With the election of Bibi Netanyahu, speculation about Israeli airstrikes against Iran have surged once more. According to the Atlantic Monthly, Netanyahu has told President Obama that either the US will stop Iran or Israel will. But is this a real threat – or a bluff that never stops giving?
Reality is that Israel does not have a genuine military option. But the threat of military attacks nevertheless serves a purpose beyond Israeli concerns about Iran’s nuclear advances.
In the article below, published today in the Huffington Post, I discuss this issue in greater detail.
PS. I have forgotten to send out a few other writings I have done recently. You can find them below:
· Will Tehran Tango? Obama's Historic Norooz Message, Huffington Post, March 20, 2009.
· Testimony in Congress, March 12, 2009.
· The Path Back to Square One, The MidEast Peace Pulse, March 9, 2009.
Sincerely,
Trita Parsi, PhD
www.niacouncil.org
http://www.tritaparsi.com/
http://www.treacherousalliance.com/
************************************
Netanyahu and threat of bombing Iran - the bluff that never stops giving?
By Trita Parsi
April 7, 2009
The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/netanyahu-and-threat-of-b_b_183822.html
In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have told President Barack Obama that either America stops Iran or Israel will. Not surprisingly, the interview sparked quite a controversy and only a day later, General David Petreus told the Senate Arms Services Committee that "the Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it."
So once again, in spite of President Obama's best efforts, the military option was put back on the table and the atmosphere for dealing with Iran was turned into "Do as we say - or else..." Even if the President wants to give diplomacy a chance, disbelievers have been quick to limit Obama's options by seeking to set arbitrary deadlines for negotiations - or by threatening Israeli military action if America doesn't act with its military might.
Reality is, however, that talk of an Israeli military option is more of a bluff than a threat - but it is a bluff that never seems to stop giving.
Israel does not have the military capability to successfully eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Even the most successful bombing campaign would only set back the known program for a few years - without affecting any potential clandestine program. This is not classified information. Military experts are well aware of Israel's capabilities - and its limits.
Yet, the threat of military action, or rather the bluff, serves a purpose: Threats of military action militarizes the atmosphere. It creates an environment that renders diplomacy less likely to succeed - it may even prevent diplomacy from being pursued in the first place.
In the Iranian case, Netanyahu's tough talk undermines the Obama administration's prospects for diplomacy in the following ways.
Getting to the negotiating table has proven an arduous task for the US and Iran. Both sides are currently testing each other's intentions, asking themselves if the other side is serious about diplomacy or if the perceived desire for talks is merely a tactical maneuver to either buy time or build greater international support for more confrontational policies down the road. From Tehran's perspective, uncertainty about Washington's intentions during the Bush administration was partly fueled by the insistence of the military option remaining on the table. Tehran seemed to fear entering negotiations that could have been designed to fail, since that could strengthen the case for military action against Iran.
Today, talk of Israeli strikes has similar effects. Tehran has repeatedly failed to appreciate the policy differences between Washington and Tel Aviv, oftentimes seeing them as either a perfectly coordinated team or as a single entity. Consequently, explicit or implicit threats of Israeli military action reduce Tehran's confidence in Washington's intentions.
Furthermore, Iran's sense of a threat from the US (and in extension Israel) is believed to be one of the driving forces of Iran's nuclear program. Whether Iran seeks a weapon or a civilian program that provides Iran with a weapons capability, the program's existence provides Tehran with a level of deterrence against the perceived US threat. The Obama administration's approach seems to have been to reduce Iran's sense of threat in order to kick-start negotiations. The threat of Israeli military action does the opposite - it fuels Iranian insecurity and closes the window for diplomacy.
Moreover, Israel uses this threat to pressure Washington and the EU to act tough. This has been a cornerstone of Israeli policy towards Iran since the mid-1990s. Even though Israel is reluctant to put itself on the frontline against Iran, fearing that this would counter its message that Iran is the world's and not just Israel's problem, it also fears that the absence of Israeli pressure would cause the West to go soft on Iran. Hence, Israel keeps the pressure on the West - by threatening military action - in order for the West to keep pressuring Iran. However, under the current circumstances, Israeli pressure may compel the Obama administration to adopt a confrontational approach that is incompatible with the diplomatic strategy President Obama seems to prefer.
Finally, Netanyahu - as well as hawks in Washington - are using the threat of Israeli military action to create arbitrary deadlines for negotiations with Tehran combined with exaggerated expectations of what diplomacy must achieve. The message of Israeli hawks has been that it can only afford to give diplomacy "a few months," meaning that whatever sanctions and confrontation has failed to achieve with Iran in the past 30 years, must miraculously be obtained after only a few months of negotiations - otherwise Israel will take military action.
This logic does two things. First, it brings us back to the foreign policy approach of the Bush administration in which diplomacy was treated with suspicion and skepticism, and military confrontation was viewed as a policy option with guaranteed success. Second, it ensures that diplomacy fails by denying it the time and space it needs to succeed and by setting the bar too high.
This does not mean that Israel does not have legitimate reasons to fear Iran's nuclear advances - on the contrary. But what lies at the heart of Israel's maneuvers is not necessarily the fear of a nuclear clash, but the regional and strategic consequences nuclear technology in Iranian hands will have for Israel.
In spite of its rhetoric, Israel views the regime in Tehran as rational, calculating and risk-averse. Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability.
The real danger a nuclear-capable Iran brings with it for Israel is twofold. First, an Iran with nuclear capability will significantly damage Israel's ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations. Gone would be the days when Israel's military supremacy would enable it to dictate the parameters of peace and pursue unilateral peace plans.
This could force Israel to accept territorial compromises with its neighbors in order to deprive Iran of points of hostility that it could use against the Jewish state. Israel simply would not be able to afford a nuclear rivalry with Iran and continued territorial disputes with the Arabs at the same time.
Second, the deterrence and power Iran would gain by mastering the fuel cycle could compel Washington to cut a deal with Tehran in which Iran would be recognized as a regional power and gain strategic significance in the Middle East at the expense of Israel. This has been a major Israeli fear since the end of the Cold War, when Israel's strategic utility to Washington lost considerable justification due to the absence of a Soviet threat. Under these circumstances, US-Iran negotiations could damage Israel's strategic standing, since common interests shared by Iran and the US would overshadow Israel's concerns with Tehran and leave Israel alone in facing its Iranian rival. The Great Satan will eventually make up with the ayatollahs and forget about the Jewish state, Israeli officials fear.
Netanyahu's threat of stopping Iran if Obama doesn't should be seen in light of the Israeli right's fear of a US-Iran deal. Talk of Israeli military action has not coincided with major advances in Iran's nuclear program, but rather with hints of an American preparedness to strike a compromise with Tehran that would grant it the dreaded know-how and limit Israel's strategic maneuverability.
The flaw in the Netanyahu's approach, however, is its underestimation of how US-Iran diplomacy can significantly alter Iran's posture towards the Jewish state and reduce the threat it faces from Tehran. Therein lies the opening for Israel's new prime minister that carries far greater promise for Israel's security than efforts to complicate Washington's path towards diplomacy.
Trita Parsi is president and co- founder of the National Iranian American Council and author of "Treacherous Alliances: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States."
dinsdag 7 april 2009
Soedan 2
Ismael heeft een nieuwe reactie op uw bericht "Soedan " achtergelaten:
Ben je bekend met de context van deze aanklacht en de implicaties voor de regio, Stan?Er is veel misinformatie over Sudan de wereld in geholpen. Zo is de eerdere beslissing van de hoofdaanklager Campo om Bashir te vervolgen voor genocide ongegrond verklaard. Je moet je de vraag stellen wat het oplevert om El Bashir voor oorlogsmisdaden aan te klagen. En wat het betekent voor de Darfuri's zelf bijvoorbeeld. Iemand die er ontzettend veel van af weet is Alex de Waal, die er samen met Julie Flint een diepgravende analyse over geschreven heeft. Op zijn blog bericht hij dagelijks over ontwikkelingen in het gebied, met heel veel achtergrondinfo. Ik raad je eens aan om dat door te nemen. Over de aanklacht van het ICC schrijft hij als volgt:ON REACTIONS BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY: “There was a quite stunning naiveté at play here. With one breath [human rights groups] were saying [the Sudanese] government is responsible for some of the most heinous crimes on the book (which indeed is correct) and on the other they were saying, well, if they are given the right incentives and the right pressure, and they’re threatened with an arrest warrant, they’ll just come along tamely. The [Sudanese] government made it absolutely clear that it regarded the arrest warrant as an declaration of war, a game changer in which the existing arrangements whereby it allowed an operation that was feeding some three or four million people in Darfur with a great deal of independence and a huge amount of success, that the agreements under which this was allowed to continue, would be jeopardized. It said the UN presence would be jeopardized, the peacekeepers would be jeopardized, too, because it regarded this as a fight to the death, an attempt at regime change. And to be frank, that’s what it is. . . . It’s really regime change by judicial activism, and they’ve recognized it as that and of course they’re digging in. And they’ve called our bluff and I don’t see a way out of it.”ON DEPARTURE OF AID AND PEACEKEEPING GROUPS: “And how was it possible for the accumulated wisdom of the international community not to see the blindingly obvious fact that it was in the interests of three or so million victims of the atrocities of this war to be kept alive by a continuing aid operation which the government had clearly threatened to close down. And yet this issue was not even debated at the UN Security Council. It was brought up by the African Union, it was brought up by a number of people such as myself and completely ignored, and now we are facing that reality. . . . The [Sudanese] government has allowed peacekeepers in; it’s allowed an extraordinarily effective humanitarian operation to proceed. We’ve seen levels of violence reduced. More than 90 percent of those who were killed in Darfur were killed in 2003–2004. Yes, the comprehensive peace agreement between North and South has been imperfectly implemented, but the imperfect implementation has brought peace to 80 percent of Sudanese that they never knew in an entire generation. And we are putting all that on the line just for the symbolism of saying we want one man in the dock.”ON VICTIMS’ NEED FOR JUSTICE: “[I]t’s absolutely true that millions of Darfurian victims—I’ve spoken to many of them myself—demand justice. And when they talk about justice, they don’t just mean vetting Bashir in court. For them, that is an emotional satisfaction, and a right. They talk about restorative justice. They talk about returning to their homes. They talk about compensation. They talk about being able to resume the life they’ve lost. I do not see how what has happened over the last week has taken a single step forward in terms of all those other components of justice, as well as exposing them to the very grave danger of hunger, of disease, of further violence, of the fact that the thousands of international witnesses who were there in Darfur, whose very presence was so important in bringing down the level of violence—not of course to anything like zero, but very considerably down nonetheless—those people have gone.”ON THE POSSIBILITY OF WAR: Anybody who has any familiarity, who has lived in Sudan, knows that what you do is you negotiate, you give [Sudanese politicians] a soft landing, a place to land. And huge progress has been made in the last few years most notably in the north-south peace agreement, [and] in bringing down the levels of violence in Darfur by 90 percent by doing precisely that. If you put their backs against the wall as was done 15 years ago, when you isolate them internationally, turn them into pariahs, then they’re going to fight, and millions may die.”ON THE UPCOMING SUDANESE ELECTIONS: “[I]t’s absolutely correct that [the ICC is] on a collision course with the elections. The vision of the elections and the comprehensive peace agreement was that this was the opportunity, the first step in democratic transformation. No one had any illusions that this was going to be the be-all and end-all, these were not going to be like U.S. elections, but they were going to be a step in that direction. And President Bashir was even contemplating stepping down. . . . I can’t say for sure whether that was true or not but certainly now Bashir has absolutely no option but to fix that election so that he wins. . . . And the use of the elections as a cynical ploy for him to gain legitimacy and stay in power is such an insult to the vision of democratic transformation that was adopted not only by the former Southern rebels, the SPLM, but also by many in his own party.” http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/darfur/2009/03/09/alex-on-the-kojo-nnamdi-show/'
Desondanks, Ismael, het schenden van internationaal recht dient bestraft te worden. Het recht is het enige dat de mens kan beschermen. Dat is mijn uitgangspunt.
Ben je bekend met de context van deze aanklacht en de implicaties voor de regio, Stan?Er is veel misinformatie over Sudan de wereld in geholpen. Zo is de eerdere beslissing van de hoofdaanklager Campo om Bashir te vervolgen voor genocide ongegrond verklaard. Je moet je de vraag stellen wat het oplevert om El Bashir voor oorlogsmisdaden aan te klagen. En wat het betekent voor de Darfuri's zelf bijvoorbeeld. Iemand die er ontzettend veel van af weet is Alex de Waal, die er samen met Julie Flint een diepgravende analyse over geschreven heeft. Op zijn blog bericht hij dagelijks over ontwikkelingen in het gebied, met heel veel achtergrondinfo. Ik raad je eens aan om dat door te nemen. Over de aanklacht van het ICC schrijft hij als volgt:ON REACTIONS BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY: “There was a quite stunning naiveté at play here. With one breath [human rights groups] were saying [the Sudanese] government is responsible for some of the most heinous crimes on the book (which indeed is correct) and on the other they were saying, well, if they are given the right incentives and the right pressure, and they’re threatened with an arrest warrant, they’ll just come along tamely. The [Sudanese] government made it absolutely clear that it regarded the arrest warrant as an declaration of war, a game changer in which the existing arrangements whereby it allowed an operation that was feeding some three or four million people in Darfur with a great deal of independence and a huge amount of success, that the agreements under which this was allowed to continue, would be jeopardized. It said the UN presence would be jeopardized, the peacekeepers would be jeopardized, too, because it regarded this as a fight to the death, an attempt at regime change. And to be frank, that’s what it is. . . . It’s really regime change by judicial activism, and they’ve recognized it as that and of course they’re digging in. And they’ve called our bluff and I don’t see a way out of it.”ON DEPARTURE OF AID AND PEACEKEEPING GROUPS: “And how was it possible for the accumulated wisdom of the international community not to see the blindingly obvious fact that it was in the interests of three or so million victims of the atrocities of this war to be kept alive by a continuing aid operation which the government had clearly threatened to close down. And yet this issue was not even debated at the UN Security Council. It was brought up by the African Union, it was brought up by a number of people such as myself and completely ignored, and now we are facing that reality. . . . The [Sudanese] government has allowed peacekeepers in; it’s allowed an extraordinarily effective humanitarian operation to proceed. We’ve seen levels of violence reduced. More than 90 percent of those who were killed in Darfur were killed in 2003–2004. Yes, the comprehensive peace agreement between North and South has been imperfectly implemented, but the imperfect implementation has brought peace to 80 percent of Sudanese that they never knew in an entire generation. And we are putting all that on the line just for the symbolism of saying we want one man in the dock.”ON VICTIMS’ NEED FOR JUSTICE: “[I]t’s absolutely true that millions of Darfurian victims—I’ve spoken to many of them myself—demand justice. And when they talk about justice, they don’t just mean vetting Bashir in court. For them, that is an emotional satisfaction, and a right. They talk about restorative justice. They talk about returning to their homes. They talk about compensation. They talk about being able to resume the life they’ve lost. I do not see how what has happened over the last week has taken a single step forward in terms of all those other components of justice, as well as exposing them to the very grave danger of hunger, of disease, of further violence, of the fact that the thousands of international witnesses who were there in Darfur, whose very presence was so important in bringing down the level of violence—not of course to anything like zero, but very considerably down nonetheless—those people have gone.”ON THE POSSIBILITY OF WAR: Anybody who has any familiarity, who has lived in Sudan, knows that what you do is you negotiate, you give [Sudanese politicians] a soft landing, a place to land. And huge progress has been made in the last few years most notably in the north-south peace agreement, [and] in bringing down the levels of violence in Darfur by 90 percent by doing precisely that. If you put their backs against the wall as was done 15 years ago, when you isolate them internationally, turn them into pariahs, then they’re going to fight, and millions may die.”ON THE UPCOMING SUDANESE ELECTIONS: “[I]t’s absolutely correct that [the ICC is] on a collision course with the elections. The vision of the elections and the comprehensive peace agreement was that this was the opportunity, the first step in democratic transformation. No one had any illusions that this was going to be the be-all and end-all, these were not going to be like U.S. elections, but they were going to be a step in that direction. And President Bashir was even contemplating stepping down. . . . I can’t say for sure whether that was true or not but certainly now Bashir has absolutely no option but to fix that election so that he wins. . . . And the use of the elections as a cynical ploy for him to gain legitimacy and stay in power is such an insult to the vision of democratic transformation that was adopted not only by the former Southern rebels, the SPLM, but also by many in his own party.”
The Empire 424
Wat de commerciele massamedia al die jaren niet mogen en dus kunnen vertellen is treffend samengevat door de Britse auteur Ronald Wright in zijn boek What is America?:
'For most of its forty years -- if we assume it ended with the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 -- the Third World War was a stalemate. In Indochina the Americans lost, and in Central Asia so did the Soviets. The hidden toll was the sqandering of the world's hope and treasure and the strengthening of the worst elements -- warlords, weapon dealers, fanatics, profiteers -- in many countries, including the big two. Military budgets spun out of control, absorbing more and more of the wealth of the postwar boom... In the long run, the capistilist superpower was able to outspend the communist one... But both powers, especially the United States, lived high by exploiting an offshore "underclass" in the Third World.'
En ziedaar: ook de kapitalistische systeem heeft zich uiteindelijk failliet bewapend. En dat is het probleem waarmee we nu zitten. Geen van de zogeheten kwaliteitsmedia hebben recentelijk hun consumenten uiteengezet waarom de NAVO van een defensief apparaat een offensieve instelling is geworden na de val van de grote communistische satan. De VS besteedt tussen eenderde en de helft van zijn federale begroting aan iets dat eufemistisch The National Security heet. Het rijk heeft geen militair industrieel complex, het is een militair industrieel complex dat zich alleen door oorlogen kan legitimeren en voortbestaan. En ondertussen heeft het kapitalisme ook thuis een onderklasse geschapen, die in de toekomst met geweld eronder gehouden moet worden, met nieuwe wetten en nieuwe wapens. Iedere serieuze journalist weet dat, maar zeer weinigen zullen dit berichten.
'For most of its forty years -- if we assume it ended with the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 -- the Third World War was a stalemate. In Indochina the Americans lost, and in Central Asia so did the Soviets. The hidden toll was the sqandering of the world's hope and treasure and the strengthening of the worst elements -- warlords, weapon dealers, fanatics, profiteers -- in many countries, including the big two. Military budgets spun out of control, absorbing more and more of the wealth of the postwar boom... In the long run, the capistilist superpower was able to outspend the communist one... But both powers, especially the United States, lived high by exploiting an offshore "underclass" in the Third World.'
En ziedaar: ook de kapitalistische systeem heeft zich uiteindelijk failliet bewapend. En dat is het probleem waarmee we nu zitten. Geen van de zogeheten kwaliteitsmedia hebben recentelijk hun consumenten uiteengezet waarom de NAVO van een defensief apparaat een offensieve instelling is geworden na de val van de grote communistische satan. De VS besteedt tussen eenderde en de helft van zijn federale begroting aan iets dat eufemistisch The National Security heet. Het rijk heeft geen militair industrieel complex, het is een militair industrieel complex dat zich alleen door oorlogen kan legitimeren en voortbestaan. En ondertussen heeft het kapitalisme ook thuis een onderklasse geschapen, die in de toekomst met geweld eronder gehouden moet worden, met nieuwe wetten en nieuwe wapens. Iedere serieuze journalist weet dat, maar zeer weinigen zullen dit berichten.
Nederland en Afghanistan 201
Gisteren las ik ergens deze informatie: '"Ik leef mee met de militairen die bij deze laffe aanval gewond zijn geraakt en met hun thuisfront", schrijft minister Verhagen in een persoonlijke reactie.'
Beste collega's, het is goed dat men de wartaal van een politicus doorgeeft, maar dan moet wel onmiddellijk duidelijk worden gemaakt dat het hier wartaal betreft, anders verstikken de consumenten op den duur in de gekte. Luister, die aanval is niet 'laf', anders is elke aanval 'laf', zeker ook die van de Nederlandse infanteristen die geen man tot man gevechten met de Taliban aandurven, maar onmiddellijk de hulp van zwaar geschut inroepen, te weten de aanvalshelicopters die op afstand raketten afschieten, daarbij geen serieuze rekening houdend met de Afghaanse burgerbevolking, zoals inmiddels bekend is. Dat is in strijd met het internationaal recht. Niet in strijd met het internationaal recht is gewapend verzet tegen een bezetter. Nederland bezet Afghanistan tesamen met andere mogendheden. Ik stel met nadruk bezet, want leest u eens wat op donderdag 4 oktober 2001 de Volkskrant berichtte over de reden om Afghanistan plat te bombarderen: ‘Het "bewijs" tegen Bin Laden dat Taylor de NAVO-raad presenteerde, zou in een rechtzaal nooit standhouden... Bij de NAVO brengen diplomaten daar tegenin dat "we op dit moment geen rechtszaak aan het voeren zijn. Dus juridisch spijkerhard hoeft het ook niet te zijn. We staan voor een politiek besluit, dat politieke argumenten behoeft. En die hebben we voldoende gekregen," meent een diplomaat.... Dat is ook het verweer van de Amerikaanse regering. "Het is niet terecht om een puur juridisch criterium te hanteren," zegt een Amerikaanse functionaris... De Amerikaanse regering wil de beschikbare gegevens niet openbaar maken.'
Met andere woorden: zonder een legitiem bewijs werd een autonome staat aangevallen. Er is een langdurige oorlog daar ontstaan waarbij af en toe aan Nederlandse zijde een bedrijfsongeval plaatsvindt. Niet door lafheid, maar door de aard van de zaak, door het geweldaddige conflict dat door ondermeer Nederland begonnen is om in feite de olie- en gaspijleidingen die door Afghanistan lopen veilig te stellen. Zolang de energievoorziening uit het Kaspische gebied niet in gevaar wordt gebracht zal het Westen de Afghaanse krijgsheren en drugsbaronnen aan de macht houden. Dat de commerciele massamedia aan propaganda doen is al verwerpelijk, dat ze de werkelijkheid niet kunnen en durven te vertellen is laf, maar laten ze de gekte niet al te groot maken, we weten uit de geschiedenis waartoe dat leidt. Er zijn grenzen, dames en heren.
Beste collega's, het is goed dat men de wartaal van een politicus doorgeeft, maar dan moet wel onmiddellijk duidelijk worden gemaakt dat het hier wartaal betreft, anders verstikken de consumenten op den duur in de gekte. Luister, die aanval is niet 'laf', anders is elke aanval 'laf', zeker ook die van de Nederlandse infanteristen die geen man tot man gevechten met de Taliban aandurven, maar onmiddellijk de hulp van zwaar geschut inroepen, te weten de aanvalshelicopters die op afstand raketten afschieten, daarbij geen serieuze rekening houdend met de Afghaanse burgerbevolking, zoals inmiddels bekend is. Dat is in strijd met het internationaal recht. Niet in strijd met het internationaal recht is gewapend verzet tegen een bezetter. Nederland bezet Afghanistan tesamen met andere mogendheden. Ik stel met nadruk bezet, want leest u eens wat op donderdag 4 oktober 2001 de Volkskrant berichtte over de reden om Afghanistan plat te bombarderen: ‘Het "bewijs" tegen Bin Laden dat Taylor de NAVO-raad presenteerde, zou in een rechtzaal nooit standhouden... Bij de NAVO brengen diplomaten daar tegenin dat "we op dit moment geen rechtszaak aan het voeren zijn. Dus juridisch spijkerhard hoeft het ook niet te zijn. We staan voor een politiek besluit, dat politieke argumenten behoeft. En die hebben we voldoende gekregen," meent een diplomaat.... Dat is ook het verweer van de Amerikaanse regering. "Het is niet terecht om een puur juridisch criterium te hanteren," zegt een Amerikaanse functionaris... De Amerikaanse regering wil de beschikbare gegevens niet openbaar maken.'
Met andere woorden: zonder een legitiem bewijs werd een autonome staat aangevallen. Er is een langdurige oorlog daar ontstaan waarbij af en toe aan Nederlandse zijde een bedrijfsongeval plaatsvindt. Niet door lafheid, maar door de aard van de zaak, door het geweldaddige conflict dat door ondermeer Nederland begonnen is om in feite de olie- en gaspijleidingen die door Afghanistan lopen veilig te stellen. Zolang de energievoorziening uit het Kaspische gebied niet in gevaar wordt gebracht zal het Westen de Afghaanse krijgsheren en drugsbaronnen aan de macht houden. Dat de commerciele massamedia aan propaganda doen is al verwerpelijk, dat ze de werkelijkheid niet kunnen en durven te vertellen is laf, maar laten ze de gekte niet al te groot maken, we weten uit de geschiedenis waartoe dat leidt. Er zijn grenzen, dames en heren.
Het Neoliberale Geloof 413
'Proof that Geithner's Bank Plan Is a Massive Giveaway to the Bastards Who Started This Mess
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 1:17 PM on April 3, 2009.
Banks ”colluding to swap assets at inflated prices using taxpayers’ dollars.” Recall the Geithner Bank Plan in a nutshell: private investors will partner with the government to buy those "toxic" assets off of struggling "zombie banks." The buyers would put about 7 percent of the purchase price down, and the Treasury Department would match that with another 7 or so percent. Then the FDIC would offer government-backed loans for the remainder.
If the assets were to recover their value and turn a profit down the road, the investors would split the profits with the government. But if they don't -- if their values continue to tank, and it's entirely likely many will -- then you and I and everyone else we know who pays taxes will be on the hook for the lion's share of the losses.
In other words, we're letting bargain-hunters pick up the "troubled assets" that are burdening a number of financial institutions for pennies on the dollar, and limiting their downside risk if it doesn't turn out well. It's a pretty sweet deal for those investors. And, as I wrote when Geithner first announced the plan, it's also pretty much the definition of "moral hazard."
That background is important in order to understand just how incredibly infuriating this report from The Financial Times is:
US banks that have received government aid, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, are considering buying toxic assets to be sold by rivals under the Treasury’s $1,000bn (£680bn) plan to revive the financial system.
The plans proved controversial, with critics charging that the government’s public-private partnership - which provide generous loans to investors - are intended to help banks sell, rather than acquire, troubled securities and loans.
[...]
Participating in the plan as a buyer could be complicated for Citi, which has suffered billions of dollars in writedowns on mortgage-backed assets and is about to cede a 36 per cent stake to the government.
Citi declined to comment. People close to the company said it was considering whether to take part in the plan as a seller, buyer or manager of the assets, but no decision had yet been taken.
[...]
Goldman and Morgan Stanley have large fund management units and have pledged to increase investments in distressed assets.
This week, John Mack, Morgan Stanley’s chief executive, told staff the bank was considering how to become “one of the firms that can buy these assets and package them where your clients will have access to them”.
Goldman and JPMorgan did not comment, but bankers said they were considering buying toxic assets.
Get it? We first pumped tens of billions of dollars into these institutions via the TARP, set up another program to aid them further by offering investors the opportunity to purchase the "shitpile" on their books with sweet federal subsidies, and they then turn around and now they're essentially going to buy the assets back with taxpayer-backed loans.
FT again:
Critics say that would leave the same amount of toxic assets in the system as before, but with the government now liable for most of the losses through its provision of non-recourse loans.
Administration officials reject the criticism because banking is part of a financial system, in which the owners of bank equity -- such as pension funds -- are the same entities that will be investing in toxic assets anyway. Seen this way, the plan simply helps to rearrange the location of these assets in the system in a way that is more transparent and acceptable to markets.
What mumbo-jumbo -- "banking is part of the financial system." Thanks, but there's a difference between pension funds and the financial institutions who have taken boatloads of public cash because they were deemed "too big to fail."
But the obviousness of Big Finance's rip-off may get in the way of its success. The Financial Times warns, "public opinion may not tolerate the idea of banks selling each other their bad assets ..."
And let's give a Republican who's trying to capitalize on that sentiment some rare credit around here ...
Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the House financial services committee, vowed after being told of the plans by the FT to introduce legislation to stop financial institutions ”gaming the system to reap taxpayer-subsidized windfalls”.
Mr Bachus added it would mark ”a new level of absurdity” if financial institutions were ”colluding to swap assets at inflated prices using taxpayers’ dollars.”
Shocking but true: Spencer Bachus is 100 percent right.
PS: Make sure to catch this piece in today's WaPo about Giethner's own role in creating the financial meltdown.
Digg!
Tagged as: geithner plan
Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.'
Zie: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/134986/
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 1:17 PM on April 3, 2009.
Banks ”colluding to swap assets at inflated prices using taxpayers’ dollars.” Recall the Geithner Bank Plan in a nutshell: private investors will partner with the government to buy those "toxic" assets off of struggling "zombie banks." The buyers would put about 7 percent of the purchase price down, and the Treasury Department would match that with another 7 or so percent. Then the FDIC would offer government-backed loans for the remainder.
If the assets were to recover their value and turn a profit down the road, the investors would split the profits with the government. But if they don't -- if their values continue to tank, and it's entirely likely many will -- then you and I and everyone else we know who pays taxes will be on the hook for the lion's share of the losses.
In other words, we're letting bargain-hunters pick up the "troubled assets" that are burdening a number of financial institutions for pennies on the dollar, and limiting their downside risk if it doesn't turn out well. It's a pretty sweet deal for those investors. And, as I wrote when Geithner first announced the plan, it's also pretty much the definition of "moral hazard."
That background is important in order to understand just how incredibly infuriating this report from The Financial Times is:
US banks that have received government aid, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, are considering buying toxic assets to be sold by rivals under the Treasury’s $1,000bn (£680bn) plan to revive the financial system.
The plans proved controversial, with critics charging that the government’s public-private partnership - which provide generous loans to investors - are intended to help banks sell, rather than acquire, troubled securities and loans.
[...]
Participating in the plan as a buyer could be complicated for Citi, which has suffered billions of dollars in writedowns on mortgage-backed assets and is about to cede a 36 per cent stake to the government.
Citi declined to comment. People close to the company said it was considering whether to take part in the plan as a seller, buyer or manager of the assets, but no decision had yet been taken.
[...]
Goldman and Morgan Stanley have large fund management units and have pledged to increase investments in distressed assets.
This week, John Mack, Morgan Stanley’s chief executive, told staff the bank was considering how to become “one of the firms that can buy these assets and package them where your clients will have access to them”.
Goldman and JPMorgan did not comment, but bankers said they were considering buying toxic assets.
Get it? We first pumped tens of billions of dollars into these institutions via the TARP, set up another program to aid them further by offering investors the opportunity to purchase the "shitpile" on their books with sweet federal subsidies, and they then turn around and now they're essentially going to buy the assets back with taxpayer-backed loans.
FT again:
Critics say that would leave the same amount of toxic assets in the system as before, but with the government now liable for most of the losses through its provision of non-recourse loans.
Administration officials reject the criticism because banking is part of a financial system, in which the owners of bank equity -- such as pension funds -- are the same entities that will be investing in toxic assets anyway. Seen this way, the plan simply helps to rearrange the location of these assets in the system in a way that is more transparent and acceptable to markets.
What mumbo-jumbo -- "banking is part of the financial system." Thanks, but there's a difference between pension funds and the financial institutions who have taken boatloads of public cash because they were deemed "too big to fail."
But the obviousness of Big Finance's rip-off may get in the way of its success. The Financial Times warns, "public opinion may not tolerate the idea of banks selling each other their bad assets ..."
And let's give a Republican who's trying to capitalize on that sentiment some rare credit around here ...
Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the House financial services committee, vowed after being told of the plans by the FT to introduce legislation to stop financial institutions ”gaming the system to reap taxpayer-subsidized windfalls”.
Mr Bachus added it would mark ”a new level of absurdity” if financial institutions were ”colluding to swap assets at inflated prices using taxpayers’ dollars.”
Shocking but true: Spencer Bachus is 100 percent right.
PS: Make sure to catch this piece in today's WaPo about Giethner's own role in creating the financial meltdown.
Digg!
Tagged as: geithner plan
Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.'
Zie: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/134986/
Soedan
'ICC Issues Arrest Warrant for Sudan's President
In a momentous step for international justice, the International Criminal Court (ICC) on March 4 issued an arrest warrant for Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Human Rights Watch has documented the horrific crimes committed by government forces and Janjaweed militia in Darfur since 2004 and has long called for President al-Bashir and other responsible parties to be held to account. Four years ago we played a very active role in pressing the UN Security Council to ask the ICC prosecutor to investigate and prosecute alleged crimes in Darfur. In the months since the ICC prosecutor announced that he was seeking a warrant for President al-Bashir, Human Rights Watch has urged members of the UN Security Council to resist calls to suspend the prosecution. We have held numerous meetings with UN missions and worked to prevent Sudan's allies from sabotaging the ICC's pursuit of al-Bashir. Some have argued that the ICC warrant for al-Bashir will upset peace negotiations, but our experience in places such as Serbia and Liberia has shown that the marginalization of bad actors that results from an international indictment generally encourages a more durable peace. Human Rights Watch will continue to monitor closely the security and protection of civilians in Darfur.'
In a momentous step for international justice, the International Criminal Court (ICC) on March 4 issued an arrest warrant for Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Human Rights Watch has documented the horrific crimes committed by government forces and Janjaweed militia in Darfur since 2004 and has long called for President al-Bashir and other responsible parties to be held to account. Four years ago we played a very active role in pressing the UN Security Council to ask the ICC prosecutor to investigate and prosecute alleged crimes in Darfur. In the months since the ICC prosecutor announced that he was seeking a warrant for President al-Bashir, Human Rights Watch has urged members of the UN Security Council to resist calls to suspend the prosecution. We have held numerous meetings with UN missions and worked to prevent Sudan's allies from sabotaging the ICC's pursuit of al-Bashir. Some have argued that the ICC warrant for al-Bashir will upset peace negotiations, but our experience in places such as Serbia and Liberia has shown that the marginalization of bad actors that results from an international indictment generally encourages a more durable peace. Human Rights Watch will continue to monitor closely the security and protection of civilians in Darfur.'
Lees verder:
http://www.hrw.org/en/africa/sudan
Het Neoliberale Geloof 412
Delegatie van Inheemse volkeren uit de Andes bekritiseert de rol van Europa en Nederland in hun regio
Amsterdam, 6 april 2009 -
De inheemse bevolking van de Andes gemeenschap heeft zich
georganiseerd in een Netwerk van Organisaties van Inheemse
Bevolkingsgroepen (Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones
IndÖgenas) en ontplooit steeds meer activiteiten en
campagnes om hun rechten op te eisen en hun wereldvisie naar
buiten te brengen.
Een delegatie van dit netwerk reist momenteel door Europa om
bij regeringsleiders, VN en NGO's aandacht te vragen voor hun
antwoorden op de huidige klimaat en kredietcrisis en hun
voorstellen voor regionale en internationale hervormingen met
als uitgangspunt het ╲Buen Vivirâ•Ë‡ (goed leven) concept.
Op 8 april organiseren Transnational Institute, Friends of
the Earth, Noticias, Ojala en XminY Solidariteitsfonds een
informatieavond waar leden van de delegatie spreken.
Luis Arias - ONIC (Colombia), Fabio Collquechuima - CONAMAQ
(Bolivia) en Mario Palacios - CONACAMI (Peru) zullen de
volgende thema's behandelen.
- De impact van het associatieverdrag tussen de EU en de
Andeslanden
- Voorstel van de inheemse bevolkingsgroepen voor de
integratie van het 'Buen Vivir' concept
- De rol van Europese transnationale bedrijven in de
Andesregio
- Criminalisering van sociale bewegingen
Wanneer: 8 April 19.00 uur Plaats: Seminar Room TNI, de
Wittenstraat 25, Amsterdam
Achtergrond
De Gemeenschap van Andeslanden (CAN), bestaande uit Bolivia,
Colombia, Peru en Ecuador, is in onderhandeling met de
Europese Unie over een associatieverdrag waarin afspraken
gemaakt worden over onder andere vrijhandel. De inheemse
bevolkingsgroepen keren zich fel tegen het door de EU
voorgestelde associatieverdrag, dat gekenmerkt wordt door
privatisering, deregulering, vrijhandel, vervuiling en
consumisme. In de context van de huidige klimaat- en
kredietcrisis, hebben inheemse bevolkingsgroepen de krachten
gebundeld met sociale bewegingen om te strijden voor de
integratie van het 'Buen Vivir' (goed leven) concept op zowel
regionaal als internationaal niveau. Dit concept gaat ervan
uit dat uitgangspunt van alle beleid moet zijn de harmonie
tussen mens en natuur te waarborgen. Het focust op het belang
van solidariteit, gelijkheid en problematiseert het
commercialiseren van natuurlijke bronnen, ervan uitgaande dat
de aarde is van diegenen die haar bewerken en dat haar waarde
niet in geld uitgedrukt kan en mag worden. De inheemse
bevolking wordt gesteund door de regering van Bolivia, waar
Evo Morales zich sinds zijn aantreden inzet voor de
integratie van het Buen Vivir concept.
Verklaring CAOI (spaans)
http://www3.minkandina.org/vivvo_general/72.html?print
Amsterdam, 6 april 2009 -
De inheemse bevolking van de Andes gemeenschap heeft zich
georganiseerd in een Netwerk van Organisaties van Inheemse
Bevolkingsgroepen (Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones
IndÖgenas) en ontplooit steeds meer activiteiten en
campagnes om hun rechten op te eisen en hun wereldvisie naar
buiten te brengen.
Een delegatie van dit netwerk reist momenteel door Europa om
bij regeringsleiders, VN en NGO's aandacht te vragen voor hun
antwoorden op de huidige klimaat en kredietcrisis en hun
voorstellen voor regionale en internationale hervormingen met
als uitgangspunt het ╲Buen Vivirâ•Ë‡ (goed leven) concept.
Op 8 april organiseren Transnational Institute, Friends of
the Earth, Noticias, Ojala en XminY Solidariteitsfonds een
informatieavond waar leden van de delegatie spreken.
Luis Arias - ONIC (Colombia), Fabio Collquechuima - CONAMAQ
(Bolivia) en Mario Palacios - CONACAMI (Peru) zullen de
volgende thema's behandelen.
- De impact van het associatieverdrag tussen de EU en de
Andeslanden
- Voorstel van de inheemse bevolkingsgroepen voor de
integratie van het 'Buen Vivir' concept
- De rol van Europese transnationale bedrijven in de
Andesregio
- Criminalisering van sociale bewegingen
Wanneer: 8 April 19.00 uur Plaats: Seminar Room TNI, de
Wittenstraat 25, Amsterdam
Achtergrond
De Gemeenschap van Andeslanden (CAN), bestaande uit Bolivia,
Colombia, Peru en Ecuador, is in onderhandeling met de
Europese Unie over een associatieverdrag waarin afspraken
gemaakt worden over onder andere vrijhandel. De inheemse
bevolkingsgroepen keren zich fel tegen het door de EU
voorgestelde associatieverdrag, dat gekenmerkt wordt door
privatisering, deregulering, vrijhandel, vervuiling en
consumisme. In de context van de huidige klimaat- en
kredietcrisis, hebben inheemse bevolkingsgroepen de krachten
gebundeld met sociale bewegingen om te strijden voor de
integratie van het 'Buen Vivir' (goed leven) concept op zowel
regionaal als internationaal niveau. Dit concept gaat ervan
uit dat uitgangspunt van alle beleid moet zijn de harmonie
tussen mens en natuur te waarborgen. Het focust op het belang
van solidariteit, gelijkheid en problematiseert het
commercialiseren van natuurlijke bronnen, ervan uitgaande dat
de aarde is van diegenen die haar bewerken en dat haar waarde
niet in geld uitgedrukt kan en mag worden. De inheemse
bevolking wordt gesteund door de regering van Bolivia, waar
Evo Morales zich sinds zijn aantreden inzet voor de
integratie van het Buen Vivir concept.
Verklaring CAOI (spaans)
http://www3.minkandina.org/vivvo_general/72.html?print
Het Neoliberale Geloof 411
'Easy credit was a substitute for decent wages in America," observed Barbara Ehrenreich at a televised Nation Books panel on the economy, held on March 6 at the New York Society for Ethical Culture. Organized to coincide with the publication of Meltdown: How Greed and Corruption Shattered our Financial System and How We Can Recover (Nation Books), the panel featured Joseph E. Stiglitz, Barbara Ehrenreich, Bill Fletcher, Jr., Jeff Madrick and Christopher L. Hayes. With taxpayer money being funneled to bank bailouts and the rising fury over executive bonuses, the event clearly tapped into the zeitgeist—the line began to form hours before the panel started and more than 500 people had to be turned away. The discussion ranged from the plight of America's autoworkers, arguments for and against bank nationalization to the impact of the crisis on the developing world, the need for regulation and more.
The panel will be broadcast nationally on C-SPAN'S Book-TV on April 5 at 3 p.m. and on April 6 at 6.15 a.m. EST (check your local listings). Listen to the podcast. Read our liveblog of the event on the Nation Books Twitter page.'
Luister: http://www.nationinstitute.org/events/188
The panel will be broadcast nationally on C-SPAN'S Book-TV on April 5 at 3 p.m. and on April 6 at 6.15 a.m. EST (check your local listings). Listen to the podcast. Read our liveblog of the event on the Nation Books Twitter page.'
Luister: http://www.nationinstitute.org/events/188
Het Neoliberale Geloof 410
Het hoge woord moet er maar eens uit: niemand weet de oplossing! Iedereen is even deskundig of ondeskundig.
After the Summit: What Was Accomplished & For How Long?
By Danny Schechter.
Summits Come and Summits Go, As the Economy Continues Its Slide
The eyes of the world have been on the Economic Summit in London, but the ideas of the world were mostly conspicuous by their absence. Here we have a global crisis. The house is on fire. Unemployment is climbing. The real estate contagion is now claiming condos and even shopping malls. It’s bad and, by most accounts, getting worse. And, all the “leaders” of the world can do is devote ONE DAY to a forum that must have cost millions to stage.
Our media and politicians love spectacles and political celebrities. The spin was on what Michelle was wearing, not on what Barack was thinking when he was so unwilling to agree to an international regime of regulation which is so clearly needed in a globalized world economy.
The New York Times was properly critical of the Summit for falling “short,” mostly focusing on the failure to commit to a larger stimulus package—what the US wanted but didn’t get. They went lightly on their criticisms on the regulatory issue. The Times wrote: “The group also agreed to crack down on tax havens and, on a country-by-country basis, impose stricter financial regulations on hedge funds and rating agencies — necessary though insufficient steps to avoid a repeat of the current disaster.” They never asked nor did they fully report on why Obama is “fiercely resistant to the idea of a global regulator.”
(Bob Jackson of Arizona offered one plausible explanation: “The one smart thing the President did in London was to establish that the U.S. would not be regulated by global politicians. Our own politicians are corrupt and incompetent enough, without overt collusion of the politicians from the rest of the world.”)
Fortunately, other Times Readers were ahead of the paper and the politicians in comments that could have been, but weren’t, probed in most media outlets.
Jacob Olsson writes:
“The lack of deep understanding of economics on the part of American journalists seems to be one explanation for the cheerleading of fiscal stimulus. It is the only solution that has been offered to them by people they trust. The reason this solution has been offered is that it is the only one that is seen to be able to preserve the financial oligarchy, which both Republicans and Democrats hold so dear.”
Dwight writes from Brazil:
“The US and UK could likely have gotten more concessions on stimulus if they’d admitted that the epi-center of this man-made quake was New York and London, and that thus the US and UK would assume a disproportionate share of the burden.
The Times editorial is full of continued American hubris. Vaguely euro-bashing. No assumption of America’s leadership in creating a disaster.”
Lees verder: http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2009/04/03/after-the-summit-what-was-accomplished-for-how-long/
After the Summit: What Was Accomplished & For How Long?
By Danny Schechter.
Summits Come and Summits Go, As the Economy Continues Its Slide
The eyes of the world have been on the Economic Summit in London, but the ideas of the world were mostly conspicuous by their absence. Here we have a global crisis. The house is on fire. Unemployment is climbing. The real estate contagion is now claiming condos and even shopping malls. It’s bad and, by most accounts, getting worse. And, all the “leaders” of the world can do is devote ONE DAY to a forum that must have cost millions to stage.
Our media and politicians love spectacles and political celebrities. The spin was on what Michelle was wearing, not on what Barack was thinking when he was so unwilling to agree to an international regime of regulation which is so clearly needed in a globalized world economy.
The New York Times was properly critical of the Summit for falling “short,” mostly focusing on the failure to commit to a larger stimulus package—what the US wanted but didn’t get. They went lightly on their criticisms on the regulatory issue. The Times wrote: “The group also agreed to crack down on tax havens and, on a country-by-country basis, impose stricter financial regulations on hedge funds and rating agencies — necessary though insufficient steps to avoid a repeat of the current disaster.” They never asked nor did they fully report on why Obama is “fiercely resistant to the idea of a global regulator.”
(Bob Jackson of Arizona offered one plausible explanation: “The one smart thing the President did in London was to establish that the U.S. would not be regulated by global politicians. Our own politicians are corrupt and incompetent enough, without overt collusion of the politicians from the rest of the world.”)
Fortunately, other Times Readers were ahead of the paper and the politicians in comments that could have been, but weren’t, probed in most media outlets.
Jacob Olsson writes:
“The lack of deep understanding of economics on the part of American journalists seems to be one explanation for the cheerleading of fiscal stimulus. It is the only solution that has been offered to them by people they trust. The reason this solution has been offered is that it is the only one that is seen to be able to preserve the financial oligarchy, which both Republicans and Democrats hold so dear.”
Dwight writes from Brazil:
“The US and UK could likely have gotten more concessions on stimulus if they’d admitted that the epi-center of this man-made quake was New York and London, and that thus the US and UK would assume a disproportionate share of the burden.
The Times editorial is full of continued American hubris. Vaguely euro-bashing. No assumption of America’s leadership in creating a disaster.”
Lees verder: http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2009/04/03/after-the-summit-what-was-accomplished-for-how-long/
Boycot Israel 44
New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel
New York, NY, April 3, 2009 – Motorola has sold a controversial unit that produced bomb fuses and other equipment for the Israeli military, according to the Israeli financial newspaper Globes . The sale rids Motorola of some activities that had made it the target of a growing boycott in the US and worldwide. No explanation was offered in the media reports for the sale by Motorola Israel - a wholly owned subsidiary of Motorola - of its unit called Government Electronics Department (GED) to the Israeli company Aeronautics Defense Systems Ltd.
The sale came just days after a March 30 protest in Brooklyn by The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel (NYCBI) kicking off a city-wide campaign to boycott Motorola over its support for Israeli apartheid. Ryvka Bar Zohar from NYCBI commented, “We are heartened that Motorola has eliminated at least its production of bomb fuses for bombs that Israel dropped on the Palestinian and Lebanese people. But we will continue our campaign to boycott Motorola until it is clear that it has eliminated production and sale of all products used to support Israeli apartheid.”
Human rights advocates in Boston and California also recently protested against Motorola. These campaigns build on the national “Hang Up on Motorola” campaign initiated by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation , as well as initiatives by the Presbyterian and Methodist churches. University students have also recently taken up the call to boycott Motorola, achieving a divestment success at Hampshire College. Previously, Motorola had been the target of a successful boycott campaign for its support of the government of apartheid South Africa.
Motorola Israel produced fuses used in cluster, ‘bunker-buster,’ and other bombs . Cluster bombs are specifically condemned by an international consensus of human rights organizations, and banned by many countries. The US government has voiced concern over the use of these bombs and recently took steps towards a complete ban on their use. Human Rights Watch researchers reported that they found Motorola parts at the site of the bombing that began Israel’s latest assault on Gaza that killed around 1400 Palestinians, over 400 of whom were children.
While the sale of GED eliminates Motorola’s production and sale of bomb fuses, it has not yet been verified whether the sale of GED will rid Motorola of all other products that are boycott targets. Motorola Israel acquired a $100 million contract to provide a data encrypted cellular network, “Mountain Rose,” to allow the Israeli army, which consistently and severely violates Palestinian human rights, to communicate securely anywhere they operate. Motorola supplied the Israeli military with the Wide Area Surveillance System (WASS) and other high-tech configurations of radar devices and thermal cameras . These surveillance systems are installed around Israeli settlement/colonies and the apartheid wall, both of which Israel has constructed in the Palestinian West Bank in violation of international law.
On March 30th, NYCBI organized over 50 New Yorkers in a morning protest outside the Motorola office in Brooklyn. Protest chants included: “No More Fuses, No More Bombs, Moto’s Killing Kids and Moms,” and “Motorola You Can’t Hide, You’re Supporting Apartheid.” Signs read “Goodbye Moto! Goodbye Apartheid!,” and “Israeli Apartheid, We Don’t Buy It, Boycott Motorola.” The protest coincided with Palestinians’ annual commemoration of Land Day, and was part of the Global Day of Action for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, that included over 40 events worldwide. An NYCBI online Motorola boycott pledge has very quickly gained over 160 signatories .
In 2005, following thirteen years of fruitless negotiations that were accompanied by continued Israeli human rights abuses, hundreds of Palestinian civil society organizations called on the world to implement campaigns of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israeli institutions and businesses. Supporters of the growing worldwide BDS movement argue that a moral campaign of non-violent public pressure like that used to topple apartheid in South Africa will pressure Israel to change its treatment of Palestinians. Adalah-NY, a member group in NYCBI, has carried out a highly successful New York campaign to boycott diamond mogul and Israeli settlement-builder Lev Leviev.
New York, NY, April 3, 2009 – Motorola has sold a controversial unit that produced bomb fuses and other equipment for the Israeli military, according to the Israeli financial newspaper Globes
The sale came just days after a March 30 protest in Brooklyn by The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel (NYCBI)
Human rights advocates in Boston and California also recently protested against Motorola. These campaigns build on the national “Hang Up on Motorola”
Motorola Israel produced fuses used in cluster, ‘bunker-buster,’ and other bombs
While the sale of GED eliminates Motorola’s production and sale of bomb fuses, it has not yet been verified whether the sale of GED will rid Motorola of all other products that are boycott targets. Motorola Israel acquired a $100 million contract to provide a data encrypted cellular network, “Mountain Rose,”
On March 30th, NYCBI organized over 50 New Yorkers in a morning protest
In 2005, following thirteen years of fruitless negotiations that were accompanied by continued Israeli human rights abuses, hundreds of Palestinian civil society organizations called on the world to implement campaigns of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)
The Empire 423
This Is the Truth on Drugs ... Any Questions?
By David Sirota
Finally, a little honesty.
Finally, after America has frittered away billions of taxpayer dollars arming Latin American death squads, airdropping toxic herbicide on equatorial farmland and incarcerating more of its own citizens on nonviolent drug charges than any other industrialized nation, two political leaders last week tried to begin taming the most wildly out-of-control beast in the government zoo: federal narcotics policy.
It started with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating an embarrassingly obvious truth that politicians almost never discuss. In a speech about rising violence in Mexico, she said, “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” and then added that “we have co-responsibility” for the cartel-driven carnage plaguing our southern border.
She’s right, of course. For all the Rambo-ish talk about waging a “war on drugs” that interdicts the supply of narcotics, we have not diminished demand—specifically, the demand for marijuana that cartels base their business on.
According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Americans spend about $9 billion a year on Mexican pot.
Add that to the roughly $36 billion worth of domestically produced weed, and cannabis has become one of the continent’s biggest cash crops. As any mob movie illustrates, mixing such “insatiable” demand for a product with statutes outlawing said product guarantees the emergence of a violent black market—in this case, one in which Mexican drug cartels reap 62 percent of their profits from U.S. marijuana sales.
That last stat, provided by the White House drug czar, is the silver lining. Every American concerned about Mexico’s security problems should be thankful that the cartels are so dependent on marijuana, and not a genuinely hazardous substance like heroin. Why? Because that means through pot legalization we can bring the marijuana trade out of the shadows and into the safety of the regulated economy, consequently eliminating the black market the cartels rely on. And here’s the best part: We can do so without fearing any more negative consequences than we already tolerate in our keg-party culture.
Though President Obama childishly laughed at a question about legalization during his recent town hall meeting, his government implicitly admits that marijuana is safer than light beer. Indeed, as federal agencies acknowledge alcohol’s key role in deadly illnesses and domestic violence, their latest anti-pot fear-mongering is an ad campaign insisting—I kid you not—that marijuana is dangerous because it makes people zone out on their couches and diminishes video gaming skills.
(This is your government on drugs: Cirrhosis and angry tank-topped lushes beating their wives are more acceptable risks than stoners sitting in their basements ineptly playing Halo ... any questions?).'
Lees verder: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_the_truth_on_drugs_any_questions/
By David Sirota
Finally, a little honesty.
Finally, after America has frittered away billions of taxpayer dollars arming Latin American death squads, airdropping toxic herbicide on equatorial farmland and incarcerating more of its own citizens on nonviolent drug charges than any other industrialized nation, two political leaders last week tried to begin taming the most wildly out-of-control beast in the government zoo: federal narcotics policy.
It started with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating an embarrassingly obvious truth that politicians almost never discuss. In a speech about rising violence in Mexico, she said, “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” and then added that “we have co-responsibility” for the cartel-driven carnage plaguing our southern border.
She’s right, of course. For all the Rambo-ish talk about waging a “war on drugs” that interdicts the supply of narcotics, we have not diminished demand—specifically, the demand for marijuana that cartels base their business on.
According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Americans spend about $9 billion a year on Mexican pot.
Add that to the roughly $36 billion worth of domestically produced weed, and cannabis has become one of the continent’s biggest cash crops. As any mob movie illustrates, mixing such “insatiable” demand for a product with statutes outlawing said product guarantees the emergence of a violent black market—in this case, one in which Mexican drug cartels reap 62 percent of their profits from U.S. marijuana sales.
That last stat, provided by the White House drug czar, is the silver lining. Every American concerned about Mexico’s security problems should be thankful that the cartels are so dependent on marijuana, and not a genuinely hazardous substance like heroin. Why? Because that means through pot legalization we can bring the marijuana trade out of the shadows and into the safety of the regulated economy, consequently eliminating the black market the cartels rely on. And here’s the best part: We can do so without fearing any more negative consequences than we already tolerate in our keg-party culture.
Though President Obama childishly laughed at a question about legalization during his recent town hall meeting, his government implicitly admits that marijuana is safer than light beer. Indeed, as federal agencies acknowledge alcohol’s key role in deadly illnesses and domestic violence, their latest anti-pot fear-mongering is an ad campaign insisting—I kid you not—that marijuana is dangerous because it makes people zone out on their couches and diminishes video gaming skills.
(This is your government on drugs: Cirrhosis and angry tank-topped lushes beating their wives are more acceptable risks than stoners sitting in their basements ineptly playing Halo ... any questions?).'
Lees verder: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_the_truth_on_drugs_any_questions/
Nederland en Afghanistan 200
America’s ‘Long War’ Will Be as Bloody and Pointless as Europe’s
By William Pfaff
The Thirty Years’ War occupies little space in the school texts of the English-speaking world, but its futility comes to mind when Richard Holbrooke, a civilian closer than most foreign policy appointees to realism, indicates that the war he is supposed to manage, now the Af-Pak war, is the entry passageway into another stage in the war.
George W. Bush’s war on terror was the front door, and Barack Obama now has gone through the waiting room door into what the Pentagon has prepared for him, our very own thirty years’ war: purposeless, neither winnable nor losable short of genocidal measures—or, as in the 17th century, by laying waste the lands and ruining nations.
The Thirty Years’ War, like the Long War, began with dramatic but intrinsically unimportant events. In Bohemia, ruled by the Catholic Hapsburg empire, Bohemian nationalism had become identified with radical Protestant reformism, and the war began with the Catholic authorities closing one such church and destroying another. In May 1618, two Catholic governors were thrown from a window in the palace of Prague (they survived).
From that, one thing followed another. The first two stages were mainly Catholics against Protestants. The rest was a struggle between Protestant Sweden, with French Catholic Bourbon allies, for control of northern Germany and the Baltic region. It was very bloody, fought by mercenary armies that lived by pillage. It settled very little, and bankrupted nearly everyone involved.
America’s Long War began with the destruction of two skyscrapers—temples of American commerce, as their Arab attackers identified them, plus an attack on the Pentagon, the closest the United States has to a temple honoring war.
The cause was intrinsically unimportant to anyone except the attackers and victims.
The former were “punishing” the United States for building “enduring” military bases in Saudi Arabia, the sacred land of Muslim prophesy, and punishing the Saud dynasty for having permitted this sacrilege.
Only a few score, nearly all of them Saudi Arabians, were active in the attack, and the fatal casualties numbered some 3,000, a holiday weekend traffic toll.
As in the 17th century, one thing led to another, much of it having nothing directly to do with the attacks. Afghanistan was attacked, bombed, its government overthrown. Iraq was invaded because the Bush-Cheney government had a long-standing interest in controlling Iraqi oil and because the neoconservatives wished to destroy the Arab state thought most likely to threaten Israel.
The Taliban returned to Afghanistan while Washington’s attention was on Iraq. European NATO became involved for no better reason than that the United States told it to do so.
This brought terrorist outrages in London and Madrid, as well as an attempt in Scotland, by disgruntled Muslim immigrants or students at Western universities. The United States remained untouched.'
Lees verder: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090402_americas_long_war_will_be_as_bloody_and_pointless_as_europes/
By William Pfaff
The Thirty Years’ War occupies little space in the school texts of the English-speaking world, but its futility comes to mind when Richard Holbrooke, a civilian closer than most foreign policy appointees to realism, indicates that the war he is supposed to manage, now the Af-Pak war, is the entry passageway into another stage in the war.
George W. Bush’s war on terror was the front door, and Barack Obama now has gone through the waiting room door into what the Pentagon has prepared for him, our very own thirty years’ war: purposeless, neither winnable nor losable short of genocidal measures—or, as in the 17th century, by laying waste the lands and ruining nations.
The Thirty Years’ War, like the Long War, began with dramatic but intrinsically unimportant events. In Bohemia, ruled by the Catholic Hapsburg empire, Bohemian nationalism had become identified with radical Protestant reformism, and the war began with the Catholic authorities closing one such church and destroying another. In May 1618, two Catholic governors were thrown from a window in the palace of Prague (they survived).
From that, one thing followed another. The first two stages were mainly Catholics against Protestants. The rest was a struggle between Protestant Sweden, with French Catholic Bourbon allies, for control of northern Germany and the Baltic region. It was very bloody, fought by mercenary armies that lived by pillage. It settled very little, and bankrupted nearly everyone involved.
America’s Long War began with the destruction of two skyscrapers—temples of American commerce, as their Arab attackers identified them, plus an attack on the Pentagon, the closest the United States has to a temple honoring war.
The cause was intrinsically unimportant to anyone except the attackers and victims.
The former were “punishing” the United States for building “enduring” military bases in Saudi Arabia, the sacred land of Muslim prophesy, and punishing the Saud dynasty for having permitted this sacrilege.
Only a few score, nearly all of them Saudi Arabians, were active in the attack, and the fatal casualties numbered some 3,000, a holiday weekend traffic toll.
As in the 17th century, one thing led to another, much of it having nothing directly to do with the attacks. Afghanistan was attacked, bombed, its government overthrown. Iraq was invaded because the Bush-Cheney government had a long-standing interest in controlling Iraqi oil and because the neoconservatives wished to destroy the Arab state thought most likely to threaten Israel.
The Taliban returned to Afghanistan while Washington’s attention was on Iraq. European NATO became involved for no better reason than that the United States told it to do so.
This brought terrorist outrages in London and Madrid, as well as an attempt in Scotland, by disgruntled Muslim immigrants or students at Western universities. The United States remained untouched.'
Lees verder: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090402_americas_long_war_will_be_as_bloody_and_pointless_as_europes/
Nederland en Afghanistan 199
Silence Meets Despair of Afghan Women
By Marie Cocco
Wat doen die Nederlandse troepen toch in Afghanistan? Waar sterven die jongens voor? Waarom worden er honderden miljoenen aan belastinggeld besteed aan krijgsheren die schatrijk worden aan de opiumhandel? Zijn ze in Den Haag nog wakker?
Afghanistan’s women are no longer in vogue.
It was only a few years ago that Laura Bush, who normally shied from causes that could be considered controversial, took up their banner. “The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists,” the first lady said in a radio address shortly after President Bush launched the U.S-led invasion to overthrow the Taliban following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control.”
That was then. This is now: Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just signed a law that forces women to obey their husbands’ sexual demands, keeps women from leaving the house—even for work or school—without a husband’s permission, automatically grants child custody rights to fathers and grandfathers before mothers, and favors men in inheritance disputes and other legal matters. In short, the law again consigns Afghan women to lives of brutal repression.
“This is really, really dangerous for everybody in Afghanistan,” Soraya Sobhrang of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission said in a telephone interview from Kabul. Noting that violence against women already is rampant, Sobhrang said the new law effectively “legalizes all violence against women in Afghanistan.”
The legislation zoomed through Afghanistan’s parliament. Karzai, who faces elections in August, signed it in an apparent effort to placate conservative religious forces that are said to hold the balance of power in his re-election bid. The United Nations Development Fund for Women is still analyzing a final version of the legislation but says it is “seriously concerned.” The law appears to contradict both the Afghan constitution, which guarantees equal rights for men and women, and international conventions on human rights.
The U.S. State Department has had no comment.
Afghanistan’s women are, apparently, the latest casualty of the Obama administration’s tilt toward realpolitik: ignore human rights violations—whether they’re in China or Russia or in the quiet misery of an Afghan villager’s home—in pursuit of larger foreign policy goals.
This contradiction between political rhetoric and policy reality has often been the American way. But now we have Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. When she was first lady, she championed the rights of women oppressed by the Taliban long before most Americans had ever heard of that radical regime. Clinton took the helm of the State Department vowing to elevate the cause of human and economic rights for women and girls—a pledge she made again in The Hague this week at the end of a major conference on Afghanistan that was aimed at securing greater international cooperation on the desperate and disparate crises there.
“My message is very clear. Women’s rights are a central part of American foreign policy in the Obama administration; they are not marginal, they are not an add-on or an afterthought,” Clinton said in response to a general question about the situation confronting women in Afghan society. “You cannot expect a country to develop if half its population [is] underfed, undereducated, under-cared-for, oppressed, and left on the sidelines.”
The secretary was not asked specifically about the new law. Among its other provisions, it guarantees that married men can have sex once every four nights and wives must submit. In effect, it legalizes marital rape. Sobhrang worries there may be worse to come. “They are talking about child marriage,” she says.
Without pressure from the foreign powers that hold so much sway in Afghanistan, there was little that even the women in the country’s parliament could do. Sobhrang faults those who were quiet in the face of the clear effort by a religious faction to reimpose medieval mores on a country that is in many ways a ward of the contemporary international community.'
Lees verder: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090401_silence_meets_despair_of_afghan_women/
By Marie Cocco
Wat doen die Nederlandse troepen toch in Afghanistan? Waar sterven die jongens voor? Waarom worden er honderden miljoenen aan belastinggeld besteed aan krijgsheren die schatrijk worden aan de opiumhandel? Zijn ze in Den Haag nog wakker?
Afghanistan’s women are no longer in vogue.
It was only a few years ago that Laura Bush, who normally shied from causes that could be considered controversial, took up their banner. “The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists,” the first lady said in a radio address shortly after President Bush launched the U.S-led invasion to overthrow the Taliban following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control.”
That was then. This is now: Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just signed a law that forces women to obey their husbands’ sexual demands, keeps women from leaving the house—even for work or school—without a husband’s permission, automatically grants child custody rights to fathers and grandfathers before mothers, and favors men in inheritance disputes and other legal matters. In short, the law again consigns Afghan women to lives of brutal repression.
“This is really, really dangerous for everybody in Afghanistan,” Soraya Sobhrang of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission said in a telephone interview from Kabul. Noting that violence against women already is rampant, Sobhrang said the new law effectively “legalizes all violence against women in Afghanistan.”
The legislation zoomed through Afghanistan’s parliament. Karzai, who faces elections in August, signed it in an apparent effort to placate conservative religious forces that are said to hold the balance of power in his re-election bid. The United Nations Development Fund for Women is still analyzing a final version of the legislation but says it is “seriously concerned.” The law appears to contradict both the Afghan constitution, which guarantees equal rights for men and women, and international conventions on human rights.
The U.S. State Department has had no comment.
Afghanistan’s women are, apparently, the latest casualty of the Obama administration’s tilt toward realpolitik: ignore human rights violations—whether they’re in China or Russia or in the quiet misery of an Afghan villager’s home—in pursuit of larger foreign policy goals.
This contradiction between political rhetoric and policy reality has often been the American way. But now we have Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. When she was first lady, she championed the rights of women oppressed by the Taliban long before most Americans had ever heard of that radical regime. Clinton took the helm of the State Department vowing to elevate the cause of human and economic rights for women and girls—a pledge she made again in The Hague this week at the end of a major conference on Afghanistan that was aimed at securing greater international cooperation on the desperate and disparate crises there.
“My message is very clear. Women’s rights are a central part of American foreign policy in the Obama administration; they are not marginal, they are not an add-on or an afterthought,” Clinton said in response to a general question about the situation confronting women in Afghan society. “You cannot expect a country to develop if half its population [is] underfed, undereducated, under-cared-for, oppressed, and left on the sidelines.”
The secretary was not asked specifically about the new law. Among its other provisions, it guarantees that married men can have sex once every four nights and wives must submit. In effect, it legalizes marital rape. Sobhrang worries there may be worse to come. “They are talking about child marriage,” she says.
Without pressure from the foreign powers that hold so much sway in Afghanistan, there was little that even the women in the country’s parliament could do. Sobhrang faults those who were quiet in the face of the clear effort by a religious faction to reimpose medieval mores on a country that is in many ways a ward of the contemporary international community.'
Lees verder: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090401_silence_meets_despair_of_afghan_women/
Irak 268
'The Storm Widens
Monday 06 April 2009
by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report
One week after Iraqi government forces arrested an Awakening Group (commonly referred to as Sons of Iraq, al-Sahwa) leader, Adil al-Mashhadani, head of a patrol unit in central Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood in Baghdad, sparking gun battles that raged for hours between US-backed Iraqi forces and US-allied Sunni militiamen that killed three people, militiamen have once again been detained, widening concerns that sectarian violence may once more engulf Baghdad. There are 50,000 Sahwa fighters in Baghdad alone.
While the Sahwa leader, who had been detained with 32 of his fighters, was eventually released by the Iraqi government, tensions grew in the wake of his detention as threats made by both sides increased. Thus far, only 11 of the 32 others have been released.
Just days after the aforementioned detention, Iraqi forces arrested two more Sahwa guards in the al-Dora neighborhood of Baghdad, which is controlled by their forces. In an article for Truthout last week, I voiced my concerns of these government attacks against Sahwa forces spreading. I am surprised at the rapidity at which this is occurring now, as this trend, if it continues, appears almost certain to spark a dramatic flare of sectarian violence in the capital city.
The Sahwa fighters, who once numbered 100,000 across Iraq according to the US military, were backed and paid by US forces until the Shiite-led Iraqi government took over the program last October, a process that was completed this week. Payment to Sahwa leaders by the US military, however, has shifted from overt payments to payment in the form of "construction contracts" to key leaders.
That the treatment of the Sahwa forces by the Iraqi government is largely seen as a barometer for the process of reconciliation does not bode well for these recent events. Most of the Sahwa fighters are former resistance fighters, who feared they would be arrested for their previous attacks against the Iraqi government. For example, Mashhadani was arrested, according to Iraqi government officials, for running a bomb-making factory among other reasons.
Further complicating matters, in separate incidents last week, US forces opened fire on a group of fighters they said could belong to a Sahwa unit, killing one, after allegedly spotting them planting a bomb. In addition, last Friday, Iraqi police arrested Hussam Alwan, a Sahwa leader in the town of Muqtadiya, 50 miles northeast of Baghdad.'
Lees verder: http://www.truthout.org/040609R
maandag 6 april 2009
Het Neoliberale Geloof 409
EEN AANRADER.
Moyers Journal: Madoff Was A Piker -- America's Big Banks Are a Far Larger
Fraudulent Ponzi Scheme
By Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal. Posted April 6, 2009.
One of America's top bank fraud experts explains the financial industry's
"liar's loans" and wholesale greed that got us in this mess.
Bill Moyers: For months now, revelations of the wholesale greed and blatant
transgressions of Wall Street have reminded us that "The Best Way to Rob a
Bank Is to Own One." In fact, the man you're about to meet wrote a book
with just that title. It was based upon his experience as a tough regulator
during one of the darkest chapters in our financial history: the savings
and loan scandal in the late 1980s.
Bill Black was in New York for a conference at the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice where scholars and journalists gathered to ask the
question, "How do they get away with it?" Well, no one has asked that
question more often than Bill Black. The former Director of the Institute
for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of
Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who
accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John
Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for
contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the
wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating -- after
whom the senate's so-called "Keating Five" were named -- he sent a memo
that read, in part, "get Black -- kill him dead." Metaphorically, of
course. Of course. Now Black is focused on an even greater scandal, and he
spares no one -- not even the President he worked hard to elect, Barack
Obama. But his main targets are the Wall Street barons, heirs of an earlier
generation whose scandalous rip-offs of wealth back in the 1930s earned
them comparison to Al Capone and the mob, and the nickname "banksters."
Bill Black, welcome to the Journal.
William K. Black: Thank you.
Bill Moyers: I was taken with your candor at the conference here in New
York to hear you say that this crisis we're going through, this economic
and financial meltdown is driven by fraud. What's your definition of fraud?
Black: Fraud is deceit. And the essence of fraud is, "I create trust in
you, and then I betray that trust, and get you to give me something of
value." And as a result, there's no more effective acid against trust than
fraud, especially fraud by top elites, and that's what we have.
Moyers: In your book, you make it clear that calculated dishonesty by
people in charge is at the heart of most large corporate failures and
scandals, including, of course, the S&L, but is that true? Is that what
you're saying here, that it was in the boardrooms and the CEO offices where
this fraud began?
Black: Absolutely.
Moyers: How did they do it? What do you mean?
Black: Well, the way that you do it is to make really bad loans, because
they pay better. Then you grow extremely rapidly, in other words, you're a
Ponzi-like scheme. And the third thing you do is we call it leverage. That
just means borrowing a lot of money, and the combination creates a
situation where you have guaranteed record profits in the early years. That
makes you rich, through the bonuses that modern executive compensation has
produced. It also makes it inevitable that there's going to be a disaster
down the road.
Moyers: So you're suggesting, saying that CEOs of some of these banks and
mortgage firms in order to increase their own personal income, deliberately
set out to make bad loans?
Black: Yes.
Moyers: How do they get away with it? I mean, what about their own checks
and balances in the company? What about their accounting divisions?
Black: All of those checks and balances report to the CEO, so if the CEO
goes bad, all of the checks and balances are easily overcome. And the art
form is not simply to defeat those internal controls, but to suborn them,
to turn them into your greatest allies. And the bonus programs are exactly
how you do that.
Moyers: If I wanted to go looking for the parties to this, with a good bird
dog, where would you send me?
Black: Well, that's exactly what hasn't happened. We haven't looked, all
right? The Bush Administration essentially got rid of regulation, so if
nobody was looking, you were able to do this with impunity and that's
exactly what happened. Where would you look? You'd look at the specialty
lenders. The lenders that did almost all of their work in the sub-prime and
what's called Alt-A, liars' loans.
Moyers: Yeah. Liars' loans--
Black: Liars' loans.
Moyers: Why did they call them liars' loans?
Black: Because they were liars' loans.
Moyers: And they knew it?
Black: They knew it. They knew that they were frauds.
Black: Liars' loans mean that we don't check. You tell us what your income
is. You tell us what your job is. You tell us what your assets are, and we
agree to believe you. We won't check on any of those things. And by the
way, you get a better deal if you inflate your income and your job history
and your assets.
Moyers: You think they really said that to borrowers?
Black: We know that they said that to borrowers. In fact, they were also
called, in the trade, ninja loans.
Moyers: Ninja?
Black: Yeah, because no income verification, no job verification, no asset
verification.
Moyers: You're talking about significant American companies.
Black: Huge! One company produced as many losses as the entire Savings and
Loan debacle.
Moyers: Which company?
Black: IndyMac specialized in making liars' loans. In 2006 alone, it sold
$80 billion dollars of liars' loans to other companies. $80 billion.
Moyers: And was this happening exclusively in this sub-prime mortgage
business?
Black: No, and that's a big part of the story as well. Even prime loans
began to have non-verification. Even Ronald Reagan, you know, said, "Trust,
but verify." They just gutted the verification process. We know that will
produce enormous fraud, under economic theory, criminology theory, and two
thousand years of life experience.
Moyers: Is it possible that these complex instruments were deliberately
created so swindlers could exploit them?
Black: Oh, absolutely. This stuff, the exotic stuff that you're talking
about was created out of things like liars' loans, that were known to be
extraordinarily bad. And now it was getting triple-A ratings. Now a
triple-A rating is supposed to mean there is zero credit risk. So you take
something that not only has significant, it has crushing risk. That's why
it's toxic. And you create this fiction that it has zero risk. That itself,
of course, is a fraudulent exercise. And again, there was nobody looking,
during the Bush years. So finally, only a year ago, we started to have a
Congressional investigation of some of these rating agencies, and it's
scandalous what came out. What we know now is that the rating agencies
never looked at a single loan file. When they finally did look, after the
markets had completely collapsed, they found, and I'm quoting Fitch, the
smallest of the rating agencies, "the results were disconcerting, in that
there was the appearance of fraud in nearly every file we examined."'
Lees verder: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/135161/moyers_journal%3A_madoff_was_a_piker_--_america%27s_big_banks_are_a_far_larger_fraudulent_ponzi_scheme/
Moyers Journal: Madoff Was A Piker -- America's Big Banks Are a Far Larger
Fraudulent Ponzi Scheme
By Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal. Posted April 6, 2009.
One of America's top bank fraud experts explains the financial industry's
"liar's loans" and wholesale greed that got us in this mess.
Bill Moyers: For months now, revelations of the wholesale greed and blatant
transgressions of Wall Street have reminded us that "The Best Way to Rob a
Bank Is to Own One." In fact, the man you're about to meet wrote a book
with just that title. It was based upon his experience as a tough regulator
during one of the darkest chapters in our financial history: the savings
and loan scandal in the late 1980s.
Bill Black was in New York for a conference at the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice where scholars and journalists gathered to ask the
question, "How do they get away with it?" Well, no one has asked that
question more often than Bill Black. The former Director of the Institute
for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of
Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who
accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John
Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for
contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the
wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating -- after
whom the senate's so-called "Keating Five" were named -- he sent a memo
that read, in part, "get Black -- kill him dead." Metaphorically, of
course. Of course. Now Black is focused on an even greater scandal, and he
spares no one -- not even the President he worked hard to elect, Barack
Obama. But his main targets are the Wall Street barons, heirs of an earlier
generation whose scandalous rip-offs of wealth back in the 1930s earned
them comparison to Al Capone and the mob, and the nickname "banksters."
Bill Black, welcome to the Journal.
William K. Black: Thank you.
Bill Moyers: I was taken with your candor at the conference here in New
York to hear you say that this crisis we're going through, this economic
and financial meltdown is driven by fraud. What's your definition of fraud?
Black: Fraud is deceit. And the essence of fraud is, "I create trust in
you, and then I betray that trust, and get you to give me something of
value." And as a result, there's no more effective acid against trust than
fraud, especially fraud by top elites, and that's what we have.
Moyers: In your book, you make it clear that calculated dishonesty by
people in charge is at the heart of most large corporate failures and
scandals, including, of course, the S&L, but is that true? Is that what
you're saying here, that it was in the boardrooms and the CEO offices where
this fraud began?
Black: Absolutely.
Moyers: How did they do it? What do you mean?
Black: Well, the way that you do it is to make really bad loans, because
they pay better. Then you grow extremely rapidly, in other words, you're a
Ponzi-like scheme. And the third thing you do is we call it leverage. That
just means borrowing a lot of money, and the combination creates a
situation where you have guaranteed record profits in the early years. That
makes you rich, through the bonuses that modern executive compensation has
produced. It also makes it inevitable that there's going to be a disaster
down the road.
Moyers: So you're suggesting, saying that CEOs of some of these banks and
mortgage firms in order to increase their own personal income, deliberately
set out to make bad loans?
Black: Yes.
Moyers: How do they get away with it? I mean, what about their own checks
and balances in the company? What about their accounting divisions?
Black: All of those checks and balances report to the CEO, so if the CEO
goes bad, all of the checks and balances are easily overcome. And the art
form is not simply to defeat those internal controls, but to suborn them,
to turn them into your greatest allies. And the bonus programs are exactly
how you do that.
Moyers: If I wanted to go looking for the parties to this, with a good bird
dog, where would you send me?
Black: Well, that's exactly what hasn't happened. We haven't looked, all
right? The Bush Administration essentially got rid of regulation, so if
nobody was looking, you were able to do this with impunity and that's
exactly what happened. Where would you look? You'd look at the specialty
lenders. The lenders that did almost all of their work in the sub-prime and
what's called Alt-A, liars' loans.
Moyers: Yeah. Liars' loans--
Black: Liars' loans.
Moyers: Why did they call them liars' loans?
Black: Because they were liars' loans.
Moyers: And they knew it?
Black: They knew it. They knew that they were frauds.
Black: Liars' loans mean that we don't check. You tell us what your income
is. You tell us what your job is. You tell us what your assets are, and we
agree to believe you. We won't check on any of those things. And by the
way, you get a better deal if you inflate your income and your job history
and your assets.
Moyers: You think they really said that to borrowers?
Black: We know that they said that to borrowers. In fact, they were also
called, in the trade, ninja loans.
Moyers: Ninja?
Black: Yeah, because no income verification, no job verification, no asset
verification.
Moyers: You're talking about significant American companies.
Black: Huge! One company produced as many losses as the entire Savings and
Loan debacle.
Moyers: Which company?
Black: IndyMac specialized in making liars' loans. In 2006 alone, it sold
$80 billion dollars of liars' loans to other companies. $80 billion.
Moyers: And was this happening exclusively in this sub-prime mortgage
business?
Black: No, and that's a big part of the story as well. Even prime loans
began to have non-verification. Even Ronald Reagan, you know, said, "Trust,
but verify." They just gutted the verification process. We know that will
produce enormous fraud, under economic theory, criminology theory, and two
thousand years of life experience.
Moyers: Is it possible that these complex instruments were deliberately
created so swindlers could exploit them?
Black: Oh, absolutely. This stuff, the exotic stuff that you're talking
about was created out of things like liars' loans, that were known to be
extraordinarily bad. And now it was getting triple-A ratings. Now a
triple-A rating is supposed to mean there is zero credit risk. So you take
something that not only has significant, it has crushing risk. That's why
it's toxic. And you create this fiction that it has zero risk. That itself,
of course, is a fraudulent exercise. And again, there was nobody looking,
during the Bush years. So finally, only a year ago, we started to have a
Congressional investigation of some of these rating agencies, and it's
scandalous what came out. What we know now is that the rating agencies
never looked at a single loan file. When they finally did look, after the
markets had completely collapsed, they found, and I'm quoting Fitch, the
smallest of the rating agencies, "the results were disconcerting, in that
there was the appearance of fraud in nearly every file we examined."'
Lees verder: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/135161/moyers_journal%3A_madoff_was_a_piker_--_america%27s_big_banks_are_a_far_larger_fraudulent_ponzi_scheme/
De Israelische Terreur 819
Who’s the boss?
Israel’s racist and fascist foreign minister the real power in government
By Uri Avnery
5 April 2009
Uri Avnery explains why Israel’s new foreign minister, the fascist and racist Avigdor Lieberman, is the real boss in Israel, succeeding moments after his appointment in humiliating Binyamin Netanyahu and exposing his peace declarations “as nothing but soap bubbles”.
”Some people believe that Lieberman is really not a new phenomenon at all and that he simply brings to the surface traits that were there all the time but were buried beneath a thick layer of sanctimonious hypocrisy.”
On the first day of the new Israeli government, the fog cleared: it’s a Lieberman government.
The day started with a celebration at the President’s Office. All the members of this bloated government – 30 ministers and eight deputy ministers – were dressed up in their best finery and posed for a group photograph. Binyamin Netanyahu read an uninspiring speech, which included the worn-out cliches that are necessary to set the world at ease: the government is committed to peace, it will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, bla-bla-bla.
Avigdor Lieberman hurried from there to the Foreign Ministry, for the ceremonial change of ministers. He, too, made a speech – but it was not a routine speech at all.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace, prepare for war,” declared the new foreign minister. When a diplomat quotes this ancient Roman saying, the world pays no attention to the first part, but only to the second. Coming from the mouth of the already infamous Lieberman, it was a clear threat: the new government is entering upon a path of war, not of peace.
With this sentence, Lieberman negated Netanyahu’s speech and made headlines around the world. He confirmed the worst apprehensions connected with the creation of this government.
Not content with quoting the Romans, he explained specifically why he used this motto. Concessions, he said, do not bring peace, but quite the reverse. The world respected and admired Israel when it won the Six Days War.
Two fallacies in one sentence. Returning occupied territory is not a “concession”. When a thief is compelled to return stolen property, or when a squatter vacates an apartment that does not belong to him, that is not a “concession”. And the admiration for Israel in 1967 came from a world that saw us as a little, valiant country that had stood up to mighty armies out to destroy us. But today’s Israel looks like a brutal Goliath, while the occupied Palestinians are now viewed as a David with his slingshot, fighting for his life.
With this speech, Lieberman succeeded in stirring the world, but even more in humiliating Netanyahu. He exposed the peace declarations of the new prime minister as nothing but soap bubbles.
However, the world (as I wrote last week) wants to be deceived. A White House spokesman announced that, as far as the American administration is concerned, it is Netanyahu’s bla-bla-bla that counts, not Lieberman’s straight talking. And Hillary Clinton was not ashamed to call Lieberman and congratulate him on assuming office.
That was the first test of strength inside the Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak triangle. Lieberman has demonstrated his contempt for both Netanyahu and Barak.
His political base is secure, because he is the only person who can topple the government at any moment. After the Knesset debate on the new government, only 69 members voted for it. If one adds the five Labour members who “were present but did not participate in the vote” (a voting device that is less negative than abstaining), the government has 74 votes. Meaning: without Lieberman’s 15 members, the government does not command a majority.
His speech was intended to underline this political reality. He as much as told Netanyahu: If you intend to shut me up, forget it. In fact, he held a pistol to Netanyahu’s head – in this case, it could be a German Luger Parabellum, a pistol whose name derives from the Roman saying.
The full extent of Lieberman’s chutzpah came to the fore only an hour later. From the Foreign Ministry ceremony he hurried to another ritual ministerial handover, this time at the Ministry for Internal Security (formerly called the Ministry of Police).
What business did he have there? None. It is highly unusual for a minister to attend such a ceremony in another ministry. True, the new internal security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovitch, belongs to Lieberman’s party, but that is not relevant. After all, he did not attend the similar ceremony at the Immigration Absorption Ministry, where another member of his party was installed.
The riddle was solved the next day, when the freshly installed foreign minister spent seven hours in a police interrogation room, answering questions about suspected bribery, money laundering and such, in connection with huge sums that were transferred from abroad to a company that belongs to his 23-year-old daughter.'
Lees verder: http://www.redress.cc/palestine/uavnery20090405
Israel’s racist and fascist foreign minister the real power in government
By Uri Avnery
5 April 2009
Uri Avnery explains why Israel’s new foreign minister, the fascist and racist Avigdor Lieberman, is the real boss in Israel, succeeding moments after his appointment in humiliating Binyamin Netanyahu and exposing his peace declarations “as nothing but soap bubbles”.
”Some people believe that Lieberman is really not a new phenomenon at all and that he simply brings to the surface traits that were there all the time but were buried beneath a thick layer of sanctimonious hypocrisy.”
On the first day of the new Israeli government, the fog cleared: it’s a Lieberman government.
The day started with a celebration at the President’s Office. All the members of this bloated government – 30 ministers and eight deputy ministers – were dressed up in their best finery and posed for a group photograph. Binyamin Netanyahu read an uninspiring speech, which included the worn-out cliches that are necessary to set the world at ease: the government is committed to peace, it will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, bla-bla-bla.
Avigdor Lieberman hurried from there to the Foreign Ministry, for the ceremonial change of ministers. He, too, made a speech – but it was not a routine speech at all.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace, prepare for war,” declared the new foreign minister. When a diplomat quotes this ancient Roman saying, the world pays no attention to the first part, but only to the second. Coming from the mouth of the already infamous Lieberman, it was a clear threat: the new government is entering upon a path of war, not of peace.
With this sentence, Lieberman negated Netanyahu’s speech and made headlines around the world. He confirmed the worst apprehensions connected with the creation of this government.
Not content with quoting the Romans, he explained specifically why he used this motto. Concessions, he said, do not bring peace, but quite the reverse. The world respected and admired Israel when it won the Six Days War.
Two fallacies in one sentence. Returning occupied territory is not a “concession”. When a thief is compelled to return stolen property, or when a squatter vacates an apartment that does not belong to him, that is not a “concession”. And the admiration for Israel in 1967 came from a world that saw us as a little, valiant country that had stood up to mighty armies out to destroy us. But today’s Israel looks like a brutal Goliath, while the occupied Palestinians are now viewed as a David with his slingshot, fighting for his life.
With this speech, Lieberman succeeded in stirring the world, but even more in humiliating Netanyahu. He exposed the peace declarations of the new prime minister as nothing but soap bubbles.
However, the world (as I wrote last week) wants to be deceived. A White House spokesman announced that, as far as the American administration is concerned, it is Netanyahu’s bla-bla-bla that counts, not Lieberman’s straight talking. And Hillary Clinton was not ashamed to call Lieberman and congratulate him on assuming office.
That was the first test of strength inside the Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak triangle. Lieberman has demonstrated his contempt for both Netanyahu and Barak.
His political base is secure, because he is the only person who can topple the government at any moment. After the Knesset debate on the new government, only 69 members voted for it. If one adds the five Labour members who “were present but did not participate in the vote” (a voting device that is less negative than abstaining), the government has 74 votes. Meaning: without Lieberman’s 15 members, the government does not command a majority.
His speech was intended to underline this political reality. He as much as told Netanyahu: If you intend to shut me up, forget it. In fact, he held a pistol to Netanyahu’s head – in this case, it could be a German Luger Parabellum, a pistol whose name derives from the Roman saying.
The full extent of Lieberman’s chutzpah came to the fore only an hour later. From the Foreign Ministry ceremony he hurried to another ritual ministerial handover, this time at the Ministry for Internal Security (formerly called the Ministry of Police).
What business did he have there? None. It is highly unusual for a minister to attend such a ceremony in another ministry. True, the new internal security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovitch, belongs to Lieberman’s party, but that is not relevant. After all, he did not attend the similar ceremony at the Immigration Absorption Ministry, where another member of his party was installed.
The riddle was solved the next day, when the freshly installed foreign minister spent seven hours in a police interrogation room, answering questions about suspected bribery, money laundering and such, in connection with huge sums that were transferred from abroad to a company that belongs to his 23-year-old daughter.'
Lees verder: http://www.redress.cc/palestine/uavnery20090405
The Empire 422
'Sonja heeft een nieuwe reactie op uw bericht "De Israelische Terreur 818 " achtergelaten:
Onze kwaliteitsjournalisten van onze kwaliteitskranten hebben het volgende toevallig over het hoofd gezien. Ik denk dat ze al hun energie moesten steken in het bejubelen van de NAVO en "rockster" Barack Obama."Amerikaanse wapens bedreigen vredesproces Midden-Oosten" zaterdag 4 april 2009Amnesty International meldt vrijdag in een communiqué dat Israël een nieuwe levering Amerikaanse wapens heeft gekregen. Dat doet vragen rijzen over de toewijding van Obama om te voorkomen dat de VS nieuwe oorlogsmisdaden tegen burgers aanwakkeren, zoals recentelijk in Gaza.WapentransportenVolgens nieuwe informatie zou het Duitse vrachtschip de Wehr Elbe ongeveer 300 containers uitgeladen hebben in de Israëlische haven van Ashdod, 40km ten noorden van Gaza. Het schip werd gecharterd en gecontroleerd door de US Military Sealift Command. Op 20 december verliet het Duitse schip de VS om naar Israël te gaan. Dit was een week voor de Israëlische aanval op Gaza. Het schip vervoerde 989 containers met wapens, elke container was 6 meter lang met een totaal geschat gewicht van 14.000 ton."Obama moest schip stoppen""Volgens de wet en moreel bekeken, moest dit schip tegengehouden zijn door de regering Obama. Zeker na het bewijs dat Israël munitie en militair materiaal gebruikte om oorlogsmisdaden te plegen". Volgens Brian Wood, campagnemanager van Amnesty International, zijn wapenvoorzieningen in die omstandigheden in strijd met de Amerikaanse grondwet."Munitie voor Amerikaanse opslagplaats"Een woordvoerder van het Pentagon bevestigde dat "het schip op 22 maart succesvol werd gelost in de Israëlische stad Ashdod. De munitie was bestemd voor een Amerikaanse opslagplaats in Israël. Door een akkoord tussen beide landen, kan die munitie aan Israël worden verscheept. Een andere verantwoordelijke meldde dat er momenteel een onderzoek loopt naar het gebruik van Amerikaanse wapens tijdens de Gaza-invasie. Volgens hem was dat ook dit wapengebruik in strijd met de Amerikaanse grondwet."Geen wapens sturen"Volgens Wood bestaat er een risico dat de nieuwe munitie tot verdere Israëlische inbreuken van de internationale wetten leidt, zoals eerder dit jaar in Gaza. "We dringen er bij alle regeringen op aan om geen wapens naar Israël of Palestijnse groepen te sturen tot het risico op verdere inbreuken is weggeëbd". (belga/vsv)En ook in de Knack:Amnesty verbolgen over nieuwe wapenlevering aan Israël
Geplaatst door Sonja op stan op 11:35 PM
"Amerikaanse wapens bedreigen vredesproces Midden-Oosten"
Amnesty International meldt vrijdag in een communiqué dat Israël een nieuwe levering Amerikaanse wapens heeft gekregen. Dat doet vragen rijzen over de toewijding van Obama om te voorkomen dat de VS nieuwe oorlogsmisdaden tegen burgers aanwakkeren, zoals recentelijk in Gaza.
Wapentransporten
Volgens nieuwe informatie zou het Duitse vrachtschip de Wehr Elbe ongeveer 300 containers uitgeladen hebben in de Israëlische haven van Ashdod, 40km ten noorden van Gaza. Het schip werd gecharterd en gecontroleerd door de US Military Sealift Command. Op 20 december verliet het Duitse schip de VS om naar Israël te gaan. Dit was een week voor de Israëlische aanval op Gaza. Het schip vervoerde 989 containers met wapens, elke container was 6 meter lang met een totaal geschat gewicht van 14.000 ton.
"Obama moest schip stoppen"
"Volgens de wet en moreel bekeken, moest dit schip tegengehouden zijn door de regering Obama. Zeker na het bewijs dat Israël munitie en militair materiaal gebruikte om oorlogsmisdaden te plegen". Volgens Brian Wood, campagnemanager van Amnesty International, zijn wapenvoorzieningen in die omstandigheden in strijd met de Amerikaanse grondwet.
"Munitie voor Amerikaanse opslagplaats"
Een woordvoerder van het Pentagon bevestigde dat "het schip op 22 maart succesvol werd gelost in de Israëlische stad Ashdod. De munitie was bestemd voor een Amerikaanse opslagplaats in Israël. Door een akkoord tussen beide landen, kan die munitie aan Israël worden verscheept. Een andere verantwoordelijke meldde dat er momenteel een onderzoek loopt naar het gebruik van Amerikaanse wapens tijdens de Gaza-invasie. Volgens hem was dat ook dit wapengebruik in strijd met de Amerikaanse grondwet.
"Geen wapens sturen"
Volgens Wood bestaat er een risico dat de nieuwe munitie tot verdere Israëlische inbreuken van de internationale wetten leidt, zoals eerder dit jaar in Gaza. "We dringen er bij alle regeringen op aan om geen wapens naar Israël of Palestijnse groepen te sturen tot het risico op verdere inbreuken is weggeëbd". (belga/vsv)'
Onze kwaliteitsjournalisten van onze kwaliteitskranten hebben het volgende toevallig over het hoofd gezien. Ik denk dat ze al hun energie moesten steken in het bejubelen van de NAVO en "rockster" Barack Obama."Amerikaanse wapens bedreigen vredesproces Midden-Oosten"
Geplaatst door Sonja op stan
"Amerikaanse wapens bedreigen vredesproces Midden-Oosten"
Amnesty International meldt vrijdag in een communiqué dat Israël een nieuwe levering Amerikaanse wapens heeft gekregen. Dat doet vragen rijzen over de toewijding van Obama om te voorkomen dat de VS nieuwe oorlogsmisdaden tegen burgers aanwakkeren, zoals recentelijk in Gaza.
Wapentransporten
Volgens nieuwe informatie zou het Duitse vrachtschip de Wehr Elbe ongeveer 300 containers uitgeladen hebben in de Israëlische haven van Ashdod, 40km ten noorden van Gaza. Het schip werd gecharterd en gecontroleerd door de US Military Sealift Command. Op 20 december verliet het Duitse schip de VS om naar Israël te gaan. Dit was een week voor de Israëlische aanval op Gaza. Het schip vervoerde 989 containers met wapens, elke container was 6 meter lang met een totaal geschat gewicht van 14.000 ton.
"Obama moest schip stoppen"
"Volgens de wet en moreel bekeken, moest dit schip tegengehouden zijn door de regering Obama. Zeker na het bewijs dat Israël munitie en militair materiaal gebruikte om oorlogsmisdaden te plegen". Volgens Brian Wood, campagnemanager van Amnesty International, zijn wapenvoorzieningen in die omstandigheden in strijd met de Amerikaanse grondwet.
"Munitie voor Amerikaanse opslagplaats"
Een woordvoerder van het Pentagon bevestigde dat "het schip op 22 maart succesvol werd gelost in de Israëlische stad Ashdod. De munitie was bestemd voor een Amerikaanse opslagplaats in Israël. Door een akkoord tussen beide landen, kan die munitie aan Israël worden verscheept. Een andere verantwoordelijke meldde dat er momenteel een onderzoek loopt naar het gebruik van Amerikaanse wapens tijdens de Gaza-invasie. Volgens hem was dat ook dit wapengebruik in strijd met de Amerikaanse grondwet.
"Geen wapens sturen"
Volgens Wood bestaat er een risico dat de nieuwe munitie tot verdere Israëlische inbreuken van de internationale wetten leidt, zoals eerder dit jaar in Gaza. "We dringen er bij alle regeringen op aan om geen wapens naar Israël of Palestijnse groepen te sturen tot het risico op verdere inbreuken is weggeëbd". (belga/vsv)'
Obama 93
Zoals CNN terecht meldt: 'International Branding Campaign' en de Nederlandse commerciele media zijn helemaal in de wolken. Van een nieuwe wereld orde is natuurlijk geen sprake, maar het bekt lekker, net zoals ten tijde van Bush senior. Het enige gevolg van die nieuwe orde was nog meer bloed, nog meer geweld, nog meer expansionisme. En vergeet u 1 ding niet: 'Effective branding means sensitivity to customer feelings and experience' Het is net als Marlboro sigaretten, je voelt je na zo'n paffertje als een cowboy op een paard.
"At the end of Obama's Friday press conference, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy addressed the issue directly, speaking through an interpreter. "It
feels really good to be able to work with a U.S. President who wants to
change the world and who understands that the world does not boil down to
simply American frontiers and borders," he said. "And that is a hell of a
good piece of news for 2009."
Barack Obama's New World Order
By Michael Scherer / Strasbourg Friday, Apr. 03, 2009
The United States is still the same country it was a year ago, give or take
about 6 million jobs. But its international branding campaign, as led by
the new President, Barack Obama, is so different that the rest of the world
might be forgiven if it has to do a double take.
Most of the hallmarks of the foreign policy of George W. Bush are gone. The
old conservative idea of "American exceptionalism," which placed the U.S.
on a plane above the rest of the world as a unique beacon of democracy and
financial might, has been rejected. At almost every stop, Obama has made
clear that the U.S. is but one actor in a global community. Talk of
American economic supremacy has been replaced by a call from Obama for more
growth in developing countries. Claims of American military supremacy have
been replaced with heavy emphasis on cooperation and diplomatic hard labor.
(Read "Obama in Europe: Facing Four Big Challenges.")
The tone was set from Obama's first public remarks in London on Wednesday,
at a press conference with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, where the American
President said he had come "to listen, not to lecture." At a joint
appearance with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Baden-Baden on Friday, a
German reporter asked Obama about his "grand designs" for NATO. "I don't
come bearing grand designs," Obama said, scrapping the leadership role the
U.S. maintained through the Cold War. "I'm here to listen, to share ideas
and to jointly, as one of many NATO allies, help shape our vision for the
future."'
Lees verder: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1889512,00.html?xid=rss-topstories-cnnpartner
"At the end of Obama's Friday press conference, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy addressed the issue directly, speaking through an interpreter. "It
feels really good to be able to work with a U.S. President who wants to
change the world and who understands that the world does not boil down to
simply American frontiers and borders," he said. "And that is a hell of a
good piece of news for 2009."
Barack Obama's New World Order
By Michael Scherer / Strasbourg Friday, Apr. 03, 2009
The United States is still the same country it was a year ago, give or take
about 6 million jobs. But its international branding campaign, as led by
the new President, Barack Obama, is so different that the rest of the world
might be forgiven if it has to do a double take.
Most of the hallmarks of the foreign policy of George W. Bush are gone. The
old conservative idea of "American exceptionalism," which placed the U.S.
on a plane above the rest of the world as a unique beacon of democracy and
financial might, has been rejected. At almost every stop, Obama has made
clear that the U.S. is but one actor in a global community. Talk of
American economic supremacy has been replaced by a call from Obama for more
growth in developing countries. Claims of American military supremacy have
been replaced with heavy emphasis on cooperation and diplomatic hard labor.
(Read "Obama in Europe: Facing Four Big Challenges.")
The tone was set from Obama's first public remarks in London on Wednesday,
at a press conference with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, where the American
President said he had come "to listen, not to lecture." At a joint
appearance with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Baden-Baden on Friday, a
German reporter asked Obama about his "grand designs" for NATO. "I don't
come bearing grand designs," Obama said, scrapping the leadership role the
U.S. maintained through the Cold War. "I'm here to listen, to share ideas
and to jointly, as one of many NATO allies, help shape our vision for the
future."'
Lees verder: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1889512,00.html?xid=rss-topstories-cnnpartner
De Westerse Terreur 23
Seymour Hersh: Secret U.S. Forces Carried Out Assassinations in 'a Lot of' Countries, Including in Latin America
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
The investigative journalist for The New Yorker explains his recent bombshell revelation about Dick Cheney's "executive assassination" squads.
Amy Goodman: Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh created a stir last month when he said the Bush administration ran an executive assassination ring that reported directly to Vice President Dick Cheney. Hersh made the comment during a speech at the University of Minnesota on March 10th.
Seymour Hersh: Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination wing, essentially. And it's been going on and on and on. And just today in the Times there was a story saying that its leader, a three-star admiral named McRaven, ordered a stop to certain activities because there were so many collateral deaths. It's been going in -- under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or to the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving.
Amy Goodman: Yesterday, CNN interviewed Dick Cheney's former national security adviser, John Hannah. Wolf Blitzer asked Hannah about Sy Hersh's claim.
Wolf Blitzer: Is there a list of terrorists, suspected terrorists out there who can be assassinated?
John Hannah: There is clearly a group of people that go through a very extremely well-vetted process, inter-agency process, as I think was explained in your piece, that have committed acts of war against the United States, who are at war with the United States, or are suspected of planning operations of war against the United States, who authority is given to the troops in the field and in certain war theaters to capture or kill those individuals. That is certainly true.
Wolf Blitzer: And so, this would be, and from your perspective -- and you worked in the Bush administration for many year-- it would be totally constitutional, totally legal, to go out and find these guys and to whack 'em.
John Hannah: There's no question that in a theater of war, when we are at war, and we know -- there's no doubt, we are still at war against al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and on that Pakistani border, that our troops have the authority to go after and capture and kill the enemy, including the leadership of the enemy.
Amy Goodman: That's John Hannah, Dick Cheney's former national security adviser. Seymour Hersh joins me now here in Washington, D.C., staff writer for The New Yorker magazine. His latest article appears in the current issue, called "Syria Calling: The Obama Administration's Chance to Engage in a Middle East Peace."
OK, welcome to Democracy Now!, Sy Hersh. It was good to see you last night at Georgetown. Talk about, first, these comments you made at the University of Minnesota.
Seymour Hersh: Well, it was sort of stupid of me to start talking about stuff I haven't written. I always kick myself when I do it. But I was with Walter Mondale, the former vice president, who was being amazingly open and sort of, for him -- he had come a long way … since I knew him as a senator who was reluctant to oppose the Vietnam War. And so, I was asked about future things, and I just -- I am looking into stuff. I've done -- there's really nothing I said at Minnesota I haven't written in the (New Yorker). Last summer, I wrote a long article about the Joint Special Operations Command.
And just to go back to what John Hannah, who … I think ended up being the senior national security adviser, almost -- if not the chief of staff, deputy chief of staff for Dick Cheney in the last three or four years, what he said is simply that, yes, we go after people suspected -- that was the word he used -- of crimes against America. And I have to tell you that there's an executive order, signed by Jerry Ford, President Ford, in the '70s, forbidding such action. It's not only contrary -- it's illegal, it's immoral, it's counterproductive.
The problem with having military go kill people when they're not directly in combat, these are asking American troops to go out and find people and, as you said earlier, in one of the statements I made that you played, they go into countries without telling any of the authorities, the American ambassador, the CIA chief, certainly nobody in the government that we're going into, and it's far more than just in combat areas. There's more -- at least a dozen countries, and perhaps more. The President has authorized these kinds of actions in the Middle East and also in Latin America, I will tell you, Central America, some countries. They've been -- our boys have been told they can go and take the kind of executive action they need, and that's simply -- there's no legal basis for it.'
Lees verder: http://www.alternet.org/rights/134347/seymour_hersh%3A_secret_u.s._forces_carried_out_assassinations_in_%27a_
lot_of%27_countries%2C_including_in_latin_america/
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
The investigative journalist for The New Yorker explains his recent bombshell revelation about Dick Cheney's "executive assassination" squads.
Amy Goodman: Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh created a stir last month when he said the Bush administration ran an executive assassination ring that reported directly to Vice President Dick Cheney. Hersh made the comment during a speech at the University of Minnesota on March 10th.
Seymour Hersh: Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination wing, essentially. And it's been going on and on and on. And just today in the Times there was a story saying that its leader, a three-star admiral named McRaven, ordered a stop to certain activities because there were so many collateral deaths. It's been going in -- under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or to the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving.
Amy Goodman: Yesterday, CNN interviewed Dick Cheney's former national security adviser, John Hannah. Wolf Blitzer asked Hannah about Sy Hersh's claim.
Wolf Blitzer: Is there a list of terrorists, suspected terrorists out there who can be assassinated?
John Hannah: There is clearly a group of people that go through a very extremely well-vetted process, inter-agency process, as I think was explained in your piece, that have committed acts of war against the United States, who are at war with the United States, or are suspected of planning operations of war against the United States, who authority is given to the troops in the field and in certain war theaters to capture or kill those individuals. That is certainly true.
Wolf Blitzer: And so, this would be, and from your perspective -- and you worked in the Bush administration for many year-- it would be totally constitutional, totally legal, to go out and find these guys and to whack 'em.
John Hannah: There's no question that in a theater of war, when we are at war, and we know -- there's no doubt, we are still at war against al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and on that Pakistani border, that our troops have the authority to go after and capture and kill the enemy, including the leadership of the enemy.
Amy Goodman: That's John Hannah, Dick Cheney's former national security adviser. Seymour Hersh joins me now here in Washington, D.C., staff writer for The New Yorker magazine. His latest article appears in the current issue, called "Syria Calling: The Obama Administration's Chance to Engage in a Middle East Peace."
OK, welcome to Democracy Now!, Sy Hersh. It was good to see you last night at Georgetown. Talk about, first, these comments you made at the University of Minnesota.
Seymour Hersh: Well, it was sort of stupid of me to start talking about stuff I haven't written. I always kick myself when I do it. But I was with Walter Mondale, the former vice president, who was being amazingly open and sort of, for him -- he had come a long way … since I knew him as a senator who was reluctant to oppose the Vietnam War. And so, I was asked about future things, and I just -- I am looking into stuff. I've done -- there's really nothing I said at Minnesota I haven't written in the (New Yorker). Last summer, I wrote a long article about the Joint Special Operations Command.
And just to go back to what John Hannah, who … I think ended up being the senior national security adviser, almost -- if not the chief of staff, deputy chief of staff for Dick Cheney in the last three or four years, what he said is simply that, yes, we go after people suspected -- that was the word he used -- of crimes against America. And I have to tell you that there's an executive order, signed by Jerry Ford, President Ford, in the '70s, forbidding such action. It's not only contrary -- it's illegal, it's immoral, it's counterproductive.
The problem with having military go kill people when they're not directly in combat, these are asking American troops to go out and find people and, as you said earlier, in one of the statements I made that you played, they go into countries without telling any of the authorities, the American ambassador, the CIA chief, certainly nobody in the government that we're going into, and it's far more than just in combat areas. There's more -- at least a dozen countries, and perhaps more. The President has authorized these kinds of actions in the Middle East and also in Latin America, I will tell you, Central America, some countries. They've been -- our boys have been told they can go and take the kind of executive action they need, and that's simply -- there's no legal basis for it.'
Lees verder: http://www.alternet.org/rights/134347/seymour_hersh%3A_secret_u.s._forces_carried_out_assassinations_in_%27a_
lot_of%27_countries%2C_including_in_latin_america/
Het Neoliberale Geloof 408
De Volkskrant berichtte vanochtend: 'Op zijn eerste Europese bezoek bracht president Barack Obama de Europeanen in een roes. Overal viel hem lof ten deel.' Dit is het nieuws van een volgens Henk Hofland Nederlandse 'kwaliteitskrant'. Op pagina 5 zagen we een foto van 'de Europeanen in een roes.' We zien Obama ergens in Praag met om zich heen voor het merendeel blanke jonge vrouwen, en veel zonnebrillen. Deze vrouwen waren duidelijk op zijn marketingbeeld af gekomen, ze stonden er als fans niet van zijn politieke programma, die is niet wezenlijk anders dan die van andere presidenten, maar vanwege zijn -- zullen we zeggen -- uitstraling, een uitstraling die de Europese leiders totaal missen. Tot zover onze 'kwaliteitskrant', die Henk Hofland en Jan Marijnissen graag gesubsidieerd zien met belastinggeld. Nu een bericht uit de grote mensenwereld van echte journalisten:
'The West's Fatal Overdose
04/03/2009 02:25 PM
OPINION
By Gabor Steingart in Washington D.C.
The G-20 has agreed on plans to fight the global downturn. But its approach
will only lay the foundation for the next, bigger crisis. Instead of
"stability, growth, jobs," the summit's real slogan should have been "debt,
unemployment, inflation."
Now they're celebrating again. An "historic compromise" had been reached,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the conclusion of the G-20 summit
in London, while US President Barack Obama spoke of a "turning point" in
the fight against the global downturn. Behind the two leaders, the summit's
motto could clearly be seen: "stability, growth, jobs."
US President Barack Obama: The G-20 is laying the foundation for the next
crisis.
When the celebrations have died down, it will be easier to look at what
actually happened in London with a cool eye. The summit participants took
the easy way out. Their decision to pump a further $5 trillion (•3.72
trillion) into the collapsing world economy within the foreseeable future,
could indeed prove to be a historical turning point -- but a turning point
downwards. In combating this crisis, the international community is in fact
laying the foundation for the next crisis, which will be larger. It would
probably have been more honest if the summit participants had written
"debt, unemployment, inflation" on the wall.
The crucial questions went unanswered because they weren't even asked. Why
are we in the current situation anyway? Who or what has got us into this
mess?
The search for an answer would have revealed that the failure of the
markets was preceded by a failure on the part of the state. Wall Street and
the banks -- the greedy players of the financial industry -- played an
important, but not decisive, role. The bank manager was the dealer that
distributed the hot, speculation-based money throughout the nation.
But the poppy farmer sits in the White House. And during his time in
office, US President George W. Bush enormously expanded the acreage under
cultivation. The chief crop on his farm was the cheap dollar, which
eventually flooded the entire world, artificially bloating the banks'
balance sheets, creating sham growth and causing a speculative bubble in
the US real estate market. The lack of transparency in the financial
markets ensured that the poison could spread all around the world.
There are -- even in the modern world -- two things that no private company
can do on its own: wage war and print money. Both of those things, however,
formed Bush's response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Many
column inches have already been devoted to Bush's first mistake, the
invasion of Baghdad. But his second error -- flooding the global economy
with trillions of dollars of cheap money -- has barely been acknowledged.
No other president has ever printed money and expanded the money supply
with such abandon as Bush. This new money -- and therein lies its danger --
was not backed by real value in the form of goods or services. The measure
may have had the desired effect -- the world economy revived, at least
initially. And US consumption kept the global economy going for years. But
the growth rates generated in the process were illusionary. The US had
begun to hallucinate.'
Lees verder: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-617224,00.html
'The West's Fatal Overdose
04/03/2009 02:25 PM
OPINION
By Gabor Steingart in Washington D.C.
The G-20 has agreed on plans to fight the global downturn. But its approach
will only lay the foundation for the next, bigger crisis. Instead of
"stability, growth, jobs," the summit's real slogan should have been "debt,
unemployment, inflation."
Now they're celebrating again. An "historic compromise" had been reached,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the conclusion of the G-20 summit
in London, while US President Barack Obama spoke of a "turning point" in
the fight against the global downturn. Behind the two leaders, the summit's
motto could clearly be seen: "stability, growth, jobs."
US President Barack Obama: The G-20 is laying the foundation for the next
crisis.
When the celebrations have died down, it will be easier to look at what
actually happened in London with a cool eye. The summit participants took
the easy way out. Their decision to pump a further $5 trillion (•3.72
trillion) into the collapsing world economy within the foreseeable future,
could indeed prove to be a historical turning point -- but a turning point
downwards. In combating this crisis, the international community is in fact
laying the foundation for the next crisis, which will be larger. It would
probably have been more honest if the summit participants had written
"debt, unemployment, inflation" on the wall.
The crucial questions went unanswered because they weren't even asked. Why
are we in the current situation anyway? Who or what has got us into this
mess?
The search for an answer would have revealed that the failure of the
markets was preceded by a failure on the part of the state. Wall Street and
the banks -- the greedy players of the financial industry -- played an
important, but not decisive, role. The bank manager was the dealer that
distributed the hot, speculation-based money throughout the nation.
But the poppy farmer sits in the White House. And during his time in
office, US President George W. Bush enormously expanded the acreage under
cultivation. The chief crop on his farm was the cheap dollar, which
eventually flooded the entire world, artificially bloating the banks'
balance sheets, creating sham growth and causing a speculative bubble in
the US real estate market. The lack of transparency in the financial
markets ensured that the poison could spread all around the world.
There are -- even in the modern world -- two things that no private company
can do on its own: wage war and print money. Both of those things, however,
formed Bush's response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Many
column inches have already been devoted to Bush's first mistake, the
invasion of Baghdad. But his second error -- flooding the global economy
with trillions of dollars of cheap money -- has barely been acknowledged.
No other president has ever printed money and expanded the money supply
with such abandon as Bush. This new money -- and therein lies its danger --
was not backed by real value in the form of goods or services. The measure
may have had the desired effect -- the world economy revived, at least
initially. And US consumption kept the global economy going for years. But
the growth rates generated in the process were illusionary. The US had
begun to hallucinate.'
Lees verder: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-617224,00.html
Het Neoliberale Geloof 407
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH ECONOMIST JOSEPH STIGLITZ
Government Stimulus Plans are 'Not Enough'
Former World Bank economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz talks to
SPIEGEL about the danger of a new Great Depression, a way to reform the
American bailout system and struggling nations' urgent need for help.
SPIEGEL: Many people are comparing the financial crisis to the Great
Depression. Will it really be that bad?
Stiglitz: It's going to be bad, very bad. We're experiencing the worst
downturn since the Great Depression, and we haven't reached the bottom yet.
I'm very pessimistic. Governments are indeed reacting better today than
during the global economic crisis. They're lowering interest rates and
boosting the economy with economic stimulus plans. This is the right
direction, but it's not enough.
SPIEGEL: The American government has committed over a trillion dollars to
save the banks and $789 billion to boost the economy. Do you think this is
too little?
Stiglitz: I do. More than $700 billion sounds like a lot, but it's not. On
the one hand, a large part of the money will first be given out next year,
which is too late. On the other, a third of it is drained away by tax cuts.
They don't really stimulate consumption, because people will save the
majority of that money. I fear that the effect of the American economic
stimulus plan won't be even half as big as expected.
SPIEGEL: At least governments worldwide are bracing themselves against the
recession, as opposed to the global economic crisis where they accelerated
the recession through their savings policy.
Stiglitz: That's right. That's why I'm confident we'll get off lighter than
during the Great Depression. On the other hand, there's a series of
developments that make me very anxious. The state of our financial system,
for example, is worse than it was 80 years ago.
SPIEGEL: Hundreds of banks collapsed in the US at that time. Today most of
them are being saved by the government. What's so bad about that?
Stiglitz: The banks that survived 80 years ago continued to lend money.
Today many banks aren't lending money anymore, above all the large
investment banks. This will deepen the crisis.
SPIEGEL: The US government's emergency plan is supposed to prevent this,
though. The banks receive money from the state so they can continue to give
loans.
Stiglitz: That's the idea, but it doesn't work. We're just throwing money
at them and they pay billions of it out in bonuses and dividends. We
taxpayers are being robbed for all intents and purposes in order to reduce
the losses that some wealthy people bear. This has to be changed.
SPIEGEL: What do you suggest?
Stiglitz: We have to reorganize our bailout system for the financial
sector. For one thing, any bank that actually lends should get money from
the government; more money to small and medium-sized banks in smaller towns
and less to Wall Street institutions. The government must also accept the
consequences when banks become insolvent ...'
Lees verder: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,616743,00.html
Government Stimulus Plans are 'Not Enough'
Former World Bank economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz talks to
SPIEGEL about the danger of a new Great Depression, a way to reform the
American bailout system and struggling nations' urgent need for help.
SPIEGEL: Many people are comparing the financial crisis to the Great
Depression. Will it really be that bad?
Stiglitz: It's going to be bad, very bad. We're experiencing the worst
downturn since the Great Depression, and we haven't reached the bottom yet.
I'm very pessimistic. Governments are indeed reacting better today than
during the global economic crisis. They're lowering interest rates and
boosting the economy with economic stimulus plans. This is the right
direction, but it's not enough.
SPIEGEL: The American government has committed over a trillion dollars to
save the banks and $789 billion to boost the economy. Do you think this is
too little?
Stiglitz: I do. More than $700 billion sounds like a lot, but it's not. On
the one hand, a large part of the money will first be given out next year,
which is too late. On the other, a third of it is drained away by tax cuts.
They don't really stimulate consumption, because people will save the
majority of that money. I fear that the effect of the American economic
stimulus plan won't be even half as big as expected.
SPIEGEL: At least governments worldwide are bracing themselves against the
recession, as opposed to the global economic crisis where they accelerated
the recession through their savings policy.
Stiglitz: That's right. That's why I'm confident we'll get off lighter than
during the Great Depression. On the other hand, there's a series of
developments that make me very anxious. The state of our financial system,
for example, is worse than it was 80 years ago.
SPIEGEL: Hundreds of banks collapsed in the US at that time. Today most of
them are being saved by the government. What's so bad about that?
Stiglitz: The banks that survived 80 years ago continued to lend money.
Today many banks aren't lending money anymore, above all the large
investment banks. This will deepen the crisis.
SPIEGEL: The US government's emergency plan is supposed to prevent this,
though. The banks receive money from the state so they can continue to give
loans.
Stiglitz: That's the idea, but it doesn't work. We're just throwing money
at them and they pay billions of it out in bonuses and dividends. We
taxpayers are being robbed for all intents and purposes in order to reduce
the losses that some wealthy people bear. This has to be changed.
SPIEGEL: What do you suggest?
Stiglitz: We have to reorganize our bailout system for the financial
sector. For one thing, any bank that actually lends should get money from
the government; more money to small and medium-sized banks in smaller towns
and less to Wall Street institutions. The government must also accept the
consequences when banks become insolvent ...'
Lees verder: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,616743,00.html
Abonneren op:
Berichten (Atom)