In Russia, Putin's Parties (aka United Russia, Liberal Democrats, and A Just Russia) "sweep" to a huge victory in parliamentary elections, garnering 64.1%, 8.2%, and 7.8% respectively. The only other party to clear the 7% hurdle (recently raised from 5%) required for representation in parliament was the Communists, with 11.6%.
Especially noteworthy was the turnout percentage in war-torn Chechnya: 99.2%. And over 99% of those voters apparently voted for United Russia. This is terrible news for Ramzan "I've already killed them" Kadyrov, the murderer-in-chief of Chechnya -- falling well short of the 100% support he had previously promised for Putin. Interesting though, how killing and torturing a people makes them vote for you. Bush for Iraqi Prime Minister, anyone?
The Western media was filled with words like "fraud", "fraudulent", and "frauderrific". (Editor's note: Frauderrific is not a real word. Our corporate sponsors have been pushing the 25-to-35 age group, and according to our latest focus-groupings, they really likes words that end in "errific". Apologies to those not in the correct age group.) But what's more concerning than the accusations of fraud was the lack of Russian response. Here was the most vigorous defense from a Kremlin spokesperson:
"What we faced here was a free and democratic election campaign, and the fact that we now, according to preliminary results, are expecting a three- or four-party parliament shows that this was really a race. The unique characteristic of that race was the leadership of one party, the front-runner, United Russia."
But Putin said nothing of the sort. He spoke of domestic stability and a moral mandate. After the elections, a group of protesters was arrested in Saint Petersburg holding 'funeral services for democracy'. I imagine they were referring to democracy specifically in Russia -- and it is most certainly dead. Is there still hope in the rest of the world?
..............................................................
Something democracy-ish seems to still to be kicking around in Venezuela. President Hugo "Why Don't You Shut Up!" Chavez barely lost his bid (51 to 49%) to a pass a referendum that would have ended presidential term limits, extended social security benefits, consolidated monetary powers, shortened the working week, changed administrative boundaries, allowed media censorship in times of crisis, and lowered the voting age to 16. This rejection seemed to surprise many in the Western press, who apparently believed that Chavez had complete control of the country.
Yes, he has exercised dictatorial rule over much of Venezuela's political and media spheres. He is unabashed in his desire for the creation of a socialist state with himself as El Jefe. But this referendum must be considered proof that his hand only extends so far. The opposition is obviously well-organized and well-funded. Chavez's popularity rests, ironically, with his populism.
Interesting to note that despite how close the vote was, Chavez has not called for a recount. One imagines that would be well in his power. The reason for this is probably two-fold: one, he has reliable information from within the vote-counters that the count is reliable and not apt to change on recount; and two, he has legitimate fears that a call for a recount will bring about large street demonstrations by the opposition.
There has been speculation that he will seek the same changes by decree of the National Assembly, a legal sidestep of the constitutional process. He certainly retains enough power to do so.
.......................................................
What do these two counties share? (besides a few major arms deals, a hatred of the USA, and the letter "u") Hint: It begins deep in the earth and ends in "oleum". No, not linoleum.
Venezuela and Russia are the two countries who have arguably benefited most from the oil boom of the recent years. Putin and Chavez have been able to consolidate power and build popularity based largely on the largess of their oil profits.
The political left often says that our addiction to oil supports terrorism. They refer, of course, to the madrassas and charity-funnels funded by rich Saudis who get a large percentage of their profits from selling oil to the West. It is more than likely that at least some of Bin Laden's funding for 9/11 came from Saudi oil profits. But more of this money actually has gone straight back to the US in the form of construction, infrastructure, and defense contracts. The real beneficiaries of Western oil over-consumption are the petrogarchs. Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela -- just to name some of the bigger fish (sorry Sweden, but Norway doesn't count...yes, I remember Quisling...no, my mind is made up).
Basically our obsession with petroleum products (that means you too, petroleum jelly) supports the decline of democracy. Stop by any university library and look for books on rentier states -- that is, if you're one of those "intellectual-types" (Read: communist). And next time you drive by a gas station and see me filling up the Erratum Terrium corporate Hummer with $4/gallon gas, make sure to slow down and ask me why I hate freedom.
.....................................................................
Editor's note #2: The New York Times has spies in the Erratum Terrium corporate offices! I began this post yesterday, and low and behold I stumble across this "editorial" on their website today. The ErrTerr Board of Directors/Secret Cabal has hereby decided to blacklist the NYT...never again will they be linked to from this website! Take that, Bill "No Original Ideas" Keller!
.......................................................................
Editor's note #3: The words "petrogarch" and "petrogarchy" are sole property of Erratum Terrium. Please, no unauthorized use. I said please. We can't afford lawyers.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
What Went Bump in the Night?
In the first dark hours of September 6, Israeli war planes scream in over the desert of Eastern Syria. On their way out they leave some presents -- fuel tanks -- right over the border in Turkey. It is not the first time since the hostilities of last summer that Israeli pilots have flown over Syrian territory, but this time is different. This time the fly-over went public, exploding in a complex stream of misinformation, puzzling silence, and, of course, conspiracy theories. But what was it that went bump in the Syrian night?
In the post below you can find a poorly written and partially complete time line of the events surrounding what we will call "the Bump". This time line focuses on newspaper sources and extraneous happenings that may relate to the Spin around the Bump. You can read this, and many other accounts and analyses, and draw your own conclusions. Or read on and let me Etch-a-Sketch my conclusions for you. You can be the Watson to my Holmes, or if it suits you better, the Hutch to my Starsky.
Background information:
Syria and Israel having been dancing around peace talks for months. Relations have been bumpy, but generally better since the end of the Second Lebanon War last summer. However Israel is very worried about Iran, an ally of Syria. Israel has stated it cannot allow a nuclear Iran, and would likely take military action to prevent this from happening. Syria recently purchased 50 units of the Pantsyr air defense system from Russia, 10 of which will eventually go to Iran. Turkey is on good terms with both Israel and Syria, but is nervous about the region resulting from recent internal instability and movements of the Kurds in Iraq towards independence. Russia is trying to make inroads in the Middle East, and former Soviet allies like Syria are prime targets. The US bogged down militarily in Iraq, but still tries to throw its weight around against any country not in line with it's anti-Islamist, pro-cheap oil, pro-Israel policies.
Now let us consider some of the oddities which draw attention to the Bump:
-There has yet to be a public statement by Israel or the US on this incident
-Israeli actions pre- (telling Damascus of draw-down of troops from Golan) and post- (calling for peace talks) Bump seem to be peaceful
-Starting on Sept. 11, a variety of American sources are quoted saying very different things (including first mention of nuclear cooperation with N. Korea)
-Despite nuclear gossip, US goes ahead with 6-party talks in Beijing -- talks which are then delayed by N. Korea
-Someone named Ronen Solomon discovered the mystery of the N. Korean ship the Al-Hamad, which was carrying "cement" and landed at Tartous in Syria 3 days before the Bump. The ship changed flags several times, and it's online records were doctored after the report came out. But who is Ronen Solomon?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is certainly a very interesting series of events. By looking deeper we may gain insight into the foreign and domestic policies of the countries involved. However there is a lot of what Dick Cheney would call fucking bull**** swirling around this incident, and it is through that fucking bull**** that we will wade. Ladies and gentlemen, strap on your galoshes.
What we know + What we can fairly deduce:
a. Neither Israel nor Syria acted like this was a hostile attack.
-Israel made moves towards peace, both before and after. They never offered any sort of official proof that Syria was doing something wrong. They never responded to Syria's mobilization of its reserves a few days after the Bump.
-Syria did, at one point, call it a "deliberate and hostile attack". But their outrage, if indeed genuine, was otherwise muted. Their official story remained that Israeli planes entered Syrian airspace, were targeted by their air defense systems, and fled, dropping the munitions and fuel tanks on the way out. Their official statements remained committed to peace and stability. Their biggest priority continued to be their international outreach campaign.
- Three possible conclusions:
1) That there was no real attack, that everything was blown way out of proportion, or
2) That there was a strike in Syria, but it was not hostile to the Syrian government, or
3) That there was a hostile attack, but both Syria and Israel had reasons to not talk about it or treat it that way
b. Neither US nor Israeli officials made public comments, and their private comments were all over the map
1) This makes it very unlikely that there was a successful strike against Syria, or anyone inside of Syria (unless there was a deal with Syria to keep it quiet)
2) The fact that newspaper sources were so disparate in their analyses means that: a) high-level sources to the top newspapers in the world did not know what was going on -- even a week afterwards, or b) those high-level sources were making things up to fit a political agenda.
It was probably some combination, but when NYT and Reuters stories are naming 3 or 4 different sources with 3 or 4 different stories, then it starts to smell a little fishy. Then throw the mysterious Ronen Solomon into the mix. Who does mass confusion help? Who is helped by nuclear rumors about the Syrians and North Koreans?
c. It is highly unlikely that the Israelis attacked a site of nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea
-First of all, it makes little sense that the Syrians would try to develop nuclear capabilities secretly. They have little to gain, and a lot to lose. Assad seems to legitimately desire peace with Israel and modernization for his country. While nuclear weapons are leverage against attack, developing them secretly is like walking around Israel with a swastika T-shirt: You're gonna get noticed, and you're gonna get your ass beat.
-Secondly, it makes little sense for North Korea to risk the six-party talks by sending nuclear material to Syria, especially with the ship landing while they were meeting with the US in Geneva. They have, admittedly, pulled some crazy shit in the past, but this just doesn't make sense. If they do have equipment or material they need to get rid of, it makes more sense to declare that stuff and use it as bargaining chips in the negotiations (as they have been doing for more than fifteen years).
-Lastly, it doesn't make sense that Israel and the US would know about this nuclear cooperation, never make a single public accusation, and then continue to act as if this cooperation did not effect their relations in any significant way. Even if the strike on this facility failed, you would think it would have some impact on relations between the two pairs of countries. And you wouldn't think the US would allow the nuclear accusation to get lost in the haystack of the rest of the theories.
- This theory also has a problem of guilt by association. Namely, John Bolton, Stephen Hadley, and Ronen Solomon. Bolton is publicly and vigorously against negotiating with North Korea, and he would not be beyond making wild accusations to scuttle the six-party talks. Hadley was associated with the same people who cooked the books on the Iraq nuclear intelligence, so he certainly is capable, and the neocons have always been suspicious of Syria. Solomon is simply an enigma. The timing and significance of his report are very suspect, as is the "I swear it said something different yesterday" excuse. I may not be his mother, but I am heretofore bestowing the nickname of "Yellowcake" on Mr. Solomon. Let's just hope he doesn't get mentioned in the State of the Union.
What does this leave us with? If there was indeed a deliberate bombing by Israel, it was probably with done with the knowledge, if not the support, of the Syrian government. This was a remote, unpopulated desert area on the border with Iraq -- perhaps it was some sort of Muslim Brotherhood-related terrorist group that Syria also wanted gone. I know it sounds crazy, but realpolitik has made similar "here today-gone tomorrow" Frankenstein alliances in the past. This would explain why no one made a big deal out of it -- except for the US and Israeli warmongers who jumped at the chance to make a huge deal out of it by dropping the N-bomb.
The other possibility, much less crazy, is that Israel was testing the Syrian Pantsyr air defense systems as practice for a possible strike on Iran. They may have bombed something, but it was of no real military importance. Everyone was then quiet because there was nothing much to say.
Perhaps in the coming days we will find out the real story. But don't count on it, my dear Watson.
In the post below you can find a poorly written and partially complete time line of the events surrounding what we will call "the Bump". This time line focuses on newspaper sources and extraneous happenings that may relate to the Spin around the Bump. You can read this, and many other accounts and analyses, and draw your own conclusions. Or read on and let me Etch-a-Sketch my conclusions for you. You can be the Watson to my Holmes, or if it suits you better, the Hutch to my Starsky.
Background information:
Syria and Israel having been dancing around peace talks for months. Relations have been bumpy, but generally better since the end of the Second Lebanon War last summer. However Israel is very worried about Iran, an ally of Syria. Israel has stated it cannot allow a nuclear Iran, and would likely take military action to prevent this from happening. Syria recently purchased 50 units of the Pantsyr air defense system from Russia, 10 of which will eventually go to Iran. Turkey is on good terms with both Israel and Syria, but is nervous about the region resulting from recent internal instability and movements of the Kurds in Iraq towards independence. Russia is trying to make inroads in the Middle East, and former Soviet allies like Syria are prime targets. The US bogged down militarily in Iraq, but still tries to throw its weight around against any country not in line with it's anti-Islamist, pro-cheap oil, pro-Israel policies.
Now let us consider some of the oddities which draw attention to the Bump:
-There has yet to be a public statement by Israel or the US on this incident
-Israeli actions pre- (telling Damascus of draw-down of troops from Golan) and post- (calling for peace talks) Bump seem to be peaceful
-Starting on Sept. 11, a variety of American sources are quoted saying very different things (including first mention of nuclear cooperation with N. Korea)
-Despite nuclear gossip, US goes ahead with 6-party talks in Beijing -- talks which are then delayed by N. Korea
-Someone named Ronen Solomon discovered the mystery of the N. Korean ship the Al-Hamad, which was carrying "cement" and landed at Tartous in Syria 3 days before the Bump. The ship changed flags several times, and it's online records were doctored after the report came out. But who is Ronen Solomon?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is certainly a very interesting series of events. By looking deeper we may gain insight into the foreign and domestic policies of the countries involved. However there is a lot of what Dick Cheney would call fucking bull**** swirling around this incident, and it is through that fucking bull**** that we will wade. Ladies and gentlemen, strap on your galoshes.
What we know + What we can fairly deduce:
a. Neither Israel nor Syria acted like this was a hostile attack.
-Israel made moves towards peace, both before and after. They never offered any sort of official proof that Syria was doing something wrong. They never responded to Syria's mobilization of its reserves a few days after the Bump.
-Syria did, at one point, call it a "deliberate and hostile attack". But their outrage, if indeed genuine, was otherwise muted. Their official story remained that Israeli planes entered Syrian airspace, were targeted by their air defense systems, and fled, dropping the munitions and fuel tanks on the way out. Their official statements remained committed to peace and stability. Their biggest priority continued to be their international outreach campaign.
- Three possible conclusions:
1) That there was no real attack, that everything was blown way out of proportion, or
2) That there was a strike in Syria, but it was not hostile to the Syrian government, or
3) That there was a hostile attack, but both Syria and Israel had reasons to not talk about it or treat it that way
b. Neither US nor Israeli officials made public comments, and their private comments were all over the map
1) This makes it very unlikely that there was a successful strike against Syria, or anyone inside of Syria (unless there was a deal with Syria to keep it quiet)
2) The fact that newspaper sources were so disparate in their analyses means that: a) high-level sources to the top newspapers in the world did not know what was going on -- even a week afterwards, or b) those high-level sources were making things up to fit a political agenda.
It was probably some combination, but when NYT and Reuters stories are naming 3 or 4 different sources with 3 or 4 different stories, then it starts to smell a little fishy. Then throw the mysterious Ronen Solomon into the mix. Who does mass confusion help? Who is helped by nuclear rumors about the Syrians and North Koreans?
c. It is highly unlikely that the Israelis attacked a site of nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea
-First of all, it makes little sense that the Syrians would try to develop nuclear capabilities secretly. They have little to gain, and a lot to lose. Assad seems to legitimately desire peace with Israel and modernization for his country. While nuclear weapons are leverage against attack, developing them secretly is like walking around Israel with a swastika T-shirt: You're gonna get noticed, and you're gonna get your ass beat.
-Secondly, it makes little sense for North Korea to risk the six-party talks by sending nuclear material to Syria, especially with the ship landing while they were meeting with the US in Geneva. They have, admittedly, pulled some crazy shit in the past, but this just doesn't make sense. If they do have equipment or material they need to get rid of, it makes more sense to declare that stuff and use it as bargaining chips in the negotiations (as they have been doing for more than fifteen years).
-Lastly, it doesn't make sense that Israel and the US would know about this nuclear cooperation, never make a single public accusation, and then continue to act as if this cooperation did not effect their relations in any significant way. Even if the strike on this facility failed, you would think it would have some impact on relations between the two pairs of countries. And you wouldn't think the US would allow the nuclear accusation to get lost in the haystack of the rest of the theories.
- This theory also has a problem of guilt by association. Namely, John Bolton, Stephen Hadley, and Ronen Solomon. Bolton is publicly and vigorously against negotiating with North Korea, and he would not be beyond making wild accusations to scuttle the six-party talks. Hadley was associated with the same people who cooked the books on the Iraq nuclear intelligence, so he certainly is capable, and the neocons have always been suspicious of Syria. Solomon is simply an enigma. The timing and significance of his report are very suspect, as is the "I swear it said something different yesterday" excuse. I may not be his mother, but I am heretofore bestowing the nickname of "Yellowcake" on Mr. Solomon. Let's just hope he doesn't get mentioned in the State of the Union.
What does this leave us with? If there was indeed a deliberate bombing by Israel, it was probably with done with the knowledge, if not the support, of the Syrian government. This was a remote, unpopulated desert area on the border with Iraq -- perhaps it was some sort of Muslim Brotherhood-related terrorist group that Syria also wanted gone. I know it sounds crazy, but realpolitik has made similar "here today-gone tomorrow" Frankenstein alliances in the past. This would explain why no one made a big deal out of it -- except for the US and Israeli warmongers who jumped at the chance to make a huge deal out of it by dropping the N-bomb.
The other possibility, much less crazy, is that Israel was testing the Syrian Pantsyr air defense systems as practice for a possible strike on Iran. They may have bombed something, but it was of no real military importance. Everyone was then quiet because there was nothing much to say.
Perhaps in the coming days we will find out the real story. But don't count on it, my dear Watson.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The Timeline that Went Bump in the Night
Sept 3
-mtg btw FM Moallem and Ahmadinejad in Tehran
-Al-Hamad docks at Tartous in Syria under N Korea flag carrying cement
Sept 5
-Kucinich meets w Assad in Damascus
-talks held this week btw US and Nkoreans to stabilize relations in Geneva
-Olmert tells Solana to tell Assad that Israel will withdraw troops from Golan Hts
Sept 6
-Assad does interview with Katie Couric on stability in Iraq
-Syria: before dawn Israeli planes break sound barrier over N. Syria and drop "munitions" in unpopulated areas, no casualties -- complain but do not make a big deal
-Israel calls it Operation Orchard, israeli pilots not told of target until en route
-Syrian official says they "fired heavily" at Israeli planes, SANA says planes only "confronted"
-Min. of Info Bilal: "Syria retains the right to determine the quality, type and nature of its response."
Russia: "extreme concern"
Iran: support for Syria
US: not enough details
Israel: no comment on military operations
Sept 7
-israeli officials do not deny that they have flown over syria before
-worries by all that tensions may escalate, but no indication from higher up
-all seems to be silent on this day
Syrian VP Al-Shara: "I can say now that in Damascus a series of responses is being examined at the highest political and military levels. The results will not take long in coming."
Sept 8
Al-Arabiya: israeli official says strike aimed at russian-made missile system
hezbollah MP: strike aimed at putting pressue on Iran
Syrian minister Shaaban: when asked if israel attacked, responded only that airspace was violated
-israeli fuel tanks found in turkey near border, pictures on front page of Hurriyet newspaper, turkey says: "we have asked israel to explain"
Sept 9
powerful Syrian MP Habash: Israeli attacked failed, because if it had been successful (like 1981 Osirak), they would have said so
Syrian FM Moallem in turkey for talks: "We are prepared to defend ourselves against any attack that Israel may plan, but our basic priority is a comprehensive peace."
Israeli PM olmert: "I want to express my appreciation of the security forces's courageous and unusual operations that are aimed at impeding the activities of terror groups,"
Israeli minister Rafi Eitan: "The Syrians cannot say that they want peace and encourage terrorism,"
former IDF chief of staff uzi dayan: "The Israeli silence has started to exhaust itself,"
-Assad visits Tartous
Sept 10
Turkish FM Babacan: israeli actions "unacceptable development"
Syrian FM Moallem in Turkey: "Israel used live ammunition in a deliberate and hostile attack," "dropped bombs over Syria, they dropped fuel tanks on Syrian soil.", said that three Israeli planes fired four missiles at targets on the ground in the Dayr al-Zur district in eastern Syria
-Moallem does not demand that EU condemn attack, EU diplomats say they think Syria does not want to escalate incident
AL-Hayat: Olmert relayed message day before Sept 6 strike to damascus through EU's Javier Solana that israel will cut troops in golan hts.
-lack of arab support for syria
-hezbollah repeats that israeli strike practice for iran
Sept 11
CNN: American source says that israeli strike may have targeted weapons from iran to hezbollah, used group troops, "left a big hole in the desert" inSyria
-Syria makes formal complaint to UN
AFP: US offical says strike a warning to Syria not to rearm hezbollah
Al-Sinara(w. bank): Israeli source says strike targeted joint syrian-iranian missile base, razed it to the ground
"DoD official": at least one target struck, target and damage unclear
"officials in Washington": most likely target was weapons caches for hezbollah
"bush admin official": israel has been doing recon on possible nuclear sites supplied by n. korea, “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,”
Al Mustakbal (lebanon): since attack there have been major communication disturbances in lebanon
-N. Korea denounces attack, support for Assad (on his 42nd b-day)
Telegraph: another US confirmation of strike, also theory that strike was aimed at russian Pantsyr air defense system, which may also be used by iran
Sept 12
BBC: israeli military censorship very tight on this subject, "no perceptible mood of satisfaction in Israel"
John Bolton in Wall st. journal: israel going after NK nuclear facilities
Reuters: "political source in region" says bombs were diversion for commando operations
Reuters: "US diplomatic source" says region where syria say bombs fell focus of suspected nuclear cooperation w NKorea
Reuters: "In Vienna, two senior diplomats familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency said they knew of no serious suspicions of nuclear links between Syria and North Korea."
Reuters: "us official source" says unlikely NKorea would jeopardize talks w US by sending material to syria
WaPo: "sources" say new US intelligence, primarily from israel, says Nkorea and syria collaborating on nuclear weapons, with "dramatic satellite imagery" -- this intelligence restricted under direction of NSA Hadley
Sept 13
Al-Jarida (kuwait): turkey gave israel intel on syria for strike, turkish army allowed use of airspace -- but turkish govt did not know about this
-Assad and Moallem meet Putin's special envoy Alexander Sultanov
Sept 14
Turkish govt calls Al-Jarida claims "ridiculous"
US nuclear envoy Chris Hill: 6 party talks will go on as scheduled, does not address syria
"Senior US nuclear official" Andrew Semmel: N koreans are in syria, and damascus may have had contact with "secret suppliers" for nuclear equipment
Rice: also does not address syria directly, expresses need for anti-proliferation
-Iran announces Memorandum of UNderstanding to invest $10 billion in Syria in next 5 yrs, also mentions cement production plants undertaken in syria by iranian experts
Sept 15
Guardian: israeli operation involved high-tech israeli airplanes, up to 8, and an ELINT (electronic intelligence gathering plane)
Hezbollah Dep. Chief Kassem: war not likely btw Israel and Syria, Hezbollah won't get involved
Haaretz: Ronen Solomon says ship Al-Hamad, docked in lebanon and syria (nkorea flag) and egypt (s korea flag), carried cement to syria tartous port -- records on this ship changed after report comes out, tartous port website goes offline for several hours
Turkish Weekly: allegations that Turkey Ok'ed israeli strike, and that it was a practice run for iran
Sept 16
Times of London: "Israeli sources" say strike targeted nuclear-related material or equipment, involved israeli commandos, planned since spring, target agricultural facility at Deir Az Zor, only Olmert, Barak, Lipni, and US admin knew about it
Sept 17
-Olmert says he respects Assad and is willing to hold peace talks with him
-Meretz party MP Zehava Gal-On demands explanation of strike, but Meretz leader Yossi Beilin says no need for disclosure or criticism
Sept 18
-poll says 78% of israelis support strike, Olmert popularity rises 10%
-N Korea postpones 6 party talks, thought to be due to syria issue
-China makes first shipment of oil to N Korea
-Moallem in Kazakhstan mtg w Nazarbaev
-Joeseph Cirincione at Center for American Progress says whole story is an attempt to sabotage N Korea talks
-mtg btw FM Moallem and Ahmadinejad in Tehran
-Al-Hamad docks at Tartous in Syria under N Korea flag carrying cement
Sept 5
-Kucinich meets w Assad in Damascus
-talks held this week btw US and Nkoreans to stabilize relations in Geneva
-Olmert tells Solana to tell Assad that Israel will withdraw troops from Golan Hts
Sept 6
-Assad does interview with Katie Couric on stability in Iraq
-Syria: before dawn Israeli planes break sound barrier over N. Syria and drop "munitions" in unpopulated areas, no casualties -- complain but do not make a big deal
-Israel calls it Operation Orchard, israeli pilots not told of target until en route
-Syrian official says they "fired heavily" at Israeli planes, SANA says planes only "confronted"
-Min. of Info Bilal: "Syria retains the right to determine the quality, type and nature of its response."
Russia: "extreme concern"
Iran: support for Syria
US: not enough details
Israel: no comment on military operations
Sept 7
-israeli officials do not deny that they have flown over syria before
-worries by all that tensions may escalate, but no indication from higher up
-all seems to be silent on this day
Syrian VP Al-Shara: "I can say now that in Damascus a series of responses is being examined at the highest political and military levels. The results will not take long in coming."
Sept 8
Al-Arabiya: israeli official says strike aimed at russian-made missile system
hezbollah MP: strike aimed at putting pressue on Iran
Syrian minister Shaaban: when asked if israel attacked, responded only that airspace was violated
-israeli fuel tanks found in turkey near border, pictures on front page of Hurriyet newspaper, turkey says: "we have asked israel to explain"
Sept 9
powerful Syrian MP Habash: Israeli attacked failed, because if it had been successful (like 1981 Osirak), they would have said so
Syrian FM Moallem in turkey for talks: "We are prepared to defend ourselves against any attack that Israel may plan, but our basic priority is a comprehensive peace."
Israeli PM olmert: "I want to express my appreciation of the security forces's courageous and unusual operations that are aimed at impeding the activities of terror groups,"
Israeli minister Rafi Eitan: "The Syrians cannot say that they want peace and encourage terrorism,"
former IDF chief of staff uzi dayan: "The Israeli silence has started to exhaust itself,"
-Assad visits Tartous
Sept 10
Turkish FM Babacan: israeli actions "unacceptable development"
Syrian FM Moallem in Turkey: "Israel used live ammunition in a deliberate and hostile attack," "dropped bombs over Syria, they dropped fuel tanks on Syrian soil.", said that three Israeli planes fired four missiles at targets on the ground in the Dayr al-Zur district in eastern Syria
-Moallem does not demand that EU condemn attack, EU diplomats say they think Syria does not want to escalate incident
AL-Hayat: Olmert relayed message day before Sept 6 strike to damascus through EU's Javier Solana that israel will cut troops in golan hts.
-lack of arab support for syria
-hezbollah repeats that israeli strike practice for iran
Sept 11
CNN: American source says that israeli strike may have targeted weapons from iran to hezbollah, used group troops, "left a big hole in the desert" in
-Syria makes formal complaint to UN
AFP: US offical says strike a warning to Syria not to rearm hezbollah
Al-Sinara(w. bank): Israeli source says strike targeted joint syrian-iranian missile base, razed it to the ground
"DoD official": at least one target struck, target and damage unclear
"officials in Washington": most likely target was weapons caches for hezbollah
"bush admin official": israel has been doing recon on possible nuclear sites supplied by n. korea, “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,”
Al Mustakbal (lebanon): since attack there have been major communication disturbances in lebanon
-N. Korea denounces attack, support for Assad (on his 42nd b-day)
Telegraph: another US confirmation of strike, also theory that strike was aimed at russian Pantsyr air defense system, which may also be used by iran
Sept 12
BBC: israeli military censorship very tight on this subject, "no perceptible mood of satisfaction in Israel"
John Bolton in Wall st. journal: israel going after NK nuclear facilities
Reuters: "political source in region" says bombs were diversion for commando operations
Reuters: "US diplomatic source" says region where syria say bombs fell focus of suspected nuclear cooperation w NKorea
Reuters: "In Vienna, two senior diplomats familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency said they knew of no serious suspicions of nuclear links between Syria and North Korea."
Reuters: "us official source" says unlikely NKorea would jeopardize talks w US by sending material to syria
WaPo: "sources" say new US intelligence, primarily from israel, says Nkorea and syria collaborating on nuclear weapons, with "dramatic satellite imagery" -- this intelligence restricted under direction of NSA Hadley
Sept 13
Al-Jarida (kuwait): turkey gave israel intel on syria for strike, turkish army allowed use of airspace -- but turkish govt did not know about this
-Assad and Moallem meet Putin's special envoy Alexander Sultanov
Sept 14
Turkish govt calls Al-Jarida claims "ridiculous"
US nuclear envoy Chris Hill: 6 party talks will go on as scheduled, does not address syria
"Senior US nuclear official" Andrew Semmel: N koreans are in syria, and damascus may have had contact with "secret suppliers" for nuclear equipment
Rice: also does not address syria directly, expresses need for anti-proliferation
-Iran announces Memorandum of UNderstanding to invest $10 billion in Syria in next 5 yrs, also mentions cement production plants undertaken in syria by iranian experts
Sept 15
Guardian: israeli operation involved high-tech israeli airplanes, up to 8, and an ELINT (electronic intelligence gathering plane)
Hezbollah Dep. Chief Kassem: war not likely btw Israel and Syria, Hezbollah won't get involved
Haaretz: Ronen Solomon says ship Al-Hamad, docked in lebanon and syria (nkorea flag) and egypt (s korea flag), carried cement to syria tartous port -- records on this ship changed after report comes out, tartous port website goes offline for several hours
Turkish Weekly: allegations that Turkey Ok'ed israeli strike, and that it was a practice run for iran
Sept 16
Times of London: "Israeli sources" say strike targeted nuclear-related material or equipment, involved israeli commandos, planned since spring, target agricultural facility at Deir Az Zor, only Olmert, Barak, Lipni, and US admin knew about it
Sept 17
-Olmert says he respects Assad and is willing to hold peace talks with him
-Meretz party MP Zehava Gal-On demands explanation of strike, but Meretz leader Yossi Beilin says no need for disclosure or criticism
Sept 18
-poll says 78% of israelis support strike, Olmert popularity rises 10%
-N Korea postpones 6 party talks, thought to be due to syria issue
-China makes first shipment of oil to N Korea
-Moallem in Kazakhstan mtg w Nazarbaev
-Joeseph Cirincione at Center for American Progress says whole story is an attempt to sabotage N Korea talks
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Putin and Bush
The "Lobster Summit" has come to a close at the Bush Estate North. I cannot say it was a complete failure because it was not meant to achieve anything. It does, however, add to the long list of diplomatic engagements the US has had in the recent years which showcase its severely declining power. Two others come to mind: the visit to China by Sec. Paulson which resulted in no agreement on currency devaluation, and the embarrassing visit by Bush to Jordan to build a regional consensus on Iraq -- not to mention the entire idiotically murderous debacle of the Iraq invasion (I only wish there were enough adverbs and adjectives to express my frustration). Instead of cornering Putin about his harsh suppression of democracy, human rights, and free markets, Bush spent his energy trying to "repair the relationship". A former KGB agent traveling to the US to get his ass kissed by the son of a former CIA chief -- a lot of people are spinning in their graves right now. Experts in both countries were surprised at how easily Bush puckered up.
But what actually went on at this crustacean junta? Everyone wanted an ear on the wall at Kennebunkport -- but only Erratum Terrium got one. Don't ask how. Seriously, don't. Here are some excerpts:
(Text in bold is an actual quote)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush: Pootie-Poot! How ya doin!
Putin: Honestly, I'm a little shook up. Someone was protesting in my country! -- wearing a mask which looked like my face! Hopefully the police are beating them senseless right now.
Bush: I love your honesty. Like I told 'em: "This is the kind of fellow who, when he says, yes, he means, yes, and when he says, no, he means, no."
Putin: They taught me the importance of honesty in the KGB.
Bush: You've got something in your eye.
Putin: Is it a tear for the dead children in Chechnya?
(Laughter)
Bush: Okay, it's gone now. You know, while I was looking into your eye, I really got a sense of your soul.
Putin: I thought you stopped drinking.
Bush: It's been a long week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush: That was a good fishing trip. I think we really bonded.
Putin: Sure. Where's the lobster?
Bush: Listen Pootie-Poot, I think we should really talk about some of the things going on in your country. I've got some concerns and...Condi said that I should say something about...you should get more democracy...like Iraq, where there's a free press and free religion
Putin: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.
Bush: Just wait. We're gonna concentrate real hard and fix it. If we win in Iraq, we win the War on Terror.
Putin: What about Afghanistan?
Bush: What-istan? Look, this is about democracy...
Putin (raising voice): It has nothing to do with democracy!...the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law...The almost uncontained, hyper use of force in international relations...Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem: they have become a hotbed of further conflicts.
Bush: You know, I think it's in the US interest to keep close relations with Russia...Russia is a good, solid partner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putin: It's really a shame that we both have to leave office in 2008. We have accomplished so much together: the increased militarization of ethnic and national conflict zones, the relegation of international organizations to starving lap-dogs with no real peacemaking or peacekeeping power, the promotion of might-makes-right rules in the international economy, the decimation of independent journalism, and the vicious stripping of human rights and civil liberties in the name of protection from the Potemkin scourge of 'terrorism'.
Bush: Not to mention that fish we caught together.
Lobster: You guys are ruining the world.
Bush: Did you hear something?
Putin: It was just the wind.
---------------------------------END TRANSCRIPT--------------------------------------
But what actually went on at this crustacean junta? Everyone wanted an ear on the wall at Kennebunkport -- but only Erratum Terrium got one. Don't ask how. Seriously, don't. Here are some excerpts:
(Text in bold is an actual quote)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush: Pootie-Poot! How ya doin!
Putin: Honestly, I'm a little shook up. Someone was protesting in my country! -- wearing a mask which looked like my face! Hopefully the police are beating them senseless right now.
Bush: I love your honesty. Like I told 'em: "This is the kind of fellow who, when he says, yes, he means, yes, and when he says, no, he means, no."
Putin: They taught me the importance of honesty in the KGB.
Bush: You've got something in your eye.
Putin: Is it a tear for the dead children in Chechnya?
(Laughter)
Bush: Okay, it's gone now. You know, while I was looking into your eye, I really got a sense of your soul.
Putin: I thought you stopped drinking.
Bush: It's been a long week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush: That was a good fishing trip. I think we really bonded.
Putin: Sure. Where's the lobster?
Bush: Listen Pootie-Poot, I think we should really talk about some of the things going on in your country. I've got some concerns and...Condi said that I should say something about...you should get more democracy...like Iraq, where there's a free press and free religion
Putin: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.
Bush: Just wait. We're gonna concentrate real hard and fix it. If we win in Iraq, we win the War on Terror.
Putin: What about Afghanistan?
Bush: What-istan? Look, this is about democracy...
Putin (raising voice): It has nothing to do with democracy!...the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law...The almost uncontained, hyper use of force in international relations...Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem: they have become a hotbed of further conflicts.
Bush: You know, I think it's in the US interest to keep close relations with Russia...Russia is a good, solid partner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putin: It's really a shame that we both have to leave office in 2008. We have accomplished so much together: the increased militarization of ethnic and national conflict zones, the relegation of international organizations to starving lap-dogs with no real peacemaking or peacekeeping power, the promotion of might-makes-right rules in the international economy, the decimation of independent journalism, and the vicious stripping of human rights and civil liberties in the name of protection from the Potemkin scourge of 'terrorism'.
Bush: Not to mention that fish we caught together.
Lobster: You guys are ruining the world.
Bush: Did you hear something?
Putin: It was just the wind.
---------------------------------END TRANSCRIPT--------------------------------------
Monday, May 28, 2007
Reflections on Memorial Day 2007
Today we are told to remember the sacrifice of Americans who fought and died for their country. Remembrance of dead warriors is not a new or unique ceremony; the Ancient Greeks did it, and many more recent societies as well. Most social organizations who willfully engage in violence have a special ceremony for the death of their members in combat -- from street gangs to nation-states. In one sense these ceremonies are mass funerals: the reading of names, visiting of graves or battlefields, gatherings of family and friends. But they are also affirmations by the ruling elite of that organization that those who died did not do so in vain. They died fighting for our freedom. They died so that we could live.
This year in particular Memorial Day is shaded by strong political sentiments. The public has turned fully against the Iraq War, and against the people and policies which created it. The end of our military involvement, and with it a de facto admission of the failure of our supposed mission, is now inevitable. The timing of this fin de siècle depends more on the courage of a few key Democratic members of Congress than on anything going on outside of the Beltway. Guilt and anger pervade the national psyche. Those who supported the war feel guilty for the pain it has caused for families in the US military and anger at the Executive Branch for its multitude of mistakes. Those who were against the war from the beginning feel guilty for allowing their country to create such a dismal mess and anger at those who were supposed to represent them for not having the backbone to stand up for their beliefs. The political mood of the country is at a low. The economy, stuck in the doldrums for years, has failed to generate any positive momentum. The vast majority are working more hours for low wages, and paying more to provide basic necessities to their families with rapidly shrinking hopes that their children's lives will be better than theirs. It is not a new phenomenon for people to think that the country is headed in the wrong direction; you can't make everybody happy all of the time. But it is new for this opinion to be held by such a large number of people. It is a smoggy dusk in America.
Memorial Day descends from an event held on May 1, 1865 in Charleston, South Carolina. Thousands of newly freed slaves - men, women, and children - paraded through the city, joined by local Union army soldiers and white abolitionists. They marched around the site of a former prison camp and mass grave for Union soldiers known as the "Planter's Race Course". Just previous to the march, several black residents had reburied all of the soldiers in proper graves and built a tall fence and archway around the site. On the archway they inscribed the words 'Martyrs of the Race Course'.
The Charleston march celebrated the end of slavery by remembering those who had died during the long and bloody war which resulted in emancipation. The Civil War was the first instance of the government using humanitarian impulses to support its military action. This image of America as the 'protector of the downtrodden and repressed' fit well with the religiously-infused idea of 'American exceptionalism'. It is America as the political missionary, spreading democracy and capitalism to the needy peoples of the world. We fight for their own good. Every war since the the Civil War has utilized this rationale in some way. This ideology is the cornerstone of the American Empire. One hundred and thirty-eight years after the Charleston march another Republican president invokes the same rationale, blindly expecting the same parades and admiration for freeing another society of non-white people.
Comparing the Iraq War to the Civil War and George Bush to Abraham Lincoln? Before you either castrate me or nominate me for US Attorney (depending on your affiliation), please allow an explanation. It seems all too possible that the Iraq War will be the last time the government will be able to use humanitarian impulses to persuade the American public into supporting military intervention. The trend towards Empire which started with the Civil War ends here. Many of those on both the Left and the Right may cheer; good riddance, they say, empire never did anybody any good. The Right says we have enough problems at home, and it is not our duty to be the policeman of the world. The Left scorns the 'American exceptionalism' empire, pointing to human rights abuses, support for dictators, and big business reaping the rewards of our brand of globalization. And they are both right.
The world is rapidly moving towards a highly militarized international system of rigid alliances and dependencies all too reminiscent of that preceded both World Wars -- except with the added element of nuclear proliferation. Democracies and respect for human rights are on the decline, and terrorism is on the rise. The stupendous advances in technology in the past half-century have failed to significantly alleviate the serious social and health problems faced by the vast majority of the world's population. Wealth is more stratified than it has ever been in human history. Human-caused climate change threatens to overturn our entire way of life. To be sure, American imperialists have largely ignored, if not facilitated, the development of these threats. Our hands are bloody. We are not God's gift to Earth, not a shining city on the hill. As a people, as a nation-state, we are not exceptional.
These threats, however, are very exceptional. And it will take exceptional international will and cooperation to confront them and take us off the path towards rising oceans, rising poverty, and a nuclear World War III. And it cannot be disputed that if Americans are not part of that international will and cooperation, then it will certainly fail. This dismal future is not a certainty, but it gets closer to one every day. What can we do?
Everything: Get involved. Volunteer. Travel. Vote. Donate to charity. Use energy more efficiently. Question authority. Question yourself. Learn a language. Talk to someone you hate. Talk to someone you love. Educate yourself. Dream big. Solving our problems is not the sovereign occupation of the government. Building a better world requires us all to play a part. In reality we are not special. But sometimes perception becomes reality. Perhaps if we believe we are special, we can accomplish special things.
On Memorial Day we are supposed to remember those who died so that we could live. But why should this honor be extended to soldiers only? Perhaps this day should also be to remember those whose lives were committed to bettering the world. Being murdered should not be the only qualification for honor. Let us honor those who took to the streets in Charleston on May 1, 1865 to celebrate freedom. And let us commit ourselves to using that same freedom to make the world better for everyone.
This year in particular Memorial Day is shaded by strong political sentiments. The public has turned fully against the Iraq War, and against the people and policies which created it. The end of our military involvement, and with it a de facto admission of the failure of our supposed mission, is now inevitable. The timing of this fin de siècle depends more on the courage of a few key Democratic members of Congress than on anything going on outside of the Beltway. Guilt and anger pervade the national psyche. Those who supported the war feel guilty for the pain it has caused for families in the US military and anger at the Executive Branch for its multitude of mistakes. Those who were against the war from the beginning feel guilty for allowing their country to create such a dismal mess and anger at those who were supposed to represent them for not having the backbone to stand up for their beliefs. The political mood of the country is at a low. The economy, stuck in the doldrums for years, has failed to generate any positive momentum. The vast majority are working more hours for low wages, and paying more to provide basic necessities to their families with rapidly shrinking hopes that their children's lives will be better than theirs. It is not a new phenomenon for people to think that the country is headed in the wrong direction; you can't make everybody happy all of the time. But it is new for this opinion to be held by such a large number of people. It is a smoggy dusk in America.
Memorial Day descends from an event held on May 1, 1865 in Charleston, South Carolina. Thousands of newly freed slaves - men, women, and children - paraded through the city, joined by local Union army soldiers and white abolitionists. They marched around the site of a former prison camp and mass grave for Union soldiers known as the "Planter's Race Course". Just previous to the march, several black residents had reburied all of the soldiers in proper graves and built a tall fence and archway around the site. On the archway they inscribed the words 'Martyrs of the Race Course'.
The Charleston march celebrated the end of slavery by remembering those who had died during the long and bloody war which resulted in emancipation. The Civil War was the first instance of the government using humanitarian impulses to support its military action. This image of America as the 'protector of the downtrodden and repressed' fit well with the religiously-infused idea of 'American exceptionalism'. It is America as the political missionary, spreading democracy and capitalism to the needy peoples of the world. We fight for their own good. Every war since the the Civil War has utilized this rationale in some way. This ideology is the cornerstone of the American Empire. One hundred and thirty-eight years after the Charleston march another Republican president invokes the same rationale, blindly expecting the same parades and admiration for freeing another society of non-white people.
Comparing the Iraq War to the Civil War and George Bush to Abraham Lincoln? Before you either castrate me or nominate me for US Attorney (depending on your affiliation), please allow an explanation. It seems all too possible that the Iraq War will be the last time the government will be able to use humanitarian impulses to persuade the American public into supporting military intervention. The trend towards Empire which started with the Civil War ends here. Many of those on both the Left and the Right may cheer; good riddance, they say, empire never did anybody any good. The Right says we have enough problems at home, and it is not our duty to be the policeman of the world. The Left scorns the 'American exceptionalism' empire, pointing to human rights abuses, support for dictators, and big business reaping the rewards of our brand of globalization. And they are both right.
The world is rapidly moving towards a highly militarized international system of rigid alliances and dependencies all too reminiscent of that preceded both World Wars -- except with the added element of nuclear proliferation. Democracies and respect for human rights are on the decline, and terrorism is on the rise. The stupendous advances in technology in the past half-century have failed to significantly alleviate the serious social and health problems faced by the vast majority of the world's population. Wealth is more stratified than it has ever been in human history. Human-caused climate change threatens to overturn our entire way of life. To be sure, American imperialists have largely ignored, if not facilitated, the development of these threats. Our hands are bloody. We are not God's gift to Earth, not a shining city on the hill. As a people, as a nation-state, we are not exceptional.
These threats, however, are very exceptional. And it will take exceptional international will and cooperation to confront them and take us off the path towards rising oceans, rising poverty, and a nuclear World War III. And it cannot be disputed that if Americans are not part of that international will and cooperation, then it will certainly fail. This dismal future is not a certainty, but it gets closer to one every day. What can we do?
Everything: Get involved. Volunteer. Travel. Vote. Donate to charity. Use energy more efficiently. Question authority. Question yourself. Learn a language. Talk to someone you hate. Talk to someone you love. Educate yourself. Dream big. Solving our problems is not the sovereign occupation of the government. Building a better world requires us all to play a part. In reality we are not special. But sometimes perception becomes reality. Perhaps if we believe we are special, we can accomplish special things.
On Memorial Day we are supposed to remember those who died so that we could live. But why should this honor be extended to soldiers only? Perhaps this day should also be to remember those whose lives were committed to bettering the world. Being murdered should not be the only qualification for honor. Let us honor those who took to the streets in Charleston on May 1, 1865 to celebrate freedom. And let us commit ourselves to using that same freedom to make the world better for everyone.
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Widening Gyre
Somalia in Hindsight
- January 25 -- The US Ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneberger, has apparently met with Sheik Ahmed about reconciling with the Transitional Federal Government (TFG). Stratfor's analysis suggests that Ahmed does not have the ability to curb the insurgency because he was only the political chief of the Union of Islamic Courts (ICU). Sheik Aweys, the military leaders, is more radical than Ahmed and is still in hiding. Stratfor says that if Ahmed does make a deal with the TFG, it will fracture the remnants of the ICU and drive the radical elements into a deeper insurgency. While this may be true, I think a reconciliation between Ahmed and other moderates in the ICU with the TFG will be a positive step for Somalia. The most important thing is that the TFG can convince both Somalia and the international community that it is moving towards stability and reconciliation. The EU and the AU are depending on the semblance of reconciliation to send their financial aid and peacekeeping troops, respectively. Inside of Somalia this will limit the strength of the Islamist insurgency and some of the unrelated tribal violence. I would argue that perception is much more important than reality here -- if people believe that conditions will improve in Somalia, they will be much less inclined to let the country slip back into anarchy. So far the TFG has been cool to negotiations with Ahmed: Prime Minister Gedi has said that he will talk to Ahmed, but only in Somalia. Gedi refused to meet with Ahmed when the two were in Nairobi. Coincidentally, Kenya, no friend of the ICU, will not send Ahmed back to Somalia because they believe he will be killed there.
- January 22 -- A top leader of Somalia's Islamists handed himself in to Kenyan authorities. Sheik Ahmed has always been something of a moderate, and there is some hope that his taking part in a unity government will bring an end to the budding Islamist insurgency. However this assumes two things: one, that he still has a good deal of influence with the insurgents, and two, that the TFG will offer him a role that he would accept. I would say that the first assumption is likely true. Even if some of the insurgents are more radical than him, having the leader of the ICC either in the TFG or publicly allied with the TFG would take a lot of steam out of the insurgency and the likelihood of other moderates to support it. However the TFG has so far been opposed to the idea of reconciliation. The EU has attempted to push the TFG towards reconciliation by tying their redevelopment funds to the creation of a broad-based government which would include Islamists.
- January 9th -- The US attacked positions in southern Somalia near the Kenyan border, hoping to kill suspected Al-Qaeda members who they believe were responsible for the 1998 embassy bombings and who they thought were in the area. Right now I'm sure the high school English teacher inside of you is screaming "run-on sentence!". But where my error was only minor and grammatical, the error by the US was serious and geopolitical. If anyone had doubts about the tryst between Ethiopia, the TFG leadership, and the US, those doubts are now removed. Reuters reported that the US air strike killed between 22 and 27 people, and I think if one of them was an Al-Qaeda terrorist we would have heard something. TFG President Yusuf, who arrived in Mogadishu yesterday in a convoy of invading Ethiopian troops, said the US had a right to launch the strikes. The TFG Deputy Prime Minister Hussein Aideed, who recently called for Ethiopia and Somalia to merge into one country, said that the US had the Somali government's "full support". Minister Aideed is the son of former anti-US warlord Mohammad Farah Aideed. According to the BBC, the idea behind the raid is to support the TFG and scare the Islamists into abandoning their plans for an insurgency. If these Islamists are as radically anti-Western as the US says, don't you think an attack by the US would only strengthen their resolve and draw more recruits? And if they aren't that radically anti-Western, why risk inflaming tensions by sending the US military to a country which is already on the edge of chaos? This attack is especially strange considering that US envoy Jendayi Frazer recently called for moderate Islamists to be included in the TFG -- a proposal which was rejected by President Yusuf. American helicopter gunships are welcome, but their political advice is not. What happened to soft power and public diplomacy? What has the American Empire become?
- January 7 -- Violence has continued to flare across the country, especially in Mogadishu. Residents are protesting against the Ethiopian presence and have refused to give in their weapons to the forcible disarmament drive announced by the TFG. This drive was then abruptly "postponed" by the TFG Prime Minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi. Thousands of refugees have fled the country, adding to already large refugee camps(PDF map) in the neighboring countries. The remnants of the ICU have vowed to heed Al-Qaeda's call for jihad. Good News? Sheik Sharif Hassan Aden, the leader of the TFG parliament who also has ties to the ICU, has called for peaceful cooperation and reconciliation. He seems to think that Sheik Ahmed, the somewhat-moderate leader of the ICU will heed his call. (Update: Speaker Aden was dismissed by the Parliament on January 17th). Jendayi Frazer, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, has been busy trying to get African nations to pledge troops to a peacekeeping force; so far Uganda has pledged 1000 towards a projected 8000 necessary. The International Contact Group for Somalia, made up of the US, the EU, and several African countries, met in Nairobi on Friday to find a way to create and finance a joint African Union/Inter-Governmental Authority on Development peacekeeping force.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Unions of the World, Unite!
Unions of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your shrinking memberships and declining political significances...The British trade union Amicus announced it has signed solidarity agreements with two unions in the US and one in Germany -- the United Steelworkers, the International Association of Machinists, and IG-Metall. Amicus is already preparing to merge with the British Transport and General Workers Union in May 2007.
The Amicus General Secretary Derek "Blame British Dentistry" Simpson had this to say:
"Our aim is to create a powerful single union that can transcend borders to challenge the global forces of capital and I envisage a functioning, if loosely federal, multinational trade union organisation within the next decade."
I don't care that Simpson is a former Communist and a self-described "lieutenant of the left". But if he wants to do business here, he better start spelling 'organization' properly.
To my knowledge this is the first major step towards a significant multi-national union. It seems only logical that unions would begin to expand globally; they're already pretty far behind the corporations. Are we going to be seeing multi-national strikes in the near future? Probably not, because national economies are still fairly autonomous and so spreading a strike across borders would serve little purpose. But the globalization of unions could affect outsourcing, as unions will be able to apply more pressure on corporations and governments to keep jobs from going overseas.
Interesting to me that this story isn't mentioned in the US media at all. There's a sprinkling of British and Australian stories. And yet at the time of publish there are two hundred and seventy one articles on Google News about Marilyn Manson's divorce. C'mon now, when was the last time he even made a record? Jeez.
The Amicus General Secretary Derek "Blame British Dentistry" Simpson had this to say:
"Our aim is to create a powerful single union that can transcend borders to challenge the global forces of capital and I envisage a functioning, if loosely federal, multinational trade union organisation within the next decade."
I don't care that Simpson is a former Communist and a self-described "lieutenant of the left". But if he wants to do business here, he better start spelling 'organization' properly.
To my knowledge this is the first major step towards a significant multi-national union. It seems only logical that unions would begin to expand globally; they're already pretty far behind the corporations. Are we going to be seeing multi-national strikes in the near future? Probably not, because national economies are still fairly autonomous and so spreading a strike across borders would serve little purpose. But the globalization of unions could affect outsourcing, as unions will be able to apply more pressure on corporations and governments to keep jobs from going overseas.
Interesting to me that this story isn't mentioned in the US media at all. There's a sprinkling of British and Australian stories. And yet at the time of publish there are two hundred and seventy one articles on Google News about Marilyn Manson's divorce. C'mon now, when was the last time he even made a record? Jeez.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
What's Happening In Not-USA (Somalia Edition)
If You Missed It: Somalia's Transitional Federal Government (TFG), a loose arrangement of warlords based on the Transitional Federal Charter adopted in Nairobi in February 2004, has re-taken control of the country backed by the US-trained Ethiopian military. Most of the country (excluding the northern autonomous regions of Puntland and Somaliland) had been under control of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU). The ICU militias have mostly vanished, and may be preparing for an insurgency. The African Union, with support pledges from the EU and the US, is trying to put together a peacekeeping force.
A Little History: Somalia has been without a functioning government since 1991, when Dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown. The country has been torn apart by clan-based strife and warlordism, disastrous for a region already among the poorest in Africa and victimized by many floods and droughts. There were several interventions by outside forces. The UN, backed by the US, put together several operations beginning in 1992 to help feed starving Somalis and end the civil war which had resulted from Siad Barre's removal. However these operations were ended in 1995 after the US pulled its support following the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident in the Battle of Mogadishu. The Ethiopians also intervened in 1993 and 1996 to defeat Islamists trying to establish regional religious governments. The two countries have a history of bad relations relating to territorial claims and religious differences (Somalia is Sunni Muslim, Ethiopia is Christian).
Back to the Now: Violence has continued to flare across the country, especially in Mogadishu. Residents are protesting against the Ethiopian presence and have refused to give in their weapons to the forcible disarmament drive announced by the TFG. This drive was then abruptly "postponed" by the TFG Prime Minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi. Thousands of refugees have fled the country, adding to already large refugee camps(PDF map) in the neighboring countries. The remnants of the ICU have vowed to heed Al-Qaeda's call for jihad.
Ayman Al-Zawahiri gets my vote for "Euphemiser of the Week": suicide bombings are now "martyrdom-seeking raids".
Good News? Sheik Sharif Hassan Aden, the leader of the TFG parliament who also has ties to the ICU, has called for peaceful cooperation and reconciliation. He seems to think that Sheik
Ahmed, the somewhat-moderate leader of the ICU will heed his call. Jendayi Frazer, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, has been busy trying to get African nations to pledge troops to a peacekeeping force; so far Uganda has pledged 1000 towards a projected 8000 necessary. The International Contact Group for Somalia, made up of the US, the EU, and several African countries, met in Nairobi on Friday to find a way to create and finance a joint African Union/Inter-Governmental Authority on Development peacekeeping force.
Best Case Scenario: The international community is able to get a substantial peacekeeping force ready within a few weeks and the Ethiopians agree to withdraw all of their troops. The major leaders of the ICU agree to cooperate with the TFG in exchange for amnesty. The security situation can be stabilized enough that people are willing to disarm. Redevelopment money begins to flow into the country and can be effectively used to rebuild the infrastructure and supply the population with basic necessities. In time, the refugees will be able to return.
Will It Happen? I'll take the easy way out and say it's too early to tell. The withdrawal of Ethiopian troops is a prerequisite for a real legitimate government to be established. However if there are no peace keepers, one, the Ethiopians may not withdraw, and two, if they do withdraw it may lead to a resurgence of some powerful warlords. The Catch-22 is that a lot of the support for the peacekeeping operation will be dependent on progress towards political reconciliation. In addition the US will be very displeased if elements of the ICU are allowed back into politics and may withdraw their support. There is also no telling how successful a peacekeeping operation will be even with international support -- the theory is that an African-led operation will be more welcome than a UN-led operation, but in Somalia this is no guarantee.
The two major problems are the lack of resolve by the international community and the lack of a broad appeal to unity within Somalia. There are bound to be hiccups in any attempt at bringing peace to Somalia, and these two problems may tip the scales towards a return to anarchy. I believe that peace is achievable if these two deficiencies are rectified. The international community, both the US/EU and the African nations, need to commit themselves to helping Somalia even if the price is high and their national interests are unconcerned. The leaders of the TFG and the ICU need to find common ground to which they can draw popular support and prevent another spiral into anarchy.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Bush Admin Musical Chairs
And the music never stops...It looks like I was off on the next administration official to step down. Harriet Miers beat my odds and has resigned as White House counsel. I'm surprised she stayed on after that aborted Supreme Court nomination. I still say Snow is next to lay his badge and gun on the captain's desk. Zalmay Khalilzad is going to be nominated replace John Bolton as UN Ambassador. Laura Rozen and Cutler have more on the new appointees.
It appears as if Bush is trying to make his Last Stand in Iraq. Juan Cole is very positive on the new team members, but I'm not sure that even the best and brightest can do much as long as Bush & Cheney Co. are running the show.
Speaking of the Prez, I think he may have been reading Erratum Terrium yesterday and saw the IM convo between Merkel and Rice. Today, after a joint press conference with Merkel, he said: "no back rubs". I wonder if shes softening her "creep" stance on Dubya.
Politics in Not-USA: Why would the IDF launch an raid on the West Bank town of Ramallah on the same day as Israeli PM Olmert was meeting with Egyptian President Mubarak to discuss the peace process? Apparently the general in charge, General Naveh, did not inform Defense Minister Peretz before the raid took place. If this is true, there is either strong internal dissent in the IDF or in the Israeli cabinet. Also, new UN Secretary General Ban described the raid as "an act of violence". At least he said something.
It appears as if Bush is trying to make his Last Stand in Iraq. Juan Cole is very positive on the new team members, but I'm not sure that even the best and brightest can do much as long as Bush & Cheney Co. are running the show.
Speaking of the Prez, I think he may have been reading Erratum Terrium yesterday and saw the IM convo between Merkel and Rice. Today, after a joint press conference with Merkel, he said: "no back rubs". I wonder if shes softening her "creep" stance on Dubya.
Politics in Not-USA: Why would the IDF launch an raid on the West Bank town of Ramallah on the same day as Israeli PM Olmert was meeting with Egyptian President Mubarak to discuss the peace process? Apparently the general in charge, General Naveh, did not inform Defense Minister Peretz before the raid took place. If this is true, there is either strong internal dissent in the IDF or in the Israeli cabinet. Also, new UN Secretary General Ban described the raid as "an act of violence". At least he said something.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Roundup of the Global Triumvirate
IN CHINA...
IN THE US OF A...
theMerkelator: hey
doctorleeza81: hows things?
theMerkelator: fine
theMerkelator: OMG, i have to tell u something
doctorleeza81: OMG what is it?
theMerkelator: you remember that guy i was talking to at lunch yesterday?
doctorleeza81: u mean the qt with the beard?
theMerkelator: yeah, his name is Ali Larijani. he totally asked me about you
theMerkelator: he wants to talk to you condi
doctorleeza81: what did u say?
theMerkelator: i gave him ur number
doctorleeza81: but what about george? hell kill me if he finds out
theMerkelator: you totally deserve better than george
theMerkelator: remember when he tried to give me a back rub? what a creep
doctorleeza81: i dont know. ive heard a lot of bad stuff about that Ali guy
doctorleeza81: Ehud told me hes friends with that weirdo Mahmoud
theMerkelator: no way they just have homeroom together
theMerkelator: condi u should just talk to him, it cant hurt
doctorleeza81: maybe
doctorleeza81: sorry gtg george is calling me. bye angie!
theMerkelator: c u lata!
And readers, c u lata 2!
Peace (if everything else fails)
- The Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology just released their first report on global climate change. Their conclusion: it exists and it is being caused by human activity. China is also the second-biggest producer of greenhouse gases (A gold star for anyone who can guess who Numero Uno is). China is expected to take the top spot sometime in the next twenty years. They signed the Kyoto Protocols in 2002, but their status as a "developing country" means they are not required to reduce emissions immediately. Is this report a sign that the Chinese leadership is preparing to take some serious steps in the green direction? At least their leaders admit that global warming is taking place.
- One major problem that the world faces is the dilemma between producing energy cleanly and producing energy cheaply. The high prices of oil and gas exacerbate this dilemma; because more money has to be spent to buy these resources, less can be spent on finding cleaner alternatives. A major problem in the energy market is that demand is inelastic - slow to respond to price changes, especially increases. At the same time, the politics of producer nations and the position of oil and gas resources in volatile areas causes the prices to change rapidly. The clean versus cheap dilemma can only be solved through a broad coalition of producer and consumer nations. What we need is a new Kyoto, or at the very least for everyone to sign onto the old one.
- President Putin signed an order putting all arms exports under the control of one state-owned company, Rosoboroneksport. The CEO of this company is, surprise, surprise, another ex-KGB officer who served with Putin in Dresden during the Cold War. This is another example of Putin bringing all major enterprises under state control, his version of "de-privatization". Russia is a major arms exporter to Africa and Latin America. To tie this in with other recent events, the CEO of Rosoboroneksport, while head of a different arms exporter, supplied the Ethiopian military with the planes and helicopters that they used to take over Somalia this past week.
IN THE US OF A...
- We have a shifty Director of National Intelligence. John "Case Closed" Negroponte, former ambassador to the UN and to Iraq, is reportedly leaving his top intelligence post to become Deputy Secretary of State. That position was vacated in July by Robert "Cool 'Stache" Zoellick, who left to work for Goldman Sachs. This has been another in a long line of shifts and resignations in the Bush Administration since the occupation of Iraq began -- not to mention the indictment of Scooter Libby. The only question is: who's next? I would put 2-1 on Tony "I Don't Know" Snow (courtesy of WaPo's Dana Milbank), and 4-1 on Condoleezza Rice.
- And we have a shy Secretary of State. She has been asked in several interviews why the US will not talk to Iran, and has given the same lame excuses. She says that going to the table with Iran would be no more than pleading for help. Is she implying that we have no leverage over the Iranians? When given the Soviet Union analogy for negotiating with enemies, she says that "I don't ever remember sitting down and talking to the Soviet Union about how they could help us secure stability in Western Europe". Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think she's comparing Western Europe during the Cold War to Iraq in the present day. Funny because I don't remember the West Germans attacking our troops stationed there with mortars and roadside bombs. And I seem to recall that there were functioning, democratic governments in Western Europe. I hope this comparison doesn't really reflect how Secretary Rice sees Iraq. But back to Iran: why not talk to them? In the interest of humor, I've prepared a hypothetical instant messaging conversation to represent the situation as accurately as possible:
theMerkelator: hey
doctorleeza81: hows things?
theMerkelator: fine
theMerkelator: OMG, i have to tell u something
doctorleeza81: OMG what is it?
theMerkelator: you remember that guy i was talking to at lunch yesterday?
doctorleeza81: u mean the qt with the beard?
theMerkelator: yeah, his name is Ali Larijani. he totally asked me about you
theMerkelator: he wants to talk to you condi
doctorleeza81: what did u say?
theMerkelator: i gave him ur number
doctorleeza81: but what about george? hell kill me if he finds out
theMerkelator: you totally deserve better than george
theMerkelator: remember when he tried to give me a back rub? what a creep
doctorleeza81: i dont know. ive heard a lot of bad stuff about that Ali guy
doctorleeza81: Ehud told me hes friends with that weirdo Mahmoud
theMerkelator: no way they just have homeroom together
theMerkelator: condi u should just talk to him, it cant hurt
doctorleeza81: maybe
doctorleeza81: sorry gtg george is calling me. bye angie!
theMerkelator: c u lata!
And readers, c u lata 2!
Peace (if everything else fails)
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Happy New Year!
I could write a lengthy post about all that went wrong in 2006: the current debacles in Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Israel/Palestine, or the use of energy as a weapon by Russia, or the failed idiot-perialism of the Bush Administration, or the backwards and repressive steps taken by supposed democracies around the world, or the increasing cross-cultural preponderance of apocalyptic beliefs, or the break-up of Britney Spears' marriage, or the increasing rigidity of international alliances, or the decreasing confidence in the United Nations, or the continuing willful obliviousness by both states and corporations to the dangers of global warming.
But instead here's a kitty.
Happy 2007 to everyone, may this year fulfill all of our wishes.
Plus: The French are against the movement of time.
But instead here's a kitty.
Happy 2007 to everyone, may this year fulfill all of our wishes.
Plus: The French are against the movement of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)