New Economy"; trickle-down Elysium, where the endless flow of low interest credit merged with financial innovation to create a Reaganesque El Dorado. There are no regulations in this version of Eden, not even "Don't bite the apple". Anything goes and to heck with the public, they can fend for themselves.
Now its Paulson's job to keep the neoliberal flame lit long enough to make sure that government busybodies and bureaucratic do-goodies don't upset the cart. That means concocting a wacky public relations campaign to convince the public that Wall Street is not just a pirate's cove of land-sharks and bunko artists, but a trusted ally in maintaining a strong economy through vital and efficient markets.
The Times' Norris summed up Paulson's sham reforms like this:
"The plan has its genesis in a yearlong effort to limiting Washington's role in the market. And that DNA is unmistakably evident in the fine print. Although the proposal would impose the first regulation of hedge funds and private equity funds, that oversight would have a light touch, enabling the government to do little beyond collecting information - except in times of crisis. The regulatory umbrella created in the 1930s would grow wider, with power concentrated in fewer agencies. But that authority would be limited, doing virtually nothing to regulate the many new financial products whose unwise use has been a culprit in the current financial crisis. ("In Treasury Plan, a Reluctant Eye over Wall Street", Floyd Norris, New York Times)
What nonsense. The house is on fire and hyperventilating Hank is still wasting our time with this rubbish. The real problem is that Paulson and his buddies at the Federal Reserve think of the financial system as their personal fiefdom so they refuse to loosen their \ grip even though the economy is listing starboard and the water is flooding into the lower decks.
Once again, the New York Times:
"All the checks and balances in the plan reflect the mindset of its architect, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who came to Washington after a long career on Wall Street. He has worried that any effort to substantially tighten regulation could hamper the ability of American markets to compete with foreign rivals."
No one elected Paulson to do anything. He has no mandate. He is an industry rep. who has worked exclusively for a small group of wealthy investors who have put the entire country at risk with their toxic mortgage-backed bonds, their reckless Ponzi-type speculation, and their off-book chicanery. Paulson should be removed immediately and returned to his wolf's lair at G-Sax. If Bush is serious about straightening out Wall Street, then bring in Eliot Spitzer. He's probably available, at least in daytime hours. And he'll do what it takes to clean house, that is, put a truncheon-wielding robo-cop in every trading-pit at the NYSE, and dispatch government accountants to every office of every CFO making sure they have a Big Red Pen in one hand and a taser in the other. That's the only way to get the attention of the bandit-class.
"I do not believe it is fair or accurate to blame our regulatory structure for the current turmoil," says Paulson.
Paulson is wrong. The current turmoil is all about the lack of regulation and he'd better prepare himself for some big changes. The pendulum is already in motion and tighter regulations will soon follow. There needs to be an accounting process for all transactions and capital requirements for every financial institution that creates credit. No exceptions. All of these businesses pose a real danger to the overall system and, therefore, must conform to clearly articulated and strictly enforced rules; no off-balance sheets operations, no dark pool trading, no unregulated derivatives contracts, no level 3 assets, no "mark to model" garbage bonds where CFOs unilaterally decide what they are worth by picking a number out of a hat. Its time to restore order to the markets so retirees and working class families can feel safe investing in their futures. They are the ones who are most hurt by Wall Street's endless trickery.
Paulson's plan is a non starter. The era of sandbagging, supply-side banditry is over. Good riddance.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney03312008.html
Paulson's Fixit Plan for Wall Street
By MIKE WHITNEY
It is being billed as a "massive shakeup of US financial market regulation", but don't be deceived. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposals for broad market reform are neither "timely" nor "thoughtful" (Reuters) In fact, its all just more of the same free market "we can police ourselves" mumbo jumbo that got us into this mess in the first place. The real objective of Paulson's so called reforms is to decapitate the SEC and increase the powers of the Federal Reserve. Same wine, different bottle. Paulson's motive is to preempt any regulatory sledgehammer that might descend on the entire financial industry following the 2008 election. There's growing fear that an incoming Democrat may tote a firehose down to Wall Street.
If Paulson's plan is approved in its present form, Congress will have even less control over the financial system than it does now and the same group of self-serving banking mandarins who created the biggest equity bubble in history will be able to administer the markets however they choose without the inconvenience of government supervision. That's exactly what Wall Street, the Treasury Secretary and the folk at the Fed want; unlimited power with no accountability.
Paulson is expected to lay out guidelines and principles that are intended to help regulators supervise the financial markets. According to AFP:
"The President's Working Group on Financial Markets said the current regulatory structure is working well despite calls by some US lawmakers."
In other words, the failing banking system, the housing meltdown, and the frozen corporate bond market are all signs of a robust financial system? This may be the most ludicrous statement since "Mission accomplished". The system is imploding and people are being hurt by the fallout. Thirty years of industry-led lobbying has dismantled the (admittedly frail ad porous) regulatory regime which made US financial markets the envy of the world. Whatever credibility and transparency once existed were washed out in the Clinton era, as with Glass-Steagall and government oversight of the explosive growth of over-the counter derivatives instruments. Now the system is prey to all types of dodgy debt instruments, suspicious "dark pool" trading and off-balance sheets operations which further reinforce the belief that cautious investment is no better than casino gambling.
"The regulatory line of sight today is by the counterparties," the official said, adding that the guidelines should be "beneficial to industry." (AFP)
How is that different than saying, "Caveat emptor"? That's not a motto that inspires confidence. Many people still naively believe that planning their retirement should not have to be a Darwinian tussle with a crafty junk-bond salesman.
Under Paulson's plan, the Federal Reserve will be granted new regulatory powers, but whatever for? The Fed doesn't use the powers it has now. No one stopped the Fed from intervening in the mortgage lending fiasco, or the ratings agency abuses or the off-balance sheets shenanigans. They had the authority and they should have used it. The folks at the Fed knew everything that was going on---including the mushrooming sales of derivatives contracts which soared from under $1 trillion in 2000 to over $500 trillion in 2006---but they decided to cheerlead from the sidelines rather than do their jobs. The fact is, they were worried that if they got involved they might upset the gravy-train of profits that was enriching their bankster friends.
Former Fed chief Greenspan used to croon like a smitten teenager every time he was asked about subprime loans or adjustable rate mortgages. And, as New York Times columnist Floyd Norris points out, (Greenspan) "praised the growth in the derivatives market as a boon for market stability, and resisted calls to use the Fed's power to increase regulation." Of course, he did. It was all part of Maestro's "New Economy"; trickle-down Elysium, where the endless flow of low interest credit merged with financial innovation to create a Reaganesque El Dorado. There are no regulations in this version of Eden, not even "Don't bite the apple". Anything goes and to heck with the public, they can fend for themselves.
Now its Paulson's job to keep the neoliberal flame lit long enough to make sure that government busybodies and bureaucratic do-goodies don't upset the cart. That means concocting a wacky public relations campaign to convince the public that Wall Street is not just a pirate's cove of land-sharks and bunko artists, but a trusted ally in maintaining a strong economy through vital and efficient markets.
The Times' Norris summed up Paulson's sham reforms like this:
"The plan has its genesis in a yearlong effort to limiting Washington's role in the market. And that DNA is unmistakably evident in the fine print. Although the proposal would impose the first regulation of hedge funds and private equity funds, that oversight would have a light touch, enabling the government to do little beyond collecting information - except in times of crisis. The regulatory umbrella created in the 1930s would grow wider, with power concentrated in fewer agencies. But that authority would be limited, doing virtually nothing to regulate the many new financial products whose unwise use has been a culprit in the current financial crisis. ("In Treasury Plan, a Reluctant Eye over Wall Street", Floyd Norris, New York Times)
What nonsense. The house is on fire and hyperventilating Hank is still wasting our time with this rubbish. The real problem is that Paulson and his buddies at the Federal Reserve think of the financial system as their personal fiefdom so they refuse to loosen their \ grip even though the economy is listing starboard and the water is flooding into the lower decks.
Once again, the New York Times:
"All the checks and balances in the plan reflect the mindset of its architect, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who came to Washington after a long career on Wall Street. He has worried that any effort to substantially tighten regulation could hamper the ability of American markets to compete with foreign rivals."
No one elected Paulson to do anything. He has no mandate. He is an industry rep. who has worked exclusively for a small group of wealthy investors who have put the entire country at risk with their toxic mortgage-backed bonds, their reckless Ponzi-type speculation, and their off-book chicanery. Paulson should be removed immediately and returned to his wolf's lair at G-Sax. If Bush is serious about straightening out Wall Street, then bring in Eliot Spitzer. He's probably available, at least in daytime hours. And he'll do what it takes to clean house, that is, put a truncheon-wielding robo-cop in every trading-pit at the NYSE, and dispatch government accountants to every office of every CFO making sure they have a Big Red Pen in one hand and a taser in the other. That's the only way to get the attention of the bandit-class.
"I do not believe it is fair or accurate to blame our regulatory structure for the current turmoil," says Paulson.
Paulson is wrong. The current turmoil is all about the lack of regulation and he'd better prepare himself for some big changes. The pendulum is already in motion and tighter regulations will soon follow. There needs to be an accounting process for all transactions and capital requirements for every financial institution that creates credit. No exceptions. All of these businesses pose a real danger to the overall system and, therefore, must conform to clearly articulated and strictly enforced rules; no off-balance sheets operations, no dark pool trading, no unregulated derivatives contracts, no level 3 assets, no "mark to model" garbage bonds where CFOs unilaterally decide what they are worth by picking a number out of a hat. Its time to restore order to the markets so retirees and working class families can feel safe investing in their futures. They are the ones who are most hurt by Wall Street's endless trickery.
Paulson's plan is a non starter. The era of sandbagging, supply-side banditry is over. Good riddance.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney03312008.html
Iran in the Crosshairs: A Thrd American War in the Making? by Paul Craig Roberts
Iran in the Crosshairs
A Third American War in the Making?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The US Congress, the US media, the American people, and the United Nations, are looking the other way as Cheney prepares his attack on Iran.
If only America had an independent media and an opposition party. If there were a shred of integrity left in American political life, perhaps a third act of naked aggression--a third war crime under the Nuremberg standard--by the Bush Regime could be prevented.
On March 30, the Russian News & Information Agency, Novosti, cited "a high-ranking security source: "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened US military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran."
According to Novosti, Russian Colonel General Leonid Ivashov said "that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future."
The chief of Russia's general staff, Yuri Baluyevsky, said last November that Russia was beefing up its military in response to US aggression, but that the Russian military is not "obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans."
On March 29, OpEdNews cited a report by the Saudi Arabian newspaper Okaz, which was picked up by the German news service, DPA. The Saudi newspaper reported on March 22, the day following Cheney's visit with the kingdom's rulers, that the Saudi Shura Council is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors."
And Admiral William "there will be no attack on Iran on my watch" Fallon has been removed as US chief of Central Command, thus clearing the way for Cheney's planned attack on Iran.
The Iranians don't seem to believe it, despite the dispatch of US nuclear submarines and another aircraft carrier attack group to the Persian Gulf. To counter any Iranian missiles launched in response to an attack, the US is deploying anti-missile defenses to protect US bases and Saudi oil fields.
Two massive failures by the American media, the Democratic Party, and the American people have paved the way for Cheney's long planned attack on Iran. One failure is the lack of skepticism about the US government's explanation of 9/11. The other failure is the Democrats' refusal to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush for lying to the Congress, the American people, and the world and launching an invasion of Iraq based on deception and fabricated evidence.
If an American president can start a war exactly as Adolf Hitler did with pure lies and not be held accountable, he can get away with anything. And Bush and his evil regime have.
Hitler launched World War II with his invasion of Poland after staging a "Polish attack" on a German radio station. On the night of August 31, 1939, a group of Nazis disguised in Polish uniforms seized a radio station in Germany. Hitler announced that "last night Polish troops crossed the frontier and attacked Germany," a claim no more true than the Bush Regime's claim that "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." Hitler's lie failed, because his invasion of Poland, which began the next day allegedly in reprisal for the Polish attack, had obviously been planned for many months.
Iran is a beautiful and developed country. It is an ancient civilization. It has attacked no one. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran is permitted by the treaty to have a nuclear energy program. The Bush Regime's case against Iran is based on the Bush Regime's desire to deny Iran its rights under the treaty.
The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have repeatedly reported that they have found no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Despite all the disinformation from US Gen. Petraeus and other Bush Regime military lackeys, Iran is not arming the Iraqis who are resisting the American occupation.
If Iran were arming insurgents, the insurgents would have two weapons that would neutralize the US advantage in the Iraqi conflict: missiles to knock down US helicopter gunships and rocket-propelled grenades that knock out American tanks. The insurgents do not have these weapons and must construct clumsy anti-tank weapons out of artillery shells. The insurgents are helpless against US air power and cannot mass forces to take on the American troops.
Indiscriminate American violence has reduced Iraq to rubble. The civilian infrastructure is essentially destroyed--electricity, water and sewer systems, medical care and schools. Depleted uranium is everywhere poisoning everyone, including US troops. There is no economy, and half or more of Iraqis are unemployed. Literally no Iraqi family has escaped an injury or a death as a consequence of the US invasion. Millions of Iraqis have become displaced persons. A developed country with a professional middle class has been destroyed because of lies told by the President and Vice President of the US. The Bush Regime's lies are echoed by a neoconservative media, and have gone unchallenged by the opposition party and an indifferent American public.
In Afghanistan, death and destruction rains on even the smallest village from the air. America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wars against the civilian populations.
Just as the world could not believe Hitler's next horror and thus was always unprepared, the Iranians despite all the evidence cannot believe that even the Great Satan would gratuitously attack Iran based on nothing but lies about non-existent nuclear weapons.
Iran's only chance would be to strike before the US delivers the first blow. Instead of using its missiles to take out the Saudi oil fields and to sink the US aircraft carriers, instead of closing the Strait of Hormuz, instead of arming the Iraqi Shi'ites and moving them to insurgency, Iran is perched like a sitting duck in denial even as the US and its Iraqi puppet Maliki move to eliminate Al Sadr's Iraqi Shi'ite militia in order to avoid supply disruptions and a Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq when the US attack on Iran comes.
It is important to emphasize that Iran is making no moves toward war. Having tamed, blackmailed, and purchased Congress, the US media, and US allies and puppets, Cheney might delight in the arrogance with which he can now attack Iran free of any restraint or fabricated provocation. On the other hand, he might cover himself by orchestrating an "Iranian provocation" to justify his attack as a response. But like Hitler's planned attack against Poland, Cheney's attack on Iran has long been in the works.
On March 29 the Associated Press reported that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi "poured contempt on fellow Arab leaders" at the Arab summit that day. Gadhafi told the Arab "leaders," many of whom are on the American payroll, that their American masters would turn on them all, just as America turned on Saddam Hussein after using him to fight a proxy war against Iran.
Saddam had once been an ally of Washington, Gadhafi reminded the Arabs, "but they sold him out." Gadhafi told the American puppets, "Your turn is next."
Gadhafi asked, "Where is the Arabs' dignity, their future, their very existence?" If Arabs remain disunited, he predicted, "they will turn themselves into protectorates. They will be marginalized and turn into garbage dumps."
Indeed, it is this disunity that permits the US to bomb and murder at will in the Middle East.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03312008.html
A Third American War in the Making?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The US Congress, the US media, the American people, and the United Nations, are looking the other way as Cheney prepares his attack on Iran.
If only America had an independent media and an opposition party. If there were a shred of integrity left in American political life, perhaps a third act of naked aggression--a third war crime under the Nuremberg standard--by the Bush Regime could be prevented.
On March 30, the Russian News & Information Agency, Novosti, cited "a high-ranking security source: "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened US military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran."
According to Novosti, Russian Colonel General Leonid Ivashov said "that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future."
The chief of Russia's general staff, Yuri Baluyevsky, said last November that Russia was beefing up its military in response to US aggression, but that the Russian military is not "obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans."
On March 29, OpEdNews cited a report by the Saudi Arabian newspaper Okaz, which was picked up by the German news service, DPA. The Saudi newspaper reported on March 22, the day following Cheney's visit with the kingdom's rulers, that the Saudi Shura Council is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors."
And Admiral William "there will be no attack on Iran on my watch" Fallon has been removed as US chief of Central Command, thus clearing the way for Cheney's planned attack on Iran.
The Iranians don't seem to believe it, despite the dispatch of US nuclear submarines and another aircraft carrier attack group to the Persian Gulf. To counter any Iranian missiles launched in response to an attack, the US is deploying anti-missile defenses to protect US bases and Saudi oil fields.
Two massive failures by the American media, the Democratic Party, and the American people have paved the way for Cheney's long planned attack on Iran. One failure is the lack of skepticism about the US government's explanation of 9/11. The other failure is the Democrats' refusal to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush for lying to the Congress, the American people, and the world and launching an invasion of Iraq based on deception and fabricated evidence.
If an American president can start a war exactly as Adolf Hitler did with pure lies and not be held accountable, he can get away with anything. And Bush and his evil regime have.
Hitler launched World War II with his invasion of Poland after staging a "Polish attack" on a German radio station. On the night of August 31, 1939, a group of Nazis disguised in Polish uniforms seized a radio station in Germany. Hitler announced that "last night Polish troops crossed the frontier and attacked Germany," a claim no more true than the Bush Regime's claim that "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." Hitler's lie failed, because his invasion of Poland, which began the next day allegedly in reprisal for the Polish attack, had obviously been planned for many months.
Iran is a beautiful and developed country. It is an ancient civilization. It has attacked no one. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran is permitted by the treaty to have a nuclear energy program. The Bush Regime's case against Iran is based on the Bush Regime's desire to deny Iran its rights under the treaty.
The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have repeatedly reported that they have found no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Despite all the disinformation from US Gen. Petraeus and other Bush Regime military lackeys, Iran is not arming the Iraqis who are resisting the American occupation.
If Iran were arming insurgents, the insurgents would have two weapons that would neutralize the US advantage in the Iraqi conflict: missiles to knock down US helicopter gunships and rocket-propelled grenades that knock out American tanks. The insurgents do not have these weapons and must construct clumsy anti-tank weapons out of artillery shells. The insurgents are helpless against US air power and cannot mass forces to take on the American troops.
Indiscriminate American violence has reduced Iraq to rubble. The civilian infrastructure is essentially destroyed--electricity, water and sewer systems, medical care and schools. Depleted uranium is everywhere poisoning everyone, including US troops. There is no economy, and half or more of Iraqis are unemployed. Literally no Iraqi family has escaped an injury or a death as a consequence of the US invasion. Millions of Iraqis have become displaced persons. A developed country with a professional middle class has been destroyed because of lies told by the President and Vice President of the US. The Bush Regime's lies are echoed by a neoconservative media, and have gone unchallenged by the opposition party and an indifferent American public.
In Afghanistan, death and destruction rains on even the smallest village from the air. America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wars against the civilian populations.
Just as the world could not believe Hitler's next horror and thus was always unprepared, the Iranians despite all the evidence cannot believe that even the Great Satan would gratuitously attack Iran based on nothing but lies about non-existent nuclear weapons.
Iran's only chance would be to strike before the US delivers the first blow. Instead of using its missiles to take out the Saudi oil fields and to sink the US aircraft carriers, instead of closing the Strait of Hormuz, instead of arming the Iraqi Shi'ites and moving them to insurgency, Iran is perched like a sitting duck in denial even as the US and its Iraqi puppet Maliki move to eliminate Al Sadr's Iraqi Shi'ite militia in order to avoid supply disruptions and a Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq when the US attack on Iran comes.
It is important to emphasize that Iran is making no moves toward war. Having tamed, blackmailed, and purchased Congress, the US media, and US allies and puppets, Cheney might delight in the arrogance with which he can now attack Iran free of any restraint or fabricated provocation. On the other hand, he might cover himself by orchestrating an "Iranian provocation" to justify his attack as a response. But like Hitler's planned attack against Poland, Cheney's attack on Iran has long been in the works.
On March 29 the Associated Press reported that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi "poured contempt on fellow Arab leaders" at the Arab summit that day. Gadhafi told the Arab "leaders," many of whom are on the American payroll, that their American masters would turn on them all, just as America turned on Saddam Hussein after using him to fight a proxy war against Iran.
Saddam had once been an ally of Washington, Gadhafi reminded the Arabs, "but they sold him out." Gadhafi told the American puppets, "Your turn is next."
Gadhafi asked, "Where is the Arabs' dignity, their future, their very existence?" If Arabs remain disunited, he predicted, "they will turn themselves into protectorates. They will be marginalized and turn into garbage dumps."
Indeed, it is this disunity that permits the US to bomb and murder at will in the Middle East.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03312008.html
NAFTA is Only Half the Story: Hillary's LIes About Outsourcing by Paul Rockwell
NAFTA is Only Half the Story
Hillary's Lies About Outsourcing
By PAUL ROCKWELL
Job security is the foremost domestic issue for working people in Pennsylvania, where Senator Hillary Clinton is expected to win the Democratic Party primary. For many months, as a candidate for president, Senator Clinton has cultivated a pro-labor image. She claims to be an opponent of NAFTA, and she often denounces the outsourcing of American jobs. Before a crowd of students in New Hampshire, she claimed that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations, far, far from our shores."
Newly released White House records demonstrate that Clinton lied about NAFTA. NAFTA, however, is but a single thread in a web of deception regarding globalization and free trade. Clinton is lying not only about NAFTA, but about outsourcing as well. And the evidence comes, not from Obama, but from official records, video tapes, quotations and recordings of Clinton speeches abroad.
Consider this. In 2005 Senator Clinton visited New Delhi, India, ("far, far from our shores"), where she met wealthy business leaders, venture capitalists eager for U.S. investment. A few years prior to her visit, Enron gained a foothold in India's economy. Enron uprooted local communities, fleeced the public coffers, then pulled out of India with the profits of unregulated greed.
In a speech promoting globalization and free trade, here is what Senator Clinton said in New Delhi: "There is no way you can legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue....We are not against all outsourcing, we are not in favor of putting up fences."
The India Review, a publication of the embassy of India, commented April 1, 2005: "Senator Clinton allayed apprehension in India that there would be a ban on outsourcing."
Siddharth Srivastava reported in Asia Times, March 1st, 2005: "Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit...Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. She faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York." (TCS provided hundreds of special visas for foreign employees to work in New York for substandard, non-union wages.) She praised Clinton's "strict adherence to the principles of free trade and outsourcing that affect India directly."
Outsourcing is inherent to global free trade, the attempt of corporate goliaths to move resources, jobs, money, capital in search of profits anywhere in the world without accountability.
If a video clip of Clinton's outsourcing remarks in India were played on TV before the upcoming primaries in Indiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, she would lose the elections, despite current polls. Not only because working-class voters oppose outsourcing, but because the duplicity of Clinton would become obvious.
Clinton's globalization speech in India would hardly be noteworthy today, except that, in her current campaign for the nomination, she is saying exactly the opposite of what she said in India. She was a globalizer in India. Now she's a protectionist in Pennsylvania, and voters have a right to ask: Which is the real Hillary Clinton?
The U.S. media, however, is presently experiencing a bout of amnesia. Pundits forget that Bill Clinton, with Hillary at his side, made huge campaign promises to labor in 1992. Within months of their victory, the Clintons rammed two Republican-initiated free-trade bills-NAFTA and GATT-through a Democratic Congress. Outsourcing of jobs to sweatshops in Mexico and Indonesia actually accelerated under the Clinton globalization agenda. The Clintons increased subsidies for corporate mergers and relaxed regulations that protect the public from the abuse of corporate power.
The Clinton Administration also passed the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, repealing the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933. That historic New Deal legislation made working-class home ownership possible and safe. The Jimmy Stewart film It's a Wonderful Life idealized the New Deal arrangement. The savings-and-loan system-a system of small, often family-owned banks-was a bedrock of stability until the deregulation trends of the '80s and '90s transformed the U.S. economy into a high-risk casino. The Republican-sponsored, Clinton-backed Modernization Act deregulated the financial sector and encouraged the merger of business and commercial investment banks. Clinton's "modernization" (he called it "reinventing government") carved a path to the current sub-prime mortgage crisis. The current anarchy in housing and banking is, in part, a direct consequence of the Clinton deregulation legacy. As banks are failing, working people losing their homes, it takes a lot of gall for Hillary Clinton to take credit where blame is due for her White House experience. Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!
Paul Rockwell is a columnist for In Motion Magazine. He can be reached at: rockyspad@hotmail.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/rockwell03312008.html
Hillary's Lies About Outsourcing
By PAUL ROCKWELL
Job security is the foremost domestic issue for working people in Pennsylvania, where Senator Hillary Clinton is expected to win the Democratic Party primary. For many months, as a candidate for president, Senator Clinton has cultivated a pro-labor image. She claims to be an opponent of NAFTA, and she often denounces the outsourcing of American jobs. Before a crowd of students in New Hampshire, she claimed that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations, far, far from our shores."
Newly released White House records demonstrate that Clinton lied about NAFTA. NAFTA, however, is but a single thread in a web of deception regarding globalization and free trade. Clinton is lying not only about NAFTA, but about outsourcing as well. And the evidence comes, not from Obama, but from official records, video tapes, quotations and recordings of Clinton speeches abroad.
Consider this. In 2005 Senator Clinton visited New Delhi, India, ("far, far from our shores"), where she met wealthy business leaders, venture capitalists eager for U.S. investment. A few years prior to her visit, Enron gained a foothold in India's economy. Enron uprooted local communities, fleeced the public coffers, then pulled out of India with the profits of unregulated greed.
In a speech promoting globalization and free trade, here is what Senator Clinton said in New Delhi: "There is no way you can legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue....We are not against all outsourcing, we are not in favor of putting up fences."
The India Review, a publication of the embassy of India, commented April 1, 2005: "Senator Clinton allayed apprehension in India that there would be a ban on outsourcing."
Siddharth Srivastava reported in Asia Times, March 1st, 2005: "Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit...Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. She faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York." (TCS provided hundreds of special visas for foreign employees to work in New York for substandard, non-union wages.) She praised Clinton's "strict adherence to the principles of free trade and outsourcing that affect India directly."
Outsourcing is inherent to global free trade, the attempt of corporate goliaths to move resources, jobs, money, capital in search of profits anywhere in the world without accountability.
If a video clip of Clinton's outsourcing remarks in India were played on TV before the upcoming primaries in Indiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, she would lose the elections, despite current polls. Not only because working-class voters oppose outsourcing, but because the duplicity of Clinton would become obvious.
Clinton's globalization speech in India would hardly be noteworthy today, except that, in her current campaign for the nomination, she is saying exactly the opposite of what she said in India. She was a globalizer in India. Now she's a protectionist in Pennsylvania, and voters have a right to ask: Which is the real Hillary Clinton?
The U.S. media, however, is presently experiencing a bout of amnesia. Pundits forget that Bill Clinton, with Hillary at his side, made huge campaign promises to labor in 1992. Within months of their victory, the Clintons rammed two Republican-initiated free-trade bills-NAFTA and GATT-through a Democratic Congress. Outsourcing of jobs to sweatshops in Mexico and Indonesia actually accelerated under the Clinton globalization agenda. The Clintons increased subsidies for corporate mergers and relaxed regulations that protect the public from the abuse of corporate power.
The Clinton Administration also passed the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, repealing the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933. That historic New Deal legislation made working-class home ownership possible and safe. The Jimmy Stewart film It's a Wonderful Life idealized the New Deal arrangement. The savings-and-loan system-a system of small, often family-owned banks-was a bedrock of stability until the deregulation trends of the '80s and '90s transformed the U.S. economy into a high-risk casino. The Republican-sponsored, Clinton-backed Modernization Act deregulated the financial sector and encouraged the merger of business and commercial investment banks. Clinton's "modernization" (he called it "reinventing government") carved a path to the current sub-prime mortgage crisis. The current anarchy in housing and banking is, in part, a direct consequence of the Clinton deregulation legacy. As banks are failing, working people losing their homes, it takes a lot of gall for Hillary Clinton to take credit where blame is due for her White House experience. Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!
Paul Rockwell is a columnist for In Motion Magazine. He can be reached at: rockyspad@hotmail.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/rockwell03312008.html
The Voyage of the Economic Enterprise
The voyage of the Economic Enterprise
Nowhere in the history of Earth, nowhere even in this entire galaxy, is there an instance of a healthy economic boom that started after the biggest orgy of speculation and debt creation the planet had ever seen. We are done for - except of course for those who steered us into the mess in the first place.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD02Dj01.html
Nowhere in the history of Earth, nowhere even in this entire galaxy, is there an instance of a healthy economic boom that started after the biggest orgy of speculation and debt creation the planet had ever seen. We are done for - except of course for those who steered us into the mess in the first place.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD02Dj01.html
The Shape of US Populism: A panic-stricken Federal Reserve by Henry C K Liu
THE SHAPE OF US POPULISM Part 4: A panic-stricken
Federal Reserve
The recent moves by the US Federal Reserve, amid fears of an economic depression, to inject liquidity into the credit market and to bail out banks and brokerage houses are looking more like fixes for drug addicts in advanced stages of abuse. But for neo-liberal market fundamentalists, the fear is not of an economic depression, but the populism that may follow it. - Henry C K Liu
Part 1: A rich free-market legacy - for some
Part 2: Long-term effects of the Civil War
Part 3: The progressive era
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD02Dj03.html
Federal Reserve
The recent moves by the US Federal Reserve, amid fears of an economic depression, to inject liquidity into the credit market and to bail out banks and brokerage houses are looking more like fixes for drug addicts in advanced stages of abuse. But for neo-liberal market fundamentalists, the fear is not of an economic depression, but the populism that may follow it. - Henry C K Liu
Part 1: A rich free-market legacy - for some
Part 2: Long-term effects of the Civil War
Part 3: The progressive era
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD02Dj03.html
A risk-free revolution by Julian Delasantellis
A risk-free revolution
The US Federal Reserve-led rescue of Bear Stearns was a blatant example of moral hazard being rewarded. The US financial system, thought to be exemplified by rough and ready individualists and free marketers, now gleefully accepts the greatest government intervention in the financial markets in at least 70 years. One question - what comes next in this new risk-free model? - Julian Delasantellis
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD02Dj08.html
The US Federal Reserve-led rescue of Bear Stearns was a blatant example of moral hazard being rewarded. The US financial system, thought to be exemplified by rough and ready individualists and free marketers, now gleefully accepts the greatest government intervention in the financial markets in at least 70 years. One question - what comes next in this new risk-free model? - Julian Delasantellis
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD02Dj08.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)