OTTAWA–Opposition leaders are rejecting the government's pick of a new president to head Montreal's troubled Rights and Democracy, calling him a partisan choice that risks further upsetting the agency.
In a letter rejecting the choice of Gérard Latulippe, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff accused the Conservatives of trying to hijack arm's-length government agencies.
"Your government has demonstrated time and again that it aims to impose on our country's independent institutions the most extreme views espoused within your own political party," Ignatieff wrote.
"And when this approach is applied to an independent organization dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democracy, it is particularly offensive."
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon's pick of Latulippe was ostensibly meant to bring stability to the government-funded agency, which has been rocked by questions of funding, a revolt by staff against the Conservative-appointed board, and the suspension of senior employees.
But Latulippe's past political ties have only fed opposition suspicions that the government is trying to engineer a takeover at the independent rights agency, which has an $11 million budget to foster democracy and human rights around the globe.
Latulippe, currently the resident director for the National Democratic Institute in Haiti, was a one-time candidate for the defunct Canadian Alliance.
Latulippe was also an adviser to Stockwell Day when the Treasury Board president was Canadian Alliance leader.
He also served alongside Cannon when they were Quebec Liberal MNAs in the 1980s.
Ignatieff notes that Latulippe's resumé circulated to the opposition leaders seemed to omit the more partisan points of his career.
"It seems counterproductive, to say the least, to appoint as its president an individual like Mr. Latulippe who has such strong ties to the government and its ministers," he wrote.
Cannon had called Latulippe "exceptionally qualified" when he named him for the job Monday.
Ignatieff said Rights and Democracy deserves better, saying its reputation "has been seriously damaged by the current chaos that has befallen the organization."
In his letter to Cannon, NDP Leader Jack Layton urged the government to delay any appointment until after the agency's woes have been given a full hearing before the Commons foreign affairs committee.
"The problems relating to the board of directors of Rights and Democracy are complex and will not be adequately addressed by prematurely appointing Mr. Latulippe," Layton said.
The opposition objections can't legally block the appointment but would put the government in the position of defying their concerns – and convention – if it pushes ahead.
Related
* Memo provides insights on turmoil
* What were burglars looking for?
* Travers: Crisis born of broken pledge, shift in Mideast policy
* Siddiqui: PM's Gang of Seven provides a glimpse of Reform politics
* Rights agency probe urged
* Siddiqui: How the Harperites ambushed the rights agency
* Liberals, NDP failed to contest rights appointees, documents show
* Siddiqui: Harper remains silent on rights agency fiasco
* Editorial: Row over rights group
* Siddiqui: Stephen Harper's homegrown human rights problem
* Rights group rift turns ugly after tragedy
* Tory appointees 'unfit' for rights agency board, staff says
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Orca Resistance
Orca Resistance at Sea World
The Struggle of Nootka and Tilikum
By JASON HRIBAL
Editors' Note: Counterpunches can be landed in a variety of ways. In November 2006, Kasatka, the Sea World Orca, attempted to drown her trainer. Yesterday, it was Tilikum’s turn—killing his aquarium trainer. This fall, Fear of the Animal Planet: The Hidden History of Animal Resistance, will be published by AK Press/CounterPunch Books. Below is a poignant excerpt from the book, which details the decades long struggle of two notable orcas: Nootka and Tilikum.
--AC / JSC
It was the first time that a trainer had ever been killed by a group of captive killer whales. There had been previous attempts, a great many actually. But the trainers involved, whether through rescue by other employees or a stroke of luck on their part, had always managed to survive. This attack, however, proved to be different and fatal. It occurred on February 21, 1991 at Sealand of the Pacific.
That day’s final performance had just ended at the Victoria, British Columbia based aquarium and the audience was pleased. They got to watch three killer whales, Nootka, Haida, and Tilikum, perform tricks, including one trick wherein a young female trainer rode on the back of one of these great sea mammals. It seemed to be wonderful fun—that is, until that particular female trainer fell into the water. As she attempted to climb out, an orca latched on to her. “The whale got her foot,” an audience member recalled to reporters, “and pulled her in.” We do not know which orca it was that started it, but all three, Nootka, Haida, and Tilikum, took their turns dunking the screaming woman underwater. “She went up and down three times,” another visitor continued. The Sealand employees “almost got her once with the hook pole, but they couldn’t because the whales were moving so fast.” One trainer tossed out a floatation ring, but the whales would not let her grab it. In fact, the closer that such devices got to the young woman, the further out the whales pulled her into the pool. It took park officials two hours to recover her drowned body.
Responding to the death, Sealand dismissed any claims that the whales had hurt the woman on purpose. “It was just a tragic accident,” the park manager lamented. “I just can’t explain it.” A few of the trainers speculated that Nootka, Haida, and Tilikum might have been playing “a game” that simply went wrong, and their coworker was mistakenly killed in the process. There was, however, precedent for a different interpretation.
In 1989, there had been two violent incidences involving Nootka. The first occurred in April. A trainer was in the middle of a routine activity, scratching the orca’s tongue, when that orca decided to turn the tables. Nootka “bit her hand and dragged her into the whale pool.” The woman had to be rescued by a fellow employee. Sealand, for its part, chose not to notify the authorities or the press. It believed that, although the trainer received lacerations and needed stitches, Nootka did not really intend to bite the person, and the situation remained in control. The trainer thought differently. Citing “unsafe conditions,” she quit her job.
Nootka struck again later that year. A tourist was taking pictures, when he accidentally dropped his camera in the water. The orca quickly noticed the object and put it into her mouth. When a trainer tried to retrieve the camera, Nootka used the opportunity to grab a hold of the man’s leg and jerk him into the pool. The trainer had to be rescued. Sealand administrators chose, once again, to deny that there was intentionality behind Nootka’s actions. No one needed to know about this incidence. Nevertheless, more trainers did resign their positions. Nootka, they believed, was purposeful and dangerous in her actions.
Elsewhere in Canada, other theme parks were having their own troubles. About a decade earlier, the Vancouver Aquarium had its hands full with Skana and Hyak. Both orcas were described by their trainer as “moody.” Working with the former was particularly precarious, as the female whale could switch from an obedient disposition to a rebellious one “in minutes.” “Skana once showed her dislike,” a Vancouver employee explained, “by dragging a trainer around the pool.” “Her teeth sank into his wetsuit but missed the leg.”
For Marineland, near picturesque Niagara Falls, it was the same but only with a different pair of whales. There was Kandu. She once yanked a trainer around the pool by the leg after the man fell off his back during a stunt. The employee was sent immediately to the hospital and a pale audience stumbled out of the stadium in disbelief. Than there was Nootka, a similarly named but all together unrelated orca to the one at Sealand. During a mid-1980s performance, she struck a trainer in the head with her pectoral fin. Aquarium administrators pronounced that it was an accident. Her trainers knew better. As one of them disclosed, Nootka often leapt out of the water in order to punch her trainers directly in the chest. She wanted to hurt people.
Interestingly, to date, there have been a total of five orcas named Nootka. Sea World had one. Marineland had another. And Sealand actually had the other three. Its first was captured in 1973 off the western Canadian coast. She died after nine months. Sealand tried again in 1975 with another female brought from the same waters. She did not fair any better and died within the year. Less than a decade later, Sealand decided to make one more attempt and flew in a young Icelandic female. She, miraculously, survived. Indeed, the average life expectancy during this era for captive orcas stood between one to four years. Aquariums often went through a whole series of whales before just one of them made it into adolescence. Today, that life expectancy has improved: rising to about ten years. Yet it is still a far cry from the thirty to sixty years that orcas can live in the ocean.
Sea World, for instance, has had fifty-one Shamus. The original was captured in 1965, after animal collector Ted Griffin harpooned the calf’s mother in Puget Sound. Betting with the odds, Sea World would only lease the animal at first. Who knows how long she would last? But, when the young orca made it through the year, the park bought her outright for $100,000. Sea World made Shamu the central figure in its operations. All marketing from this point forward was geared towards her. There would be Shamu commercials. There would be Shamu shows. There would be Shamu dolls and t-shirts. Shamu became, in the words of one director, the park’s “Mickey Mouse.” This orca did, however, have the power to disrupt these well-laid plans.
In 1971, during a publicity stunt, Shamu was being filmed with bikini-clad women riding on her back. Suddenly, she tossed the woman off and began dunking the person underwater. There were two divers in the small pool, but Shamu shrugged them off like little insects. The chaotic scene continued for a few minutes: a hysterical woman, divers tumbling in the wake, and trainers at the poolside desperately holding out poles. The individual would, eventually, be rescued. But the deed was done and the images made the local news. Shamu, apparent to all, was not near as friendly or cooperative as the amusement park would have liked us to believe. Sea World had its first major incident. At the end of the day, though, the orca’s actions were not enough to bring down the park. Operations would continue and, fifty-one Shamus later, Sea World has thrived. It has become a flagship vacation destination with three current locations: San Diego, Orlando, and San Antonio. They have hotels, restaurants, roller coasters, merchandise, and special events. They have adventure camps for grade school and high school students. They have a multitude of animal exhibitions and performances. They have extensive breeding and research programs. Shamu has made Sea World’s owners very rich.
Back at Sealand, the situation was not as rosy. The attack by Nootka, Haida, and Tilikum left the park in a public relations freefall. Administrators promised changes. New safety procedures would be initiated. Physical contact between the trainers and whales will no longer be allowed. Guardrails will be installed along the poolside to prevent slips or bites. But the public pressure would not let up. Between the daily protests at the park’s front gates, national demands that the orcas be released back to the ocean, and the city council’s entrance into the debate, Sealand’s will crumbled. In August of 1991, the park reached a startling decision. “After a lot of thought and discussion,” the director clarified, “it was decided killer whales should be phased out.” Less than one year later, Sealand shut down its entire operations. The twenty-nine year old institution had closed permanently.
The three whales, including Haida’s newborn calf, were sold to Sea World for five million dollars. The decision was made in secret, and the export permits were granted behind closed doors. The public at-large was not allowed into the conversation. Tilikum was shipped out under the cover of the night to Orlando, where he still resides. Nootka would soon follow him. She died in 1994 at the age of thirteen. Haida and her calf, Ky, went to San Antonio. Three years after the death of his mother in 2001, Ky made news of his own. That July, during a performance in front a thousand people, the orca jumped on top of his trainer and repeatedly pushed the man underwater. Sea World, afterwards, tried to pass the incident off as rough play, saying that at no time was the trainer in danger. Witnesses did not buy it. As one of them explained, “the whale was staying between the [exit] ramp and the trainer and finally the trainer jumped on top of the whale's back and leaped over him and another trainer caught him.” At that point, “the whale turned around and slammed down on the ramp and he was pretty upset that the trainer got out of the pool.” Yesterday, the trainer did not escape.
Jason Hribal is the co-author of The Cry of Nature: an Appeal for Mercy on Behalf of Persecuted Animals. His new book, Fear of the Animal Planet, will be published this fall by AK Press / CounterPunch Books.
He can be reached at: jasonchribal@yahoo.com
source
The Struggle of Nootka and Tilikum
By JASON HRIBAL
Editors' Note: Counterpunches can be landed in a variety of ways. In November 2006, Kasatka, the Sea World Orca, attempted to drown her trainer. Yesterday, it was Tilikum’s turn—killing his aquarium trainer. This fall, Fear of the Animal Planet: The Hidden History of Animal Resistance, will be published by AK Press/CounterPunch Books. Below is a poignant excerpt from the book, which details the decades long struggle of two notable orcas: Nootka and Tilikum.
--AC / JSC
It was the first time that a trainer had ever been killed by a group of captive killer whales. There had been previous attempts, a great many actually. But the trainers involved, whether through rescue by other employees or a stroke of luck on their part, had always managed to survive. This attack, however, proved to be different and fatal. It occurred on February 21, 1991 at Sealand of the Pacific.
That day’s final performance had just ended at the Victoria, British Columbia based aquarium and the audience was pleased. They got to watch three killer whales, Nootka, Haida, and Tilikum, perform tricks, including one trick wherein a young female trainer rode on the back of one of these great sea mammals. It seemed to be wonderful fun—that is, until that particular female trainer fell into the water. As she attempted to climb out, an orca latched on to her. “The whale got her foot,” an audience member recalled to reporters, “and pulled her in.” We do not know which orca it was that started it, but all three, Nootka, Haida, and Tilikum, took their turns dunking the screaming woman underwater. “She went up and down three times,” another visitor continued. The Sealand employees “almost got her once with the hook pole, but they couldn’t because the whales were moving so fast.” One trainer tossed out a floatation ring, but the whales would not let her grab it. In fact, the closer that such devices got to the young woman, the further out the whales pulled her into the pool. It took park officials two hours to recover her drowned body.
Responding to the death, Sealand dismissed any claims that the whales had hurt the woman on purpose. “It was just a tragic accident,” the park manager lamented. “I just can’t explain it.” A few of the trainers speculated that Nootka, Haida, and Tilikum might have been playing “a game” that simply went wrong, and their coworker was mistakenly killed in the process. There was, however, precedent for a different interpretation.
In 1989, there had been two violent incidences involving Nootka. The first occurred in April. A trainer was in the middle of a routine activity, scratching the orca’s tongue, when that orca decided to turn the tables. Nootka “bit her hand and dragged her into the whale pool.” The woman had to be rescued by a fellow employee. Sealand, for its part, chose not to notify the authorities or the press. It believed that, although the trainer received lacerations and needed stitches, Nootka did not really intend to bite the person, and the situation remained in control. The trainer thought differently. Citing “unsafe conditions,” she quit her job.
Nootka struck again later that year. A tourist was taking pictures, when he accidentally dropped his camera in the water. The orca quickly noticed the object and put it into her mouth. When a trainer tried to retrieve the camera, Nootka used the opportunity to grab a hold of the man’s leg and jerk him into the pool. The trainer had to be rescued. Sealand administrators chose, once again, to deny that there was intentionality behind Nootka’s actions. No one needed to know about this incidence. Nevertheless, more trainers did resign their positions. Nootka, they believed, was purposeful and dangerous in her actions.
Elsewhere in Canada, other theme parks were having their own troubles. About a decade earlier, the Vancouver Aquarium had its hands full with Skana and Hyak. Both orcas were described by their trainer as “moody.” Working with the former was particularly precarious, as the female whale could switch from an obedient disposition to a rebellious one “in minutes.” “Skana once showed her dislike,” a Vancouver employee explained, “by dragging a trainer around the pool.” “Her teeth sank into his wetsuit but missed the leg.”
For Marineland, near picturesque Niagara Falls, it was the same but only with a different pair of whales. There was Kandu. She once yanked a trainer around the pool by the leg after the man fell off his back during a stunt. The employee was sent immediately to the hospital and a pale audience stumbled out of the stadium in disbelief. Than there was Nootka, a similarly named but all together unrelated orca to the one at Sealand. During a mid-1980s performance, she struck a trainer in the head with her pectoral fin. Aquarium administrators pronounced that it was an accident. Her trainers knew better. As one of them disclosed, Nootka often leapt out of the water in order to punch her trainers directly in the chest. She wanted to hurt people.
Interestingly, to date, there have been a total of five orcas named Nootka. Sea World had one. Marineland had another. And Sealand actually had the other three. Its first was captured in 1973 off the western Canadian coast. She died after nine months. Sealand tried again in 1975 with another female brought from the same waters. She did not fair any better and died within the year. Less than a decade later, Sealand decided to make one more attempt and flew in a young Icelandic female. She, miraculously, survived. Indeed, the average life expectancy during this era for captive orcas stood between one to four years. Aquariums often went through a whole series of whales before just one of them made it into adolescence. Today, that life expectancy has improved: rising to about ten years. Yet it is still a far cry from the thirty to sixty years that orcas can live in the ocean.
Sea World, for instance, has had fifty-one Shamus. The original was captured in 1965, after animal collector Ted Griffin harpooned the calf’s mother in Puget Sound. Betting with the odds, Sea World would only lease the animal at first. Who knows how long she would last? But, when the young orca made it through the year, the park bought her outright for $100,000. Sea World made Shamu the central figure in its operations. All marketing from this point forward was geared towards her. There would be Shamu commercials. There would be Shamu shows. There would be Shamu dolls and t-shirts. Shamu became, in the words of one director, the park’s “Mickey Mouse.” This orca did, however, have the power to disrupt these well-laid plans.
In 1971, during a publicity stunt, Shamu was being filmed with bikini-clad women riding on her back. Suddenly, she tossed the woman off and began dunking the person underwater. There were two divers in the small pool, but Shamu shrugged them off like little insects. The chaotic scene continued for a few minutes: a hysterical woman, divers tumbling in the wake, and trainers at the poolside desperately holding out poles. The individual would, eventually, be rescued. But the deed was done and the images made the local news. Shamu, apparent to all, was not near as friendly or cooperative as the amusement park would have liked us to believe. Sea World had its first major incident. At the end of the day, though, the orca’s actions were not enough to bring down the park. Operations would continue and, fifty-one Shamus later, Sea World has thrived. It has become a flagship vacation destination with three current locations: San Diego, Orlando, and San Antonio. They have hotels, restaurants, roller coasters, merchandise, and special events. They have adventure camps for grade school and high school students. They have a multitude of animal exhibitions and performances. They have extensive breeding and research programs. Shamu has made Sea World’s owners very rich.
Back at Sealand, the situation was not as rosy. The attack by Nootka, Haida, and Tilikum left the park in a public relations freefall. Administrators promised changes. New safety procedures would be initiated. Physical contact between the trainers and whales will no longer be allowed. Guardrails will be installed along the poolside to prevent slips or bites. But the public pressure would not let up. Between the daily protests at the park’s front gates, national demands that the orcas be released back to the ocean, and the city council’s entrance into the debate, Sealand’s will crumbled. In August of 1991, the park reached a startling decision. “After a lot of thought and discussion,” the director clarified, “it was decided killer whales should be phased out.” Less than one year later, Sealand shut down its entire operations. The twenty-nine year old institution had closed permanently.
The three whales, including Haida’s newborn calf, were sold to Sea World for five million dollars. The decision was made in secret, and the export permits were granted behind closed doors. The public at-large was not allowed into the conversation. Tilikum was shipped out under the cover of the night to Orlando, where he still resides. Nootka would soon follow him. She died in 1994 at the age of thirteen. Haida and her calf, Ky, went to San Antonio. Three years after the death of his mother in 2001, Ky made news of his own. That July, during a performance in front a thousand people, the orca jumped on top of his trainer and repeatedly pushed the man underwater. Sea World, afterwards, tried to pass the incident off as rough play, saying that at no time was the trainer in danger. Witnesses did not buy it. As one of them explained, “the whale was staying between the [exit] ramp and the trainer and finally the trainer jumped on top of the whale's back and leaped over him and another trainer caught him.” At that point, “the whale turned around and slammed down on the ramp and he was pretty upset that the trainer got out of the pool.” Yesterday, the trainer did not escape.
Jason Hribal is the co-author of The Cry of Nature: an Appeal for Mercy on Behalf of Persecuted Animals. His new book, Fear of the Animal Planet, will be published this fall by AK Press / CounterPunch Books.
He can be reached at: jasonchribal@yahoo.com
source
Canadian Commander says Kandahar Operation Will Mimic Marjah
Despite Taliban activity in Helmand, NATO won't alter Kandahar plans
During a medevac mission in Marjah, Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers prepare to use a backboard to extricate a wounded Marine from inside an armored vehicle disabled minutes earlier by a planted improvised explosive device, on Feb. 23, 2010.
Publicity meant to prepare civilians for large-scale attack has given insurgents time to plant makeshift bombs in the hundreds, Canadian commander says
Josh Wingrove
Kandahar, Afghanistan — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010 7:22PM EST Last updated on Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010 9:25AM EST
Although the publicity-heavy military strategy NATO adopted ahead of its ongoing offensive in Helmand province allowed the Taliban time to plant “hundreds” of makeshift bombs that are slowing troop progress, a similar operation planned in Canadian-led Kandahar province will largely use the same tactic, its commander says.
The Canadian commander of the coalition's Task Force Kandahar, Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard, said troops in Helmand have come across about 400 or 500 of the improvised explosive devices in 10 days since the start of the big attack, dubbed Operation Moshtarak.
“The IED capability of the insurgents remains very real,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said, hours after the coalition declared in a statement that the improvise explosive devices “remain the greatest threat to security forces.”
Asked about comments from another regional commander, who said last week that IED finds were only in the “dozens,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said they were “for sure” in the hundreds. The result was not unexpected, and has not swayed Brig-Gen. Ménard, who suggested the soldiers in Kandahar – including the bulk of the Canadian troops in the country – will be able to learn from what their peers have seen in Helmand.
“It just confirms that [the Taliban's] tactics and their procedures have not actually changed that much. They're improving, they're very agile, very agile. But we are also very agile because we are learning from every time we find something. It's as simple as this,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said.
A day earlier, United States Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said IEDs have “been a real challenge,” slowing down American-led troops in Helmand province.
“By all accounts, the Taliban's resistance has been, at best, disjointed, but we have experienced difficulties. In some places the enemy fights harder than expected. The IEDs he has planted along the roads and at intersections, though crude, are still deadly,” Adm. Mullen said.
If the coalition goes ahead with the same game plan this summer in Kandahar, which has been made possible by the arrival of additional American soldiers, it will also include an emphasis on Afghan participation and an effort to limit civilian deaths.
Brig.-Gen. Ménard said Operation Moshtarak's civilian death toll – at least 16 killed according to the coalition, with human rights groups pegging it around two dozen – is “not bad” considering the scale of the operation, adding “one [civilian death] is too many, that I agree 100 per cent,” he said.
“But when you actually fight where the population is, the chances are that there could be some collateral damage. When you have [thousands of] troops coming down and conducting an operation like we have seen, with the number of civilian casualties we have seen, it's not bad,” he said.
“When you have a motorcycle that is driving towards you, and you actually make the sign to stop and suddenly he doesn't stop... even if he doesn't carry any [bombs], you don't know,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said.
“These are things that are happening all the time.”
Kandahar's massive operation this spring will use “a lot of checks and balances” to minimize civilian deaths, he said.
Public perception of Operation Moshtarak has been plagued by a spike in unrelated civilian deaths across the region, which damper claims that the new attack is meant to protect the Afghan people. The most recent unrelated incident came in Uruzgan province Monday, when as many as 27 civilians were killed by a NATO air strike meant for a group of insurgents.
The commander also said the recent arrests of high-profile Taliban leaders in Pakistan may only make a short-term difference for coalition soldiers. The arrests of Taliban second-in-command Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and eastern Afghanistan insurgency commander Maulavi Abdul Kabir will only “have a limited impact in time and space” before “the vacuum gets filled rapidly,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said.
But, replacement commanders with less “experience and credibility” could ultimately dilute the power structure of the Taliban, working in the favour of coalition forces, he added.
“The problem for them is that the quality of the individuals that they replace them with always degrades,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said. “Yes, they are replaced, but it is certainly hurting them in a big way. So, by default, it's helping all of us.”
He offered scant new details of his summer operation in Kandahar, which has been publicized with a May start date and is made possible by the arrival of additional American troops. Brig.-Gen. Ménard said those extra soldiers will allow the coalition to dictate the terms of fighting with insurgents, who typically return from Pakistan once the weather is warmer, leading to increased fighting.
“We will be this year, for the first time I believe, in a very proactive [role]. We will decide where we will fight them, and when. And that is something where we've not had a chance in the past to do, because we just did not have enough troops to do it. Now that we have a lot of troops, we are in a position to dominate this ground and area,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said.
Kandahar's governor has said he is already preparing to roll out government services in areas that are cleared of insurgents.
Brig.-Gen. Ménard also said that such “preparation with the Afghans remains essential” and a “key to success” in the region.
During a medevac mission in Marjah, Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers prepare to use a backboard to extricate a wounded Marine from inside an armored vehicle disabled minutes earlier by a planted improvised explosive device, on Feb. 23, 2010.
Publicity meant to prepare civilians for large-scale attack has given insurgents time to plant makeshift bombs in the hundreds, Canadian commander says
Josh Wingrove
Kandahar, Afghanistan — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010 7:22PM EST Last updated on Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010 9:25AM EST
Although the publicity-heavy military strategy NATO adopted ahead of its ongoing offensive in Helmand province allowed the Taliban time to plant “hundreds” of makeshift bombs that are slowing troop progress, a similar operation planned in Canadian-led Kandahar province will largely use the same tactic, its commander says.
The Canadian commander of the coalition's Task Force Kandahar, Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard, said troops in Helmand have come across about 400 or 500 of the improvised explosive devices in 10 days since the start of the big attack, dubbed Operation Moshtarak.
“The IED capability of the insurgents remains very real,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said, hours after the coalition declared in a statement that the improvise explosive devices “remain the greatest threat to security forces.”
Asked about comments from another regional commander, who said last week that IED finds were only in the “dozens,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said they were “for sure” in the hundreds. The result was not unexpected, and has not swayed Brig-Gen. Ménard, who suggested the soldiers in Kandahar – including the bulk of the Canadian troops in the country – will be able to learn from what their peers have seen in Helmand.
“It just confirms that [the Taliban's] tactics and their procedures have not actually changed that much. They're improving, they're very agile, very agile. But we are also very agile because we are learning from every time we find something. It's as simple as this,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said.
A day earlier, United States Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said IEDs have “been a real challenge,” slowing down American-led troops in Helmand province.
“By all accounts, the Taliban's resistance has been, at best, disjointed, but we have experienced difficulties. In some places the enemy fights harder than expected. The IEDs he has planted along the roads and at intersections, though crude, are still deadly,” Adm. Mullen said.
If the coalition goes ahead with the same game plan this summer in Kandahar, which has been made possible by the arrival of additional American soldiers, it will also include an emphasis on Afghan participation and an effort to limit civilian deaths.
Brig.-Gen. Ménard said Operation Moshtarak's civilian death toll – at least 16 killed according to the coalition, with human rights groups pegging it around two dozen – is “not bad” considering the scale of the operation, adding “one [civilian death] is too many, that I agree 100 per cent,” he said.
“But when you actually fight where the population is, the chances are that there could be some collateral damage. When you have [thousands of] troops coming down and conducting an operation like we have seen, with the number of civilian casualties we have seen, it's not bad,” he said.
“When you have a motorcycle that is driving towards you, and you actually make the sign to stop and suddenly he doesn't stop... even if he doesn't carry any [bombs], you don't know,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said.
“These are things that are happening all the time.”
Kandahar's massive operation this spring will use “a lot of checks and balances” to minimize civilian deaths, he said.
Public perception of Operation Moshtarak has been plagued by a spike in unrelated civilian deaths across the region, which damper claims that the new attack is meant to protect the Afghan people. The most recent unrelated incident came in Uruzgan province Monday, when as many as 27 civilians were killed by a NATO air strike meant for a group of insurgents.
The commander also said the recent arrests of high-profile Taliban leaders in Pakistan may only make a short-term difference for coalition soldiers. The arrests of Taliban second-in-command Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and eastern Afghanistan insurgency commander Maulavi Abdul Kabir will only “have a limited impact in time and space” before “the vacuum gets filled rapidly,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said.
But, replacement commanders with less “experience and credibility” could ultimately dilute the power structure of the Taliban, working in the favour of coalition forces, he added.
“The problem for them is that the quality of the individuals that they replace them with always degrades,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said. “Yes, they are replaced, but it is certainly hurting them in a big way. So, by default, it's helping all of us.”
He offered scant new details of his summer operation in Kandahar, which has been publicized with a May start date and is made possible by the arrival of additional American troops. Brig.-Gen. Ménard said those extra soldiers will allow the coalition to dictate the terms of fighting with insurgents, who typically return from Pakistan once the weather is warmer, leading to increased fighting.
“We will be this year, for the first time I believe, in a very proactive [role]. We will decide where we will fight them, and when. And that is something where we've not had a chance in the past to do, because we just did not have enough troops to do it. Now that we have a lot of troops, we are in a position to dominate this ground and area,” Brig.-Gen. Ménard said.
Kandahar's governor has said he is already preparing to roll out government services in areas that are cleared of insurgents.
Brig.-Gen. Ménard also said that such “preparation with the Afghans remains essential” and a “key to success” in the region.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Clown Assassins
Gwynne Dyer: Mossad's latest blunder
Everybody assumes that Mossad, the Israeli foreign intelligence service, carried out the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior Hamas commander, in Dubai last month.
The Israeli government will neither confirm nor deny it, but the average Israeli citizen is sure of it, and quite pleased by it. After all, who else was going to go after him?
Well, theoretically it could have been the rival Palestinian political organization, Fatah, which has been more or less at war with Hamas for almost three years now. (Fatah runs the West Bank; Hamas controls the Gaza Strip.)
Proponents of this theory argue that the Dubai hit was too clumsy and sloppy to have been a Mossad operation.
Would any serious spy agency put 11 people on a hit team? Why would seven of them be travelling on British passports borrowed or stolen from British-Israeli dual citizens resident in Israel? Would they let themselves be caught repeatedly on video surveillance cameras as they set up the killing? This was just not a professional operation.
It certainly was amateur night in Dubai, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mossad was not behind it. The Institute for Espionage and Special Operations, to give its proper name, may be “legendary”, but some of its past operations have been anything but professional. Take the case of the Norwegian waiter.
In the 20 years after Palestinian terrorists massacred eleven Israeli athletes and coaches at the Munich Olympics in 1972, Mossad killed more than a dozen people it suspected of involvement in the operation. Most of them had some link to it, but Ahmed Bouchiki had none at all.
Bouchiki was a Moroccan immigrant to Norway who worked in a restaurant in Lillehammer. Mossad mistakenly thought he was Ali Hassan Salameh, the planner of the Munich atrocity, so an Israeli hit team murdered him as he walked home with his pregnant wife.
But the two killers committed the elementary error of driving to the airport 24 hours later in the same car they had used for the getaway (which had been spotted by the police).
They were arrested, and the woman of the pair broke down and confessed that they were working for Israel. The man had a telephone number on him which led the police to the safe house where the other three members of the team were staying. One of them had a list of instructions from Mossad on him, and they all ended up in Norwegian jails. Amateur night again.
Or take the Mossad attempt in 1997 to kill Hamas’s political chief, Khaled Meshaal. It happened in Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel, but the Mossad assassins travelled there on Canadian passports borrowed from Canadian-Israeli residents with dual citizenship.
They broke into the building where Meshaal was sleeping and injected poison into his ear, but two were captured by Jordanian police and the other four took refuge in the Israeli embassy.
Jordan’s outraged King Hussein demanded the antidote to the poison, and the Israeli government reluctantly handed it over. In response to Canada’s furious protests about the use of its passports, Israel promised never to do that again. Just as it promised Britain in 1987, and New Zealand in 2004.
This time the hit team, though ridiculously large, was less incompetent: the victim died, and they all got out of Dubai safely. The fact that they left enough evidence behind for the Dubai police to figure out what happened does not exclude Mossad from consideration: it has bungled operations before.
The Dubai police say they are now “99 percent if not 100 percent sure” that Mossad was behind the murder, and most Western governments assume the same.
Four Western governments are especially angry: Britain, France, Germany and Ireland, whose passports were used in the operation. Israel will doubtless promise once more never to do that again, and the fuss will eventually die down.
The Dubai police chief, Lt.-Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim, has asked Interpol for a “red notice” on Mossad head Meir Dagan, the usual preliminary to an arrest warrant, but Dagan need not stay awake worrying about it. What should be causing him sleepless nights is the fact that all these killings are counter-productive.
Killing off the leaders of Hamas—and of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia resistance movement—does not improve Israel’s security. For example, it assassinated Hezbollah’s leader, Abbas al-Musawi, in 1992, and got the far more formidable Hassan Nasrallah as his successor.
It also got the revenge bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina, which killed 29 and wounded 242.
The leaders who get killed are replaced by others of equal competence, the cycle of revenge gets another push, and Israel’s reputation as a responsible state takes another beating. True, Israel does nothing that the United States, Russia and several other great powers have not done when fighting insurgencies, but they are shielded by their great-power status. Like it or not, there is one law for the great powers and another for the others.
Smaller countries are expected to obey the rules. Many Israelis think they don't need to worry about this because everyone hates them anyway, but the wiser ones realise that the state’s security and prosperity still depend heavily on the goodwill of Western countries. Actions like the Dubai operation, when they become public, erode that goodwill. But the wiser Israelis are not currently in the majority.
Everybody assumes that Mossad, the Israeli foreign intelligence service, carried out the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior Hamas commander, in Dubai last month.
The Israeli government will neither confirm nor deny it, but the average Israeli citizen is sure of it, and quite pleased by it. After all, who else was going to go after him?
Well, theoretically it could have been the rival Palestinian political organization, Fatah, which has been more or less at war with Hamas for almost three years now. (Fatah runs the West Bank; Hamas controls the Gaza Strip.)
Proponents of this theory argue that the Dubai hit was too clumsy and sloppy to have been a Mossad operation.
Would any serious spy agency put 11 people on a hit team? Why would seven of them be travelling on British passports borrowed or stolen from British-Israeli dual citizens resident in Israel? Would they let themselves be caught repeatedly on video surveillance cameras as they set up the killing? This was just not a professional operation.
It certainly was amateur night in Dubai, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mossad was not behind it. The Institute for Espionage and Special Operations, to give its proper name, may be “legendary”, but some of its past operations have been anything but professional. Take the case of the Norwegian waiter.
In the 20 years after Palestinian terrorists massacred eleven Israeli athletes and coaches at the Munich Olympics in 1972, Mossad killed more than a dozen people it suspected of involvement in the operation. Most of them had some link to it, but Ahmed Bouchiki had none at all.
Bouchiki was a Moroccan immigrant to Norway who worked in a restaurant in Lillehammer. Mossad mistakenly thought he was Ali Hassan Salameh, the planner of the Munich atrocity, so an Israeli hit team murdered him as he walked home with his pregnant wife.
But the two killers committed the elementary error of driving to the airport 24 hours later in the same car they had used for the getaway (which had been spotted by the police).
They were arrested, and the woman of the pair broke down and confessed that they were working for Israel. The man had a telephone number on him which led the police to the safe house where the other three members of the team were staying. One of them had a list of instructions from Mossad on him, and they all ended up in Norwegian jails. Amateur night again.
Or take the Mossad attempt in 1997 to kill Hamas’s political chief, Khaled Meshaal. It happened in Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel, but the Mossad assassins travelled there on Canadian passports borrowed from Canadian-Israeli residents with dual citizenship.
They broke into the building where Meshaal was sleeping and injected poison into his ear, but two were captured by Jordanian police and the other four took refuge in the Israeli embassy.
Jordan’s outraged King Hussein demanded the antidote to the poison, and the Israeli government reluctantly handed it over. In response to Canada’s furious protests about the use of its passports, Israel promised never to do that again. Just as it promised Britain in 1987, and New Zealand in 2004.
This time the hit team, though ridiculously large, was less incompetent: the victim died, and they all got out of Dubai safely. The fact that they left enough evidence behind for the Dubai police to figure out what happened does not exclude Mossad from consideration: it has bungled operations before.
The Dubai police say they are now “99 percent if not 100 percent sure” that Mossad was behind the murder, and most Western governments assume the same.
Four Western governments are especially angry: Britain, France, Germany and Ireland, whose passports were used in the operation. Israel will doubtless promise once more never to do that again, and the fuss will eventually die down.
The Dubai police chief, Lt.-Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim, has asked Interpol for a “red notice” on Mossad head Meir Dagan, the usual preliminary to an arrest warrant, but Dagan need not stay awake worrying about it. What should be causing him sleepless nights is the fact that all these killings are counter-productive.
Killing off the leaders of Hamas—and of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia resistance movement—does not improve Israel’s security. For example, it assassinated Hezbollah’s leader, Abbas al-Musawi, in 1992, and got the far more formidable Hassan Nasrallah as his successor.
It also got the revenge bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina, which killed 29 and wounded 242.
The leaders who get killed are replaced by others of equal competence, the cycle of revenge gets another push, and Israel’s reputation as a responsible state takes another beating. True, Israel does nothing that the United States, Russia and several other great powers have not done when fighting insurgencies, but they are shielded by their great-power status. Like it or not, there is one law for the great powers and another for the others.
Smaller countries are expected to obey the rules. Many Israelis think they don't need to worry about this because everyone hates them anyway, but the wiser ones realise that the state’s security and prosperity still depend heavily on the goodwill of Western countries. Actions like the Dubai operation, when they become public, erode that goodwill. But the wiser Israelis are not currently in the majority.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Abominable Mr. Brown
Gordon Brown criticised by anti-bullying chief
The row over Gordon Brown’s treatment of his staff has deepened after an anti-bullying charity said several Downing Street employees had called its helpline seeking advice and counselling.
Christine Pratt, founder of the National Bullying Hotline, claimed the charity had received "three or four" calls in recent months from staff in the Prime Minister’s office.
She said she had personally spoken to at least one of the callers, who complained of a "bullying culture" at Downing Street and of the "stress" it caused.
Mrs Pratt added that she was "appalled" by No 10’s "outright denial" of the allegations and insisted they should be investigated as the Government’s attempt to dismiss the claims would only "compound the stress of those who believe they are being bullied".
Her extraordinary intervention came after senior ministers tried to counter damaging allegations about Mr Brown’s behaviour and treatment of his staff in a new book.
The book, by the respected a political commentator Andrew Rawnsley, suggested that the Prime Minister’s volatile temper, his allegedly foul-mouthed abuse of staff and outbreaks of physical violence had left No 10 civil servants and aides suffering a culture of fear and intimidation.
Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, led the Downing Street attempt to rebuff the allegations. He insisted that the Prime Minister was not a bully, and that he was only "inpatient" and "demanding" of his staff.
However, the public relations counter-offensive was derailed by Mrs Pratt, who disclosed that several Downing Street staff had sought confidential help from her charity.
The Conservatives said the disclosure suggested a "Government cover-up" over Mr Brown’s behaviour.
The row comes only days after Mr Brown attempted to make his character an asset in the general election with an emotional ITV interview, in which he discussed his children and his marriage at length.
It also overshadows the launch of Labour’s general election campaign on Saturday, where Mr Brown had asked voters to "take a second look" at him and his party.
In denying the bullying claims yesterday, ministers attempted to make a virtue of the Prime Minister’s personality, but Mrs Pratt undermined that strategy when she claimed she had personally spoken to No 10 staff about bullying in his office.
"Staff in his office, working directly with him, have issues and have concerns and have contacted our helpline," she said. "Some have downloaded information; some have actually called our helpline directly and I have spoken to staff in his office."
She added: "I have personally taken a call from staff in the Prime Minister’s office, staff who believe they are working in a bullying culture and that it has caused them some stress.
"We would have hoped Gordon Brown would lead by example. If an employer receives complaints they should investigate.
"I am not saying Gordon Brown is a bully, I am not a judge. But I am appalled at the outright denial that is going on without due process being followed."
In all, there had been "three or four" calls from No 10 staff to the helpline, she said.
Mrs Pratt later told The Daily Telegraph that by dismissing the reports of bullying, No 10 could be breaching employment law.
"If an employer receives any allegation that there is a culture of bullying or stress, they have a legal obligation to investigate, a duty of care to employees. It appears that due process is not being followed here," she explained.
A Downing Street spokesman was unable to comment last night on a separate report that one member of the Downing Street staff was currently on stress-related sick leave.
Many of yesterday’s revelations about Mr Brown’s behaviour had been rumoured at Westminster for several years, but they were formally published for the first time in a book by Mr Rawnsley, serialised in a Sunday newspaper.
The book alleged that on several occasions, Mr Brown’s anger had led to physical violence against Downing Street staff.
The book also claimed that Mr Brown’s treatment of Downing Street officials was so bad that Sir Gus O’Donnell, the head of the Civil Service, felt moved to investigate the concerns of staff members.
It was reported that having heard from several "frightened" and "bruised" officials, Sir Gus privately raised Mr Brown’s conduct with the Prime Minister, telling him: "This is no way to get things done." Mr Rawnsley said he based his report on the eyewitness accounts of many officials and politicians.
No 10 denied there had been any incidents of violence against staff and described the allegations as "malicious."
However, it did not challenge the wider picture of Mr Brown’s character and temperament.
Ministers said Mr Brown’s occasional outbursts and impatience were merely proof of his driven nature and his determination to do a good job.
Lord Mandelson said of the Prime Minister: "He does not like taking no for an answer from anyone. He will go on and on until he’s got a policy or an idea in the best possible form. Yes there is there is a degree of impatience about the man." But he insisted: "He doesn’t bully people".
In a statement last night, No 10 said: "At no time has the National Bullying Helpline contacted No 10 about these allegations. We have rigorous, well established procedures in place to allow any member of staff address any concerns over inappropriate treatment or behaviour. The Civil Service will continue to have a no tolerance policy on bullying."
Downing Street aides questioned the credibility of Mrs Pratt, suggesting her group was a "Tory front group."
Ann Widdecombe, a Tory backbencher, is a patron of the charity, and its Reading office is in the same business park as a local Conservative association.
However, Mrs Pratt last night denied any connection to the Conservatives. "We are non-political, I am non-political," she said.
The Conservatives seized on the charity’s disclosures. A Tory spokesman said: "This development suggests that there could be a cover-up at the heart of government over the prime minister’s behaviour."
In a statement last night, the Cabinet Office also contradicted the claim’s in Mr Rawnsley’s book about Sir Gus.
A spokesman said: "It is completely untrue that the Cabinet Secretary ever gave the Prime Minister a verbal warning about his behaviour."
The book also recounts efforts by Mr Brown’s aides to undermine Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, and allow the Prime Minister to replace him with Ed Balls, a long-standing ally.
Maggie Darling, the chancellor’s wife, was quoted as saying Mr Brown’s team were trying to "stitch up" Mr Darling. The Chancellor himself was reported to have confronted Mr Brown over media briefings against him.
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said the allegations "raise questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment and behaviour" and proved Mr Brown was "not cut out" for the job.
Mr Hague said: "I don’t think he has ever shown that he can lead a happy team and a successful team. That is one of the reasons he has struggled."
He added: "The people who work in Number 10 or at the top of other government departments work round the clock, they are very hard working and dedicated and not very highly paid considering their hours and their responsibilities,"
"They are entitled to expect the highest standards of behaviour and courtesy and politeness from the ministers and the prime minister they serve."
Source
more....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-fresh-bullying-allegations
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA
How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA
A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done and why evidence has been so hard to gather
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/
Great things are expected of terahertz waves, the radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum between microwaves and the infrared. Terahertz waves pass through non-conducting materials such as clothes , paper, wood and brick and so cameras sensitive to them can peer inside envelopes, into living rooms and "frisk" people at distance.
The way terahertz waves are absorbed and emitted can also be used to determine the chemical composition of a material. And even though they don't travel far inside the body, there is great hope that the waves can be used to spot tumours near the surface of the skin.
With all that potential, it's no wonder that research on terahertz waves has exploded in the last ten years or so.
But what of the health effects of terahertz waves? At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging. Terahertz photons are not energetic enough to break chemical bonds or ionise atoms or molecules, the chief reasons why higher energy photons such as x-rays and UV rays are so bad for us. But could there be another mechanism at work?
The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. "Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.
Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion.
And it also explains why the evidence has been so hard to garner. Ordinary resonant effects are not powerful enough to do do this kind of damage but nonlinear resonances can. These nonlinear instabilities are much less likely to form which explains why the character of THz genotoxic
effects are probabilistic rather than deterministic, say the team.
This should set the cat among the pigeons. Of course, terahertz waves are a natural part of environment, just like visible and infrared light. But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294: DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field
A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done and why evidence has been so hard to gather
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/
Great things are expected of terahertz waves, the radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum between microwaves and the infrared. Terahertz waves pass through non-conducting materials such as clothes , paper, wood and brick and so cameras sensitive to them can peer inside envelopes, into living rooms and "frisk" people at distance.
The way terahertz waves are absorbed and emitted can also be used to determine the chemical composition of a material. And even though they don't travel far inside the body, there is great hope that the waves can be used to spot tumours near the surface of the skin.
With all that potential, it's no wonder that research on terahertz waves has exploded in the last ten years or so.
But what of the health effects of terahertz waves? At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging. Terahertz photons are not energetic enough to break chemical bonds or ionise atoms or molecules, the chief reasons why higher energy photons such as x-rays and UV rays are so bad for us. But could there be another mechanism at work?
The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. "Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.
Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion.
And it also explains why the evidence has been so hard to garner. Ordinary resonant effects are not powerful enough to do do this kind of damage but nonlinear resonances can. These nonlinear instabilities are much less likely to form which explains why the character of THz genotoxic
effects are probabilistic rather than deterministic, say the team.
This should set the cat among the pigeons. Of course, terahertz waves are a natural part of environment, just like visible and infrared light. But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294: DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Peter Kent Says...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/attack-on-israel-is-an-attack-on-canada-kent-says/article1470538/
Steven Chase
Ottawa — Globe and Mail Update Published on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010 10:53PM EST Last updated on Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010 7:52AM EST
Junior Foreign Affairs minister Peter Kent is suggesting Canada would rush to Israel's defence in a military confrontation, telling a Toronto publication that "an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada."
But he later declined to say whether this means that Canada would automatically declare war on an aggressor attacking Israel.
In an interview published Feb. 12 in Shalom Life – discussing the threat from Iran – Mr. Kent said: "Prime Minister Harper has made it quite clear for some time now and has regularly stated that an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada."
Mr. Kent's statement appears to be evidence the Harper government is shifting to an even stronger pro-Israel stance.
His wording – which goes beyond Mr. Harper's previous comments on Israel – evokes Article 5 of the NATO treaty which says "an armed attack against one or more [parties] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."
In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Kent, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Americas, dismissed the idea he was altering Canadian foreign policy, saying his comments paraphrased what Stephen Harper has said before.
Mr. Kent declined to say whether this means Canada is ready to join a war against a country that attacked Israel.
"You're putting words in my mouth; we don't have to be this absolute," he said.
At the same time, Mr. Kent sounded a warning note, saying that even though Israel and Canada don't have a military treaty – like the NATO pact – Ottawa is not bluffing.
"There is no military treaty but I think the Prime Minister's … commitment is quite clear: We don't pay lip service to our commitments to friends and allies."
He apologized for the "sometimes imprecision of diplomacy," but said Israel is clear on what Canada means.
"Israel is not in any doubt … as to the degree of Canada's commitment," Mr. Kent said. "And I would hope that any potential aggressor would consider that seriously."
Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, said it's hard to predict exactly what Canada's commitment would entail in the event of an attack on Israel by Iran.
But he lauded Canada's decision to stand in solidarity with Israel as a democracy. "It's an incredibly positive and assertive comment," he said. Mr. Fogel said it's also recognition an attack on Israel would have an incredibly destabilizing impact on the region. He said statements such as Mr. Kent's ultimately send a signal to Iran that Canada will stand together with Israel if it is attacked.
"We're not simply talking about a rhetorical statement," he said.
The Prime Minister's Office backed up Mr. Kent, saying his words mirror what Mr. Harper has said before, including a speech in May, 2008, in which he said: "Those who threaten Israel also threaten Canada, because, as the last world war showed, hate-fuelled bigotry against some is ultimately a threat to us all, and must be resisted wherever it may lurk."
Khaled Mouammar, national president of the Canadian Arab Federation, panned Mr. Kent’s comments, saying Canada is joining arms with a country alleged to have committed war crimes in Gaza strip during the 2008-09 conflict there.
"It is regrettable that our government has chosen to ally itself with the government of Israel which the United Nations fact finding mission, led by renowned Jewish South African judge Richard Goldstone, found guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza," Mr. Mouammar said in a statement.
The extremely controversial UN report by Mr. Goldstone in fact accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes during the 2008-09 conflict.
Steven Chase
Ottawa — Globe and Mail Update Published on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010 10:53PM EST Last updated on Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010 7:52AM EST
Junior Foreign Affairs minister Peter Kent is suggesting Canada would rush to Israel's defence in a military confrontation, telling a Toronto publication that "an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada."
But he later declined to say whether this means that Canada would automatically declare war on an aggressor attacking Israel.
In an interview published Feb. 12 in Shalom Life – discussing the threat from Iran – Mr. Kent said: "Prime Minister Harper has made it quite clear for some time now and has regularly stated that an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada."
Mr. Kent's statement appears to be evidence the Harper government is shifting to an even stronger pro-Israel stance.
His wording – which goes beyond Mr. Harper's previous comments on Israel – evokes Article 5 of the NATO treaty which says "an armed attack against one or more [parties] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."
In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Kent, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Americas, dismissed the idea he was altering Canadian foreign policy, saying his comments paraphrased what Stephen Harper has said before.
Mr. Kent declined to say whether this means Canada is ready to join a war against a country that attacked Israel.
"You're putting words in my mouth; we don't have to be this absolute," he said.
At the same time, Mr. Kent sounded a warning note, saying that even though Israel and Canada don't have a military treaty – like the NATO pact – Ottawa is not bluffing.
"There is no military treaty but I think the Prime Minister's … commitment is quite clear: We don't pay lip service to our commitments to friends and allies."
He apologized for the "sometimes imprecision of diplomacy," but said Israel is clear on what Canada means.
"Israel is not in any doubt … as to the degree of Canada's commitment," Mr. Kent said. "And I would hope that any potential aggressor would consider that seriously."
Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, said it's hard to predict exactly what Canada's commitment would entail in the event of an attack on Israel by Iran.
But he lauded Canada's decision to stand in solidarity with Israel as a democracy. "It's an incredibly positive and assertive comment," he said. Mr. Fogel said it's also recognition an attack on Israel would have an incredibly destabilizing impact on the region. He said statements such as Mr. Kent's ultimately send a signal to Iran that Canada will stand together with Israel if it is attacked.
"We're not simply talking about a rhetorical statement," he said.
The Prime Minister's Office backed up Mr. Kent, saying his words mirror what Mr. Harper has said before, including a speech in May, 2008, in which he said: "Those who threaten Israel also threaten Canada, because, as the last world war showed, hate-fuelled bigotry against some is ultimately a threat to us all, and must be resisted wherever it may lurk."
Khaled Mouammar, national president of the Canadian Arab Federation, panned Mr. Kent’s comments, saying Canada is joining arms with a country alleged to have committed war crimes in Gaza strip during the 2008-09 conflict there.
"It is regrettable that our government has chosen to ally itself with the government of Israel which the United Nations fact finding mission, led by renowned Jewish South African judge Richard Goldstone, found guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza," Mr. Mouammar said in a statement.
The extremely controversial UN report by Mr. Goldstone in fact accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes during the 2008-09 conflict.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Shrimp Wars: Faroes, Greenland Shut Out of Canadian Ports
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/14/faroe-greenland-shrimp-shea.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r3:c0.0751325:b30662634
Canada to close ports to Faroes, Greenland vessels
Last Updated: Sunday, February 14, 201
CBC News
Canada is going to close its ports to vessels from the Faroe Islands and Greenland on Monday because of shrimp overfishing, federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea said Sunday.
The Faroes and Greenland have refused to abide by quotas set by the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), which sets catch limits for each member.
"We have acted in good faith for several years to try to resolve this issue, to no avail," Shea said in a news release.
Canada originally closed its ports to vessels from the Faroes and Greenland in December 2004, but reopened them in March 2008 as a sign of good faith.
Now, however, the minister has followed up on a warning issued Jan. 26, when she said the ports would be closed unless the Faroes and Greenland withdrew an objection to the NAFO shrimp quota in NAFO area 3L, in the north Atlantic east of St. John's beyond Canada's 200-mile limit.
Denmark, which acts on behalf of the Faroes and Greenland in international matters, unilaterally set a 3L shrimp quota of 3,101 tonnes, almost 10 times greater than their NAFO quota of 334 tonnes.
"Their continued overfishing is unacceptable," Shea said on Jan. 26.
The minister said Sunday she would be willing to meet her counterparts from the Faroes and Greenland to resolve the issue "at their earliest convenience."
Both the Faroe Islands and Greenland are self-governing overseas administrative divisions of Denmark.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/14/faroe-greenland-shrimp-shea.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r3:c0.0751325:b30662634#ixzz0fZsPBygG
Canada to close ports to Faroes, Greenland vessels
Last Updated: Sunday, February 14, 201
CBC News
Canada is going to close its ports to vessels from the Faroe Islands and Greenland on Monday because of shrimp overfishing, federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea said Sunday.
The Faroes and Greenland have refused to abide by quotas set by the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), which sets catch limits for each member.
"We have acted in good faith for several years to try to resolve this issue, to no avail," Shea said in a news release.
Canada originally closed its ports to vessels from the Faroes and Greenland in December 2004, but reopened them in March 2008 as a sign of good faith.
Now, however, the minister has followed up on a warning issued Jan. 26, when she said the ports would be closed unless the Faroes and Greenland withdrew an objection to the NAFO shrimp quota in NAFO area 3L, in the north Atlantic east of St. John's beyond Canada's 200-mile limit.
Denmark, which acts on behalf of the Faroes and Greenland in international matters, unilaterally set a 3L shrimp quota of 3,101 tonnes, almost 10 times greater than their NAFO quota of 334 tonnes.
"Their continued overfishing is unacceptable," Shea said on Jan. 26.
The minister said Sunday she would be willing to meet her counterparts from the Faroes and Greenland to resolve the issue "at their earliest convenience."
Both the Faroe Islands and Greenland are self-governing overseas administrative divisions of Denmark.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/14/faroe-greenland-shrimp-shea.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r3:c0.0751325:b30662634#ixzz0fZsPBygG
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Ottawa Chills Canadian Aid Climate
Canadian aid groups told to keep quiet on policy issues
Earthquake survivors in Port-au-Prince wait in line to collect water this week. Aid groups in Canada say they've been warned by the Conservatives not to weigh in on policy.
by Campbell Clark
G&M
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-aid-groups-told-to-keep-quiet-on-policy-issues/article1465349/
Non-governmental organizations say they're receiving veiled warnings about positions that clash with Ottawa's
Ottawa — From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010 9:30PM EST Last updated on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010 11:11PM EST
Aid groups say the federal government is casting a chill over advocacy work that takes positions on policy or political issues – and one claims a senior Conservative aide warned them against such activities.
An official with a mainstream non-governmental aid group said that Keith Fountain, policy director for International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda, gave a verbal warning that the organization's policy positions were under scrutiny: “Be careful about your advocacy.”
The official did not want to be identified out of concern that it might jeopardize funding for the group's aid projects from the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA.
That's a concern voiced by some other NGO leaders, who said they have received hints the government dislikes their policy advocacy or criticisms of the government policies, but did not want to be identified.
Most aid organizations, from church-based organizations such as Anglican and Mennonite aid agencies to big agencies such as World Vision, Oxfam and CARE, take public positions on some policy issues, and some organize letter-writing campaigns or publish pamphlets.
The aid groups use CIDA money to finance 75 per cent of specific programs, but don't use it for advocacy.
Some have had veiled warnings about positions that clash with Ottawa's on issues such as climate change, free trade with Colombia, or the Middle East, said Gerry Barr, president of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, an umbrella group.
“NGOs are being positively invited to remain silent on key questions of public policy,” he said.
Cheryl Curtis, executive director of the Anglican Church's Primate's World Relief and Development Fund, said government officials have never warned her organization about public-policy positions, but other aid organizations have reported such messages.
“We've certainly heard that amongst colleagues,” she said, adding: “There clearly is a conversation that's brewing at the government level.”
But the government insists that is not so.
A spokesman for Ms. Oda, Jean-Luc Benoit, did not specifically respond to a question about whether Mr. Fountain had warned an aid agency about its advocacy work. But he said an NGO's funding is evaluated on effectiveness in delivering aid and matching CIDA's aid priorities.
“This is about best use of taxpayers' dollars to help the poor, not about what these organizations do with their own money,” Mr. Benoit said in an e-mail.
The fears among the NGOs have been amplified by the government's move to reject a $7-million funding request from Kairos, an aid organization backed by a coalition of churches.
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said publicly that Kairos was de-funded because it supported a boycott campaign against Israel. (Kairos insists it doesn't support a boycott.)
The government later backtracked and said the agency's funding was turned down because it did not meet CIDA's new areas of focus. But Ms. Curtis, who is also chair of Kairos's board of directors, said the feeling that the agency lost funding for political reasons has not gone away.
“Each and every one of us who are members of Kairos feel that keenly,” she said.
Another aid NGO, the left-leaning Montreal-based Alternatives, can't get CIDA to return its calls since the National Post – citing unnamed government sources – reported that the organization's long-standing $2.1-million funding proposal would be rejected because of its political advocacy. Its most recent aid funding ran out last March.
Alternatives produces a newspaper that has published left-wing commentators and, for example, a piece that made a controversial argument for a “united Israel” and against Israel's status as a Jewish state – rather than the internationally endorsed “two-state solution” of Israel existing beside a separate Palestinian state.
“Everything we hear is that Alternatives' advocacy work is the main reason we'll eventually be cut,” said the organization's executive director, Michel Lambert.
Earthquake survivors in Port-au-Prince wait in line to collect water this week. Aid groups in Canada say they've been warned by the Conservatives not to weigh in on policy.
by Campbell Clark
G&M
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-aid-groups-told-to-keep-quiet-on-policy-issues/article1465349/
Non-governmental organizations say they're receiving veiled warnings about positions that clash with Ottawa's
Ottawa — From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010 9:30PM EST Last updated on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010 11:11PM EST
Aid groups say the federal government is casting a chill over advocacy work that takes positions on policy or political issues – and one claims a senior Conservative aide warned them against such activities.
An official with a mainstream non-governmental aid group said that Keith Fountain, policy director for International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda, gave a verbal warning that the organization's policy positions were under scrutiny: “Be careful about your advocacy.”
The official did not want to be identified out of concern that it might jeopardize funding for the group's aid projects from the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA.
That's a concern voiced by some other NGO leaders, who said they have received hints the government dislikes their policy advocacy or criticisms of the government policies, but did not want to be identified.
Most aid organizations, from church-based organizations such as Anglican and Mennonite aid agencies to big agencies such as World Vision, Oxfam and CARE, take public positions on some policy issues, and some organize letter-writing campaigns or publish pamphlets.
The aid groups use CIDA money to finance 75 per cent of specific programs, but don't use it for advocacy.
Some have had veiled warnings about positions that clash with Ottawa's on issues such as climate change, free trade with Colombia, or the Middle East, said Gerry Barr, president of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, an umbrella group.
“NGOs are being positively invited to remain silent on key questions of public policy,” he said.
Cheryl Curtis, executive director of the Anglican Church's Primate's World Relief and Development Fund, said government officials have never warned her organization about public-policy positions, but other aid organizations have reported such messages.
“We've certainly heard that amongst colleagues,” she said, adding: “There clearly is a conversation that's brewing at the government level.”
But the government insists that is not so.
A spokesman for Ms. Oda, Jean-Luc Benoit, did not specifically respond to a question about whether Mr. Fountain had warned an aid agency about its advocacy work. But he said an NGO's funding is evaluated on effectiveness in delivering aid and matching CIDA's aid priorities.
“This is about best use of taxpayers' dollars to help the poor, not about what these organizations do with their own money,” Mr. Benoit said in an e-mail.
The fears among the NGOs have been amplified by the government's move to reject a $7-million funding request from Kairos, an aid organization backed by a coalition of churches.
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said publicly that Kairos was de-funded because it supported a boycott campaign against Israel. (Kairos insists it doesn't support a boycott.)
The government later backtracked and said the agency's funding was turned down because it did not meet CIDA's new areas of focus. But Ms. Curtis, who is also chair of Kairos's board of directors, said the feeling that the agency lost funding for political reasons has not gone away.
“Each and every one of us who are members of Kairos feel that keenly,” she said.
Another aid NGO, the left-leaning Montreal-based Alternatives, can't get CIDA to return its calls since the National Post – citing unnamed government sources – reported that the organization's long-standing $2.1-million funding proposal would be rejected because of its political advocacy. Its most recent aid funding ran out last March.
Alternatives produces a newspaper that has published left-wing commentators and, for example, a piece that made a controversial argument for a “united Israel” and against Israel's status as a Jewish state – rather than the internationally endorsed “two-state solution” of Israel existing beside a separate Palestinian state.
“Everything we hear is that Alternatives' advocacy work is the main reason we'll eventually be cut,” said the organization's executive director, Michel Lambert.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Privileges Assumed and Taken: Harper and "Executive Privilege"
Harper assumes powers of executive privilege, U.S.-presidential style
A dispute that began with stonewalled reports of Afghan prisoner abuse is set to become the crucible that determines if the Prime Minister or Parliament is now supreme.
By JAMES TRAVERS
Published December 21, 2009
http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/inside_politics_2-12-21-2009
OTTAWA—Pierre Trudeau first freed the genie of expansive prime ministerial power. Now an increasingly feeble Parliament is trying to stuff the monster back into the bottle by demanding Stephen Harper release uncensored documents on Afghanistan prisoner abuse.
At stake is the ability to hold the ruling party accountable between elections. Already dangerously diminished, that capacity will shrink to irrelevance if the Prime Minister wins what is fast becoming an annual Parliament Hill showdown.
On the surface, the current clash favours opposition parties. Armed with legal opinion and the majority of seats won in the 2008 campaign, they have the theoretical right and political numbers to insist the government reveals what Conservatives are desperate to keep secret.
Worse still for the ruling party, the defence is porous.
National security concerns can be easily satisfied either by releasing the documents to MPs under the protection of secrecy laws or, by naming a judge—as Ottawa did in the Maher Arar case—to decide what is damaging to the country as opposed to injurious to politicians.
But the opposition's upper hand is deceptive. As the coalition parties learned during last year's Christmas crisis, a cornered Prime Minister is formidable prey.
Facing certain defeat, Harper escaped by persuading the Governor General to suspend Parliament and by convincing a surprising number of civics-challenged citizens that he alone could rule. On balance, Michaëlle Jean was right. By any measure beyond a propaganda triumph, Harper was wrong.
Americans directly choose presidents; Canadians elect Members of Parliament. In the absence of U.S. checks and balances, prime ministers are controlled by the confidence of the Commons.
How loose that control has become was exposed by the Quebec sponsorship scandal. Not only were MPs in the dark about how Liberals were misspending public money, Justice John Gomery couldn't follow the dollars through the maze of "mechanics" up the command chain to a responsible minister.
Conservatives won the 2006 election in part by promising transparency. Since then, Ottawa has become only more opaque as the result of the resolute Conservative effort to mute public watchdogs, pass the buck to civil servants and continue concentrating power among appointed partisans in the Prime Minister's Office.
Those factors are coalescing again in a replay of recent history. Denied vital facts, MPs are lost along the Afghanistan prisoner paper trail. Bureaucrats, most notably diplomat Richard Colvin, are the designated scapegoats. By balking at Parliament's demand for information, Harper is assuming powers of executive privilege normally associated with U.S. presidents, not Canadian prime ministers.
Forcing compliance and re-establishing the democratic balance of power is as straightforward as it is twisted. At the first opportunity, opposition parties can defeat Conservatives in the Commons, forcing election-weary voters back to the polls.
Not an appealing political proposition. The loss of Commons confidence is still the appropriate democratic response if the threat of an unwanted campaign, the possible embarrassment of a court challenge or Parliamentary censure fail to cool overheated heads. If not, a dispute that began with stonewalled reports of Afghan prisoner abuse is set to become the crucible that determines if the Prime Minister or Parliament is now supreme.
James Travers is a national affairs columnist with The Toronto Star. This column was released on Dec. 15.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
A dispute that began with stonewalled reports of Afghan prisoner abuse is set to become the crucible that determines if the Prime Minister or Parliament is now supreme.
By JAMES TRAVERS
Published December 21, 2009
http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/inside_politics_2-12-21-2009
OTTAWA—Pierre Trudeau first freed the genie of expansive prime ministerial power. Now an increasingly feeble Parliament is trying to stuff the monster back into the bottle by demanding Stephen Harper release uncensored documents on Afghanistan prisoner abuse.
At stake is the ability to hold the ruling party accountable between elections. Already dangerously diminished, that capacity will shrink to irrelevance if the Prime Minister wins what is fast becoming an annual Parliament Hill showdown.
On the surface, the current clash favours opposition parties. Armed with legal opinion and the majority of seats won in the 2008 campaign, they have the theoretical right and political numbers to insist the government reveals what Conservatives are desperate to keep secret.
Worse still for the ruling party, the defence is porous.
National security concerns can be easily satisfied either by releasing the documents to MPs under the protection of secrecy laws or, by naming a judge—as Ottawa did in the Maher Arar case—to decide what is damaging to the country as opposed to injurious to politicians.
But the opposition's upper hand is deceptive. As the coalition parties learned during last year's Christmas crisis, a cornered Prime Minister is formidable prey.
Facing certain defeat, Harper escaped by persuading the Governor General to suspend Parliament and by convincing a surprising number of civics-challenged citizens that he alone could rule. On balance, Michaëlle Jean was right. By any measure beyond a propaganda triumph, Harper was wrong.
Americans directly choose presidents; Canadians elect Members of Parliament. In the absence of U.S. checks and balances, prime ministers are controlled by the confidence of the Commons.
How loose that control has become was exposed by the Quebec sponsorship scandal. Not only were MPs in the dark about how Liberals were misspending public money, Justice John Gomery couldn't follow the dollars through the maze of "mechanics" up the command chain to a responsible minister.
Conservatives won the 2006 election in part by promising transparency. Since then, Ottawa has become only more opaque as the result of the resolute Conservative effort to mute public watchdogs, pass the buck to civil servants and continue concentrating power among appointed partisans in the Prime Minister's Office.
Those factors are coalescing again in a replay of recent history. Denied vital facts, MPs are lost along the Afghanistan prisoner paper trail. Bureaucrats, most notably diplomat Richard Colvin, are the designated scapegoats. By balking at Parliament's demand for information, Harper is assuming powers of executive privilege normally associated with U.S. presidents, not Canadian prime ministers.
Forcing compliance and re-establishing the democratic balance of power is as straightforward as it is twisted. At the first opportunity, opposition parties can defeat Conservatives in the Commons, forcing election-weary voters back to the polls.
Not an appealing political proposition. The loss of Commons confidence is still the appropriate democratic response if the threat of an unwanted campaign, the possible embarrassment of a court challenge or Parliamentary censure fail to cool overheated heads. If not, a dispute that began with stonewalled reports of Afghan prisoner abuse is set to become the crucible that determines if the Prime Minister or Parliament is now supreme.
James Travers is a national affairs columnist with The Toronto Star. This column was released on Dec. 15.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Istanbul: A Week Of Western War Councils
The Planning of War Behind Closed Doors
Brussels, London, Istanbul: A Week Of Western War Councils
by Rick Rozoff
Global Research, February 5, 2010
Stop NATO
The defense chiefs of all 28 NATO nations and an undisclosed number of counterparts from non-Alliance partners gathered in Istanbul, Turkey on February 4 to begin two days of meetings focused on the war in Afghanistan, the withdrawal of military forces from Kosovo in the course of transferring control of security operations to the breakaway province's embryonic army (the Kosovo Security Force) and "the transformation efforts required to best conduct the full range of NATO’s agreed missions." [1]
Istanbul was the site of the bloc's 2004 summit which accounted for the largest expansion in its 60-year history - seven new Eastern European nations - and its strengthening military partnerships with thirteen Middle Eastern and African nations under the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.
The Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral James Stavridis and the top commander of all U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan - soon to reach over 150,000 - General Stanley McChrystal are also in attendance, as are European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton and United Nations High Representative for Afghanistan Kai Eide as well as the defense and interior ministers of Afghanistan.
The meetings follow by a week the International Conference on Afghanistan held in London, which in turn occurred the day after two days of meetings of the NATO Military Committee with the Chiefs of Defense of the military bloc's 28 member states and 35 more from what were described as Troop Contributing Nations; presumably NATO partner nations with troops stationed in the Afghan war theater. In all, the military chiefs of 63 countries.
The U.S.'s McChrystal was present there also as were Israeli Chief of General Staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi and Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Beforehand the bloc's website reported that "The various meetings will focus on the progress made in ongoing operations and the New Strategic Concept for NATO." [2] That 35 top military commanders from non-NATO countries were present to hear plans for the escalation of what is already the largest war in the world is understandable, as their forces are on the ground as part of a 50-nation plus force under NATO military command.
That the same conference discussed the bloc's 21st century new global military doctrine - former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright delivered an address on the topic - raises the question of how many of the 35 partner states' military chiefs may have joined their 28 NATO colleagues for that phase of discussions. That such a high percentage of the world's leading military commanders attended a two-day affair which deliberated on both the war in South Asia and the expansion of the world's only military bloc's activities even further outside the Euro-Atlantic area (when it has already conducted operations in four continents) confirms that the Afghan war serves more than one purpose for the West. It is the laboratory for strengthening military ties with nations on every inhabited continent and for building the nucleus of and foundation for a potential future world army.
The London conference on Afghanistan, presented in the West as a benign undertaking tantamount to an economic development or humanitarian aid planning event - the conference's website described it as "The international community [coming] together to fully align military and civilian resources behind an Afghan-led political strategy" [3] - was preceded by two days of meetings between top military commanders of almost a third of the world's nations at NATO headquarters and followed by two days of meetings by NATO and allied defense chiefs this week. Many of the same people - EU foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton and the UN's Eide (who formerly occupied comparable posts in Bosnia and Kosovo and was Norway's ambassador to NATO from 2002 to 2006) - attended both the London conference and are attending the Istanbul NATO defense ministers conclave.
(Ashton's predecessor's Javier Solana was Secretary General of NATO from 1995 to 1999 before becoming the EU's High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy - the title slightly adjusted after the Lisbon Treaty - from 1999 until December of 2009, effecting the transition seamlessly.)
By way of reciprocity, the London conference was addressed by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen who said, inter alia, "with more than 85,000 troops from 44 nations deployed to Afghanistan – and with over 39,000 additional forces arriving over the coming weeks and months - the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force remains NATO’s top priority." [4]
If any further evidence was required that the United Nations is at the service of NATO and not vice versa, that the EU is NATO's civilian valet de chambre, and that all three are subordinated to the United States, the last week's events and the roster of attendees at them should suffice.
The chain of command begins in Washington and orders barked out there work their way down to Brussels and New York City.
The two organizations based in the Belgium capital, the "military alliance of democratic states in Europe and North America" (NATO's self-definition) and the "European military superstate" (Irish opposition parties' reference to the effects of the Nice and Lisbon treaties), are afflicted with political echolalia, parroting the U.S. position on conflicts armed and with the potential to become so around the world - Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia-Russia, Georgia-Abkhazia, Georgia-South Ossetia, Russia-Ukraine, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Yemen, Colombia, Myanmar, Sudan, Chad, the Central African Republic, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Israel-Lebanon, Lebanon-Syria, Israel-Palestine, Macedonia, Ivory Coast, Djibouti-Eritrea, Transdniester and all those to come - with truly impressive fidelity in this otherwise inconsistent age.
Condemnations, tirades and threats issued by the U.S. secretary of state and ambassador to the United Nations may as well be presented in triplicate.
Permanent Security Council members Russia and China may occasionally - all too occasionally - block hostile Western actions against defenseless third parties in the United Nations, but Washington always walks away with a mandate and the final say in the selection of viceroys to complement U.S. and NATO military forces on the ground in subjugated nations.
As a recent example, during the second day of the NATO Military Committee meetings in Brussels and the day before the Afghan conference in London, an "international" conference on Yemen was also held in London which "Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for...in response to the failed bomb attack on an airliner over Detroit on December 25." [5]
That bears repeating. The apprehension in the U.S. of a Nigerian national alleged to have been trained in Yemen led the head of state of the United Kingdom to summon representatives of the Group of Eight (Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the U.S.), the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), Egypt, Jordan - but not the Arab League - Turkey and the European Union, United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund "to bolster Yemen's fight against al Qaeda...." [7] Soon 50,000 non-American NATO troops will be bogged down in Afghanistan because the bloc invoked its Article 5 collective defense provision in 2001...to fight against al-Qaeda.
Ever-compliant UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon lent legitimacy to this American and British charade, as he did the following day's Afghan conference where he delivered a speech in the presence of 28 NATO and perhaps dozens of its International Security Assistance Force non-member states foreign ministers.
Yemen has joined the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq as a target for Western "assistance and stabilization." NATO will conduct more planning sessions with scores of military chiefs and defense and foreign ministers and not only for the war in Afghanistan.
Its new Strategic Concept knows no geographical bounds.
Notes
1) NATO, February 3, 2010
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-07E5106A-22C87D27/natolive/news_61170.htm?]
2) NATO, January 25, 2010
http://www.nato.int/ims/news/2010/n100126e.html
3) Afghanistan: The London Conference
http://afghanistan.hmg.gov.uk/en/conference
4) http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_61101.htm
5) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, January 28, 2010
6) Reuters, January 27, 2010
Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rick Rozoff
Brussels, London, Istanbul: A Week Of Western War Councils
by Rick Rozoff
Global Research, February 5, 2010
Stop NATO
The defense chiefs of all 28 NATO nations and an undisclosed number of counterparts from non-Alliance partners gathered in Istanbul, Turkey on February 4 to begin two days of meetings focused on the war in Afghanistan, the withdrawal of military forces from Kosovo in the course of transferring control of security operations to the breakaway province's embryonic army (the Kosovo Security Force) and "the transformation efforts required to best conduct the full range of NATO’s agreed missions." [1]
Istanbul was the site of the bloc's 2004 summit which accounted for the largest expansion in its 60-year history - seven new Eastern European nations - and its strengthening military partnerships with thirteen Middle Eastern and African nations under the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.
The Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral James Stavridis and the top commander of all U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan - soon to reach over 150,000 - General Stanley McChrystal are also in attendance, as are European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton and United Nations High Representative for Afghanistan Kai Eide as well as the defense and interior ministers of Afghanistan.
The meetings follow by a week the International Conference on Afghanistan held in London, which in turn occurred the day after two days of meetings of the NATO Military Committee with the Chiefs of Defense of the military bloc's 28 member states and 35 more from what were described as Troop Contributing Nations; presumably NATO partner nations with troops stationed in the Afghan war theater. In all, the military chiefs of 63 countries.
The U.S.'s McChrystal was present there also as were Israeli Chief of General Staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi and Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Beforehand the bloc's website reported that "The various meetings will focus on the progress made in ongoing operations and the New Strategic Concept for NATO." [2] That 35 top military commanders from non-NATO countries were present to hear plans for the escalation of what is already the largest war in the world is understandable, as their forces are on the ground as part of a 50-nation plus force under NATO military command.
That the same conference discussed the bloc's 21st century new global military doctrine - former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright delivered an address on the topic - raises the question of how many of the 35 partner states' military chiefs may have joined their 28 NATO colleagues for that phase of discussions. That such a high percentage of the world's leading military commanders attended a two-day affair which deliberated on both the war in South Asia and the expansion of the world's only military bloc's activities even further outside the Euro-Atlantic area (when it has already conducted operations in four continents) confirms that the Afghan war serves more than one purpose for the West. It is the laboratory for strengthening military ties with nations on every inhabited continent and for building the nucleus of and foundation for a potential future world army.
The London conference on Afghanistan, presented in the West as a benign undertaking tantamount to an economic development or humanitarian aid planning event - the conference's website described it as "The international community [coming] together to fully align military and civilian resources behind an Afghan-led political strategy" [3] - was preceded by two days of meetings between top military commanders of almost a third of the world's nations at NATO headquarters and followed by two days of meetings by NATO and allied defense chiefs this week. Many of the same people - EU foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton and the UN's Eide (who formerly occupied comparable posts in Bosnia and Kosovo and was Norway's ambassador to NATO from 2002 to 2006) - attended both the London conference and are attending the Istanbul NATO defense ministers conclave.
(Ashton's predecessor's Javier Solana was Secretary General of NATO from 1995 to 1999 before becoming the EU's High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy - the title slightly adjusted after the Lisbon Treaty - from 1999 until December of 2009, effecting the transition seamlessly.)
By way of reciprocity, the London conference was addressed by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen who said, inter alia, "with more than 85,000 troops from 44 nations deployed to Afghanistan – and with over 39,000 additional forces arriving over the coming weeks and months - the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force remains NATO’s top priority." [4]
If any further evidence was required that the United Nations is at the service of NATO and not vice versa, that the EU is NATO's civilian valet de chambre, and that all three are subordinated to the United States, the last week's events and the roster of attendees at them should suffice.
The chain of command begins in Washington and orders barked out there work their way down to Brussels and New York City.
The two organizations based in the Belgium capital, the "military alliance of democratic states in Europe and North America" (NATO's self-definition) and the "European military superstate" (Irish opposition parties' reference to the effects of the Nice and Lisbon treaties), are afflicted with political echolalia, parroting the U.S. position on conflicts armed and with the potential to become so around the world - Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia-Russia, Georgia-Abkhazia, Georgia-South Ossetia, Russia-Ukraine, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Yemen, Colombia, Myanmar, Sudan, Chad, the Central African Republic, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Israel-Lebanon, Lebanon-Syria, Israel-Palestine, Macedonia, Ivory Coast, Djibouti-Eritrea, Transdniester and all those to come - with truly impressive fidelity in this otherwise inconsistent age.
Condemnations, tirades and threats issued by the U.S. secretary of state and ambassador to the United Nations may as well be presented in triplicate.
Permanent Security Council members Russia and China may occasionally - all too occasionally - block hostile Western actions against defenseless third parties in the United Nations, but Washington always walks away with a mandate and the final say in the selection of viceroys to complement U.S. and NATO military forces on the ground in subjugated nations.
As a recent example, during the second day of the NATO Military Committee meetings in Brussels and the day before the Afghan conference in London, an "international" conference on Yemen was also held in London which "Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for...in response to the failed bomb attack on an airliner over Detroit on December 25." [5]
That bears repeating. The apprehension in the U.S. of a Nigerian national alleged to have been trained in Yemen led the head of state of the United Kingdom to summon representatives of the Group of Eight (Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the U.S.), the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), Egypt, Jordan - but not the Arab League - Turkey and the European Union, United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund "to bolster Yemen's fight against al Qaeda...." [7] Soon 50,000 non-American NATO troops will be bogged down in Afghanistan because the bloc invoked its Article 5 collective defense provision in 2001...to fight against al-Qaeda.
Ever-compliant UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon lent legitimacy to this American and British charade, as he did the following day's Afghan conference where he delivered a speech in the presence of 28 NATO and perhaps dozens of its International Security Assistance Force non-member states foreign ministers.
Yemen has joined the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq as a target for Western "assistance and stabilization." NATO will conduct more planning sessions with scores of military chiefs and defense and foreign ministers and not only for the war in Afghanistan.
Its new Strategic Concept knows no geographical bounds.
Notes
1) NATO, February 3, 2010
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-07E5106A-22C87D27/natolive/news_61170.htm?]
2) NATO, January 25, 2010
http://www.nato.int/ims/news/2010/n100126e.html
3) Afghanistan: The London Conference
http://afghanistan.hmg.gov.uk/en/conference
4) http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_61101.htm
5) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, January 28, 2010
6) Reuters, January 27, 2010
Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rick Rozoff
Saturday, February 06, 2010
lynch-mob mentality
SALON, Feb. 5th, 2010
FRIDAY, FEB 5, 2010 04:06 EST
The lynch-mob mentality
BY GLENN GREENWALD
If I had the power to have one statement of fact be universally recognized in our political discussions, it would be this one:
The fact that the Government labels Person X a "Terrorist" is not proof that Person X is, in fact, a Terrorist.
That proposition should be intrinsically understood by any American or Canadian who completed sixth grade civics and was thus taught that a central prong of our political system is that government officials often abuse their power and/or err and therefore must prove accusations to be true (with tested evidence) before they're assumed to be true and the person punished accordingly. In particular, the fact that the U.S. Government, over and over, has falsely accused numerous people of being Terrorists -- only for it to turn out that they did nothing wrong -- by itself should compel a recognition of this truth. But it doesn't.
All throughout the Bush years, no matter what one objected to -- illegal eavesdropping, torture, rendition, indefinite detention, denial of civilian trials -- the response from Bush followers was the same: "But these are Terrorists, and Terrorists have no rights, so who cares what is done to them?" What they actually meant was: "the Government has claimed they are Terrorists," but in their minds, that was the same thing as: "they are Terrorists."
They recognized no distinction between "a government accusation" and "unchallengeable truth"; in the authoritarian's mind, by definition, those are synonymous. The whole point of the Bush-era controversies was that -- away from an actual battlefield and where the Constitution applies (on U.S. soil and/or towards American citizens wherever they are) -- the Government should have to demonstrate someone's guilt before it's assumed (e.g., they should have to show probable cause to a court and obtain warrants before eavesdropping; they should have to offer evidence that a person engaged in Terrorism before locking them in a cage, etc.). But to someone who equates unproven government accusations with proof, those processes are entirely unnecessary. Even in the absence of those processes, they already know that these persons are Terrorists. How do they know that? Because the Government said so. Even when it comes to their fellow citizens, that's all the "proof" that is needed.
That authoritarian mentality is stronger than ever now. Why? Because unlike during the Bush years, when it was primarily Republicans willing to blindly trust Government accusations, many Democrats are now willing to do so as well. Just look at the reaction to the Government's recent attempts to assassinate the U.S.-born American citizen and Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
Up until last November, virtually no Americans had ever even heard of al-Awlaki. But in the past few months, beginning with the Fort Hood shootings, government officials have repeatedly claimed that he's a Terrorist: usually anonymously, with virtually no evidence, and in the face of al-Awlaki's vehement denials but without any opportunity for him to defend himself (because he's in hiding out of fear of being killed by his own Government).
The Government can literally just flash someone's face on the TV screen with the word Terrorist over it (as was done with al-Awlaki), and provided the face is nefarious and Muslim-looking enough (basically the same thing), nothing else need be offered. That's enough for many people -- including many Democrats -- to march forward overnight and mindlessly proclaim that al-Awlaki is "a declared enemy of the United States working to kill Americans" (if you can stomach it, read some of these comments -- from Obama defenders at a liberal blog -- with several sounding exactly like Dick Cheney, screeching: "Of course al-Awlaki should be killed without charges; he's a Terrorist who is trying to kill Americans!!!").
Even now, beyond government assertions about his associations, the public knows virtually nothing about al-Awlaki other than the fact that he's a Muslim cleric with a Muslim name dressed in Muslim garb, sitting in a Bad Arab Country expressing anger towards the actions of the U.S. and Israel. But no matter. That's more than enough.
They're willing not only to mindlessly embrace the Government's unproven accusation that their fellow citizen is a TERRORIST ("a declared enemy of the United States working to kill Americans"), but even beyond that, to cheer for his due-process-free execution like drunken fans at a football game. And the same people declare: no civilian trials are necessary for Terrorists (meaning: people accused by the Government of being Terrorists). Even more amazingly, the identities of the other Americans on the hit list aren't even known, but that's OK: they're Terrorists, because the Government said so.
A very long time ago, I would be baffled when I'd read about things like the Salem witch hunts. How could so many people be collectively worked up into that level of irrational frenzy, where they cheered for people's torturous death as "witches" without any real due process or meaningful evidence? But all one has to do is look at our current Terrorism debates and it's easy to see how things like that happen.
It's just pure mob mentality: an authority figure appears and affixes a demonizing Other label to someone's forehead, and the adoring crowd -- frothing-at-the-mouth and feeding on each other's hatred, fears and desire to be lead -- demands "justice." I imagine that if one could travel back in time to the Salem era in order to speak with some of those gathered outside an accused witch's home, screaming for her to be killed, the conversation would go something like this:
Mob Participant: Hang the Witch!!! Kill her!!!
Far Left Civil Liberties Extremist-Purist ("FLCLE-P"): How do you know she's a witch?
Mob Participant: Didn't you just hear the government official say so?
FLCLE-P: But don't you want to see real evidence before you assume that's true and call for her death?
Mob Participant: You just heard the evidence! The magistrate said she's a witch!
FLCLE-P: But shouldn't there be a real trial first, with tangible evidence and due process protections, to see if the accusation is actually true?
Mob Participant: A "real" trial? She's a witch! She's trying to curse us and kill us all. She got more than what she deserved. Witches don't have rights!!!
Return to Question 1.
That's essentially how I hear our debates over Terrorism, and how I've heard them for quite some time. And it's how I hear them more loudly now than ever before. And with those deeply confused premises now locked into place on a bipartisan basis ("no trials are needed to determine if someone is a Terrorist because Terrorists don't have rights"), imagine how much louder that will get if there is another successful terrorist attack in the U.S. But in fairness to the 17th Century Puritans, at least the Salem witches received pretenses of due process and even trials (albeit with coerced confessions and speculative hearsay). Even when it comes to our fellow citizens, we don't even bother with those. For us, the mere accusation by our leaders is sufficient: Kill that American Terrorist with a drone!
UPDATE: A long-time, regular commenter here, Jestaplero, is a state prosecutor in New York, and he explains -- in this comment -- how the mentality discussed here can and does easily expand beyond the realm of Terrorism.
Interestingly, even Allahpundit at Michelle Malkin's Hot Air recognizes the serious dangers in allowing the Government to decree even U.S. citizens to be "Terrorists" and then treat them accordingly, with no due process. But note how his right-wing commenters are almost exclusively of the "just-kill-him" school of thought, and how identical they sound to that minority of Daily Kos commenters I linked above who, in their blind loyalty to Obama, also insist that there's nothing wrong with simply snuffing out the lives of their fellow citizens who are "Terrorists" (meaning: anyone their Leader claims is a Terrorist) with no due process or oversight whatsoever. Ultimately, authoritarians are authoritarians, regardless of whether they situate themselves on the left or right.
FRIDAY, FEB 5, 2010 04:06 EST
The lynch-mob mentality
BY GLENN GREENWALD
If I had the power to have one statement of fact be universally recognized in our political discussions, it would be this one:
The fact that the Government labels Person X a "Terrorist" is not proof that Person X is, in fact, a Terrorist.
That proposition should be intrinsically understood by any American or Canadian who completed sixth grade civics and was thus taught that a central prong of our political system is that government officials often abuse their power and/or err and therefore must prove accusations to be true (with tested evidence) before they're assumed to be true and the person punished accordingly. In particular, the fact that the U.S. Government, over and over, has falsely accused numerous people of being Terrorists -- only for it to turn out that they did nothing wrong -- by itself should compel a recognition of this truth. But it doesn't.
All throughout the Bush years, no matter what one objected to -- illegal eavesdropping, torture, rendition, indefinite detention, denial of civilian trials -- the response from Bush followers was the same: "But these are Terrorists, and Terrorists have no rights, so who cares what is done to them?" What they actually meant was: "the Government has claimed they are Terrorists," but in their minds, that was the same thing as: "they are Terrorists."
They recognized no distinction between "a government accusation" and "unchallengeable truth"; in the authoritarian's mind, by definition, those are synonymous. The whole point of the Bush-era controversies was that -- away from an actual battlefield and where the Constitution applies (on U.S. soil and/or towards American citizens wherever they are) -- the Government should have to demonstrate someone's guilt before it's assumed (e.g., they should have to show probable cause to a court and obtain warrants before eavesdropping; they should have to offer evidence that a person engaged in Terrorism before locking them in a cage, etc.). But to someone who equates unproven government accusations with proof, those processes are entirely unnecessary. Even in the absence of those processes, they already know that these persons are Terrorists. How do they know that? Because the Government said so. Even when it comes to their fellow citizens, that's all the "proof" that is needed.
That authoritarian mentality is stronger than ever now. Why? Because unlike during the Bush years, when it was primarily Republicans willing to blindly trust Government accusations, many Democrats are now willing to do so as well. Just look at the reaction to the Government's recent attempts to assassinate the U.S.-born American citizen and Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
Up until last November, virtually no Americans had ever even heard of al-Awlaki. But in the past few months, beginning with the Fort Hood shootings, government officials have repeatedly claimed that he's a Terrorist: usually anonymously, with virtually no evidence, and in the face of al-Awlaki's vehement denials but without any opportunity for him to defend himself (because he's in hiding out of fear of being killed by his own Government).
The Government can literally just flash someone's face on the TV screen with the word Terrorist over it (as was done with al-Awlaki), and provided the face is nefarious and Muslim-looking enough (basically the same thing), nothing else need be offered. That's enough for many people -- including many Democrats -- to march forward overnight and mindlessly proclaim that al-Awlaki is "a declared enemy of the United States working to kill Americans" (if you can stomach it, read some of these comments -- from Obama defenders at a liberal blog -- with several sounding exactly like Dick Cheney, screeching: "Of course al-Awlaki should be killed without charges; he's a Terrorist who is trying to kill Americans!!!").
Even now, beyond government assertions about his associations, the public knows virtually nothing about al-Awlaki other than the fact that he's a Muslim cleric with a Muslim name dressed in Muslim garb, sitting in a Bad Arab Country expressing anger towards the actions of the U.S. and Israel. But no matter. That's more than enough.
They're willing not only to mindlessly embrace the Government's unproven accusation that their fellow citizen is a TERRORIST ("a declared enemy of the United States working to kill Americans"), but even beyond that, to cheer for his due-process-free execution like drunken fans at a football game. And the same people declare: no civilian trials are necessary for Terrorists (meaning: people accused by the Government of being Terrorists). Even more amazingly, the identities of the other Americans on the hit list aren't even known, but that's OK: they're Terrorists, because the Government said so.
A very long time ago, I would be baffled when I'd read about things like the Salem witch hunts. How could so many people be collectively worked up into that level of irrational frenzy, where they cheered for people's torturous death as "witches" without any real due process or meaningful evidence? But all one has to do is look at our current Terrorism debates and it's easy to see how things like that happen.
It's just pure mob mentality: an authority figure appears and affixes a demonizing Other label to someone's forehead, and the adoring crowd -- frothing-at-the-mouth and feeding on each other's hatred, fears and desire to be lead -- demands "justice." I imagine that if one could travel back in time to the Salem era in order to speak with some of those gathered outside an accused witch's home, screaming for her to be killed, the conversation would go something like this:
Mob Participant: Hang the Witch!!! Kill her!!!
Far Left Civil Liberties Extremist-Purist ("FLCLE-P"): How do you know she's a witch?
Mob Participant: Didn't you just hear the government official say so?
FLCLE-P: But don't you want to see real evidence before you assume that's true and call for her death?
Mob Participant: You just heard the evidence! The magistrate said she's a witch!
FLCLE-P: But shouldn't there be a real trial first, with tangible evidence and due process protections, to see if the accusation is actually true?
Mob Participant: A "real" trial? She's a witch! She's trying to curse us and kill us all. She got more than what she deserved. Witches don't have rights!!!
Return to Question 1.
That's essentially how I hear our debates over Terrorism, and how I've heard them for quite some time. And it's how I hear them more loudly now than ever before. And with those deeply confused premises now locked into place on a bipartisan basis ("no trials are needed to determine if someone is a Terrorist because Terrorists don't have rights"), imagine how much louder that will get if there is another successful terrorist attack in the U.S. But in fairness to the 17th Century Puritans, at least the Salem witches received pretenses of due process and even trials (albeit with coerced confessions and speculative hearsay). Even when it comes to our fellow citizens, we don't even bother with those. For us, the mere accusation by our leaders is sufficient: Kill that American Terrorist with a drone!
UPDATE: A long-time, regular commenter here, Jestaplero, is a state prosecutor in New York, and he explains -- in this comment -- how the mentality discussed here can and does easily expand beyond the realm of Terrorism.
Interestingly, even Allahpundit at Michelle Malkin's Hot Air recognizes the serious dangers in allowing the Government to decree even U.S. citizens to be "Terrorists" and then treat them accordingly, with no due process. But note how his right-wing commenters are almost exclusively of the "just-kill-him" school of thought, and how identical they sound to that minority of Daily Kos commenters I linked above who, in their blind loyalty to Obama, also insist that there's nothing wrong with simply snuffing out the lives of their fellow citizens who are "Terrorists" (meaning: anyone their Leader claims is a Terrorist) with no due process or oversight whatsoever. Ultimately, authoritarians are authoritarians, regardless of whether they situate themselves on the left or right.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Water Heist
Water Heist: Corporations Are Targeting Cash-Strapped Cities for Control of Their Public Water
From wastewater to drinking water, big business is looking to cash in on public water systems and they've got a new tactic.
January 29, 2010 |
Corporate interests are eyeing our water. From wastewater to drinking water, big business is looking to cash in on public water systems and they've got a new tactic: They're using desperate economic times to convince city officials that they should place a corporation between families and their ability to eat, drink, and clean.
Take Akron, Ohio, for example. In September 2008 I wrote an article for Alternet about a ballot measure in Akron where voters were asked whether to lease the city's wastewater system to a corporation in return for an immediate, one-time payment. The plan was roundly defeated. But more importantly, as the article suggested, the lease signaled a new direction for water privatization in the U.S. This involved a collaboration between water companies and Wall Street to snatch up control of water infrastructure for the better part of a century.
Since that vote, similar lease plans have been floated in Milwaukee and Chicago, presenting a dangerous possibility: In the near future, a major U.S. city could sign over unprecedented control of its water system to a corporation for a generation or longer. The silver lining in this narrative is that the same communities being targeted by water corporations for these deals are now charting out new ways to ensure their water remains in public hands. And for the moment, advocates of public control are winning.
The Lease Model of Water Privatization
Recent decades have been an active period for water corporations. In the 1990s the corporate push to privatize was buffeted by a tax law change under the Clinton administration that encouraged multinationals to enter the U.S. market. However, when privatization of water systems in large cities proved to be a nonstarter-due in no small part of public education and opposition-the largest players like Veolia, Suez, American Water, and Aqua America opted instead for a strategy of gobbling up smaller systems. This has been the basic narrative of municipal water privatization in the U.S., until recently.
As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, water companies are pushing a new model of privatization and targeting some of America's largest cities, starting in the water-rich Midwest. This new business model involves the acquisition of systems for periods much longer than previously considered, and with much greater control of the asset. These companies now want to lease your water, so they can sell it back to you.
The concept is relatively simple. The company pays the municipality an upfront sum of money in return for control of the water system. The company regains its investment through water bills over the life of the lease. The lease model stands in contrast to the more common "operation and maintenance" (O&M) contracts of the past decade in three main respects. For starters, cash flows in the opposite direction: an O&M contract generally involves a city making payments to the water company. The lease also differs significantly in the degree of the control that the public hands over, which may include capital improvements, system reach, and collection of excess revenue. Finally, these proposals span a much greater length of time-often 75 to 99 years-theoretically so the company has adequate time to regain its investment.
The incentive for cities is clear, if shortsighted. In the rustbelt Midwest, where the recession has hit state budgets hard, the one-time cash influx-a lifeline of sorts-is hard to refuse. And while water systems are not the only asset companies are willing to acquire, many cities in the water-rich Midwest see their access to freshwater as one of their most valuable assets. Cities like Milwaukee and Chicago have excess capacity to deliver freshwater, a resource described with growing frequency as "blue gold" and "the new oil."
But the intrinsic costs to the community are numerous and in part account for the fact that no such deal has yet been concluded in a large U.S. city. For starters, rate increases are guaranteed, seeing as this is the company's primary means of recouping its investment. In Chicago, where parking meters were leased in 2008, a schedule of rate increases was written into the lease to ensure a return for the company. And loss of control can extend beyond rate-setting to encompass decisions over bulk water sales and regional development too. After all, no company would spend a pretty penny on an asset that it can not leverage or use to its advantage. These are costs to the community that endure over the life of the lease, whether it be 75 or 99 years.
Despite the drawbacks to these deals, water companies are using tough economic times as leverage.
Mobilization in the Midwest: Communities Fight Back
The upshot of this assault on large public water systems is that the same cash-strapped communities targeted by water corporations for these deals are meanwhile growing smart water activists and developing new tools to prevent the sale of their water. The three primary instances are Akron, Milwaukee, and Chicago.
The Voter Initiative in Akron
Akron, Ohio, a city with a well-functioning sewer system, was the first in the recent pack of large cities to consider leasing its water. In 2008 Akron Mayor Donald Plusquellic hired Morgan Stanley to act as a financial advisor to the deal and, despite public opposition, used his control over council to move the city inexorably toward a wastewater lease. Faced with little hope of swaying the council, residents organized the city's first successful voter initiative in ten years. Citizens to Save our Sewers and Water proposed amending the city's Charter to state that any sale or lease of a public asset must be subject to a public referendum. In November 2008, after a nine-month struggle, the electorate voted 2 to 1 to amend the city's charter and sink the mayor's privatization plan.
Akron voters had not only rejected privatization, they had also erected a hurdle for future privatization deals in the form of a referendum requirement. It was a landmark victory that inspired a similar strategy in Cincinnati, Ohio in 2009 when city officials sought to spin-off that city's water system (that issue will go to ballot this year).
Preventing the Financial Advisor in Milwaukee
Within months of the Akron vote the lease proposal reared its head in another Midwest city with a valuable and well-functioning water system. In late 2008 Milwaukee City Council voted to explore leasing its drinking water system. By May it had begun accepting applications from Morgan Stanley, Citibank and other Wall Street suitors to serve as financial advisor for the deal.
That spring Food & Water Watch joined with environmental, nonprofit, union and neighborhood partners in Milwaukee to form the Keep Public Our Water (KPOW) coalition. This energetic and smart group used lessons from Akron to launch an education campaign and pressure elected officials to halt the process. Central to these efforts was a critique of the financial advisor role. These advisors, commonly Wall Street firms, are supposed to aid cities in weighing whether to pursue a contract. However, they are frequently paid a "success fee" for their assistance, amounting to a portion of the completed contract-a clear incentive to ensure that privatization occurs.
The KPOW campaign was a success. One city alderman who had stated confidently in April that a financial advisor "would unquestionably be hired" joined three colleagues in June asking City Comptroller Wally Morics to suspend the plan indefinitely. The winning message was this: Hiring a financial advisor would sweep Milwaukee too quickly down a path that did not have the support of the community.
In November, KPOW went a step further to introduce a city resolution declaring water a public trust and stating that Milwaukee's water should not be privatized.
Is Chicago Next?
If 2008 and 2009 brought battles over water leases, 2010 promises to further up the ante. With water multinationals still without a flagship city to tout the lease model, talk has moved to the Windy City. The issue arose in Chicago during the November budget approval process when it came to light that Mayor Daily would consider leasing the water system. The mayor's remark sparked a flurry of questions and speculative news pieces.
Although there has not yet been a formal proposal, the threat of a water lease is very real in Chicago. Perhaps more than any other U.S. city Chicago has embraced the concept of major asset leases. In 2004 Mayor Daley oversaw a 99-year lease of the Chicago Skyway, followed in 2008 by a 75-year lease of the city's parking meters, and currently he is seeking to lease Chicago's Midway Airport. In this water-rich city where the mayor has firm control of city council, a serious budget shortfall, and penchant for unloading public assets, a water lease is hardly a stretch of the imagination.
However, stung by the surprising and disastrous parking meter lease in 2008, some Chicagoans are wisely not waiting to mobilize against this possibility. In October, Chicago Alderman Scott Waguespack introduced the Asset Lease Taxpayer Protection Ordinance. The measure would raise hurdles and restrict the circumstances under which a city asset could be leased. It is a first step in protecting Chicago's water from private control.
In the end, advocates of public control can hardly relish the thought of a fight with Mayor Daley over privatization. However, they are wise to not wait to take protective steps. And whether it is a charter amendment, a sharp analysis of Wall Street advisors, or more responsible city ordinances, advocates of public control have demonstrated that they have the tools needed to win.
Jon Keesecker is the midwest region director for Food & Water Watch.
http://www.alternet.org/water/145480/?page=entire
From wastewater to drinking water, big business is looking to cash in on public water systems and they've got a new tactic.
January 29, 2010 |
Corporate interests are eyeing our water. From wastewater to drinking water, big business is looking to cash in on public water systems and they've got a new tactic: They're using desperate economic times to convince city officials that they should place a corporation between families and their ability to eat, drink, and clean.
Take Akron, Ohio, for example. In September 2008 I wrote an article for Alternet about a ballot measure in Akron where voters were asked whether to lease the city's wastewater system to a corporation in return for an immediate, one-time payment. The plan was roundly defeated. But more importantly, as the article suggested, the lease signaled a new direction for water privatization in the U.S. This involved a collaboration between water companies and Wall Street to snatch up control of water infrastructure for the better part of a century.
Since that vote, similar lease plans have been floated in Milwaukee and Chicago, presenting a dangerous possibility: In the near future, a major U.S. city could sign over unprecedented control of its water system to a corporation for a generation or longer. The silver lining in this narrative is that the same communities being targeted by water corporations for these deals are now charting out new ways to ensure their water remains in public hands. And for the moment, advocates of public control are winning.
The Lease Model of Water Privatization
Recent decades have been an active period for water corporations. In the 1990s the corporate push to privatize was buffeted by a tax law change under the Clinton administration that encouraged multinationals to enter the U.S. market. However, when privatization of water systems in large cities proved to be a nonstarter-due in no small part of public education and opposition-the largest players like Veolia, Suez, American Water, and Aqua America opted instead for a strategy of gobbling up smaller systems. This has been the basic narrative of municipal water privatization in the U.S., until recently.
As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, water companies are pushing a new model of privatization and targeting some of America's largest cities, starting in the water-rich Midwest. This new business model involves the acquisition of systems for periods much longer than previously considered, and with much greater control of the asset. These companies now want to lease your water, so they can sell it back to you.
The concept is relatively simple. The company pays the municipality an upfront sum of money in return for control of the water system. The company regains its investment through water bills over the life of the lease. The lease model stands in contrast to the more common "operation and maintenance" (O&M) contracts of the past decade in three main respects. For starters, cash flows in the opposite direction: an O&M contract generally involves a city making payments to the water company. The lease also differs significantly in the degree of the control that the public hands over, which may include capital improvements, system reach, and collection of excess revenue. Finally, these proposals span a much greater length of time-often 75 to 99 years-theoretically so the company has adequate time to regain its investment.
The incentive for cities is clear, if shortsighted. In the rustbelt Midwest, where the recession has hit state budgets hard, the one-time cash influx-a lifeline of sorts-is hard to refuse. And while water systems are not the only asset companies are willing to acquire, many cities in the water-rich Midwest see their access to freshwater as one of their most valuable assets. Cities like Milwaukee and Chicago have excess capacity to deliver freshwater, a resource described with growing frequency as "blue gold" and "the new oil."
But the intrinsic costs to the community are numerous and in part account for the fact that no such deal has yet been concluded in a large U.S. city. For starters, rate increases are guaranteed, seeing as this is the company's primary means of recouping its investment. In Chicago, where parking meters were leased in 2008, a schedule of rate increases was written into the lease to ensure a return for the company. And loss of control can extend beyond rate-setting to encompass decisions over bulk water sales and regional development too. After all, no company would spend a pretty penny on an asset that it can not leverage or use to its advantage. These are costs to the community that endure over the life of the lease, whether it be 75 or 99 years.
Despite the drawbacks to these deals, water companies are using tough economic times as leverage.
Mobilization in the Midwest: Communities Fight Back
The upshot of this assault on large public water systems is that the same cash-strapped communities targeted by water corporations for these deals are meanwhile growing smart water activists and developing new tools to prevent the sale of their water. The three primary instances are Akron, Milwaukee, and Chicago.
The Voter Initiative in Akron
Akron, Ohio, a city with a well-functioning sewer system, was the first in the recent pack of large cities to consider leasing its water. In 2008 Akron Mayor Donald Plusquellic hired Morgan Stanley to act as a financial advisor to the deal and, despite public opposition, used his control over council to move the city inexorably toward a wastewater lease. Faced with little hope of swaying the council, residents organized the city's first successful voter initiative in ten years. Citizens to Save our Sewers and Water proposed amending the city's Charter to state that any sale or lease of a public asset must be subject to a public referendum. In November 2008, after a nine-month struggle, the electorate voted 2 to 1 to amend the city's charter and sink the mayor's privatization plan.
Akron voters had not only rejected privatization, they had also erected a hurdle for future privatization deals in the form of a referendum requirement. It was a landmark victory that inspired a similar strategy in Cincinnati, Ohio in 2009 when city officials sought to spin-off that city's water system (that issue will go to ballot this year).
Preventing the Financial Advisor in Milwaukee
Within months of the Akron vote the lease proposal reared its head in another Midwest city with a valuable and well-functioning water system. In late 2008 Milwaukee City Council voted to explore leasing its drinking water system. By May it had begun accepting applications from Morgan Stanley, Citibank and other Wall Street suitors to serve as financial advisor for the deal.
That spring Food & Water Watch joined with environmental, nonprofit, union and neighborhood partners in Milwaukee to form the Keep Public Our Water (KPOW) coalition. This energetic and smart group used lessons from Akron to launch an education campaign and pressure elected officials to halt the process. Central to these efforts was a critique of the financial advisor role. These advisors, commonly Wall Street firms, are supposed to aid cities in weighing whether to pursue a contract. However, they are frequently paid a "success fee" for their assistance, amounting to a portion of the completed contract-a clear incentive to ensure that privatization occurs.
The KPOW campaign was a success. One city alderman who had stated confidently in April that a financial advisor "would unquestionably be hired" joined three colleagues in June asking City Comptroller Wally Morics to suspend the plan indefinitely. The winning message was this: Hiring a financial advisor would sweep Milwaukee too quickly down a path that did not have the support of the community.
In November, KPOW went a step further to introduce a city resolution declaring water a public trust and stating that Milwaukee's water should not be privatized.
Is Chicago Next?
If 2008 and 2009 brought battles over water leases, 2010 promises to further up the ante. With water multinationals still without a flagship city to tout the lease model, talk has moved to the Windy City. The issue arose in Chicago during the November budget approval process when it came to light that Mayor Daily would consider leasing the water system. The mayor's remark sparked a flurry of questions and speculative news pieces.
Although there has not yet been a formal proposal, the threat of a water lease is very real in Chicago. Perhaps more than any other U.S. city Chicago has embraced the concept of major asset leases. In 2004 Mayor Daley oversaw a 99-year lease of the Chicago Skyway, followed in 2008 by a 75-year lease of the city's parking meters, and currently he is seeking to lease Chicago's Midway Airport. In this water-rich city where the mayor has firm control of city council, a serious budget shortfall, and penchant for unloading public assets, a water lease is hardly a stretch of the imagination.
However, stung by the surprising and disastrous parking meter lease in 2008, some Chicagoans are wisely not waiting to mobilize against this possibility. In October, Chicago Alderman Scott Waguespack introduced the Asset Lease Taxpayer Protection Ordinance. The measure would raise hurdles and restrict the circumstances under which a city asset could be leased. It is a first step in protecting Chicago's water from private control.
In the end, advocates of public control can hardly relish the thought of a fight with Mayor Daley over privatization. However, they are wise to not wait to take protective steps. And whether it is a charter amendment, a sharp analysis of Wall Street advisors, or more responsible city ordinances, advocates of public control have demonstrated that they have the tools needed to win.
Jon Keesecker is the midwest region director for Food & Water Watch.
http://www.alternet.org/water/145480/?page=entire
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Monday, February 01, 2010
Olympics head for disaster
Vancouver's Olympics head for disaster
Douglas Haddow
Two weeks before the games and with police officers on every corner, Vancouver is far from an Olympic wonderland
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/31/vancouver-winter-olympics-police
It's now two weeks until the start of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic games, a city-defining event that is a decade in the making. But a decade is a very long time. Much of what seemed sensible in the early 2000s has proven to be the opposite: for instance, allowing investment bankers to pursue profits willy-nilly was acceptable when Vancouver won the bid in 2003, but is now viewed as idiotic. So it comes as no surprise that just days before the opening ceremony, Vancouver is gripped by dread. Not the typical attitude for a host city, but understandable when you consider that everything that could go wrong, is in the process of going wrong.
Vancouver has been continually ranked as the world's most livable city. An Olympic sized-dose of gentrification would only serve to speed up Vancouver's transformation from a livable yet expensive city into a glitzy hotel for international capital. But these neoliberal dreams are now little more than fantasy. In the mid-2000s the games were originally slated to cost a pittance of $660m and bring in a profit of $10bn. This ludicrous projection was made before the market crash – an event that the Vancouver's Olympic committee failed to anticipate.
"The Bailout Games" have already been labelled a staggering financial disaster. While the complete costs are still unknown, the Vancouver and British Columbian governments have hinted at what's to come by cancelling 2400 surgeries, laying off 233 government employees, 800 teachers and recommending the closure of 14 schools. It might be enough to make one cynical, but luckily every inch of the city is now coated with advertisements that feature smiley people enjoying the products of the event's gracious sponsors.
Conservative estimates now speculate that the games will cost upwards of $6bn, with little chance of a return. This titanic act of fiscal malfeasance includes a security force that was originally budgeted at $175m, but has since inflated to $900m. With more than 15,000 members, it's the largest military presence seen in western Canada since the end of the second world war, an appropriate measure only if one imagines al-Qaida are set to descend from the slopes on C2-strapped snowboards. With a police officer on every corner and military helicopters buzzing overhead, Vancouver looks more like post-war Berlin than an Olympic wonderland. Whole sections of the city are off-limits, scores of roads have been shut down, small businesses have been told to close shop and citizens have been instructed to either leave the city or stay indoors to make way for the projected influx of 300,000 visitors.
Vancouver's Olympic committee has also assumed the role of logo police. Librarians are being commanded to feed McDonald's to children while unauthorised brands have been banned from Olympic venues. Worse yet, they've begun to casually slip clips from Leni Riefenstahl films into their Coldplay-soundtracked promotional videos.
This manic mix of hype and gloom is a byproduct of the games' utter pointlessness. For those who have been planning their resistance since 2003, Vancouver is about to become the world's premier political stage. It will be the best chance yet for the Olympics to be derailed and exposed as what they are: a corrupt relic of the 20th century that does little more than gut city coffers and line the pockets of developers and investors. If things go pear-shaped and Vancouverites resort to their riotious ways, at least the city will get its money's worth out of that bloated security force and the ensuing spectacle will boost NBC's slumping ratings. After all, the Olympics are primarily a patriotic event, and in the words of the late Howard Zinn, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism".
Douglas Haddow
Two weeks before the games and with police officers on every corner, Vancouver is far from an Olympic wonderland
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/31/vancouver-winter-olympics-police
It's now two weeks until the start of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic games, a city-defining event that is a decade in the making. But a decade is a very long time. Much of what seemed sensible in the early 2000s has proven to be the opposite: for instance, allowing investment bankers to pursue profits willy-nilly was acceptable when Vancouver won the bid in 2003, but is now viewed as idiotic. So it comes as no surprise that just days before the opening ceremony, Vancouver is gripped by dread. Not the typical attitude for a host city, but understandable when you consider that everything that could go wrong, is in the process of going wrong.
Vancouver has been continually ranked as the world's most livable city. An Olympic sized-dose of gentrification would only serve to speed up Vancouver's transformation from a livable yet expensive city into a glitzy hotel for international capital. But these neoliberal dreams are now little more than fantasy. In the mid-2000s the games were originally slated to cost a pittance of $660m and bring in a profit of $10bn. This ludicrous projection was made before the market crash – an event that the Vancouver's Olympic committee failed to anticipate.
"The Bailout Games" have already been labelled a staggering financial disaster. While the complete costs are still unknown, the Vancouver and British Columbian governments have hinted at what's to come by cancelling 2400 surgeries, laying off 233 government employees, 800 teachers and recommending the closure of 14 schools. It might be enough to make one cynical, but luckily every inch of the city is now coated with advertisements that feature smiley people enjoying the products of the event's gracious sponsors.
Conservative estimates now speculate that the games will cost upwards of $6bn, with little chance of a return. This titanic act of fiscal malfeasance includes a security force that was originally budgeted at $175m, but has since inflated to $900m. With more than 15,000 members, it's the largest military presence seen in western Canada since the end of the second world war, an appropriate measure only if one imagines al-Qaida are set to descend from the slopes on C2-strapped snowboards. With a police officer on every corner and military helicopters buzzing overhead, Vancouver looks more like post-war Berlin than an Olympic wonderland. Whole sections of the city are off-limits, scores of roads have been shut down, small businesses have been told to close shop and citizens have been instructed to either leave the city or stay indoors to make way for the projected influx of 300,000 visitors.
Vancouver's Olympic committee has also assumed the role of logo police. Librarians are being commanded to feed McDonald's to children while unauthorised brands have been banned from Olympic venues. Worse yet, they've begun to casually slip clips from Leni Riefenstahl films into their Coldplay-soundtracked promotional videos.
This manic mix of hype and gloom is a byproduct of the games' utter pointlessness. For those who have been planning their resistance since 2003, Vancouver is about to become the world's premier political stage. It will be the best chance yet for the Olympics to be derailed and exposed as what they are: a corrupt relic of the 20th century that does little more than gut city coffers and line the pockets of developers and investors. If things go pear-shaped and Vancouverites resort to their riotious ways, at least the city will get its money's worth out of that bloated security force and the ensuing spectacle will boost NBC's slumping ratings. After all, the Olympics are primarily a patriotic event, and in the words of the late Howard Zinn, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism".
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)