Specter's visit to Syria opposed by the Decider

In an effort to do an end run around Bush's stalled, obstinate, and fruitless foreign policies, Sen. Arlen Specter will visit Syria for talks with President Assad and FM al-Moallem.
You may recall that back in late March, Speaker Pelosi did the same thing and was blasted by the White House.

"We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria," said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the (Prime Minister Fouad) Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow through its borders to Iraq.
"I don't know what she is trying to accomplish, and I don't know if anyone in the administration has spoken to her about it," Perino said. "In general, we do discourage such trips."

But it's okay if Republican members of Congress "make such trips"? Well, not so much. As the Decider said a few days later:

"We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals," Bush said to reporters at the White House."

And now, per Fox News, the White House has "loud objections".

The essence of Bush's 'diplomacy' is that we will not talk to leaders unless they first do what we want, which kind of negates the point in "talking" in the first place. Syria attended the Annapolis conference in the belief that the Golan Heights would be on the agenda. It wasn't. The issue seems to be Lebanon, where Israel had thousands of troops until late September. That's understandable to Bush, however; it's Syria's "influence" over Lebanon that is the real evil. One can only wonder what Bush would do if there were a country on America's border that was in an almost-constant civil war for decades. Try to "influence" things, perhaps?
As usual, we're the "good guys", so the rules don't apply to us. They never have applied to Israel, who certainly exercises "influence" on the Occupied Territories. Meanwhile, Syria has picked up a heavy tab by taking in well over a million refugees of Bush's gloriously successful efforts in Iraq.

There is more to the job of "Leader of the Free World" than simply bellowing that your Will be Obeyed.

Cleaning up the mess in Iraq is the U.N's problem, and the mess in Lebanon in the U.N's problem, and the refugees from the Iraq occupation are Egypt's, Jordan's, and Syria's problem. The Decider decides which problems are his, and the ones that fail to offer significant glory fall to others.
We've tried Bush's approach with Syria, and the only way it will "work" is if we invade Syria and occupy it as we have done in Iraq and as we threaten to do with Iran. Perhaps Specter can get the ball rolling and get Israel to talk about the Golan Heights.

story from haaretz.com

Senator sees 'real opportunity' for resuming Syria-Israel talks
By The Associated Press

There is a real opportunity for Syria and Israel to resume peace talks with help from the United States, an influential U.S. lawmaker said Saturday.

Senator Arlen Specter spoke in Damascus shortly after arriving for a two-day visit with Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a member of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee.

"I think there is a very important moment in the Middle East and there is a real opportunity if the parties are ready to move," Specter told The Associated Press. "It's up to the parties. It's up to Syria and Israel, but the United States, I think, is in the position to be helpful."

Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, was scheduled to meet Syrian President Bashar Assad and Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem on Sunday to discuss the stalled Middle East peace process and strained U.S.-Syrian relations.

Specter, a member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, declined to confirm reports that he would convey a message to Assad from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on resuming peace talks between the two countries. "I think that is something I should talk to President Assad about before I talk to the media," he said.

Specter, who met Olmert Wednesday, told reporters in Jerusalem that he would encourage Assad to launch peace talks with Israel.

He said he is convinced both countries want to restart a dialogue.

"Prime Minister Olmert told us that he's interested, that he's looking for a signal from Syria," he said.

In 2000, formal U.S.-sponsored Israel-Syria talks neared agreement but broke down over final border and peace arrangements.

Specter said Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad had told him on the sidelines of last month's Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, that Syria is interested in the negotiations.

Syria attended the U.S.-brokered Mideast conference after receiving assurances that the issue of the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria after the 1967 Six Day War would be on the agenda.

Relations between Syria and the U.S. appeared to warm briefly following Syria's attendance at the Annapolis conference, which was widely seen as an attempt to gain favor with Washington.

But both sides have since lashed out at one another, each accusing the other of meddling in Lebanon, where the Western-backed government is locked in a political standoff with the pro-Syrian opposition.

The U.S. disapproves of Syrian meddling in Lebanon, Damascus' support for anti-Israel militant groups and its alliance with Iran.

Last week, U.S. President George W. Bush rejected dialogue with the Syrian leader, saying his patience ran out on President Assad a long time ago.

Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat, said he looked forward to speaking with Assad about promoting peace and stability with Syria's neighbor, saying he wants to see "free and fair elections in Lebanon ... full sovereignty for Lebanon."

The election of a new Lebanese president has been held up by continued political wrangling between the Syrian-backed opposition and the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority bloc. The presidency was left vacant after pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud's term ended on November 23, with no successor being elected.

South Korea cuts its Iraqi presence by nearly half

South Korea will continue to keep occupation troops in Iraq for the remainder of Bush's term.
Of course, these troops seldom even leave their base, so this is largely a symbolic gesture.
Even with this symbolic gesture, the force levels were cut by nearly half, from 1250 to 650.

story from Xinhua

ROK approves plan to extend troop deployment in Iraq

17:12, December 28, 2007

The South Korean National Assembly approved Friday the government's plan to extend South Korea's troop deployment in Iraq until the end of 2008.

It was the fourth straight year for South Korea to extend its troops mandate in Iraq since 2004, when South Korea extended mandate of its troops for one year at the request of the U.S. government.

Under the motion, submitted by President Roh Moo-hyun's administration in November, the number of South Korean troops in Iraq will be cut from the current 1,250 to about 650. About 600 troops have already returned home over the past few weeks.

Source: Xinhua

Iraq 'progress' now includes starvation

That beacon of prosperity, freedom, and democracy known as Iraq will soon get another valuable neocon lesson: starvation.

With a lack of safe drinking water, child malnutrition a serious problem, more than 40% of the population in absolute poverty and about half unemployed, and a cholera epidemic burdening the tattered shreds of what passes for a health care system, the obvious thing to do is to teach Iraqis a little self-reliance by starving them to death.

Half of those who receive food rations will no longer be eligible, and the quantities of food for those that still receive rations will be cut by half. And this comes after more than 30% cuts in those eligible for rations over the past three years.

Generally, Republicans can be counted upon to wring their hands in concern and wipe away tears as they contemplate what would happen to the poor, innocent Iraqi people should we withdraw. Yet, something like this gets a smiling thumbs-up. This is because Republicans abandoned the idea of Iraq being anything more than a failed state with Third-World metrics years ago. It's really all about Al-Qaeda now, and those crazy brown people who don't even worship the right God can die off for all they care. A few may come in handy for the requisite photos of smiling Iraqis embracing the beloved American troops, but the main thing is to boot out Al-Qaeda and keep a government in power that knows who the "boss" is. Besides, once Al-Qaeda is gone, everyone knows things will be great. After all, the Iraqis voted, didn't they?

It's pretty unfathomable to me how having another five million people in an unstable country with an unpopular government going without regular meals will help much. I guess this another one of those things that is the U.N's problem. We just deal in bombs and bullets these days.

"No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good," said one resident, who would not give his name.

There you go. The perfect neocon dream government. How could this plan possibly fail?


story from IPS

IRAQ: Saddam Provided More Food Than the U.S.
By Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail*

BAQUBA, Dec 27 (IPS) - The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.

The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.

Iraq's food rations system was introduced by the Saddam Hussein government in 1991 in response to the UN economic sanctions. Families were allotted basic foodstuffs monthly because the Iraqi Dinar and the economy collapsed.

The sanctions, imposed after Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait, were described as "genocidal" by Denis Halliday, then UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. Halliday quit his post in protest against the U.S.-backed sanctions.

The sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children, and as many adults, according to the UN. They brought malnutrition, disease, and lack of medicines. Iraqis became nearly completely reliant on food rations for survival. The programme has continued into the U.S.-led occupation.

But now the U.S.-backed Iraqi government has announced it will halve the essential items in the ration because of "insufficient funds and spiralling inflation."

The cuts, which are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, have drawn widespread criticism. The Iraqi government is unable to supply the rations with several billion dollars at its disposal, whereas Saddam Hussein was able to maintain the programme with less than a billion dollars.

"In 2007, we asked for 3.2 billion dollars for rationing basic foodstuffs," Mohammed Hanoun, Iraq's chief of staff for the ministry of trade told al-Jazeera. "But since the prices of imported foodstuff doubled in the past year, we requested 7.2 billion dollars for this year. That request was denied."

The trade ministry is now preparing to slash the list of subsidised items by half to five basic food items, "namely flour, sugar, rice, oil, and infant milk," Hanoun said.

The imminent move will affect nearly 10 million people who depend on the rationing system. But it has already caused outrage in Baquba, 40 km northeast of Baghdad.

"The monthly food ration was the only help from the government," local grocer Ibrahim al-Ageely told IPS. "It was of great benefit for the families. The food ration consisted of two kilos of rice, sugar, soap, tea, detergent, wheat flour, lentils, chick-peas, and other items for every individual."

Another grocer said the food ration was the "life of all Iraqis; every month, Iraqis wait in queues to receive their food rations."

According to an Oxfam International report released in July this year, "60 percent (of Iraqis) currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."

The report said that "43 percent of Iraqis suffer from absolute poverty," and that according to some estimates over half the population are now without work. "Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 percent before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent now."

While salaries have increased since the invasion of March 2003, they have not kept pace with the dramatic increase in the prices of food and fuel.

"My salary is 280 dollars, and I have six children," 49-year-old secondary school teacher Ali Kadhim told IPS. "The increase in my salary was neutralised by an increase in the price of food. I cannot afford to buy the foodstuffs in addition to the other necessary expenses of life."

"The high increase in food prices led people to condemn the delays in the ration every month," Salah Kadhim, an employee in the directorate-general of health for Diyala province told IPS. "The jobless just cannot afford to buy food."

"The food ration still represents a big part of the domestic budget," Muneer Lafta, a 51-year-old employee at the health directorate told IPS. Without the ration, she said, families have to go to the market. Because Iraqi families are large, usually six to 12 people, shopping for food is simply unaffordable.

"I and my wife have five boys and six girls, so the ration costs a lot when it has to be bought," 55-year-old resident Khalaf Atiya told IPS. "I cannot afford food and also other expenses like study, clothes, doctors."

People in Baquba, living with violence and joblessness for long, are now preparing for this new twist.

"No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good," said one resident, who would not give his name.

Many fear the food ration cuts can spark unrest. "The government will commit a big mistake, because providing enough food ration could compensate the government's mistakes in other fields like security," a local physician told IPS. "The Iraq will now feel that he, or she, is of no value to the government."

(*Ahmed, our correspondent in Iraq's Diyala province, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who has reported extensively from Iraq and the Middle East) (END/2007)

Afghans kick out two officials

story from naharnet

Afghanistan Orders U.N., European Officials Out

Afghanistan has ordered a top European Union official and a United Nations staffer to leave the country for threatening national security, government and diplomatic officials said Tuesday.
The two were declared persona non grata, apparently after allegations they had met with Taliban insurgents, a European diplomat said.

The office of President Hamid Karzai had at first announced at a press conference that the two, said to be British and Irish, had been arrested.

Spokesman Homayun Hamidzada later told AFP the pair, whom he did not identify, had been asked to leave the country. Another official said that two of their Afghan colleagues had been arrested.

"The foreign nationals have been declared persona non grata and their Afghan colleagues have been arrested and are being investigated," Hamidzada said.

He said his earlier statement that the pair were in custody was a "misunderstanding" but insisted that the government still believed they were a threat to national security.

A European diplomat said on condition of anonymity that the men had been given two days to leave, but the UN mission here said it was not aware of any deadline.

They had been accused of "having had contacts with the armed opposition out of the knowledge of the government," the diplomat said.

"Afghans claim they have documents proving these guys had contacts with the Taliban but have not given any proof," he said.

The U.N. mission said it was not sure on what basis the government had made the allegations.

"The government has not made clear its justification for this action and we are trying to clarify this misunderstanding," said spokesman Aleem Siddique.

"We have no reason to believe that there is any justification for such a request," he said. He said the U.N. official was a British national and that the EU staffer was an Irish national.

An Afghan foreign ministry official said the men were asked to leave because they had done something "not in their mandate."

Britain is one of the main countries helping war-torn Afghanistan get back on its feet after the ouster of the Taliban, who were toppled from government in a US-led invasion after the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Cases of Westerners allegedly involved in illegal activities related to national security have in the past been rare.

Jonathan "Jack" Idema, an American, left the country in June after spending almost three years behind bars here on charges of running a private jail and kidnapping and torturing Afghans.

Idema was sentenced to 10 years, which was later reduced to five. He was freed after receiving a pardon.
The ex-soldier said he was carrying out anti-terrorism operations in coordination with the U.S. Defense Department and Afghan authorities. Both governments denied the claim.

In December 2006, an aide to the then British commander of NATO troops in Afghanistan was arrested on charges of passing secrets to "the enemy", reportedly Iran.

Iranian-born Daniel James, 44, denied passing secrets to Iran. He is due to face trial in February.(AFP)


Beirut, 25 Dec 07, 16:57

Israel's "future territory"

Once again, Israel's clever use of semantics is being used to push settlements ahead.

It's not a settlement if the occupied land is what Israel calls "future territory".

This was Hitler's justification for occupying Eastern European countries, saying that the occupied territory was 'lebensraum', or "living space". Germany needed it to expand, so it was okay. Likewise, Israel needs the occupied territories to offer cheap housing to "pioneers", so it's okay if they build new settlements on their "future territory".

Doesn't the term "future territory" imply that it's not their territory at the moment?

Is stealing someone's car justified by re-defining it as your "future car"?

At least Israel is promising not to build settlements beyond it's "future territory"... at least until it needs more "future territory", one can hopefully assume. In the meantime, the Palestinians are supposed to shut up about this and accept Israel's promises, even though the settlements violate the road map they've already agreed to. But this is a new promise, so it's different than the old promise. Isn't it?

We certainly don't want to criticise Israel, the Eternal Victim State, by comparing its policies to that of Nazi Germany. One is unequivocally bad, and the other is unequivocally good, so it's different if Israel needs a little 'lebensraum'. Besides, the Palestinians are an 'inferior race', so it's justified.

For it is not in colonial acquisitions that we must see the solution of this problem, but exclusively in the acquisition of a territory for settlement, which will enhance the area of the mother country, and hence not only keep the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of their origin, but secure for the total area those advantages which lie in its unified magnitude.
--- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

And, no, I'm not supporting Hitler here. I'm pointing out the eerie similarity of Hitler's words to those of Israel's politicians. Certainly the settlement of the occupied territories will "enhance the area of the mother country", and will also make it more Jewish, which is a good thing in and of itself unless you are one of those who used to live in the "future territory".

story from aawsat.com

Israel Unveils Settlement Plans on Peace Talks Eve

23/12/2007

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel unveiled plans on Sunday to build hundreds of new homes on occupied land near Jerusalem next year, drawing protests from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the eve of renewed peace talks.

Israel also vowed no let up in its "real war" against Hamas Islamists who seized control of the Gaza Strip in June after routing Abbas's forces. Militants fire rockets from Gaza into southern Israel.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected the idea of any talks with Hamas over a possible ceasefire and Vice Premier Haim Ramon said Israel's strategic goal was to topple the group's government in Gaza using military and economic pressure.

The issue of Israeli settlement building in the Jerusalem area has clouded negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians announced at a U.S.-sponsored peace conference last month in Annapolis in the United States.

The first round of talks following Annapolis opened in discord with Palestinians demanding Israel drop plans to build some 300 new homes in an area near Jerusalem known to Israelis as Har Homa and to Palestinians as Abu Ghneim.

Ahead of a second round of talks scheduled for Monday, Israel's Construction Ministry unveiled a $25 million budget proposal for building 740 homes in two settlements in 2008.

The proposal, which must be approved by parliament, includes 500 homes at Har Homa and 240 at the Maale Adumim settlement near Jerusalem. Last year's ministry budget allowed for the construction of nearly 1,000 homes in the same two settlements.

"Har Homa is an integral part of Jerusalem and Israel will not stop building there," said Minister of Jerusalem Affairs Rafi Eitan.

"FUTURE TERRITORY"

Cabinet minister Yuli Tamir said Israel had a right to build houses "in those areas that are going to be included in its future territory," but ruled out building beyond that.

The Jewish state hopes to keep Maale Adumim and other large settlement blocs in any final peace deal with the Palestinians.

"Why is this settlement activity going on at a time when we are talking about a final (peace) deal?" asked Abbas, who is expected to meet Olmert as early as Tuesday.

Abbas and Olmert agreed in Annapolis to try to reach a statehood agreement by the end of 2008.

But Palestinian negotiators said substantive talks over borders and the fate of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees would not begin until Israel committed itself to halt all settlement activity, as called for under the "road map" peace plan.

Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, said Israel would abide by the road map by not allowing "outward growth" of existing settlements, by preventing new settlements from being built and by not confiscating any additional Palestinian land.

The road map also calls on the Palestinians to rein in militants, an obligation that Israel says must be fulfilled in the occupied West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip before a Palestinian state can be established.

Israel has killed more than 20 militants in Gaza in the past week as part of a stepped-up campaign to halt the rocket fire.

Hamas did not rule out a future ceasefire with Israel if the Jewish state first stopped attacks in Gaza. But Olmert told his cabinet "this war will continue" and that talks with Hamas would only be possible if it recognized Israel and renounced violence.

Olmert's cabinet on Sunday approved spending just over $200 million over the next five years to build an anti-rocket system meant to protect southern Israeli towns from rocket fire. The defense ministry estimates the system, called Iron Dome, will be operational in two-and-a-half years.

Success in Iraq requires imagination

Beyond the day-to-day violence in Iraq is the deeper danger posed by the strengthening of the sectarian militias in the effort to rout al-Qaeda. Much of the country is already divided into their respective ethnic groups. In Baghdad, walled and gated communities keep these groups from further ethnically-cleansing the city. And this is the basis of the "progress" that Gates cites.

The various "gangs" have already marked out their "turf", and Bush and Gates point to this as some kind of success. It is far from the prosperous beacon of stability and democracy that Bush crowed the invasion and occupation would bring. Did we really invade Iraq to bring a group of gang leaders to power and create a humanitarian crisis? Apparently this is what we will have to settle for. This is the dark "brilliance" of Bush's team: if you want the troops to come home, start calling whatever the situation is in Iraq a 'success', pretend it's what we intended all along, and give Bush the credit. Otherwise, we'll just have to stay there longer until we all admit that Bush is a great visionary with a great plan.

Oh, and don't mention Diyala. We've already labeled Diyala as 'pacified'. How did we do that? Well, it was brilliant. We divided the terrorists into "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists", and we set the "good guys" loose on the "bad" guys. Now, we don't count the "good" terrorists as terrorists anymore, which means the numbers of the terrorists have gone way down overnight. The "good" terrorists aren't loyal to the Iraqi government, and, sure, they continue to do the same things they did before we gave them our blessing, but this somehow makes the government more powerful. I know, you're wondering if the Iraqi Army won't just have stronger militias to tackle in order to really gain control, but...and this is the truly brilliant part...that's the Iraqi Army's problem. So you're not buying that, eh? I guess that you don't want the troops to come home, then. Don't you want to "win"? Okay, then. Start smiling about the "progress". Besides, those people that are dying are mostly Iraqis, and mostly civilians, so that's an improvement, isn't it?

story from the Daily Star

Gates: US troop levels to fall pending Iraqi gains

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Saturday, December 22, 2007

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates held out hope Friday that US forces in Iraq could continue a steady decline next year if security keeps improving - leaving a 100,000-strong force by year end. Gates' statement followed a day of scattered violence across Iraq and several attacks on celebrants of Eid al-Adha Thursday.

While Gates would not put a specific number on Iraq troop levels, he agreed a consistent reduction would leave 10 brigades - roughly 100,000 troops - soon after American voters go to the polls for the 2008 presidential elections.

There are currently 158,000 US troops in Iraq - the first brigade not to be replaced left this month.

Gates said the capacity of Iraqi forces to bear more of the security burden and the ability of the Iraqi government to run the country are the leading factors that will influence how quickly US forces can leave.

"My hope has been that the circumstances on the ground will continue to improve in a way that would - when General [David] Petraeus and the [senior commanders] do their analysis in March - allow a continuation of the draw-downs at roughly the same pace as the first half of the year," Gates said.

At a Defense Department news conference, Gates was cautiously optimistic about further troop reductions beyond those already planned, but said the US wants "to sustain the gains that we have already made."

In September, Gates raised the possibility that US troop levels could be reduced to 100,000, if conditions improved in Iraq.

On Friday, Gates said it was a lapse on his part to give an absolute number.

Current plans call for reducing the current 20 combat brigades to 15 by next summer. Gates said that could be pared to 10 by the end of 2008 if violence in Iraq continues to ebb.

Gates also criticized Congress' choppy funding for the wars. He said while the Pentagon welcomed the recent appropriation, it is less money than needed.

Congress recently provided $70 billion for combat operations, only half of what the President had requested.

Gates' fragile optimism followed an autumnal lull in violence in Iraq and particularly in Baghdad. But the regularity of violence across the war-weary nation is a grave reminder of enduring sectarian enmities.

A suicide bomber rammed his explosives-rigged minibus into a police station south of Baghdad and killed five people, including four policemen on Friday, security officials and medics said.

The attack took place at 2:00 p.m. at Al-Rasheed police station in the town of Yusifiyah, 25 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, security officials said.

Eight people were also wounded in the attack, including seven policemen.

A medic at Baghdad's Al-Yarmukh hospital confirmed the attack and said the wounded policemen had been admitted for treatment at the facility.

Separately on Friday, a British armored personnel carrier was hit by a "suspected" roadside bomb, a spokesman for the British said. There were no reports of casualties.

AP Television News footage showed the vehicle ablaze with thick, black smoke billowing from it. British troops could be seen securing the site.

A spokesman for the British military said there were no casualties and no injuries.

Friday's violence followed a series of attacks on Thursday targeting civilians celebrating the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, which shattered the calm of an otherwise unusually peaceful holiday period in Iraq.

Authorities said 19 people were killed in the attacks, including a US soldier, after a suicide bombing northeast of the capital and a car bomb in Baghdad.

The car bomb, planted outside a liquor store in a heavily guarded part of central Baghdad, killed at least three people.

The suicide bomber struck in Kanaan, a Shiite-dominated town near the city of Baqouba in Diyala Province, about 60 kilometers northeast of Baghdad. He detonated his explosives as a US patrol was about to enter a building where a city council meeting was to be held, the US military said.

The US military said one soldier and five civilians were killed, and that 10 more soldiers and one Iraqi were wounded. However, local police and the hospital morgue in Baqouba said 13 people were killed. An official with the morgue, who asked not to be identified as he was not authorized to release the information, said one more person later died of his injuries, bringing the total to 14.

The assistant police chief of Kanaan, Waleed Mitieb al-Karkhi, said the dead included three children and two women.

Much of the day's violence was centered in Diyala province, where turbulence has been slower to subside than other parts of Iraq and which includes areas that the US military has never controlled. - Agencies

Basra situation is chaotic

The British military has tried hard to put a brave and smiling face on its withdrawal from Basra, as they struggle to maintain two occupations at once. The latest report from the police chief in Basra is not so encouraging, however.

As in the rest of Iraq, the militias are the real power and they have no loyalty toward the Iraqi government. Much of this problem can be blamed on the Constitution that Paul Bremer forced on the Iraqis. Eager to apply all of the neconservative doctrine at once in some kind of experiment, Bremer created a system where the federal government was weak relative to the provincial governments. In addition, the national Iraqi Army and Police were throughly infiltrated by the militias, who had no loyalty to the powerless federal government.

The entire 'bottom up' reconciliation strategy relies on these militias to take on al-Qaeda, with the Iraqi Army left to work on the margins. Thus, in its single-minded focus on a relatively quick elimination of al-Qaeda, Bush has created, armed, and financed multiple parallel militaries and 'governments' within the country that have neither the motivation or inclination to back the federal government beyond what suits their own narrow interests.

In effect, Bush has abandoned the Iraqi government and set them up to take the blame for the failure of Bush's and Bremer's policies.

The Bush Administration foolishly believed that Iraqis would see their first loyalties as being Iraqis, rather than as members of their religious or tribal groups. These loyalties were suppressed by Saddam, in a nation that was arbitrarily and artificially constructed by the British Empire out of whole cloth. Out of this Middle Eastern Balkans, Bush boldly contrived a weak federal government as a counter to Saddam's strong central government, and as the centrifugal forces pulled the nation into sectarian violence he placed the blame on al-Qaeda and those Americans who failed to recognise his brilliance. In a nation with a long-suppressed Shia majority, somehow Iraqis were supposed to avoid looking to their Shia neighbour, Iran, for inspiration. And in some mysterious way, Iran was supposed to lose influence in the region as Iraqis rejoiced in their new prosperity and democracy. Somehow, anyone who questioned this best-case scenario was supposed to hang their head in shame as a supporter of terrorism and advocate of 'defeat'.

Now with the withdrawal of the British, who mostly sat in their bases taking mortar and rocket fire from the militias that ostensibly were 'under control', the Iraqi military and national police are left to deal with the powerful militias who do not care about the interests or dictates of the feeble federal government. The British military, meanwhile, is left to sort out the other mess that the ever-optimistic Decider handed them in Afghanistan. Girls are going to school now, remember. Keep that fact in mind and forget about the unpopularity of the incompetent and impotent central government in that other can't-miss proposition that exists only in Bush's imagination. And if it doesn't work out, it will probably be because the Afghan government is ungrateful and unwilling to acknowledge Bush's splendid vision, and because those sissy allies of ours didn't have the guts to stick with our simplistic "good guys vs. bad guys" plan.

full story from the Guardian

UK has left behind murder and chaos, says Basra police chief

Blunt assessment delivered as British hand over security to Iraqis

The full scale of the chaos left behind by British forces in Basra was revealed yesterday as the city's police chief described a province in the grip of well-armed militias strong enough to overpower security forces and brutal enough to behead women considered not sufficiently Islamic.
As British forces finally handed over security in Basra province, marking the end of 4½ years of control in southern Iraq, Major General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander, said the occupation had left him with a situation close to mayhem. "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world," he said in an interview for Guardian Films and ITV.
Khalaf painted a very different picture from that of British officials who, while acknowledging problems in southern Iraq, said yesterday's handover at Basra airbase was timely and appropriate.
Major General Graham Binns, who led British troops into the city in 2003, said the province had "begun to regain its strength". He added: "I came to rid Basra of its enemies and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends."
But in the film, to be broadcast on the Guardian Unlimited website and ITV News, Khalaf lists a catalogue of failings, saying:
· Basra has become so lawless that in the last three months 45 women have been killed for being "immoral" because they were not fully covered or because they may have given birth outside wedlock;
· The British unintentionally rearmed Shia militias by failing to recognise that Iraqi troops were loyal to more than one authority;
· Shia militia are better armed than his men and control Iraq's main port.
In the interview he said the main problem the Iraqi security forces now faced was the struggle to wrest control back from the militia. He appealed for the British to help him do that: "We need the British to help us to watch our borders - both sea and land and we need their intelligence and air support and to keep training the Iraqi police."
David Miliband, the foreign secretary, who attended the handover ceremony, acknowledged that the territory was not "a land of milk and honey" and promised Britain would remain a "committed friend" of Iraq.
But he insisted it was the right time to hand back control. "The key conditions for the transfer of security responsibility to the Iraqi security forces are whether they are up to it: do they have the numbers? Do they have the leadership and training to provide leadership for this province? And the answer to those three questions is yes," he said.
After the handover Des Browne, the defence secretary, praised British forces - 174 of whom have died since the start of the war in March 2003. "Their contribution has been outstanding and their courage inspiring," he said. A scaled-down UK force will remain in a single base at Basra airport, with a small training mission and a rapid reaction team on "overwatch".
Britain now has 4,500 troops in Iraq. The prime minister, Gordon Brown, has said numbers would shrink to 2,500 by mid-2008 though those released may be redeployed to Afghanistan.
Khalaf, who has survived 20 assassination attempts since he became police chief six months ago, said Britain's intentions had been good but misguided. "I don't think the British meant for this mess to happen. When they disbanded the Iraqi police and military after Saddam fell the people they put in their place were not loyal to the Iraqi government. The British trained and armed these people in the extremist groups and now we are faced with a situation where these police are loyal to their parties not their country."
He said the most shocking aspect of the breakdown of law and order in Basra was the murder of women for being unIslamic. "They are being killed because they are accused of behaving in an immoral way. When they kill them they put underwear and indecent clothes on them."
In his office Khalaf showed the Guardian a computer holding the files of 48 unidentified women. "Some of them have even been killed with their children because their killer says that they come out of an adulterous relationship," he said.
Vince Cable, the acting Lib Dem leader, called for a timetable to bring all British troops home from Iraq, adding: "If we are handing power back to the Iraqis, why are 4,500 British troops needed for what is essentially a training mission?"

The next Venezuela: Bolivia

Bolivia elected Morales, an ally of Chavez, and the right-wing began an immediate campaign to undermine the newly-elected government. As in Venezuela, Spain is playing a crucial role in Bush's efforts to crush the populist movement in South America. Rather than deal with the causes of the region's unhappiness, it is far easier to to manipulate forces to bring about the overthrow of the elected governments that refuse to read from Bush's script. In Venezuela, the U.S. has backed a secessionist campaign of the oil-rich Zulia province. In Bolivia, we are now pushing for secession of the wealthiest provinces. It was just this strategy that created the nation of Panama, when the U.S. engineered a secessionist movement from Colombia and prevented the Colombian Navy from putting it down. We then quickly "recognised" the newly-created nation, which coincidentally was happy to sign over the Canal to the U.S.

Unable to control the region's unhappiness with their role as a cheap source of raw commodities and a system where nearly all of the money goes to a select few backed by the military, the U.S. and Spain seem to be falling back on an alternative: Divide the haves from the have-nots and redraw the national boundaries to reflect this. The poor can have their populist governments, and we can denounce, isolate, and scheme against them at our leisure. The wealthy can have their own countries, so long as they realise who is the boss, at least. We can then pour aid into these newly-created wealthy nations' militaries and use them as a proxy against those who won't "play ball". It's cheaper than outright invasion and occupation, and the flow of cheap commodities isn't interrupted. We can always ignore human rights abuses in nations like Chile, Colombia, and Peru, and play up those in the countries that don't back us.

Bolivia's president accuses opposition of plotting to oust him
Brazil Sun
Sunday 23rd December, 2007
(IANS)

Bolivian President Evo Morales, faced with a strong demand for autonomy in the eastern states of the country, turned down the demand by the rightist ruled states and accused them of plotting to overthrow him.

'If conservatives want me out of office, they will have to take me out dead from Government Palace,' Morales said, accusing the opposition leaders of planning to overthrow him, Spain's EFE news agency quoted Morales as saying Sunday.

Morales was addressing hundreds of miners in the town of Llallagua in the Andean province of Potosi Saturday.

'We have no fear of the oligarchs,' said the president, who has said on numerous occasions that the opposition is conspiring to oust him.

The government of Morales, which assumed office in January 2006, has currently been facing autonomy demand from leaders of four eastern provinces - Santa Cruz, Tarija, Beni and Pando - which account for around two-thirds of the total gross domestic product of Bolivia.

Santa Cruz, stronghold of the opposition-ruled eastern provinces, has recently approved an 'autonomy statute', under which it will retain nearly two-thirds of the tax revenues it turns over to central authorities. Following the move, Beni and Pando declared autonomy in a massive rally two days later and another region, Tarija, is expected to follow suit.

Morales said the moves towards autonomy were illegal, and warned to take help of the army to maintain Bolivia's territorial integrity.

Now, accusing the opposition of trying to topple him, the leftist leader said, 'The right, the conservatives, the servants of North American imperialism are reaching out to the armed forces.'

In November, Morales had said the US, former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar along with the country's opposition were conspiring to oust him.

However, Bolivian opposition leaders have rejected the allegations and demanded the president provide proof of his accusations.

Saudi public likes Iran more than the U.S.

A recent public-opinion survey of Saudi citizens shows a marked contrast from the views and policies of the Saudi royal family. This may be why Bush's putative push for democracy in the Middle East has pointedly left out Saudi Arabia. It's simply much easier to control the royal family than it is to control the Saudi public.

While 40% of the Saudi public has a favourable opinion of the U.S, Iran has a higher 47% favourable figure. And this is one of the most pro-U.S. results in the surveys.

And while neocons may cheer the 10% support of Al-Qaeda within Saudi Arabia, they will certainly choose to ignore the 36% who support Saudi citizens going to fight U.S. troops in Iraq. And they will not be cheering that Ahmadinejad beats Bush 3 to 1 in the public's view.

Not surprisingly, 85% of the Saudi public said their opinion of the U.S. would be improved if we got out of Iraq.
full story from IPS

POLITICS-SAUDI ARABIA: Iran Polls Better Than U.S.
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Dec 20 (IPS) - Although the image of the United States appears to have improved in Saudi Arabia over the past year, the Saudi public's view of Washington remains largely negative, according to major new poll released here this week by Terror Free Tomorrow (TFT), a Washington, D.C.-based bipartisan group.

Indeed, less than 40 percent of some 1,000 Saudi respondents interviewed by telephone during the first week of December, said they have either a "very" or "somewhat favourable" opinion of the U.S., while nearly 52 percent said their view was either very or somewhat unfavourable, according to the survey results.

By contrast, Iran -- which Saudi leaders reportedly consider a dangerous rival for influence in the oil-rich Gulf region -- is seen more positively by the Saudi public in general, the poll found.

A plurality of 47 percent said they regarded Tehran either very or somewhat favourably, compared to 44 percent who expressed unfavourable views.

Strong majorities of Saudi respondents, on the other hand, said they held favourable views of Turkey (71 percent) -- whose secular traditions would appear to be at odds with Saudi Arabia's staunchly Islamist orientation -- and China (61 percent). Somewhat weaker majorities said they had positive views of France and Britain.

The TFT survey, the latest in a series by the organisation of key countries in the Islamic world -- including Iran and Pakistan -- suggests that Saudi public opinion, especially toward the outside world, is considerably more complex than depicted by the western mass media which has portrayed it as a stronghold of "Wahabi" fanaticism.

Fewer than one in ten Saudis said they had a favourable opinion of al Qaeda. Eighty-eight percent said they approved of their government's crackdown against the group and 15 percent said they had a positive impression of the group's chief and fellow-Saudi, Osama bin Laden.

But strong majorities of those who expressed a favourable opinion of bin Laden and al Qaeda also said they favoured closer ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and insisted that their views of the U.S. would change for the better if Washington changed a number of its policies in the region.

More than two thirds (69 percent) of respondents said they favoured better relations with the U.S.

Asked what policy changes would improve their opinion of the U.S., 85 percent cited the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. Seventy-four percent cited increasing student and work visas for Saudis in the U.S. and 71 percent suggested striking a free trade deal between the two countries.

Fifty-two percent of respondents said their view of Washington would improve if it brokered a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Palestinians, while only 36 percent cited Washington's efforts at promoting democracy in the Middle East.

Nearly two thirds (63 percent) said their view would improve if Washington provided more military assistance to Saudi Arabia, although only 49 percent said they favoured the pending sale of billions of dollars in advanced U.S. weaponry to the kingdom, while 32 percent said they opposed it.

While 52 percent of Saudi respondents said they retained a negative opinion of the U.S., that marked a considerable improvement over the results of a smaller TFT poll taken in May 2006 when 89 percent of Saudi respondents said they held an unfavourable view.

Still, TFT's director, Ken Ballen, said the 40 percent favourable view suggested that the Saudi public was one of the most pro-U.S. countries in the region. He noted that only around 20 percent of respondents in surveys taken over the past year in Pakistan and Egypt said they had favourable views, while only nine percent of Turks shared that opinion in a May 2007 poll sponsored by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

"From our surveys and others," he wrote in a summary analysis of the Saudi poll, "there are only two major Muslim majority countries with a higher favourable opinion of the United States: Bangladesh and Iran."

As heartening as that conclusion appeared to be, the U.S. and Americans ranked were still seen least favourably among seven nations and their citizens on whom respondents were asked to give their opinions.

Only four in ten Saudis said they felt positively about Americans. Favourable opinions of the British were voiced by 48 percent of respondents. Fifty-two percent said they had favourable views of Iranians, while the French, at 57 percent, were viewed somewhat more favourably. Nearly three out of four respondents said they had a positive view of Turks.

"It's not like they're locked into an anti-western framework," noted Steve Kull, director of the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), citing the statistics for Britain and France.

Kull, whose organisation has done extensive polling in the Middle East, also noted that the relatively favourable views towards Iran suggested that the Saudi public does not share the same fears about Tehran as the royal family.

Nearly one third of Saudi respondents said they had a favourable opinion of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- nearly three times the percentage of those who had positive views of Bush.

Still, 57 percent of respondents said they opposed the development by Iran of nuclear weapons. Thirty-eight percent said they would favour the U.S. and other countries taking military action to prevent the Iranians from obtaining such a weapon, compared to 27 percent who said the U.S. should accept a nuclear-armed Iran.

Saudis were particularly sympathetic toward Iraqis for whom more than four in five respondents expressed favourable views. Iraq also appeared to be the dominant source of unhappiness with the U.S.

Despite their strong antipathy toward al Qaeda, 36 percent of respondents said they supported Saudi citizens going to Iraq to fight U.S. forces there. Only 17 percent said they supported Saudis fighting Shia militias in Iraq.

Saudi respondents expressed an almost uniform antipathy toward Jews. Only six percent said they held favourable views of Jews. Nearly nine of ten said their views were unfavourable (81 percent "very unfavourable").

A slight majority of 51 percent said they would oppose any peace treaty recognising Israel, while 30 percent said they would favour such a treaty on the condition that Palestinians establish a state of their own.

Attitudes towards Christians were more divided. Forty-four percent expressed favourable views, while 54 percent said they had unfavourable opinions (40 percent "very unfavourable").

(END/2007)

Missile defence in Poland could trigger war

The missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensbily sold as a defence against Iran but whose real target is Russia, could in and of itself trigger an accidental war against the host countries.

The effort to make these countries "safe" seems to be much more capable of making them the victims of a war between two powers who do not have their security in mind.

story from naharnet.com

Russia Warns U.S. Against Missile Launch

The planned deployment of U.S. interceptor missiles in Poland could trigger a missile strike by Russia if those missiles are ever used, the Russian army's chief of staff warned on Saturday.
"We are talking about the possibility of a retaliatory strike being triggered by the mistaken classification of an interceptor missile launch," Yury Baluyevsky said at a press conference broadcast on state television.

Baluyevsky explained that an interceptor missile launched by the United States could be mistaken by Russian defenses for a ballistic missile aimed against Russia.(AFP)

Talks in Iran are postponed

There has been a distinct lack of evidence for the U.S. contention that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons. It may be true that these weapons are coming from Iran without the government's knowledge or support.

What is known, however, is that overthrowing a secular leader that kept the Sunnis on top of a Shia majority nation has been a big plus for Iran, aside from eliminating it's most feared regional foe. Had the circumstances been reversed, the U.S. would certainly have taken advantage of the situation in a similar way. It is also known that the U.S. is financing separatist insurgents within Iran, whose most notable "military" achievement has been to blow up a school bus full of children. In the U.S. military calculus, killing someone's children makes them like you a lot more. How could this plan possibly fail?

story from aawsat.com

U.S, Iranians postpone talks on Iraqi violence

14/12/2007

BAGHDAD, (Reuters) - The second meeting of a U.S.- Iranian committee set up to find ways to quell Iraq's violence has been postponed because of a scheduling conflict, U.S. and Iraqi officials said on Friday.

U.S., Iranian and Iraqi officials had been due to meet in Baghdad next Tuesday and are now trying to find a date later this month that suits everyone.

"A scheduling conflict has necessitated in moving the talks, which we had anticipated to be next week," said a spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Philip Reeker.

Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abawi said he expected the Iraqi-hosted talks to take place within the next few days.

Washington accuses Iran of arming, funding and training Shi'ite militias in Iraq, a charge Tehran denies.

U.S. officials, however, have softened their rhetoric towards Iran in recent weeks, saying Tehran appears to have cut back its supply of explosively formed penetrators, a particularly deadly type of roadside bomb, to the militias.

Declining dollar is no joke

Despite smiley-faced assurances from economists, the move away from the dollar has begun on both the small scale and the large. These sanguine assessments usually consist of the following:

• the dollar is still accepted (Duh, it's money, after all)
• a lot of of inventory is denominated in dollars (So what?)
• the U.S. economy is huge (Again, so what?)

While it remains to be seen how far the oil exporting nations will go, it seems clear that the "basket" approach is winning over, with the dollar in future being only one of the currencies in that basket. If the move away from the dollar in oil purchases becomes solid, however, other commodities would quickly follow suit.

The blame for this potential disaster lies squarely on the Bush Administration, which has financed the GWOT on borrowed money through the sale of debt in the form of U.S. Treasury notes. Aside from that, the Bush Administration has allowed the mortgage crisis to spin out of control. For years now, Bush has crowed about the bright spot in the economy as the real estate market. The consumer support of Bush's disatrous economic doctrine has been financed by the equity in consumers' homes, which they are now losing. Not that Bush cares, since the real crisis is in the financial sector itself, guilty of fraud and the serial cover-up of that fraud.

In essence, Bush has maxed out America's credit card and the rest of the world is sending collection notices. Bush, in his supreme arrogance, is merely saying "we're good for it" and " you all owe us for saving you from Saddam and the Taliban". The planet appears unimpressed.

This is why we see Bush so fiercely adamant in his vetoes of "pork". His wars are sacrosanct, so the "family" will have to go without new clothes or shoes this year, the infrastructure clunker of a car will have to "make do", we'll all to have to eat more macaroni and cheese, and we can't go the doctor anymore.

Bush's plan of giving tax cuts to the wealthy in the hope that they will invest the money in our economy has failed. Just as Reagan's cuts were squandered on forced leveraged buyouts that left companies under huge pressure to produce quick profits, Bush's cuts have been used to send production overseas and show short-term dividends for shareholders while the long-term viability is sacrificed. These corporate profits have sustained the revenue, along with the consumer spending. The consumer, meanwhile, has not benefitted with wage growth below even Bush's mythical inflation figures.

Ideally, of course, this house of cards was supposed to collapse, after Bush left office. I guess the whole world is infected with BDS, which is the neocon term for anyone who has failed to drink the neo-con Kool-Aid. Thus, pointing out things like "wars cost money" and "borrowing has consequences" is merely a sign of Bush-hatred. The world is ungrateful and foolishly fails to recognise that they owe us for our efforts in the wars that resulted in our dominance in the world. Now they actually want us to pay back the money we borrowed from them to free the world from Islam, and they actually expect us to honour our treaties on top of it all. Well, I'm sorry to inform our neocon kiddies out there, but if the dollar stops being the reserve currency and we have to pay as we go for our wars like our allies do, the gravy train is over. The dollar will become the new ruble, only without the oil and natural gas revenues to back it up.

Anyway, the story below shows the real-world consequences on the small scale of the dollars' decline.

story from IHT

Paid in dollars, expats struggle to make a living

By Doreen Carvajal

PARIS: Erica Nevins's faith in the dollar was shaken the moment she pressed a crumpled $1 bill into the hand of a little girl begging for money on the streets of Marrakesh, Morocco.

"I don't want this. This is nothing," Nevins recalled as the scornful reaction of the child, who demanded more.

Since then Nevins, an American fashion executive, has replayed that moment over and over in her head as she confronted the harsh reality of living on a dollar income in Paris and then moving to pricey London. "The absurdity of this is that it's so true," she said. "A dollar really means nothing. It's scary."

With plunging exchange rates, American expatriates whose pensions or incomes are paid in dollars are scrimping. No more dinners out when a bottle of Perrier for €3.50 translates to $5 and no more Christmas shopping binges when a shiny iPod for €159 is the equal of $230.

And ultimately some are moving to greener pastures that match the color of their money.

"Those that can hold out are holding their breath and we're hoping for a return of the dollar, but those that can't are going," said Susie Bondi, an American who has lived in Paris for 12 years, but is moving to Vienna in January with her husband, Fred, to stretch their pension dollars in a city with a lower cost of living.

The past six months have been anxious for expatriates, with the dollar sinking against the euro, the pound and currencies from the Czech koruna to the Costa Rican colón. Those declines are accelerating the flight of expatriates in Europe, according to tax attorneys who listen to the woes of clients who are giving up because they see no relief in sight.

The zeitgeist is best summed up by the rapper Jay-Z who last month released a music video of himself cruising the streets of New York in a shiny Bentley with a flash wad of €500 notes.

Even U.S. government employees are feeling the pinch in countries with strong currencies like the Czech Republic, where the koruna has gained 17 percent this year against the dollar.

Radio Free Europe, the U.S.-backed international broadcaster headquartered in Prague, is suddenly facing a housing crisis for many of its 500 employees. And the news organization's new chief executive, Jeffrey Gedmin, ranks the weak dollar with attacks on journalists around the world who have been kidnapped in Baghdad and jailed in Azerbaijan as one of the critical issue that it is facing.

"For me it's become an ethical issue," said Gedmin, who was in Washington this month lobbying U.S. legislators for relief and trying to raise funds privately to aid hard-hit employees. "I have a genuine ethical issue to take care of people who are trying hard to take care of their own countries."

Employees who have long been paid in dollars pumped the money into the local economy and to landlords who in the past gratefully accepted dollars when the currency was strong.

Now most of the organization's employees living in Prague are being pressured to convert rental contracts from dollars to korunas and have received notices about imminent rent increases. One landlord raised an employee's monthly charge from $1,000 to $1,500 and took away his basement storage space to rent it out.

The impact of the sagging dollar has been particularly acute for expatriates who live on fixed pensions paid in dollars or self-employed workers whose clients are largely based in the United States.

Josh Soski moved from San Francisco to Barcelona in September to start a freelance video production company that supplies clients like Current TV in the United States with short video features on European stories.

These days, he said, he finds himself sitting on his bed, with his head in his hands, obsessively checking currency rates on his laptop. "They pay us $2,500 for a piece, and you cash it in and it's €1,400 or less. That's shocking," said Soskin, who finds himself debating whether to splurge on a €3.50 bottle of water at the airport or indulge in a can of his favorite Mexican black beans at €4.

To survive and hedge currencies, Soskin is now scouting for European clients who will pay him in euros. Other self-employed workers - from medical translators to online entrepreneurs - are simply cutting off their American clients because it is no longer worth working for them.

Vincent Gagliostro is a graphic designer and freelance video filmmaker who left the New York advertising industry two years ago to settle in the Marais neighborhood in Paris with its promise of cheaper living that reduced his monthly housing costs from a $6,000 mortgage to an 18th-century apartment rental for €1,700. When he first moved to Paris, he said, he worked for a base of clients from the United States, but he is trying to diversify to earn euros.

"The dollar still heavily weighs on the quality of my life. As long as I continue to rely on at least 50 percent of my income with American clients, it's going to do that," Gagliostro said while dining on a simple €10 brasserie lunch of pasta and chicken. "My goal would be to lose the American clients altogether."

Gagliostro's partner, Richard Nahem, a Brooklyn native, has also sought to supplement their income by offering customized tours of the Marais, but his new business, Eye Prefer Paris Tours, is dominated by Americans and Canadians who pay him in a mix of euros and dollars. To economize, he has cut back on his own indulgences, such as clothing purchases. But he cannot resist his favorite high-end patisserie, Gérard Mulot, where a chocolate éclair costs €2.80.

"When it comes to pastries," Nahem explained, "there's no price resistance for me."

Many companies with American executives posted abroad are starting to seek advice on how to deal with currency depreciation, according to Achim Mossman, managing director for international executive services for KPMG, a tax advisory firm. In the future, he expects more American companies to pay their employees abroad with local currency, and he is also advising companies to follow calculated formulas to measure the cost of living standards to make salary adjustments.

Some employees have successfully pressed their companies to shift from dollars to local currencies. Nevins, who was paid in dollars while living in Paris, changed her income to pounds when she moved to London earlier this year.

"I wouldn't be working for this company if I was paid in dollars," she said. But Nevins still cannot resist making constant mental calculations to measure the price of everyday purchases in London. "Everything from a cup of coffee to going to the movies is so much higher," she said. "An adult movie ticket can range up to $26 and in terms of the holiday season, my boyfriend and I are doing all our shopping online in the United States. We're not thinking of shopping here."

War marches into India, Bhutan

India and China fought an ill-planned border war in 1962. Earlier this month, China moved large numbers of troops into the border area where India, China, and Bhutan meet (the tri-junction) for a "military exercise". Some reports indicate China is building roads and bridges inside Bhutan and violating Bhutan's territory. The region has seen a steady increase of Chinese influence over the past few years. In Nepal, Maoists launched a civil war against the monarchy and have achieved a power-sharing agreement. Armed separatist groups have carried out actions in India's Assam province, and move freely between Bhutan and Nepal. While not directly controlled by China, these groups are Maoist-oriented and China seems to take no action against them in their own territory.

China has persistently claimed the remote Indian province of Arunachal Pradesh as its own. It is an area devoid of of any resources, steeped in poverty, and dominated by the typical Indian bureaucracy. However, it is the gateway to Assam, which belongs to India but is virtually cut off from it. On the eastern side is China's nominal ally, Myanmar (Burma).

Last month, there were reports of Indian "bunkers" being destroyed by Chinese forces. In reality, these "bunkers' were fibreglass huts that were no longer in use. The Indian military went to great pains to downplay the incident, saying that it was unclear if these "bunkers" were in Chinese or Indian territory. The border, in this mountainous and remote area, apparently is not clearly delineated, and China does not recognise it, regardless.

Now India has moved 6000 troops from the disputed border with Pakistan (Jammu and Kashmir) to this remote area on the opposite side of the country. Nothing significant has changed on that front for a long time, though recent reports say that Pakistan has used the majority of its U.S. aid on the Global War On Terror (GWOT) for purchases of weaponry that could only be used for a war against India. The Indian military's attempts to downplay the significance of such a large troop movement seems suspicious of itself. One of the big lessons of the 1962 war was that mountain combat is very different from the kind of conflicts China and India were accustomed to. Troops easily fatigue in the high altitude, fires are hard to light and there is virtually no fuel laying about, it is very cold, and roads to bring in supplies are usually mere paths. A simple cotton tent is not adequate shelter and specialised equipment is needed. The troops that India is sending to the area are a specially-trained mountain division.

For India, the stakes are high, despite the attitude conveyed by the military. The Siliguiri Pass is the only land route to Assam within Indian territory. If China can create crude bases on the Plateau, they could potentially cut off Assam from India and leave it at the mercy of their proxies. Politically as well, many of the Indian Communist Parties within the Indian government look to China for inspiration and guidance.

Lost in all of this, of course, are the consequences for Bhutan. Bhutan is a nation that has lived, up until the past ten years, in the ancient past. The highly popular King J.S. Wangchuck stepped down last year and actually imposed democracy upon a reluctant populace. Televisions and satellite dishes are recent developments, and the Bhutanese have only quite recently been exposed to the Western world. What passes for the military is very small and very poorly armed, at a level of 6000 men under arms at best. The average policeman here is better equpped and trained than the best Bhutanese "soldier". Their best defence has been the terrain, the remoteness of their land, and the lack of any reason for anyone to invade them. Were it not for the need to chase Nepalese and Assamese militants from their camps within Bhutan, they would have no need for firearms whatsoever. Everything points to Bhutan becoming the new Tibet, however, with China serving as the "liberator" and "moderniser". India and Bhutan have security agreements, of course, but these are primarily along the lines of India not attacking Bhutan and Bhutan not allowing attacks on India. It is highly doubtful, to say the least, that India would go to war against China to defend Bhutan. Thus, another happy and peaceful civilisation is set up for demolition.

India moves over 6,000 troops to border with China

Agencies

Posted online: Thursday , December 13, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Thursday , December 13, 2007 at 08:07:58
New Delhi, December 13: Army has moved more than 6,000 troops to Sino-Indian border close to tri-junction of India, Bhutan and China even as Army Chief Deepak Kapooor said reports of intrusions of Chinese forces in Bhutan was a ‘matter between the two countries’.
The movement of troops from Jammu and Kashmir has been termed by army officials as ‘routine move back of troops to their original locations’.
They said the forces being moved were all formations of Kalimpong-based 27 Mountain Division which had gone for counter-insurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir in 2001.
Army sources said an entire brigade of the 27 division and an additional battalion had been moved back over a period of three to four months.
Asked whether the Indian Army was concerned over reported intrusions of Chinese army into Bhutan, Kapoor, speaking on the sidelines of an Army seminar, said it was a matter between Bhutan and China to sort out.
"It is a matter between Bhutan and China to resolve. So that is a issue at diplomatic level. I have nothing to say," he said .
The shifting of Army formations North of Nathu La comes against the backdrop of reports of Chinese troops coming close to a vital area is the only land link between North eastern states and the rest of India.
However, Army authorities brush this aside saying Chinese forces have been coming close to Dolam Plateau for over two decades as the boundary in the area is still to be defined
--------------------------------------------------------------
full story

The Indian Express[Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:35]
The UPA government appears to have no will to craft a purposeful policy towards ChinaAlthough Chief of Army Staff General Deepak Kapoor makes light of his decision to shift nearly 6,000 troops to the trijunction of the India-Bhutan-China border, the disconcerting truth has been known for some time — that there is a new military restiveness on the Sino-Indian border. After relative peace for nearly two decades, Beijing’s more muscular policies on the frontier and the reluctance of the Indian political leadership to face up to the implications of China’s rapid rise as a great power are creating conditions for renewed mistrust. For nearly a decade now, China has purposefully upgraded its military and civilian infrastructure in Xinjiang and Tibet, the two provinces that border India. China is also extending its political and military influence south of the Himalayas by pushing new road and rail networks. The People’s Liberation Army’s vigorous patrol along the contested border has been matched by a vociferous diplomatic reaffirmation of China’s claim to the entire Arunachal Pradesh. The UPA government appears to have no will to craft a purposeful policy towards China. Defence Minister A.K. Antony seems to think his job is to make politically correct statements on China and Russia. Antony is well advised to leave that job to the Foreign Office and devise a longer-term response to the complete transformation of China’s strategic profile on South Asia’s borders. The China policy has traditionally been managed at the highest levels in the Indian government. But the UPA leadership — under political bondage to the communists, who make no bones about their loyalty to China — is busy simulating a bonhomie with Beijing. In contrast to this, the Vajpayee government had the gumption to confront China on the nuclear issue, flexibility to settle the dispute over Sikkim, and courage to initiate a bold negotiation on the boundary dispute. The UPA neither has the stomach to challenge China’s open campaign against the Indo-US nuclear deal nor the head to ramp up pressure on Beijing for an early and reasonable settlement of the boundary dispute. If the Congress party confuses China policy with coalition politics at home, the security institutions like the Armed Forces have no choice but to come up with separate responses of their own.

Iran drops the dollar

As I pointed out earlier, the Gulf States are edging away from the dollar. Iran has now abandoned it. Venezuela and Algeria are seriously considering doing the same. Nigeria and Angola are moving toward the "basket" - a mix of currencies, rather than only using the dollar.

Why is this important?

Because so much of the world's trade is in oil.

What dollar hegemony does is to transform the dollar-denominated payments imbalance of the United States into a dollar-denominated debt bubble in the US economy. Holders of US debt and assets are rewarded with high nominal returns provided by a high growth rate reflecting rising asset prices denominated in money that constantly loses purchasing power.

World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars by fiat and the rest of the world produces things that fiat dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture dollars needed to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies.

To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong US dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it even stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in US dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petrodollars is the price the United States has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.

By demanding that oil sales are denominated in dollars, the dollar sees a huge artificially-created boost in demand. This is a huge competitive disadvantage for the rest of the world

All central banks have since been forced to hold more dollar reserves than they otherwise need to ward off sudden speculative attacks on their currencies in financial markets. And dollar reserves by definition can only be invested in US assets. Thus dollar hegemony prevents the exporting nations from spending domestically the dollars they earn from the US trade deficit and forces them to finance the US capital account surplus, thus shipping real wealth to the United States in exchange for the privilege of financing US debt to further develop the US economy.

The US capital-account surplus in turn finances the US trade deficit. Moreover, any asset, regardless of location, that is denominated in dollars is a US asset in essence. When oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency, the US in essence owns the world's oil for free. And the Quantity Theory of Money dictates that the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of US assets will rise. And by neo-classical definition, a rise in asset value is not inflation as long as wages lag behind. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the United States a double win while workers everywhere, including those in the US itself, are handed a double loss.

This is very important to our economic standing in the world. Normally we could threaten invasion, as we did when Iraq dropped the dollar. However, the U.S. currently has its hands full with two very expensive wars, and Iraq isn't producing much of that dollar-demanding oil. Invading the entire Gulf would halt oil production, which would drop demand for the dollar. African oil producers, along with Venezuela, would either drop the dollar immediately or cut off exports, forcing us to buy through third countries at a markup. We simply cannot invade the entire oil-producing world at once while maintaining oil production. Certainly China would see this an existential crisis. Anything Bush could do would have to quick and decisive, and would have to be more than air strikes.

Iran drops dollar from oil deals: report

14 hours ago

TEHRAN (AFP) — Major crude producer Iran has completely stopped carrying out its oil transactions in dollars, Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said on Saturday, labelling the greenback an "unreliable" currency.
"At the moment, selling oil in dollars has been completely halted, in line with the policy of selling crude in non-dollar currencies," Nozari was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.
"The dollar is an unreliable currency, considering its devaluation and the oil exporters' losses," he added.
The world's fourth largest oil exporter, Iran has massively reduced its dependence on the dollar over the past year in the face of US pressures on its financial system and the fall in the dollar.
Nozari did not specify in which currencies Iran was now being paid. In the past, officials have said most oil income was in euros, with a significant percentage in yen.
Japan, which purchases 20 percent of Iran's crude oil, has recently agreed to pay for the crude oil in yen, officials have said. The UAE dirham has also been mooted as a possible payment currency.
Iran has in the past months been whittling down the proportion of dollars in its oil revenue income. Officials in October said that dollars accounted for only 15 percent of payments and predicted the amount would fall to zero.
However, the oil income is still being booked in dollars.
The United States has in recent months successfully encouraged major European and Asian banks to cut their dealings with Iran in a bid to make the Islamic republic give way on its controversial nuclear programme.
Washington has also blacklisted major Iranian banks for alleged support of terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons, charges denied by Tehran.
Iran has also reduced its dollar assets held in foreign banks and urged OPEC to take collective action to price oil in other currencies such as the euro, instead of the US currency which is used across the world at present.
The fall of the dollar, which has weakened considerably against the euro and other currencies in the past 12 months, has affected the revenues of OPEC members because most of them price and sell their oil exports in the US currency.

----------------------------------------------------------

Iran completes move away from dollar reserves

By Babu Das Augustine, Banking Editor
Published: October 22, 2007, 22:50

Washington: Iran's central bank governor has said that the country has completed the process of diversifying its external reserves away from the dollar.

Tahmasb Maaheri, who took over as the central bank governor of the country, told Washington-based Emerging Market magazine the process of diversification is almost 100 per cent.

"We have done our best to implement this diversification in both our resources, instruments and forex reserves in order to get maximum out of our assets," he said.

Currently, most of Iran's trading partners are making payments for oil in currencies other than the dollar.

Iran's move to diversify away from the dollar has been partly motivated by political tensions with the US and partly due to the weakness of the dollar in the past two years.

In recent years, Iran has been calling for reserve diversification and pricing of oil against a basket of currencies.

Although many countries in the Middle East are not as vocal as Iran, recent statistics from US Treasury Department indicate that many of them are diversifying their reserves away from dollar denominated assets.

Data

The latest data from the US Treasury showed outflows of $163 billion from all forms of US investments in August. While Japan and China led the withdrawals, the new revelation has increased fears of further withdrawals, significantly by Gulf central banks and government-owned funds.

Asian investors sold $52 billion worth of US Treasury bonds in August. While Japan sold US Treasuries worth $23 billion, China and Taiwan sold $14.2 billion and $5 billion, respectively. It is the first time since 1998 that foreigners have sold Treasuries so heavily.

Gulf central banks, which hold only a fraction of their total foreign exchange reserves, continue to maintain more than 70 per cent of their reserves in dollar denominated assets.

However, the government-owned investment funds who control the bulk of oil export earnings, are understood to be diversifying away from dollar-denominated assets.

While Qatar recently admitted that it has diversified more than 50 per cent of its assets, investment banking sources have confirmed that most Gulf-based sovereign wealth funds have active currency strategies and many of them are diversifying their holdings.

Russia not going along with Bush on Iran

It's interesting that Bush is open to using the U.N. to get his pet agendas advanced, but completely dismisses the U.N. when it says something he doesn't want to hear. According to Bush, solving the humanitarian crisis created by the Iraq occupation is the U.N.'s job - we are just there to fight Al-Qaeda as a big favour to the world.

Bush will have to give something substantial to Russia and China to get their support, but he has little to offer and no room to move within his self-created bellicose rhetoric. Will he now fall back on threats to get China and Russia to "come around"? Blackmail, perhaps? It's easy for NATO allies to say things Bush wants to hear, precisely because they know that Russia and China will stand in the way of a U.N.-sponsored invasion,.

story from Xinhua

Russian FM rejects U.S. call for further sanctions against Iran

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dismissed a call by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for further U.N. sanctions on Iran concerning its ambitious nuclear program.

"It fully confirms the information that we have: that there is no military element in their nuclear program," Lavrov told reporters after talking with Rice on the sidelines of a NATO ministerial meeting.

But Lavrov, who came to Brussels for a NATO-Russia Council meeting, expressed his strong hope that "these negotiations with Iran will continue."

Lavrov said earlier that his country has no evidence that Iran had ever had a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of international treaty obligations.

In meeting Lavrov, Rice aimed at persuading Russia to support new sanctions on Iran, despite that a U.S. intelligence report released recently found Iran actually stopped atomic weapons program in 2003.

NATO foreign ministers agreed that adopt a two-track approach in dealing with Iran, who refuses to halt uranium enrichment as it insists the program is for civilian use.

The United States is pushing for a new sanctions resolution in the U.N. Security Council.


Source: Xinhua

Indian government reading from Bush's script.

Not only does the U.S.-India nuclear deal appear to be sunk, but the aftermath of its collapse is spilling over into the Iran issue. In spite of Singh's statements that India wants no part of Bush's "warmongering" with Iran, India seems to be following Washington's script fairly closely.

In spite of the recent revelations that U.S. aid to Pakistan has mostly been spent on arming itself against India, and in spite of the ridiculous anti-Hindu outcry raised by Bush's base in denouncing Hindus as "wicked", and in spite of India's closest ally (China) becoming openly irritated with the U.S, it would seem that Mr. Singh is entirely willing to dance to the tune of a lame-duck American leader.

For a long time, Bush forbid any country from selling nuclear technology to India, even though this would be highly profitable. Then Bush changed his mind and decided it would be okay if American companies made a lot of money upgrading India's reactors, but the rest of the world (mostly our allies, by the way) should keep out. To a large degree, Bush restrained his traditional arrogance in coming up with the nuke deal, but India couldn't get the deal approved domestically due to the insistence on inspections. Since several other Western nations appear willing to step in and take America's place as India's nuclear supplier of choice, it's odd that India should become fixed on pleasing Bush, who has a bit over a year left in power and who is remarkably unpopular. If Bush is dangling something in front of Mr. Singh's eyes, then Singh should recall that Bush has done the same with Eastern European nations and he should realise that Bush's ability to deliver on the world stage is diminishing, as is his ability to get his way domestically.

US wants to convert India into subordinate ally: CPI(M)

Agencies
Posted online: Monday, December 03, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST
New Delhi, December 3:
Ahead of Tuesday's discussion in Rajya Sabha on the nuclear deal, the CPI(M) on Monday stepped up attack on the issue alleging that its "larger agenda" was to convert India into a "subordinate ally" of the US and New Delhi's "shift" in policy was visible in the Indo-Iranian relations.
"Day-to-day developments reconfirm our fears that the US wants to convert India into its subordinate ally in South Asia, even before the Indo-US nuclear deal has come into effect. This is a very ominous development," Politburo member Sitaram Yechury told reporters in New Delhi.
The CPI(M) leader said the 123 agreement, which was "firmly anchored in the Hyde Act", has fallen short "not just of our objections but of the assurances of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself."
Maintaining that American "pressure" was working not just on the government to "shift" its foreign policy but on Indian companies as well, Yechury said the deal was "lot more than only nuclear cooperation, it has a larger agenda ...to convert India as a subordinate ally of the US in South Asia.”
In this context, he referred to India's non-participation in a scheduled meeting with Iran and Pakistan on the gas pipeline and said "not going for the project or delaying it is not in India's interest. It is clearly succumbing to US pressures".
Yechury said the State Bank of India had "suddenly prohibited" extending their line of credit to Iranian firms and stopping Indian exports to that country.
He expressed hope that government would answer in Rajya Sabha on Tuesday these "serious" questions which came in the aftermath of India voting against Iran at the IAEA on the nuclear issue.