MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM NETWORKS ABC Houston affiliate Al Jazeera Al Jazeera CNBC On the Money RADIO STATIONS VOA WTOP- DC VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS St. Petersburg Times- Florida ELECTRONIC NEWS TRADE PUBLICATIONS OTHER TOTAL NO. OF INTERVIEWS MEDIA COVERAGE EXPERT NETWORKS BLOGS
Transcript
MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAMNETWORKSABC Houston affiliateAl JazeeraAl JazeeraCNBC On the Money
Shujaat Advises Musharraf to Doff Uniform Before ElectionEurope: Is Another Cartoon Crisis Imminent?
Rafsanjani Elected Chairman of Iran’s Assembly of ExpertsGermany Thwarts Another Terrorist Attack
Old Rivals Poised to Re-enter Pakistan Political StageOld Rivals Poised to Re-enter Pakistan Political Stage
The last word on subprime?Fed: Stratfor says Aust set to be even more important to US
South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan, a case of many firsts: StratforSouth Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan, a case of many firsts: Stratfor
Analysis: Nigeria restructuring oil worksOld Rivals Poised to Re-enter Pakistan Political Stage
Analysis: Nigeria restructuring oil worksNigeria restructuring oil works
Somali PM to meet Islamist financier in DjiboutiSomali PM to meet Islamist financier in DjiboutiSomali PM to meet Islamist financier in DjiboutiSomali PM to meet Islamist financier in DjiboutiSomali PM to meet Islamist financier in Djibouti
UN's Ban Condemns Terrorist Bomb Attacks in Algeria (Update1)Does APEC merely add to global warming?
Julie Shen: http://in.news.yahoo.com/070906/139/6kenr.html Shujaat Advises Musharraf to Doff Uniform Before Election Azhar Masood, Arab News ISLAMABAD, 3 September 2007 — Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, president of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) and an ally of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has advised the president to doff his uniform before going for re-election. The comments are seen as a shift in PML-Q policy. Shujaat and his cousin, Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, present chief minister of Punjab, had previously announced on many occasions that they would have Musharraf re-elected in uniform. Political observers have taken Shujaat’s statement as a blackmailing chip to thwart an expected power-sharing deal between former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf. GEO TV first flashed Shujaat’s statement. The TV channel said, “Chaudhry Shujaat, who had opposed the Musharraf-Benazir deal, had threatened ‘we too have a few cards to play. It would be easier for us to get Musharraf re-elected if he files his nomination papers as a civilian candidate’.” Meanwhile, former chief minister of Punjab Mian Manzoor Wattoo said, “President Pervez Musharraf will doff the uniform in November.” The statement comes at a time when the president is short of options to survive. Musharraf is in a political dilemma with no settlement in sight in a power-sharing scheme with Benazir. The key US ally now faces the specter of two ex-premiers flying home to challenge his shaky eight-year military rule. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is arriving in the country on Sept.10. Retired Maj. Gen. Rashid Qureshi, the president’s media adviser, told journalists, “We haven’t closed dialogue with the chairperson of Pakistan People’s Party. We are having smooth talks and will announce the outcome of our final settlement with Benazir Bhutto shortly.” The News daily also reported yesterday that Secretary of the National Security Council Tariq Aziz was still assigned to finalize a settlement with Benazir Bhutto. Meanwhile, Benazir announced in London that she would make a final decision to return to Pakistan on Sept.14. The Texas-based think tank Stratfor reported, “Now, it is not an issue if Musharraf quits, the issue is when.” Musharraf is facing threats on his very survival with parties allied to him refusing a broader political arrangement with main national parties. Sources say that in the absence of a broad-based political settlement, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz will soon advise the president to dissolve the current assemblies as the ruling PML-Q has upset Musharraf by not agreeing with his planned fresh political moves. “If this option is exercised, then President Musharraf will seek re-election from the next assemblies, which are to be elected by January 2008,” a well placed official source said. In the case of being re-elected by the current assemblies, Musharraf will be chasing legitimacy because he may not get a vote of confidence from the next assemblies. With Benazir refusing to offer her party’s cooperation to Musharraf and the scheduled arrival of Nawaz Sharif, Musharraf will be facing a crisis of a multidimensional nature. Being a strong ally of the US in the war against terror, Musharraf has already been weakened after the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. His plans for re-election are already challenged in the Supreme Court. With Benazir refusing to enter into an arrangement with Musharraf, Pakistan may witness a political crisis that may derail the process of democracy. This would not receive approval from Musharraf’s allies in the United States and the West.
C59
Julie Shen: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4215.2406.0.0 Europe: Is Another Cartoon Crisis Imminent? September 5, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com A series of controversial cartoons published by European newspapers caused tensions between Muslims and European nations to boil over last year. A similar controversy now looms. By Brad Macdonald On August 19, the Swedish daily Nerikes Allehanda published a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed’s head on the body of a dog. Though more than two weeks have passed, and the issue hasn’t yet spiraled into an international incident replete with violent riots and mass chaos, this doesn’t mean a crisis isn’t lurking around the corner. This is not to say Muslims haven’t reacted. Last week the governments of both Pakistan and Iran summoned Swedish diplomats for meetings, at which they lodged formal complaints. “Regrettably, the tendency among some Europeans to mix the freedom of expression with an outright and deliberate insult to 1.3 billion Muslims in the world is on the rise,” the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said, in a jab at the broader European community. In addition to complaints from Iran and Pakistan, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Saudi Arabia, also condemned the publication of the “blasphemous” cartoon, saying that it was intentionally concocted “to solely insult and arouse the sentiments of Muslims,” according to press tv. Beyond these complaints, angry Muslims in Sweden have been staging protests outside the headquarters of Nerikes Allehanda in the city of Orebro. The largest rally to date occurred last Friday, when an estimated 300 upset protesters gathered to demand an apology from the chief editor. On the whole, however, the response to the cartoon in both Sweden and Muslim communities around the world has been benign compared to the cartoon crisis of 2006, which led to boycotts of European goods, massive riots in Muslim countries, and attacks on European embassies and consulates across the Middle East. But that doesn’t mean the threat of large-scale riots and violence has passed. In fact, as think tank Stratfor highlighted in an article last Thursday, the 2006 cartoon crisis fomented for months before it finally birthed the tidal wave of violence that rolled across the Muslim world: The Danish cartoon controversy began in earnest when Muslim leaders used the drawing to incite anger among their congregations and constituencies in the Middle East. However, it took about six months and several reprints of the cartoon in other newspapers before street demonstrations instigated by clerics and community leaders broke out across the Muslim world. Stratfor warned in a separate article on Friday that the potential remains high for Muslim leaders to further exploit the Swedish cartoon issue in coming weeks and months as a rallying cry for Muslims both inside and outside of Europe. Muslim leaders could yet unsheathe the issue later as a prod to incite anti-Europe antagonism among their Islamic followers. In addition to that possibility, there’s another critical reason why this controversy may not yet be dead and buried. That reason: Europeans, in this case Sweden and the newspaper that published the cartoon, are refusing to apologize to Muslims for printing the controversial depiction. Despite the heated complaints from Iran, Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the protests by Swedish Muslims, neither the Swedish government nor the newspaper has apologized for printing the depiction. On Friday, Fox News reported that although Ulf Johansson, the editor in chief of Nerikes Allehanda, met with Jamal Lamhamdi, the chairman of the Islamic cultural center in Orebro, and expressed regret that Muslims were offended by the cartoon, he refused to apologize. “They say they are offended and I regret that, because our purpose was not to offend anyone,” Johansson stated. “But they are asking for an apology and a promise that I never again publish a similar image … and that I cannot do.” In an effort to avert Muslim anger, the prime minister of Sweden called for mutual respect between Muslims, Christians and nonreligious groups, telling his people that Sweden was a place where Muslims and Christians can live side by side. The prime minister employed all manner of tact and diplomacy to assuage Muslim outrage, but he simply refused to outright apologize. In the coming months and years, we can expect this kind of mental fortitude against Islamic patronization to become the abiding mindset of Europeans. Even now there is a palpable swing occurring in Europe toward right-wing ideology; in many regions of the Continent, especially Germany, the tension between native Europeans and foreigners is mounting. Europeans are becoming as disgruntled with the Muslims as the Muslims are with the Europeans. Watch for this situation to simmer and eventually move toward disaster. The evolution of relations between Europe and the Islamic world is one of the most important trends we could watch. The Continent is in desperate need of a catalyst for unification, something that will convince Europeans that they must more fully integrate. The pushy, provocative and powerful threat of Islam could be just what’s required to stir Europe to unite. •
C60
Julie Shen: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4229.2413.0.0 Rafsanjani Elected Chairman of Iran’s Assembly of Experts September 5, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com Iran’s No. 2 cleric now heads the Islamic Republic’s most powerful institution. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was elected chairman of Iran’s Assembly of Experts on September 4. The Assembly of Experts elects and oversees the supreme leader of the nation. This places the powerful cleric in prime position to take on the mantle of the country’s top leader. Rafsanjani, who has served as deputy chairman of the Assembly of Experts (AoE) for several years, heads what is termed the pragmatic conservative faction in Iran, which is closely aligned with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He has held the office of president for two terms (1989-97) and is currently chairman of the Expediency Council, the country’s most powerful government oversight body. In 2005, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave Rafsanjani oversight of the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government. “Rafsanjani’s election as AoE chairman makes him the most influential man in the history of the Islamic Republic—perhaps second only to the founder of the Islamist regime, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini,” Stratfor reports (September 4). With Khamenei in failing health, a new supreme leader will have to be chosen soon. There appears to be little standing in the way of Rafsanjani assuming this post—except, perhaps, his own advanced age. Rafsanjani’s reputation as a more moderate, pragmatic conservative has some expecting he may steer Iran away from radicalism. Such hopes are misplaced. Although he might put a slightly different face on the Islamic Republic, if Rafsanjani, who is a close confidant and senior adviser of Khamenei, becomes the next supreme leader, we should expect a continuation of Iran’s current goals. The so-called moderates and the hardliners in Iran have precisely the same ambitions for their nation: domination of the Middle East, development of nuclear power, and the downfall of the United States. Even a cursory glance at Rafsanjani’s history reveals a man who is anything but moderate. Rafsanjani was a pillar of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and while serving as president he actively and openly supported terrorism around the world and spent billions to rebuild Iran’s military. Under his watch, Iran acquired missiles and nuclear hardware and stockpiled chemical weapons. In a 2003 interview, Rafsanjani revealed his views on America’s presence in the Middle East: “Even though the United States has a physical presence in the countries that surround us, the reality is that the United States is in fact surrounded by Iran. … Our enemies such as Saddam, the Taliban and the Monafeghins [an Iranian opposition group] have been swept out of our way, and soon the U.S. will be too” (Agence France Presse, Sept. 11, 2003; emphasis ours). Should Rafsanjani become supreme leader, we should not expect Iran to take a path more closely aligned with U.S. interests. In the meantime, in the powerful posts he now holds, watch for him to guide Iran in consolidating its gains in Iraq. •
C61
Julie Shen: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4233.2416.0.0 Germany Thwarts Another Terrorist Attack September 5, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com Germany received more proof on Tuesday that it is staring into the barrel of Islamic terrorism. On Tuesday, German police arrested three men believed to be plotting massive attacks on the Frankfurt International Airport and the U.S. military base in Ramstein. Though German authorities are relieved the attacks didn’t materialize, the foiled plots confirm that Germany is a real target for jihadists. According to German prosecutors, the three men—two Germans and a Turk—are suspected members of Islamic Jihad Union, a radical Islamic group rooted in Uzbekistan with ties to al Qaeda. Authorities said the men had met on Sunday at a rented holiday home in the Sauerland area near Frankfurt, and were preparing to build at least one massive car bomb. The men had stockpiled more than 1,500 pounds of hydrogen peroxide, the key ingredient used in the 2005 London underground bombings that killed 56 people. “They were planning massive attacks,” federal prosecutor Monika Harms said. “As possible targets … the suspects named discotheques and pubs and airports frequented by Americans with a view to detonating explosives loaded in cars and killing or injuring many people.” Federal police chief Joerg Ziercke said the men had been under surveillance since December and were believed to have undergone training at an Islamic militant camp in Pakistan in 2006. The plot to bomb Frankfurt airport and the Ramstein Air Base is merely the latest in a string of attacks foiled by German intelligence. In July, train commuters in western Germany dodged a bullet when a plot concocted by Lebanese nationals to ignite multiple timed incendiary devices aboard two German trains was foiled. German intelligence authorities have been warning for months that the threat of attacks from jihadist cells operating inside the country’s borders is growing. Though this latest plot was foiled, Stratfor noted that the incident should be taken as more than a “wake-up call by the Germans” (September 5, emphasis ours): By no means is Germany clear of the militant threat, however. In fact, this shows how far developed the threat is. The participation of German converts to Islam also reflects a trend of homegrown jihadists, or jihadists residing in European countries, becoming more active. Earlier this year, German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble created a brouhaha during interviews with Der Spiegel magazine and zdf television when he highlighted the growing threat of Islamic attacks on German soil. The feisty politician suggested what many perceived at the time to be rather radical steps to eliminating the threat of terrorism in Germany. Among the legal changes Germany must consider, he said, is an allowance for “taking terrorists into preventive custody, deploying the German army in domestic operations, [and] searching suspects’ computers online without their knowledge.” He also said the “targeted killing of terrorists” was another measure Germany ought to consider. Schäuble’s striking suggestions for beefing up the fight against radical Islam didn’t sit well with many Germans a few months ago. But that could change. As Germany, and even Europe as a whole, comes to grips with the fact that it is staring into the barrel of radical Islam, expect to see a strong shift toward tougher, more extreme measures for fighting this enemy. A few months ago, Schäuble’s suggestions might have seemed too radical. Soon they will be deemed too mild. •
C62
Julie Shen: http://voanews.com/english/2007-09-05-voa66.cfm Voice of America News September 5, 2007 Old Rivals Poised to Re-enter Pakistan Political Stage BYLINE: Gary Thomas SECTION: VOA ENGLISH SERVICE LENGTH: 780 words DATELINE: Washington Two former prime ministers of Pakistan say they will return from their self-imposed exiles. During the 1990s Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif engaged in a bitter political rivalry. But, as VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, the past may not necessarily repeat itself. The entrance to the prime minister's office in Islamabad was a revolving door in the 1990s. Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto were each elected twice, and each twice booted out of office before their term ended. Both fell victim to temporary alliances between their rivals and the country's once powerful military. Sharif's last ouster came in 1999 when Army Chief of Staff, General Pervez Musharraf, staged a bloodless coup, and both Bhutto and Sharif went into exile with allegations of corruption hanging over them. Now, with General Musharraf's grip on power in jeopardy and presidential and general elections looming in the coming months, Sharif and Bhutto are planning on returning home, raising the specter of a bitter political rivalry being rekindled. But much has changed in Pakistan since the 1990s. For one thing, analysts say, the military's standing in Pakistan has suffered. Frederic Grare, South Asia analyst at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace, says Bhutto and Sharif will both find it difficult to get the military to ally itself with one side or the other, as it did during the bitter rivalry that took place in the 1990s. "The fact that there is a clear rejection of army power will certainly be helpful in civilizing the political debate between the two. That said, it's a little difficult to really foresee what happens when they go back," he said. Kamran Bokhari, a Pakistan affairs analyst at the private intelligence firm Stratfor, says Bhutto and Sharif realize that any return to the level of their previous political infighting risks bringing the military back into play. "There is this understanding that, 'you know, we can't behave the way we did during the '90s," said Bokhari. "Clearly, we've been out of power for so long, we don't want that to happen again. We've been working so hard we're not about to squander the opportunity.' So there is an understanding that, look, we'll keep the rivalry within what they say are acceptable parameters or acceptable limits so that we don't give the military an excuse to come back in." Bhutto has been negotiating with General Musharraf to allow her unhindered return under some kind of power-sharing deal. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Teresita Schaffer, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says any deal that in effect prearranges the political contours and shuts Nawaz Sharif out is a dubious proposition. "The difficulty with that is, first, I doubt that President Musharraf has the temperament to share power," said Schaffer. "Second, by trying to get everything figured out in advance, and in particular by trying to keep Nawaz Sharif out of the picture, what they are trying to do is to set up another pre-cooked system. I don't think that can work at this point. Too much has happened." For his part, Sharif has denounced the Bhutto-Musharraf talks and has said he will not negotiate with a dictator. New technologies have also affected how Pakistanis perceive political developments. While there was a free press in the Bhutto and Sharif years, the broadcast media remained under state control. Paradoxically, the Musharraf government has loosened the government monopoly on broadcast outlets, and some 30 radio and television stations, such as Geo TV and Aaj TV, have sprung up. Stratfor's Kamran Bokhari says the new independent outlets are being tough on government officials or politicians in a way unheard of in the 1990s. "The media is not being hard just on the military just because the military is ruling," he said. "They're also being tough on political parties, especially if you notice how biting the questions become when political figures are grilled on talk shows or even just by people like anchors on news shows. So it gives you a sense that these people are not going to be let off the hook easily, and [therefore] all the more reason for them to maintain a check on their mutual rivalry so that it doesn't really explode." And where it once took months and often bribes to just get a telephone landline installed, now nearly everyone has a mobile phone. Much will depend, of course, on how General Musharraf reacts to Bhutto and Sharif when they return. He could choose to have them arrested once they set foot on Pakistani soil. But that could set off a wave of unrest, with the call to the streets spread by text messaging on cell phones.
C64
Julie Shen: http://www.fin24.co.za/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-1522_2178184 The last word on subprime? Sep 06 2007 12:09 PM Warwick Lucas LESSONS no doubt have been learned from the recent passing summer storm! Like Mark Twain's cat (who, after learning not to sit on a hot stove plate, had also learned not to sit on a cold stove plate), some of them will be the wrong ones. Right now, loads and loads of US commentators are huffing and puffing (especially the so-called Austrian School ones) about how uncle Ben is ripping off hard-working financially prudent Americans in favour of numbskulls who can't work interest calculations and overpaid hedge-fund managers, whose recently discovered lack of skill should guide them towards clipping hedges, instead of managing them. A part of their society perhaps with too little on their hands, and consequently too much on their mind? To these gratuitous trouble seekers I say: "Saambou anyone?" As far as hedge-fund managers are concerned, some sheep got sheared but at least the remaining goats probably proved they "aaaaaren't tooooo baaaaaad"! There will no doubt be some more rabbiting on about the carry trade with Japan. So just to try and clarify matters, I have a cunning stunt of a graphic: The SP500 and the dollar/yen seemed to have struck up a bit of a relationship, haven't they? As I have previously explained, Japan is the world's largest retirement village and has no option other than to export capital. Men and islands A simple example that would be used by an economic lecturer is as follows. You have two islands: Richold Island, populated by old islanders with a lot of coconuts, and Pooryoung Island, populated by young islanders with a few coconuts. There are two elegant solutions to their respective macro economic problems; either import lots of youngsters to Richold Island to tend their plantations (ie immigration) or lend lots of saplings to Pooryoung island for a high coupon. The perception that the carry is a highly geared stunt by a wunch of merchant bankers from New York is only partly true. Moreover, by way of the example that I have just provided, the self-same merchant bankers are joining Mrs Watanabe in fulfilling an economic truth: Mrs Watanabe's cousin should have worked out if her retirement is ever to have enough cash flow. The carry trade is part of the New World order, and is here to stay. Damage estimates chrystallising Just how many so-called subprime mortgages will actually be foreclosed, remains to be seen. That said, you may be interested to know that in a state such as California, the cost of individual foreclosures may rise to as much as $50 000 a go. Accordingly, it is more than likely that many homeowners will be left alone, provided they show some ongoing cash flow every month. Estimates of the damage appeared to be crystallising, I have seen some of the order of $200bn, otherwise 1½% of GDP, spread out over a total of four years ≈ 0.4% GDP per annum. What can I say? If you don't look close enough, then a rolling loan gathers no loss! (At this point, the responsible Austrians will slug back gluwhein and pour themselves under the table, protesting the injustice of it all. Many South Africans who unjustly lost their houses with 25% interest rates in 1998 would have a different view of the matter. Just try retrenching a bunch of economists and fund managers, and see how the virtuous cries of "free markets", "cutting the fat" and "efficient rightsizing" changes to bleats of "employee rights"!) Stalemate In the meantime, oil has quietly crawled under the radar. Initially, its volatility was enormous as all economic bets came off the table. It has quietly recovered, but what is particularly interesting is that the three-year backwardation on Nymex oil futures is negative $7! It's also intriguing to note the hugely positive slope on gas futures. This points to two possible effects: (1) substitution of oil by gas as an energy source and (2) the use of gas to power the extraction of oil from Canada's tar sands. Whatever the truth, it is highly unlikely that such backwardation would be occurring without an expectation of quieter times in the Middle East. On this point, I find Stratfor to have had some most interesting comment on the likelihood of a US withdrawal from Iraq. They point out that from a military point of view, the whole matter is a stalemate, and further time and conflict will yield no different result. In addition, a gradual withdrawal is the worst solution of all, as your steadily diminished force comes under heavy fire from a newly emboldened enemy (and has to hang around long enough to take lots of casualities), while a fast withdrawal leaves a sudden unstable vacuum. Their view is that the US may well simply establish and retreat to military bases well out in the Iraqi desert. It ends the prospect of daily engagement with a multitude of different insurgents, and at the same time puts a stop to any thoughts of military adventurism by any one of Iran, Turkey or Syria. Surprisingly this may stabilize the Middle East. Why? Saudi Arabia is both fabulously rich and militarily weak - a recipe ripe for trouble. Wrong lessons Meanwhile, in terms of the wrong lessons been learned, China is a prime candidate, as pointed out by William Pesek of Bloomberg. The essence of his comment was that China would view the whole subprime crisis is being a function of the transparency of the US economy, and do what they could to step away from it. As always, I'm going to be difficult. I view it as a victory for transparency; after all, awareness grew for some time, and although many didn't benefit from that when the storm broke, the worst was dealt with relatively elegantly. Sure, there is a lot of flotsam and jetsam on the beach, but nothing that can't be tidied up. I am sticking with my theory that the number-one source of risk in the world today remains some form of dislocation stemming from the opaqueness of China's financial system. We have the Olympics in June 2008, and between now and then nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong. Warwick Lucas is an industrials and quants analyst at Imara SPReid. Bona fide questions may be mailed to: warwickl at ispr.co.za
C65
Julie Shen: AAP Newsfeed September 6, 2007 Thursday 11:44 AM AEST Fed: Stratfor says Aust set to be even more important to US BYLINE: Max Blenkin SECTION: DOMESTIC NEWS LENGTH: 445 words DATELINE: CANBERRA Sept 6 Australia is set to be even more important to the United States as both China and Russia extend their influence across East Asia, perhaps even supplanting Japan, a US thinktank suggests. In an analysis of the new Australia-US defence trade cooperation agreement signed by Australian and the US in Sydney yesterday, the private sector intelligence group Stratfor said Australia was set to adopt a position in Asia comparable to the UK as the linchpin of the US in western Eurasia. Stratfor said the agreement signed by United States President George W. Bush and Prime Minister John Howard was similar to a US agreement with the UK signed on June 27. It said that agreement, which facilitates Australian access to US military technology, illustrated Australia's increasing prominence in US strategic thinking. That prominence will continue to grow until Australia is on par with the UK as a US ally, it said. "The recent encroachment of Chinese and Russian influence across East Asia has reminded the United States of the fierce competition for dominance in the region," it said. "As the world's centre of gravity continues to shift away from Europe, other allies will become increasingly significant for Washington. "And because of a striking parallel, the two countries Washington recently signed defence accords with can serve similar purposes in their respective regions." Stratfor said Australia was culturally closer to the US than any other Pacific rim nation, perhaps even more so than Canada. "Its geographic stand-off distance is strategically compelling, and it is hoped that Canberra's ability to manage places like East Timor can be honed and expanded," it said. "Washington will continue to foster a close relationship with Japan, and the US trilateral defence focus that encompasses both Tokyo and Canberra remains the cornerstone of US involvement in the region. "But Japan's far more tangible economic competition and cultural differences leave no doubt in Washington's mind that its long-term interests are far more aligned with Canberra than with Tokyo. The ties that bind these two alliances will reflect this preference." Stratfor said the close relationship with the US was costly for John Howard in a domestic political sense. But the alignment of US and Australian geopolitical interests transcended both administrations. "No matter who holds office, Australia will continue to expand its influence across its periphery and the United States will encourage it," it said. "An Australia truly empowered to conduct business in its periphery not only as it sees fit but also with US backing could be a force to reckon with."
C66
Julie Shen: http://in.news.yahoo.com/070906/139/6kenr.html South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan, a case of many firsts: Stratfor By ANI Thursday September 6, 04:36 PM Washington, Sept.6 (ANI): The crisis created by the kidnapping of 23 South Korean hostages may have ended last week, but according to STRATFOR, the incident is a case of many firsts. The incident started off with neither side - the Taliban on one side, and the South Korean and Afghan Governments on the other - refusing to come to an understanding on how to end the standoff. But as deadline after deadline passed, a STRATFOR article suggests that there was a wilting on negotiating positions. The Afghan Government rejected a demand for a prisoner exchange release due to the overwhelmingly negative reaction it had received after bowing to Italian pressure to release captives in the Mastrogiacomo case. The South Koreans did "agree" to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan, and reportedly decided to do this before the kidnapping. They also decided to end all their missionary work in Afghanistan, and significantly a ransom appears to have been paid as part of the final deal. According to STRATFOR, the paying of a ransom is fairly standard practice in kidnapping cases, while the agreement to pull out troops already scheduled for withdrawal echoes a 2004 deal between the Philippine government and hostage-takers in Iraq. However, it says that the agreement to end missionary aid work in Afghanistan has set a precedent that could have repercussions going beyond the Hindu Kush. This case, the private intelligence-gathering network says is notable because it marks the first time the Taliban grabbed such a large group of foreign hostages. The case also reveals that the Taliban does not operate under one military leader and that there is no consistent track record on how they treat their hostages. Some kidnapping groups kill their victims outright, while others seek ransom deals. This case also is noteworthy because shortly after the kidnapping, the South Korean government entered into direct negotiations with the Taliban. sovereign state negotiating with an insurgent group as its equal gives that insurgent group a cachet of power. Despite the initial confusion, the South Koreans eventually were able to open a direct channel with the proper Taliban leaders. Given that that they had such a large pool of foreign hostages and a direct channel to the South Korean government -- not to mention their favorable deal in the Mastrogiacomo kidnapping -- the Taliban must have considered their negotiating position quite strong at the beginning of the process. As the scenario unfolded, however, their hand began to weaken. It came out clearly that Seoul's clout in Kabul is not on par with that of the Italians. The kidnappers were able to save face in part, then, when Seoul pledged to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2007. South Korea, which has about 200 troops performing non-combat missions in Afghanistan, already had scheduled a complete withdrawal by the end of the year, so the pledge did not cost it either in practical or tactical terms. The deal, however, did set a precedent for Afghanistan similar to the one set in Iraq in 2004, when the Philippine government agreed to withdraw its troops, who already were scheduled for withdrawal, as part of a deal in a kidnapping case. The South Korean government's pledge to discontinue all missionary activities in Afghanistan by the end of the year also allowed the kidnappers to extract themselves gracefully from the case. Moreover, South Korea's missionary groups agreed to the condition. The Taliban probably received some ransom; reports placed the payment at 20 million dollars, an amount that could fetch them a lot of weapons to use against Afghan and NATO forces. The Taliban believe Afghanistan's many foreign missionary and secular humanitarian aid organizations support the Afghan Government. Therefore, they will consider the South Korean ban on missionary activity in Afghanistan as a blow to the Hamid Karzai regime. History has shown that the actions of jihadists in one part of the world are carefully watched by jihadists elsewhere, and tactics that prove successful spread rapidly, claims the STRAFOR report. This case has sent a signal to jihadists and other militant Islamist operatives in other countries that this wide network of South Korean missionaries is a desirable target. And this target set can easily be expanded to include other foreign missionaries, the report concludes. (ANI)
C68
Julie Shen: http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2007/09/06/analysis_nigeria_restructuring_oil_works/7211/ Analysis: Nigeria restructuring oil works Published: Sept. 6, 2007 at 1:03 PM By CARMEN GENTILE UPI Energy Correspondent Nigeria has decided to break down its state-run oil company into five different entities in an effort to become more efficient and profitable, while curtailing corruption. The new entity comprising five divisions will replace the Nigerian National Petroleum Co. and replace it with the Nigerian Petroleum Co., or NPC, which according to analysts will function more like a state-owned oil firm rather than a government agency. Nigeria’s current petroleum regulator has suffered from chronic capital shortfalls and been the subject of much scrutiny over its falling output. NNPC was reportedly $1.6 billion short in meeting its 2006 expenses and had to be propped up by other sectors of the Nigerian economy though it accounts for an estimated 85 percent of the government’s revenue. Nigerian President Umaru Yar’Adua laid out a six-month itinerary for creating the NPC and its offshoots for exploration, production and export. Yar’Adua also appointed a national energy council to oversee the project in the coming months. While some praised the president’s effort as part of his election pledge to crack down on corruption in the petroleum sector, others contend Yar’Adua has reorganized Nigeria’s oil and gas to increase his own influence over the country’s top source of revenue. Foreign oil firms operating in Nigeria are watching the restructuring carefully for signs the Nigerian government could also seek to alter extraction and exploration agreements. "Whether the new national oil company seeks to become the dominant player in Nigeria's oil patch or becomes just another competitor to Shell, Exxon, Total and Chevron in the Niger Delta, the net effect of its presence may very well be tougher terms for foreign operators, but also a more transparent bidding process and regulatory environment," wrote Eurasia Group Africa Analyst Sebastian Spio-Garbrah, Nigeria’s This Day newspaper reported. The decision to restructure Nigeria’s oil and gas sectors follows a recent report showing the sector loses $14 billion a year to theft. Monetary losses incurred by the oil sector were calculated based on the estimated number of barrels of lost production due to corruption and crime, President of the Corporate Council on Africa Stephen Hayes said last month. "If you are losing 600,000 barrels a day on oil at $70 a barrel, you are losing $12 million a day on oil theft,” he said. Before stepped-up hostilities by militant and other armed groups in the Niger Delta -- home to the country’s oil and gas wealth -- began in late 2005, Nigeria claimed to be producing about 2.5 million barrels per day. Since then, production has reportedly decreased by at least 20 percent, perhaps even by one-third, warn some analysts. In and around the delta’s de facto capital, Port Harcourt, a recent spike in violence has raised concerns about the long-term viability of doing business in the region, where foreign oil and gas operations are regularly targeted. “The situation in Port Harcourt will remain unstable in the short term until Nigerian authorities can regain some level of control,” read a recent report by Stratfor consulting group. “Many companies with oil operations in the Niger Delta are based out of or supported by companies in Port Harcourt. These companies and their personnel have not been specifically targeted by the groups involved in the fighting. “However, in any unstable situation, there is always the chance that they or their personnel will get caught up in the violence.” Despite production disruptions attributed to “bunkering,” when oil and gas lines are tapped at times resulting in deadly explosions, illegal sales and violence attributed to armed gangs and militants, some Nigerians say they see a silver lining to the delta’s and Nigeria’s dilemmas. In August, a leading Nigerian rights group praised Yar’Adua for his efforts to tackle corruption and violence. The Niger Delta has been a flash point for decades amid accusations of government graft and corrupt practices by foreign oil companies. Since the 1970s, Nigeria, Africa's No. 1 oil producer, has pumped more than $300 billion worth of crude from the southern delta states, according to estimates. High unemployment in the delta, environmental degradation due to oil and gas extraction, and a lack of basic resources such as fresh water and electricity have angered the region's youth, who have taken up arms, many times supplied by political leaders, and formed militant groups and local gangs. Following his election in April, Yar'Adua appealed for calm and in his inaugural address said he would "set a worthy personal example" by tackling corruption and violence in the delta. Since then some of the militants have said they would cease violence against foreign oil operations that have been the focus of escalated attacks and kidnapping campaigns over the last two years. -- (e-mail to [email protected])
C72
Julie Shen: http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL07063534.html Somali PM to meet Islamist financier in Djibouti Fri 7 Sep 2007, 11:28 GMT (Adds conference spokesman, details) By Aweys Yusuf MOGADISHU, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi was to meet Abukar Omar Adan, a top financial backer of the ousted Islamic Courts, on Friday in Djibouti to encourage its fighters to accept a government amnesty. The move came a day after a fugitive leader of the hardline movement made his first public appearance, after months on the run, at a conference of Somali opposition figures in Eritrea. "The talks have been organised by Djibouti officials and are anticipated to unite Islamists who are going to take advantage of the government's amnesty," Gedi's spokesman Musse Kulow said. Gedi's interim government is struggling to impose its authority on the Horn of Africa nation, which has been in chaos since warlords overthrew dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. The appearance of Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, who some believe is behind an anti-government insurgency in Mogadishu, at the meeting in Asmara came a week after Gedi's administration ended its own reconciliation conference in the Somali capital. Kulow said the prime minister's talks in Djibouti with Adan, a 72-year-old Somali businessman, would be friendly. FAMILY NEGOTIATION "It is a family negotiation because Adan hails from the same sub-clan as Gedi," Kulow told Reuters. "After the talks, it is expected ... (he) will return to Mogadishu with him." Adan surrendered to the authorities in neighbouring Kenya after Somali interim government troops backed by the Ethiopian military routed the Islamists from Mogadishu over the New Year. He admitted being in Kenya illegally, but in February an immigration case against him was dropped without explanation. At the conference in Eritrea, another Islamist leader -- Sheikh Sharif Ahmed -- called on the United States to engage with the Somali opposition, and rejected charges of terrorism against the Courts that he said had been fabricated by Ethiopia. Conference organisers said talks would include discussions on "military operations" in Somalia, but did not elaborate. "Ethiopia is destroying our houses and killing our people. This conference aims to be the solution to end the occupation," Zakariya Mahamud Abdi, conference spokesman and dissident lawmaker, told reporters. Mark Schroeder, Africa analyst with U.S.-based intelligence consultancy Stratfor, said there seemed little common ground. "Neither side in the Somali conflict -- the Transitional Federal Government, nor the Somali opposition led by Islamic courts leaders Sheikhs Sharif Ahmed and Hassan Dahir Aweys -- is willing to compromise at this point," he told Reuters.
C77
Julie Shen: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adai02HHyqlI&refer=home UN's Ban Condemns Terrorist Bomb Attacks in Algeria (Update1) By Ed Johnson and Jake Lee Enlarge Image/Details Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the ``escalation of terrorist violence'' in Algeria after dozens of people were killed in two bomb attacks in the North African country. Ban is ``deeply shocked and saddened'' by the attack yesterday in the coastal town of Dellys and a bombing two days earlier in the eastern town of Batna, his spokeswoman, Michele Montas, said in a statement. The Security Council said yesterday's bombing was a ``heinous act of terrorism.'' At least 48 people were killed in the attacks, al-Jazeera reported on its English-language Web site, adding an al-Qaeda- linked organization, known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, or GSPC, had claimed responsibility. The U.S. State Department said in April that al-Qaeda and its allies pose a ``very real threat'' in North Africa. The Texas-based risk advisory service Stratfor said in a March report that Islamic rebel groups are joining forces with al-Qaeda and becoming more active in the Maghreb region of Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. The GSPC, which is Algeria's largest Islamist guerrilla group, said it carried out yesterday's suicide truck-bomb attack on a naval barracks in Dellys, killing 28 people and wounding 50 others, al-Jazeera said. The group said it was also behind an explosion in Batna that killed at least 20 people, according to the report. Most of the victims in that attack were waiting for a visit by Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, al-Jazeera said. He denounced the attackers as ``criminals'' and said they were trying to harm his policy of national reconciliation. EU Condemnation The European Union condemned the bombings as ``heinous.'' ``We firmly condemn'' the two attacks in Algeria, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said at an EU meeting in Viana do Castelo, Portugal, yesterday. He called the attacks ``barbaric, scandalous and unacceptable.'' The GSPC was blamed for three suicide truck-bomb attacks in April that killed 30 people. The violence threatens Bouteflika's efforts to bring stability to the petroleum and gas-rich country, which experienced a civil war in the 1990s that left about 200,000 people dead. Islamic groups in Algeria turned to violence in 1992, the year the army canceled parliamentary elections a Muslim-based party was set to win. Algeria is the second-ranking supplier of natural gas to Europe, after Russia. The country exported about $56 billion in gas and oil last year, according to government figures. The North African state is building pipelines and plants to increase annual gas exports by a third to 85 billion cubic meters by 2010. To contact the reporters on this story: Ed Johnson in Sydney at [email protected] ; Jake Lee in Hong Kong at [email protected] . Last Updated: September 9, 2007 01:09 EDT
C78
Julie Shen: http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSSP15499820070909 Does APEC merely add to global warming? Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:56PM EDT By Bill Tarrant - Analysis SYDNEY (Reuters) - As Asia-Pacific leaders jetted home on Sunday with yet another APEC souvenir to stuff into their "funny shirt" closet, folks back home may well ask: "So what did you get out of that meeting besides the outback raincoat?". Host Australia shelled out A$300 million ($250 million) to accommodate the 21 leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Sydney, whose disgruntled residents were subjected to the biggest security operation in the country's history. But leaders did come bearing gifts for Prime Minister John Howard, who is widely expected to call an election this week -- a $45 billion gas export deal with China, uranium sales to Russia, top-secret military technology from the United States. Much to the chagrin of green groups, non-environmentalist Howard burnished his legacy with a "Sydney Declaration", signing up APEC members to an "aspirational target" for cutting greenhouse gases. It's voluntary and non-binding, so no worries for APEC, which includes some of the world's biggest polluters. Green groups immediately dismissed the "Sydney distraction" as so much hot air adding to the warming of the globe. DECISION-MAKING BODY Critics say APEC has lost its focus on economics and trade by meandering into the fields of security and now the environment. But some analysts say that may be the price of its success. "APEC is more important now than ever, and though its role in some realms remains modest -- security is the most glaring example -- in other areas it is emerging as the global decision-making body," the security analysis Web site Stratfor.com said. "APEC's growing power is most clearly on display when it tackles issues such as climate change and consumer product safety." So, when the APEC leaders, whose countries account for more than half of global trade, came out on Sunday with a strong endorsement of compromises on farm subsidies and industrial tariffs that negotiators are working on in Geneva, it must have been music to World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy's ears. For the past two decades, APEC has been quietly crafting some of the most important rules for global commerce. At the Sydney meeting it completed three more chapters for a model free trade agreement that can be rolled out anywhere along the Pacific rim. APEC also offers an unparalleled public relations platform to push pet projects and causes -- and to network like crazy. U.S. President George W. Bush, who stopped off in Iraq on his way to Sydney, took every opportunity to defend the unpopular war. And to bolster the election fortunes of Howard, one of the most steadfast supporters of the war. "They refer to the Prime Minister around here as a battler," Bush said this week. "I know why: he's courageous, he's wise, he's determined." Russian President Vladimir Putin stopped off in Jakarta on the way to APEC to seal a $1 billion arms deal with Indonesia by way of advertising that Russia is back in the geopolitical game in Asia, after taking a long sabbatical from the Cold War. "The main outcome of the summit is that Russia has significantly upgraded its status in the grouping and in the region," a senior diplomat in the Russian delegation said. But China's Hu Jintao kept a relatively low profile, belying predictions that Beijing is big-footing APEC, founded in Canberra in 1989 with backing from the United States to push an Asia-Pacific free trade agenda. Hu issued the usual stern warnings about Taiwan's leanings toward independence. But mostly he seemed keen to reassure his Asia-Pacific neighbors that Beijing, grappling with a series of product recalls ranging from toys to toothpaste, took product safety "very seriously". China's foreign ministry spokesman said Beijing did not have any larger ambitions in APEC. "On this issue, China definitely does not seek any kind of an important role, or to gain some kind of a leadership position," spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Sydney. Howard had enthused that APEC would make Australia "the centre of the universe in our region", but a comedy troupe stunt during APEC might have been the most-watched story overseas. Posing as the Canadian delegation, members of ABC TV's The Chaser show drove a "motorcade" through two checkpoints to within meters of Bush's hotel -- one of them made up to look like Osama bin Laden, and the designation "Insecurity" written on their convention passes. Police arrested 11 of them. (Additional reporting by John Ruwitch and Oleg Shchedrov)
C79
Julie Shen: http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/158/documentid/3917/history/3,2360,655,158,3917 Fatah al-Islam Episode Highlights Lebanon’s Continuing Instability No Consensus on Origin of Group’s Support, Country Crippled by Sectarian Divide, Siniora Govt. Dependent on Foreign Aid The emergence of the al Qaeda-inspired Fatah al-Islam terrorist organization within the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp in Lebanon sparked fears that the global Islamist extremist movement has gained ground within the Palestinian community. At the same time, the circumstances surrounding the Sunni Islamist fundamentalist group’s formation and its subsequent destabilizing effects on Lebanon’s fragile government had experts divided between those that see Syria behind the group’s meteoric rise and others convinced that critical early support came from Sunni Lebanese leaders seeking to counter the dominating power of the Shiite Islamist Hezbollah political party-cum-terrorist organization. Fatah al-Islam leader Shaker al Abssi. Fatah al-Islam proved its resilience and earned itself attention and no small amount of praise throughout the Arab world by holding out against the Lebanese military’s assault on the camp for three-and-a-half months. Somewhere between 225 and 400 deaths resulted since the start to the violence in May 2007, at least180 of them Lebanese soldiers, making this Lebanon’s worst internal conflict since the end of its civil war in 1990. The group’s hold on the camp was broken September 2 by a major assault by the Lebanese army. The bodies of group leader Shaker al Abssi and several of his top aides were recovered. Though al Abssi’s wife reportedly identified his body, early reports suggest a DNA test was unable to conclusively prove the Fatah al-Islam leader’s death. Al Abssi, a Palestinian, was a canny operator. Despite being on terrorism watch lists around the world, set himself up in a Palestinian refugee camp where, because of Lebanese adherence to the 1969 Arab League-brokered Cairo Agreement, he was largely shielded from the Beirut government, barred from interfering in any of the 12 refugee camps in Lebanon. The camp also gave him ready access to a pool of recruits, young Palestinians whose militant vision has evolved from the struggle against Israel to a larger Islamic cause, Sunni fundamentalist Lebanese, as well as foreign fighters who slipped into the camp, many believed to have fought in Iraq. Siniora vs. Hezbollah “The government of Fouad Siniora, which enjoys political and military backing from regional and international actors, [was] determined to force Fatah al-Islam to surrender and it views this event as not just a serious security challenge but mainly as an important test of strength,” Dani Berkovich, a research fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), wrote in an INSS Insight article, June 3, 2007. “Failure to deal vigorously with the threat of al-Qaeda-type organizations will play into Hezbollah’s hands; a show of army weakness will legitimize Hezbollah’s demands to act as the country’s main defender,” Berkovich commented. Large infusions of foreign aid appear necessary to keep Siniora’s government collapsing, weakened as it is by Hezbollah’s surging popularity after last year’s summer war with Israel and continued assassinations of leading anti-Syrian Lebanese figures presumably at the hands of the Syrian government. Throughout the siege, the Lebanese army refused to negotiate with Fatah al-Islam and received substantial support in the form of emergency military equipment and political support from the United States. “The Siniora government is fighting against a very tough extremist foe,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on May 22, 2007, “Lebanon is doing the right thing to try and protect its population, to assert its sovereignty and so we are very supportive of the Siniora government and what it is trying to do,” she added. According to Ha’aretz writer Zvi Bar’el, July 2006, “The fragility of Lebanese politics is what will determine not only whether Siniora is prepared to stand up to Hezbollah and demand that it disarm, but most of all, whether he will be able to do so. Such a demand would likely deprive the government of its legitimacy and compel Hezbollah to quit it for good - and thus turn Siniora’s government into even more of a lame duck.” In a July 2006 interview with Milan-based newspaper Corriere della Sera, Siniora pleaded with the international community to help his government to disarm Hezbollah, “It’s not a mystery that Hezbollah answers to the political agendas of Tehran and Damascus,” he said, “The entire world must help us disarm Hezbollah. But first we need to reach a cease-fire.” Siniora’s pleas for help to quell Hezbollah’s activity portray the fragility of his government and questions whether or not his army can stand up to Fatah al-Islam. Al Qaeda Resurgent Shattered after Coalition attacks on its camps and fighters in Afghanistan in 2001-2002, al Qaeda has rebuilt itself through alliances and a vast network of cells with a shared fundamentalist interpretation of Islam as seen through terror attacks occurring in all corners of the world. “Guys like [Fatah al-Islam leader Shaker al] Abssi have the capability on the ground that al Qaeda has lost and is looking to tap into,”’ an American intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The New York Times in March 2007. Fatah al-Islam’s resilience raised its standing among Lebanon’s Palestinian community and has strengthened to an unknown degree the popularity of the Islamist terror groups attacking Israel. Its widely publicized ideological goal of bringing Palestinian refugee camps under strict Islamic Sharia law has some analysts concerned that al Qaeda’s ideology if not al Qaeda itself has successfully inserted itself into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. “The emergence of Fatah al-Islam is largely what it appears to be - the combined outgrowth of a Sunni Islamist revival sweeping Lebanon and the region, a politically fragile central government, and a perilous security vacuum,” editor Gary C. Gambill wrote in the June/July issue of the Mideast Monitor (MideastMonitor.com), a bimonthly, nonprofit publication covering the Middle East. Saad Hariri. Fatah al-Islam was formed in November 2006 by a group of some 200 extremists Muslims who, led by Abssi, split off from the quasi-socialist Fatah al-Intifada terror organization. Abssi was suspected of having strong ties to former “al-Qaeda in Iraq” leader, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and had said that he is in agreement with Bin Laden’s ideology. Much like al Qaeda, Fatah al-Islam welcomed Muslim fighters from any country as long as they were willing to fight for its pan-Islamist cause. In addition to young Palestinian and Lebanese, a number of insurgents joined Fatah al-Islam directly from the front lines of Iraq. In an unscientific but telling sample, of the handful of Fatah al-Islam fighters to escape the Lebanese Army’s final assault, one was a Saudi and the other a Yemeni, according to Time magazine, Sept. 4, 2007. Gambill noted that “while Abssi presented Fatah al-Islam as an all-Palestinian movement, it was soon evident (and later confirmed definitively by the identification of militants captured and killed in the recent violence) that the majority of Abssi’s operatives were Lebanese and a substantial minority (15-20 percent) were Saudis, with citizens of Syria and various other Arab and Islamic countries comprising most of the rest. Sunni Lebanese political parties and organizations opposed to the Shiite Hezbollah organization have quietly supported or at minimum turned a blind eye toward Sunni extremist groups and terror organizations. The Siniora government’s “Sunnification” of the Internal Security Forces (ISF) may have bolstered its ability to contend with the Shiite Hezbollah movement, but, according to Gambill, “it has proven to be ineffective in combating Sunni Islamists.” When a Sunni mob set fire to the building housing the Danish embassy in February 2006 (to protest the publication of offensive cartoons), hundreds of ISF riot police stood by and watched. In the neighborhood of Taamir adjacent to the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp, the Siniora government did nothing for over a year-and-a-half to remove the radical Islamist Jund al-Sham militia or prevent it from terrorizing the inhabitants. When the Lebanese army finally deployed there several months ago, Jund al-Sham militants promptly seized control of a preschool and demanded financial compensation. Saad Hariri’s aunt, Bahiya Hariri, paid off the militants many of who relocated to Nahr al-Bared and joined Fatah al-Islam. Saad Hariri, the son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, is the head the anti-Syrian “Future Movement” the largest member of the “Rafik Hariri Martyr List” which won a majority of the seats in the July 2005 parliamentary elections. A Damascus Connection? Along with al Zarqawi, a Jordanian court sentenced al Abssi to death in absentia for his involvement in the October 28, 2002 assassination of American diplomat Laurence Foley outside his home in Amman. According to court papers, al Abssi helped Foley’s assassin with money, logistics and training. Abssi told The New York Times, “I don’t know what Foley’s role was but I can say that any person that comes to our region with a military, security or political aim, then he is a legitimate target.” After serving three years, from 2003 to 2006, in a Syrian prison on charges of planning a terrorist attack inside that country, Abssi’s early release raised the possibility of a deal with the Syrian intelligence services. Leaving Syria, Abssi headed to northern Lebanon where he initiated attacks on the Lebanese police before sparking the current siege on the Nahr el-Bared camp. Fatah al-Islam, also stands accused of two February 13, 2007 bus bombing in the Christian area of Lebanon. Certainly, all Lebanese parties and media affiliated in the anti-Syria movement have blamed Fatah al-Islam’s rise on Syria. Steven A. Cook, a Council on Foreign Relations Middle East scholar, believes that Lebanon’s Fatah al-Islam experience “…lead to broader clashes between different ethnic and sectarian groups and stir up further trouble within the Palestinian refugee camps, which could all provide a means for Syria to further its own ambition of reestablishing hegemony in Lebanon.” Fatah al-Islam has been referred to as a tool for Syria to instigate violence in the region in order to derail UN efforts to set up a tribunal on the pending investigation into Rafik Hariri’s 2005 assassination by car bomb. “Syria is using its usual political intimidation tactics (through its militant proxies) to drive the point home that any actions taken by Lebanese officials against Syrian interests will not go unpunished,” according to a May 2007 analysis by the online intelligence service Stratfor. To bolster Siniora’s government, the U.S. government pledged financial support for humanitarian and reconstruction aid. In an August 2006 State Department Briefing, Ambassador Randall L. Tobias said, “President Bush announced more than $230 million in humanitarian, reconstruction and security assistance to Lebanon to support the rebuilding of people’s lives, livelihoods, and communities - more than $55 million of which is already on the ground in Lebanon.” According to a May 25 Reuters report, “…the U.S. Congress agreed on $770 million in new funds for Lebanon, of which more than a third is for military aid. The United States will also be leveraging the private sector and other economic incentives to support Lebanon,” Tobias announced at an August 31, 2006 Conference for Lebanon’s Early Recovery. “A democratic, secure, and prosperous Lebanon is in the best interest of the entire global community. Indeed, it is our best defense against the recurrence of instability and war. The United States dedicates itself to this outcome and asks that the other participants in this conference do so as well.” “The fall of the Siniora government would be seen as a signal in the Middle East of the decline of the United States and the ascendancy of the terrorism threat,” Leslie H. Gelb, a past president of the Council on Foreign Relations told The New Yorker, March 5, 2007. Lebanon’s growing threat from Fatah al-Islam threatens to disturb Siniora’s already weakened reign through Hezbollah’s uprising, therefore further quelling the lingering hope of a stable and secure Lebanon. If Lebanon’s violent factions overtake its currently democratic authorities, little hope remains for Lebanon’s cooperation with America and the prospect of quiet along the Israeli-Lebanon border. By JINSA Editorial Assistant Sybil Ottenstein.
MEDIA INQUIRIES PROGRAMNETWORKSFox News - AustinFox News - AustinCNN
RADIO STATIONSRadio Free EuropeIrish National Radio Wide AngleABC Radio- Australia
MAGAZINESKiplingerKiplingerKiplinger
NEWSPAPERSShreveport Times
ELECTRONIC NEWSReuters
TRADE PUBLICATIONS
OTHER TOTAL NO. OF INTERVIEWS
MEDIA COVERAGE EXPERTNETWORKSFox News- O'Reilly FactorCNN- Situation Room Peter
BLOGS
RADIO STATIONSVoice of America GeorgeVoice of America George
ELECTRONICStuff.com- New Zealand *Reuters reprintThe Trumpet.comUPIEarthtimes.org *UPI reprintMonsters and Critics *UPI reprintAsia News.itReuters FredBoston Globe *Reuters reprint FredThe Trumpet.comMarket Oracle *Mauldin reprint GeorgeFx Street *Mauldin reprint GeorgeThe Trumpet.comRegistan.netThe Herald- UKDaily Times- Pakistan KamranPress Trust of IndiaDaily News and Analysis- India *PTI reprintDeccan Herald *PTI reprintZee News *PTI reprintSifyEconomic Times- India *PTI reprintTimes of India *PTI reprintInternational Reporter *Sify reprintIndo Asian News Service (IANS)Earthtimes.org *IANS reprintNewspost India *IANS reprintNew Kerala *IANS reprintMonsters and Critics *IANS reprintIndian Muslims *IANS reprintMangalorean.com *IANS reprintNewindpress.com *PTI reprintAssam TribuneHindustan Times *Assam Tribune reprintThe Trumpet.comIndia Interacts.com *IANS reprintChosun Ilbo- Korea *VOA reprintPayvand- Iran *VOA reprintTelegraph- IndiaSydney Morning HeraldNew York Times- Kaplan piece
Free Internet Press *NYT reprintAmerican Daily *Greg Reeson reprintNew By Us *Greg Reeson reprintInternational Herald Tribune *NYT reprint
NEWSPAPERSToronto StarAustralian George
MAGAZINES/JOURNALSBusiness Day- South Africa
TOTALS
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS EVENTSPEAKER
SPEAKER
TOTAL NO. OF ENGAGEMENTS
STRATFOR EXPERT
PeterRodger
KamranGeorge
LaurenNate
Fred
HEADLINE
SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR 8:21 PM EST- IMPACTSHOW: THE SITUATION ROOM 5:00 PM EST
C43
Julie Shen: Fox News Network September 17, 2007 Monday SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR 8:21 PM EST Impact BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly GUESTS: Wesley Clark SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 1327 words O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight, General Wesley Clark has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. And yesterday, wrote a very interesting article about the USA versus Iran for "The Washington Post." The general joins us now. He is author of the brand-new book called, "A Time to Lead for Duty, Honor, and Country." And we'll get to that book in a moment. But first, I want to know what you think about Petraeus getting hammered by Moveon. GEN. WESLEY CLARK, "A TIME TO LEAD": Well, first of all, I like Dave Petraeus. O'REILLY: You know him pretty well? CLARK: I think he worked for me. O'REILLY: Right. CLARK: I think he's very smart. I think he's highly motivated. I think he's very loyal. I think he's doing the best he could do. O'REILLY: Honest guy? CLARK: I think he'd never say something that he didn't believe was totally accurate. OK? O'REILLY: Good. CLARK: So I mean, that's Dave Petraeus. O'REILLY: All right, but when you see Moveon, which is intertwined with the Democratic party, and you are a Democrat, say Betray Us, I mean, you must have reacted to that? CLARK: I didn't like that. They didn't come to me. If they'd come to me, I would have stopped that instantly. That's just way beyond the balance. O'REILLY: OK. CLARK: It's a tremendous distraction from what we should be talking about. O'REILLY: Oh, it killed, pardon the pun, the Democratic momentum in the war in Iraq debate. It just knocked it down, because it was so offensive. But the far left loons... CLARK: But it's not about partisanship, Bill. O'REILLY: I tried to warn you about this the last time we talked. Because you know, you took money from Soros. And I tried to tell you, because I'm looking out for you. CLARK: No, you're not... O'REILLY: You're not going back on this, are you? CLARK: I'm not. O'REILLY: But you know I'm looking out for you. And I told you don't hang out... CLARK: I know you're looking out for me... O'REILLY: ...with the far left. CLARK: ...but that's a lot different than taking care of me. I know you're watching... O'REILLY: General, don't hang out with the far left. Nothing good can come from it. CLARK: Well, let me tell you something. I stand on my own two feet. I'm a big boy. I've been around this place a long time. And I know national security. I also know that, you know, when you're a high level commander... O'REILLY: Right. CLARK: ...you're responsible up the chain of command for performance just like I was to President Clinton and Secretary Bill... O'REILLY: You're also responsible for the lives of your troops. CLARK: It's a job. And you got to take care of the troops. O'REILLY: You're responsible for the lives of the troops. CLARK: Yes. You have to be loyal to the chain of command. O'REILLY: I looked through your book. And you say something very interesting, that war has to be the very last resort. CLARK: Right. O'REILLY: You and I agree very, very much on that. CLARK: OK. O'REILLY: But I think you may agree with me when the Iraq War isn't about Iraq anymore. It's about Iran. Now Stratfor, do you know Stratfor? CLARK: I do. O'REILLY: OK. Very good. They're very good. CLARK: They're very good, but they're not always right. I've seen a lot... O'REILLY: No, but nobody is. CLARK: ...that I don't agree with. O'REILLY: Even I'm lost sometimes. Yes. CLARK: So you quote them, but I'm not accepting them as the final authority... O'REILLY: OK. Their quote is, "Iran cannot consolidate its gains in Iraq with the continued U.S. threat of war across its border, especially with the nuclear issues still in play. So basically, and I believe this. I believe that we're not fighting Iraq so much now as Iran. Weigh in on that. CLARK: I agree with that. In fact, that's what I have been saying, Bill, including on your show the last time I was here, I told you we needed diplomacy in that region. You called it a chap. I called it a diplomatic offensive. We need to go through and sort out all of the different angles of interest and influence. Iran has put a huge move on us in Iraq, political, economic, diplomatic, military. They've got cultural missions. They've got sports missions. They've got medical missions going in there. And we're trying to win it all with the hearts and minds through the American soldier. O'REILLY: All right. CLARK: It won't work. O'REILLY: You know there have been talks in Switzerland between the U.S. government and the Iranians. And I want there to be, as I put it, chats, as many as possible to try to deintensify the situation. But there must be a plan B. There has to be a plan B if the mullahs are going to push it to the limit. And you know, we have Americans, most of them on the right now, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, saying we got to get every soldier out of the Gulf. We got to get out of there right now. You don't subscribe to that? CLARK: No, I don't. No, no. We're going to be in there for a long time, in that region. Now what we've got to do in Iran is, with respect to Iran, is we've got to bring the full elements of U.S. power to play. I keep hearing people in the White House say we don't have enough leverage against Iran. And we're the most powerful country in the world. O'REILLY: OK, but this isn't a specific... CLARK: We've got total leverage against Iran. O'REILLY: Say you were President Wesley Clark. And you may be the vice presidential nominee by the way. CLARK: Well, I don't... O'REILLY: See, Hillary Clinton... CLARK: ...that has nothing to do with this. O'REILLY: Look, general, don't give me the humble business. I'm going to tell you. Hillary Clinton putting you as the second on the ticket, number one, gets a military guy in there because people are going to suspect her terror warrior cred. All right? And number two, you know, you got credibility. So you may be the VP. CLARK: So you mean I'd be the FOX nominee on the Democrat... O'REILLY: No, I'm not endorsing you. CLARK: Oh, you're not even going to endorse me now? O'REILLY: No, I don't endorse anybody. CLARK: I thought you were looking out for me? O'REILLY: I am. But that's why I'm not endorsing you. Because if I endorse you, she wouldn't do it. I am looking out for you. OK? But you could be. All right, so you -- then all of a sudden, you're president. We got a minute left. You're going to tell Iran if they don't -- if they're not reasonable about the nuke weapon and about killing U.S. soldiers in the Gulf, you're going to do what? CLARK: No options off the table. And they've got to understand it. One of the problems you have with people in leadership positions in these countries is they become arrogant. They think they're secure. They look at the United States. No, the Americans won't do it. Milosevic thought we wouldn't bomb. When we bombed, he thought we'd quit. When we didn't quit, he thought he wouldn't be effective. Finally, the Russians came to him and said you've got to get out of this. They're going to invade you. And Milosevic finally gave in. We've got to have leverage over Iran. And you can't get it without talking. O'REILLY: All right. Bucking and then no obvious -- if you don't... CLARK: No options off the table... O'REILLY: ...something bad may happen to you. All right, buy the general's book. Very interesting. And you got to promise, if you are the VP, you got to come back and talk to me, all right? CLARK: Well, I don't have to wait for that. Don't think about that. O'REILLY: All right, you're welcome anyway. There you go. CLARK: You can have me any time you want to talk to me. O'REILLY: All right. And here are the results of our billoreilly.com poll. We asked you do you believe General Petraeus? Do you believe the man, yes or no? 97 percent and 35,000 of you voted, said yes, we believe him. 3 percent are doubters. Plenty more ahead as "The Factor" moves along this evening. What do Hogan's Heroes and the Wizard of Oz have in common? They both star in the great American culture quiz tonight. And chaos at the Emmys. FOX had to bleep Sally Field and Ray Romano. We'll tell you why. And we hope you stay tuned for those reports.
C44
Julie Shen: CNN September 18, 2007 Tuesday SHOW: THE SITUATION ROOM 5:00 PM EST State Department's Inspector General Accused of Blocking Embarrassing Investigations; College Student Tasered BYLINE: Wolf Blitzer, Ed Henry, Brian Todd, Jack Cafferty, Jeanne Meserve, Kelli Arena, Ed Lavandera GUESTS: Bill Maher SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7566 words HIGHLIGHT: Henry reports on the allegations of fraud against the State Department's inspector general. Todd reports the latest on the tension between the United States and Iran. WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And to our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM. Happening now, his their job is to keep them honest. But the State Department's inspector general is now accused of blocking investigations that could embarrass the Bush administration. Democrats and the White House are in a tug of war over fraud allegations. A college student gets zapped with a taser and arrested while nagging a visiting senator. He's out of jail, but the fallout only just beginning. And is Hillary Clinton too soft on the war in Iraq? Is Barack Obama tough enough to be president? I'll ask the host of HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher," the comedian Bill Maher -- he's standing by live. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM. …. America's intelligence chief today asked Congress for more authority to eavesdrop and collect information, warning of stepped up spying by both Russia and China. Let's go straight to our justice correspondent, Kelli Arena. It sounds like the bad, old days at the height of the cold war -- Kelli. KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It sure does, Wolf. You know, the nation's top intelligence official warned Congress not to look at the threat to the U.S. too narrowly. He says that there's a lot more threatening our country than just terrorism. (BEGIN VIDEO TAPE) ARENA (voice-over): As if Al Qaeda and Iraq weren't enough, let's add our cold war adversaries back into the mix. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell says Russia and China are aggressively spying on the United States, threatening national security. In his words, "Their efforts are approaching cold war level." PETER ZEIHAN, STRATFOR.COM: Both in the case of Russia and China, you've got increasing capability married to an increasing desire for their own political purposes to get information from the United States. ARENA: So what's China after? Well, experts say technology for its businesses and military. Dozens of Chinese nationals have been charged of passing secrets while living in the United States; most recently, former defense engineer, Chi Mak. The FBI even went so far as to place ads in Chinese language newspapers asking for tips on so-called "subversive elements." RUDY GUERIN, FORMER FBI COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE: It's not just New York and Los Angeles. It's everywhere. It's all 50 states. And wherever the research and development is, that's where you'll find the threat. ARENA: As for Russia, experts say it wants to regain superpower status. To do that, they say its president, a former KGB operative, is focusing mightily on rebuilding the country's intelligence arm. ZEIHAN: They believe that they're dealing with state survival. ARENA: Experts say the war on terror has shifted resources away from counterintelligence and we're paying the price. The most recent espionage report to Congress states that spying has eroded the U.S. military's advantage and undercut the U.S. economy. (END VIDEO TAPE) ARENA: Well, Wolf, we did reach out to the Russian embassy for comment. But calls there were not returned. A Chinese embassy spokesman says allegations of spying are totally groundless -- back to you. BLITZER: But they never acknowledged they spy. ARENA: That's correct. BLITZER: Nobody spies, basically. But they all do. Thanks very much, Kelli, for that.
Western Frustration with Iran Fuels War TalkIran Bids For Regional Influence Amid Turmoil in Iraq
Apec costs Australia millionsWhy the World Is Taking Note of TurkeyAnalysis: Nigeria to mimic Saudi Arabia? Analysis: Nigeria to mimic Saudi Arabia?
Nigeria to mimic Saudi Arabia?Putin plays the new ‘Lord of the Rings’
Mexico oil bomb rebels in political, personal fightMexico oil bomb rebels in political, personal fight
Germany on the Rise, Merkel on the WaneWar on Terror, Iraq, Psychology and Time
War, Psychology and Time − Outside the Box Special EditionPutin: Destroying and Rebuilding Government
The ‘Distilled Lunacy’ of Osama bin LadenWhat’s the story with... The cost of pasta?BB’s decision to return widely welcomed
ULFA outsourcing suicide attacks: US think tankULFA outsourcing suicide attacks: Think tankULFA outsourcing operations: US think tank
ULFA outsourcing suicide attacks'ULFA outsourcing suicide attacks: US think tank
ULFA operating with Islamic Militants for suicide attacks?New Delhi can't afford to ignore ULFA for long: US think tankNew Delhi can't afford to ignore ULFA for long: US think tank
New Delhi Can't Afford To Ignore ULFA For Long: US Think TankNew Delhi can't afford to ignore ULFA for long: US think tankNew Delhi can't afford to ignore ULFA for long: US think tankNew Delhi can't afford to ignore ULFA for long: US think tankNew Delhi can't afford to ignore ULFA for long: US think tank
ULFA outsourcing suicide attacks: US think tankULFA close to Islamic ultras; US group
ULFA CLOSE TO ISLAMIC ULTRAS; US GROUPWhat to Watch With an Islamic Turkish President
New Delhi can't afford to ignore ULFA for long: US think tankWestern Frustration with Iran Fuels War TalkWestern Frustration with Iran Fuels War Talk
Selvi word of cautionBeware of the protectors
Lost at Sea
C55
Julie Shen: http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-20-voa5.cfm Voice of America News September 20, 2007 Western Frustration with Iran Fuels War Talk SECTION: VOA ENGLISH SERVICE LENGTH: 739 words DATELINE: Washington The French foreign minister sparked an uproar recently when he said the world should brace for a possible war with Iran. The statement about a possible military confrontation with Iran fueled expressions of concern from Russia and China. VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports that the French diplomat's statement mirrors frustration with Iran in other Western capitals, particularly in Washington. Ken Katzman, an Iran analyst with the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, says Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was voicing the fear that the Bush administration may be tempted to take military action against Iran. "They are sensing from the Bush administration a growing frustration that if these sanctions are not ratcheted up dramatically and quickly, that there is going to be this pressure for military action coming from within the administration, and that President Bush might ultimately decide on such action," said Katzman. "So I think that's what you're seeing in Paris right now." The U.S., along with other powers on the U.N. Security Council, claims Iran seeks to become a nuclear weapons power. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. Negotiations between Iran and the European Union have faltered, and two sets of sanctions imposed by the Security Council have failed to deter Tehran. In addition, the United States accuses Iran's Revolutionary Guards of arming, funding, and training some of the insurgents in Iraq. In recent months, Washington has been swamped by rumor, speculation, and news stories, attributed to unnamed sources, of possible U.S. military action against Iran. The rumor mill has been fed by the harsh rhetoric from the Bush administration about Iran. Alex Vatanka, a security analyst with Jane's Information Group, says the rhetorical escalation masks two parallel debates: one within the Bush administration about what to do about Iran, and a corresponding one in Tehran about how to respond to the U.S. "While there is no clear-cut decision on how to tackle Iran, at the very least the U.S. wants to maintain a public pressure on the Iranians and feed that debate that's going on in Iran," he said. "And there's a very lively debate going on in Iran about what actions they should take vis-a-vis the U.S. about Iraq, about the nuclear issue. Neoconservatives inside and outside the U.S. administration are pushing for tough action against Iran to both cut its alleged meddling in Iraq and stop its nuclear program. Other officials want to pile on new sanctions and increase diplomatic pressure to contain Iran. Michael Ledeen, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute who has close ties to the Bush administration, dismisses sanctions as ineffective and negotiations with Tehran as a waste of time. Ledeen, who just published a book entitled "The Iranian Time Bomb," says he does not support military action against Iran, but says the U.S. should be fomenting regime change internally. "I want to support revolution," he said. "If it worked with the Soviet Union, why wouldn't it work with Iran?" But David Isenberg, a senior analyst with the British American Security Information Council, says Ledeen's book sees war as the end option if internal regime change fails. "It really doesn't come right out and say, 'bomb that,' [but] the language is such that is kind of leads fairly close to inexorably that, well, yes, that is probably what we will ultimately have to do, although, yes, we'll fund the domestic political opposition first and see if we can do something with that," said Isenberg. Stories were leaked to American media that the Bush administration was considering putting Iran's Revolutionary Guards on the list of sponsors of terrorism. However, no such move has actually been made. George Friedman, chief officer of the private intelligence firm Stratfor, says the Bush administration's policy for now, at least, is to keep Iran off balance. "What we are signaling to the Iranians, however, is that the United States is prepared to go some distance militarily to punish Iran for actions that they're taking," said Friedman. "Now, that is a very serious threat if the Iranians believe it and the Americans are capable of it." But analysts add the leadership in Tehran is also keeping Washington and the Europeans off balance with the unanswered question of how, and where, Iran might retaliate against any military action.
C56
Julie Shen: http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-21-voa10.cfm Iran Bids For Regional Influence Amid Turmoil in Iraq By Gary Thomas Washington 21 September 2007 Thomas report (mp3) - Download 1.08MB audio clip Listen to Thomas report (mp3) audio clip The U.S.-led ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq had the side effect of removing Iran's biggest enemy. But things have not gone as smoothly in post-Saddam Iraq as the U.S. had hoped. U.S. officials have complained in recent months of Iranian aid to Iraqi insurgents. VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports on Iran's bid for greater influence in the Middle East. The subject of growing Iranian influence has increasingly crept into official U.S. pronouncements on Iraq, including the most recent ones of President Bush. "If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened," he said. "Al-Qaida could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply." George Friedman, chief executive officer of the private intelligence firm Stratfor, says that with political progress in Iraq stalled and sectarian violence continuing, the U.S. emphasis there has shifted from democracy promotion to containing Iran. "We are still committed to maintaining a coalition government in Baghdad and providing security for it," said Friedman. "But as it becomes less and less tenable to achieve those goals, we start looking at what Iraq looks like after. And what Iraq looks like after this strategy is a country that is likely to be dominated by the Iranians. So we're moving toward an Iran strategy." From 1980 to 1988, Iran fought a bloody war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq that killed up to an estimated 1.5 million people. In 2003, the U.S. got rid of Iran's worst enemy by deposing Saddam Hussein, a move which, analysts say, opened up the door for Iran to become the dominant power in the region. Friedman says Iran believes its war with Iraq makes Iraq a legitimate security issue for Tehran. "Iraq is a matter of fundamental national interest for Iran," said Friedman. "The fought a very long, bitter war with Iraq in the 1980s. Iran took a million casualties. And the single most important issue for Iran is never to repeat that experience. The American view is that Iran represents a regional threat, and we have to stop them." Michael Ledeen, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute with close ties to the Bush Administration, denies that Iran has any legitimate security interest in Iraq. He believes that the U.S. should have toppled the government in Tehran before tackling Iraq. "We made a mistake in Iraq by failing to recognize that as soon as we set foot in Iraq the Iranians and Syrians and Saudis were going to come after us there," said Ledeen. "That was a true failure of strategic vision. And we should have supported revolution in Iran before going after Saddam Hussein, both because it was the strategically sound thing to do, and because if you're going to wage war against state sponsors of terrorism, Iran for decades now has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism." Neighboring states of the Persian Gulf, like the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But Alex Vatanka, a security analyst with Jane's Information Group who just returned from the Gulf region, says that privately, Gulf leaders are more worried about Iranian ambitions than the U.S. presence. "The message you hear is, how do we know that the Americans are not going to leave the region and leave us here to face the Iranian threat by ourselves? And I think that's where you have the nuance come in. That's where they don't talk as hawkishly [publicly] as they do privately. Publicly they know they can't anger Iran as much just in the event that the U.S. was not there to protect them," said Vatanka. Wayne White, a former deputy director of State Department intelligence, says the Gulf States fear that if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, they will be dragged into a sectarian conflict in Iraq in which they would have to support their fellow Sunni Arabs while Iran backs its Shia proxies. He says that would put Syria, Iran's chief regional ally, in an awkward position. "She [Syria] has a strategic alliance with Iran, the only alliance she has," said White. "What does she do? Does she sit it out? If Sunni Arabs are being very badly brutalized in the context of ethno-sectarian cleansing in the country, and [President Bashir] Assad tries to sit this thing out, Syria is very much a majority Sunni Arab country, and there's going to be tremendous pressure on him to do something to support the Sunni Arabs." The top military commander in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, embarked on a 10-day trip to Persian Gulf states on Saturday. He told the Associated Press he is not looking for a new NATO-type alliance against Iran. But, he adds, Gulf states should be united against any Iranian regional ambitions.
C60
Julie Shen: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/eveningstandard/4196917a6408.html Apec costs Australia millions Reuters | Monday, 10 September 2007 As Asia-Pacific leaders jetted home with yet another Apec souvenir to stuff into their "funny shirt" closet, folks back home may well ask: "So what did you get out of that meeting besides the outback raincoat?". Host Australia shelled out $A300 ($NZ364.07) million to accommodate the 21 leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Sydney, whose disgruntled residents were subjected to the biggest security operation in the country's history. But leaders did come bearing gifts for Prime Minister John Howard, who is widely expected to call an election this week - a $US45 billion gas export deal with China, uranium sales to Russia, top-secret military technology from the United States. Much to the chagrin of green groups, non-environmentalist Howard burnished his legacy with a "Sydney Declaration", signing up Apec members to an "aspirational target" for cutting greenhouse gases. It's voluntary and non-binding, so no worries for Apec, which includes some of the world's biggest polluters. Green groups immediately dismissed the "Sydney distraction" as so much hot air adding to the warming of the globe. Critics say Apec has lost its focus on economics and trade by meandering into the fields of security and now the environment. But some analysts say that may be the price of its success. "Apec is more important now than ever, and though its role in some realms remains modest - security is the most glaring example - in other areas it is emerging as the global decision-making body," the security analysis website Stratfor.com said. "Apec's growing power is most clearly on display when it tackles issues such as climate change and consumer product safety." So, when the Apec leaders, whose countries account for more than half of global trade, came out with a strong endorsement of compromises on farm subsidies and industrial tariffs that negotiators are working on in Geneva, it must have been music to World Trade Organisation chief Pascal Lamy's ears. For the past two decades, Apec has been quietly crafting some of the most important rules for global commerce. At the Sydney meeting it completed three more chapters for a model free trade agreement that can be rolled out anywhere along the Pacific rim. Apec also offers an unparalleled public relations platform to push pet projects and causes - and to network like crazy. US President George W Bush, who stopped off in Iraq on his way to Sydney, took every opportunity to defend the unpopular war. And to bolster the election fortunes of Howard, one of the most steadfast supporters of the war. "They refer to the Prime Minister around here as a battler," Bush said this week. "I know why: he's courageous, he's wise, he's determined." Russian President Vladimir Putin stopped off in Jakarta on the way to Apec to seal a $US1 ($NZ1.47) billion arms deal with Indonesia by way of advertising that Russia is back in the geopolitical game in Asia, after taking a long sabbatical from the Cold War. "The main outcome of the summit is that Russia has significantly upgraded its status in the grouping and in the region," a senior diplomat in the Russian delegation said. But China's Hu Jintao kept a relatively low profile, belying predictions that Beijing is big-footing Apec, founded in Canberra in 1989 with backing from the United States to push an Asia-Pacific free trade agenda. Hu issued the usual stern warnings about Taiwan's leanings toward independence. But mostly he seemed keen to reassure his Asia-Pacific neighbours that Beijing, grappling with a series of product recalls ranging from toys to toothpaste, took product safety "very seriously". China's foreign ministry spokesman said Beijing did not have any larger ambitions in Apec. "On this issue, China definitely does not seek any kind of an important role, or to gain some kind of a leadership position," spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Sydney. Howard had enthused that Apec would make Australia "the centre of the universe in our region", but a comedy troupe stunt during Apec might have been the most-watched story overseas. Posing as the Canadian delegation, members of ABC TV's The Chaser show drove a "motorcade" through two checkpoints to within metres of Bush's hotel - one of them made up to look like Osama bin Laden, and the designation "Insecurity" written on their convention passes. Police arrested 11 of them.
C61
Julie Shen: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4254.2471.0.0 Why the World Is Taking Note of Turkey September 12, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com Turkish voters have elected a former Islamist as president. Here’s why many nations are asking: just how significant is this? By Joel Hilliker When Turkish voters elected a former Islamist as president August 28, it highlighted the complex geopolitical riddle unfolding in modern Turkey. Turkey is a nation with a split identity. The nation’s population is almost wholly Muslim, but its constitution is staunchly secular. It is a democracy and a constitutional republic, yet since 1960 its military leaders have overthrown four duly elected governments for being too religious. It is anchored to the Middle East as a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, yet welded to the West within the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. On top of that, a pillar in Turkey’s foreign policy for a generation has been its bid for membership in the European Union. The new president, Abdullah Gul, is right at the center of this puzzle. He was a cabinet member in one of the ousted Islamic governments in the 1990s—yet he has been a leading supporter of his nation’s EU membership application. His devotion to Europe certainly placates the nation’s generals and military commanders, but his religion still chafes against their fierce loyalty to the secularist ideals institutionalized in 1923 by the nation’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The stickiness of Gul’s ascension to the presidency showed in two conspicuous absences at his swearing-in ceremony: Gul’s Muslim wife (who would have been breaking Turkish law by entering a public building wearing her Islamic headscarf) and Turkey’s military leaders (who are probably still wrestling over whether to expel the new president). Outside these domestic tensions, nations across the globe are contemplating the implications of an Islamic Turkish presidency. That is because for all its contradictions, Turkey is shaping up to be an extremely significant global player. After decades of relative insular quiet since the Ottoman Empire collapsed at the end of World War i, the nation is enjoying an impressive geopolitical surge. As the globe increasingly fractures into regional blocs—the United States, the Middle East, Europe, Asia—Turkey remains a distinct entity whose value to all of these powers is rapidly rising. Let’s examine three reasons Turkey is warranting so much global interest. First, its economy is on fire—it is one of the fastest-growing on Earth. Since 2002, under the leadership of the Justice and Development Party, to which Gul belongs, the economy has transformed. It is now the largest Muslim economy, and the largest in the region. Turkey is a member of the G-20, a gathering of the world’s 20 largest economies. In addition, it is playing its cards wisely, reducing restrictions on trade with Muslim states while cultivating relationships with European and other nations at the same time. As Dr. George Friedman put it, “The ability of Greece, Armenia, Syria, Iraq and Iran to remain hostile to Turkey decreases as the Turkish economy grows. Ideology and history are very real things, but so is the economic power of a dynamic economy” (Stratfor, July 31). Of course, a large Turkish economy means a large Turkish military. Already it is nato’s second-largest armed force after the U.S., with over 1 million uniformed personnel. This fact has several ramifications regarding the balance of power in the Middle East and elsewhere. Second, Turkey is comfortably stepping into a ready-made role as a vital energy hub linking Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia. This is one of the most geographically strategic nations in the world—a literal bridge between continents. On its west, Turkey borders Greece and Bulgaria—EU nations; on its south, Syria, Iraq and Iran—Middle Eastern Muslim states; and on its east, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan—former Soviet republics. It connects to the Mediterranean, Black and Aegean seas, and encompasses the vital Bosporus and Dardanelles sea gates, linking Central Asia to the Mediterranean. In a world increasingly driven by energy politics, its unique location translates into valuable energy transit routes for more and more nations. With Russia aggressively taking over global oil and natural gas markets, uncomfortable customers, particularly Europe, are actively seeking energy from other sources. Turkey is in the right place at the right time, with major oil pipelines being built across its soil, circumventing Russian territory altogether. Turkey is proving itself a worthy middleman for energy from not only former Soviet republics Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, but also Iraq and Iran. In addition, Turkey, in conjunction with foreign investors and companies, is building new oil refineries, which will increase its worth even more. Analysts say the nation’s refining capacity should double within only a few years. This reality seems tailor-made to suit Turkey’s foreign-policy interests, because the entity hungriest for non-Russian energy happens to be the very one Turkey has been working so hard to pretty itself up for: Europe. To this point, Ankara’s designs on becoming European—in the works since 1959—have been repeatedly rebuffed and postponed. Turkey hopes that becoming an energy bridge to the Continent will finally convince the EU to return the love. Naturally, the whole situation also deeply concerns Russia, whose monopolistic energy tendencies are undercut by Turkey’s activities. (Moscow is also irked by any shift toward Islamism around Central Asia, which, it could be argued, the Turkish election was. Russia is robustly fighting a strong Islamist incursion on its southwestern border, particularly against Muslim separatists in Chechnya. It has proof that Turkey financially supported and trained Chechen terrorists in their struggle for independence. So Turkey is already on Russia’s bad side.) A third reason for Turkey’s growing significance is its role in the unfolding drama surrounding the future of Iraq. The two primary external players—the U.S. and Iran—both need Turkey’s cooperation in order to resolve the crisis in a manner suited to their own national interests. This gives Ankara heavy leverage with both. The Iraq war has created problems for Turkey. Since the late 1970s, it has struggled with a restive Kurdish population in its southeast region, driven by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (pkk). This terrorist group seeks to carve an independent Kurdish state out of territory in southeast Turkey, as well as parts of Syria, Iraq and Iran. Whatever differences these four nations have, they are united in their determination to stop Kurdistan from materializing. The fact that the U.S. emboldened the Iraqi Kurds by eliminating Saddam Hussein rocked the alliance between Turkey and the U.S.—and simultaneously strengthened the historically wary relationship between Ankara and Tehran. The U.S. is in a tight spot. The Kurds have been the friendliest of any faction in Iraq, and the U.S. doesn’t want to turn its back on them. But in practical terms, as it contemplates reducing its presence in Iraq, Washington’s primary concern is to try to prevent Iran from simply taking over—not just Iraq but virtually the entire Middle East. In Turkey, it sees the closest thing it has to a regional counterbalance to Iran. So we can expect to see the U.S. looking for ways to demonstrate solidarity with Turkey as it contemplates troop withdrawals. At the same time, Iran will surely seek to cement its new rapport with the one power that could check its own regional ambitions. And you can be sure that any move in that direction will make Israel nervous, with whom Turkey has enjoyed an enormously important strategic partnership for some years. So, how might Abdullah Gul’s election—and even more, the new reality that “for the first time since the founding of the Turkish republic more than 80 years ago, a political force rooted in Islamism essentially controls all of the key civilian institutions of the state,” in the words of Stratfor (August 29)—affect these various situations? This is the question on the minds of several national leaders—including, quite notably, those in the U.S., the European Union, Central Asia, Russia, Iraq, Iran and Israel. It is certainly worthy of contemplation, and has serious global ramifications. The Trumpet will take up the question in a future article. •
C62
Julie Shen: http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2007/09/13/analysis_nigeria_to_mimic_saudi_arabia/1821/ Analysis: Nigeria to mimic Saudi Arabia? Published: Sept. 13, 2007 at 1:58 PM By CARMEN GENTILE UPI Energy Correspondent Nigeria is keen on creating a state-owned petroleum firm modeled after Saudi Arabia’s Aramco, according to the country’s energy minister who acknowledged Nigeria is a long way away from rivaling the Middle East oil giant. Odein Ajumogobia called Aramco, which exercises full control of Saudi oil reserves, Nigeria’s “goal of where we would like to be.” Nigeria’s energy minister, who only assumed his new post six weeks ago, said foreign oil and gas firms operating in the Niger Delta had different objectives for the country than the Nigerian government. He also said there was a "misalignment between our national aspirations as a country and the commercial objectives” of those foreign firms operating in the delta, home to Nigeria’s vast petroleum reserves. Ajumogobia’s call for a new way forward for the energy sector followed the recent decision to break down its state-run oil company into five entities in an effort to become more efficient and profitable, while curtailing corruption. The new entity will replace the Nigerian National Petroleum Co. with the Nigerian Petroleum Co., which analysts say will function more like a state-owned oil firm rather than a government agency. Nigeria’s current petroleum regulator has suffered from chronic capital shortfalls and been the subject of much scrutiny over its falling output. NNPC was reportedly $1.6 billion short in meeting its 2006 expenses and had to be propped up by other sectors of the Nigerian economy though it accounts for an estimated 85 percent of the government’s revenue. Nigerian President Umaru Yar’Adua laid out a six-month plan to create NPC and its offshoots for exploration, production and export. He also appointed a national energy council to oversee the project in the coming months. While some praised his effort, others contend Yar’Adua has reorganized Nigeria’s oil and gas sectors to increase his own influence over the country’s top source of revenue. Foreign oil firms operating in Nigeria are watching the restructuring carefully for signs the Nigerian government could also seek to alter extraction and exploration agreements. The decision to restructure Nigeria’s oil and gas sectors follows a recent report showing the sector loses $14 billion a year to theft. Monetary losses incurred by the oil sector were calculated based on the estimated number of barrels of lost production due to corruption and crime, President of the Corporate Council on Africa Stephen Hayes said last month. "If you are losing 600,000 barrels a day on oil at $70 a barrel, you are losing $12 million a day on oil theft,” he said. Before stepped-up hostilities by militant and other armed groups in the Niger Delta -- home to the country’s oil and gas wealth -- began in late 2005, Nigeria claimed to be producing about 2.5 million barrels per day. Since then production has reportedly decreased by at least 20 percent, perhaps even by one-third, warn some analysts. In and around the delta’s de facto capital, Port Harcourt, a spike in violence has raised concerns about the long-term viability of doing business in the region, where foreign oil and gas operations are regularly targeted. The unidentified body of one foreign worker was discovered in the delta this week, while two of the 11 government officials kidnapped in recent days were released Wednesday. “The situation in Port Harcourt will remain unstable in the short term until Nigerian authorities can regain some level of control,” read a recent report by Stratfor consulting group. “Many companies with oil operations in the Niger Delta are based out of or supported by companies in Port Harcourt. These companies and their personnel have not been specifically targeted by the groups involved in the fighting. “However, in any unstable situation, there is always the chance that they or their personnel will get caught up in the violence.” Despite production disruptions attributed to “bunkering,” when oil and gas lines are tapped at times resulting in deadly explosions, illegal sales and violence attributed to armed gangs and militants, some Nigerians say they see a silver lining to the delta’s and Nigeria’s dilemmas. In August a leading Nigerian rights group praised Yar’Adua for his efforts to tackle corruption and violence. The Niger Delta has been a flash point for decades amid accusations of government graft and corrupt practices by foreign oil companies. -- (e-mail: [email protected])
C65
Julie Shen: http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=10295&size=A Putin plays the new ‘Lord of the Rings’ by Marta Allevato Putin confounds Russian and foreign analysts by appointing an unknown, Viktor Zubkov, to replace Prime Minister Vicktor Fradkov who unexpectedly resigned. In Russia prime ministerial appointments signal Tzar Vladimir’s intentions with regard to his succession. Observers agree that the real election campaign for 2008 has just started. Rome (AsiaNews) – For independent daily Novaya Gazeta Vladimir Putin is like a character right out of a fantasy novel, a kingpin shaking up the stage of the country’s future without showing his hand, the more so since he appointed yesterday Viktor Zubkov, chairman of the Federal Financial Monitoring Service at the Finance Ministry, to the post of Prime Minister after the old occupant Viktor Fradkov tendered his “resignation”. Like Frodo the Hobbit, Putin has the One Ring, the Great Ring of Power, dwelling in a place inhabited by orcs, trolls and gollums, uncertain whether to throw the Ring into the fire or not, but ultimately yelling: ‘I changed my mind; it’s mine.” According to editorial writer Yulia Latynina, the president is like the main protagonist in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. “The Lords of the west (the humans) are looking at him and asking themselves: Will he throw in the Ring or not?” But Novaya Gazeta’s views are not unique. Both at home and abroad many are wondering. As the surprise at Putin’s move starts to wear off, they are raising questions about next year’s presidential succession (March 2008). So far though, no one is daring to come up with an answer. What is certain, according to Russian daily Kommersant, is that Putin was the only one not caught unaware by the resignation of Fradkok and his ministers. Unlike Kremlin insiders who scratched their heads trying to figure what was going on, the president yesterday was on a routine visit to a school in the city of Cheboksary to focus public attention on national education. It makes you feel that everything had already been “thought-out.” “It's a classic Putin move in which he relishes surprising the establishment pending the real decision,” says Peter Baker of The Washington Post. Many observers were waiting to see who would get the second highest position in the Russian state before trying to guess what the president was planning since under Russia’s two-term presidency he cannot run again. Past experience showed that whoever got the prime ministership had a leg up for the presidency. Indeed this is how Putin got the job under Boris Yeltsin. However, no one expected that out of all the possible presidential wannabes waiting in the wings, Putin would pick a grey, unknown apparatchik. Most people had put their money on Defence Minister Serghei Ivanov or Deputy Prime Minister and chairman of Gazprom's board of directors Dmitry Medvedev, Why Zubkov then? Many hypotheses are flying around. For the Novaya Gazeta, which employed murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya, it is “[p]ower struggles between Kremlin clans,” which Putin wants to control. Indeed along with the new prime minister there should be new ministers, especially at the economy ministry. According to Strategic Forecasting, Putin is trying to put back together all those in the top leadership who had started to move apart. He certainly does not want the process of succession to destabilise the system he has set up, one that is based on the marginalisation of the political opposition and the exclusion of unfriendly oligarchs Others believe instead that ‘Tzar Vladimir’ wants a seat-sitter for president in view of an eventual comeback. Zubkov is in fact a bit old, 66, and is no match for Putin. Should he be elected in 2008 and then resign some time before his term in office is over, the current occupant of the Kremlin could legally run again. For now though all analysts agree that the real presidential campaign for 2008 has just started.
C66
Julie Shen: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13385133.htm Mexico oil bomb rebels in political, personal fight 13 Sep 2007 20:23:19 GMT Source: Reuters By Frank Jack Daniel MEXICO CITY, Sept 13 (Reuters) - The leftist rebels behind huge pipeline bombings in Mexico this week are from a small guerrilla group held together by family ties that has long personal and political grudges against the government. The Popular Revolutionary Army, or EPR, blew up gas and oil pipelines on Monday in their biggest attack on economic targets since emerging in mountain villages of southern Mexico in the mid-1990s to kill dozens of police. Tiburcio Cruz Sanchez, known as "The Professor," is the man the army says heads the EPR. He comes from a family of guerrillas from the southern state of Oaxaca that has been active since the 1970s. Two of his sons are in jail for bombing banks. Human rights activists say they are innocent but were arrested to hit back at the elusive Professor and his wife, who is from another small rebel dynasty. The EPR, believed to number under 1,000 members, launched a campaign of economic sabotage in July with bomb attacks on energy installations, repeated on a bigger scale this week. The latest blasts caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to state oil firm Pemex and thousands of businesses. The Marxist guerrillas' main direct demand is for the government to give up two rebels it says were taken by security forces from the streets of Oaxaca city in May. One of them, Gabriel Cruz, is The Professor's brother and had lived in hiding and under false names for 25 years. "These men are key players and they know important information about the whole movement," said veteran reporter and guerrilla expert Jose Gil Olmos. The government denies taking the two men, and says they were perhaps killed in a feud between rebel leaders, many of whom come from three overlapping families who have led guerrilla groups in southern Mexico for decades. The disappearance of the pair touched a sensitive spot for the guerrillas and brought back memories of Mexico's so-called dirty war in the 1970s, when the army 'disappeared' hundreds of people accused of being linked to rebels. CORN AND SICKLE Mexico was shocked by the scale of this week's attacks. They cut natural gas supplies to industry and halted output at most of Mexico's steel plants and companies like Volkswagen. The EPR, which calls for land reform and ultimately a socialist state, had kept a low profile for years after in-fighting and an army clampdown left the group in disarray. "They are hitting the system where it hurts," said Carlos Mendoza, who made a film about the group. "They are sending a message that they have more capacity than has been attributed to them for a long time." On its website (http://www.pdpr-epr.org/), which shows a Soviet-style sickle crossed with rural Mexican symbols of an ear of corn and a machete, the EPR outlines a goal of a socialist-style command economy. Some experts say the power of recent bombings may be a sign they have new leaders or bombmakers. "You might have a new radical, a more violent person that has stepped to the forefront," said Fred Burton, a former U.S. counter-terrorism agent who works for security consultants Stratfor. The EPR is a smaller but more aggressive group than Mexico's most famous rebels, the Zapatistas, who control territory in the southern state of Chiapas but have mostly shunned violence since they briefly took over towns in 1994. Deep poverty in rural regions and a breakdown in government intelligence gathering since Mexico ended seven decades of one-party rule in 2000 have allowed the EPR to regroup and possibly infiltrate institutions like Pemex. "The people involved are well prepared," said Gil Olmos. Since the July attacks, Mexico has deployed more army and police to guard its vast network of pipelines, which stretches for more than 8,700 miles (14,000 km), but President Felipe Calderon warns it is impossible to completely secure. Calderon launched a major offensive against powerful drug cartels when he took office last year. With intelligence agents limited, the bombings will tax already stretched resources.
C68
Julie Shen: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4193.2478.98.0 Germany on the Rise, Merkel on the Wane From the October 2007 Trumpet Print Edition » Seventeen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany is the leading power in Europe. Is its current government strong enough to hold that position? By Ron Fraser Football fever focused global attention on Germany during the first half of last year as the nation hosted the soccer World Cup tournament. This year it was the double whammy of Germany’s dual presidencies of the European Union and the G-8 (group of eight major world economies) that have placed that nation in the world spotlight. These three events have combined to strengthen a renewed national self-confidence in Germany. Commenting on Germany’s hosting of the 2006 World Cup, the German team coach Jürgen Klinsmann declared in a television interview, “This World Cup was a huge success for the team and for all of Germany. We showed the world another face of Germany” (Spiegel, July 5, 2006). Endorsing Klinsmann’s comment, the German tabloid Bild stated, “[T]he party must go on! We have to keep up the sense of renewal, the self-confidence, the good mood for our everyday lives. This was just the momentum we so urgently need to face the tough tasks ahead.” Well, it seems the party did go on. Renewed confidence in business investment has powered the German economy forward this year, substantially reducing unemployment, producing a rise in consumer spending and, despite the comparative strength of the euro, leading to a surge in sales of German products overseas. Strutting the World Stage From January to June, Germany strutted the world stage with its presidencies of the EU and the G-8. Despite achieving results far short of Chancellor Merkel’s declared expectations, the EU’s 50th anniversary celebrations in March, followed by the G-8 and EU summits in June, did give Germany widespread international media publicity. In the foreign-policy arena, through some deft maneuvering by Chancellor Angela Merkel—including cuddling up to the United States and standing up to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin—Germany’s star rose to heights unprecedented since the fall of the Berlin Wall. But there is an element currently on the rise in European politics that has historically proven dangerous for Europe and the rest of the world. Europe is once again swinging right politically. As Stratfor recently observed, “The right has yet to grasp power in Europe, but it will not be long before the conservatives consolidate their hold on the Continent” (June 8). The danger that looms as a specter from Europe’s war-torn past is that, as Stratfor continued, “A right-leaning Europe could be united under one leader, particularly since the states are brought closer together by common problems such as immigration and economic reform. But it remains to be seen which state will emerge to lead, and in what direction” (emphasis mine throughout). The most obvious contender is Germany. Regarding this possibility, Stratfor wrote, “[A] recent economic renaissance has given the country the opportunity to forge a consensus in Europe and to further its own agenda. For the first time in decades, Germany is a full and powerful member of the European community. More important, for the first time in centuries, there is no established political regime in Europe to counter German ambitions” (ibid.). Germany Speaks—Europe Reacts Stratfor has a longer memory than most of our foreign-policy merchants. Note this crucial observation of a unique fact of European history: “For now, [Germany and the U.S.] are more or less on the same page …. But do not confuse the temporary alignment of interests with a permanent state of affairs. Sure, the United States currently sees Russia as a rival and Germany as an ally. Yet this situation is an aberration in both U.S. and European affairs. All of European history is a tale of Germany either expanding or being contained” (ibid.). The big difference this time, in its third attempt within a century to achieve pan-European dominance, is that Germany has used economics, international trade and finance as the main weapons of choice, rather than force of arms. Recent examples of this are two political/economic initiatives enacted over past months and a third currently being discussed—all German ideas—that should further bind Europe together, economically and financially, under Berlin’s aegis. The first was a move by Merkel (showing more political courage than the previous chancellor, Schröder, who failed on this point) to initiate a long-overdue restructuring of Germany’s corporate tax base. The law, which significantly cut corporate taxes, passed on March 14. Stratfor called it “the latest in a string of planned and coincidental developments [most predating Merkel’s chancellorship] laying a lasting foundation for Germany’s geopolitical renaissance” (March 15). The second initiative builds on the effect of the German-instigated European means of exchange, the euro, which continues to gain strength in international trade. Further consolidating the German idea of centralized financial control, Berlin has engineered the introduction of an EU-wide unified payments system, the Single Euro Payments Area (sepa). Beginning in January of next year, all electronic payments throughout the EU and the European Free Trade Association will be considered domestic, saving the European economy an estimated 2 to 3 percent of its gross domestic product. “In terms of its dimension and significance, this revolution in European payments is comparable only to the introduction of the euro,” said Hans-Joachim Massenberg, deputy ceo of the Association of German Banks. Germany’s centralizing economic and financial agenda, through forced implementation of the single European currency, the euro, combined now with sepa, is speeding the death of the long-cherished individual national sovereignty of EU member nations. But the third initiative may be the most significant, particularly because of the manner in which it entered political discussion. The European Commission announced in July that it intends to take a hard look at threats from external sources—notably Russia and China—moving to buy up slices of European businesses. Stratfor commented, “A public musing last week by German Chancellor Angela Merkel was what prompted the Commission decision” (July 20). What was particularly startling about this was, as Stratfor observed, “the fact that the Commission so quickly took up Merkel’s idea. Merkel’s term as EU president expired June 30, yet here we are three weeks later and her off-the-cuff comments are still setting the agenda …. Fifty years later, Germany has found its voice—and possesses the gravitas to set policy without even making a request. That has got to make a few stiff European upper lips unconsciously quiver” (ibid.). Note that Stratfor speaks of Germany finding its voice. It’s not so much that Chancellor Merkel made these remarks that triggered the European Commission’s response. In fact, the signs are that Angela Merkel’s leadership of her coalition government may soon be under threat. But it was the fact that Germany spoke that moved the Commission to respond! Merkel on the Wane The chancellorship of Angela Merkel has reached its peak. Riding the wave of popularity courtesy of a sequence of foreign-policy opportunities that fell to her advantage, the German chancellor is currently one of the most popular leaders on the world scene. Her presiding over the EU and G-8 presidencies thrust her into the limelight during the first half of the year. But since mid-year, Merkel has returned to a more mundane agenda—that of keeping her coalition partners under control and her nation’s population content. Merkel set herself what many thought was an unachievable agenda for her EU presidency. It largely proved to be the case, with her almost sole success being in the area of energy policy, and the prospect of such an agreement was already a given. The energy-strapped EU is between a rock and a hard place, trying to balance its dependence on Russia’s energy sources on one hand against finding reliable sources of supply from the volatile Middle East and unreliable Africa on the other. So reaching general agreement to do something about seeking alternative sources of energy was an easy romp for Merkel. In terms of economic and social policy, Merkel was blessed with a resurgent German economy during her term as EU president, reducing discontent in both capital and labor. This permitted the chancellor the luxury of seeing much of the rest of the EU seemingly benefit from her government’s economic and social policies. When it came to obtaining a common agreement and seeking the signatures of the 27-nation EU membership on a declaration of its key values, Merkel was in for a real struggle. The wheels really started to fall off as the 50-year anniversary of the European Union drew near and no such agreement was in sight. All Merkel could achieve was a bland document, the Berlin Declaration, crafted behind closed doors by the chancellor, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and EU Parliament President Hans-Gert Pöttering, with these three as sole signatories. Hardly a satisfactory result! Merkel’s next grand opportunity to demonstrate her foreign-policy panache came just over two months later, with Germany’s hosting of the annual G-8 summit. Dovetailing her G-8 presidency with the European Union presidency gave the German leader the opportunity to influence a number of major challenges under consideration by those eight countries which together combine 65 percent of the total world economy. The U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia met under Merkel’s leadership in the German coastal resort of Heiligendamm in early June. Also present were representatives of the European Commission and five African nations. This was the type of forum at which Chancellor Merkel’s foreign-policy skills were supposed to shine. However, the results of the conference, though hailed as a success by Merkel, failed to impress many observers. A Swiss daily reported, “Angela Merkel wanted to fight poverty, give globalization a human face and stem climate change. She succeeded in none of these” (Basler Zeitung, June 8). In late June came the European Union summit that would bring to a conclusion Germany’s six-month presidency. This presented a final opportunity for Chancellor Merkel to produce a success that would place the stamp of approval on her period in the presidential office. Even before they arrived in Brussels, the contentious leaders of this unwieldy EU monolith were sounding warning bells about the disputes that would pepper this summit. The summit turned out to be a predictable debacle in many respects, especially with Poland reminding Germany that its Nazi past had reduced its population by a third, so a population-based voting system under the reform treaty would most certainly unfairly favor Germany! Frau Merkel is now back in her own national domain. And, given the fact that she topped the crest of her wave of popularity mid-year, she has now but one way to go. “‘Merkel is at the peak of her power but it can’t get any better for her,’ said Gerd Langguth, a political scientist at Bonn University and author of a biography of Merkel. ‘Germans are happy with her foreign policy but less than enthused about her performance at home, and that could be a real problem.’ With memories of her government’s unpopular health-care reform still alive in the minds of many Germans, polls show half the population disapproves of Merkel’s domestic performance—a weakness the struggling [Social Democrats] will try to exploit” (Reuters, June 25). Coalition governments in Germany historically do not last very long. If Merkel’s coalition lasts the remaining two years of its tenure, given the rumbles that already are coming from within its ranks, it will be a wonder to behold. History simply argues against it. Waiting in the Wings In the event of the Merkel coalition collapsing, there is a highly successful, politically polished, conservative Catholic premier from Bavaria whom it appears will have time on his hands following his retirement at the end of September: one Edmund Stoiber. Earlier this year in Berlin, I interviewed one of the six Bundestag vice presidents, Gerda Hasselfeldt, a member of Stoiber’s Christian Social Union (csu). I asked her about the future of a retired Stoiber. “A return to the present functions or related functions is hard for me to visualize,” she responded. “On the other hand, I also cannot imagine that he will occupy himself only with his hobby, namely soccer. … What is he really going to do afterward?” “Perhaps a European Union post?” I offered. Frau Hasselfeldt responded, “I don’t exclude that there are also interesting positions in the national or international arena to which he may bring his rich experience and also his ready vitality.” Hasselfeldt’s musings are interesting in light of a report from the Eurasia Daily Monitor, which, commenting on Stoiber’s July visit to Russia’s President Putin, observed, “Apparently, Stoiber seeks to ascend to international status as a mediator of sorts, following his scheduled retirement in September 2007 after 14 years in office” (July 9). Of special interest in regard to Stoiber mulling his future was his outspoken statements made in Moscow concerning German foreign policy. These statements publicly placed him at odds with Merkel on the issue of America’s desire to place an anti-missile defense structure in Poland and the Czech Republic. In a sign of possible things to come, the Bavarian premier declared, “The position of Germany, of its government, in any case my [Bavarian] government’s and my party’s position, is entirely clear: We are in favor of the [Russian] solution.” However, as the Monitor pointed out, “Stoiber is not known to have been authorized by the German government or by the csu to speak on their behalf, and the Bavarian government is not authorized to conduct foreign policy” (ibid.). Obviously Stoiber was not fazed by such details. His outspokenness in Moscow certainly does not indicate that retirement is on the mind of the “pit bull” of German politics! Stoiber would have loved to have had the foreign affairs post in Merkel’s coalition government, but all that was on offer from the chancellor was the sticky economics portfolio. Stoiber declined, and his domestic political star has been sinking ever since. Yet perhaps he has his eye on a higher office: the job of leading the entire European Union! “Putin coyly remarked that his secret services could not figure out why Stoiber was retiring. However, it is common knowledge that the Bavarian leader is losing his rivalry with Merkel within the main governing party and is sometimes playing spoiler against her. Apparently, Putin hopes to play on such rivalries, both within the cdu/csu and between the latter and its junior coalition partner, the Social Democrats, where Schröder-era holdovers retain a strong influence on foreign policy” (ibid.). It just so happens that the EU reform treaty that has emerged for debate from the German presidency of the EU has created two new positions, each of which may be of interest to Stoiber: an EU foreign minister, and a permanent EU president. Should Stoiber be offered the foreign minister post, it could provide an ideal platform for him to place some runs on the board to then tout for the top job of EU president at a later date. Then again, perhaps this highly successful Bavarian politician, cast in the mold of his mentor, Franz Josef Strauss, intends to take nothing less than the top job. Will Chancellor Merkel’s lasting legacy be the creation of the very office that will empower the prophesied leader of a globally dominant European power? The indications are that we may not have to wait long to find out! In the meantime, Germany’s foreign-policy initiatives are clearer as each month goes by, especially with the government signaling that it will strengthen Germany’s role in the Middle East peace process, recent moves to intervene in the dispute between Russia and the West over Kosovo, and intentions to increase German involvement in Africa. Then there’s the increasing deployment of German military forces in both combat and support roles on foreign soil. Germany’s fighting forces, contained within Germany’s borders up to the time of the Balkan wars, are now deployed in numerous theaters throughout Europe, Eurasia, the Mediterranean and Africa, not to mention their training bases in Canada and the U.S. The German High Command—which was once supposedly banished by post-World War ii leaders, never to rise again—has been reactivated. Voices within the German government are now calling for the nation to drastically increase the size of its military as a major contributor to a European armed force. All of this newfound power behind Germany’s increasingly strident political voice reminds us of an observation made by Stratfor earlier this year, at the mid-point of Germany’s presidency of the EU. Commenting on the achievements of Germany’s reconstruction since unification in 1991, Stratfor’s European analyst declared, “Taken together, these structural changes are creating a new Germany that is geographically and economically united, and politically confident—something that Europe has not seen in decades. That just leaves Germany without one other thing it has not seen in decades: a robust military” (March 15). Given the bloody history of past German “robust military” forces, much more than just stiff upper lips may quiver at the prospect of a revival of such an institution! •
C71
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4257.2482.0.0 Putin: Destroying and Rebuilding Government September 14, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com Recent developments in Moscow show precisely with whom the power rests. The Russian cabinet was dissolved on Wednesday, as Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov and his cabinet resigned. Russian President Vladimir Putin has nominated the relatively obscure Viktor Zubkov to replace Fradkov as the new prime minister. This widely anticipated move paves the way for a restructuring of the Russian government before elections early next year. Although the resignation may have been anticipated, the timing and choice of a successor has thrown commentators on Russian affairs into a frenzy of activity. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to who will succeed Putin, or even if he will step down at all. The Russian Constitution stipulates that no president can remain in office for more than two terms consecutively. While Putin has repeatedly said that he will step down at the end of this term, his second, he is so popular and has such a strong hold on Russian politics that there would be little opposition if he did try to amend the Constitution. According to Stratfor, “He has the option of remaining in power as long as he wishes and will only leave power on his own terms” (September 12). This resignation of the prime minister and cabinet reveals just how much power Putin holds. After accepting the resignations, he nominated Zubkov as the new prime minister, and within 20 minutes, the speaker for the Duma’s lower house spoke out in support of Zubkov. A senior member of United Russia, the party with the majority in the lower house, has said that Zubkov could be confirmed into office by the end of the week. The message is clear: Putin calls the shots. Putin’s latest move has caught many commentators off guard. Speculation is rife about why Putin picked Zubkov. Some say he did so because Zubkov is someone he could easily push around, even when out of office. Another theory is that Putin has not yet decided who will replace him as president, and has appointed Zubkov, a neutral, simply in order to fill a place. Others say that Putin will make Zubkov president, for a while, allowing Putin to then return as president without amending the Constitution. Whatever Putin is planning for Russia’s future, it is sure that right now he is in control. The president is working hard to ensure that his aggressive policies to build Russia up as a global power will continue into the next regime. Events are unfolding quickly—continue to watch Russia.
C72
Julie Shen: http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/09/14/the-distilled-lunacy-of-osama-bin-laden/ The ‘Distilled Lunacy’ of Osama bin Laden I had to imagine Daniel Kimmage’s tongue was planted firmly in cheek as he wrote this analysis of the latest bin Laden tape. One of the more amusing points? Osama bin Laden, the man who gained fame as the world’s leading advocate of violent religious fanaticism, turns out to be an old-fashioned, 20th-century aging leftist. An address that contains less than 2,500 words mentions “large corporations” eight times, and blames all the ills of the world on them and the “capitalist system” they represent. The warmongers killed Kennedy for trying to end Vietnam and they’re keeping America in Iraq, he claims. Capitalists are melting the polar ice caps, miring hard-working Americans in debt, and have even got the Democratic Party in their deep pockets, he suggests. And the only one who’s crying wolf in America is, according to bin Laden, American linguist and left-wing political activist Noam Chomsky. I for one still won’t read any of Chomsky’s books, in part because I don’t understand why a linguist is especially qualified to disprove capitalism or military policy. I guess that goes for crazed lunatics hiding in caves—at a certain point, you must laugh and shake your head. In case you’re wondering why the U.S. doesn’t go into the Durand badlands to capture Osama, Stratfor (yes, that Stratfor) draws up this dire scenario of just what it would require to travel into Waziristan and grab the man: The United States and Pakistan have not launched a major military operation to envelop and systematically search the entire region where bin Laden likely is hiding — an operation that would require tens of thousands of troops and likely result in heavy combat with the tribes residing in the area. Moreover, this is not the kind of operation they will take on in the future. The United States, therefore, will continue intelligence and covert special operations forces efforts, but if it is going to catch bin Laden, it will have to wait patiently for one of those operations to produce a lucky break — or for bin Laden to make a fatal operational security blunder. I dunno; I figure, if another surge is all it would take to eliminate the most important man in global terrorism, why not have just do it and be done with it? The real answer is because a surge into Waziristan would face all the problems the current war in Iraq does, including the tangled morass of tribal loyalties (this time interspersed with actual Al-Qaeda types, and not second-rate copycats) and a severe lack of local knowledge. The lesson one could draw from this tiny, ad hoc thought experiment? Simplistic answers to complex problems—a few thousand troops, for example—is precisely why the same wars we started six years ago still grind on.
Julie Shen: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C09%5C16%5Cstory_16-9-2007_pg7_2 BB’s decision to return widely welcomed * MQM willing to take to streets to receive PPP chairwoman By Khalid Hasan WASHINGTON: A large number of politicians, as well as experts and journalists were interviewed by Voice of America over the weekend and in general agreed that Benazir Bhutto’s decision to return to Pakistan would have a positive impact on political developments in the country. Makhdoom Javed Hashmi of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz called it a “very good decision”. State Information Minister Tariq Azim Khan welcomed her decision to return and confirmed that the “dialogue” between her and the government was still in progress. Federal Railways Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said the final shape of things could not be determined at this stage, as she would return after the president’s election had been completed and it would be a different political scenario. Najam Sethi, editor of Daily Times, said it was obvious that Bhutto did not want to return before the presidential election. He said she had chosen Karachi for her arrival in order to test the attitude of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, a party with which the PPP hopes to form a coalition government in Sindh. Mohammad Anwar of the MQM said his party welcomed Bhutto’s decision to return to Pakistan and to land in Sindh. He said the party would consider turning out to receive and welcome her if it were invited to do so. Kamran Bokhari of Stratfor said Bhutto had been damaged by the reported deal because the country was anti-military. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sher Afghan Niazi called Bhutto’s decision to return to Pakistan “wise”. He said Bhutto had acted like the intelligent and thinking politician she was and her decision to return would benefit her party. Farooq Sattar of the MQM also welcomed Bhutto’s decision to return home, adding that it was his party’s view that every Pakistani citizen has the right to live in his or her country.
C75
Julie Shen: http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/B0315DA5049934056525735B001FF43B?OpenDocument ULFA outsourcing suicide attacks: US think tank New Delhi, Sep 19 (PTI) ULFA has been showing a growing propensity to work with Islamist militant groups like HuJI in the northeast and has begun to outsource operations, including suicide attacks, a leading US think tank has said. In its latest report "India: ULFA Abandons Peace Talks", Stratfor said the ULFA, the most powerful separatist group in the northeast, has announced that it is giving up on the peace process and readying itself for a full-scale battle. "India received a wake-up call to this threat from the northeast on August 25, when twin bombings occurred in the city of Hyderabad in southern India," Stratfor said. "The two prime suspects in that bombing belonged to Bangladesh-based Islamist militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad-e- Islami, which is known to have a working relationship with ULFA and other northeastern insurgent groups, and with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency." The think tank said, "The ULFA has begun to outsource operations, including suicide attacks, in the restive state of Assam to Islamist militant groups." Assam Police had announced the arrest of a top ULFA leader on Monday last even as army generals said the group is raising a new battalion in Karbi Anglong district near the Bangladesh border to take advantage of reduced security in that area. Stratfor said that though ULFA's militant activity is confined to the northeast, the group's financial enterprise and strong links with Islamist militant groups have made it a threat that New Delhi will not be able to ignore much longer. The think tank accused ULFA of regularly dancing around the idea of peace talks as it is aware New Delhi is "not serious about rewarding its militant campaign with political concessions". PTI
C79
Julie Shen: http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14529498&vsv=SHGTslot2 ULFA outsourcing suicide attacks: Report Wednesday, 19 September , 2007, 11:48 United Liberation Front of Asom has been showing a growing propensity to work with Islamist militant groups like Harkat-ul-Jihadi Islami in the north-east and has begun to outsource operations, including suicide attacks, a leading US think tank has said. In its latest report 'India: ULFA Abandons Peace Talks', Stratfor said the ULFA, the most powerful separatist group in the north-east, has announced that it is giving up on the peace process and readying itself for a full-scale battle. For more news, analysis click here>> "India received a wake-up call to this threat from the north-east on August 25, when twin bombings occurred in the city of Hyderabad in southern India," Stratfor said. "The two prime suspects in that bombing belonged to Bangladesh-based Islamist militant group HuJI, which is known to have a working relationship with ULFA and other north-eastern insurgent groups, and with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency," the think tank said. "The ULFA has begun to outsource operations, including suicide attacks, in the restive state of Assam to Islamist militant groups," it added. Assam police had announced the arrest of a top ULFA leader on Monday even as army generals said the group is raising a new battalion in Karbi Anglong district near the Bangladesh border to take advantage of reduced security in that area. Stratfor said though ULFA's militant activity is confined to the north-east, the group's financial enterprise and strong links with Islamist militant groups have made it a threat that New Delhi will not be able to ignore much longer. The think tank accused ULFA of regularly dancing around the idea of peace talks as it is aware New Delhi is "not serious about rewarding its militant campaign with political concessions." "At the same time, ULFA prefers keeping up the militant front to maintain its financial network and its beneficial relationship with Pakistan's intelligence agency that helps keep India's hands tied. Thus, talk of negotiations does not really hold much weight," Stratfor said. With the government facing political pressure on its civil nuclear deal with the US and the entry of corporate retail firms into the country, the ULFA likely sees this as an opportune time to put pressure on New Delhi, it claimed. "India's north-eastern insurgent outfits and militant Islamist groups regularly traverse India's extremely porous border with Bangladesh. This is an area where ideology, religion and ethnicity hold little or no regard, as each militant group works with another to promote its cause," the report said. Meanwhile, defence sources claimed that a rift in the top ranks of the ULFA over the two crucial issues -- illegal migration from Bangladesh and a political solution to the insurgency problem -- is growing, leading to disintegration within its ranks. The arrest of top ULFA leader Prabal Neog is seen as a fallout of this rift. Police claim Neog is a moderate who favoured a politcal solution to the insurgency in Assam. Neog, the commander of ULFA's main strike force, the 28th battalion, had issued ultimatums to illegal migrants to leave Assam. He did this against the wishes of senior ULFA leaders living in Bangladesh, police said. Neog and his comrades in the group believe Bangladeshis should be treated as outsiders, just like the Hindi-speaking community targeted by the ULFA, sources said. However, the ULFA leadership is alleged to have a soft corner for Bangladeshi migrants as the group's top leaders have their bases and businesses in the neighbouring country.
C83
Julie Shen: Indo-Asian News Service September 19, 2007 Wednesday 2:04 PM EST New Delhi can't afford to ignore ULFA for long: US think tank BYLINE: Indo-Asian News Service LENGTH: 616 words DATELINE: New York New York, Sept. 19 -- With relations between the proscribed United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and Islamic militant groups growing, the Indian government cannot afford to ignore the northeastern militant outfit much longer, warns a leading US think tank. "Though ULFA's militant activity is confined to India's restive northeast, the group's financial enterprise and strong links with Islamist militant groups have made it a threat that New Delhi will not be able to ignore much longer," Stratfor stated in its latest analytical report titled 'India: ULFA abandons peace talks'. The report comes in the wake of the ULFA's Sep 17 announcement that it was abandoning peace talks and preparing for full-scale battle. Stating that in the past year, ULFA, which has been fighting for an independent homeland, has been primarily attacking Hindi-speaking migrants and causing damage to oil and natural gas pipelines in Assam, Strafor said: "ULFA regularly dances around the idea of peace talks and knows full well that New Delhi is not serious about rewarding its militant campaign with political concessions. "At the same time, ULFA prefers keeping up the militant front to maintain its financial network and its beneficial relationship with Pakistan's intelligence agency that helps keep India's hands tied. Thus, talk of negotiations does not really hold much weight." According to the report, as the Indian government was facing "loads of political pressure" over its civilian nuclear deal with the US and the entry of corporate retail firms into the country, ULFA in all likelihood saw this as an opportune time to pressure New Delhi into coming to the negotiating table. "The Indian government is reluctant to continue talks, especially as the chief mediator for ULFA, (eminent litterateur and Jnanpith award winner) Mamoni Raisom Goswami, is in the hospital after suffering a cerebral stroke," it stated. However, Stratfor said New Delhi would have to pay more attention to the ULFA as it has begun to outsource operations like suicide attacks from Islamic groups. "Stratfor has been closely monitoring the growing nexus between India's northeastern insurgent outfits and militant Islamist groups that regularly traverse India's extremely porous border with Bangladesh. "This is an area where ideology, religion and ethnicity hold little or no regard, as each militant group works with another to promote its cause. ULFA, in particular, has shown a growing propensity to work with Islamist militant groups in the area, and has even begun to outsource operations, including suicide attacks," the report stated. It said India received a wake-up call to this threat from the northeast Aug 25, when the southern city of Hyderabad was rocked by twin bombings. "The two prime suspects in that bombing belonged to Bangladesh-based Islamist militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad e-Islami, which is known to have a working relationship with ULFA and other northeastern insurgent groups, and with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency," it stated. "Though India has largely turned a blind eye to militant groups operating in its far-flung Northeast, the growing Islamization of the region, the deteriorating security situation in Bangladesh and these insurgents' recent reach into the heart of India's financial hub provide more than enough reason for New Delhi to start paying closer attention to its northeastern border," the report concluded. Founded in 1996, Stratfor - short for Strategic Forecasting provides global intelligence, analyses and forecasts to its clients who take major strategic decisions. Published by HT Syndication with permission from Indo-Asian News Service.
C91
Julie Shen: http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/details.asp?id=sep2007/at03 ULFA close to Islamic ultras; US group From Our Spl Correspondent NEW DELHI, Sept 19 – Assam Government may not be in a great hurry to resume dialogue with outlawed ULFA, but a reputed US intelligence thinktank has reported that with the militant outfit increasingly hobnobbing with Islamic militant groups, Government of India cannot afford to ignore ULFA much longer. “Though ULFA’s militant activity is confined to India’s restive North-east, the group’s financial enterprise and strong links with Islamist militant groups have made it a threat that New Delhi will not be able to ignore much longer,” Stratfor said in its latest analytical report titled ‘India: ULFA abandons peace talks’. “Though India has largely turned a blind eye to militant groups operating in its far-flung North-east, the growing Islamisation of the region, the deteriorating security situation in Bangladesh and these insurgents’ recent reach into the heart of India’s financial hub provide more than enough reason for New Delhi to start paying closer attention to its North Eastern border,” the report said. The report significantly linked ULFA with the recent Hyderabad blast. “The two prime suspects in that bombing belonged to Bangladesh-based Islamist militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad e-Islami, which is known to have a working relationship with ULFA and other North Eastern insurgent groups, and with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency,” the report stated. “ULFA regularly dances around the idea of peace talks and knows full well that New Delhi is not serious about rewarding its militant campaign with political concessions. “At the same time, ULFA prefers keeping up the militant front to maintain its financial network and its beneficial relationship with Pakistan’s intelligence agency that helps keep India’s hands tied. Thus, talk of negotiations does not really hold much weight,” Startfor opined. The report analysed that with Indian Government facing ‘loads of political pressure’ over its civilian nuclear deal with the US and the entry of corporate retail firms into the country, ULFA in all likelihood saw this as an opportune time to pressure New Delhi into coming to the negotiating table. “The Indian Government is reluctant to continue talks, especially as the chief mediator for ULFA, Dr Mamoni Raisom Goswami, is in hospital after suffering a cerebral stroke,” the report stated. New Delhi would have to pay more attention to the ULFA as it has begun to outsource operations like suicide attacks from Islamic groups, Stratfor opined. “Stratfor has been closely monitoring the growing nexus between India’s North Eastern insurgent outfits and militant Islamist groups that regularly traverse India’s extremely porous border with Bangladesh. “This is an area where ideology, religion and ethnicity hold little or no regard, as each militant group works with another to promote its cause. ULFA, in particular, has shown a growing propensity to work with Islamist militant groups in the area, and has even begun to outsource operations, including suicide attacks,” the report stated.
C92
Julie Shen: Hindustan Times September 19, 2007 Wednesday 1:53 AM EST ULFA CLOSE TO ISLAMIC ULTRAS; US GROUP BYLINE: Report from the Assam Tribune brought to you by the Hindustan Times LENGTH: 520 words DATELINE: NEW DELHI NEW DELHI, Sept 19 -- Assam Government may not be in a great hurry to resume dialogue with outlawed ULFA, but a reputed US intelligence thinktank has reported that with the militant outfit increasingly hobnobbing with Islamic militant groups, Government of India cannot afford to ignore ULFA much longer. "Though ULFA's militant activity is confined to India's restive North-east, the group's financial enterprise and strong links with Islamist militant groups have made it a threat that New Delhi will not be able to ignore much longer," Stratfor said in its latest analytical report titled 'India: ULFA abandons peace talks'. "Though India has largely turned a blind eye to militant groups operating in its far-flung North-east, the growing Islamisation of the region, the deteriorating security situation in Bangladesh and these insurgents' recent reach into the heart of India's financial hub provide more than enough reason for New Delhi to start paying closer attention to its North Eastern border," the report said. The report significantly linked ULFA with the recent Hyderabad blast. "The two prime suspects in that bombing belonged to Bangladesh-based Islamist militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad e-Islami, which is known to have a working relationship with ULFA and other North Eastern insurgent groups, and with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency," the report stated. "ULFA regularly dances around the idea of peace talks and knows full well that New Delhi is not serious about rewarding its militant campaign with political concessions. "At the same time, ULFA prefers keeping up the militant front to maintain its financial network and its beneficial relationship with Pakistan's intelligence agency that helps keep India's hands tied. Thus, talk of negotiations does not really hold much weight," Startfor opined. The report analysed that with Indian Government facing 'loads of political pressure' over its civilian nuclear deal with the US and the entry of corporate retail firms into the country, ULFA in all likelihood saw this as an opportune time to pressure New Delhi into coming to the negotiating table. "The Indian Government is reluctant to continue talks, especially as the chief mediator for ULFA, Dr Mamoni Raisom Goswami, is in hospital after suffering a cerebral stroke," the report stated. New Delhi would have to pay more attention to the ULFA as it has begun to outsource operations like suicide attacks from Islamic groups, Stratfor opined. "Stratfor has been closely monitoring the growing nexus between India's North Eastern insurgent outfits and militant Islamist groups that regularly traverse India's extremely porous border with Bangladesh. "This is an area where ideology, religion and ethnicity hold little or no regard, as each militant group works with another to promote its cause. ULFA, in particular, has shown a growing propensity to work with Islamist militant groups in the area, and has even begun to outsource operations, including suicide attacks," the report stated. Published by HT Syndication with permission from the Assam Tribune. -506095
C93
Julie Shen: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4275.2507.0.0 What to Watch With an Islamic Turkish President September 20, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com A former Islamist holds the presidency of Turkey. Here are some of the implications. By Joel Hilliker A former Islamist now rules the secular state of Turkey. What does this mean? How significant is it? Nations around the globe are contemplating the ramifications of this shift away from secularism and toward Islam within this pivotal and increasingly significant nation. President Abdullah Gul, who was elected August 28, is a member of the Justice and Development Party (AK). The party has an Islamist pedigree, and maintains pan-Islamic ties throughout the region. Turkey’s secularist military suspects that it retains a masked Islamist agenda. The AK now runs not only the parliament and the presidency, but also, effectively, the judiciary, since the president appoints key judges. As Stratfor noted, “[F]or the first time since the founding of the Turkish republic more than 80 years ago, a political force rooted in Islamism essentially controls all of the key civilian institutions of the state” (August 29). Stratfor expects the AK to seek to use its new power as a beachhead to move the nation away from secularism and toward the freer expression of religion in public life; it anticipates drama ahead as the AK is forced “to balance pan-Islamic issues with Turkish nationalist objectives” (ibid.). Though this analysis probably overstates how much Turkey will change under President Gul, we would not be surprised to see the nation proceed with a more sympathetic economic and foreign policy toward the leading Arab and Muslim energy producers in the region. Even a slight change in this situation could help alter the balance of power in the Middle East. It is especially important to watch how the Islamization of Turkish government will affect Iran. Turkey inked a mutual defense deal with Israel in 1996, which analysts credited with helping to stabilize the region over the past decade. The Islamic Affairs Analyst went so far as to say that Israel’s enemies respected Turkey enough that Israel’s national survival was all but assured as long as the deal stood. Events in the past couple of years, however, have shown that whatever deterrent effect Turkey had has already weakened to some degree: Iran and Syria have unleashed forces in Lebanon and within Israel against the Jewish state with few qualms. But given Turkey’s new Islamic leadership, this trend could get worse. Any further weakening of Turkey’s restraining influence on Iranian power is a nightmare for Israel, which Iran has committed itself to eliminating. Tensions between Washington and Ankara over Iraq (see “Why the World Is Taking Note of Turkey“) have already opened a door for the Islamic Republic. Suspicion between Turkey and Iran has thawed in recent years, and ties have improved. The fact that Turkey is now ruled by a former Muslim—albeit Sunni—rather than a secularist certainly doesn’t hurt. The more cooperative these two nations are, the more latitude the Turks are likely to give Iran without feeling directly threatened as Tehran pursues its regional ambitions. Watch for that cooperation to increase—and for Iran to become even more brazen. What does Turkey get out of the deal? If nothing else, it gets Iranian energy—energy it can pass on to Europe. The two countries have just completed an oil pipeline that will pump 500,000 barrels of Iranian oil a day into Turkey. And the Turkish Petroleum Corp. has announced plans to invest $3.5 billion in Iran’s South Pars natural gas field, a project that will include building the means to transport Iranian gas through Turkey to Europe. The United States, though flatly opposed to the deal, can do little to stop it. Ultimately, even under a former Islamic president, it appears Europe is who Turkey most wants to please. Ankara simply sees Iran as a workable partner in increasingly procuring the energy that Europe desperately wants. Radio Free Europe reports that for decades to come, Iranian gas may be Europe’s most viable source of non-Russian gas. Nothing Turkey could do would strengthen its value to the EU more than its growth as an energy hub. Even the slippage in Turkey’s relationship with the United States is driving it more toward Europe, according to Turkish foreign-policy expert Semih İdiz. Speaking of the Iraq crisis, İdiz said, “Having its relations with the U.S. ‘electrified,’ Ankara will be more and more eager to grab hold of the EU anchor” (Turkish Weekly, September 1). President Gul has strongly emphasized his intent to forge ahead with plans to join the European Union, plans that will require further economic reforms and constitutional amendments. His ally, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, also from the Justice and Development Party, has outlined a five-year program to increase individual freedoms, further boost the economy, and, above all, strengthen the nation’s case for EU membership. Biblical prophecy indicates, however, that although Turkey will remain committed to its romance with Europe, all these efforts are doomed to fail—just as they always have. From the time Atatürk himself famously admonished his countrymen to “turn toward Europe,” Turkey has labored, to varying degrees, to cast itself in the image of the West. For the past decade, it has worked overtime. Still, for every obstacle Turkey hurdles, the EU throws up another. Since 1987, when Turkey applied for full membership, 15 other states have cut to the front of the line and been accepted: Austria, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. The Turks have watched the Union swell from 12 states to 27, while they remain peering through the window from the outside. Now, the prospect of becoming an energy bridge to the Continent has enflamed Turkey’s hopes of finally convincing the EU to return the love. Those hopes are wasted. Try as it may to overcome it, Turkey clearly has an image problem among Europe’s decision makers—and even its voters. Just in May, France elected a president—Nicolas Sarkozy—who campaigned on opposition to Turkish EU membership. Why is Europe so opposed to considering Turks citizens of the Continent? Only one major issue separates Turkey from all the other nations being granted their pass into the EU: religion. The fundamentally Roman Catholic continent simply has no intention of incorporating 70 million Muslims in one swoop. And Turkey—with its Ottoman history, which at one time threatened Catholicism’s very existence—has particularly negative associations in European minds. As Bernard Lewis expresses it, “[T]here is still a reserve of mistrust, and even at times of hostility [toward Turks], with roots deep in the European Christian past” (From Babel to Dragomans). The parliamentary majority election of an openly former Islamic president only solidifies Europe’s unspoken yet inflexible resistance to embracing Turkey. Still, given this nation’s growing strategic value to Europe, watch for the EU to continue to dangle carrots and incentives that keep the Turks onside. And as Europe grows in power in the time ahead, Ankara’s devotion to the European cause will only grow along with it. Thus, Turkey is destined to remain suspended between worlds—always searching, ever more desperate to please. In the end, the Trumpet expects the shift in Turkey’s government only to cement the unique position this nation already occupies in modern geopolitics. It may tax Turkey’s agreements with the U.S. and Israel, but will not destroy them. It may increase Turkey’s cooperation with Muslim states, shifting the balance of power in favor of Iran, but that cooperation will fall short of a full-scale alliance. And most importantly, it will strengthen Europe’s resolve to keep Turkey at arm’s length, but do nothing to diminish Turkey’s undying resolve to get into Europe’s bed. •
C97
Julie Shen: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070921/asp/frontpage/story_8342746.asp Selvi word of caution A STAFF REPORTER Guwahati, Sept. 20: Union minister of state for home V. Radhika Selvi today asked security agencies in Assam not to lose sight of fundamentalist groups while focusing on Ulfa. The directive is in line with global intelligence analysis agency Strategic Foresight Inc (Stratfor)’s latest insurgency outlook for Assam. A report from the agency claims that Ulfa had been outsourcing its operations to fundamentalist terrorist groups and is planning suicide attacks across the state. Selvi, who was given the Northeast portfolio in the Union home ministry only recently, met bureaucrats and top officials of the army, police and CRPF at Guwahati Circuit House for a briefing on law and order. “Basically, it was an acclimatisation meeting after having taken charge of the region. She was briefed about the status of counter-insurgency operations,” an official said. The minister advised all security agencies to work in tandem to keep Ulfa from collaborating with “external forces” and destabilising the region. Highlighting the prime area of concern for security agencies in dealing with Ulfa, Stratfor’s latest report points out that the two prime suspects in the recent Hyderabad bombings are from the Bangladesh-based militant group HuJI, which is known to have a working relationship with the Assam outfit and other militant groups of the Northeast. HuJI is also known to be in cahoots with Pakistan’s ISI. Ulfa this evening denied having links with HuJI, as claimed by Stratfor. The banned militant group said it had never been involved with fundamentalist forces. Emerging from the meeting with officials of security agencies, Selvi said the situation was under control and that all possible steps would be taken to stamp out militancy. A DMK member, Selvi also spoke of emphasis on improvement of infrastructure along the border with China in the Northeast. The government recently approved the construction of 27 roads along the international border with a budget of Rs 912 crore. The minister met Governor Ajai Singh and chief minister Tarun Gogoi separately. She will leave for Shillong tomorrow.
C98
Julie Shen: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/beware-of-the-protectors/2007/09/21/1189881777362.html Beware of the protectors September 22, 2007 The killing of 11 Iraqi civilians has highlighted unruly behaviour among private security firms who have become hated in a painfully unpopular war, writes Tom Allard. The six-vehicle convoy was cruising through Baghdad's Mansour district on Sunday on its way to the fortified green zone, ferrying US diplomats back from a meeting. It had all the hallmarks of a routine operation, one undertaken many times each day throughout Iraq's capital by the private para-military security contractors Blackwater USA. Then the convoy of armoured-plated vehicles hit a traffic snarl. What happened next is a matter of dispute, but the repercussions have the potential to seriously undermine the already deeply troubled US-led war effort in Iraq. The incident has also thrown an uncomfortable spotlight on the privatisation of the Iraq war, and the modern-day mercenaries who play such a pivotal role in it. According to witness Hassan Jabir, the Blackwater guards - stuck in a traffic jam, their black-tinted 4WDs betraying their high-value human cargo - panicked and opened fire. "After 20 minutes, the Americans told us to turn back," the Iraqi lawyer told Associated Press from his Baghdad hospital bed on Thursday. "They shouted 'go, go, go' … When we started turning back, the Americans began shooting heavily at us." Bedlam ensued, says Jabir, who was hit by two bullets, one piercing his left lung, the other lodging in his intestines. "I saw a 10-year-old boy jump in fear from one of the minibuses. He was shot in his head. His mother jumped after him and was also killed. "I swear to God that they were not exposed to any fire," Jabir says of the Blackwater guards. "They are criminals and thirst for blood." While 11 Iraqi civilians were reportedly killed, Blackwater insisted its guards came under attack from insurgents and were acting in self defence. But, after establishing notoriety over 4½ years in Iraq for its aggressive use of overwhelming force and immunity from the law, few are giving Blackwater the benefit of the doubt. Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, responded by revoking Blackwater's licence to operate in the country, saying the incident had resulted in "widespread anger and hatred" among Iraqis towards the company. "We will not tolerate the killing of our citizens in cold blood," he said. There will also be a joint Iraq-US review of private security contractors, the new breed of highly paid operatives in Iraq who number between 30,000 and 50,000 and have become an indispensable, but controversial, part of the US-led war effort. "Iraqi civilians universally revile the force and aggression these firms often use, since they most often bear the brunt of it," said the respected private intelligence analysis firm, Stratfor, in a briefing this week. "They are a particularly unpopular element of an already painfully unpopular war." There are more than 180,000 people contracted to the US Government in Iraq, more than the number of foreign military personnel in the country. Most undertake relatively routine jobs such as cleaning or serving food at military bases, providing logistics and transport support and reconstructing Iraq's devastated infrastructure. About 30 to 40 per cent of the $US500 billion ($580 billion) spent in Iraq and Afghanistan has been handed to private enterprise. Forget the coalition of the willing, it's the coalition of the billing. Of those providing security roles, the range of tasks is immense - from protecting bases, munitions disposal and interrogating prisoners to providing intelligence and maintaining spy equipment. But most hated of all are the paramilitary security outfits protecting diplomats, officials and business people, as well as coalition facilities and transport vehicles. Blackwater is one of more than 100 private security firms in Iraq, but has become a totemic symbol of all that is wrong with privatisation of the Iraq war. Founded by a former Navy SEAL and scion of a wealthy Republican family, Erik Prince, it has secured $US500 million in US government contracts since the war on terrorism was unleashed. As well as providing security for the US Department of State, it also protects the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus - an extraordinary task that reflects both the inability of the US to put enough troops on the ground in Iraq and the close links between Blackwater and the US security establishment. Most of Blackwater's 1500 operatives in Iraq are former US military personnel, while its vice-chairman is Cofer Black, the former head of the State Department's counterterrorism division. Black joined Blackwater in 2005, a year after four Blackwater employees were found hanged in the streets of Fallujah, their bodies dismembered by a bloodthirsty mob. That incident led to the assault on Fallujah by the US military, a brutal operation aimed at suppressing the restive population that ended with the deaths of 27 marines and hundreds of Iraqi civilians. It lead to widespread revulsion of the US occupying force by the wider Iraqi population. The firefight on Sunday is just the latest of a litany of contentious episodes involving Blackwater. According to the Iraqi Government, there have been at least half a dozen incidents where Blackwater guards have allegedly fired on civilians in the past few months. In May the firm was involved in two shoot-outs over consecutive days, one in front of Iraq's Interior Ministry building which led to a confrontation between Blackwater guards and Iraqi forces. It was resolved only after US diplomats and troops intervened. One security contractor in Iraq, who asked not to be identified, says he is aware of an incident about a year ago where Blackwater staff were protecting a client who worked at a Baghdad hospital. The Blackwater operatives parked their vehicle in the ambulance bay, close to the front door to aid a rapid exit if required. While they waited, a nearby Iraqi checkpoint was hit by a roadside bomb. As the ambulances rushed to the hospital and the designated drop-off point, the Blackwater guards opened fire, killing more police and ambulance staff. Blackwater had "been doing this kind of thing for years", says the contractor, who remains in Iraq. Mark Munro, a former Australian soldier who worked as a security contractor in Iraq and was caught in an attack by a suicide car bomber, says Blackwater "had a terrible reputation over there". What infuriates Iraqis - and increasing worries US lawmakers - is that the soldiers of fortune who work for the likes of Blackwater seem to operate outside the law. The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, President George Bush's pro-consul in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, was guarded by Blackwater. He granted immunity from prosecution to security contractors. The edict, known as Order 17, may or may not have lapsed since the Iraqi Government was formed, but only two indictments of abuse have been issued and none of them resolved. Successful courts-martial have been launched against military personnel involved in the Abu Garb prisoner abuse scandal, but the four private contractors involved in the abuse were freed. Congressional legislation this year mandated that private contractors be subject to the US court-martial system, but the Department of Defence has so far not introduced any regulations. Moreover, "Iraqi courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevant member country of the multinational forces in Aired, according to a US congressional paper released this year. It is clear that allegations of gross misconduct by security contractors - at least until Sunday - do not appear to have concerned the US Government at all. Last year, an infamous video was widely circulated showing employees of the British firm Aegis taking pot shots at any car that got within 100 metres of their convoy. Edited to the sounds of Avails Brashly, the Aegis contractors can be seen indiscriminately firing automatic rounds at cars, smashing wintergreen and causing at least two vehicles to veer violently after their drivers were apparently shot. Soon after, Aegis was awarded a two-year $Asci million contract to provide security services to the US military. A senior Australian Army officer, who has done three tours of duty in the Middle East since 2001, says the Australian Defence Force had as little as possible to do with contractors. Unlike the US, Australia provides security for its own diplomats and officials in Baghdad with an army security detachment based in the green zone. "There they are in their reflector sunglasses, belts with four different phones, the weapons, the 1000-yard stare," the officer says. "They could walk the walk and then you would find out they hadn't been in special forces but had worked in a logistics warehouse." The officer says there is a fundamental difference in outlook. "In terms of everything we do, it's always predicated on the consent of the local population. You engage, you promote empathy, you develop relationships. Australians are fantastic at doing this," he says. "What are the interests of the private security operators? They want to protect the convoy, protect the facility, protect the dignitary. They want to finish the job that day. The potential for their action to impact on the consent of the population is not a consideration." The tendency of many private security contractors to use overwhelming force is also because, by and large, they cannot count on the large back-up support of a conventional military force if they get into trouble. "In a situation like that, it's every man for themselves," Munro says. "There are lots of civilians with weapons in Iraq. If they even looked like coming towards me [during a firefight] I would not hesitate to have a go at them." The problem for the US-led coalition is that the Iraqi people do not distinguish between military forces and private contractors. Nor should they, because private contractors are so essential to the war effort since the US and its allies do not have enough troops on the ground to do the job. It explains why the US will pressure the Iraqi Government to reverse its stance on Blackwater, a decision that has seen its diplomats confined to the green zone unless they can get helicopter transport. For the insurgents, though, attacking private contractors appears to be a winning strategy. It earns them kudos with the local population and, when civilians die, splits the US and Iraqi governments. "They would be rubbing their hands together going 'You bloody beauty'," says Paul Jordan, a former AS member who works for Hart Australia, a security firm with more than 150 people working in Iraq and Afghanistan. "They can't force the US military to leave, but they can get one of the private security companies out. It's a huge victory." A PROFILE OF CONTRACTORS Private security firms in Iraq: More than 100, including about 30 domestic companies. Employees: From 30,000 to 48,000. About 10 per cent come from the US and other Western countries, about 30 per cent from non-Western countries and the rest from Iraq. Serving: Diplomats, aid workers, journalists, reconstruction workers and others of the estimated 160,000 foreign civilians working in Iraq. Origin: Most American security contractors come from the US military and are often former special operations forces with specialised skills in intelligence gathering, communications, evasive manoeuvres and small-arms combat operations. Pay: Iraqis with basic skills are paid several hundred US dollars a month; highly capable employees from countries such as India and Nepal earn between $US2000 ($2300) and $US3000 a month. Former special operations forces from the US, Britain, Australia and other Western countries can earn as much as $US18,000 a month.
C99
Julie Shen: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21kaplan.html?hp Op-Ed Contributor Lost at Sea By ROBERT D. KAPLAN Published: September 21, 2007 THE ultimate strategic effect of the Iraq war has been to hasten the arrival of the Asian Century. Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image Patrick Thomas While the American government has been occupied in Mesopotamia, and our European allies continue to starve their defense programs, Asian militaries — in particular those of China, India, Japan and South Korea — have been quietly modernizing and in some cases enlarging. Asian dynamism is now military as well as economic. The military trend that is hiding in plain sight is the loss of the Pacific Ocean as an American lake after 60 years of near-total dominance. A few years down the road, according to the security analysts at the private policy group Strategic Forecasting, Americans will not to the same extent be the prime deliverers of disaster relief in a place like the Indonesian archipelago, as we were in 2005. Our ships will share the waters (and the prestige) with new “big decks” from Australia, Japan and South Korea. Then there is China, whose production and acquisition of submarines is now five times that of America’s. Many military analysts feel it is mounting a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode our qualitative one. Yet the Chinese have been buying smart rather than across the board. In addition to submarines, Beijing has focused on naval mines, ballistic missiles that can hit moving objects at sea, and technology that blocks G.P.S. satellites. The goal is “sea denial”: dissuading American carrier strike groups from closing in on the Asian mainland wherever and whenever we like. Such dissuasion is the subtle, high-tech end of military asymmetry, as opposed to the crude, low-tech end that we’ve seen with homemade bombs in Iraq. Whether or not China ever has a motive to challenge America, it will increasingly have the capacity to do so. Certainly, the billions of dollars spent on Iraq (a war I supported) would not have gone for the expensive new air, naval and space systems necessary to retain our relative edge against a future peer competitor like China. But some of it would have. China’s military expansion, with a defense budget growing by double digits for the 19th consecutive year, is part of a broader, regional trend. Russia — a Pacific as well as a European nation, we should remember — is right behind the United States and China as the world’s biggest military spender. Japan, with 119 warships, including 20 diesel-electric submarines, boasts a naval force nearly three times larger than Britain’s. (It is soon to be four times larger: 13 to 19 of Britain’s 44 remaining large ships are set to be mothballed by the Labor government.) India’s Navy could be the third-largest in the world in a few years as it becomes more active throughout the Indian Ocean, from the Mozambique Channel to the Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia. South Korea, Singapore and Pakistan all spend higher percentages of their gross domestic products on defense than do Britain and France — which are by far Europe’s most serious military-minded nations. The twin trends of a rising Asia and a politically crumbling Middle East will most likely lead to a naval emphasis on the Indian Ocean and its surrounding seas, the sites of the “brown water” choke points of world commerce — the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, the Bab el Mandeb at the mouth of the Red Sea, and Malacca. These narrow bodies of water will become increasingly susceptible to terrorism, even as they become more and more clogged with tankers bringing Middle Eastern oil to the growing middle classes of India and China. The surrounding seas will then become home territory to Indian and Chinese warships, protecting their own tanker routes. To wit, China is giving Pakistan $200 million to build a deep-water port at Gwadar, just 390 nautical miles from the Strait of Hormuz. Beijing is also trying to work with the military junta in Myanmar to create another deep-water port on the Bay of Bengal. It has even hinted at financing a canal across the 30-mile Isthmus of Kra in Thailand that would open a new connection between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Oddly enough, the Pacific, as an organizing principle in world military affairs, will also encroach upon Africa. It’s no secret that a major reason for the Pentagon’s decision to establish its new Africa Command is to contain and keep an eye on China’s growing web of development projects across the sub-Saharan regions. Still, measuring budgets, deployments, and sea and air “platforms” does not quite indicate just how much the ground is shifting beneath our feet. Military power rests substantially on the willingness to use it: perhaps less so in war than in peacetime as a means of leverage and coercion. That, in turn, requires a vigorous nationalism — something that is far more noticeable right now in Asia than in parts of an increasingly post-national West. As the Yale political scientist Paul Bracken notes in his book “Fire in the East: The Rise of Asian Military Power and the Second Nuclear Age,” the Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese have great pride in possessing nuclear weapons, unlike the Western powers that seem almost ashamed of needing them. Likewise, the right to produce nuclear arms is something that unites Iranians, regardless of their views of the clerical regime. Mending relations with Europe is only a partial answer to America’s problems in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, since Europe itself continues to turn away from military power. This trend was quickened by the Iraq war, which has helped legitimize nascent European pacifism. People in countries like Germany, Italy and Spain see their own militaries not so much as soldiers but as civil servants in uniform: there for soft peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Meanwhile, Asia is marked by rivalries that encourage traditional arms races. Despite warming economic ties between Japan and China, and between Japan and South Korea, the Japanese and Chinese have fought wars of words over possession of the Senkaku (or, as the Chinese have it, Diaoyutai) Islands in the East China Sea; just as Japanese and South Koreans have over possession of the Takeshima Islands (Tokdo Islands to the Koreans) in the Sea of Japan. These are classic territorial disputes, stirring deep emotions of the sorts that often led to war in early modern Europe. Despite these tensions, the United States should also be concerned about the alternative possibility of a China-Japan entente. Some of China’s recent diplomatic approaches to Japan have been couched in a new tone of respect and camaraderie, as it attempts to tame Japan’s push toward rearmament and thus to reduce the regional influence of the United States. Asia’s military-economic vigor is the product of united political, economic and military elites. In Asia, politics often does stop at the water’s edge. In a post-George W. Bush America, if we do not find a way to agree on basic precepts, Iraq may indeed turn out to have been the event that signaled our military decline. Preventing that will require continued high military expenditures combined with an unrelenting multilateralism of a sort we have not pursued since the 1990s. In the vast oceanic spaces bordering the Pacific and Indian Oceans, air, sea and space power will be paramount both as means of deterrence and of guarding the sea lanes. A global power at peace still requires a navy and an air force deployed as far forward as possible. That costs money. Even with the gargantuan cost of Iraq, our defense budget is still under 5 percent of our gross domestic product, low by historical standards. Furthermore, the very vitality of nation-states in the Pacific and Indian Oceans will take us back to an older world of traditional statecraft, in which we will need to tirelessly leverage allies and seek cooperation from competitors. Thus we should take advantage of the rising risk of terrorism and piracy in order to draw the Chinese and Indian Navies into joint patrols of choke points and tanker routes. Still, we should be careful about leveraging Japan and India too overtly against China. The Japanese continue to be distrusted throughout Asia, particularly in the Korean Peninsula, because of the horrors of World War II. As for India, as a number of policy experts leaders there told me on a recent visit: India will remain non-aligned, with a tilt toward the United States. But any official alliance would compromise India’s own shaky relationship with China. Subtlety must be a keystone to our policy. We have to draw China in, not gang up against it. Because we remain the only major player in the Pacific and Indian Oceans without territorial ambitions or disputes with its neighbors, indispensability, rather than dominance, must be our goal. That, continuing deep into the 21st century, would be a stirring achievement. Robert D. Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic and a visiting professor at the United States Naval Academy, is the author of “Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea and on the Ground.”
Commentary: Lost At SeaA Pro-American Europe?'A Pro-American Europe?' Lost in the Pacific Ocean
Putin's pick for PM stuns Kremlin;Osama ... the Paul Keating of international terrorism
Did leaders take home much more than souvenirs from Apec summit?
TOPIC
C101
Julie Shen: http://www.americandaily.com/article/20348 'A Pro-American Europe?' By Greg Reeson (09/21/07) Over the past two years, there has been a noticeable shift in European politics toward the center and right of the political spectrum. It began with conservative electoral victories in Germany and Poland in 2005, and was followed by similar electoral results in Sweden in 2006 and in Finland and France in 2007. This shift has led to a European political environment that is much more amenable to partnering with the United States to address mutual foreign policy challenges. Prior to 2005, European foreign policy efforts were led by France under President Jacques Chirac, a Gaullist who worked tirelessly to make a French-led Europe a sort of multi-national superpower that could rival the United States. European – American relations became increasingly strained as French-led Europe was perceived in the United States as being anti-anything American, to the point of obstructionism in international forums like the United Nations. In 2005, American credibility was suffering and domestic and international criticism of President Bush’s foreign policy was at an all time high with the security situations in Afghanistan and Iraq rapidly deteriorating. The United Nations seemed hopelessly lost in its search for a united front concerning Iran’s nuclear development program, and the Security Council couldn’t manage to agree on anything more than meaningless statements that lacked any real substance. When Angela Merkel was elected to replace German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a man who made no secret of his distaste for American leadership concerning international relations and foreign policy, Germany took a sharp turn, quickly warming up to the United States and pushing hard for a European landscape that featured Germany, and not France, as the leading power. Other countries in Europe soon began to fall in line with the move toward better relations with the United States, with the most recent being France after the election of conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy, who defeated socialist Segolene Royal and essentially ended leftist domination of French politics. Since Sarkozy came to power, France has followed Germany’s diplomatic lead, slowly improving relations with the United States. But Sarkozy, not willing to defer to German leadership for all European concerns, has asserted his willingness to work with the United States on important foreign policy matters. In an August 27 foreign policy speech, Sarkozy broke sharply from his predecessor and spoke harshly of groups and nations responsible for much of the insecurity and unrest in the world today. But his most severe criticism was reserved for Iran, whose continued development of nuclear technology he called the “most pressing” issue for the international community. Then, just this week, on September 17, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner raised the possibility of war with Iran over the nuclear issue when he said, “We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war.” Additionally, France has recently called for tougher European sanctions on Iran if Ahmadinejad and the clerics who pull his puppet strings refuse to work with other nations to resolve the impasse over the nuclear program. And Strategic Forecasting, a private geopolitical intelligence company based in Austin, Texas, reported that the Netherlands support the push for strong European sanctions, saying that if the United Nations is not able to take meaningful action, the European Union is “morally obligated” to do so. Thus far Germany, while still working to strengthen ties with the United States, has been reluctant to put additional pressure on Tehran. This is probably because Germany has invested itself significantly in Iran, and German leaders don’t want to see that investment squandered or destroyed. But as European countries continue to ally themselves with the United States, and as France once again pushes French leadership on the Continent, Germany may feel compelled to join the U.S.-led effort to hold Iran accountable for its development of nuclear technology. One other point should be made. Retired U.S. General John Abizaid, the former Commanding General of Central Command, the U.S. combatant command that has responsibility for the Middle East, recently said that the United States could live with a nuclear-armed Iran. And while he said that every effort should be made to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he stated his belief that the United States’ overwhelming nuclear capability would serve as a deterrent that would prevent Iran from ever using nuclear weapons against America. In a sense, he is correct. Iran is not ruled by a bunch of crazy people, although that is the image generally portrayed by President Ahmadinejad. The clerics who hold the real power in Tehran are rational individuals who make calculated decisions designed to advance Iranian interests. The real problem is Iran’s ongoing power play to become the dominant nation in the region. A significant strategic shift is underway, and Iran is working feverishly in Syria and Iraq, and in dealings with the United Nations, to position itself as THE country in the Middle East to be reckoned with. Other countries in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are increasingly nervous about Tehran’s ambitions, and nuclear weapons would only serve to increase the fear and suspicion that already contribute to regional tensions and instability. The current crop of major European leaders recognizes the power shift that is occurring in the Middle East, and they recognize the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. Tehran’s quest for regional preeminence is slowly but surely being met by an increasingly pro-American Europe that could be much more effective than the United Nations in containing Iran’s ambitions. Greg Reeson
C110
Julie Shen: The Toronto Star September 13, 2007 Thursday Putin's pick for PM stuns Kremlin; Analysts ponder if it's Russian leader's real choice of successor or just a 'chair-warmer' BYLINE: Olivia Ward, Toronto Star SECTION: WORLD AND COMMENT; Pg. AA01 LENGTH: 728 words Eight years ago Russia reeled with shock as President Boris Yeltsin named a shadowy former spy as his prime minister and preferred successor. Yesterday, President Vladimir Putin reprised the breath-holding moment that propelled him to office with the announcement that a previously unknown financial official, Viktor Zubkov, will now head the government - and that Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov and his government would step down. Although a change was expected before December parliamentary elections and a crucial March presidential vote, the news left millions of Russians scratching their heads. The shock waves echoed strongest within the Kremlin walls where the battle for Putin's successor continues in the tradition of "bulldogs fighting under the carpet." Far from a strong leadership candidate displacing Fradkov, the colourless politician was dumped for the equally nondescript Zubkov, head of the Federal Financial Monitoring Service, a onetime communist agricultural official and old colleague of Putin's from his days in the St. Petersburg mayor's office. But Zubkov, 66, was better known in international financial circles as the man in charge of renovating Russia's reputation for being soft on money laundering, than to the voting public. "It's a classic Putin move in which he relishes surprising the establishment pending the real decision," says Peter Baker of The Washington Post, co-author with Susan Glasser, of Kremlin Rising. "Yet another faceless bureaucrat is serving as a chair-warmer while the real choice has yet to be made." Some analysts, and ordinary Russians - who overwhelmingly support a constitutionally-barred third term for Putin - wonder if the move might be a signal that the president will find a way around the legal limit and stay on. Or whether he'll take an obligatory break from the Kremlin and rejoin the race in 2012. "Is Zubkov a seat-warmer for a new leader, or has Putin deliberately chosen someone weak?" asked Russia expert John Dunlop, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. And he added, "it will certainly be a blow to Sergei Ivanov." Ivanov, one of Russia's most powerful politicians, is locked in a leadership struggle with fellow deputy prime minister Dmitri Medvedev, a battle complicated by a scrap between Kremlin clans seeking control over Russia's oil and gas industries. High-profile supporters of the two hopefuls are positioning themselves for an energy grab. "Power struggles between Kremlin clans: that is the real election campaign," writes Yulia Latynina in the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta. "No one knows who the successor will be, but everyone understands that any successor means a fundamental change in the asset and influence distribution mechanisms." Russia's oil and gas business is the rocket-fired engine of the Russian economy, boosting Putin's popularity and giving economically traumatized Russians hope for prosperity and stability. And, says a report by the U.S.-based Strategic Forecasting Inc., Putin may be worried that the struggle for succession could destabilize the centralized system he has hammered together during his years in power, eliminating opposition and ousting unco-operative oligarchs. "Putin has realized if the Rosneft-Gazprom battle goes unchecked, the power struggle among his inner circle will collapse the state, either before or soon after he leave office," it says. "Unless he wants to hand his successor a shattered Kremlin, Putin must overcome a cadre of powerful personalities - and he has less than a year left to do it." Although ideology has so far played little role in the leadership struggle, "Medvedev may be perceived as a Westernizer," said Dunlop. Ivanov, meanwhile, makes no secret of his hawkish views and although a civilian, was a former defence minister. Putin, meanwhile, keeps the country guessing. The man once known as "Mr. Nobody" is now so popular that swooning teenagers pin up his shirtless portrait. He is so much in control of the media and the political landscape that few dare to criticize him. Yesterday, Kremlin insiders told reporters in Moscow that Putin may not want to hand-pick a successor, but that his party, United Russia, will decide on a leading candidate in advance of the parliamentary elections in early December. "It's a head game," said Baker. "(Putin) may be sending out signals until the last minute."
C111
Julie Shen: The Australian (Australia) September 21, 2007 Friday All-round Country Edition Osama ... the Paul Keating of international terrorism BYLINE: FRANK DEVINE SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 13 LENGTH: 801 words WHO was Osama bin Laden addressing and what was the purpose of his video commentary on the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 air raids on New York and Washington? Since Osama hadn't been heard from for a while, I printed out a transcript for intermittent bedside reading and came to the conclusion that it was the performance of a man grown anxious about not having been heard from for a while. To resort to homely analogy, Osama may have become the Paul Keating or Malcolm Fraser of international terrorism. My interpretation is similar to that of George Friedman, author of America's Secret War and publisher of the often informative newsletter Stratfor. He describes Osama as ''a symbol of rebellion for a generation that does not intend to rebel'' and compares him with Che Guevara after his death. ''As a geopolitical force (Osama) has not counted beyond his image since September 11, 2001,'' Friedman writes. Osama declares in his video that he is speaking to ''the people of America''. If so, his anniversary reappearance cannot have done his image much good. His grasp of recent American history borders on the hallucinatory. Osama's summary of the Vietnam War: ''The leaders of the White House claimed it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. When Kennedy took the presidency and wanted to stop this unjust war, (he) angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation. And so Kennedy was killed (and) those corporations were the prime beneficiaries from the killing. ''One of your greatest mistakes was that you neither brought to account nor punished those who waged this war, not even the most violent of the murderers, Rumsfeld.'' It was, of course, John F. Kennedy who instigated limited armed American intervention in Vietnam. Donald Rumsfeld, then aged 32, had been a member of the US House of Representatives for 11 months when Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, and had no role in executive government until he became Gerald Ford's chief of staff in 1974. He never set foot in Vietnam. Osama comes late to a crowded field of conspiracy theorists when he blames major corporations for Kennedy's assassination. His video also confronts Americans with two singularly unattractive means of ending the war in Iraq. One is ''from our side, to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you''. Already, Osama boasts, American soldiers are under unbearable stress in Iraq: ''If they leave their barracks, the mines consume them, and if they refuse to leave, rulings are passed against them. Thus, the only options open to them are to commit suicide or cry. They are doing that out of the humiliation, fear and terror which they are suffering.'' The other way out of the war is for Americans to ''liberate yourselves from the shackles, deception and attrition of the capitalist system'' and embrace ''the upright and infallible methodology'' of Allah and Islam. He throws in a bit of wheedling with the suggestion that it isn't too big a step for Christians to convert to Islam, since the Koran contains a chapter exalting Mary, the mother of Jesus, ''prophet of Allah'', that is in contrast to ''the fabrications of the Jews against her''. Osama adds the traditional inducement of politicians seeking votes by claiming that ''there are no taxes in Islam, only a 2.5 per cent alms levy''. This, however, applies only in the ideal Islamic society, subject exclusively to sharia law and at present nonexistent. At least 20 predominantly Muslim countries have some form of orthodox taxation, several in addition to the alms levy. Iran, for example, has income and company tax and obliges even government-owned companies to pay the latter. If Osama's anniversary address was aimed at Muslims, he talks the talk but seems to have an inattentive audience. Since 9/11, his great inspirational gesture, no serious attempt has been made to overthrow Muslim rulers Osama accuses in his video of ''abandoning Islam many decades ago'' and replace them with men ''like our forefathers, who were the leaders of the world for centuries, when they held firmly to Islam''. However, Friedman makes a subtle point that Osama's impotence, his inability to match his 9/11 air strike or inspire revolution, is creating in the US and other Western countries ''a psychology of cynicism'' towards the fight against Islamist extremism, especially the war in Iraq. But even if Osama is only a symbol, what he symbolises is a violent hostility to Western democracies by a significant minority of Muslims, which we'll have to confront for as long as it takes. Henry Kissinger, writing this week in the International Herald Tribune, argues that an abrupt coalition withdrawal from Iraq ''will not end the war, only redirect it''.
C119
Julie Shen: Business Day (South Africa) September 10, 2007 Business Day Edition Did leaders take home much more than souvenirs from Apec summit? BYLINE: Bill Tarrant SECTION: POLITICS; Pg. 5 LENGTH: 662 words Did leaders take home much more than souvenirs from Apec summit? Non-binding commitment on greenhouse gases may have united members of the Asia-Pacific forum, but critics say it is just hot air from another talk shop Reuters AS ASIA-Pacific leaders jetted home yesterday with yet another souvenir to stuff into their "funny-shirt" cupboards, folks back home may well ask: "So what did you get out of that meeting besides the outback raincoat?". Host Australia shelled out A$300m to accommodate the 21 leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) forum in Sydney, whose disgruntled residents were subjected to the biggest security operation in the country's history. But leaders did come bearing gifts for Prime Minister John Howard, who is widely expected to call an election this week - a $45bn gas export deal with China, uranium sales to Russia, and top-secret military technology from the US. Much to the chagrin of green groups, nonenvironmentalist Howard burnished his legacy with a "Sydney Declaration", signing up Apec members to an "aspirational target" for cutting greenhouse gases. It's voluntary and nonbinding, so implies no worries for Apec, which includes some of the world's biggest polluters. Green groups immediately dismissed the "Sydney distraction" as so much hot air adding to the warming of the globe. Critics say Apec has lost its focus on economics and trade by meandering into the fields of security and now the environment. But some analysts say that may be the price of its success. "Apec is more important now than ever, and though its role in some realms remains modest - security is the most glaring example - in other areas it is emerging as the global decision-making body," security analysis website Stratfor.com said. "Apec's growing power is most clearly on display when it tackles issues such as climate change and consumer product safety." So, when the Apec leaders, whose countries account for more than half of global trade, came out yesterday with a strong endorsement of compromises on farm subsidies and industrial tariffs that negotiators are working on in Geneva, it must have been music to World Trade Organisation chief Pascal Lamy's ears. For the past two decades, Apec has been quietly crafting some of the most important rules for global commerce. At the Sydney meeting it completed three more chapters for a model free-trade agreement that can be rolled out anywhere along the Pacific rim. Apec also offers an unparalleled public relations platform to push pet projects and causes - and to network like crazy. US President George Bush, who stopped off in Iraq on his way to Sydney, took every opportunity to defend the unpopular Iraq war. And to bolster the election fortunes of Howard, one of the most steadfast supporters of the war. "They refer to the prime minister around here as a battler," Bush said this week. "I know why: he's courageous, he's wise, he's determined." Russian President Vladimir Putin stopped off in Jakarta on the way to Apec to seal a $1bn arms deal with Indonesia by way of advertising once again that Russia is back in the geopolitical game in Asia, after taking a long sabbatical from the Cold War. "The main outcome of the summit is that Russia has significantly upgraded its status in the grouping and in the region," a senior diplomat in the Russian delegation said. But China's Hu Jintao kept a relatively low profile, belying predictions that Beijing is emphasising Apec, founded in Canberra in 1989 with backing from the US to push Asia-Pacific free trade. Hu issued the usual stern warnings about Taiwan's leanings towards independence. Mostly he seemed keen to reassure leaders Beijing, grappling with goods recalls, took product safety "very seriously". Australia's Prime Minister John Howard and New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark, wearing Australian outback stockman's raincoats, wave at the end of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) leaders summit on Saturday. Picture REUTERS
San Diego Union Tribune *AP reprint KamranDallas Morning News *AP reprint KamranBaltimore Sun *AP reprint KamranWFAA.com *AP reprint KamranNorth County Times *AP reprint KamranSan Francisco Chronicle *AP reprint KamranUPIEarthtimes.org *UPI reprintAnti-war.com *Cook reprintDissident Voice.org *Cook reprintCounterCurrents.org *Cook reprintAmerica Daily *Reeson reprint
NEWSPAPERSInternational Herald Tribune *Kaplan reprintPittsburgh Post Gazette SYRIA'S MOVE ASSAD IS UNDER COMPETING PRESSURES TO EITHER ATTACK ISRAELOR MAKE PEACE
MAGAZINES/JOURNALS
INTERNATIONAL COVERAGENETWORKS
BLOGS
RADIO STATIONSABC Radio- Australia GeorgeIrish National Radio Kamran
Julie Shen: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/corn-ethanol-biofuel-or-biofraud/?hp September 24, 2007, 4:36 pm Corn Ethanol: Biofuel or Biofraud? By Jerry Garrett Tags: biofuel, environment, ethanol, O.E.C.D. Ethanol plant in BrazilAn ethanol-sugar mill in São Paulo State. The cheapest and easiest to obtain form of ethanol is sugar cane ethanol. (Lalo de Almeida/The New York Times) Here’s an interesting bit of scientific research, courtesy of a recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a Paris-based global economic think tank, on the difference in greenhouse gas emissions from cars burning gasoline-only fuel and fuels made from various forms of ethanol: Corn ethanol: 0-3 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction. Sugar cane ethanol: 50-70 percent reduction. Cellulosic ethanol: 90-plus percent. But wait, there’s more: Which form of ethanol production is the United States government (and its taxpayers) subsidizing? Corn, of course. Which form of ethanol production does the United States government levy a 53-cents-a-gallon import tariff on? Sugar cane, naturally. And which form of ethanol production is under-funded, under-researched, and furthest from commercial production? The cleanest choice, obviously. Do you see a pattern here? Corn ethanol is also the culprit that raises costs of corn-based food crops, because food production is being diverted to ethanol production. Corn ethanol production also affects the price of other food crops such as wheat, barley and soybeans because it is economically more attractive for farmers to switch from those crops to subsidized corn-raising. Corn ethanol is also only marginally less costly (some critics think it may even cost more) to manufacture than a gallon of gasoline. The cheapest, easiest to obtain and most readily available form of ethanol available is sugar cane ethanol from Brazil. In fact, Stratfor, a strategic planning newsletter, pointed out that Brazil “has developed a fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and comes from a place that is politically stable and friendly to both the European Union and United States.” And Brazil has a surplus of it, ready to export. Why not do something right now to alleviate our fossil fuel energy addiction? Or should we wait until, say, 2022 when domestic ethanol production is projected to be ramped up, as a Bush administration target suggests? Until 2022, should we continue to meet our nation’s energy needs via our many friends in the Middle East? (This is working so well for us, so far.) Elsewhere in the O.E.C.D.’s scathing indictment of the corn ethanol industry, it called for an end to government subsidies to those growing corn for ethanol. It suggested the European Union act immediately to end “set-asides,” wherein part of the available farm land is left fallow for a year or two, to let the soil rest, and to keep grain prices artificially high by keeping it in shorter supply. The set-asides make especially little sense this year, in view of a widespread drought, lower yield grain harvests, and a significant diversion of acreage planted for corn-as-food to ethanol production instead. The O.E.C.D. said import tariffs on fuels, such as sugar cane ethanol, ought to be removed. The report also suggested a ban on using food crops for ethanol production. Ethanol isn’t fussy; it can be made any number of ways. And should meaningful cellulosic ethanol production ever get off the ground, it could easily be made from inedible crops like switchgrass or even garbage. So why is America, in particular, insisting on making ethanol from the worst possible choice? It seems that our government’s only true interest in ethanol production lies in placating its agricultural lobby, which in turn is seeking to cash in on forced legislative mandates for domestic ethanol production.
C48
Julie Shen: http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070922/COLUMNIST14/709220319/-1/NEWS18 Article published Saturday, September 22, 2007 Assad facing tough choice AN explosion ripped through a military base near Aleppo in northern Syria on July 23, killing 15 Syrian soldiers and dozens of Iranian engineers. Summer temperatures of up to 122 degrees Fahrenheit had caused an ammunition dump to "cook off," the Syrian government said. Since the explosion occurred at 4:30 in the morning, some were skeptical of the government's explanation. Jane's Defence Weekly is reporting in its Sept. 29 issue that the blast occurred while the Syrians and Iranians were attempting to put a chemical warhead on a Scud C missile. Most of the injuries were caused by the dispersion of nerve and mustard gas. Could it be that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad isn't as devoted to peace as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) seem to think he is? The assassination Wednesday of Antoine Ghanem, an anti-Syrian member of the Lebanese parliament, suggests Mr. Assad thinks it's easier to get what he wants by force than by "dialogue." Mr. Ghanem is the fourth anti-Syrian member of parliament to be murdered since December, 2005. Syrian fingerprints in those murders, and in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, have been so obvious that even the United Nations has noticed. But Mr. Assad may be insufficiently bloodthirsty for some of his generals. They've reportedly told him he'll lose his job if he doesn't strike Israel soon. Since Mr. Assad is "president for life," more than his livelihood is at stake. Hardliners led by Gen. Assaf Shawkat, chief of Syrian military intelligence (and Mr. Assad's brother-in-law), insist that the chinless ophthamologist retaliate for an Israeli air strike Sept. 6 near the town of Tal al-Abyad on Syria's border with Turkey. We don't know for sure what it was that Israel bombed because the people who do know are (mostly) keeping their mouths shut. But we can surmise it was something big, because it is uncharacteristic for these people to keep their mouths shut. British and American newspapers have published stories, based on leaks from Israeli and American sources, indicating the target was nuclear material recently delivered to Syria by North Korea. Israeli F-15s took out two targets, sources in the Pentagon told my friend Jack Wheeler, a conservative commentator. One contained nuclear weapons components shipped from North Korea; the other Zil Zal surface-to-surface missiles from Iran. Before the fighter-bombers attacked, Israeli commandos inserted by helicopter took out the radar for Syria's Russian-supplied air defense system. The lack of international response to the raid deepens the mystery. North Korea has protested, but Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have not. The Israeli warplanes apparently entered Syria from Turkey. But Turkish authorities have issued only the mildest of complaints about this "violation" of their airspace. The Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida reported that the Turkish army provided the Israelis with information on the targets. European governments are usually quick to condemn military action by Israel. Not this time. We haven't heard a peep from the usual suspects. Bernard Kouchner, France's new foreign minister, said the Israeli raid was "understandable" if the target was weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Lebanese terror group supported by Iran and Syria. Even Syria's public complaints have been tepid, perhaps because of its unwillingness to disclose just what it was that Israel bombed. But privately, Syrian generals are seething. And this puts Mr. Assad between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't retaliate, he risks unemployment, or worse. But the ease with which Israel conducted the raid suggests that if Syria attacks Israel, Syria will get its clock cleaned. Iran has made plans for a military coup if Mr. Assad vacillates about taking military action against Israel, Debka, the controversial Israeli private intelligence service, reported in August. But the private intelligence service STRATFOR reported this week that the leadership of Hezbollah is taking seriously - and is worried about - the possibility that a peace treaty might be worked out between Israel and Syria. "Will Mr. Assad be frightened out of the cocky aggressiveness that has caused him to sponsor or facilitate terrorism in Israel, Iraq, and Lebanon?" asked the Washington Post in an editorial Thursday. "Or will he choose to escalate?" The answer may depend on whether Mr. Assad is more afraid of the Israelis than he is of the Iranians and his own generals. Jack Kelly is a member of The Blade’s national bureau. » E-mail him at [email protected] » Read more Jack Kelly columns at www.toledoblade.com/jackkelly
C49
Julie Shen: http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/greeson_20070922.html September 22, 2007 A Pro-American Europe? Greg C. Reeson Over the past two years, there has been a noticeable shift in European politics toward the center and right of the political spectrum. It began with conservative electoral victories in Germany and Poland in 2005, and was followed by similar electoral results in Sweden in 2006 and in Finland and France in 2007. This shift has led to a European political environment that is much more amenable to partnering with the United States to address mutual foreign policy challenges. Prior to 2005, European foreign policy efforts were led by France under President Jacques Chirac, a Gaullist who worked tirelessly to make a French-led Europe a sort of multi-national superpower that could rival the United States. European – American relations became increasingly strained as French-led Europe was perceived in the United States as being anti-anything American, to the point of obstructionism in international forums like the United Nations. In 2005, American credibility was suffering and domestic and international criticism of President Bush’s foreign policy was at an all time high with the security situations in Afghanistan and Iraq rapidly deteriorating. The United Nations seemed hopelessly lost in its search for a united front concerning Iran’s nuclear development program, and the Security Council couldn’t manage to agree on anything more than meaningless statements that lacked any real substance. When Angela Merkel was elected to replace German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a man who made no secret of his distaste for American leadership concerning international relations and foreign policy, Germany took a sharp turn, quickly warming up to the United States and pushing hard for a European landscape that featured Germany, and not France, as the leading power. Other countries in Europe soon began to fall in line with the move toward better relations with the United States, with the most recent being France after the election of conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy, who defeated socialist Segolene Royal and essentially ended leftist domination of French politics. Since Sarkozy came to power, France has followed Germany’s diplomatic lead, slowly improving relations with the United States. But Sarkozy, not willing to defer to German leadership for all European concerns, has asserted his willingness to work with the United States on important foreign policy matters. In an August 27 foreign policy speech, Sarkozy broke sharply from his predecessor and spoke harshly of groups and nations responsible for much of the insecurity and unrest in the world today. But his most severe criticism was reserved for Iran, whose continued development of nuclear technology he called the “most pressing” issue for the international community. Then, just this week, on September 17, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner raised the possibility of war with Iran over the nuclear issue when he said, “We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war.” Additionally, France has recently called for tougher European sanctions on Iran if Ahmadinejad and the clerics who pull his puppet strings refuse to work with other nations to resolve the impasse over the nuclear program. And Strategic Forecasting, a private geopolitical intelligence company based in Austin, Texas, reported that the Netherlands support the push for strong European sanctions, saying that if the United Nations is not able to take meaningful action, the European Union is “morally obligated” to do so. Thus far Germany, while still working to strengthen ties with the United States, has been reluctant to put additional pressure on Tehran. This is probably because Germany has invested itself significantly in Iran, and German leaders don’t want to see that investment squandered or destroyed. But as European countries continue to ally themselves with the United States, and as France once again pushes French leadership on the Continent, Germany may feel compelled to join the U.S.-led effort to hold Iran accountable for its development of nuclear technology. One other point should be made. Retired U.S. General John Abizaid, the former Commanding General of Central Command, the U.S. combatant command that has responsibility for the Middle East, recently said that the United States could live with a nuclear-armed Iran. And while he said that every effort should be made to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he stated his belief that the United States’ overwhelming nuclear capability would serve as a deterrent that would prevent Iran from ever using nuclear weapons against America. In a sense, he is correct. Iran is not ruled by a bunch of crazy people, although that is the image generally portrayed by President Ahmadinejad. The clerics who hold the real power in Tehran are rational individuals who make calculated decisions designed to advance Iranian interests. The real problem is Iran’s ongoing power play to become the dominant nation in the region. A significant strategic shift is underway, and Iran is working feverishly in Syria and Iraq, and in dealings with the United Nations, to position itself as THE country in the Middle East to be reckoned with. Other countries in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are increasingly nervous about Tehran’s ambitions, and nuclear weapons would only serve to increase the fear and suspicion that already contribute to regional tensions and instability. The current crop of major European leaders recognizes the power shift that is occurring in the Middle East, and they recognize the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. Tehran’s quest for regional preeminence is slowly but surely being met by an increasingly pro-American Europe that could be much more effective than the United Nations in containing Iran’s ambitions.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2007/gr_09241.shtmlUS strongly criticizes Pakistan over crackdown on opposition as Musharraf seeks re-election
Defense Focus: Wonder weapons -- Part 1Defense Focus: Wonder weapons -- Part 1US criticizes Pak over crackdown on Oppn
US strongly criticizes Pakistan over crackdown on opposition as Musharraf seeks re-electionUS Raps Pakistan Crackdown On Opposition
U.S. Criticizes Pakistan Crackdown
U.S. criticizes Pakistan over crackdown on oppositionU.S. criticism of Musharraf unusual
U.S. criticizes Pakistan over crackdown on oppositionU.S. strongly criticizes Pakistan over crackdown on opposition as Musharraf seeks re-election
U.S. scolds Pakistan over political arrestsAnalysis: Nigerian rebels end cease-fire Analysis: Nigerian rebels end cease-fire
Why Did Israel Attack Syria?Why Did Israel Attack Syria?Why Did Israel Attack Syria?
Dealing with Iran
Lost in the Pacific;SYRIA'S MOVE ASSAD IS UNDER COMPETING PRESSURES TO EITHER ATTACK ISRAELOR MAKE PEACE
U.S. strongly criticizes Pakistan over crackdown on opposition as Musharraf seeks re-election
C51
Julie Shen: The Associated Press September 24, 2007 Monday 6:11 PM GMT US strongly criticizes Pakistan over crackdown on opposition as Musharraf seeks re-election BYLINE: By STEPHEN GRAHAM, Associated Press Writer SECTION: INTERNATIONAL NEWS LENGTH: 919 words DATELINE: ISLAMABAD Pakistan The United States strongly criticized Pakistan's government Monday, saying it was "extremely disturbed" by a roundup of opposition leaders ahead of key court rulings on the re-election bid by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. It was an unusual scolding from the country that has counted Musharraf as a key ally against al-Qaida since the Sept. 11 attacks, but his administration brushed off the comments, saying the crackdown is needed to prevent the opposition from fomenting trouble and trying to intimidate the Supreme Court. "As a very close ally of Pakistan with a keen eye on Pakistan affairs, I am sure the U.S. does realize that in any democratic society there can only be a rule of law and not a rule by the mob," government spokesman Tariq Azim said. Opposition leaders have warned of street protests if Musharraf presses ahead with his effort to be elected to a new five-year term by lawmakers next month. They also are challenging his plan before the Supreme Court, which rejected three petitions Monday but is considering others. Police arrested some opposition leaders over the weekend and more on Monday as others went into hiding. The opposition said more than 200 political figures had been detained, while Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said about 40 were in custody as of Sunday. The U.S. government, which has given billions of dollars to Pakistan for its help against terrorist groups, had been reluctant to voice open criticism of Musharraf as he has struggled with worsening unpopularity this year. But on Monday, the U.S. Embassy said the arrests of opposition leaders were "extremely disturbing and confusing for the friends of Pakistan" and called for those detained to be freed quickly. A statement from the embassy said it did not endorse any candidate or party as Pakistan prepares for the presidential ballot Oct. 6 by federal and provincial legislators and for parliamentary elections by January. "We hope to see a democratic process that is inclusive and the election of a leader who represents the choice of the Pakistani people through a free, fair, and transparent process," the embassy said. In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey also was critical. He said the U.S. was concerned "any time there are steps taken that would inhibit people's ability to participate in the political process or freedom of expression." Kamran Bokhari, South Asia analyst for the Washington-based Strategic Forecasting Inc., said the Bush administration is wary of being seen to prop up a repressive military ruler when its own troops are in tough fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said the U.S. government's message is: "We're watching, don't make a mess of the situation. We're not about to abandon you, but a lot depends on how you handle things." Washington appears to support Musharraf's talks with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto over forming a power-sharing coalition that could unite Pakistani moderates in the fight against extremist groups that oppose allying with the U.S. The talks have stalled amid opposition from right-wingers in Musharraf's camp. Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999, has seen his popularity and power erode since his failed effort to fire the Supreme Court's chief justice earlier this year. His administration is also struggling to contain a surge in violence by Islamic militants. He has said he will give up his post as army chief once he is elected president, restoring civilian rule to a country long dominated by its military. But opposition parties are arguing before the Supreme Court that Musharraf is ineligible to run for president, principally because he is still army chief. They are threatening to quit Parliament to undermine his legitimacy and warn they will stage demonstrations against his rule. Seeking to head off protests, the government issued an order over the weekend prohibiting gatherings of more than five people in the capital. Police also detained several opposition leaders and on Monday intensified the crackdown. "The government is bent on picking up every opposition man. All fascist tactics are being used and all the state machinery is being exploited for the illegitimate rule of one man," said Ahsan Iqbal, spokesman for the party led by Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister who was ousted by Musharraf and was prevented from returning to Pakistan earlier this month. As the Supreme Court held hearings on Musharraf's eligibility to compete in the presidential vote, police blocked roads with barbed wire and stymied protesters' efforts to congregate, arresting some 30 members of a pro-Taliban party a few hundred yards from the court building. "The U.S. government hired a dog in uniform," the fist-pumping protesters shouted. Officials said police were ensuring the judges were not intimidated by crowds massing outside the courthouse. On Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed three of 10 petitions arguing that Musharraf's dual role as army chief and president makes him ineligible for another term. Presiding Judge Rana Bhagwandas rejected one because it reached too far back into Musharraf's rule, another because the lawyer who filed it didn't show up and a third without explanation. Rulings on the other petitions are expected later this week, but opposition politicians have said more legal challenges will be filed following the general's formal nomination as a candidate, expected Thursday. Associated Press writers Sadaqat Jan and Zarar Khan in Islamabad and Foster Klug in Washington contributed to this report.
C52
Julie Shen: http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Industry/Analysis/2007/09/24/defense_focus_wonder_weapons_part_1/4901/ Defense Focus: Wonder weapons -- Part 1 Published: Sept. 24, 2007 at 6:29 PM By MARTIN SIEFF UPI Senior News Analyst WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 (UPI) -- Russia is not just using its windfall energy profits to beef up its existing nuclear and conventional armed forces, it is also seeking to develop sophisticated conventional submarine and systems and bombs that while non-nuclear, are in their own ways as formidable as nuclear systems could be. In the past month RIA Novosti has reported Russia's announcement that it has successfully tested a thermobaric, or fuel bomb, a devastating non-nuclear weapon first developed by the United States and used in Vietnam some 40 years ago. The Russians said their new thermobaric bomb was more powerful than any previous one ever used. Then, the Moscow newspaper Kommersant on Sept. 12 reported that Russia was developing a new so-called Project 20120 submarine that may have followed German and Swedish designs and further developed them in creating a new diesel-electric drive with hydrogen fuel cells that would allow diesel-powered subs to stay submerged while recharging their batteries. The Russian navy promptly denied the story, but Stratfor Forecasting gave it serious credence and assessment in a published analysis. The first question that both these reports raised the following day is why the Russians are bothering to develop conventional weapons systems that only appear to replicate capabilities they already have in abundance in their nuclear weapons and submarines? After all, Russia has the second-largest nuclear armament force in the world, and the second largest nuclear submarine one as well behind the United States. And Russian military leaders and planners today, as at the height of the Cold War, are entirely uninhibited about developing or reviving their nuclear weapons complex. Nor does cost-effectiveness appear to be the driving force behind either the admitted thermobaric bomb program or the still speculative, but extremely feasible, diesel-electric/hydrogen cell sub program. It is true that China's conventional diesel submarines are vastly cheaper and easier to build than nuclear ones. Last year the United States built a single new submarine and it was, like all U.S. Navy subs, a nuclear-powered one. China, by contrast, is years, perhaps still even decades behind U.S. submarine nuclear technology, especially in their lack of ability to build stealth nuclear submarines. But they built 14 new subs to America's one. Of course, all the new Chinese submarines were non-nuclear diesel-powered ones. However, while it is very cheap to build a conventional diesel submarine, developing a new improved technology one as the prototype for an entire class of them is prohibitively more expensive. And the unconfirmed -- indeed, denied -- Kommersant report indicates that this is the route the Russians have chosen. Why? It will hardly be because the new technology is absolutely cutting edge and sexy. On the contrary, diesel-powered submarines capable of impressively long periods of endurance underwater and with formidably long ranges had already been developed by the Nazi Kriegsmarine and were operationally deployed in 1945 -- the Type XXI and Type XXII classes. The same argument can be made against developing the fuel bomb. It isn't original. It's been around for decades. And Russia already has weapons of the same or vastly more destructive power. However, developing both weapons, in fact, would make a great deal of strategic sense for Russia because, while on paper neither the thermobaric bomb nor the diesel electric/hydrogen cell submarine give the Russian armed forces capabilities they do not already possess in abundance, both weapons have a lot more flexibility than meets the eye. -- (Next: Conventional weapon advantages)
C63
Julie Shen: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/09/25/MNBTSD6BE.DTL&type=politics U.S. scolds Pakistan over political arrests Embassy presses for the release of opposition leaders Griff Witte, Washington Post Tuesday, September 25, 2007 (09-25) 04:00 PDT Islamabad, Pakistan -- After keeping quiet for much of the year as Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf suppressed domestic opposition, the United States on Monday issued an unusually harsh rebuke to the government for locking up key political rivals ahead of next week's election. "The reports of arrests of the leadership of several major Pakistani political parties are extremely disturbing and confusing for the friends of Pakistan," said the statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. "We wish to express our serious concern about these developments. These detainees should be released as soon as possible." Tasneem Aslam, spokeswoman for Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, responded that the United States should stay out of the matter. "If the U.S. Embassy is confused, it would be well advised not to make such statements," she said. The embassy's rebuke, coming just 12 days before elections in which Musharraf is expected to win a new term, appeared to mark a shift for the United States. American officials have largely refrained from criticizing the president. Musharraf, who came to power in a military coup eight years ago, is considered a key U.S. ally in counterterrorism efforts, and the United States has been a staunch supporter even as his backing in Pakistan has plummeted. In recent days, the government has rounded up opposition activists, including members of parliament, and ordered them held for 30 days. Ameer ul-Azeem, spokesman for an anti-Musharraf religious party, said Monday that more than 500 people had been taken into custody. The government said the number was far lower. With an election scheduled for Oct. 6, Musharraf is trying to win five more years as president in a vote from the lame-duck national and provincial assemblies. The opposition has pledged to try to block those efforts through the courts and street protests. Pakistani government officials say the pre-emptive arrests are necessary to maintain law and order. In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the United States is concerned "any time there are steps taken that would inhibit people's ability to participate in the political process or freedom of expression." Information Minister Tariq Azim said the decision to make arrests came after the opposition staged a rally in front of the Supreme Court last week. "They tried to intimidate some of the senior-most judges in the land," Azim said. "The government has to take action. We can't allow people to take law into their own hands." Musharraf's bid for another term is being challenged at the Supreme Court by opponents who contest his candidacy because he remains an army general. The United States repeatedly has said it believes Musharraf is steering Pakistan toward democracy. But the president has taken a series of steps this year that undercut that claim. In March, he attempted to fire the chief justice, a decision that seemed aimed at removing an obstacle to his plan for winning a new term. Later, as lawyers and political parties protested in the streets, government security forces and a Musharraf-aligned group responded with violence. One incident left dozens dead. Kamran Bokhari, South Asia analyst for the Washington-based Strategic Forecasting Inc., said the Bush administration is wary of being seen to prop up a repressive military ruler when its own troops are in tough fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said the U.S. government's message is: "We're watching, don't make a mess of the situation. We're not about to abandon you, but a lot depends on how you handle things." The Associated Press contributed to this report.
C64
Julie Shen: http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2007/09/27/analysis_nigerian_rebels_end_ceasefire/5184/ Analysis: Nigerian rebels end cease-fire Published: Sept. 27, 2007 at 11:15 AM By CARMEN GENTILE UPI Energy Correspondent Nigeria’s leading militant group threatened to resume attacks on foreign and domestic oil and gas operations following a four-month cease-fire intended to allow the new president to make good on vows to reform the petroleum sector and root out corruption. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta earlier this week sent a communique to media stating its intention to resume attacks and kidnapping of industry workers. “With effect from 12 midnight today, Sunday September 23, 2007, we will commence attacks on installations and abduction of expatriates," statement said. Since then there have been no major incidents of violence directed at petroleum operations attributed to MEND, though numerous other groups have been blamed for attacks during the cease-fire. "There will be no forewarning of these attacks but a statement will follow soon after," the statement said. The statement said the decision was prompted by the arrest of one of its leaders in Angola. Henry Okah was picked up in Angola on Sept. 3 on weapons-trafficking charges, which MEND said were trumped up by Nigeria and Angola. Both nations’ leaders have denied the accusations. While most MEND members and its leadership received guarded praise from Nigeria’s new leadership for initiating the cease-fire, Okah reportedly continued to wage violent attacks and denounced the end of hostilities while continuing a weeks-long battle with rival groups in the streets of the oil-rich Niger Delta's largest city, Port Harcourt. MEND and other militant groups have called for a more equitable distribution of the country’s oil wealth. Since the 1970s, Nigeria, Africa's No. 1 oil producer, has pumped more than $300 billion worth of crude from the southern delta states, according to estimates. High unemployment in the delta, environmental degradation due to oil and gas extraction, and a lack of basic resources such as fresh water and electricity have angered the region's youth, who have taken up arms, many times supplied by political leaders, and formed militant groups and local gangs. Following his election in April, President Umaru Yar'Adua appealed for calm and said he would "set a worthy personal example" by tackling political and economic corruption as well as violence in the delta. On Tuesday, while attending the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Yar’Adua attempted to draw some commonality among all Nigerians saying all citizens, including politicians, had a “lot of work to do to change our concept of leadership.” Those proposed reforms include changes to the Nigerian economy, particularly its petroleum sector, which generates up to 95 percent of the country’s revenue. “We have a very clear vision. It is not going to be easy to achieve, but we will try very hard,” he said. Although Yar’Adua’s conviction to take on corruption appears genuine, his ability to be successful remains in question. “The situation in Port Harcourt (and the Niger Delta) will remain unstable in the short term until Nigerian authorities can regain some level of control,” said a recent report by Stratfor consulting group. Others, however, have praised the Nigerian leader for his efforts. The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, representing one of Nigeria’s most dominant tribes, said Yar’Adua’s “crusade for transparency, accountability and good governance” recognizes the need to address economic injustices in the delta as a means of curtailing the violence there. (e-mail: [email protected])
C66
Julie Shen: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=11678 Why Did Israel Attack Syria? by Jonathan Cook Israel's air strike on northern Syria earlier this month should be understood in the context of events unfolding since its assault last summer on neighboring Lebanon. Although little more than rumors have been offered about what took place, one strategic forecasting group, Stratfor, still concluded: "Something important happened." From the leaks so far, it seems that more than half a dozen Israeli warplanes violated Syrian airspace to drop munitions on a site close to the border with Turkey. We also know from the US media that the "something" occurred in close coordination with the White House. But what was the purpose and significance of the attack? It is worth recalling that, in the wake of Israel's month-long war against Lebanon a year ago, a prominent American neoconservative, Meyrav Wurmser, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney's recently departed Middle East adviser, explained that the war had dragged on because the White House delayed in imposing a ceasefire. The neocons, she said, wanted to give Israel the time and space to expand the attack to Damascus. The reasoning was simple: before an attack on Iran could be countenanced, Hezbollah in Lebanon had to be destroyed and Syria at the very least cowed. The plan was to isolate Tehran on these two other hostile fronts before going in for the kill. But faced with constant rocket fire from Hezbollah last summer, Israel's public and military nerves frayed at the first hurdle. Instead Israel and the US were forced to settle for a Security Council resolution rather than a decisive military victory. The immediate fallout of the failed attack was an apparent waning of neocon influence. The group's program of "creative destruction" in the Middle East – the encouragement of regional civil war and the partition of large states that threaten Israel – was at risk of being shunted aside. Instead the "pragmatists" in the Bush Administration, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, demanded a change of tack. The standoff reached a head in late 2006 when oilman James Baker and his Iraq Study Group began lobbying for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq – presumably only after a dictator, this one more reliable, had again been installed in Baghdad. It looked as if the neocons' day in the sun had finally passed. Israel's leadership understood the gravity of the moment. In January 2007 the Herzliya conference, an annual festival of strategy-making, invited no less than 40 Washington opinion-formers to join the usual throng of Israeli politicians, generals, journalists and academics. For a week the Israeli and American delegates spoke as one: Iran and its presumed proxy, Hezbollah, were bent on the genocidal destruction of Israel. Tehran's development of a nuclear program – whether for civilian use, as Iran argues, or for military use, as the US and Israel claim – had to be stopped at all costs. While the White House turned uncharacteristically quiet all spring and summer about what it planned to do next, rumors that Israel was pondering a go-it-alone strike against Iran grew noisier by the day. Ex-Mossad officers warned of an inevitable third world war, Israeli military intelligence advised that Iran was only months away from the point of no return on developing a nuclear warhead, prominent leaks in sympathetic media revealed bombing runs to Gibraltar, and Israel started upping the pressure on several tens of thousands of Jews in Tehran to flee their homes and come to Israel. While Western analysts opined that an attack on Iran was growing unlikely, Israel's neighbors watched nervously through the first half of the year as the vague impression of a regional war came ever more sharply into focus. In particular Syria, after witnessing the whirlwind of savagery unleashed against Lebanon last summer, feared it was next in line in the US-Israeli campaign to break Tehran's network of regional alliances. It deduced, probably correctly, that neither the US nor Israel would dare attack Iran without first clobbering Hezbollah and Damascus. For some time Syria had been left in no doubt of the mood in Washington. It failed to end its pariah status in the post-9/11 period, despite helping the CIA with intelligence on al-Qaeda and secretly trying to make peace with Israel over the running sore of the occupied Golan Heights. It was rebuffed at every turn. So as the clouds of war grew darker in the spring, Syria responded as might be expected. It went to the arms market in Moscow and bought up the displays of antiaircraft missiles as well as antitank weapons of the kind Hezbollah demonstrated last summer were so effective at repelling Israel's planned ground invasion of south Lebanon. As the renowned Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld reluctantly conceded earlier this year, US policy was forcing Damascus to remain within Iran's uncomfortable embrace: "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad finds himself more dependent on his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, than perhaps he would like." Israel, never missing an opportunity to willfully misrepresent the behavior of an enemy, called the Syrian military buildup proof of Damascus' appetite for war. Apparently fearful that Syria might initiate a war by mistaking the signals from Israel as evidence of aggressive intentions, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, urged Syria to avoid a "miscalculation." The Israeli public spent the summer braced for a far more dangerous repeat of last summer's war along the northern border. It was at this point – with tensions simmeringly hot – that Israel launched its strike, sending several fighter planes into Syria on a lightning mission to hit a site near Dayr a-Zawr. As Syria itself broke the news of the attack, Israeli generals were shown on TV toasting in the Jewish new year but refusing to comment. Details have remained thin on the ground ever since: Israel imposed a news blackout that has been strictly enforced by the country's military censor. Instead it has been left to the Western media to speculate on what occurred. One point that none of the pundits and analysts have noted was that, in attacking Syria, Israel committed a blatant act of aggression against its northern neighbor of the kind denounced as the "supreme international crime" by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. Also, no one pointed out the obvious double standard applied to Israel's attack on Syria compared to the far less significant violation of Israeli sovereignty by Hezbollah a year earlier, when the Shi'ite militia captured two Israel soldiers at a border post and killed three more. Hezbollah's act was widely accepted as justification for the bombardment and destruction of much of Lebanon, even if a few sensitive souls agonized over whether Israel's response was "disproportionate." Would these commentators now approve of similar retaliation by Syria? The question was doubtless considered unimportant because it was clear from Western coverage that no one – including the Israeli leadership – believed Syria was in a position to respond militarily to Israel's attack. Olmert's fear of a Syrian "miscalculation" evaporated the moment Israel did the math for Damascus. So what did Israel hope to achieve with its aerial strike? The stories emerging from the less-gagged American media suggest two scenarios. The first is that Israel targeted Iranian supplies passing through Syria on their way to Hezbollah; the second that Israel struck at a fledgling Syrian nuclear plant where materials from North Korea were being offloaded, possibly as part of a joint nuclear effort by Damascus and Tehran. (Speculation that Israel was testing Syria's antiaircraft defenses in preparation for an attack on Iran ignores the fact that the Israeli air force would almost certainly choose a flightpath through friendlier Jordanian airspace.) How credible are these two scenarios? The nuclear claims against Damascus were discounted so quickly by experts of the region that Washington was soon downgrading the accusation to claims that Syria was only hiding the material on North Korea's behalf. But why would Syria, already hounded by Israel and the US, provide such a ready-made pretext for still harsher treatment? Why, equally, would North Korea undermine its hard-won disarmament deal with the US? And why, if Syria were covertly engaging in nuclear mischief, did it alert the world to the fact by revealing the Israeli air strike? The other justification for the attack was at least based in a more credible reality: Damascus, Hezbollah and Iran undoubtedly do share some military resources. But their alliance should be seen as the kind of defensive pact needed by vulnerable actors in a Sunni-dominated region where the US wants unlimited control of Gulf oil and supports only those repressive regimes that cooperate on its terms. All three are keenly aware that it is Israel's job to threaten and punish any regimes that fail to toe the line. Contrary to the impression being created in the West, genocidal hatred of Israel and Jews, however often Ahmadinejad's speeches are mistranslated, is not the engine of these countries' alliance. Nonetheless, the political significance of the justifications for the the Israeli air strike is that both neatly tie together various strands of an argument needed by the neocons and Israel in making their case for an attack on Iran before Bush leaves office in early 2009. Each scenario suggests a Shi'ite"axis of evil," coordinated by Iran, that is actively plotting Israel's destruction. And each story offers the pretext for an attack on Syria as a prelude to a preemptive strike against Tehran – launched either by Washington or Tel Aviv – to save Israel. That these stories appear to have been planted in the American media by neocon masters of spin like John Bolton is warning enough – as is the admission that the only evidence for Syrian malfeasance is Israeli "intelligence," the basis of which cannot be questioned as Israel is not officially admitting the attack. It should hardly need pointing out that we are again in a hall of mirrors, as we were during the period leading up to America's invasion of Iraq and have been during its subsequent occupation. Bush's "war on terror" was originally justified with the convenient and manufactured links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as, of course, those WMDs that, it later turned out, had been destroyed more than a decade earlier. But ever since Tehran has invariably been the ultimate target of these improbable confections. There were the forged documents proving both that Iraq had imported enriched uranium from Niger to manufacture nuclear warheads and that it was sharing its nuclear know-how with Iran. And as Iraq fell apart, neocon ideologues like Michael Ledeen lost no time in spreading rumors that the missing nuclear arsenal could still be accounted for: Iranian agents had simply smuggled it out of Iraq during the chaos of the US invasion. Since then our media have proved that they have no less of an appetite for such preposterous tales. If Iran's involvement in stirring up its fellow Shi'ite in Iraq against the US occupation is at least possible, the same cannot be said of the regular White House claims that Tehran is behind the Sunni-led insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few months ago the news media served up "revelations" that Iran was secretly conspiring with al-Qaeda and Iraq's Sunni militias to oust the US occupiers. So what purpose does the constant innuendo against Tehran serve? The latest accusations should be seen as an example of Israel and the neocons "creating their own reality," as one Bush adviser famously observed of the neocon philosophy of power. The more that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are menaced by Israel, the more they are forced to huddle together and behave in ways to protect themselves – such as arming – that can be portrayed as a "genocidal" threat to Israel and world order. Van Creveld once observed that Tehran would be "crazy" not to develop nuclear weapons given the clear trajectory of Israeli and US machinations to overthrow the regime. So equally Syria cannot afford to jettison its alliance with Iran or its involvement with Hezbollah. In the current reality, these connections are the only power it has to deter an attack or force the US and Israel to negotiate. But they are also the evidence needed by Israel and the neocons to convict Syria and Iran in the court of Washington opinion. The attack on Syria is part of a clever hustle, one designed to vanquish or bypass the doubters in the Bush Administration, both by proving Syria's culpability and by provoking it to respond. Condoleezza Rice, it emerged at the weekend, wants to invite Syria to attend the regional peace conference that has been called by President Bush for November. There can be no doubt that such an act of détente is deeply opposed by both Israel and the neocons. It reverses their strategy of implicating Damascus in the "Shi'ite arc of extremism" and of paving the way to an attack on the real target: Iran. Syria, meanwhile, is fighting back, as it has been for some time, with the only means available: the diplomatic offensive. For two years Bashar al-Assad has been offering a generous peace deal to Israel on the Golan Heights that Tel Aviv has refused to consider. This week, Syria made a further gesture towards peace with an offer on another piece of territory occupied by Israel, the Shebaa Farms. Under the plan, the Farms – which the United Nations now agrees belongs to Lebanon, but which Israel still claims is Syrian and cannot be returned until there is a deal on the Golan Heights – would be transferred to UN custody until the dispute over its sovereignty can be resolved. Were either of Damascus' initiatives to be pursued, the region might be looking forward to a period of relative calm and security. Which is reason enough why Israel and the neocons are so bitterly opposed. Instead they must establish a new reality – one in which the forces of "creative destruction" so beloved of the neocons engulf yet more of the region. For the rest of us, a simpler vocabulary suffices. What is being sold is catastrophe.
C76
Julie Shen: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/21/news/edkaplan.php The International Herald Tribune September 22, 2007 Saturday Lost in the Pacific; Asia rising BYLINE: Robert D. Kaplan - The New York Times Media Group SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 8 LENGTH: 1504 words The ultimate strategic effect of the Iraq war has been to hasten the arrival of the Asian Century. While the American government has been occupied in Mesopotamia, and our European allies continue to starve their defense programs, Asian militaries - in particular those of China, India, Japan and South Korea - have been quietly modernizing and in some cases enlarging. Asian dynamism is now military as well as economic. The military trend that is hiding in plain sight is the loss of the Pacific Ocean as an American lake after 60 years of near-total dominance. A few years down the road, according to the security analysts at the private policy group Strategic Forecasting, Americans will not to the same extent be the prime deliverers of disaster relief in a place like the Indonesian archipelago, as we were in 2005. Our ships will share the waters (and the prestige) with new ''big decks'' from Australia, Japan and South Korea. Then there is China, whose production and acquisition of submarines is now five times that of America's. Many military analysts feel it is mounting a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode our qualitative one. Yet the Chinese have been buying smart rather than across the board. In addition to submarines, Beijing has focused on naval mines, ballistic missiles that can hit moving objects at sea and technology that blocks GPS satellites. The goal is ''sea denial'': dissuading American carrier strike groups from closing in on the Asian mainland wherever and whenever we like. Such dissuasion is the subtle, high-tech end of military asymmetry, as opposed to the crude, low-tech end that we've seen with homemade bombs in Iraq. Whether or not China ever has a motive to challenge America, it will increasingly have the capacity to do so. Certainly, the billions of dollars spent on Iraq (a war I supported) would not have gone for the expensive new air, naval and space systems necessary to retain our relative edge against a future peer competitor like China. But some of it would have. China's military expansion, with a defense budget growing by double digits for the 19th consecutive year, is part of a broader, regional trend. Russia - a Pacific as well as a European nation, we should remember - is right behind the United States and China as the world's biggest military spender. Japan, with 119 warships, including 20 diesel-electric submarines, boasts a naval force nearly three times larger than Britain's. (It is soon to be four times larger: 13 to 19 of Britain's 44 remaining large ships are set to be mothballed by the Labour government.) India's Navy could be the third-largest in the world in a few years as it becomes more active throughout the Indian Ocean, from the Mozambique Channel to the Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia. South Korea, Singapore and Pakistan all spend higher percentages of their gross domestic products on defense than do Britain and France - which are by far Europe's most serious military-minded nations. The twin trends of a rising Asia and a politically crumbling Middle East will most likely lead to a naval emphasis on the Indian Ocean and its surrounding seas, the sites of the ''brown water'' choke points of world commerce - the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, the Bab el Mandeb at the mouth of the Red Sea, and Malacca. These narrow bodies of water will become increasingly susceptible to terrorism, even as they become more and more clogged with tankers bringing Middle Eastern oil to the growing middle classes of India and China. The surrounding seas will then become home territory to Indian and Chinese warships, protecting their own tanker routes. To wit, China is giving Pakistan $200 million to build a deep-water port at Gwadar, just 390 nautical miles from the Strait of Hormuz. Beijing is also trying to work with the military junta in Myanmar to create another deep-water port on the Bay of Bengal. It has even hinted at financing a canal across the 30-mile Isthmus of Kra in Thailand that would open a new connection between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Oddly enough, the Pacific, as an organizing principle in world military affairs, will also encroach upon Africa. It's no secret that a major reason for the Pentagon's decision to establish its new Africa Command is to contain and keep an eye on China's growing web of development projects across the sub-Saharan regions. Still, measuring budgets, deployments, and sea and air ''platforms'' does not quite indicate just how much the ground is shifting beneath our feet. Military power rests substantially on the willingness to use it: perhaps less so in war than in peacetime as a means of leverage and coercion. That, in turn, requires a vigorous nationalism - something that is far more noticeable right now in Asia than in parts of an increasingly post-national West. As the Yale political scientist Paul Bracken notes in his book ''Fire in the East: The Rise of Asian Military Power and the Second Nuclear Age,'' the Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese have great pride in possessing nuclear weapons, unlike the Western powers that seem almost ashamed of needing them. Likewise, the right to produce nuclear arms is something that unites Iranians, regardless of their views of the clerical regime. Mending relations with Europe is only a partial answer to America's problems in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, since Europe itself continues to turn away from military power. This trend was quickened by the Iraq war, which has helped legitimize nascent European pacifism. People in countries like Germany, Italy and Spain see their own militaries not so much as soldiers but as civil servants in uniform: there for soft peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Meanwhile, Asia is marked by rivalries that encourage traditional arms races. Despite warming economic ties between Japan and China, and between Japan and South Korea, the Japanese and Chinese have fought wars of words over possession of the Senkaku (or, as the Chinese have it, Diaoyutai) Islands in the East China Sea; just as Japanese and South Koreans have over possession of the Takeshima Islands (Tokdo Islands to the Koreans) in the Sea of Japan. These are classic territorial disputes, stirring deep emotions of the sorts that often led to war in early modern Europe. Despite these tensions, the United States should also be concerned about the alternative possibility of a China-Japan entente. Some of China's recent diplomatic approaches to Japan have been couched in a new tone of respect and camaraderie, as it attempts to tame Japan's push toward rearmament and thus to reduce the regional influence of the United States. Asia's military-economic vigor is the product of united political, economic and military elites. In Asia, politics often does stop at the water's edge. In a post-Bush America, if we do not find a way to agree on basic precepts, Iraq may indeed turn out to have been the event that signaled our military decline. Preventing that will require continued high military expenditures combined with an unrelenting multilateralism of a sort we have not pursued since the 1990s. In the vast oceanic spaces bordering the Pacific and Indian Oceans, air, sea and space power will be paramount both as means of deterrence and of guarding the sea lanes. A global power at peace still requires a navy and an air force deployed as far forward as possible. That costs money. Even with the gargantuan cost of Iraq, our defense budget is still under 5 percent of our gross domestic product, low by historical standards. Furthermore, the very vitality of nation-states in the Pacific and Indian Oceans will take us back to an older world of traditional statecraft, in which we will need to tirelessly leverage allies and seek cooperation from competitors. Thus we should take advantage of the rising risk of terrorism and piracy in order to draw the Chinese and Indian Navies into joint patrols of choke points and tanker routes. Still, we should be careful about leveraging Japan and India too overtly against China. The Japanese continue to be distrusted throughout Asia, particularly in the Korean Peninsula, because of the horrors of World War II. As for India, as a number of policy experts leaders there told me on a recent visit: India will remain nonaligned, with a tilt toward the United States. But any official alliance would compromise India's own shaky relationship with China. Subtlety must be a keystone to our policy. We have to draw China in, not gang up against it. Because we remain the only major player in the Pacific and Indian Oceans without territorial ambitions or disputes with its neighbors, indispensability, rather than dominance, must be our goal. That, continuing deep into the 21st century, would be a stirring achievement. * Robert D. Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic and a visiting professor at the United States Naval Academy, is the author of ''Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea and on the Ground.''
C77
Julie Shen: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania) September 23, 2007 Sunday REGION EDITION SYRIA'S MOVE ASSAD IS UNDER COMPETING PRESSURES TO EITHER ATTACK ISRAELOR MAKE PEACE SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. G-3 LENGTH: 753 words An explosion ripped through a military base near Aleppo in northern Syria July 23, killing 15 Syrian soldiers and dozens of Iranian engineers. Summer temperatures of up to 122 degrees Fahrenheit caused an ammunition dump to "cook off," the Syrian government said. Since the explosion occurred at 4:30 in the morning, some were skeptical of the government's explanation. Jane's Defence Weekly is reporting in its Sept. 29 issue that the blast occurred while the Syrians and Iranians were attempting to put a chemical warhead on a Scud C missile. Most of the injuries were caused by the dispersion of nerve and mustard gas. Could it be that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad isn't as devoted to peace as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, seem to think he is? The assassination Wednesday of Antoine Ghanem, an anti-Syrian member of the Lebanese parliament, suggests Mr. Assad thinks it's easier to get what he wants by force than by "dialogue." Mr. Ghanem is the fourth anti-Syrian member of parliament to be murdered since December 2005. Syrian fingerprints in those murders, and in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, have been so obvious that even the United Nations has noticed. But Mr. Assad may be insufficiently bloodthirsty for some of his generals. They've reportedly told him he'll lose his job if he doesn't strike Israel soon. Since Mr. Assad is "president for life," more than his livelihood is at stake. Hardliners led by Gen. Assaf Shawkat, chief of Syrian military intelligence (and Mr. Assad's brother-in-law) insist that the chinless ophthalmologist retaliate for an Israeli air strike Sept. 6 near the town of Tal al-Abyad on Syria's border with Turkey. We don't know for sure what it was that Israel bombed because the people who do know are (mostly) keeping their mouths shut. But we can surmise it was something big, because it is uncharacteristic for these people to keep their mouths shut. British and American newspapers have published stories, based on leaks from Israeli and American sources, indicating the target was nuclear material recently delivered to Syria by North Korea. Israeli F-15s took out two targets, sources in the Pentagon told my friend Jack Wheeler, a conservative commentator. One contained nuclear weapons components shipped from North Korea; the other Zil Zal surface-to-surface missiles from Iran. Before the fighter-bombers attacked, Israeli commandos inserted by helicopter took out the radars for Syria's Russian-supplied air defense system. The international response to the raid -- or, rather, the lack of it -- deepens the mystery. North Korea has protested, but Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have not. The Israeli warplanes apparently entered Syria from Turkey. But Turkish authorities have issued only the mildest of complaints about this "violation" of their air space. The Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida reported that the Turkish army provided the Israelis with information on the targets. European governments usually are quick to condemn military action by Israel. Not this time. We haven't heard a peep from the usual suspects. Bernard Kouchner, France's new foreign minister, said the Israeli raid was "understandable" if the target were weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Lebanese terror group supported by Iran and Syria. Even Syria's public complaints have been tepid, perhaps because of its unwillingness to disclose just what it was that Israel bombed. But privately, Syrian generals are seething. And this puts Mr. Assad between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't retaliate, he risks unemployment, or worse. But the ease with which Israel conducted the raid suggests that if Syria attacks Israel, Syria will get its clock cleaned. Iran has made plans for a military coup if Mr. Assad vacillates about taking military action against Israel, Debka, the controversial Israeli private intelligence service, reported in August. But the private intelligence service STRATFOR reported last week that the leadership of Hezbollah is taking seriously -- and is worried about -- the possibility that a peace treaty might be worked out between Israel and Syria. "Will Mr. Assad be frightened out of the cocky aggressiveness that has caused him to sponsor or facilitate terrorism in Israel, Iraq and Lebanon?" asked The Washington Post in an editorial Thursday. "Or will he choose to escalate?" The answer may depend on whether Mr. Assad is more afraid of the Israelis than he is of the Iranians and his own generals.
C91
Julie Shen: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/corn-ethanol-biofuel-or-biofraud/?hp September 24, 2007, 4:36 pm Corn Ethanol: Biofuel or Biofraud? By Jerry Garrett Tags: biofuel, environment, ethanol, O.E.C.D. Ethanol plant in BrazilAn ethanol-sugar mill in São Paulo State. The cheapest and easiest to obtain form of ethanol is sugar cane ethanol. (Lalo de Almeida/The New York Times) Here’s an interesting bit of scientific research, courtesy of a recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a Paris-based global economic think tank, on the difference in greenhouse gas emissions from cars burning gasoline-only fuel and fuels made from various forms of ethanol: Corn ethanol: 0-3 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction. Sugar cane ethanol: 50-70 percent reduction. Cellulosic ethanol: 90-plus percent. But wait, there’s more: Which form of ethanol production is the United States government (and its taxpayers) subsidizing? Corn, of course. Which form of ethanol production does the United States government levy a 53-cents-a-gallon import tariff on? Sugar cane, naturally. And which form of ethanol production is under-funded, under-researched, and furthest from commercial production? The cleanest choice, obviously. Do you see a pattern here? Corn ethanol is also the culprit that raises costs of corn-based food crops, because food production is being diverted to ethanol production. Corn ethanol production also affects the price of other food crops such as wheat, barley and soybeans because it is economically more attractive for farmers to switch from those crops to subsidized corn-raising. Corn ethanol is also only marginally less costly (some critics think it may even cost more) to manufacture than a gallon of gasoline. The cheapest, easiest to obtain and most readily available form of ethanol available is sugar cane ethanol from Brazil. In fact, Stratfor, a strategic planning newsletter, pointed out that Brazil “has developed a fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and comes from a place that is politically stable and friendly to both the European Union and United States.” And Brazil has a surplus of it, ready to export. Why not do something right now to alleviate our fossil fuel energy addiction? Or should we wait until, say, 2022 when domestic ethanol production is projected to be ramped up, as a Bush administration target suggests? Until 2022, should we continue to meet our nation’s energy needs via our many friends in the Middle East? (This is working so well for us, so far.) Elsewhere in the O.E.C.D.’s scathing indictment of the corn ethanol industry, it called for an end to government subsidies to those growing corn for ethanol. It suggested the European Union act immediately to end “set-asides,” wherein part of the available farm land is left fallow for a year or two, to let the soil rest, and to keep grain prices artificially high by keeping it in shorter supply. The set-asides make especially little sense this year, in view of a widespread drought, lower yield grain harvests, and a significant diversion of acreage planted for corn-as-food to ethanol production instead. The O.E.C.D. said import tariffs on fuels, such as sugar cane ethanol, ought to be removed. The report also suggested a ban on using food crops for ethanol production. Ethanol isn’t fussy; it can be made any number of ways. And should meaningful cellulosic ethanol production ever get off the ground, it could easily be made from inedible crops like switchgrass or even garbage. So why is America, in particular, insisting on making ethanol from the worst possible choice? It seems that our government’s only true interest in ethanol production lies in placating its agricultural lobby, which in turn is seeking to cash in on forced legislative mandates for domestic ethanol production.
Pak army, ISI chief may not focus on combating jihadism in future: StratforMusharraf readies military for his civilian presidency
Pak army, ISI chief may not focus on combating jihadism in future: StratforCombating jihadism Pakistan’s greatest challenge: Stratfor
US raps Pakistan crackdown on oppositionUS slams Pakistan over crackdown on opposition
Dealing With IranTake Tehran next
Beware of the protectors
TOPIC
C100
Julie Shen: http://www.dailyindia.com/show/176474.php/Pak-army-ISI-chief-may-not-focus-on-combating-jihadism-in-future:-Stratfor Pak army, ISI chief may not focus on combating jihadism in future: Stratfor From our ANI Correspondent Washington, Sep 23: In coming days, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf would have to share power with an army chief, this in turn would mean that army and ISI chiefs might not be able to focus on combating jihadism, a US think tank has claimed. "The coming political transition is unlikely to foster stability because Musharraf would be sharing power with a civilian prime minister leading a coalition government, and with an army chief. This means the next Army Chief and the new head of the ISI could be heavily involved in politics at a time when they need to concentrate on combating jihadism," Stratfor said in its commentary. "Among other problems, this could create a conflict between Washington and Islamabad over the United States' counter-terrorism imperatives," it said. It further says, "Formally, he (Musharraf) would have this control; the Constitution gives the President power to appoint the chiefs of the three armed forces." "However, since he would not hold the dual offices he has held since he came to power, Musharraf would have to share control with the next Chief of Army Staff. It is well known that from 1988 to 1999, when the army was not directly ruling the country, the sitting President was the one whose position was in danger during any struggle between rival political forces, because the Army Chief did not necessarily side with the President," the Stratfor said. "To get around this problem, Musharraf is appointing and promoting people who would remain loyal to him after he takes a civilian role," it added. Commenting on the appointment of Lt General Nadeem Taj as the new chief of the ISI, it said, Taj had played an instrumental role in the 2004 release of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's husband, Asif Zardari. "Bhutto has a favourable opinion of Taj - an indication that his appointment as ISI director general is part of the ongoing Musharraf-Bhutto negotiations," Stratfor said. Copyright Dailyindia.com/ANI
C101
Julie Shen: http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTI2NzM0MzI= Musharraf readies military for his civilian presidency Published Date: September 24, 2007 Pakistani President Gen Pervez Musharraf has appointed a new chief of the country's premier intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), according to a Sept 21 press release from the military's media department. Maj Gen Nadeem Taj was promoted to lieutenant general and appointed ISI director-general, Inter-Services Public Relations said. Outgoing Director-General Lt Gen Ashfaq Kayani is expected to be promoted to a full general and appointed the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Commit tee (CJCSC). Taj is one of six major-generals who were promoted to three-star rank and given new posts; Maj Gen Mohsin Kamal was appointed to the key post of commander of the Rawalpindi-based 10th Corps, and Pakistani English daily The News reported Sept 19 that Maj Gen Nasir Janjua had been promoted and appointed director-general of military operations. These initial changes are part of the reshuffle triggered by the scheduled retirement of the current vice chief of army staff and the CJCSC on Oct 7. Contrary to his usual style, this time around Musharraf is promoting and appointing the top generals in stages, which is understandable given that he wants to time the changes in the military leadership with his own re-election in the presidential vote slated for Oct 6. In order to remain president, Musharraf needs to reach a political settlement with his op ponents, which will require him to step down as military chief. Musharraf's ability to secure another term depends on the Supreme Court's ruling on the petitions challenging his qualifications to seek re-election, and on whether a chunk of opposition parliament members-including those from the Pakistan People's Party with whom he is negotiating a power-sharing deal-resign. Regardless, he is moving along with preparations for the time when he is no longer military chief. Since Musharraf's power is a function of his position as military chief, he needs to be able to ensure that he can maintain control over the army even after he becomes a civilian president. Formally, he will have this control; the constitution gives the president power to appoint the chiefs of the three armed services. However, since he will not hold the dual offices he has held since he came to power, Musharraf will have to share control with the next chief of army staff. It is well-known that from 1988 t o 1999, when the army was not directly ruling the country, the sitting president was the one whose position was in danger during any struggle between rival political forces, because the army chief did not necessarily side with the civilian leader. To get around this problem, Musharraf is appointing and promoting people who will remain loyal to him after he takes a civilian role. The ISI chief is a critical player in this because of the directorate's historic role in domestic politics. Taj, the new ISI director, is considered one of Musharraf's closest loyalists and could give the president vital support in his new position. Taj previously served as Musharraf's military secretary and as head of Military Intelligence (MI), the country's second-most-powerful intelligence directorate. He also was with Musharraf in the plane that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif tried to prevent from landing in Pakistan in order to block Musharraf from mounting a coup against him. Additionally, Taj was accompanying the president in his motorcade during the second of two assassination attempts in December 2003. And we are told Taj played an instrumental role in the 2004 release of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's husband, Asif Zardari. Moreover, Bhutto has a favorable opinion of Taj-an indication that his appointment as ISI director-general is part of the ongoing Musharraf-Bhutto negotiations. Loyalty, however, is not the only criterion informing Musharraf's decisions as he appoints top generals. He also needs competent individuals to lead the military at a time when civilian institutions-the judiciary, media and civil society-have grown more assertive in the wake of the political crisis stemming from Musharraf's move to sack the country's chief justice. In addition, though a strong military leadership could challenge Musharraf, it is what he needs in order to further his personal and corporate interests. This is why Musharraf has thus far promoted and appointed generals who are known as very competent individuals. Taj was the commandant of the Pakistan Military Academy, and Kamal, the new commander of the 10th Corps, headed the famous Command and Staff College at Quetta and was commander of the sensitive department of Force Command Northern Area. That said, Pakistan now faces the biggest challenge since its inception: a growing jihadist insurgency. Thus far, the military establishment has been on the defensive regarding an unprecedented wave of suicide attacks, mostly against army personnel and facilities-including some very sensitive installations. The coming political transition is unlikely to foster stability because Musharraf will be sharing power with a civilian prime minister leading a coalition government, and with an army chief. This means the next army chief and the new head of the ISI could be heavily involved in politics at a time when they need to concentrate on combating jihadism. The process of purging militant sympathizers within the ranks of the military and the intelligence apparatus has been going on since the 9/11 attacks, but the new ISI chief will not be able to deal with the jihadist problem before sealing the leaks in the national security network-an objective that is not likely to be achieved any time soon. Among other problems, this could create a conflict between Washington and Islamabad over the United States' counterterrorism imperatives. – Stratfor
C103
Julie Shen: http://www.pakistanlink.com/Headlines/Sep07/23/08.htm Sunday, September 23, 2007 Combating jihadism Pakistan’s greatest challenge: Stratfor * Musharraf will have to share control with the next army chief By Khalid Hasan Washington: “The coming political transition is unlikely to foster stability because Musharraf will be sharing power with a civilian prime minister leading a coalition government, and with an army chief. This means the next army chief and the new head of the ISI could be heavily involved in politics at a time when they need to concentrate on combating jihadism,” according to a commentary by Stratfor. The Texas-based news intelligence service discloses that the new chief of ISI Lt Gen Nadeem Taj played an instrumental role in the 2004 release of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s husband, Asif Zardari. “Moreover, Bhutto has a favourable opinion of Taj - an indication that his appointment as ISI director general is part of the ongoing Musharraf-Bhutto negotiations,” it adds. According to the commentary, since Gen Musharraf’s power is a function of his position as military chief, he needs to be able to ensure that he can maintain control over the army even after he becomes a civilian president. Musharraf sharing control: “Formally, he will have this control; the Constitution gives the president power to appoint the chiefs of the three armed services. However, since he will not hold the dual offices he has held since he came to power, Musharraf will have to share control with the next chief of army staff. It is well known that from 1988 to 1999, when the army was not directly ruling the country, the sitting president was the one whose position was in danger during any struggle between rival political forces, because the army chief did not necessarily side with the president. To get around this problem, Musharraf is appointing and promoting people who will remain loyal to him after he takes a civilian role.” Stratfor said Pakistan now faces the biggest challenge since its inception: a growing jihadist insurgency. Thus far, the military establishment has been on the defensive regarding an unprecedented wave of suicide attacks, mostly against army personnel and facilities - including some very sensitive installations. The process of purging militant sympathisers within the ranks of the military and the intelligence apparatus has been going on since the 9/11 attacks, but the new ISI chief will not be able to deal with the jihadist problem before sealing the leaks in the national security network - an objective that is not likely to be achieved any time soon. Among other problems, this could create a conflict between Washington and Islamabad over the United States’ counter-terrorism imperatives. Courtesy DailyTimes.com.pk
C107
Julie Shen: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/864/re61.htm Take Tehran next Israel's unacknowledged recent air attack on Syria is about laying the grounds for the new war Bush wants before leaving office, writes Jonathan Cook in Nazareth Bashar Al-Assad Israel's air strike on northern Syria earlier this month should be understood in the context of events unfolding since its assault last summer on neighbouring Lebanon. Although little more than rumours have been offered about what took place, one strategic forecasting group, Stratfor, still concluded: "Something important happened." From the leaks so far, it seems that more than half a dozen Israeli warplanes violated Syrian airspace to drop munitions on a site close to the border with Turkey. We also know from the US media that the "something" occurred in close coordination with the White House. But what was the purpose and significance of the attack? It is worth recalling that, in the wake of Israel's month-long war against Lebanon a year ago, a prominent American neo-conservative, Meyrav Wurmser, wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney's Middle East adviser, explained that the war had dragged on because the White House delayed in imposing a ceasefire. The neo-cons, she said, wanted to give Israel the time and space to expand the attack to Damascus. The reasoning was simple: before an attack on Iran could be countenanced, Hizbullah in Lebanon had to be destroyed and Syria at the very least cowed. The plan was to isolate Tehran on these two other hostile fronts before going in for the kill. But faced with constant rocket fire from Hizbullah last summer, Israel's public and military nerves frayed at the first hurdle. Instead, Israel and the US were forced to settle for a Security Council resolution rather than a decisive military victory. The immediate fallout of the failed attack was an apparent waning of neo-con influence. The group's philosophy of "creative destruction" in the Middle East -- the encouragement of regional civil war and the partition of large states that threatened Israel -- was at risk of being shunted aside. Instead, the "pragmatists" of the Bush administration, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, demanded a change of tactics. The standoff reached a head in late 2006 when oilman James Baker and his Iraq Study Group began lobbying for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, presumably only after a dictator, this one more reliable, had been installed in Baghdad. It looked as if the neo-cons' day in the sun had finally passed. Israel's leadership understood the gravity of the moment. In January 2007, the Herzliya conference, an annual festival of strategy making, invited no less than 40 Washington opinion-formers to join the usual throng of Israeli politicians, generals, journalists and academics. For a week the Israeli and American delegates spoke as one: Iran and its presumed proxy, Hizbullah, were bent on the genocidal destruction of Israel. Tehran's development of a nuclear programme -- whether for civilian use, as Iran argues, or for military use, as the US and Israel claim -- had to be stopped at all costs. While the White House turned uncharacteristically quiet all spring and summer about what it planned to do next, rumours that Israel was pondering a go-it- alone strike against Iran grew noisier by the day. Ex- Mossad officers warned of an inevitable third world war, Israeli military intelligence advised that Iran was only months away from the point of no return on developing a nuclear warhead, prominent leaks in sympathetic media revealed bombing runs to Gibraltar, and Israel started upping the pressure on several tens of thousands of Jews in Tehran to flee their homes and come to Israel. While Western analysts opined that an attack on Iran was growing unlikely, Israel's neighbours watched nervously through the first half of the year as the vague impression of a regional war came ever more sharply into relief. In particular Syria, after witnessing the whirlwind of aerial savagery unleashed against Lebanon last summer, feared it was next in line in the US-Israeli campaign to break Tehran's network of regional alliances. It deduced, probably correctly, that neither the US nor Israel would dare attack Iran without first clobbering Hizbullah and Damascus. For some time Syria had been left in no doubt of the mood in Washington. It failed to end its pariah status in the post-9/11 period, despite helping the CIA with intelligence on Al-Qaeda and secretly trying to make peace with Israel over the running sore of the occupied Golan Heights. It was rebuffed at every turn. So as the clouds of war grew darker in the spring, Syria responded as might be expected. It went to the arms market in Moscow and bought up the displays of anti-aircraft missiles as well as anti-tank weapons of the kind Hizbullah demonstrated last summer were so effective at repelling Israel's planned ground invasion of South Lebanon. As the renowned Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld reluctantly conceded earlier this year, US policy was forcing Damascus to remain within Iran's uncomfortable embrace: "Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad finds himself more dependent on his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, than perhaps he would like." Israel, never missing an opportunity to wilfully misrepresent the behaviour of an enemy, called the Syrian military build-up proof of Damascus's appetite for war. Apparently fearful that Syria might initiate a war by mistaking signals from Israel as evidence of aggressive intentions, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert urged Syria to avoid a "miscalculation". The Israeli public spent the summer braced for a far more dangerous repeat of last summer's war along the northern border. It was at this point -- with tensions simmering -- that Israel launched its strike, sending several fighter planes into Syria on a lightning mission to hit a site near Dayr Al--Zawr. As Syria itself broke the news of the attack, Israeli generals were shown on TV toasting in the Jewish New Year but refusing to comment. Details have remained thin on the ground ever since: Israel imposed a news blackout that has been strictly enforced by the country's military censor. Instead, it has been left to the Western media to speculate on what occurred. One point that none of the pundits and analysts noted was that, in attacking Syria, Israel committed a blatant act of aggression against its northern neighbour of the kind denounced as the "supreme international crime" by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. Also, no one pointed out the obvious double standard applied to Israel's attack on Syria compared to the far less significant violation of Israeli sovereignty by Hizbullah a year earlier, when the Shia militia captured two Israel soldiers at a border post and killed three more. Hizbullah's act was widely accepted as justification for the bombardment and destruction of much of Lebanon, even if a few sensitive souls agonised over whether Israel's response was "disproportionate". Would these commentators now approve of similar retaliation by Syria? The question was doubtless considered unimportant because it was clear from Western coverage that no one -- including the Israeli leadership -- believed Syria was in a position to respond militarily to Israel's attack. Olmert's fear of a Syrian "miscalculation" evaporated the moment Israel did the math for Damascus. So what did Israel hope to achieve with its aerial strike? Stories emerging from the less gagged American media suggest two scenarios. The first is that Israel targeted Iranian supplies passing through Syria on their way to Hizbullah; the second that Israel struck at a Syrian nuclear plant where materials from North Korea were being offloaded, possibly as part of a joint nuclear effort by Damascus and Tehran. (Speculation that Israel was testing Syria's anti-aircraft defences in preparation for an attack on Iran ignores the fact that the Israeli air force would almost certainly choose a flight path through friendlier Jordanian airspace). How credible are these two scenarios? The nuclear claims against Damascus were discounted so quickly by region experts that Washington was soon downgrading the accusation to claims that Syria was only hiding North Korean material. But why would Syria, already hounded by Israel and the US, provide such a readymade pretext for still harsher treatment? Why, equally, would North Korea undermine its hard-won disarmament deal with the US? And why, if Syria were covertly engaging in nuclear mischief, did Syria alert the world to the fact by revealing the Israeli air strike? The other justification for the attack was at least based in a more credible reality: Damascus, Hizbullah and Iran undoubtedly do share some military resources. But their alliance should be seen as the kind of defensive pact needed by vulnerable actors in a Sunni- dominated region where the US wants unlimited control of Gulf oil and supports only those repressive regimes that cooperate on its terms. All three are keenly aware that it is Israel's job to threaten and punish any regimes that fail to toe the line. Contrary to the impression being created in the West, genocidal hatred of Israel and Jews, however often Ahmadinejad's speeches are mistranslated, is not the engine of this tripartite alliance. Nonetheless, the political significance of the justifications for the Israeli air strike is that both neatly tie together various strands of an argument needed by the neo-cons and Israel in making their case for an attack on Iran before Bush leaves office in early 2009. Each scenario suggests a Shia "axis of evil" coordinated by Iran that is actively plotting Israel's destruction. And each story offers pretext for an attack on Syria as a prelude to a pre-emptive strike -- launched either by Washington or Tel Aviv -- against Tehran to save Israel. That these stories appear to have been planted in the American media by neo-con masters of spin like John Bolton is caution enough -- as is the admission that the only evidence for Syrian malfeasance is Israeli "intelligence", the basis of which cannot be questioned as Israel is not officially admitting the attack. It should hardly need pointing out that we are again in a hall of mirrors, as we were during the period leading up to America's invasion of Iraq and have been during its subsequent occupation. Bush's "war on terror" was originally justified with convenient and manufactured links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, as well as, of course, those weapons of mass destruction that, it later turned out, had been destroyed more than a decade earlier. Ever since, however, Tehran has invariably been the ultimate target of these improbable confections. There were the forged documents proving both that Iraq had imported enriched uranium from Niger to manufacture nuclear warheads and that it was sharing its nuclear know-how with Iran. And as Iraq fell apart, neo-con ideologues like Michael Ledeen lost no time in spreading rumours that the missing nuclear arsenal could still be accounted for: Iranian agents had simply smuggled it out of Iraq during the chaos of the US invasion. Since then our media have proved that they have no less of an appetite for such preposterous tales. If Iran's involvement in stirring up its fellow Shia in Iraq against the US occupation is at least possible, the same cannot be said of regular White House claims that Tehran is behind the Sunni-led insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few months ago the news media served up "revelations" that Iran was secretly conspiring with Al-Qaeda and Iraq's Sunni militias to oust the US occupiers. So what purpose does the constant innuendo against Tehran serve? The latest accusations should be seen as an example of Israel and the neo-cons "creating their own reality", as one Bush adviser famously observed of the neo-con philosophy of power. The more that Hizbullah, Syria and Iran are menaced by Israel, the more they are forced to huddle together and behave in ways to protect themselves -- such as arming -- that can be portrayed as a "genocidal" threat to Israel and world order. Van Creveld once observed that Tehran would be "crazy" not to develop nuclear weapons given the clear trajectory of Israeli and US machinations to overthrow the regime. Equally Syria cannot afford to jettison its alliance with Iran or its involvement with Hizbullah. In the current reality, these connections are the only power it has to deter an attack or force the US and Israel to negotiate. But they are also the evidence needed by Israel and the neo-cons to convict Syria and Iran in the court of Washington opinion. The attack on Syria is part of a clever hustle, one designed to vanquish or bypass doubters in the Bush administration. Condoleezza Rice, it emerged at the weekend, wants to invite Syria to attend the regional peace conference that has been called by President Bush for November. There can be no doubt that such an act of détente is deeply opposed by both Israel and the neo-cons. It reverses their strategy of implicating Damascus in the "Shia arc of extremism" and of paving the way to an attack on the real target: Iran. Instead a new reality must be created -- one in which the forces of "creative destruction" so beloved of the neo-cons engulf yet more of the region. For the rest of us, a simpler vocabulary suffices. What is being sold is catastrophe.
C115
Julie Shen: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/beware-of-the-protectors/2007/09/21/1189881777362.html Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) September 22, 2007 Saturday First Edition Beware of the protectors BYLINE: Tom Allard SECTION: NEWS AND FEATURES; News Review; Pg. 31 LENGTH: 1999 words The killing of 11 Iraqi civilians has highlighted unruly behaviour among private security firms who have become hated in a painfully unpopular war, writes Tom Allard. The six-vehicle convoy was cruising through Baghdad's Mansour district on Sunday on its way to the fortified green zone, ferrying US diplomats back from a meeting. It had all the hallmarks of a routine operation, one undertaken many times each day throughout Iraq's capital by the private para-military security contractors Blackwater USA. Then the convoy of armoured-plated vehicles hit a traffic snarl. What happened next is a matter of dispute, but the repercussions have the potential to seriously undermine the already deeply troubled US-led war effort in Iraq. The incident has also thrown an uncomfortable spotlight on the privatisation of the Iraq war, and the modern-day mercenaries who play such a pivotal role in it. According to witness Hassan Jabir, the Blackwater guards - stuck in a traffic jam, their black-tinted 4WDs betraying their high-value human cargo - panicked and opened fire. "After 20 minutes, the Americans told us to turn back," the Iraqi lawyer told Associated Press from his Baghdad hospital bed on Thursday. "They shouted 'go, go, go' ... When we started turning back, the Americans began shooting heavily at us." Bedlam ensued, says Jabir, who was hit by two bullets, one piercing his left lung, the other lodging in his intestines. "I saw a 10-year-old boy jump in fear from one of the minibuses. He was shot in his head. His mother jumped after him and was also killed. "I swear to God that they were not exposed to any fire," Jabir says of the Blackwater guards. "They are criminals and thirst for blood." While 11 Iraqi civilians were reportedly killed, Blackwater insisted its guards came under attack from insurgents and were acting in self defence. But, after establishing notoriety over 4 1/2 years in Iraq for its aggressive use of overwhelming force and immunity from the law, few are giving Blackwater the benefit of the doubt. Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, responded by revoking Blackwater's licence to operate in the country, saying the incident had resulted in "widespread anger and hatred" among Iraqis towards the company. "We will not tolerate the killing of our citizens in cold blood," he said. There will also be a joint Iraq-US review of private security contractors, the new breed of highly paid operatives in Iraq who number between 30,000 and 50,000 and have become an indispensable, but controversial, part of the US-led war effort. "Iraqi civilians universally revile the force and aggression these firms often use, since they most often bear the brunt of it," said the respected private intelligence analysis firm, Stratfor, in a briefing this week. "They are a particularly unpopular element of an already painfully unpopular war." There are more than 180,000 people contracted to the US Government in Iraq, more than the number of foreign military personnel in the country. Most undertake relatively routine jobs such as cleaning or serving food at military bases, providing logistics and transport support and reconstructing Iraq's devastated infrastructure. About 30 to 40 per cent of the $US500 billion ($580 billion) spent in Iraq and Afghanistan has been handed to private enterprise. Forget the coalition of the willing, it's the coalition of the billing. Of those providing security roles, the range of tasks is immense - from protecting bases, munitions disposal and interrogating prisoners to providing intelligence and maintaining spy equipment. But most hated of all are the paramilitary security outfits protecting diplomats, officials and business people, as well as coalition facilities and transport vehicles. Blackwater is one of more than 100 private security firms in Iraq, but has become a totemic symbol of all that is wrong with privatisation of the Iraq war. Founded by a former Navy SEAL and scion of a wealthy Republican family, Erik Prince, it has secured $US500 million in US government contracts since the war on terrorism was unleashed. As well as providing security for the US Department of State, it also protects the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus - an extraordinary task that reflects both the inability of the US to put enough troops on the ground in Iraq and the close links between Blackwater and the US security establishment. Most of Blackwater's 1500 operatives in Iraq are former US military personnel, while its vice-chairman is Cofer Black, the former head of the State Department's counterterrorism division. Black joined Blackwater in 2005, a year after four Blackwater employees were found hanged in the streets of Fallujah, their bodies dismembered by a bloodthirsty mob. That incident led to the assault on Fallujah by the US military, a brutal operation aimed at suppressing the restive population that ended with the deaths of 27 marines and hundreds of Iraqi civilians. It lead to widespread revulsion of the US occupying force by the wider Iraqi population. The firefight on Sunday is just the latest of a litany of contentious episodes involving Blackwater. According to the Iraqi Government, there have been at least half a dozen incidents where Blackwater guards have allegedly fired on civilians in the past few months. In May the firm was involved in two shoot-outs over consecutive days, one in front of Iraq's Interior Ministry building which led to a confrontation between Blackwater guards and Iraqi forces. It was resolved only after US diplomats and troops intervened. One security contractor in Iraq, who asked not to be identified, says he is aware of an incident about a year ago where Blackwater staff were protecting a client who worked at a Baghdad hospital. The Blackwater operatives parked their vehicle in the ambulance bay, close to the front door to aid a rapid exit if required. While they waited, a nearby Iraqi checkpoint was hit by a roadside bomb. As the ambulances rushed to the hospital and the designated drop-off point, the Blackwater guards opened fire, killing more police and ambulance staff. Blackwater had "been doing this kind of thing for years", says the contractor, who remains in Iraq. Mark Munro, a former Australian soldier who worked as a security contractor in Iraq and was caught in an attack by a suicide car bomber, says Blackwater "had a terrible reputation over there". What infuriates Iraqis - and increasing worries US lawmakers - is that the soldiers of fortune who work for the likes of Blackwater seem to operate outside the law. The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, President George Bush's pro-consul in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, was guarded by Blackwater. He granted immunity from prosecution to security contractors. The edict, known as Order 17, may or may not have lapsed since the Iraqi Government was formed, but only two indictments of abuse have been issued and none of them resolved. Successful courts-martial have been launched against military personnel involved in the Abu Garb prisoner abuse scandal, but the four private contractors involved in the abuse were freed. Congressional legislation this year mandated that private contractors be subject to the US court-martial system, but the Department of Defence has so far not introduced any regulations. Moreover, "Iraqi courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevant member country of the multinational forces in Aired, according to a US congressional paper released this year.It is clear that allegations of gross misconduct by security contractors - at least until Sunday - do not appear to have concerned the US Government at all. Last year, an infamous video was widely circulated showing employees of the British firm Aegis taking pot shots at any car that got within 100 metres of their convoy. Edited to the sounds of Avails Brashly, the Aegis contractors can be seen indiscriminately firing automatic rounds at cars, smashing wintergreen and causing at least two vehicles to veer violently after their drivers were apparently shot. Soon after, Aegis was awarded a two-year $Asci million contract to provide security services to the US military. A senior Australian Army officer, who has done three tours of duty in the Middle East since 2001, says the Australian Defence Force had as little as possible to do with contractors. Unlike the US, Australia provides security for its own diplomats and officials in Baghdad with an army security detachment based in the green zone. "There they are in their reflector sunglasses, belts with four different phones, the weapons, the 1000-yard stare," the officer says. "They could walk the walk and then you would find out they hadn't been in special forces but had worked in a logistics warehouse." The officer says there is a fundamental difference in outlook. "In terms of everything we do, it's always predicated on the consent of the local population. You engage, you promote empathy, you develop relationships. Australians are fantastic at doing this," he says. "What are the interests of the private security operators? They want to protect the convoy, protect the facility, protect the dignitary. They want to finish the job that day. The potential for their action to impact on the consent of the population is not a consideration." The tendency of many private security contractors to use overwhelming force is also because, by and large, they cannot count on the large back-up support of a conventional military force if they get into trouble. "In a situation like that, it's every man for themselves," Munro says. "There are lots of civilians with weapons in Iraq. If they even looked like coming towards me [during a firefight] I would not hesitate to have a go at them." The problem for the US-led coalition is that the Iraqi people do not distinguish between military forces and private contractors. Nor should they, because private contractors are so essential to the war effort since the US and its allies do not have enough troops on the ground to do the job. It explains why the US will pressure the Iraqi Government to reverse its stance on Blackwater, a decision that has seen its diplomats confined to the green zone unless they can get helicopter transport. For the insurgents, though, attacking private contractors appears to be a winning strategy. It earns them kudos with the local population and, when civilians die, splits the US and Iraqi governments. "They would be rubbing their hands together going 'You bloody beauty'," says Paul Jordan, a former AS member who works for Hart Australia, a security firm with more than 150 people working in Iraq and Afghanistan. "They can't force the US military to leave, but they can get one of the private security companies out. It's a huge victory." Avoiding public scrutiny - Spectrum A PROFILE OF CONTRACTORS Private security firms in Iraq: More than 100, including about 30 domestic companies. Employees: From 30,000 to 48,000. About 10 per cent come from the US and other Western countries, about 30 per cent from non-Western countries and the rest from Iraq. Serving: Diplomats, aid workers, journalists, reconstruction workers and others of the estimated 160,000 foreign civilians working in Iraq. Origin: Most American security contractors come from the US military and are often former special operations forces with specialised skills in intelligence gathering, communications, evasive manoeuvres and small-arms combat operations. Pay: Iraqis with basic skills are paid several hundred US dollars a month; highly capable employees from countries such as India and Nepal earn between $US2000 ($2300) and $US3000 a month. Former special operations forces from the US, Britain, Australia and other Western countries can earn as much as $US18,000 a month. Sources: US General Accounting Office; International Peace Operations Association, Washington; The Private Security Company Association of Iraq; US Army pay scale.
MEDIA COVERAGE EXPERTUS COVERAGENETWORKSFox News- O'Reilly Factor George
BLOGS
RADIO STATIONS
ELECTRONIC
UPIFree Market News
NEWSPAPERS
MAGAZINES/JOURNALS
INTERNATIONAL COVERAGENETWORKS
BLOGS
RADIO STATIONS
ELECTRONICKashmire Herald- India Fred/Scott
ANI- IndiaNew Kerala - India *ANI reprintDaily India *ANI reprintZee News- India *ANI reprint
Hindustan Times *ANI reprintDaily India *ANI reprintMalaysia Sun *ANI reprintNew Kerala- India *ANI reprintHindustan Times *ANI reprintMalaysia Sun *ANI reprintDaily India *ANI reprintNew Kerala- India *ANI reprint
NEWSPAPERSStraits Times- SingaporeGlobe and Mail- Canada Kamran
MAGAZINES/JOURNALS
TOTALS
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS EVENTSPEAKER
SPEAKER
TOTAL NO. OF ENGAGEMENTS
STRATFOR EXPERT
FredGeorge
Fred
Rodger
GeorgeFred
Rodger
HEADLINE
Impact
C37
Julie Shen: Fox News Network October 3, 2007 Wednesday SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR 8:11 PM EST Impact BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly GUESTS: George Friedman SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 894 words O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight, how dangerous is Iran? A "Wall Street Journal" op-ed by Michael Rubin today says that the U.N. is likely to do very little about Iran developing a nuclear weapon, primarily because Russia is making billions selling arms to Iran. And Putin wants chaos in the Gulf because it puts the USA on the defensive and leads to higher oil prices. Russia is loaded with oil. Back here, President Carter and other liberals are downplaying the danger from Iran. Bill Maher put forth this about Ahmadinejad. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL MAHER: There are Jews in the Iranian parliament. You can't be that anti-Semitic. I think those are the equivalent of when the Republicans in this country say gay marriage will lead to death. (END VIDEO CLIP) O'REILLY: All right. And that is the prevailing wisdom put forth by the left, that they're not that bad in Iran. Joining us now from Austin, Texas, Dr. George Friedman, the CEO of Stratfor.com, a private intelligence firm that we often use. All right, doctor, you see articles in magazines now. You see a bunch of people on television downplaying the danger? Is that a wise thing to do? GEORGE FRIEDMAN, PH.D., STRATFOR.COM: Well, you can over do the danger, but there is a big one. I mean, the danger is simply this, Iran is the largest military power in the Persian Gulf absent the United States. If the (INAUDIBLE) is going to dominate not only Iraq, but the Arabian peninsula, and that means the Saudi oil and so on, that's what Iran really wants to do to me, from my point of view, the nuclear issue is somewhat a side issue. But Iran certainly is a powerful country. It has interests that are now the same as the United States or a lot of other people. And left alone, it will be dangerous. O'REILLY: All right, but it's hostile to the United States, is it not? It wants to damage America. And under the protection of Putin, who is not going to allow the United Nations by its veto power, Russia has veto power in the Security Council, to do anything meaningful to stop nuclear development of a weapon in Iran, you have a nation that wants to harm the United States, and certainly wants to harm Israel, in a position now to get the nuclear weapon and become even more powerful, right? FRIEDMAN: Well, any under any circumstances developing a nuclear weapon, whether it takes one or ten years, it's on its way. Putin absolutely loves the situation that's developed in Iraq. It loves the idea of the United States being bogged down in Iraq, being threatened by the Iranians, giving the Russians a free hand to reassert their power in the former Soviet Union. So they are certainly going to back the Iranians. The Iranians are going to use that backing for all its worth. But I just want to draw your attention to where everybody is focused on the nuclear threat of Iran, which is five, 10 years down the road, the immediate threat is if Iran comes to dominate Iraq, it is going to dominate the entire region. O'REILLY: And that means oil prices will -- could go up to a, you know, $2 a barrel or whatever Iran -- whatever chaos it wanted to impose in that Gulf region. And of course, Putin would profit from that. But... FRIEDMAN: Yes. O'REILLY: ...you have Jimmy Carter and you have, you know, the elite left and certainly the far left banging the drum that for the United States to confront Iran is foolish, dangerous, stupid, whatever you want to put in front of it. And I'm saying to myself, I think that's gaining a little currency here. FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, it may be. It's the easy way to think about it. Look, the United States is confronting Iran. Iran is confronting the United States . That's not the issue. The issue is what the United States does about it. There's a case to be made for the United States to be very, very cautious with Iran at a time when they were bogged down in Iraq. But the idea that the United States has nothing to fear from Iran is extraordinarily simplistic. You know, I was really struck by Jimmy Carter's statement on Iran. I mean, this is the guy who presided over the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini. And he didn't understand it then. He doesn't understand it now. They don't have to be evil or horrible or anything else. Their interests and our interests are very different. And we don't have an option. O'REILLY: OK. If Iran is being protected by Putin and to a certain extent China as it is, why would they ever do anything conciliatory toward the United States? They're just going to basically give us the finger, pardon the expression, and do whatever they want to do because they're protected by Russia and China. I'll give you the last word. FRIEDMAN: They're afraid of one thing. The United States stabilizing Iraq, creating a Sunni government in Iraq. They fought a war with Iraq that cost them a million casualties. That's a huge number in 1980s. That is their primordial fear. So that's what we have to bargain with -- the fact that we're staying, the fact that we're going to build a regime that could threaten them. O'REILLY: All right. And I don't think many Americans have a clue about it, doctor. I don't think they have a clue about it. Maybe I'm wrong. And I hope I am. Coming right back with Rita Cosby being sued for $60 million. And later, Dennis Miller could get sued for he's going to say about the Limbaugh controversy and Britney Spears losing her kids. Ahead.
Analysis: Nigeria wants militant backQatar Off Dollar - US Admin Approves?
Indian Muslims - 'A big disappointment' to Al Qaeda
Analyst agrees with Stratfor report on ULFA outsourcing suicide attacksAnalyst agrees with Stratfor report on ULFA outsourcing suicide attacksAnalyst agrees with Stratfor report on ULFA outsourcing suicide attacks
Analyst agrees with report on ULFA outsourcing suicide attacks
Musharraf says after re-election he will doff uniform by Nov. 15Musharraf says after re-election he will doff uniform by Nov. 15Musharraf says after re-election he will doff uniform by Nov. 15Musharraf says after re-election he will doff uniform by Nov. 15The great 'yes' 'no' battle between Musharraf and Benazir is onThe great 'yes' 'no' battle between Musharraf and Benazir is onThe great 'yes' 'no' battle between Musharraf and Benazir is onThe great 'yes' 'no' battle between Musharraf and Benazir is on
C50
Julie Shen: http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Analysis/2007/10/04/analysis_nigeria_wants_militant_back_/4502/ Analysis: Nigeria wants militant back Published: Oct. 4, 2007 at 4:43 PM Print story Email to a friend Font size: By CARMEN GENTILE UPI Energy Correspondent The Nigerian government has called for Angola to return a militant leader captured last month and detained on weapons-trafficking charges so he can face trial, Nigerian news sources reported Wednesday. The militant, Henry Okah, is believed to be a key member of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, a leading militant movement responsible for numerous attacks on foreign oil installations over the last two years. Okah was picked up in Angola Sept. 3 on weapons-trafficking charges, which MEND said were trumped up by Nigeria and Angola. Both nations’ leaders have denied the accusations. While most MEND members and its leadership received guarded praise from Nigeria’s new leadership for initiating a cease-fire, Okah reportedly continued to wage violent attacks and denounced the end of hostilities while continuing a weeks-long battle with rival groups in the streets of the oil-rich Niger Delta's largest city, Port Harcourt. Last month, before Okah’s arrest, MEND threatened to end its cease-fire and said it would resume attacking petroleum installations in the delta. But since then there have been no reported attacks of violence attributed to MEND, though the militant group said its decision to end the cease-fire was prompted by Okah’s arrest. “Understandably, there is anxiety in the country over what the next line of action by the dreaded members of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger-Delta would be” following Okah’s arrest, wrote Emma Amaize in Nigeria’s Vanguard newspaper Wednesday. MEND and other militant groups have been blamed for hundreds of kidnappings since violence in the delta began in 2005. Increased violence against oil operations in the delta has caused significant drops in the country’s oil output, according to the Nigerian government and independent accounts. Before stepped-up hostilities by militant and other armed groups in the Niger Delta beginning in late 2005, Nigeria claimed to be producing about 2.5 million barrels per day. Since then, production has reportedly decreased by at least 20 percent, perhaps even by one-third, warn some analysts. Since the 1970s, Nigeria, Africa's No. 1 oil producer, has pumped more than $300 billion worth of crude from the southern delta states, according to estimates. High unemployment in the delta, environmental degradation due to oil and gas extraction, and a lack of basic resources such as fresh water and electricity have angered the region's youth, who have taken up arms, many times supplied by political leaders, and formed militant groups and local gangs. The militants have called for a more equitable distribution of the country’s oil wealth. Hoping to quell the violence, Nigerian President Umaru Yar’Adua reached out the gunmen following his April election asking for them to give his administration time to tackle the problems of the delta. Those proposed reforms include changes to the Nigerian economy, particularly its petroleum sector, which generates up to 95 percent of the country’s revenue. “We have a very clear vision. It is not going to be easy to achieve, but we will try very hard,” said Yar’Adua in September at the U.N. General Assembly. Although Yar’Adua’s conviction to take on corruption appears genuine, his ability to succeed remains in question. “The situation in Port Harcourt (and the Niger Delta) will remain unstable in the short term until Nigerian authorities can regain some level of control,” said a recent report by Stratfor consulting group. Others, however, have praised the Nigerian leader for his efforts. The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, representing one of Nigeria’s most dominant tribes, said Yar’Adua’s “crusade for transparency, accountability and good governance” recognizes the need to address economic injustices in the delta as a means of curtailing the violence there. -- (e-mail: [email protected])
C51
Julie Shen: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49841 Qatar Off Dollar - US Admin Approves? Friday, October 05, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com The Financial Times has reported that "the Qatari and Vietnamese governments ... are rapidly divesting in dollar denominated securities [and that this] will not come as good news to the US government. Overseas investors hold half of America’s $4,400bn of marketable government debt, up from a third in 2001 according to the US Treasury department." http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2007/10/04/7831/qatar-vietnam-ditch-the-dollar/ For at least some financial observers, The idea that Qatar is dumping the dollar without the implicit, if not explicit, approval of American political powers-that-be is hard to fathom. In fact, as has been pointed out by FMNN commentators in the past, Qatar is a staunch ally of the United States and the jumping off point for its invasion into Iraq. Not only that, but the ruling family owes its position to U.S. military invations: ===== http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/134/2789/2005-11-01.asp?nid=2789&wid=134 According to Stratfor, Qatar’s support of the United States was of the utmost importance when it came to the war in Iraq, as follows: “Withdrawal of support for the U.S. invasion in Qatar would most likely make the invasion of Iraq an impossibility. The support offered by other Middle Eastern nations, already under intense pressure from their populations, would likely evaporate completely. Even Turkey, a staunch NATO ally has been strongly signaling its reservations in recent weeks, and it is not capable of single-handedly hosting the invasion.” Stratfor also reported on a coup attempt in Qatar that involved elements of the royal family sympathetic to the anti-Iraq war Saudi Arabian position. Various ‘Net reports indicate that the coup was foiled by the U.S. military – thus leaving the leader of the country pro-U.S. Sheikh al-Thani in a position of being indebted to the United States not only for its protection of Qatar but also for protection of his personal reign. ===== The relationship between Qatar and the US is so close that even the Qatar creation of the Al Jazeera news network seems suspect. An outgrowth of the BBC, elaborately funded by the Qatar ruling family, could Al Jazeera be a "controlled opposition" news network rather than an actual homegrown information initiative, as has been portrayed? In any event Qatar's announced dollar dump comes at a critical time, as the Financial Times points out. And as mentioned above, FMNN has heard that suspicious-minded financial critics of the US administration are asking if it could have anything to do with the North American Union that the American power structure seems to favor - one which would see a "super state" created from Canada, Mexico and the United States. The lead currency of such a super state would be the so-called "Amero." Of course, the dollar itself will have to capsize in a big way before Americans will be persuaded to give up their precious currency.
C81
Julie Shen: http://www.kashmirherald.com/main.php?t=OP&st=D&no=295 Indian Muslims - 'A big disappointment' to Al Qaeda M. RAMA RAO American intelligence experts too have now given a certificate to Indian Muslims. They (Indian Muslims) are a 'big disappointment' to Al Qaeda, these experts said in a signed terrorism intelligence report. Reason? India has strong Sufi traditions. Therefore, Muslims in India are 'far more moderate' and 'far more integrated in India than elsewhere, say Fred Burton and Scott Stewart, who have authored the report. These comments must come as a big relief to the Indian Muslim community who are facing 'the heat' in the wake of arrest of two Bangalore born Muslim doctors in the UK in connection with a terrorist plot in Glasgow. Surprisingly, the Burton-Stewart report found very little mention in the Indian media. The UK- Bangalore connection is 'not a sign' that Indian Muslims have ventured into the transnational jihadist camp, the report put out by Stratfor emphatically states clearly and unambiguously. This assessment must please National Security Advisor M K Narayan who has gone on record to say, “There is no Indian Muslim in the Al Qaeda camp”. Al Qaeda believes there is 'no real hope' of stirring up a jihadist 'uprising' in India. 'Al Qaeda is not focusing on India, largely because it believe there is no real hope of stirring up a jihadist uprising there. It is concerned about being betrayed by Pakistani assets in India' the report authors opine. They point out that in spite of the attempts to provoke communal violence inside India by attacking both Hindu and Muslim religious sites, 'the majority of Indian Muslims have not taken the bait—much to the dismay of these militant groups,' Stratfor authors assert. Fred Burton and Scott Stewart are convinced that the Muslims are, indeed, far more integrated in India than they are in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. "Additionally, Indian Muslims are much more moderate and tend to practice the Sufi form of Islam" They have a word of advice to the Intelligence Bureau (IB)—"Strengthen field level intelligence and surveillance" for success. "IB has not been terribly successful at developing human assets inside the militant Islamist groups. Moreover, while its senior officers are talented, its large cadre of working-level officers is weak". Over the past few years there has been a growing nexus between transnational jihadists—al Qaeda and its affiliates—and militant Islamist groups operating out of Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Videos footage on al Qaeda and Taliban training camps and interspersed with recordings of Osama bin Laden calling for Muslims to join the jihad have appeared in the Patna and Bhojpur districts of Bihar. Yet, Stratfor believes that India's Muslim community has not provided a strong radical current for jihadists to exploit. It points out that the Ahmed brothers who are found involved in the Glasgow incident were not radicalised in Bangalore,, their home, or even in Saudi Arabia where they lived for a time. "Rather, they were radicalized while living in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Londonistan has a history of doing that to impressionable Muslim lads". Therefore, the largest jihadist threat to targets in India right now appears to be Indian Muslims who are radicalized outside India, it concludes. The large number of Indian Muslims studying abroad could include some who will return home as jihadists and infiltrate Western high-tech companies operating in India, according to experts. A possibility that cannot be ruled out is the danger of Pak and Al Qaeda backed Kashmiri militants aiming at targets in other parts of the country in a bid to undermine India’s IT strengths. Many high tech firms are based in Bangalore, the hometown of the Ahmed brothers—a fact the security directors of the tech firms operating in India have not missed. After the attacks in the United Kingdom, the authorities here in India have asked the information technology companies in Bangalore and Hyderabad, another high-tech hub, to step up their security. Bangalore police have set up a new counter terrorism. A similar police force has already been set up in Mumbai, the financial hub of the country.
C83
Julie Shen: http://in.news.yahoo.com/071001/139/6lej5.html Analyst agrees with Stratfor report on ULFA outsourcing suicide attacks By ANI Monday October 1, 02:10 PM By Sanjay Kumar New Delhi, Oct 1 (ANI): Concurring with a US intelligence report claiming that the ULFA has begun to outsource operations, including suicide attacks, in the restive State of Assam to Islamist militant groups, a Guwahati-based analyst, has said that nobody can say authoritatively, how credible these reports are and one has to rely on circumstantial evidence. Stratfor, a Texas-based private intelligence group, in its latest reports, blames the ULFA for the August 25 twin blasts in Hyderabad that claimed scores of lives. The Stratfor blames the ULFA for having strong links with Islamist militant groups active in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The report says that because of this nexus "the ULFA has begun to outsource operations, including suicide attacks, in the restive State of Assam to Islamist militant groups." Analyst Nani Gopal Mahanta, a PhD on the subject of ULFA, agrees with the Stratfor report. She feels the outfit's link with fundamentalist forces was established in 2002. Mahanta, Political Science Professor at Guwahati University, said: "These reports are coming for last few years. But nobody can say authoritatively, how credible these reports are. You have to relay on the circumstantial evidence." The Stratfor report further, says: "The two prime suspects in the Hyderabad bombing belonged to the Bangladesh-based Islamist militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami, which is known to have a working relationship with ULFA and other northeastern insurgent groups, and with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency." Mahanta said: "We have to talk it out with the Bangladesh Government as well as with the Myanmar Government because I believe that all these issues are trans-national. These countries are helping the insurgent groups." The report further says: "India's northeastern insurgent outfits and militant Islamist groups regularly traverse India's extremely porous border with Bangladesh. This is an area where ideology, religion and ethnicity hold little or no regard, as each militant group works with another to promote its cause." Mahanta said: "The people of Assam, irrespective of caste, creed and language want a peaceful atmosphere. So, the ULFA must read the message of the people of Assam. They want the violence to stop. The sooner the ULFA realizes this, the better it is for them" Startfor does not think that ULFA is serious in holding peace talks. "ULFA ... dances around the idea of peace talks... At the same time, ULFA prefers keeping up the militant front to maintain its financial network and its beneficial relationship with Pakistan's intelligence agency that helps keep India's hands tied. Thus, talk of negotiations does not really hold much weight," the report said. But analysts however favour negotiations to solve the problem of violence in Assam. Mahanta said, "You have to resolve this issue politically. No doubt that Central Government is taking the initiative. But the fact is that the Central Government has to take the process to a logical solution." The Centre is always ready to hold talks, provided the ULFA conveys in writing that their top leadership will come to the negotiating table. So much so, Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi has assured safe passage to the leaders. (ANI)
C88
Julie Shen: Hindustan Times October 3, 2007 Wednesday 3:26 PM EST Musharraf says after re-election he will doff uniform by Nov. 15 BYLINE: Report from the Asian News International brought to you by the Hindustan Times LENGTH: 227 words DATELINE: Islamabad Islamabad, Oct. 3 -- Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has said that after getting re-elected in the October 6 presidential elections, he will shed military uniform by November 15. Commenting on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRC), Musharraf said he also wants to withdraw cases against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and leaders of other political parties. However, according to Stratfor, the Pakistani Government is proposing, in the Ordinance, amnesty to all politicians, bankers and bureaucrats from charges relating to misdemeanours, misconduct and misuse of power between 1985 and 2007, on October 4, but will not give amnesty to Sharif. Accepting the US role in his parleys with Pakistan People's Party chairperson Benazir Bhutto, the President said that Bhutto's party could play a crucial role in curbing extremism in the country. Talking about the resignation of the All Party Democratic Movement (APDM) parliamentarians, he said over 100 resignations would not affect the Electoral College. Musharraf also said that there are no differences between him and Lieutenant General Ashfaq Kiyani. He also expressed confidence in getting a vote of confidence from the new assembly formed after the completion of forthcoming general elections, The News reported. Published by HT Media Ltd. with permission from Asian News International.
C92
Julie Shen: Hindustan Times October 4, 2007 Thursday 2:48 PM EST The great 'yes' 'no' battle between Musharraf and Benazir is on BYLINE: Report from the Asian News International brought to you by the Hindustan Times LENGTH: 232 words DATELINE: Islamabad Islamabad, Oct. 4 -- President Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan People's Party chairperson's differences over certain contents and clauses of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) is delaying its promulgation, a Cabinet Minister has said. "When he (Musharraf) says 'yes', she (Benazir) says 'no' and when she says 'yes', he says 'no'," the Daily Times quoted a Cabinet Minister, as saying. "I am not optimistic about any understanding with the PPP at this moment. It's not just a matter of withdrawing corruption cases; it also involves other issues as well. The policy of reconciliation must apply to all political parties across-the-board," PML President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain said. At a meeting, which was called to simply inform the key members of the ruling coalition about the NRO, he explained to the participants the need for offering general amnesty to Benazir. Earlier, Musharraf had said that he also wants to withdraw cases against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and leaders of other political parties. However, according to Stratfor, the Pakistani Government is proposing, in the Ordinance, amnesty to all politicians, bankers and bureaucrats from charges relating to misdemeanours, misconduct and misuse of power between 1985 and 2007, on October 4, but will not give amnesty to Sharif. Published by HT Media Ltd. with permission from Asian News International.
China may stop Taiwan's UN poll by force: Experts;Pakistan awaits Musharraf's choice to take reins of military power
TOPIC
C102
Julie Shen: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071001.PAKISTAN01/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/ The Globe and Mail (Canada) October 1, 2007 Monday Pakistan awaits Musharraf's choice to take reins of military power BYLINE: SAEED SHAH, Special to The Globe and Mail SECTION: INTERNATIONAL NEWS; ELECTION: PRESIDENTAL VOTE SET FOR LATER THIS WEEK; Pg. A13 LENGTH: 720 words DATELINE: ISLAMABAD ISLAMABAD -- Army chief Pervez Musharraf heads into an election for president of Pakistan this week, but if he is successful, he will give up the main source of his power - the military - and serve as a civilian, propelling his conflicted nation into new political territory. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that General Musharraf could contest the election as a military officer. But under domestic and international pressure, he conceded that if he wins the presidential contest this Saturday, as expected, he will take off his beloved uniform. He will then make the tricky handover to a new head of the army, Pakistan's dominant institution, after occupying the job himself for almost a decade. "He has not drawn power from the people, which is why he is so insecure about shedding the uniform," said Talat Masood, a retired general. "He has used the army to draw power and manipulate politics. ... It is imperative now that the army takes a back seat if Pakistan is to steady itself." Pakistan is a highly militarized society, with the army involved in every aspect of life from cement manufacturing to running public corporations. The army also controls the country's nuclear weapons. In an army reshuffle in September, Gen. Musharraf promoted his most trusted officers to key army positions. But analysts warn that whoever is appointed to the top job, the new army chief will become an independent operator. Army heads have overthrown unpopular civilian governments throughout Pakistan's 60 years of existence. In the case of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, his hand-picked army chief Zia-ul-Haq not only deposed him in 1977, but executed him two years later. Gen. Musharraf came to power in a 1999 coup against the elected prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who had personally chosen him as army chief over more senior officers. In last month's shuffle, Lieutenant-General Ashfaq Kiyani was promoted after serving as head of Pakistani's feared ISI intelligence agency. He is the most senior general after Gen. Musharraf and heavily favoured to get the top job. But an announcement on the army chief has been held off, keeping Gen. Musharraf's options open and the contenders guessing. Another possibility is Lt.-Gen. Tariq Majeed, who was commander of the key Rawalpindi-based 10th Corps until the military shuffle. "A new army chief takes six months to a year to consolidate his position," said Kamran Bokhari, director of Middle East analysis at Strategic Forecasting, a U.S.-based consultancy. "That gives Musharraf some time. He will be dependent on the loyalty of the army chief. But both Majeed and Kiyani are known to have their own mind." U.S.-trained and pro-Western Gen. Kiyani is certainly close to Gen. Musharraf. He was entrusted with negotiating on behalf of his boss with exiled former prime minister Benazir Bhutto on a power-sharing agreement. That delicate task will now be undertaken by another Musharraf loyalist, Major-General Nadeem Taj, the new head of the ISI. Intriguingly, both Gen. Kiyani and Maj.-Gen. Taj had pre-existing relationships with Ms. Bhutto. Gen. Kiyani served on her personal staff as a military secretary when she was prime minister. Maj.-Gen. Taj was instrumental in the 2004 release of her husband, Asif Zardari, from prison in Pakistan on corruption charges. Gen. Musharraf, 64, has stayed army chief long after his contemporaries have retired. So the other generals are several years his junior, look up to him and owe their positions to him. He should be able to rely on army support in smooth times but in a political crisis, which are frequent in Pakistan's turbulent history, that is by no means guaranteed. It is likely that Ms. Bhutto will be prime minister after the general election, which is scheduled to be held by January. She and Gen. Musharraf have so far not been able to reach agreement on how that would unfold. A tense relationship is likely to continue if she becomes prime minister as they tussle for control. Traditionally, the post of president is supposed to be largely ceremonial but the power that Gen. Musharraf seems determined to hang on to is the authority to dismiss the prime minister. Should he move to dismiss a popularly elected prime minister, then the loyalty of the new army chief to Gen. Musharraf would be severely tested.
TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER
Personal security/Blackwater Bria CousinsIran Porter Berry
![Page 1: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/1.jpg)
![Page 2: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/2.jpg)
![Page 3: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/3.jpg)
![Page 4: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/4.jpg)
![Page 5: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/5.jpg)
![Page 6: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/6.jpg)
![Page 7: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/7.jpg)
![Page 8: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/8.jpg)
![Page 9: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/9.jpg)
![Page 10: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/10.jpg)
![Page 11: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/11.jpg)
![Page 12: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/12.jpg)
![Page 13: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/13.jpg)
![Page 14: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/14.jpg)
![Page 15: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/15.jpg)
![Page 16: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/16.jpg)
![Page 17: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/17.jpg)
![Page 18: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/18.jpg)
![Page 19: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/19.jpg)
![Page 20: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/20.jpg)
![Page 21: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/21.jpg)
![Page 22: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/22.jpg)
![Page 23: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/23.jpg)
![Page 24: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/24.jpg)
![Page 25: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/25.jpg)
![Page 26: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/26.jpg)
![Page 27: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/27.jpg)
![Page 28: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/28.jpg)
![Page 29: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/29.jpg)
![Page 30: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/30.jpg)
![Page 31: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/31.jpg)
![Page 32: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/32.jpg)
![Page 33: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/33.jpg)
![Page 34: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/34.jpg)
![Page 35: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/35.jpg)
![Page 36: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/36.jpg)
![Page 37: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/37.jpg)
![Page 38: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/38.jpg)
![Page 39: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/39.jpg)
![Page 40: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/40.jpg)
![Page 41: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/41.jpg)
![Page 42: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/42.jpg)
![Page 43: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/43.jpg)
![Page 44: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/44.jpg)
![Page 45: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/45.jpg)
![Page 46: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/46.jpg)
![Page 47: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/47.jpg)
![Page 48: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/48.jpg)
![Page 49: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/49.jpg)
![Page 50: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/50.jpg)
![Page 51: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/51.jpg)
![Page 52: [XLS]wikileaks.org 07... · Web view9-29 9-22 9-10 9-3 MEDIA INTERVIEWS PROGRAM STRATFOR EXPERT TOPIC COVERAGE DATE PRODUCER REPORTER DATE NETWORKS RADIO STATIONS VOA MAGAZINES NEWSPAPERS](https://reader043.documents.pub/reader043/viewer/2022030712/5afbdcf67f8b9a446590e1e2/html5/page/52.jpg)
