Diyala becomes "unpacified"

For about six months now, we've heard so much "good news" about Diyala. According to the U.S. military, it's "pacified".
It seems that it's not pacified.

So now that we've created a parallel army in Iraq that isn't answerable to the Iraqi government, will anyone start to ask how this helps the Iraqi Government control their own country? No, because it's all about Al-Qaeda, apparently. We are only making the inevitable Iraqi war between Shia and Sunni worse.

16 killed in suicide blast in Iraq
Ali al-Tuwajri
Fri, 07 Dec 2007

A woman suicide bomber killed 16 people on Friday when she blew herself up in the office of a group fighting al-Qaeda in central Iraq, days after the jihadi group warned of a new bombing campaign.

The attack was the second by a female suicide bomber in less than two weeks after a similar assault on 27 November targeting a US foot patrol in the Diyala provincial capital of Baquba killed one Iraqi and wounded seven US soldiers.

It came just hours after a leader of another anti-Qaeda front and five of his bodyguards were killed in a gun attack near the northern city of Mosul on Thursday night.

Friday's blast, which shook the town of Muqdadiyah, 100 kilometres north of Baghdad, near Baquba, killed at least 16 people and wounded 27, police and medical officials said.

"The explosion was caused when a female suicide bomber detonated her vest in the office of the local Awakening group," said Baquba police officer Lieutenant Colonel Najim al-Soumaidaie, referring to a group of local Sunni Arabs who have taken up arms against al-Qaeda in Diyala.

Of those killed, 10 were from the Awakening group while 15 members of the group were among the wounded, a security official said.

Thursday night's attack targeted a prominent tribal leader who headed an Awakening group near Mosul, police said.

"Unidentified gunmen attacked sheikh Jabbar al-Jarba's convoy, killing him and five of his guards," said Brigadier General Mohammed al-Waggaa, a police officer in Mosul, 370 kilometres north of Baghdad.

The attack occurred between Mosul and the town of Rabia, about 120 kilometres west of Mosul, he said.

Al-Sahwa or Awakening groups have sprung up across Iraq, comprising mainly Sunni tribal leaders who have accepted money from the US military - on average about 300 dollars a month - in return for confronting al-Qaeda militants who attack civilians.

On Tuesday, the leader of an al-Qaeda-linked group warned in an Internet audio message of renewed attacks in Iraq and announced the formation of a new brigade.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq, said a new brigade called Al-Siddiq Brigades had been formed to fight every "apostate and traitor".

Baghdadi warned of a bombing campaign that will continue until 29 January 2008.

"This attack involves bombings aimed at the 'apostates' and members of the Awakening Councils," he said. The term apostates is usually used to refer to Iraqi security forces.

The US military dismisses Baghdadi as a "fictional character."

"The whole notion behind this character is to try to put an Iraqi face to an Al-Qaeda organisation. It is essentially a virtual organisation," Major General Kevin Bergner told a news conference this week.

US military officials claim that al-Qaeda fighters have been migrating to northern areas of Iraq after being chased out of safe havens in Baghdad and other volatile regions.

The militant group has, however, managed to maintain its threat in Diyala province where - despite military assaults - suicide attacks are still a regular occurrence.

Diyala has been a stronghold of al-Qaeda for years. The former head of the group, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a US air strike in the province last year.

In another incident on Friday, a crude pipeline in oil-rich northern Iraq was set ablaze after being bombed by militants, oil ministry spokesman Assem Jihad said.

Repairs at the site near Al-Fatah, 120 kilometres west of Kirkuk, were expected to be completed within a day and crude exports would not be affected, he said.

Car bomb kills 10 in central Iraq
A car bomb killed 10 people on Friday in a town north of Baquba in Iraq's restive Diyala province, police official Major Ibrahim Hassan said. The attack came hours after a woman suicide bomber killed 16 people and wounded 27 in the town of Muqdadiyah near Baquba, and follows a warning by al-Qaeda that it has unleashed a new bombing campaign across the country.

AFP

Rice warns Israel on new settlements

This is the proof of Israel's sincerity in the Annapolis talks.
Israel agreed to halt settlement activity in the Occupied Territories. What they "meant', however, is that they would simply re-define the term "settlement" and "annex" the territory they wanted to settle.

Rice's potential "crowning acheivement" could very well be dead before talks begin due to Israel.

Rice warns Israel against East J'lem construction

Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim said Saturday that nothing should prevent Israel from following through on a plan to build 300 housing units in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa, a plan which U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said could jeopardize peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Secretary of State Rice should be blessed for her efforts in the relaunching of the peace process," Boim said, "but it cannot be that on every occasion this [peace process] will be tied together with the cessation of construction in Jerusalem."

"The Har Homa neighborhood is situated within Jerusalem's municipal borders where Israeli law applies," Boim added. "Therefore, there is nothing preventing the construction there, just as there is nothing preventing construction anywhere else in Israel."

Meanwhile Saturday, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat appealed to the United States to compel Israel to halt the expansion of settlements in the West Bank as dictated by the road map peace plan.

"We loudly ask the U.S. administration to act as the judge and compel Israel to implement its commitments which the Road Map plan specified," Erekat told Voice of Palestine radio.

The first phase of the road map calls on Israel to freeze settlement activities and the natural growth of the settlements.

Erekat pointed out that the tender for the Har Homa construction came about one week after the end of a U.S.-hosted conference in Annapolis, Maryland, which set December 12 as the date for Israel and the PA to start negotiating a lasting solution.

"If Israel went on, this will destroy all the efforts that aim at launching a meaningful peace process leading to ending the Israeli occupation which started in the 1967," Erekat added.

On Friday, Rice warned Israel that the construction plan threatened U.S.-backed efforts to achieve peace with the Palestinians.

"We are in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence with the parties and this doesn't help to build confidence," she said in rare U.S. criticism of Israel.

"There should not be anything which might prejudge final-status negotiations," Rice said after talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on the sidelines of a NATO meeting of foreign ministers.

"It's even more important now that we are on the eve of the beginning of the negotiations. I made that position clear," she told a news conference.

Israel has issued a tender for the construction of some 300 apartments in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa.

The United States fears the move could scupper peace talks launched last week in Annapolis. Peace negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian teams are due to begin on December 12.

Haaretz reported on Friday that the U.S. has requested that Israel provide clarifications on the building plan.

Palestinian leaders have said the plan undermines the peace process, aimed at reviving talks that had been dormant for seven years.

Under obligations contained in the 2003 U.S.-backed roadmap framework for Middle East peace, Israel must cease settlement activity.

But Israel has said it does not consider the site, known as Abu Ghneim by Palestinians, as part of the West Bank territory the Palestinians want for a state.

The Palestinians demand East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, for their future capital. Israel annexed the area after the war.

Israel may attack Iran on its own

Showing the rank hypocrisy that presents itself as Israeli foreign policy, the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons and that refuses to either sign the NPT or submit to IAEA inspections is considering unilateral airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Ironically, Iran has submitted to limited inspections (unlike Israel).

Israel presents itself as the Eternal Victim state, the poor beseiged nation that only wants peace. To it's neighbours, however, it a brutal bully that acts as a proxy for a foreign power. Israel has the strongest military in the region, armed with the most modern weapons and financed by the U.S. The "peace" Israel wants is the peace of the hegemon, the peace that comes from getting your way by coercion. It is a peace that allows Israel's proxies in Lebanon impunity, and allows Israel itself to act with unbridled arrogance against enemies of its own creation. The poor, peaceful Victim has no problem cutting off water and electricity to the Occupied Territories, making thousands suffer for the actions of a few over which the many have no control over. The Victim goes into the Occupied Territories and steals land from poor victims at the point of a gun, the brings in their military to protect the thieves who "settle" the land - as if it wasn't previously "settled". The Victim demands that everyone else disarm, kiss their ring, and bend over - and then we can "live in peace". There is a word for someone who demands that you hand over everything at the point of a gun, and that word is not "peacemaker".

The question now is whether or not Bush will use Israel to do what Bush himself can no longer justify to this domestic audience: bomb Iran into submission. There will be a 'mistake', some regrettable miscommunication that "nobody" could have anticipated, and it will be handled clumsily and unconvincingly. This "mistake" will be the pretext for the "unavoidable" attack by Israel on Iran, and Bush will defend Israel against all consequences. He may very well follow his trademarked routine of taking "responsibilty" for the incident, but without taking the blame.

story from The Guardian

Israel considering strike on Iran despite US intelligence report

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Friday December 7, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Senior Israeli officials warned today they were still considering the option of a military strike against Iran, despite a fresh US intelligence report that concluded Tehran was no longer developing nuclear weapons.
Although Israel argues that it wants to see strong diplomatic pressure put on Iran, it is reluctant to rule out the threat of a unilateral military attack. Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defence minister, told Army Radio today: "No option needs to be off the table."

Avigdor Lieberman, the hard-right deputy prime minister, said Israel should be ready to act if sanctions did not work. "If they don't, we will sit and decide whatever we have to decide," he told the Jerusalem Post in an interview today.
Several of Israel's Iran experts say the American rethink on the threat posed by Iran had ruled out a US military strike and probably an Israeli strike too, at least for now. However, Israel's political hawks continue to keep the threat of action alive.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the popular rightwing opposition leader, was asked whether Israel should launch its own military operation. "We always prefer international action, led by the United States, but we have to ensure that we can protect our country with all means," he told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz today.
The repercussions of the new US intelligence assessment are consuming Israeli politicians, analysts and the press. Although Israeli leaders had been briefed in advance, the national intelligence estimate (NIE) which was declassified and published on Monday, brought surprise and frustration in Israel's defence establishment.
In a marked shift from earlier assessments, the NIE said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in autumn 2003 and had not restarted it. America's intelligence agencies said they now did not know whether Iran intended to build nuclear weapons.
Israeli officials quickly offered a direct challenge. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, said although Iran's nuclear programme was halted in 2003 "as far as we know it has probably since revived it".
It is, however, far from clear whether Israel has its own unique intelligence on Iran strong enough to contradict the American findings. Ha'aretz noted in an analysis today: "It wasn't in the intelligence arena that Israel suffered a blow this week, but rather in the public opinion arena."
Some have suggested that with Israel feeling isolated by its hardline stance on Iran, it might be more inclined to launch a unilateral military strike and a comparison is frequently drawn to Israel's 1981 bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector, said this week if Israel felt its "red line" had been crossed it might strike. "They may force a military confrontation," he told the Associated Press agency.
However, it is widely assumed Israel would need at least American approval if not cooperation for any bombing mission. In particular, Israel's air force would need the US flight codes that would allow its planes to cross safely into Iran. When Israel requested those codes in 1991, to attack Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the first Gulf War, the United States refused and there was no Israeli strike.
Yet Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, is not shy of acting alone and has been heartened by the lack of international censure over its bombing raid in northern Syria in September, which may or may not have targeted a Syrian nuclear installation.
Israel's Iran experts argue that the US intelligence assessment did not wholly exonerate Tehran - they point to evidence of a continued enriched uranium programme which has only limited civilian use - but they admit that for now an Israeli military operation is unlikely.

China is miffed after all

In a follow-up to a story I reported earlier, it seems that China is, in fact, angry at the U.S.

This is apparently the reason for denying a naval flotilla to make a port call in Hong Kong ten days ago.
Something to watch, I guess.
Perhaps the Bush Administration can provoke this into a real crisis. The GWOT is losing its legs, so a naval confrontation with China could conceivably get some very stupid people here at home chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A!" again. And it has potential for being economically devastating to the U.S, so the best minds at the Heritage Foundation are probably busily at work at this very moment churning out papers about how wonderful a war with China would be, how it would be over in days, and how little it would cost. And how much work it would be to avoid a war, of course.

China: Navy Spat Not a Misunderstanding

By ANITA CHANG – 2 days ago

BEIJING (AP) — China's last-minute cancellation of a U.S. Navy visit to Hong Kong was not the result of a misunderstanding, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said Thursday, adding that ties had been "disturbed and harmed" by Congress' honoring of the Dalai Lama and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
Spokesman Liu Jianchao denounced an earlier report from Washington that said Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told President Bush the incident was a misunderstanding.
But Liu offered no concrete explanation as to why China barred the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk and its escort vessels from entering Hong Kong harbor for a planned Thanksgiving visit.
"The report is not in line with the facts," Liu said at a regular news briefing.
He refused to elaborate, but his negative characterization of U.S.-China relations appeared to indicate that Beijing had canceled the visit deliberately in order to register its displeasure over U.S. actions, as it has done occasionally with previous Hong Kong port calls.
Liu said "erroneous" actions on the part of the U.S. had "disturbed and harmed" relations.
He pointed to Congress' awarding its highest civilian honor to the Dalai Lama last month. Although the Tibetan spiritual leader is lauded in much of the world as a figure of moral authority, Beijing demonizes the monk and claims he seeks to destroy China's sovereignty by pushing for independence for Tibet.
Also hurting relations were arms sales to Taiwan, an island which China regards as a renegade province, he said.
A White House spokeswoman said she was surprised by the explanation.
"That was not the president's understanding from the meeting he had yesterday (with Yang). We are seeking clarification," press secretary Dana Perino said.
"The president was told was there was a miscommunication that could lead to a misunderstanding. I was told there was a misunderstanding. ... The linkage was not made (with the Dalai Lama)," she said.
The Global Times, a tabloid published by the official party mouthpiece People's Daily, cited an unidentified People's Liberation Army senior colonel, as blaming Washington's decision to sell Taiwan an anti-missile defense system.
That "obviously sent the wrong signals" to Taiwan's leader, Chen Shui-bian, whom China abhors for his campaign to assert the self-ruling island's independent identity, the paper quoted the colonel as saying.
"At a time when the U.S. side is seriously harming China's interests, there is no logic under heaven by which China should then be expected to open its heart and embrace it," the paper said Thursday.
Beijing also had refused port entry earlier that week to two U.S. Navy minesweepers seeking to refuel and shelter from an approaching storm.
China eventually decided to allow the Kitty Hawk strike group's visit to Hong Kong, but only after the ships had already left the area. They did not turn back, instead continuing on to their home port in Japan.
"We have all along, on the principle of sovereignty, approved (port calls) on a case by case basis. Out of humanitarian considerations, we agreed to allow the strike group to make a port call," Liu said.
The Defense Department lodged an official protest of the Chinese moves Wednesday.

Vatican sends hazy message on Palestine

Not that the Vatican has much pull with either side, but they should at least be clear where they stand if they are going to try to influence the debate.

story from Haartez

Vatican cardinal: Palestinians have right to return to homeland
By Reuters

A senior Vatican cardinal said on Wednesday that all Palestinian refugees had a right to return to their homeland.

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican department that formulates refugee policy, made the comment as U.S. President George W. Bush was set to revive long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at a White House summit.

"Palestinian refugees, like all other refugees, have a right to right to return to their homeland," Martino said in response to a question about the 44-nation conference in Annapolis on Tuesday.

Martino did not make clear whether he meant refugees had a right to return to homes in what is now Israel or to an eventual Palestinian state.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have
pledged to try to forge a peace treaty by the end of 2008 that would create a Palestinian state.

The issue of the return of Palestinian refugees, along with the status of Jerusalem, is one of the most sticky issues in a peace treaty.

There are some 4.5 million Palestinian refugees in camps in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Successive Israeli governments have made clear they will not accept the right of return of Palestinians who left homes in what is now Israel, saying it would threaten the country's existence.

Some ministers have said that some Palestinians might be allowed to settle in Israel on humanitarian grounds if a final peace settlement is reached.

The Vatican, which sent a delegation to Annapolis, supports a Palestinian homeland as well as Israel's right to exist in security.

Venezuelan opposition openly calls for a coup

Contrast the scruntiny of the Venezuelan reform vote to Republican voter caging efforts, along with the practise of removing registered voters who happen to have the same names as convicted felons.

The opposition in Venezuela is already planning on rejecting the results of the vote and inciting violence nationwide. There is video (in Spanish) of an opposition meeting (in a church, no less) outlining plans for "destabilisation" after the vote. One of the organisers calls for a million to be mobilised, in ten thousand locations at once, creating such instability that" is not possible to be repressed with 200 armed men [the police]." He adds that this tactic " is a mechanism, much more surely efficient, that forces a political and governmental crisis, that forces the regime to abandon the Reforms."

So much for the democratic aspirations of the opposition. Coup seems to be their first and only means of getting their way. These people are calling for nothing more or less than armed insurrection against the democratically-elected government. In what other country would these people not be jailed? Are these the standard-bearers of democracy that Bush has pinned his hopes to?

Again, in 2002 when these people overthrew Chavez briefly, democracy was not on their list of priorities. Rather, a dictator was installed and a state of emergency was instituted. Nobody rallied to their side and they were swept from power. These tainted "heroes of democracy" are once again at it. They tried to shut down the oil industry and bring the nation into economic chaos. They failed and lost their positions of idle wealth. They brought about a recall referendum to remove Chavez from power. What kind of dictatorship allows a recall referendum if 20% of the voters support it? The Venezuelan kind, I guess. The recall vote failed in a landlside, which somehow was further proof that Chavez is a dictator.

Now this "dictator" is holding an election on Constitutional Reforms - gasp! How autocratic! If enough people vote to extend his term from six to seven years and abolish term limits, he could actually stay in office as long as the people want him to! Surely this must be stopped at all costs. It's madness to allow the citizens of a country to keep a leader in power by electoral means, so the only way to save democracy is through a coup of unpopular, unelected leaders who swear allegiance to a foreign power.
NOTE: this novel definition of democracy is only valid in cases where the elected leaders are not favoured by the American President, who is about as popular as the Venzuelan opposition.

Observers from 39 Countries to Guarantee Clean Referendum Vote

November 30th 2007, by ABN

Caracas, 29 Nov. ABN.- The National Electoral Council (CNE) announced that observers from 39 countries will guarantee a clean voting process during the referendum for constitutional reform to be held this Sunday, December 2nd.

On Thursday, the CNE distributed the International Accompaniment Program for the Referendum on Constitutional Reform.

Included in the list of observers are representatives of Antigua and Barbuda, Germany, Argentina, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Spain, United States, Philippines, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Holland, Honduras, England, Italy, Mali, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Switzerland, Surinam and Uruguay.

Among these representatives are electoral officials, writers, journalists, ministers, university educators, investigators, parliamentarians and representatives of various social organizations.

CNE Director Germán Yépez said that he expects between 100 and 120 international observers from American electoral entities as well as American and European electoral systems experts.

He explained that this time OAS and EU missions will not participate since the referendum preparation period was too short. The two organizations need five to six months to organize their activities.

Regarding national observation, Yépez emphasized that three NGO’s were authorized: Asamblea de Educación (Education Assembly), Ojo Electoral (Electoral Watch) and Universitarios por la Equidad (University Students for Equity), each of which can accredit around 500 observers.

In closing he announced that Electoral Power representatives would meet with international observers Friday at 9:30 am in the Alba Caracas hotel to discuss the electoral process.

Brazil Today Is Yesterday's Venezuela

An interesting take on Venezuela and where the current policies have brought us.

editorial from brazzil.com

Brazil Today Is Yesterday's Venezuela
Written by Cristovam Buarque
Friday, 30 November 2007

Perhaps no other Latin American political leader has received as much attention from Brazilian journalists and politicians as President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. The analyzes and critiques always focus upon "What's going on?" and "How is Chávez acting?" No one is asking, "Why Chávez?"

After 50 years of democracy, what led Venezuela to opt, by means of the ballot, election after election, for a government with autocratic characteristics? The answer is simple: Chávez is the product of the insensibility of the elite and the demoralization of politics.

During its 50 years of democracy, Venezuela had two parties that succeeded each other. Except for the President's name, nothing changed. A false trade-off of power. For all that time, the country exported petroleum and had resources to finance a wealthy minority's consumption of luxurious, sophisticated products.

Very few resources went into meeting the needs of the poor population or investing in a strategic development project. The result was a country divided by a social apartition, the total estrangement between the included and the excluded, who view each other as if they were separate parts of the same country and not as components of the same nation.

The Brazil of today is acting like the Venezuela of years past. Lula's election was the result of the elite's historic insensitivity and of the demoralization of politics. He represented the new; he said that the Congress was composed of 300 con artists; he led a party that symbolized the struggle against corruption and the hope for new national politics that would transform the society to benefit the emancipation of the poor.

It is true that, in power, Lula did not act like Chávez: instead of dividing the country, he made cohesive politics between the poor and the rich. But he did not create the conditions for social unity, for the formation of a nation.

Instead of changing society, he took steps to accommodate the people and the political parties. He adopted a form of conducting politics identical to that which he had previously criticized. The political cohesion came from the commitment to maintain the status quo in all areas and from the concession of assistance programs for the poor.

As a result, the Brazil of today is the pre-Chávez Venezuela, with the loss of hope in the Lula government as an aggravating factor. Little by little, the democracy is being corroded by the demoralization of the politicians, by the insensibility of the management elites, by the cynicism of commemorating small advances, by the acceptance of the corruption as natural and generalized. The country is a caldron of frustrations manufacturing an alternative autocracy.

Despite criticizing Chávez, the Brazilian Congress is systematically collaborating to manufacture Chavismo in Brazil. With the raise in congressional salaries, the accords to save colleagues condemned by public opinion, the politicians' change of positions depending upon whether they are in the government or in the opposition, the tax increase repudiated by the taxpayers, the insubstantial results in confronting the population's problems. Not even those who criticize Chávez miss the political parties and the politics of days gone by.

The judges are conveying the idea that they are more concerned with increasing their salaries than with bringing about justice, and they permit the shameful impunity of the wealthy. They collaborate in forming people's desire for an authoritarian leader. In Venezuela, even those who are horrified by the control of the judicial system affirm that the previous one did not deserve to survive.

Despite continually denouncing the corruption, the press concentrates upon superficial debate; it generalizes the criticism of every politician; it demoralizes the political class - and along with it, the democracy - and it ignores alternative proposals for a Brazil without apartition. It criticizes the errors but does not denounce the causes.

It is like a Greek tragedy. No one wants the tragic result of authoritarianism. But like actors, we are all - the Congress, the justice system, the press - doing our part so that Brazil will be a factory of autocrats, products of the insensitivity of the elite and of the demoralization of politics.

PA says "no" to concept of a Jewish state

It has always been a sore point that 20% of the Israeli population (the Arabs) live as second class citizens. As Phyllis Bennis puts it:

"All Israeli citizens, including Palestinians, have the right to vote in elections for members of the Knesset (parliament) and for the prime minister. But not all rights are citizenship rights. Other rights are defined as nationality rights, and are reserved for Jews only. If you are a Jew, you have exclusive use of land, privileged access to private and public employment, special educational loans, home mortgages, preferences for admission to universities, and many other things."

Even worse is that 1 in 4 Arab citizens of Israel are termed "internally displaced Palestinians", which is a euphemism meaning that their property has been taken away and they are homeless. All Arab citizens of Israel, regardless of whatever theoretical rights they are entitled to, are subject to "Jim Crow" policies.

So the terminology of Israel as a "Jewish state" has more than semantic relevance, similar to American Christian fundamentalist claims that the United States is a "Christian nation". In both cases, the subtext is that other religions are tolerated as a magnanimous gesture, only as long as they do not get "uppity".

A recent poll conducted by the Center of Anti-Racism based on questions asked to 500 selective Jewish residents of Israel representing all levels of the Jewish society showed unexpectedly negative attitudes towards Arabs. According to the official results:

* 75% would not agree to live in a building with Arab residents.
* More than 60% wouldn't accept any Arab visitors at their homes.
* About 40% agree upon taking the right to vote from Arabs.
* More than 50% agree that the State should encourage immigration of Arab citizens to other states.
* More than 59% think that the culture of Arabs is a primitive culture.

The Palestinian Authority is now saying that they will not accept Israel as a "Jewish state", which is somehow being spun as meaning that that they do not accept Israel's right to exist. On top of this, Israel essentially allows (and encourages through financial means) Jews to go into the occupied territories and stake a claim on Arab land, which in any other case would be considered outright theft. They call this practise "settlements", and these settlements then require the Israeli Army to protect these "settlers", thus setting the stage for further "settlement". These "settlers" commonly point to Scripture as promising them the land.

Pointing this situation out, of course, makes one "Anti-Semitic". Using your religion, backed by military force, to oppress and make others homeless, however, is "righteous". Israelis will, at some point, have to admit that their government is, in fact, a government and not a religious institution. As such, criticism of a government is not the same as criticism of a religion.
Just as criticising Bush Administration policies is not the same as advocating genocide against Christians, Israelis will have to stop playing the victim card whenever anyone points out unpleasant things about their political leaders and their policies.

story link

PA: Israeli Arabs are Part of 'Jewish State'

(IsraelNN.com) A Palestinian Authority diplomat in London said Saturday that the only way any progress would occur in the upcoming negotiations between the PA and Israel is if the latter changes its positions on the core issues to meet those of the PA's.

According to Manuel Hassasian, the PA's ambassador in London, no progress will be possible unless Israel is willing to change its positions on several key points: preventing growth of Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria, removing roadblocks, and other core issues. In an interview with Arab media, added that the PA could not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, because it would pose a great danger to the 20% of the Israeli population that are Arabs. He said the PA had already recognized Israel as an independent state, however.

Speaking in Saudi Arabia, PA chief Mahmoud Abbas said that he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "From a historical perspective, there are two states: Israel and Palestine. In Israel, there are Jews and others living there. This we are willing to recognize, nothing else," Abbas told reporters.

Gulf states edging away from the dollar

It's looking more and more likely that the dollar will lose its influence in the Gulf economy.
As the dollar loses value, the oil-producing states lose vast sums of money, since oil sales are denominated in dollars and their own currencies are fixed to the dollar. Potentially, and depending on far the Gulf states go with their "basket", the dollar could tumble in a big way. This could make borrowing money from China to finance the Iraqi occupation much more expensive and much less atttractive to China.

Ultimately, the Long War thesis could be undone not on politics, but on economics. Bush's dream on bullying the planet into submission was always based on keeping the oil-producing states under the U.S. economic thumb, as well as forcing the "allies" and the U.N. into paying huge sums for the reconstructions of the various conflicts it would entail. Bush is already slashing domestic spending steeply, including grants to cities for Homeland Security, but the ostensible GWOT is untouched. Meanwhile, the allies' numbers are decreasing, as is their support in terms of money and troops. Nothing in Afghanistan promises any kind of financial return on investment, and it's obvious that the Iraq occupation is not improving the gas price situation. The Iraq occupation, at best, would only have allowed foreign oil companies to swindle the Iraqis out their oil while simultaneously forcing the world to pay for the costs of the petroleum infrastructure so that we could be gouged further. Instead, we have what amounts to an enormously expensive coup and occupation that has only de-stabilised the region, increasing the price of oil.

Even the plans of bombing Iran into submission hold no promise for obtaining the oil or profitting in any way. Not that the Long War is about making money (except for defence contractors), but the money to wage it has to come from somewhere. It's one thing to take on fantastic amounts of debt for a long-term financial return, but it's completely another thing to max out your credit card in a bid to crush someone else's religion.

If the dollar does dramatically devalue due to the Gulf states curency policies, the economy would suffer in a big way just as the nation goes into an election. All the Republicans are offering is further tax cuts, and this is like cutting back on the number of hours you work in response to heavy credit card debt. In a situation where the electorate is facing foreclosures, higher gas prices, and the loss of their jobs on top of a stalled Long War, it will take a lot more than the magic word "Hillary" to make them look good.

And, of course, if the neocons lose the White House, the Long War is over, the reward of government jobs in return for Republican loyalty ends, conservative think tanks lose their relevance, and the ability to browbeat the media is substantially reduced. The bankrupting will be blamed, rightly or wrongly, on Bush, and those senators and representatives that uncritically supported Bush will face an unasssailable wave of sound bites of their own making.

And we will pick up the tab for the rest of our lives for allowing a small group of fanatics to control our nation.

story from MENAFN

Gulf currencies surge on revaluation report

(MENAFN - Arab News) The United Arab Emirates dirham surged to a 17-year high, leading a rally in regional currencies as investor piled pressure on Gulf Arab dollar pegs, encouraged by a report that a revaluation could come as early next week.

Kuwait, the only Gulf Arab oil producer that tracks a currency basket, allowed two dinar depreciations in one day yesterday, the first time it has done so since the central bank dropped the dollar peg on May 20. The bank usually sets the day's reference rate at 0500 GMT.

The Saudi Arabian riyal hit a 21-year high and the Qatar riyal a five-year high on speculation that other central banks would follow Kuwait's lead and unshackle their currencies from the tumbling dollar to contain inflation.

Currencies in the world's biggest oil exporting region have been rallying since UAE Central Bank Governor Sultan Nasser Al-Suweidi called two weeks ago for Gulf central banks to switch from fixed pegs to a currency basket including the euro.

The Dubai-based Arabian Business magazine threw fat on the fire yesterday saying a UAE revaluation of 3-5 percent could come as early the National Day holidays on Sunday and Monday. The holidays of Eid Al-Adha, which begin around Dec. 20, would be another option for a move, the magazine reported, citing sources close to the central bank.

"The plan is to make an announcement when the banks are closed. National Day is an option, and if not National Day then the Eid holidays later in December," one of the sources said, according to the website of Arabian Business.

The report's author, Anil Bhoyrul, told Reuters the source was not at the central bank.

A National Day revaluation is unlikely because it would coincide with a summit of Gulf Arab rulers in Qatar on Dec. 3 and 4, analysts said.

"It's not the UAE's style to shock the markets," Mushtaq Khan, economist at Citigroup Global Markets.

"The amount the magazine is talking about is in the ballpark of what we are expecting. But I don't think they will do it before the summit," he said.

Suweidi has repeatedly said he would only act in concert with other Gulf states preparing for monetary union as 2010. He and other central banker say the final decision on a revaluation or scrapping dollar pegs would be made by Gulf Arab rulers.

"I don't think anything will happen before the summit, where the parameters will be laid for either joint or individual action," said Anthony Harris, British ambassador to the UAE for four years to 1998.

Still, bids on the dirham were as high as 3.6600 per dollar, the strongest according to Reuters data going back to 1990. The currency, which has been fixed at 3.6725 per dollar since 1997, is on track to make its biggest one-day gain in 17 years.

Polish public says get out of Iraq

Support for Poland's participation in Bush's Iraqi occupation has now dwindled to single digits.
Likewise, support for the idea of using Poland as a proxy against Russia is also slight.
The "anti-missile shield" is ostensibly to protect Poland against an Iranian attack. In reality, it places missiles in Poland under the control of a foreign country (the U.S.) that are far more likely to be used against SCO nations. Rather than fearing the unlikely scenario of Iranians attacking Poland for whatever odd reason, the Polish public is instead afraid that the "shield" will make it a target.

Note also that the vast majority of Poles want the quickest possible pullout of troops, not a withdrawal based on benchmarks or the opinion of 'the boots on the ground'. We now have another "ally" that is backing Bush against the will of its own people. One must wonder what pressure is being brought to bear on the Polish government by the Bush Administration. We will surely find out after Bush is out of office, whether it is blackmail, extortion, or bribery. Coalition of the Willing, indeed.

story from Xinhua

Poll shows 73% of Poles favor quick pullout of Iraq

Seventy three percent of Poles is for the quickest possible pullout of Poland's soldiers from Iraq, according to results of a poll conducted by the CBOS public opinion polling center, which are available on Thursday.

Eight percent of those polled would accept the prolongation of Poland's military presence beyond 2008.

The poll also showed that only 24 percent of Poles support the deployment in Poland of elements of the US anti-missile shield.

Sixty-one percent of those polled said they are afraid that building such installations would increase the threat of a terrorist attack in Poland.

Source: Xinhua

Venezuelan reforms

Below is an article from venezuelanalysis.com, reprinted from here.

So much of the American media is consumed with hatred of Chavez. Oddly, they support the programme and actions of an American president who governs with less than 30% approval. Chavez governs with 60-70% approval. The recent uproar about the changes to the Venezuelan Constitution seem to gloss over one thing: these changes must be voted on by the citizens of Venezuela. It is strange that Republicans who seek to add Constitutional Amendments against abortion or flag desecration to our Constitution find the prospect of another nation amending their Constitution so frightening and dangerous. Of course, it's even stranger that Republicans feel free to allow the President to ignore so much of the Constitution, but that's another matter.

The media in Venezuela has been in the hands of the opposition for as long as Chavez has been in office. Of course, before Chavez took office, these people were not known as the "opposition", but they still reflected the will of Washington. Despite being labeled as a 'dictator", Chavez has put up with a continuous shrill and obviously treasonous media that no true dictator would have tolerated, even those that Bush loves. Would Bush allow the broadcast networks to call for his assassination, as the Venezuelan networks have? Would he allow our national networks to call for a foreign country to invade us, overthrow the elected government, and install a dictatorship that favoured a foreign government? Not bloody likely. Here in the U.S, the Republicans and their media outlet, Fox News, have accused those who merely criticise the President out loud as guilty of treason and acting as if they "hate America". Others, such as Ann Coulter, have gone so far as to dismiss the entire Democratic Party as traitors, and reminded us that treason is a capital offence.

So, when the Bush Administration sponsored the brief overthrow of Chavez in 2002, did their puppet move to establish democracy? No. Hell, no. The new, pro-U.S. usurpers announced the Carmona Decree, which dissolved the National Assembly and Supreme Court, created an unelected "advisory council" to act as Cabinet, replaced the National Electoral Council with their cronies, and allowed the new president to replace all state, local and national office-holders with their own unelected stooges. 400 politicians signed the Decree, most of whom now claim they were 'tricked". They cast aside their own Constitution. The Bush Administration quickly recognised the new government, but was forced to denounce it as they were just as quickly put down without a shot being fired.

Prior to Chavez, elections in Venezuela were "managed" by the Punto Fijo accords, which let the two main parties alternate in power while locking out all others. This is "democracy"?

In election after election, the pro-U.S. "opposition" was defeated by wide margins. Somehow this is proof that Chavez was an unpopular dictator. The media is in the hands of the wealthy elite, which is the "opposition". Before Chavez, this elite was educated in the U.S. at taxpayer expense, and upon their return were moved into cushy, highly-paid positions in the petroleum industry or government by the equivalent of the Old Boy Network. Refusing to accept defeat, they staged a strike within the oil industry demanding that Chavez step down. Can you imagine what would happen here in the U.S. if a union demanded that Bush step down in order to end a strike? The strikers were replaced, and these elites lost their cushy jobs when the strike failed, which is further "proof" that Chavez is a dictator somehow. They gambled and lost but, much like Bush, they were unprepared to accept such a situation. So they called on the Decider to overthrow Chavez and restore their positions. Since the oil still flowed, Bush declined.

Chavez is often a crude loudmouth, and is a soldier rather than a politician or diplomat. But he is not a dictator. Fifty years of following the the U.S. script had done nothing for the Venezuelan people, so it is fair to say that we blew our chance. Chavez has instituted free education and a strong co-op movement. This "dictator" is lowering the voting age to 16. Chavez can be voted out of office, but the has no term limits under the proposed reforms. That is not a "President for life" scenario.

Will it be difficult for the opposition, signatories to the Carmona Decree, to turn back the clock and force the vast majority of the population to go back to bleak poverty and a life without civil rights? Yes. Simply because a political party espouses an unpopular agenda and fails to get elected is not proof of "dictatorship". I know and understand the the American media and Bush Administration in particular thinks that democracy automatically yields pro-American administrations, but this has been proven wrong.

Venezuela: Still A Democracy

November 22nd 2007, by Mark Weisbrot - New Statesman

On 2 December Venezuelans will vote on a number of amendments to their constitution. Generally speaking the proposals have been portrayed in the media as the next step on the road to dictatorship.
That's because the mainstream media generally abandons quaint notions of balance and objectivity when reporting on Venezuela. Curiously, this often extends to left-of-centre newspapers not known to slavishly follow the Bush administration's lead when reporting on other oil states where regime change is either sought, Iran, or in process, Iraq.
The biggest fuss this time seems to be the amendment that would abolish term limits for the presidency.
Perhaps it is because I am from Chicago, and had only one mayor from the time I was born until I graduated college, that I am unable to see this as the making of a dictatorship.
Not to mention that if Hillary Clinton is elected next year, we will have Bushes and Clintons as heads of state for a full consecutive 24 years, and possibly 28.
President Lula da Silva of Brazil defended Venezuela last week, asking why "people did not complain when Margaret Thatcher spent so many years in power". He added: "You can invent anything you want to criticise Chavez, but not for lack of democracy." Lula has repeatedly defended Venezuela's government as democratic, but these comments are never reported in the English language media.
Chavez is also castigated for proposing to get rid of the independence of the Central Bank, which is inscribed in the 1999 constitution. This is portrayed as just another "power grab." However, there are sound economic reasons for this amendment.
Central Banks that are not accountable to their elected governments are not altogether "independent" but tend to represent the interests of the financial sector. In the trade-off between growth and employment versus inflation, the financial sector will always opt for lower inflation, even if it means stagnation and unemployment.
The increasing independence of central banks, and the resultant overly-tight monetary policy is very likely one of the main reasons for the unprecedented long-term growth failure in Latin America over the last quarter-century.
There is also an amendment that would provide Social Security pensions to workers in the informal sector, which would be a major anti-poverty measure, given that this includes about 41 percent of the labour force.
Another would reduce the working week to 36 hours. This is being reported in the media as a 6-hour day, but more likely it will be interpreted as four eight-hour days plus four hours on Friday.
There are also amendments that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or physical health; provide for gender parity for political parties; guarantee free university education; make it more difficult for homeowners to lose their homes during bankruptcy. It is hard to argue that these are punishing or repressive measures.
Another amendment would reverse the 1999 constitutional provision protecting intellectual property. This would not abolish patents or copyrights but would allow more flexibility for the government in addressing the enormous economic inefficiencies caused by state-protected monopolies, e.g. in areas such as patented pharmaceutical drugs. This is difficult to argue against on economic grounds.
There are other amendments that are more controversial, most of them added not by Chavez but by the National Assembly (Chavez cannot veto amendments added by the Assembly; these have to go to the voters).
For example, one amendment would allow the government to suspend the "right to information" (but not due process, as reported in the international media) during a state of national emergency. Another would allow the President and the National Assembly to create new federal districts and provinces.
Some of these provisions have drawn opposition even among Chavez's supporters. If they are approved, it will likely be because the majority of voters trust Chavez and the government not to abuse their powers.
And there is some basis for this trust: the National Assembly earlier this year gave Chavez the power, for 18 months, to enact certain legislation by executive order. The pundits screamed about Chavez "ruling by decree," but in fact this power has not been used much at all, except in dealings with foreign corporations.
In any case, the voters will decide, with a far stronger opposition media than exists in the United States proselytising against the government. Venezuelans have not lost civil liberties the way people in the U.S. (or even the UK) have in recent years, and ordinary citizens continue to have more say in their government, and share more in its oil wealth, than ever before. It is doubtful that the referendum will reverse these changes, regardless of the outcome.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan and has written numerous research papers on economic policy.

Source:

New Statesman

Taliban now controls half of Afghanistan

Is this why Bush is so optimistic about Afghanistan? Or is it because unfounded optimism is his trademark strategy in dealing with all problems?

Six years after the invasion of Afghanistan, reconstruction money has largely gone into profits for contractors that use mysterious accounting practises like their counterparts in Iraq. Six years after the invasion, the puppet government of Karzai is irrelevant, impotent, and wholly dependent on foreign troops to stay in power. Six years after the invasion, the federal tribal areas in Pakistan are now a de-facto mini-state beyond the control of the Pakistani government. Six years of fighting has brought the British military to a crisis. Now half of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban, and Bush is still talking about girls being able to go to school. It's a "dog's dinner", indeed.

story from Spiegel

Over Half of Afghanistan under Taliban Control

Six years ago coalition forces headed into Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban. Now an international think tank says more than half of the country is under the Taliban's thumb. Meanwhile, an Oxfam report sharply criticized US-led development efforts in the region.

In war-torn Afghanistan, the Taliban is gaining ground again as it continues its insurgency. A report released Wednesday by the Senlis Council, an international security and development policy think tank, concludes that more than half the entire country is now under Taliban control.
"The Taliban's ability to establish a presence throughout the country is now proven beyond doubt," the report says, adding that "54 percent of Afghanistan's landmass hosts a permanent Taliban presence, primarily in southern Afghanistan, and is subject to frequent hostile activity by the insurgency."
The report, entitled "Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the Brink," is not merely a litany of depressing statistics. It also offers ideas to halt the spread of Taliban influence including a troop "surge." NATO forces, for example, should be doubled from 40,000 to 80,000 "as soon as logistically possible." It also recommends that all present caveats constraining troop deployment be removed and that Muslim countries should supply an additional 9,000 troops to supplement Western forces. And military efforts against the Taliban should extend their reach into Pakistan, with that country's permission.
More than 6,000 people have been killed in insurgency-related violence in 2007 as NATO forces continue to battle against the Taliban, particularly in the volatile south. On Thursday Secretary General Japp de Hoop Scheffer, in Kabul for talks with the Afghan government, admitted that the alliance needed to provide more troops for Afghanistan and more trainers for Afghan forces.
Some members of NATO's coalition forces disagree with the assessment set forth by the Senlis Council. Canada's Defense Minister Peter Mackay told reporters on Wednesday that the report was simply "not credible."

The report was released on the same day as an Oxfam assessment critical of the spending efforts inside Afghanistan by Western powers. "As in Iraq," the report claims, "too much aid is absorbed by profits of companies and subcontractors, on non-Afghan resources and on high expatriate salaries and living costs."
Both reports are grim. Oxfam notes that "the absence of community participation, or association with the military, has led to projects which are unsuitable, unused or targeted by militants." And the Senlis report concludes that "it is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when this will happen and in what form."
Meanwhile on Thursday Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that Taliban leaders were increasingly contacting him to try to find ways of making peace. "We are willing to talk," he told reporters in Kabul. "Those of the Taliban who are not part of al-Qaida or the terrorist networks, who do not want to be violent against the Afghan people ... are welcome."
rjm/ap/reuters

British Army facing "manpower crisis"

A few days ago we saw a report saying that the British military was running out money. Now we see they are running out of troops, as well. The U.S. military, already forced to use stop-loss and lower its recruiting standards, is depending more and more on the allies to pick up the slack.

Meanwhile, Bush's ally in Australia, Howard, may not survive the next election. Australia may very well join the list of nations that have abandoned the Decider's quest for endless war.

Could it be that that the world, along with the U.S. public, has turned its back on Bush's vision of a decades-long conflict known as the Long War? Or has it merely found it impossible to sustain?

Army crisis as number of troops leaving soars

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Last Updated: 2:37am GMT 23/11/2007

The Army is facing a major shortfall in manpower after the latest figures released today showed that the number of troops leaving had increased by 50 per cent in the last year.

The difficulty in finding troops for the frontline has become evident after the Ministry of Defence admitted it was short of 4,500 soldiers - the equivalent of almost an entire brigade.

With most of the Army on continuous operations for the last four years in Iraq and Afghanistan the strain on soldiers and their families has been immense.

In the last two years the manning shortage of soldiers excluding officers has more than quadrupled from 1,000 to the most recent figure making the Army short of nine battalions in manpower.

The MoD's requirement for soldiers is 88,450 but yesterday the figure stood at 83,860 which includes almost 7,000 men recruited from Commonwealth countries.

More worryingly the number of people resigning from the Army has increased by 10 per cent in the last year to 12,500.

The figures come after former head of the Army Gen Sir Mike Jackson warned that the Armed Forces are facing a cash "crisis" raising doubts over whether the military will be able to pay for future operations.

Bernard Jenkin, a Tory member of the Commons Defence Committee, said the latest figures were "absolutely appalling".

"The problem of retaining soldiers in the Army is not just about very modest pay and conditions this is about the strain of operations and the stress on family life caused by long periods of separation.

"There comes a point where people feel forced to choose and the family inevitably comes first – after all, what we are fighting for is for our families and children."

Derek Twigg, the defence minister, said the MoD was "addressing manning challenges" by adjusting policies and "using long-term strategies" to recruit and retain people.

There was positive news that, perhaps attracted by media reports of fighting on the front in Afghanistan, there has been a 25-per-cent increase in young men signing up for the infantry in the last year.

But overall the Armed Forces are now lacking almost 7,000 personnel out of a total required force of 181,000.

The MoD said it hoped to improve the manning figures under its Service Personnel Plan which will take into account the demands of family life.

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

The Liberal Democrats' acting leader Vincent Cable said criticism had been "personalised" against Gordon Brown because, as chancellor: "He signed the cheque for 5bn for the war in Iraq at a time when the armed forces were already overstretched.

"That is why the troops are under-equipped, they are not properly housed, they are not cared for when they are injured - and they are very angry."

Organisations like the Royal British Legion say the armed forces are over-stretched and under-funded, and say that while 4.4% of GDP was spent on defence in the early 1980s, today it is about 2.3%.

The BBC's defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the real question, was whether the armed forces were being asked to do too much on the available resources.

Long-term defence planning failed to predict that Britain would be fighting two medium-sized campaigns on two fronts simultaneously, and facing lengthy ongoing commitments as a result.

The last full review, which tried to match the armed forces to the threats they expected to counter, was carried out in 1998.

"The overstretch in the budget has led to calls from some for a new strategic defence review, which would outline exactly what military role and aims Britain wants to pursue - and how much it's prepared to pay for that," she said.

China turns away U.S. naval flotilla

I don't want to read too much into this, but there's not much Bush can do about it. 4 ships and a sub get turned away from a Chinese-controlled port. Bureaucratic mix-up or political message?

China has a rapidly-growing naval force with a growing number of submarines, a few of them nuclear and modern. Many of their naval weapons systems are domestically developed, and they have modern shipyards capable of producing dozens of ships of various classes each year.

U.S. warships refused entry to Hong Kong

CASSIE BIGGS

Associated Press

November 21, 2007 at 11:59 PM EST

HONG KONG — A flotilla of U.S. warships carrying as many as 8,000 American sailors heading for a four-day Thanksgiving holiday visit to China's port of Hong Kong has been refused entry, the U.S. Navy said Thursday.
It was not immediately clear why the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier and its support vessels were barred Wednesday. Port officials said they had not been notified of the previously scheduled visit. But the incident added an unusual twist to China-U.S. relations, strained in recent months by disputes over trade and Iran's nuclear program.
In the past, China has banned all U.S. ships from the former British colony during times of tense relations. But current relations are not too bad, said David Zweig, a professor of China relations at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology said.
“This is a surprise,” Mr. Zweig said. “I haven't heard of ships being turned away like this before. I'm also disappointed and saddened for the families who have flown here expecting to see their relatives and are not now going to have their reunions.”
The Kitty Hawk and five support vessels including a nuclear fast attack submarine were expected to dock in Hong Kong's deep water port Wednesday morning.
But the group was refused entry, Lt. Cmdr. Amy Derrick-Frost told The Associated Press by telephone from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii.
“There is no information as to why they were not allowed to pull into the port for the scheduled visit,” she said.
The group of vessels were on their way to home ports, she said.
Hong Kong has long been a favoured port of call for the U.S. military but Beijing's approval has been required since July 1, 1997, when Britain handed this former colony back to China.
Hong Kong's Marine Department, which handles logistic arrangements for ships docking in Hong Kong's deep-water port, said Thursday it had not received the documentation it normally would receive from other agencies clearing the arrival of foreign military ships.
The Hong Kong office of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it would look into what happened.
China banned U.S. ships entering Hong Kong waters in 1999 when NATO planes bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis and refused port calls for several months after a U.S. spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet in April, 2001.
Plans for many of the sailors to spend Thanksgiving with American families living in Hong Kong have had to be cancelled, said Shirlee Algire, a volunteer who organizes the home meals. Some 47 families had offered to host 202 sailors on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, Ms. Algire told the AP.
The 46-year-old Kitty Hawk, which is based in the Japanese port city of Yokosuka, is the only U.S. aircraft carrier permanently deployed abroad.
The diesel-powered ship will be decommissioned next year and replaced by the nuclear-powered USS George Washington.
Relations between China and the United States have improved in recent years, but the two powers are at odds over how to resolve Iran's failure to halt enrichment of uranium and the growing trade deficit in the U.S.

Cholera remains a threat in Iraq

Cholera has been an issue in Iraq for months now. It would seem that all of that "progress" in Iraq doesn't include having drinking water that won't kill you. Now, a lot of Third World countries seem to be able to provide potable water, and they haven't had $500 billion poured into them by the U.S.

What does it say when "six governmental hospitals" have water that is "unsafe"? It says that Iraq is a failed state and that the Bush Administration's claims of improvement are selective and misleading, to say the least. According to Bush, these kind of issues are the U.N's problem.

Once again, I feel compelled to point out the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans who voice "concern" for the "average, innocent Iraqi" should we withdraw, but who shrug at their suffering while we are there.

full story from Reuters

>

Iraq sees "catastrophe" with new cholera cases
Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:19am EST

By Aseel Kami

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq is facing a health "catastrophe" in the capital Baghdad, with reports of cholera rising sharply over the past weeks to more than 80 new cases, the Health Ministry said on Thursday.

Most of the new cases have been reported in the eastern part of Baghdad, especially in poor areas routinely deprived of water and other basic services, an official at the ministry said.

One cholera death was recorded in November, in addition to another death in September, said the official, who asked not to be named. "We have a catastrophe in Baghdad," she said.

In western Baghdad, six people at a government home for the disabled were confirmed to have the disease, she said. Another girl at the al-Hanan Institute for the Severely Disabled died from the disease.

The Health Ministry official blamed a lack of proper sanitation for the cholera cases at the institute.

Cholera, which is normally caused by consuming water or food containing the Vibrio cholerae bacterium, causes diarrhea and can swiftly kill its victims.

The official said that six governmental hospitals suffer from unsafe water supplies, including Yarmouk, one of Baghdad's chief hospitals.

A November 13 report from the United Nations reported 22 deaths from cholera this year, and 4,569 laboratory-confirmed cases, almost exclusively in northern Iraq.

But the United Nations also warned that the illness is on the rise in Baghdad. It reported 49 laboratory-confirmed cases in the capital as of November 11.

The ministry spokeswoman said that Kirkuk province in northern Iraq was the epicenter of this year's outbreak, with 3,006 cases and five deaths.

In neighboring Sulaimaniya province, 14 people have died and 1,234 cases have been recorded. Arbil province, also in the north, has seen 275 cases, she said.

Annapolis conference looks like a joke

Three different takes on the upcoming Annapolis conference.
Nobody even knows who is coming yet. Nothing has been worked out in advance.
This is turning out to be a show for the Arab allies to convince them that Bush is serious about resolving the Palestinian situation. But apparently not serious enough to do his homework or line up any kind of agenda or framework ahead of time. I guess optimism is enough.

And the Palestinian Authority may not even attend. Israel is making "gestures", but there's no way they are going to allow the Palestinians to be an independent state, and even less chance of any part of the Golan Heights being returned to Syria. It's all on Israel, with Olmert at low single digits in domestic popularity polls. I guess Bush is hoping that all of the Arab states will just smile and fold.
We're reduced to hoping for a miracle, which is Bush's main strategy on pretty much everything these days.
If a fistfist doesn't break out, it will probably be considered a success.

40 Countries Invited to Annapolis

(IsraelNN.com) 40 countries, among them Syria and Saudi Arabia, have received invitations to attend the Annapolis conference. Foreign ministers from Arab League nations will meet on Thursday to discuss whether or not to attend the conference, and under what conditions. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has said that the PA will not attend the conference if representatives from the Arab League are not present.

Abbas has repeatedly expressed ambivalence towards the conference and has threatened not to attend without a promise from Israel to establish a PA state within a certain time frame. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made several "good-will gestures" in an effort to placate the PA, including a decision earlier this week to release 431 terrorist prisoners and to allow Russia to supply the PA with armored vehicles and 1,000 guns.

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

Blair arrived in the Saudi capital after leaving Egypt on Wednesday, and was planning to hold talks in Riyadh with King Abdullah in efforts to persuade Arab states to attend the Annapolis peace conference next week, government sources reported.

"He was in Cairo with Mubarak ... he is trying to pull together a better picture from the Quartet's perspective of who's going to be in attendance," a European diplomat said.

"Whether it will have an impact on the Saudi position is debatable," he added.

The United States is inviting 49 countries, groups of nations, financial institutions and individuals to Annapolis.

Israel and the Palestinians received their invitations Tuesday, and the U.S. State Department said embassies elsewhere were notifying the others, asking them to send their foreign ministers or other appropriate officials to the event, aimed at relaunching negotiations for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Palestinian and Egyptian sources said Tuesday that Syria and Saudi Arabia would attend the U.S.-hosted meet.

Syria and Saudi Arabia are expected to announce their level of representation at the conference within a few days, following the Arab foreign ministers' meeting at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo on Friday.

Observers believe that Syria will try to take advantage of the Annapolis summit in order to strengthen its hand internationally. "Syria will not refuse an American invitation," said a Palestinian source in Cairo. Mubarak, after meeting with Olmert on Tuesday, also said that he expects Syria to attend the conference.

Syria's Foreign Minister, Walid Moallem, paid a visit to Tehran on Tuesday. The Iranian news agency IRNA reported that Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, criticized the Annapolis summit during his meeting with Moallem, saying that the summit organizers - the Americans - "aim to connect all the Arab countries to the Zionist regime," and that the summit will only hurt the Palestinian cause. Syria's news agency reported that Iranian and Syrian officials agreed on every topic on the table, but did not elaborate.

Syria has stated that it will not attend the summit unless an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights is placed on the agenda. It is still not clear how the issue will be dealt with at the summit, but one proposal involves mentioning the matter either in the summit's opening declaration or its concluding statement. Also not yet finalized is the level of Syrian representation at the summit.

Moallem's visit to Iran comes one day after a historic meeting between Syria's president Assad and King Abdullah of Jordan, the first between the two leaders. Abdullah is considered a friend of the West, in stark comparison with Assad, who has been isolated for his ties to terrorism and Iran. Arab sources in Cairo emphasized that the significance of this meeting lies in its timing, just days before the Annapolis summit and elections in Lebanon. "Abdullah is the closest Arab figure to the United States and to Israel. By meeting with him, Assad is sending a message," one source said.

Some theorize that Syria withdrew its opposition to choosing a Lebanese presidential candidate in exchange for an invitation to Annapolis. The Lebanese election will be held Thursday, the last possible date to choose a president in accordance with the country's constitution. Lebanon's political rivals have not been able to agree on a candidate yet.

If no president is selected on Friday, it could create a political vacuum, and a subsequent crisis.

Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have emphasized their desire for Syria to be invited to Annapolis. Both states have had tense relations with Syria, in part due to the Second Lebanon War between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Assad insulted Arab leaders across the Middle East as "half men" for their hands-off stances during the fighting

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

"I fear that Annapolis and the way that Annapolis is framed still suffers from same problems of the previous peace process," said New America Foundation fellow and former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy, referring to the last round of U.S.-led negotiations in 2000 at Camp David and calling the latest talks "ill-conceived and ill-prepared".

The Annapolis talks were originally announced to make substantive progress towards a detailed peace agreement that would include specifics about the "final status" of a Palestinian state and include broad participation from neighbouring Arab states. But recent disagreements between Israel and Palestine and vagueness about who will attend the conference call into question the viability of these goals.

Participation by Israel's Arab neighbours is considered paramount in effective talks as their implicit recognition of Israel gives the politically-weakened heads of both principal negotiators political cover for selling compromises to their citizens.

None of the neighbours -- including Syria and Saudi Arabia, which have no diplomatic relations with Israel -- are expected to respond to the invitations until after meetings of the Arab League that start this Thursday in Egypt. Syria has said it would not attend unless there was discussion about the Golan Heights -- captured by Israel in 1967 -- which appears doubtful.

With such a short period left before the meeting, it looks increasingly unlikely that the two main parties will be able to draft any statement of joint purpose before next week -- a central aim of the ever-diminishing expectations for the talks.

"Success entails some sort of a process," said David Wurmser, a former Middle East advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, at an Israel Project panel on the upcoming talks. "I would set a low bar -- success means that no damage is done."

Wurmser focused much of his opening remarks on the threats of North Korea, Venezuela and particularly Iran. He views the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as a low priority, but which gets a disproportional amount of attention from the George W. Bush administration -- noting that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is "almost wearing a hole in the atmosphere" with all her travel to the Middle East as part of the planning of the summit.

Conversely, Levy said that the U.S. was using an increased push for a solution to the Palestinian problem as a show of good faith to Arab nations to try to garner their support in opposition to the regional goals of Iran. This, said Levy, is consistent with the findings of the Iraq Study Group which took an "outside-in approach" to alleviating anti-U.S. sentiment and tensions due to the U.S. presence in Iraq by making some of the Arab states' priorities come to life in U.S. foreign policy.

With expectations so drastically lowered for any concrete steps forward in the peace process, it appears that the meeting in Annapolis could be reduced to a public relations campaign for many of the involved parties -- even U.S. participants.

"I think it goes back to why [Secretary Rice] was so eager to announce this conference," said Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. "Her legacy now is that she is known as the person who stood in front of the world and said 'we don't want a ceasefire yet' when Israel was bombing Lebanon in the summer of 2006. She wants a photo-op that will give her a legacy as a peace-maker."

U.S. aid used by Pakistan against India

In another ally-on-ally conflict reminiscent of the Turk-Kurd conflict, it now is becoming clear that much of the military aid Bush gave to Pakistan for the Global War on Terror has instead gone into arms purchases designed to prepare Pakistan for a war against India. Somehow, arming one side of two nuclear-armed nations that have fought previous wars makes us safer, though I honestly can't say how.

It's abundantly clear that whatever alliance Bush made with Pakistan was simply one of convenience on Musharraf's part. Once again, Bush got taken for a ride, to the tune of $10 billion. For years, Musharraf did little or nothing to evict the Taliban from the federal tribal areas, while they built camps and hid Bin Laden. Finally, in the past two months, the Taliban have made the federal tribal areas a de-facto independent state and the rebellion has spread beyond the frontier into Swat Valley. Then our ally, Musharraf, boldly sprung into action. He declared martial law and threw the democratic opposition into jail. Then he got some of his troops that had been taken hostage in the tribal areas released, while continuing his winning policy of doing nothing about the rebellion on the frontier. This is what we got for $10 billion. Unless, of course, Musharraf throws in a war with India as part of the deal for his "support".

Bush seems to have no other card up his sleeve but military force and huge arms shipments. Reconstruction won't take place without security, and you can't get security without reconstruction. Meanwhile, the bill just gets bigger every day, and war becomes more likely in every area Bush's magic was worked. Russia and China get more powerful as we blow huge amounts of borrowed cash on two wars that increase regional instability. If another crisis erupts, Bush has few legions left to throw at it. His base speaks glowingly of the Long War, an endless series of conflicts across the globe in which we grind our heel into the face of any nations that fail to repeat our talking points. We will be "safe" only when we can dominate the world and dictate who takes power where. Those nations friendly to us, such as Israel, can have nuclear weapons (and already do), but those who are not under our hegemony are a danger to the world. Pakistan itself was once classified by the U.S. as a rogue state for its possession of nukes and failure to sign the NPT. But when the Global War On Terror was dreamed up, all that went by the wayside. Democracy is the goal and the watchword, unless it produces governments that don't bow to our whim, such as in Palestine, Venezuela, or Russia.

Even worse, pointing out this arrogance and hypocrisy earns you the label "America Hater" from Republicans. This Long War, if it is carried out, will cost this country multiple trillions of dollars and result in a military draft and national insolvency. It will cost us our allies and create new wars which we have no control over.

In a war between India and Pakistan, the big winners will be China and Russia. Money spent on goading one side into such a war is absolutely counter to our national interests, yet this is what "patriotic" Republicans are doing. Russia controls the energy supplies for our allies in Europe, and China has the ability to create economic collapse for us at the drop of a hat, at a far cheaper cost to them than war with us. At the same time, we are committed to defending Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, no to mention Israel. If Republicans would stop their incessant cheerleading and flag-waving for a moment and look at the big picture, they might very well put down the Kool-Aid. It has nothing to do with patriotism; it's delusion versus reality. Every nation that we defeated in the past "wanted to win", but that was not enough. Republicans seem to think that's all that is required to prevail. They are sadly deluded.


full story from ExpressIndia

Pak spent bulk of US aid on arming against India

Posted online: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 09:58:02

Silicon Valley, November 21: Pakistan has used a significant portion of the US aid since September 11 attack to arm itself for a confrontation with India instead of conducting war on terrorism, according to a strategic think tank.
Most of the USD 10 billion US aid is supposed to compensate the Pakistani government for sending its 80,000 or so soldiers to the Northwest Frontier Province and providing support to the US war in Afghanistan.
However, the money has been used for procuring high-tech weaponry to arm the military for its confrontation with India, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has said.
"We found that that the Pakistani military has been using that money and the majority of our direct military assistance for the purchase of high-tech weaponry such as the F-16 fighters," senior adviser in the CSIS Frederick (Rick) Barton said.
"It appears that the Pakistan military is continuing to arm more for its confrontation with India than it is for the war on terror because these weapons really don't have that much application for the kinds of low-grade persistent Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda fighters that you find in the Northwest part of Pakistan," Barton told the National Public Radio.
Urging Washington to make a more strategic use of the money it gives Pakistan, Barton said "If we had wise approach to war on terror, we would have found ways to align ourselves more with the Pakistan people. Because the only way you can deal this kind of insurgency is to have the people on your side and to not have the people harboring the insurgents."
One of the key points that the CSIS study pointed out was that the US needs to re-establish a whole new kind of relationship with Pakistan, Barton said in an interview with the public radio.
In 1990s, the US stayed away from Pakistan for 10 years, following Pakistan's nuclear weapons development.
He said Pakistan deserved a great deal of attention which the US has never done.
"We constantly flush them with money, then head for exits and none of those approaches really work."
He said only 10 per cent of the aid had gone to education and humanitarian causes and the majority of that went in response to the earthquake where tens and thousands of people were killed.
The US gave direct humanitarian assistance and military assistance and as a result the US public support in Pakistan went up from about 25 per cent to well over 50 per cent.
"None of these polls mean that much, but part of what we want to do as a country is to make it clear that we are on the side of the people, not just the powerful," said Barton.
He said America's second-largest area of humanitarian expense was in education, but there again the US is trying to do a million different things rather than focusing on particular areas where it might have higher impact.

British Army running out of money

It would seem that senior British military leaders have realised, and are starting to voice, the costs of following Bush's trail on the War On Terror. The War On Terror seems to be little more than a war on nations that don't kiss Bush's ass sincerely enough, and it's only diminishing America's respect in the world.

In Iraq, we essentially went after a loudmouth dictator and implied he was responsible for 9/11. Despite the majority of the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks being Saudis, we instead cozied up to Saudi Arabia. Now another loudmouth, albeit elected, is being portrayed as dangerous and an invasion is being scheduled.

Meanwhile, the federal tribal areas of Pakistan (where Bin Laden is believed to be - remember him?) is even more chaotic and more sympathetic to the Taliban than it was before Bush launched his overly-optimistic effort there. The man continually plans for only the best outcomes, and never thinks of formulating a "Plan B", because everything always goes our way in the movies, I guess.

Now the British public is going to have to come up with the cash to finance the endless wars. Unlike the dollar, the pound is not the world's reserve currency and borrowing money to finance wars is very expensive. None of these wars promise to make any money for the participants. In fact, in Iraq the plan was to let the multinational oil companies buy the oil for cheap and sell it back to us at huge profits. These aren't 'American" or British" companies; they are huge conglomerates with no loyalty to any nation. How much are Britons willing to pay to keep the Decider from having to admit his incompetence?

Armed forces 'are running out of money'

By Thomas Harding Defence Correspondent

Last Updated: 1:48pm GMT 20/11/2007

The former head of the Army has warned that the Forces are facing a cash crisis with it becoming unlikely that the military will be able to pay for future operations.

Gen Sir Mike Jackson said recent spending commitments by the Chancellor Alistair Darling were likely to prove insufficient to pay for future operations.

The officer, who has been critical of the Government since retiring as Chief of the General Staff, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I fear there is some sort of crunch on the horizon."

He added: "I detect, I fear, some crisis ahead in defence spending, if things go on as they are in terms of what we do, what we might have to do and the money allocated."

Despite the Government announcing an extra £400 million for operations in last month’s pre budget report on top of a 1.5 per cent increase in the defence budget, Gen Jackson said this was still not enough.

The MoD is currently battling with the Treasury over funding of equipment projects and payment for vehicles being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are significant worries that without proper funding the military are going to continue to lose substantial numbers of troops fed up with poor pay, accommodation and constant operations.

The Treasury’s offer of extra funding was still unlikely to prove enough for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or for potential future engagements.

Gen Jackson suggested that what people “never really grasped” was there would not be enough funding “to do the things which we do now and the things which we may have to do in the future".

The officer, who was replaced by Gen Sir Richard Dannatt after he retired last year, acknowledged British defence spending was already above the European average.

But he insisted such a comparison risked ignoring Britain’s "strategic" needs and suggested that Britain's influence in the world could wane.

"The analysis must start in logic from what it is that the UK thinks is its part to play in a very uncertain and difficult world," he went on.

"You've got to get that analysis right because from that then flows the tools you need... to do the job."

Since resigning, Gen Jackson has criticised the M0D's treatment of soldiers, particularly in the standards of pay and living accommodation.

He said today there was a widespread recognition that the conditions of service for army personnel were "not how they should be".